►
From YouTube: Planning and Zoning Commission
Description
September 13, 2021
A
Okay,
let's
get
started,
we've
got
this
evening.
We've
got
a
presentation
from
carl
miller,
with
compass
on
the
fiscal
impact
tool,
so
we'll
start
out
with
them
and
then
we'll
go
to
a
gender
review
for
tonight's
hearing.
We
do
have
some
changes
and
things
we
want
to
talk
about.
So
carl
you've
got
the
floor.
B
B
Do
that
one
all
right?
Hopefully
you
can
see
that
is
that
right,
please!
Let
me
know
if
you're
not
seeing
my
screen
that
says
compass,
physical
impact
tool,
but
just
just
a
quick
big
background.
My
name
is
carl
miller.
I
work
with
compass
a
number
of
years
ago.
I
worked
for
the
city
of
boise
in
the
planning
department
and
I
know
just
the
the
long
nights
and
the
complex
and
difficult
decisions
that
planning
and
zoning
commissioners
have
to
make.
So
I
really
appreciate
your
time
today
and
I
hope
this
is
worth
the
time.
B
This
is
a
new
tool
that
we've
developed
really
to
help
you
with
those
complex,
difficult
decisions
providing
one
additional
data
point
in
front
of
you
from
a
financial
standpoint,
so
you
can
see
the
the
ramifications
of
of
the
different
development
proposals
and
scenarios
that
you
see
in
front
of
you.
So
I
just
wanted
to
there
we
go.
B
I
see
start
off
my
presentation
with
a
few
rhetorical
questions
that
I'd
like
to
have
you
think
about
in
the
background,
as
I'm
giving
you
a
little
bit
more
information
about
the
fiscal
impact
tool
but
think
about
you
know,
you
have
to
review
subdivisions
all
the
time.
If
one
is
a
is
approved,
can
you
afford
the
new
services
that
will
be
required
to
those
to
that
location?
B
Do
you
know
if
your
comprehensive
plan
is
financially
viable?
What's
the
impact
of
house
bill
389?
Can
you
answer
any
of
these
questions
right
now?
I
know
that
in
part
you
can,
but
I
think
this
tool
that
I'd
like
to
introduce
in
just
a
second
will
really
help
us
with
that
conversation
and
provides
more
information
to
help
with
that.
B
What
is
the
impact
and
the
ramifications,
and
what
does
this
mean
to
the
way
we
do
land
use,
planning
or
or
what
is
this
going
to
do
to
our
ability
to
provide
affordable
housing
or
preserve
open
space
or
protect
our
our
farmlands?
And
so
we've
really
done
a
a
long-range
transportation
plan
that
not
just
looks
at.
How
are
we
going
to
build
roads,
but
how
are
we
going
to
build
communities
and
that
plan
communities
in
motion,
2040,
2.0,
we're
actually
working
on
communities?
B
Analysis
is
really
just
a
calculation
of
the
expected
revenues
from
taxes
permits
fees,
property
taxes
for
the
the
bulk
of
that
and
then
compared
to
the
expenditures.
As
we
you
know
put
in
new
development
and
growth,
can
our
place,
can
our
fire
serve
those
areas?
Are
we
gonna
have
to
build
new
substations
in
a
particular
location
to
serve
that
additional
growth?
What
about
our
schools?
What
about
our
all
the
different
things
that
we
do?
B
In
fact,
there's
over
a
hundred
different
public
service
categories
built
into
the
mechanics
of
this
fiscal
impact
tool.
So
we
really
look
at
a
variety
of
things
and-
and
we
also
looked
at
both
the
an
average
cost
approach,
what
does
it
cost
to
to?
You
know
per
person,
but
also
a
marginal
cost?
So
when
it
comes
to
schools,
we
didn't
just
say:
okay,
every
you
know,
new
100
watt
subdivision
is
going
to
require
this
many
more
children
and
this
many
schools
we
really
looked.
B
Is
there
capacity
in
different
areas
for
that,
and
maybe
in
certain
areas
there
is
capacity,
the
the
school
is
not
overcrowded
and
others
in
the
in
the
boise
school
district
you'll
find
that
schools
are
at
the
limit,
but
but
oftentimes
they're
not,
and
so
we
really
looked
at
that
marginal
cost
of
of
what
is
it
going
to
take,
and
not
every
area
is
the
same.
So
what
this
fiscal
impact
tool
is
not
it's
not
an
economic
impact
tool.
It
doesn't
do
a
lot
of
that
private
sector
site
analysis.
B
B
This
is
specifically
looking
at
public
sector
entities
and
what
the
fiscal
impact
is
on
those
it's,
it's
not
more
than
a
model
or
a
tool.
It's
it's
a
very
effective
and
a
good
great
data
point,
but
it
requires
the
assumptions
to
go
into
this
to
be
accurate
and
obviously
with
any
tool
garbage
in
garbage
out,
and
so
we
worked
closely
with
your
staff,
both
in
the
planning
department,
public
works,
emergency
services
and
and
really
looked
at
what
are
the
geographic
areas
that
are
served
and
what
are
the
capital
improvement
plans?
B
Look
for
as
far
as
new
projects
coming
down
the
pike
as
well
as
what
are
the?
What
is
the
long-range
plan
say?
Can
we
serve
this
with
additional
services
in
the
future
or
not,
and
so
we
really
looked
at
that
to
make
sure
that
that
was
staying
current
and
accurate,
we're
going
to
have
to
keep
this
model
up
and
keep
working
with
your
staff
to
make
sure
that
it's
it's
up-to-date.
B
But
then,
last
this,
this
tool
is
not
an
end-all
be-all.
We
hope
that
it's
a
useful
tool
and
it's
a
useful
data
point,
but
it's
just
one
of
many
factors
there's
many
times
that
a
community
may
want
to
approve
development,
even
though
it's
not
financially
viable,
affordable
housing
is
becoming
a
huge
concern
in
the
treasure
valley
and
many
times
an
affordable,
especially
subsidized
housing
project
may
not
pencil,
and
yet
it
still
meets
many
of
your
other
comprehensive
plan
goals
and
objectives.
B
Our
developer,
our
consultant
that
helped
us
worked
on
this
did
one
in
boulder
colorado
and
they
found
that
restaurants
were
actually
a
negative
and
yet
to
the
boulder
community.
Restaurants
meant
tourism
and
economic
development
and
and
just
quality
of
life,
and
so
that
was
one
consideration
that
they
had
as
far
as
the
financial
viability,
but
there's
other
things
to
consider
too.
So
maybe
I'll
pause
just
for
a
second
to
see.
B
B
Great
I'll
just
keep
playing
through,
please
feel
free
to
interrupt
me
if
you
do
have
any
questions,
but
I
did
want
to
give
you
a
sense
of
how
this
tool
works
and
really,
as
you
start
to
see,
the
reporting
come
out.
So
you'll
you'll
be
familiar
with
this
and
and
you'll
you'll
know
kind
of
the
the
background
here.
This
is
our
fiscal
impact
sub-area
map.
As
I
talked
previously,
we
wanted
to
make
sure
not
to
treat
every
community
the
same.
B
B
You
know
we
split
up,
especially
in
in
canyon,
county,
several
highway
districts
out
there
several
school
districts,
so
we
had
to
split
things
very
much
based
on
who
is
the
service
provider
in
that
area,
and
so
we
have
over
a
different,
a
hundred
different
fiscal
impact
areas
and
each
one
is.
It
has
different
input
factors
and
output
factors
based
on
that
again
we
developed
this
based
on
feedback
that
we
got
from
your
staff
and
others
for
the
tool.
We
have
a
number
of
different
scenario
inputs,
carl.
B
So
these
are
these:
are
not
our
transportation
analysis
zones.
We
tried
to
match
them
to
those
wherever
we
could,
but
these
are
really
based
on
two
things
who
who
serves
it.
So
we
looked
at
the
school
district
that
serves
at
the
highway
district,
that
serves
it,
whether
it's
in
the
city
limits
or
not
or
could
be
in
the
in
the
near
future,
worked
with
your
staff
to
define
those
things
as
well
as.
B
Are
there
different
demographic
inputs
is
somebody
that
lives
is
a
house?
That's
built
in
the
north
end,
going
to
be
different
than
a
house.
That's
built
in
southeast
boise,
based
on
housing
value,
a
number
of
students
generated
vehicle
miles,
travel
generated
a
number
of
different
factors,
so
we
tried
to
break
this
area.
Obviously
we
couldn't
do
it
so
granular
that
you
know
your
your
house
and
your
neighbor's
house
are
going
to
be
different,
but
enough.
B
B
So
as
I
was
talking
about
the
the
service
scenario
inputs
that
will
plug
into
this,
we
did
want
enough
again
enough
variety
that
we
could
say
you
know
how
is
a
single
family,
residential
development
going
to
be
different
from
a
multi-family
or
you
know
a
commercial
or
office.
So
we
have
three
different
single-family
residential
types,
five
different
multi-family
types,
15
employment
types,
and
then
we
can
mix
and
match.
You
know,
as
we
have
mixed
use
development.
B
B
That's
really
not
one
of
these
typical
types,
so
we
would
have
to
do
kind
of
a
special
analysis
on
that,
but,
most
of
the
time
the
types
of
conditional
use
permits
or
rezones
or
the
applications
that
you
see
most
of
them
fit
into
these
input
types
that
we
have
identified
already
and
then,
like
I
highlighted
based
on
the
location
and
the
type
of
development
it
is,
each
one
will
develop
different.
You
know.
B
Persons
per
household
students,
vehicle
miles,
travel
law
enforcement
calls,
fire
or
ems
calls
that
all
either
generate
revenue
or
or
cost
in
terms
of
service
out
to
that
location.
So
each
one
is
different,
based
on
the
the
land
use
type
as
well
as
those
locations.
So
that's
why
we
have
so
many
different
those
geographic
areas
and
then
so
many
different
land
use
types
that
we've
just
just
shown.
You.
B
B
We
can
run
tables
and
graphs
and
make
that
in
a
more
visual
way.
We
will
include
this
with
those
development
checklists
that
we're
doing
you'll,
see
that
the
checklist
that
I've
included
for
you
on
this
screen
is
slightly
different
than
the
ones
that
you've
been
seeing
lately,
we'll
as
we're
updating
our
communities
of
motion
2050
plan,
we
really
want
to
match
our
new
goals
that
we
have
make
this
a
more
useful
document,
and
so
this
will
be
the
the
new
look
for
that.
B
But
you'll
also
receive
a
supplementary
page
really
just
about
fiscal
impact
analysis
and
will
indicate
how
well
that
proposal.
It
does
as
far
as
meeting
the
the
city,
the
county
and
the
highway
district
and
the
school
district's
finances,
and
then
we'll
also
indicate
the
break-even
point.
So
that's
how
we'll
be
reporting
to
this.
B
These
things
to
you,
we're
also
developing
a
web-based
tool
that
we're
going
to
share
with
your
staff.
So
that
way,
even
you
know
a
pre-op
meeting
with
the
developer.
They
can
use
this
and
and
crunch
the
numbers
and
maybe
have
a
good
discussion
and
dialogue
about.
Are
there
different
things
that
we
can
do
even
at
that
very
early
stage
of
planning
to
say
what?
B
If
we,
you
know
added
this
housing
type
or
what,
if
we
added
this
commercial
type
to
to
really
make
sure
that,
from
those
early
discussions,
we're
making
sure
that
we're
thinking
about
the
financial
viability
of
this,
so
we're
still
working
on
that.
We
have
to
work
through
a
few
technical
and
legal
issues.
Before
we
can
provide
that
tool
to
your
staff.
We
think
that'll
be
really
helpful
for
your
staff
to
to
have
that
whenever
they
need
it
to
to
to
run
different
analysis.
B
Look
at
your
comprehensive
plan
really
kind
of
do
whatever
they
need
to
do
to
be
able
to
to
use
this
tool
as
well.
Official
reporting
will
come
through
the
development
checklist
and
this
supplemental
page,
so
with
that
I've
tried
to
cover
a
lot
in
a
short
amount
of
time,
a
lot
for
you
to
chew
on,
but
also
a
lot
for
us
to
to
care
and
and
feed
into
this
tool.
B
So
I
wanted
to
again
apprec
thank
your
staff
for
for
helping
us
out
with
developing
this
tool,
a
lot
of
information
we
just
don't
know
at
the
regional
level,
but
also
a
little
bit
of
a
hint
that
we
will
have
to
keep
this
tool
fed
and
maintained,
and
so
we'll
we'll
be
meeting
with
your
staff
on
a
regular
basis
to
keep
this
tool
accurate
and
up
to
date
as
possible.
So
anyway,
I
I
hope
I've
I've
covered
enough
for
you,
I'd
like
to
answer
any
questions
we
have
with
the
remaining
time.
E
G
G
Checklist
yeah,
so
compass
will
give
you
a
high
level
on
their
development
checklist
at
the
city,
though
we're
definitely
probably
looking
at
it
with
annexations.
We
could
do
it
with
large
rezones.
We
see
actually
a
lot
of
applications
that
we
can
use
for
it,
but
we
will
need
to
get
a
little
bit
more
familiar
with
it
and
then
probably
come
back
and
talk
with
all
of
you
on
its
applicability.
E
E
J
G
We
see
it
in
the
city
of
boise
in
other
cities
that
many
times
as
we're
working
towards
densities,
that
in
in
one
area
compared
to
another
it.
I
think
it's
really
good
to
understand
what
infrastructure
we
already
have,
which
ones
are
going
to
demand
more,
and
if
there
is
an
opportunity
at
the
site
to
have
more
or
less
density,
it
could
be
informational
or
information
that
could
benefit
us
at
that
time,
too.
G
K
A
few
questions,
and
then
I
guess
a
general
comment
about
about
commissioner
gillespie's
comment-
is
that
the
local
land
use
planning
act
is,
is
pretty
specific
on
a
lot
of
the
things
that
we're
able
to
consider.
In
my
opinion,
we've
narrowly
defined
those
very
wide
in
general
opportunities.
However,
that's
in
our
state
code,
economic
viability,
adequate
adequacy
of
public
facilities
are
all
things
that
we
could
object
or
re
or
or
deny
an
application
for.
I'm
not.
K
K
B
Okay,
so
commissioner
danley
great
question
and
something
I
should
have
covered
our
development
checklist.
Currently
we
run
that
and
provide
that
information.
As
you
know,
a
data
point
for
you
for
any
development
at
50
residential
units
or
more
or
an
equivalent
amount
of
commercial
space,
so
equivalent
amount
of
traffic
generation.
B
So
you'll
see
that
not
for
for
every
lots
bit
split
small
subdivision
just
for
my
sanity.
That
would
take
me
running
this.
You
know
all
day
every
day,
so
we
we
will
continue
to
provide
that
with
our
development
checklist
at
that
50
unit
threshold
or
above.
If
there
are
just
like
our
checklist,
if
there
are
a
smaller
one,
that's
maybe
more
interesting
you
for
some
reason
you
want
to
have
that
information.
Just
have
this!
B
Your
staff
contact
me
we've
done
that
before
for
smaller
ones,
where
we
didn't
meet
that
threshold,
but
it
was
still
important.
So
if
your
staff
contacts
me
I'd
be
happy
to
do
it
for
smaller
ones,
obviously
wrap
that
up
anything
higher
than
that.
We
are
also
going
to
run
that,
as
you
have
maybe
things
that
aren't
development
specific,
but
maybe
you're.
Looking
at
a
sub-area
plan
or
a
city-wide
comprehensive
plan,
this
can
also
be
a
very
helpful
and
effective
tool
in
in
understanding.
B
You
know
what
are
the
financial
ramifications
of
of
those
policies,
those
colors
on
the
map
or
those
densities.
So,
as
you
get
into
that
process,
and
if
this
would
be
something
you'd
also
like
for
that
again,
your
staff
can
get
in
touch
with
me
and
you
know:
let's
identify
those
criteria
from
an
early
stage,
but
we'd
be
happy
to
provide
that
for
more
generalized
planning
as
well.
K
Carl,
is
there
a
cumulative
nature
to
this
model?
Should
we
expect
to
see
you
know
every
so
often
quarterly
annually,
whatever
the
case
may
be,
hey
here's
how
things
were
going
based
on
the
decisions
that
have
been
made
so
that
we
can
kind
of
get
a
sense
of
the
bigger
picture
and
not
just
a
singular
application.
You
know
every
month
kind
of
a
deal.
B
B
Where
are
they
in
a
good
sense,
so
it
it
helps
us
with
the
conversation
of
where
is
growth
occurring
and
where
should
we
forecast
growth,
but
that
would
be
a
great
addendum
to
that
is
to
indicate
you
know
what
are
the
cumulative
impacts
by
city
by
sub-area.
So
that's
something
I
will
put
down
on
my
to-do
list
and
I
think
that's
something
that
we
can
add
to
that
and
really
help
with
having
those
conversations
about
what
is
what
is
this
doing?
What
what
is
growth
doing
to
our
finances
in
the
valley.
K
Last
question
sure
good
more
more
of
a
comment.
Carl
I've
known
you
too
long
to
put
you
on
the
spot,
so
I
won't
do
that
to
you
but
more
of
a
comment,
and
that
is
that
if
compass
is
the
purveyor
of
federal
funds
and
the
distribution
thereof,
and
we
have
a
model
that
is
basically
telling
all
of
the
cities
within
the
treasury
valley,
under
the
umbrella
of
the
mpo
and
rpo,
then
of
how
things
are
going,
at
least
with
respect
to
this
tool.
K
And
what
that
tells
me
is
that
we're
going
to
know
there
are
some
cities
that
are
doing
a
pretty
good
job
of
being
financially
responsible
with
our
our
limited
resources.
And
then
there
are
cities
that
are
not
in
the
cities
that
are
putting
a
bigger
strain
on
our
regional
resources,
whether
they
be
state
funds
or
federal
funds.
Well,
what
do
we
do?
What
do
we
do
about
that
right?
K
What
what's
the
discussion
at
that
point,
because
a
tool
like
this
is,
in
my
opinion,
useful
to
determine
who's,
a
bad
actor
who's,
a
good
actor
and
not
to
suggest
carl's
gonna
solve
the
problem
there.
But
you
know
when
you're
distributing
federal
funds-
and
you
have
again
some
municipalities
that
are
acting
in
a
way
that
are
responsible
with
these
types
of
decisions
and
not
not
straining
our
limited
resources
and
others,
maybe
not
as
much.
It
may
be
a
discussion,
especially
for
our
own
board
members
for
our
for
for
a
compass,
just
a
thought.
D
B
Commission
blanchard
great
question:
the
tool
is
it's
a
microsoft
excel
tool
it
was
developed,
we
hired
a
consultant
named
tishler,
bice,
who's
fairly
nationally,
well
known
and
reputable
for
doing
this
type
of
analysis.
In
fact,
I
learned
about
physical
impact
analysis
at
a
american
planning
association
conference
about
10
12
years
ago
from
a
session
that
tishler
bice
led,
so
they
developed
this.
They
personalized
this
through
the
conversations
that
we
had
with
your
staff
and,
of
course,
others.
B
So
that
way,
we
made
sure
that
we
reflected
your
budget
and
other
budgets
as
well
as
capital
improvement
plans,
plans
that
you
have
and
and
and
budgets
that
you
have
adopted.
So
it
is
a
completely
customized
tool
built
for
specifically
for
compass
and
its
member
agencies
by
by
tisler
bias.
Our
consultant
on
this.
B
Great
thank
you
just
to
let
you
know
that
you
will
start
to
see
these
probably
this
week.
Well,
we'll
start
to
to
start
using
this
tool.
We
wanted
to
do
this
outreach
to
make
sure
everybody
was
understood
the
background
and
history
and
had
a
chance
to
ask
questions,
but
then
we'll
start
using
this
tool
really
with
any
of
those
development
checklists
that
we
just
outlined.
So
thank
you
for
your
time.
I
appreciate
it.
You
guys
do
a
lot
of
hard
work,
so
thanks
keep
up
the
good
work.
A
A
A
A
Over
the
process,
so
we'll
be
brief.
Thank
you.
If
we
do
have
to
hear
it.
Okay
item
number
one
is
drh
21-145
at
200,
north
4th
street.
You
may
have
recognized
this
project.
This
is
an
appeal
for
the
design
reviews
committee
of
their
approval
for
a
mixed
use.
Building
here
downtown
we
also
haven't
had
many
design
review
committee
appeals
lately,
so
we
this
is
an
open
record.
You
should
view
this
just
like
an
administrative
level
application
getting
appealed.
So
there's
no
we're
creating
a
whole
new
record
tonight.
C
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
It's
a
appeal
of
an
approval
for
a
co-location
for
a
wireless
communication
facility
on
stewart
avenue.
We
are
recommending
denial
and,
like
always,
we
will
always
hear
appeals.
So
we've
got
a
couple.
I
don't
think
we
have
anyone
signed
up
in
advance,
but
I
I
assume
there
will
be
some
folks
attending.
A
A
A
A
Number
11
pd
21-39
is
that
gown
in
federal
way.
This
might
look
familiar
as
well.
This
is
a
modification
to
increase
the
density
for
a
previously
approved
plan
unit
development.
We
are
recommending
approval,
there
was
neighborhood
opposition
and
we
did
have
a
few
people
sign
up.
So
we
will
be
hearing
this
item
and
number
12
cp
21-37
modification
to
a
cup
to
allow
for
temporary
parking
on
miller
street.
We
are
recommending
approval,
I'm
not
aware
of
any
opposition
and
no
one
signed
up
on
the
sign
up
sheet,
so
we
can
try
for
consent.
C
A
A
Evening
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
automatically
been
muted
and
cannot
speak
as
the
item
you're
interested
in
comes
up
for
discussion,
you'll
be
called
upon
and
unmuted
there
is
a
chat
function
in
zoom.
This
is
not
part
of
the
record
and
should
only
be
used
if
technical
difficulties
arise.
A
After
that,
we
proceeded
to
public
testimony
stating
starting
with
those
who
are
in
person,
then
who
signed
up
on
the
online
sign
up
sheet
in
advance
and
then
anyone
else
who
raises
their
hand
virtually
if
you're
attending
through
your
telephone,
you
can
type
in
star9.
To
raise
your
hand,
each
member
of
the
public
is
allowed
up
to
three
minutes
for
testimony.
A
C
C
Any
decision
made
tonight
may
be
appealed
to
the
city
council,
provided
that
the
appeals
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
you
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
item
will
be
placed
on
the
consent
agenda.
All
items
that
are
placed
on
the
consent
agenda
are
approved
with
one
motion.
C
Without
further
public
comment
for
items
not
on
the
consent
agenda,
we
will
hold
a
full
public
hearing
and
the
order
just
detailed
a
few
minutes
ago
with
staff,
applicant
neighborhood
association
and
then
the
public
testimony.
Thank
you
for
all
for
attending
tonight
and
will
the
clerk
please
call
the
role
stan.
Sure.
K
I
C
C
That
item
has
been
withdrawn,
so
we
will
not
hear
that
tonight
we
do
have
a
couple
of
deferral
requests,
so
I'm
going
to
start
with
those.
The
first
request
we
have
is
item
number
three.
This
is
a
cba
21-21
for
michaela
todd
deferred,
originally
from
july
19
2021
requesting
deferral
to
september
20th
2021.
This
is
at
715
north
17th
street,
a
variance
to
encroach
into
the
rear
yard
setback
for
the
expansion
of
an
existing
accessory
structure.
C
N
C
I
C
The
next
item
requesting
referral
is
item
number
five.
This
is
pod
21-31
for
south
back
and
baird
deferred,
originally
from
august
9th
2021
requesting
referral
to
october
4th
2021.
This
is
2955
north
maple
grove
road,
a
conditional
use
permit
for
planned
residential
development
comprised
of
10
multi-family
units.
Is
there
anybody
present
tonight
who
would
like
to
testify
in
this
item
that
is
unable
to
return
to
the
october
4th
date?
Please
raise
your
hand.
C
C
Okay,
next
up
is
item
number
six.
This
is
pod
21-32,
first
softback
and
bear
deferred
from
august
9
2021
requesting
referral
to
august
4th
2021.
This
is
at
3091,
north
maple
grove
road.
A
conditional
use
permit
for
a
planned
residential
development
comprised
of
18
family
units
multi-family
units.
Is
there
anybody
present
that
would
like
to
testify
in
this
item
tonight
who's
unable
to
return
to
the
october
fourth
date.
C
C
C
Okay,
great
so
next
up
we
will
build
our
consent
agenda.
So
the
first
item
that
I
will
place
on
the
consent
agenda
is
item
a
this
is
pd
19-22
for
great
western
capital,
llc
requesting
a
time
extension
a
two-year
time.
Extension
at
2416,
south
south
grant
avenue
the
next.
Oh
wait
so
skip
that
one.
Sorry.
The
next
item
for
consideration
of
the
consent
agenda
is,
I
am
number
four.
C
A
C
Oh
b:
okay,
great
okay,
we'll
try
with
item
b.
This
is
a
resolution
res
1-21
for
state
street
urban
renewal
district
project,
a
resolution
of
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
for
the
city
of
boise
city,
idaho,
validating
conformity
of
the
urban
renewal
plan.
Is
there
anybody
who
would
like
to
testify
on
this
item
tonight?
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand
or
in
person
okay,
seeing
them,
then
we
will
place
item
b
on
the
consent
agenda.
C
C
C
O
C
Okay,
seeing
none
we
will
place
item
10
on
the
consent
agenda.
The
next
item
last
item
for
consideration
is
item
12.
This
is
cup
21-37
for
lkv
architects
at
1151,
west
miller
street.
This
is
a
modification
to
a
previously
approved
condition.
Conditional
use
permit
to
continue
to
allow
a
temporary
parking
use.
Is
the
applicant
present.
C
L
C
C
I
C
Okay,
we're
going
to
start
now
with
item
number
one.
This
is
drh21-144
for
better
change
for
east
downtown,
originally
deferred
from
july
19
2021
at
200
north
4th
street.
This
is
an
appeal
of
the
design
reviews
committee's
approval
of
a
new
13-story
mixed-use
building
and
we'll
start
with
staff.
Please
go
ahead,
mr
wilson.
P
P
P
The
design
review
committee
is
specifically
prohibited
from
taking
into
account
reductions
in
density
or
building
height
and
additionally,
the
land
use
is
not
the
purview
of
the
design
review
committee.
The
application
being
appealed
before
you
tonight
really
just
relates
to
building
design,
landscape,
design
and
site
design.
P
P
P
P
The
out
the
committee
then
requests
that
that
application
come
back
to
a
publicly
advertised
work
session.
It's
much
like
a
public
hearing.
If
the
signs
go
up
on
the
site,
the
mailings
go
out.
The
newspaper
notifications
are
published
and
it
is
held
at
a
design
review
committee
hearing
with
input
from
the
public
so
that
that
is
a
tactic
that
they
use
often
to
kind
of
resolve
details
of
construction
on
these
type
of
buildings.
P
P
In
their
deliberations.
The
committee
determined
that
in
concept,
appropriate
screening
had
been
provided
on
all
elevations
of
the
garage
additional
information
on
the
vegetative
screening
proposed
on
the
north
elevation.
Seen
here
in
the
upper
left
was
requested
to
ensure
that
the
plant
materials
will
survive
and
provide
an
effective
screen
on
the
east
elevation
in
the
upper
right.
The
building
design
uses
residential
units
to
cover
the
garage
on
the
north
half
of
the
elevation
on
the
south.
Half
of
that
east
elevation
screening
of
the
garage
is
provided
through
a
metal
mesh.
P
The
north
elevation
uses
a
vegetative
screen
wall,
while
the
east,
south
and
west
elevations
use
a
variety
of
architectural
materials
to
provide.
The
screening,
including
the
aforementioned
steel
mesh
details
on
the
finishes
and
information
on
the
size
of
the
openings
in
the
mesh,
were
requested
to
be
provided
at
the
public
work
session.
For
final
approval,
the
information
the
record
demonstrates
that
there
are
different
conditions
and
exposures
to
residential
projects
on
different
sides
of
the
project.
P
Q
Q
Okay,
I
wrote
20
minutes:
okay,
okay,
madam
chair
members
of
the
commission.
My
name
is
dan
eberhard
and
I
live
at
200
north
third
street.
I'm
here
to
represent
better
change
for
east
downtown
and
to
express
concerns
which
are
mine
as
an
individual
and
do
not
reflect
the
views
of
the
idaho
state.
Historical
society
where
I
am
employed.
Q
Better
change
for
east
downtown
was
formed
by
neighbors
and
residents
of
east
downtown
in
may
of
2020..
These
individuals
hoped
that,
through
participation
in
the
public
process,
the
proposed
iccu
tower
project
could
be
refined
and
revised
to
bring
it
to
more
in
compliance
with
the
character
and
quality
of
our
neighborhood.
We
are
an
llc
managed
by
a
steering
committee
composed
of
owners
and
renters
and
apartments
condominiums
and
single-family
homes
in
the
neighborhood
surrounding
the
proposed
project.
Q
Our
nearly
200
constituents
from
across
the
city
include
a
wide
spectrum
of
experience
and
interest
from
professional
city
planners,
with
decades
of
expertise
to
average
citizens
concerned
about
the
impacts
of
unchecked
growth
on
their
quality
of
life.
You
know
the
circumstances
of
this
project.
In
fact,
this
commission
unanimously
denied
the
applicant's
rezone
request
nearly
a
year
ago.
We
know
the
circumstances
of
this
project.
We
understand
that
the
boise
city
council
narrowly
chose
to
allow
the
project
to
move
forward.
Q
Q
Instead,
we
ask
that
you
require
the
design
review
process
to
proceed
forward
in
a
way
that
is
equitable
and
fair
to
both
the
neighbors
and
the
public
at
large.
As
we
noted
in
our
detailed
memorandum,
we
believe
that
the
decision
rendered
by
the
design
review
committee
was
at
odds
with
the
guidance
provided
in
the
downtown
design
guidelines.
Q
We
understand
that
these
guidelines
are
meant
to
form
the
foundation
of
every
application
under
their
jurisdiction.
The
applicant
should
follow
the
guidelines.
The
city
staff
should
analyze
for
compliance
with
the
guidelines,
and
the
committee
should
enforce
the
guidelines
on
page
two
of
the
guidelines.
The
document
overview
states
nine
overarching
goals.
Three
of
these
goals
illustrate
the
necessity
of
preserving
and
enhancing
the
context
of
the
surroundings
in
which
a
project
is
developed
while
maintaining
and
enhancing
property
values,
the
preservation
and
promotion
of
neighborhood
interests
and
those
of
adjoining
and
adjacent
residential
and
commercial
neighbors
is
paramount.
Q
Q
Secondly,
if
we
momentarily
overlook
the
flawed
process,
the
outcome
of
the
committee's
decision
regarding
the
screening
of
the
garage
is
at
odds
with
the
stipulations
of
the
guidelines.
Let's
discuss,
process,
first
design
review
approved
a
project
without
fully
understanding
the
design
details.
The
application
lacked
much
of
the
nuanced
information
necessary
to
make
a
decision.
Q
Q
Q
Q
This
is
a
common
practice
on
design
review
applications
end
quote,
and
that
quote
the
work
session
will
give
the
applicant
and
the
public
an
opportunity
to
weigh
in
on
the
final
design
details
end
quote,
but
at
the
work
session,
how
will
the
public
object
object
to
what
is
decided
by
design
review
we
may
weigh
in,
but
will
this
allow
us
to
impact
the
outcome
of
the
process?
May
we
appeal
decisions
made
at
the
work
session?
Q
What
about
those
elements
not
discussed
both
the
city
staff
and
the
applicant
assure
us
that
this
is
how
many
or
even
most
large
projects
are
decided.
We
have
no
reason
to
believe
this
isn't
so
but
there,
but
this
is
a
major
flaw
in
the
system.
If
allowed
to
continue
unchecked
boise
citizens
stand
to
lose
their
ability
to
participate
in
any
meaningful
way.
The
fact
that
most
projects
exclude
the
public
from
legitimate
participation
through
the
procedural
fig
leaf
of
the
work
session
is
not
something
of
which
to
be
proud.
Q
Q
The
committee
obviously
did
not
understand
whether
or
not
the
design
fits
into
the
context,
but
arbitrarily
approved
it
anyway,
abandoning
their
mandate
and
sacrificing
the
neighbor's
ability
to
know
and
comprehend
impacts
of
this
massive
project
to
the
public
sphere.
Will
the
project
promote
design
that
enhances
the
sense
of
place
or
maintain
and
enhance
property
values?
Q
Simply
put
neither
the
committee
nor
the
public
knows
if
we
can
set
aside
for
a
moment,
the
convoluted
system
in
which
designs
are
approved
without
knowing
what
they
will
actually
look
like.
Better
change
for
east
downtown
still
has
a
major
concern.
The
massive
parking
garage
is
not
adequately
or
equitably
screened
on
all
elevations
the
design
review
guide.
I'm
sorry.
Q
No
doubt
they
assumed
that
such
such
structures
would
be
built
in
the
central
business
district
three
blocks
to
the
west.
This
does
not
change
the
approval
granted
by
the
boise
city
council.
The
council
placed
other
interests
ahead
of
neighborhood
cohesion
and
character,
but
the
city
council
directed
staff
and
the
applicant
to
ensure
that
the
light
noise
and
chemical
pollution
of
the
garage
was
adequately
screened
for
residential
neighbors.
Q
It's
true
that
the
council
chose
to
emphasize
screening
of
impacts
to
neighbors
to
the
north,
but
better
change
for
east
downtown
believes
that
this
was
an
inadvertent
oversight,
if
called
to
their
attention.
Wouldn't
the
mayor
and
council
be
equally
concerned
with
the
impacts
on
neighbors
to
the
east,
west
and
south
elevations.
We
think
so.
Boiseans
live
on
all
four
sides
of
the
proposed
project,
while
a
few
homeowners
and
renters
live
to
the
west
and
south.
Q
The
simple
fact
is
that
more
citizens
live
within
closer
proximity
to
the
project's
east
side
than
those
to
the
north
and,
of
course
there
are
people
working
recreating
and
moving
through
the
streets
and
sidewalks
around
the
proposed
garage
who
don't
live
there
at
all.
Regardless
and
despite
the
council's
efforts
to
call
out
the
north
elevation,
the
design
guidelines
clearly
intend
to
promote
the
appropriate
and
equitable
screening
of
parking
structures.
The
guidelines
are
specific.
Q
This
is
what
they
say
chapter
one
context
and
considerations
1.1
applicant
considerations
in
designing
a
project.
What
are
the
surrounding
uses
and
context?
Are
there
distinctive
attributes
of
the
neighborhood
that
should
be
followed?
This
could
include
architectural
landscaping,
building
street
relationships,
signage
and
or
special
design
details,
chapter
2
block
frontages
and
urban
design
framework
chapter
2.2,
black
frontages
departures
for
parking
structures
within
10
feet
of
the
sidewalk
design.
Q
3.3.1
parking
structure,
design,
structured
parking
facilities
shall
be
designed
to
meet
applicable
building
design
provisions
in
chapter
4,
including
architectural
character,
masking
and
articulation
building
elements
and
details,
building
materials,
building
lighting
and
blank
wall
treatments.
Some
flexibility
to
the
massing
and
articulation
standards
may
be
considered
via
the
departure
process
due
to
the
large
floor
plates
needed
for
a
parking
garage
provided
the
design
treatment
appropriately
fits
the
context.
For
example,
a
parking
garage
wall
facing
a
freeway
will
warrant
greater
flexibility
and
facade
articulation
than
a
smaller
scale
street
with
a
mix
of
uses.
Q
Q
The
direction
to
both
the
committee
and
the
applicant
is
easily
understandable.
A
parking
garage
should
be
screened
with
elements
that
add
visual
interest
on
all
frontages
and
impacts
on
neighboring
properties
must
be
reviewed
and
mitigated
as
appropriate.
The
committee
went
out
of
its
way
to
question
and
consider
the
suitability
of
garage
screening
on
the
north
elevation.
C
Q
Q
Q
No
questions
were
asked
about
visual
interest
for
those
viewing
the
garage
structure
from
more
distant
vantage
points
on
these
elevations.
As
noted
above
this
lack
of
concern
could
not
stem
from
the
committee's
clear
dis,
clear
understanding
of
how
these
other
garage
elevations
would
be
screened.
As
that
detail
was
not
presented
in
the
applicant's
materials.
Q
Q
Q
Q
While
the
city
council
has
allowed
iccu
to
construct
a
modern
high-rise
within
a
neighborhood
composed
of
historic
one
and
two-story
buildings,
the
council
did
not
waive
the
developers
requirement
to
fit
their
project
into
the
unique
context
of
the
neighborhood.
Careful
selection
of
building
materials,
robust
screening
of
all
elevations
of
the
parking
structure
and
attention
to
detail
are
still
expected.
The
design
review
committee
should
ensure
compliance
with
the
stipulation
but
failed
to
enforce
the
city's
expectation.
Q
Another
objective
of
this
chapter
mandates
respect
for
surrounding
historic
structures.
All
four
elevations
of
the
iccu
tower
are
faced
by
properties
which
are
either
listed
in
or
eligible
for
listing
in
the
national
register
of
historic
places.
Of
paramount
concern
is
the
historic
u.s
assay
office,
which
is
a
national
historic
landmark
one
of
only
three
in
the
state
of
idaho
other
adjacent
sites
are
eligible
for,
but
not
yet
listed
in
the
national
register
in
requiring
that
new
projects
demonstrate
respect
for
surrounding
historic
structures.
Q
The
guidelines
make
it
clear
that
both
materials
and
design
be
reviewed
in
consideration
of
adjacent
properties
which
meet
this
criterion
in
light
of
the
guidance
specified
by
the
downtown
design,
guidelines,
goals
and
standards.
It
is
obvious
that
the
boise
design
review
committee
aired
in
their
decision
regarding
iccu's
development.
Q
The
committee's
decision
to
approve
the
design
application
without
several
crucial
details
of
materials
and
their
application
was
arbitrary
and
in
violation
of
the
guidelines
which
mandate
a
design
that
fits
into
the
context
of
its
surroundings,
specifically
detailed
scrutiny
and
approval
of
one
type
of
garage
screening
on
one
elevation,
but
not
all,
was
arbitrary
and
inequitable
chapter.
Three
of
the
guidelines
clearly
require
mitigation
of
the
impact
of
parking
facilities
on
the
streetscape
and
pedestrian
environment.
Q
As
noted
in
detail
above
the
guidelines
require
careful
review
of
proposed
applications
and
the
details
of
these
designs.
The
iccu
application
lacked
this
detail
to
the
point.
The
committee
was
forced
to
require
a
work
session
in
which
the
applicant
would
provide
material
samples
and
clarify
their
design
intent.
Without
this
clarity,
the
committee
would
lack
the
knowledge
necessary
to
confirm
that
the
proposed
design
met
the
guidance
specified
by
the
downtown
design,
guidelines,
goals
and
standards,
and
yet
without
this
knowledge,
the
committee
approved
the
design,
a
failure
of
both
the
public
and
their
own
mandate.
Q
The
idaho
central
credit
union
project
is
enormous.
It
is
president
setting
it
will
forever
alter
the
boise
skyline
and
the
east
downtown
neighborhood
and
such
impacts
should
receive
more
scrutiny
by
the
design
review
committee
in
direct
correlation
to
the
level
of
change
the
proposal
represents,
and
yet
they
waived
their
review.
R
C
R
R
I
understand
that
these
issues
may
be
difficult
to
understand
to
the
lay
person
who
is
unsophisticated.
Mr
everhart
is
neither
a
layperson
nor
unsophisticated.
It
is
disconcerting
that
we
are
wasting
time,
relitigating
issues
that
the
city
council
addressed
and
told
us
to
go
implement.
So
why
are
we
here?
R
We
are
here
because
for
all
intents
and
purposes
the
appellant
has
appealed
an
interim
decision
of
the
design
review
committee,
which
is
common
and
customary
and
has
been
the
historic
practice
for
significant
material
projects
in
the
city
of
boise.
As
set
forth
in
our
our
memoranda,
we
highlight
the
fact
that
this
use
of
work
sessions
is
common.
That
use
of
work
sessions
regularly
is
done
for
applicants
to
take
back
information
that
the
design
review
committee
wants
us
to
incorporate
and
address
and
move
forward.
R
It's
an
interim
step
that
has
been
used
on
a
variety
of
projects,
including
a
variety
of
applications
resulting
in
the
construction
of
parking
garages
in
downtown
boise
by
my
clients.
This
was
the
case
at
city
center.
This
was
the
case
at
8th
and
main.
This
was
the
case
at
pioneer
crossing,
so
the
process
that
design
review
followed
and
that
your
design
review
committee
implemented
has
been
consistent
for
many
years
now.
R
The
design
review
guidelines
are
clear.
They
give
guidance
and
direction
as
to
what
should
be
done.
They
give
guidance
and
direction
as
to
how
parking
structure
should
be
screened.
There
is
no
provision
in
the
design
review
guidelines
that
would
have
you
require
the
level
of
opacity,
the
level
of
preclusion
to
the
outside
and
hundred
percent
screening
on
parking
structures.
R
In
fact,
the
examples
that
are
offered
in
the
design
review
guidelines
clearly
identify
the
opposite,
and
unfortunately,
mr
everhart
and
his
colleagues
focus
on
the
northern
elevation,
where,
yes,
the
city
council
requested
that
we
add
certain
green
screening
to
that
metal
spring,
ignoring
the
fact
that
a
variety
of
screening
types
have
been
utilized
throughout
the
project
on
each
of
the
different
facades
on
the
east
elevation
housing
provides
significant
screening,
as
does
metal
panels
and
concrete
panels
which
are
significant
and
substantial
on
the
south
and
west
side.
Those
met.
R
Those
concrete
panels
continue
providing
visual
screening
to
vehicles
that
are
inside
the
garage
and
the
screening
of
the
elements
descending
from
the
ceiling
above.
They
also
include,
as
staff
indicated,
different
uses
of
metal,
metal
fins,
metal
panels,
modulation
and
setback
to
address
that
and
then
obviously
there's
the
north
elevation.
So
what
do
they
want?
Well,
it
appears
they
want
us
to
go
back
to
design
review,
which
is
what
design
review
requires
us
to
do
to
the
extent
that
we've
objected
about
process
and
procedure.
R
I
would
posit
to
you
that
our
objection
doesn't
have
anything
to
do
with
our
approval.
It
has
to
do
with
the
nature
of
this
appeal
and,
as
we
go
forward
with
design
review
considerations
and
an
updated
zoning
code,
time
should
be
taken
to
address
how
best
to
deal
with
the
issues
presented
here.
What
is
the
process
for
an
appeal
who
is
responsible
for
posting?
The
site
who
is
responsible
and
constrained
is
the
time
that
they
have.
Those
are
the
due
process
concerns
that
we
need
to
address.
R
I
strenuously
disagree
with
the
assessment
that
we
presented
an
application
that
was
inadequate.
In
fact,
the
application
that
we
provided
was
detailed.
It
was
detailed
and
consistent
with
other
design
review
applications
that
have
been
reviewed
and
approved
in
this
city.
Is
it
common
for
design
review
to
schedule
a
work
session
and
request?
You
come
back
with
additional
materials
and
details?
Yes,
and
why
is
that?
R
R
They
don't
require
us
to
come
forward
at
the
application
stage,
with
samples
from
vendors
samples
that
we
may
modify.
Knowing
that
we
will
get
direction
for
what
the
commission
wants.
We
will
be
back
to
design
review.
We
will
be
back
to
design
review
as
early
as
november,
we'll
be
back
to
design
review
with
a
modified
design,
implementing
some
of
the
elements
that
they've
identified,
including
an
increase
in
the
amount
of
residential
units
that
will
provide
further
screening
to
the
neighboring
property
owners.
R
R
There
is
no
reason
to
grant
this
appeal
because
it
was
not
a
final
approval.
It
was
a
final
approval,
giving
us
direction
on
certain
elements
they
wanted
us
to
see,
but
we
can't
go
pull
a
building
permit.
We
can't
go
initiate
construction
and
vertical
the
vertical
elements
of
the
building
until
we
have
design
review
approval.
This
is
a
process
that
I'm
accustomed
to
that.
My
sophisticated
clients
are
accustomed
to
that.
R
R
Nothing
that
has
been
articulated
tonight
merits
this
appeal
and
in
fact
this
appeal
is
as
frivolous
as
it
comes
in
light
of
the
fact
that
we
still
have
to
go
back
for
a
work
session,
will
we
be
back
in
front
of
you
with
an
appeal
from
that
work
session?
We
don't
know,
but
this
is
the
process
that
has
been
followed
and
it
would
be
arbitrary
and
capricious
to
adopt
and
accept
the
arguments.
You've
heard
tonight
from
the
appellate
and
with
that'll
stand
for
any
questions.
C
C
E
Q
E
P
E
P
E
G
P
Madam
chair,
commissioner
gillespie
that
kind
of
varies
on
a
very
simple,
suburban
building
that
maybe
has
stucco
and
cultured
stone
that
the
committee
is
very
familiar
with.
They
would
probably
approve
that
in
one
hearing
without
seeing
physical
samples,
an
extremely
complex,
multi-story,
downtown
building
with
potentially
a
dozen
different
materials,
it
would
be
very
common
to
have
to
have
further
details
submitted
on
a
project
like
that.
S
Manager,
pretty
sure,
more
so,
following
up
on
a
question
for
staff
following
on
those
material
samples,
how
specific
is
that
really
and
well,
I
guess
two
questions
so,
first
of
all,
is
it
a
requirement
of
the
application
and
then
for
these
materials
sample
or
these
physical
samples?
How
specific
is
that
really?
Is
that
down
to
manufacturer
and
color,
or
is
it
a
little
bit
more
generalized.
P
Madam
chair,
commissioner,
moore
in
the
digital
age
of
applications
we're
in
these
days
you
know
it
used
to
be
that
we
got
a
four
foot
by
four
foot:
a
piece
of
foam
board
with
bricks
glued
to
it.
That
then
fell
off
right
and
we're
all
over
the
place.
There
is
not
a
requirement
to
submit
a
physical
material
board.
They
did
submit
a
material
board
with
their
application
that
depicted
the
materials
that
they
had
proposed
in
terms
of
specificity.
P
S
G
P
C
K
K
P
Madam
chair,
commissioner
danley
that
could
go
a
couple
of
ways.
Sure
if
you
took
that
action
tonight,
the
applicant
could
appeal
to
city
council
right,
which
is
a
likely
outcome.
If
they
chose
the
to
not
appeal,
the
application
would
be
denied
and
they
would
be
required
to
resubmit
to
the
design
review
committee,
thus
ending
up
a
design
review
committee
again.
N
P
N
P
N
Very
good,
and
then
you
mentioned
several
things
that
the
applicant
is
working
through
with
the
conditional
dr
approval
they
have.
Currently,
you
mentioned
achd
conditions,
some
things
that
they're
waiting
on
it
sounds
like
essentially,
the
other
thing
one
other
thing
you
mentioned
was
a
photometric
plan
which,
in
my
experience,
is
pretty
normal
to
provide
a
photometric
plan
for
the
site.
Do
you
know
in
this
case?
Are
they
looking
at
a
photometric
plan
to
study
the
amount
of
light
coming
from
the
parking
garage
mountain.
S
Manager,
commissioner,
mark
I
have
some
additional
questions
in
the
meantime,
so
for
the
screening
requirements
and
there's
the
argument
that
the
screening
is
on
the
different
sides
is
inequitable.
But
what
is
the
actual?
I
guess
the
actual
requirement
for
screening
in
the
downtown
design
review
guidelines.
P
What
they
do
require
is
that
structured
parking
facilities
shall
be
designed
to
meet
applicable
building
provisions
in
chapter
four,
including
architectural
character,
massing
and
articulation,
building
elements
and
details,
building
materials,
building
lighting
and
blank
wall
treatments
essentially
leaving
the
door
open
for
design
interpretations.
It's
just
that
the
parking
garage
does
not
have
a
flat
blank
wall
with
no
design
interest.
S
E
I
E
I
T
E
U
N
N
C
Okay
with
that,
then
we
will
move
on
to
public
testimony
if
you
are
online
and
would
like
to
testify,
please
virtually
raise
your
hand
now.
So
we
can
see
that
cue
and
if
you're
we
have
one
person
signed
up
that
we'll
start
with
and
then,
if
you
are
also
here
in
person
to
testify
stay
alert,
so
first
we'll
hear
from
keith
gaines
and
is
there
anybody
else
here
that
would
like
to
testify
on
this
item
tonight?
Yeah.
C
V
Please
grant
this
appeal
and
overturn
the
approval
of
the
design
review
committee.
According
to
the
boise
city
planning
team,
they
recommend
this
appeal
be
denied.
Since
the
committee
did
not
actually
issue
full
approval,
they
said
approval
was
conditioned
on
a
subsequent
work
session
to
review
additional
details.
V
V
The
design
review
committee
should
have
deferred
the
decision
until
all
required
information
was
provided
by
the
applicant.
The
planning
team
team
said
there
was
no
violation
of
due
process
for
the
public.
This
appeal
of
the
conditional
approval
by
the
design
review
committee
is
the
due
process
to
the
public.
V
The
planning
team's
argument
that
this
appeal
be
denied,
because
the
project
approval
was
conditioned
is
circular.
The
project
does
not
receive
final
approval
until
a
subsequent
work
session.
However,
the
public
has
no
right
to
appeal
the
full
approval
by
the
design
review
committee
granted
at
a
public
work
session.
V
The
public
can
only
appeal
some
aspects
of
the
design
review
committee's
decision
after
the
public
work
session.
This
is,
in
fact,
a
violation
of
due
process
to
the
public
case.
In
point,
the
design
review
committee
already
made
the
finding
that
appropriate
strategies
were
utilized
to
mitigate
the
impacts
of
the
parking
structure.
V
Further
details
regarding
steel
mesh,
including
finishes
and
information
on
the
size
of
the
openings
in
the
mesh,
were
requested
to
be
provided
at
the
public
work
session
for
final
approval.
How
can
it
be
determined
that
the
utilization
of
materials
will
appropriately
mitigate
the
impacts
of
the
parking
structure
when
the
necessary
details
about
the
materials
were
not
provided?
V
I'd
also
like
to
point
out
again
that
the
city
council,
specifically
in
the
development
agreement,
did
call
out
the
north
elevation.
We
do
think
it's
inequitable
to
just
pay
attention
to
that.
One
elevation.
We
do
not
think
it
was
city
council's
intent
to
only
focus
on
one
elevation
of
the
parking
structure.
C
T
My
name
is
cindy
shaffield
and
I
live
at
200
north
third
street,
I'm
here
to
today
to
express
my
concerns
about
the
bva
building,
we're
here
to
talk
about
a
design
that
has
been
approved,
but
no
one
has
seen
the
plans
the
city
approved
the
building,
trusting
that
bva
would
do
the
right
thing.
We
have
yet
to
see
any
proposal.
So
how
do
we
as
a
community
approve
it?
T
Bced
was
told
that
they
could
be
part
of
the
design
process.
So
far,
this
has
not
happened.
We
are
talking
about
designs
as
a
community
to
approve
them,
but
we
haven't
seen
any
plans.
The
city
says
they
want
to
be
carbon
neutral
by
2050.
What
in
the
plan
have
they
put
in
place?
How
are
they
going
to
facilitate
this?
This
is
a
brand
new
building.
We've
seen
nothing
to
go
with
what
the
city
wants.
T
T
T
If
we
have
live
plants-
and
we
don't
know
because
we
haven't
been
part
of
the
process-
who's,
keeping
the
plants
alive-
who's,
keeping
them
to
look
good-
who
enforces
it
and
are
their
fines
again
we're
talking
about
design
review,
but
we
have
not
been
invited
to
the
table.
We
are
asking:
what
materials
are
they
using?
What's
the
quality
of
the
materials?
What
are
the
colors?
You
are
asking
us
as
a
community
to
be
involved,
but
yet
it's
very
difficult.
C
F
Yes,
my
name
is
robert
snyder.
I
live
at
200
north
third,
at
the
imperial
plaza
I'd
like
to
thank
you
for
your
service
to
the
city
of
boise
and
your
wise
decision
previously
to
deny
the
initial
application
by
bba,
idaho
central
credit
union.
I
acknowledge
the
main
structure
of
the
proposed
building
has
been
approved
by
the
mayor,
but
there
is
a
lot
to
be
done
concerning
the
appearance
and
functionality
of
the
building.
F
In
addition
to
that,
there
are
a
lot
of
concerns
that
I
have
with
what
has
been
done
and
what
bba
has
done
with
other
buildings.
I
wrote
to
bba
on
july
14th
with
several
questions
and
the
major
item
wondering
where
can
I
see
similar
structures
to
this
proposed
building
that
were
in
a
historic
residential
office
area?
F
I
did
not
receive
any
response
from
them
in
looking
at
the
bva
website.
All
of
the
projects
are
located
in
areas
bounded
by
major
high-speed
arterials,
for
instance,
eagle
view
landing
adjacent
to
I-84,
10-mile,
crossing
adjacent
to
I-84
and
10-mile
central
valley,
plaza,
chindin
and
highway
16
and
pioneer
crossing
and
many
others.
What
will
this
development
look
like?
Where
can
we
see
similar
buildings
that
bba
and
idaho
central
credit
union
has
done?
One
of
the
major
concerns
is
screening
of
the
parking
garage.
I
think
this
has
been
covered
extensively.
F
The
project
was
approved
with
no
underground
parking,
so
substantial
money
was
saved
at
the
expense
of
the
surrounding
neighbors,
like
the
jefferson
and
the
imperial
plaza.
The
only
parking
garage
I
have
found
constructed
by
bva
is
the
pioneer
crossing
with
very
limited
screening
for
light
pollution
and
car
movement.
Another
parking
garage
was
constructed
behind
the
home
two
hotels.
F
I
encourage
you
to
take
a
look
at
that
in
the
evening
and
see
what
limited
screening
does.
This
is
a
great
opportunity
for
bba,
idaho,
central
credit
union
to
create
an
attractive
screen
that
blocks
the
garage,
light,
pollution
and
blends
in
with
the
neighborhood.
I
commend
and
support
the
presentation,
a
better
change
for
east
boise.
I
would
hope
that
bba
iccu
would
reach
out
with
the
neighbors
come
to
the
table
beyond
the
legally
mandated
meetings
they
have
had.
F
C
C
R
R
C
Q
Q
Q
The
simple
fact
that
no
one
else
appeals
design
review
decisions
doesn't
mean
that
the
process
is
working
correctly.
It
just
means
that
people
aren't
as
interested
in
those
projects,
probably
because
they
don't
live
within
less
than
half
a
block
from
a
parking
garage
developed
to
look
like
the
central
business
district
and
not
for
their
quasi
residential
neighborhood.
Q
Q
I
think
it
simply
speaks
to
the
fact
that
there
hasn't
been
a
robust
public
process
here
we
here
we
have
a
chance
to
investigate
how
this
process
works
and,
I
would
argue,
doesn't
work
it's
confusing.
It's
convoluted
the
fact
that
you
you
give
approval
to
a
project,
but
you
don't
know
what
you're
approving.
So
you
say,
don't
worry
in
order
to
know
what
we're
approving
we'll
have
you
come
back
and
get
more
approvals.
Q
It
doesn't
make
sense,
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
the
public
and
I
think
it
defeats
the
concept
of
of
this
sort
of
straightforward
public
process.
Now
the
staff
has
said
and
have
responded
to
questions
that
there
will
be
an
opportunity
to
appeal.
They've
also
said
very
carefully
that
those
appeals
of
the
future
work
session
can
only
be
made
on
elements
that
are
reviewed
and
discussed
at
that
meeting.
So
if
there
are
things
that
are
concerning,
but
the
commission
doesn't
bring
them
up,
will
the
public
be
allowed
to
appeal
those
things?
Q
I
think
commissioner
gillespie
thinks
that's
true.
I
hope
he's
right,
because
there
there
seems
to
be
a
lot
of
confusion
on
the
process.
Again,
nobody
appeals
these
decisions.
Why?
Because
they're
hard
it's
a
confusing
process
and
they're,
usually
in
the
central
business
district,
but
that's
not
the
case
here.
Of
course
it's
in
a
residential
neighborhood.
Q
They
must
appropriately
screen
their
parking
structure.
They
must
do
so
in
consideration
of
the
context.
The
historic
buildings
that
surround
the
site,
the
neighbors
and
adjacent
property
owners
views
both
close
and
far,
but
they
didn't
do
that
and
the
design
review
committee
did
not
require
that
of
them.
That's
why
we're
asking
you?
Q
Q
E
Chairman
commissioner,
gillespie
before
we
do
I'd
just
like
to
get
on
the
record
just
the
the
nature,
if
there
were
another
appeal,
would
it
be
an
open
record
or
would
the
record
have
to
be
confined
to
simply
the
discussion
of
the
work
session
and
I've
been
wrong
on
this
before
recently?
So
I
would
just
like
the
legal
folks
to
because
the
the
appellate
rules
are
complicated
in
the
code.
So
if
there
is
an
appeal
of
this
again
later,
is
it
an
open
record.
H
H
For
the
record,
james
smith,
deputy
city
attorney
off
of
commissioner
gillespie's
question
there,
I
think
it's
important
to
clarify
a
bit
of
procedure
here,
especially
where
the
city
code
may
not
provide
specific
guidance.
That
explains
every
single
situation,
and
what
we
have
here
is
a
situation
where
someone
has
claimed
that
there
was
a
decision
of
design
review
committee
and
and
that
decision
to
the
extent
that
anything
was
decided
so
far
has
been
appealed
and
as
staff
city
staff
has
indicated.
H
No,
there
are
not
two
bytes
at
the
apple
in
the
sense
that
the
entire
design
review
committee
decision,
the
entire
approval
from
design
review,
can
be
appealed
twice
simply
because
that
committee
bifurcated
its
decision
to
reserve
a
small
piece
of
it
to
review
at
a
later
work
session.
That's
not
the
way
it
would
work,
so
just
want
the
this
body
to
have
some
confidence
that,
at
least
in
the
city's
view,
these
issues
should
not
come
before.
E
I
you
know,
don't
I
I
don't
think
there
is
any
big
defect
in
the
process,
I'm
not
wild
about
the
process,
but
I
think
there's
an
opportunity
to
remedy
it
at
a
later
date,
if
it's
necessary
to
do
so.
So
I
think
there's
plenty
of
opportunity
for
the
appellant
to
you
know
make
his
case
both
in
some
limited
sense
to
this
commission,
but
also
to
the
city
council,
and
you
know,
they've,
raised
certain
issues
and
I
think
they're
going
to
get
a
fair
hearing
on
this
on
the
substance
of
the
issues.
E
I
just
think
that
it's
up
to
drc
to
interpret
those
guidelines.
They
did
so.
They
clearly
thought
about
it
very
carefully.
They
asked
for
more
information
that
seems
like
what
they
normally
do.
So
I
think
at
this
point
the
correct
course
of
action
is
to
step
back
and
let
this
procedure
play
out
at
the
drc,
as
they
normally
would.
N
N
You
know,
there's
nothing
to
say
the
the
design
team
and
the
applicant
are
working
through
design,
details
and
they're,
going
to
return
back
to
the
design
review
board,
with
with
answers
to
questions
that
were
posed
by
the
design,
review
board
and
that's
the
process,
and
I
think
that,
as
commissioner
gillespie
said,
they
need
to
let
that
we
need
to
let
that
process
play
out.
There's
no
guarantee
that
the
design
review
board
is
going
to
like
what
they
present
and
give
them
approval.
They
may
send
them
back
again
and
say:
nope,
that's
not
right!
N
N
N
I
think
that
the
design
guidelines
are
just
that
their
guidelines,
their
purpose,
they're
subjective
to
a
point
to
allow
the
design
team
or
the
developer
to
make
decisions
to
present
a
building.
That
is
that
looks
aesthetically,
pleasing
and
functions
well
without
a
lot
of
heavy-handed
input
from
our
design
guidelines,
and
I
think
that
that's
the
perfect
way
to
do
things.
Otherwise
we
end
up
with
rubber
stamped
same
designs
everywhere.
Everywhere
you
go
throughout
town.
I
don't
think
that's
what
we
want
here
in
this
city
and
then
my
only
final
comment
would
be.
N
I
think
it's
disingenuous
by
the
appellant
to
claim
that
there
are
no
details
in
the
plants,
I'm
looking
at
material
boards
right
now
there
are
elevations,
there
are
materials,
so
I
think
that
we
had
some
testimony
from
several
folks
and
from
the
opponent
that
said,
the
plans
don't
exist.
Well,
plans
do
exist
and
there
are
materials
here.
So
I
think
we
have
to
have
a
little
bit
of
trust
in
the
process
and
let
it
play
out
and
let
the
design
team
and
the
developer
fine-tune
those
details
and
present
additional
information
in
the
future.
C
L
K
K
I
actually
encourage
you
to
do
something,
and
I
hope
that
you
take
me
up
on
it.
I
think
you're,
a
pretty
eloquent
speaker,
you've
done
your
research
clearly
and
I
and
I
think
that
you've
done
a
pretty
good
job
tonight.
What
I'd
love
to
see
is
go
to
the
next
step.
Come
back
appeal.
It
because
I
think
what
you
your
strength
would
be
would
be
to
inspire
counsel.
K
I
think,
if
you
showed
them
a
lot
of
the
images
that
you
think
and
and
the
folks
that
you're
working
with
in
the
east
end
have
you
know
as
ideal,
I
think
would
make
some
changes,
because
you
know
what
this
is
just
the
beginning.
This
building
is
only
the
beginning
of
many
more
to
come
and
it's
going
to
be
all
over
the
downtown
area.
This
is
the
most
valuable
piece
of
real
estate
in
our
state
just
about
and
we
have
a
growth
spurt
and
it's
only
going
to
continue.
D
I
would
just
say
that
well
one
toward
the
motion,
I
will
be
supporting
it
and
I
just
because
there's
no
remedy
in
in
granting
this
appeal,
the
remedy
is
the
process
that
is
working,
and
I
don't
see
this
as
a
broken
process.
At
all
I
mean
we've
all
seen
this
thing
now,
multiple
times
dr
has,
we
have.
Council
has
and
there's
significantly
less
confusion
on
this
issue.
Now,
there's
only
three
or
four
people
here
talking
about
this
issue
now,
when
this
process
started,
we
were
overwhelmed
with
opposition
towards
it.
D
So
I
think
this
is
testament
to
a
process
that
has
worked
and
a
development
team
that
has
done
a
good
job
and
our
staff
that
and
commissions
that
have
done
a
good
job
to
bring
this
thing
to
where
it
is
so,
I
think
yeah
anything
but
a
broken
process.
This
is
a
process
that
has
absolutely
worked
and
created
a
lot
less
confusion.
C
C
Okay,
we're
gonna
go
ahead
and
take
a
five
minute
break,
we'll
be
back
at
about
7
27.,
see
cup
21-39
for
columbia,
west
llc
deferred
from
august
9
2021
at
5200,
east
grand
forest
drive,
a
modification
to
previously
approved
conditional
use,
permit
to
expand
outdoor
storage,
and
we
will
start
please
with
staff.
Mr
wilde,
when
you're
ready.
J
J
Submitted
on
behalf
of
columbia,
west
outdoor
storage,
located
at
5200
east
grand
forest
drive,
the
application
is
to
modify
a
previously
approved
conditional
use
permit
to
expand
an
outdoor
storage
facility
on
2.2
acres
of
area
located
within
a
c4d
zone.
The
c4d
zone
is
shown
in
red
here
on
the
left
and
on
the
right.
You
can
see
the
outline
of
the
existing
facility,
as
well
as
the
2.2
acres
that
they
propose
to
incorporate
into
their
operations.
J
The
existing
facilities
have
been
in
operation
since
1999
the
site
plan
submitted
shows
the
2.2
acre.
Expansion
will
be
for
open
surface
storage
to
provide
for
reasonable
screening
of
this
new
phase,
the
planning
staff
recommends
the
following
conditions
of
approval
number
one:
a
six-foot,
vinyl
fence
on
the
north
and
east
property
lines,
two
create
a
10-foot
wide
landscape
strip
on
the
north
property
line
with
ground
covers
shrubs
and
at
least
eight
trees.
J
Three
create
a
10
foot
wide
landscape
strip
on
the
eastern
property
line
again
with
ground
covers
shrubs
and
at
least
10
trees
consisting
of
at
least
two
different
species
and
lastly,
to
enhance
the
existing
landscaping
on
the
original
portion
of
the
project
that
is
on
grand
forest
and
highway.
21
frontages,
with
that
staff,
recommends
approval
of
conditional
use,
permit
21-00039
with
the
facts,
findings
and
conditions
of
approval
that
are
contained
within
the
staff
report,
and
with
that
I
would
stand
for
any
questions
that
you
have.
C
M
Madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
my
name
is
peter
rockwell.
I
live
at
664,
east
parkway
clark
in
boise
and
generally
in
agreement
with
staff's
recommendations,
we'd
hope
to
be
on
the
consent
agenda.
But
we've
got
somebody
here
that
just
would
like
to
speak
on
it,
so
we're
not.
But
since
I
guess
I
got
some
time
here,
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
we
did
have
our
neighborhood
meeting
and
we
got
some
recommendations
from
the
neighbors
and
we
implemented
those
into
the
plans
and
contrary
to
those
desires.
M
C
You
for
any
questions,
thank
you
before
we
get
to
questions
I'll.
Just
do
a
call
to
see
if
we
have
a
representative
from
the
neighborhood
association.
This
is
the
southeast
neighborhood
association
and
it
appears
we
do
not.
So
we
will,
at
this
point,
move
on
to
questions
from
the
commission
first
after
the
applicant.
T
E
Let's
see
who
am
I
talking
to
brandon
for
hi?
Could
you
pull
up
the
the
satellite
picture
that
is
in
our
package?
I
believe
it's.
You
have
packet
page.
Seven,
there
you
go
so.
Can
you
point
to
the
east
property
line
that
that
one
right
there
am
I
correct
in
seeing
that
we're
not
requiring
any
landscaping
or
like
a
10
foot,
landscape,
buffer
and
any
sort
of
defense.
There's
fencing
required,
but
no
landscape
buffer.
Is
that
correct.
J
E
J
Council
member
gillespie
on
this
plan
shown
we
are
requesting
that
they
have
a
10-foot
landscape
strip
on
the
north
property
line
and
the
east
property
line,
and
that
will
include
a
six-foot,
vinyl
fence.
And
then
the
ground
covers
shrubs
and
a
minimum
of
eight
trees
on
the
north
property
line
and
a
minimum
of
10
trees
on
that
eastern
property
line.
Y
J
Madame
chair,
commissioner
gillespie,
the
application
submitted
was
for
a
vinyl
fence
on
that
southern
property
line
or
along
the
highway
21
frontage
and
a
condition
that
is
also
included
in
the
packet
is
that
they
included
the
cmu
block
wall.
That
is
the
original
facility
be
extended
on
that
south
property
line.
L
E
C
Y
Minutes
material,
I
don't,
I
promise
tim
calendar.
I
live
at
5459
east
philly
room
court,
which
is
the
neighborhood
commissioner
gillespie.
That
board
is
that
east
side
yeah.
So
first
of
all,
madam
chair
commissioners,
thank
you
for
your
time.
I
know
that
a
lot
of
you,
probably
watching
the
raiders
game
or
hanging
out
with
your
family
or
doing
anything
else
on
a
monday
night.
So
I
will
be
very
brief.
Y
By
way
background.
Many
years
ago
I
was
an
assistant
city
attorney.
My
first
job
out
of
law
school
was
at
this
very
building,
and
then
I
went
to
private
practice
spent
a
lot
of
years
as
a
litigator
arguing
running
around
in
conflict.
I
have
no
desire
to
be
in
conflict
with
the
developer,
mr
rockwell
or
anyone
else.
I
believe
in
partnership
and
I
believe
in
people
coming
together
and
finding
solutions
that
are
sustainable,
especially
when
we
think
about
being
neighbors.
Y
I
I'm
not
going
anywhere
and
I'm
sure
he's
not,
and
so
I
think
it's
great
for
us
to
just
spend
time
together
and
figure
out
something
that
works.
I
know
that
standing
in
the
way
of
development
is
similar
to
pushing
a
rope
uphill.
As
my
dad
taught
me,
a
cattle
rancher
from
cascade
idaho
is
full
of
very
strange
metaphors.
Y
So
again,
as
I
said,
instead,
I
want
to
come
together
and
I
believe
it's,
mr
rockwell.
I
apologize
if
I
got
the
name
incorrect
work
together
with
the
commission
through
the
legal
avenues
as
well
as
just
again
create
the
partnership
on
someone
that,
unfortunately,
I
haven't
met
regarding
the
public
hearing
that
took
place
earlier,
I
was
unfortunate
out
of
town.
I
traveled
a
lot
for
work.
I've
gone
away
from
the
litigation
game,
I
was
in
boston.
Y
I
have
pulled
my
neighbors.
I
live
in
a
neighborhood
of
15
houses
and
I
would
actually
stand
contrary
to
what
mr
rockwell
represented.
There
is
nobody
in
my
neighborhood
that
does
not
want
landscaping
on
the
east
and,
in
fact,
there's
high
concern
of
light
pollution
high
concern
of
what
I
would
call
an
attractive
nuisance.
If
you
were
to
go
to
the
easternmost
border
of
the
storage
facility
as
it
exists
today,
you
can
look
over
it
while
standing
on
public
property,
not
trespassing.
I
did
today
and
you
will
see-
I
saw
chemicals.
Y
Y
Again,
if
I
were
mr
rockwell,
I
would
be
very
concerned
about
the
attractive
nuisance
doctrine,
making
sure
that
whatever
it
is,
that's
parked
up
against
our
neighborhood
fence
is
now
promoting
liability
on
him.
The
developers,
the
other
landowners,
as
they
put
things
that
again
might
entice
a
child
to
climb
over
a
six-foot
fence
with
no
landscaping
primary
concerns
again
landscaping,
our
neighbors.
We
want
to
be
good
partners,
we
want
to
be
good,
neighbors
and
again,
standing
in
the
way
of
development
is
like
pushing
a
rope
up
hill.
Y
I
understand
that,
but
I
do
believe
there
are
opportunities
here
to
make
sure
that
from
our
second
floors,
we
don't
look
down
on
broken
down
cars.
We
don't
look
down
on
stacks
of
tires.
We
don't
see
our
property
values
deplete
greatly.
This
is
a
desirable
neighborhood
along
highway
21.
Anyone
driving
to
lucky
peak
is
driven
by
my
house,
the
oregon
trail.
It's
a
place
that
a
house
in
our
neighborhood
went
on
went
up
for
sale
about
a
week
ago,
sold
in
a
day.
Y
I
C
C
M
M
I'm
sorry
I
didn't
remember
your
name.
Callahan
mentioned
about
interesting
objects
over
the
fence
and
stuff
like
that,
are
things
that
are
going
to
be
fixed
with
this.
That's
been
a
vacant
lot
for
the
whole
time.
It's
sometimes
been
play
area
for
kids
or
riding
bikes.
The
owners
of
it
have
asked
people
to
not
do
that.
There
is
a
pathway,
that's
part
of
this
property
that
the
neighbors
have
enjoyed
and
that
will
be
extended.
C
N
D
N
I
think
I
mean
I
think
the
applicants
they've
agreed
to
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
staff
report.
I
think
that
it's
a
reasonable
solution,
concession
to
fence
and
provide
landscaping
on
the
the
east
boundary,
as
well
as
the
south
and
north
boundaries
for
that
matter,
so
it
seems
pretty
above
board
and
typical
for
this
type
of
application.
N
So
I
don't
see
any
reason
why
we
should
hold
up
the
process
here
and
allow
this
project
to
move
forward.
I
appreciate
the
input
and
the
testimony
from
both
the
applicant
and
the
public,
but
again
I
don't
see
really
any
glaring
issues
here
with
this
application,
application
and
or
the
testimony
that
was
given
tonight.
E
I
am
a
little
bit
worried
about
that
east
property
line
and
I'm
wondering
how
the
commission
would
feel
about
requiring
a
cmu
or
similar
cmu
block
along
that
east
property
line.
Is
we
have
the
south
property
line
and
also
at
widening
the
landscaping
buffer
in
condition,
four,
which
is
the
priest
east
property
line
from
10
feet
to
15
feet?
E
Because
you
know,
unlike
the
north
side,
where
the
so
the
drive
aisles
on
the
north
side,
which
provides
you
know
some
space
and
there's
also
landscaping
up
there,
but
on
the
east
side
right?
That
is
right
up
against
those
houses
on
that
east
side.
And
so
I
guess
I'd
be
interested
in
seeing
who
might
bite.
L
O
E
O
E
E
E
A
N
C
N
G
K
K
We
just
went
through
a
record
summer
where
basically
we're
looking
at
is
basically
an
amount
of
asphalt,
that's
going
to
attract
heat
and
radiate
into
the
neighbors
that
live
around
it.
So
to
commissioner
gillespie's
point
I
would
agree,
but
I
would
add
trees
to
provide
some
shade
to
provide.
Essentially
you
know,
a
cooling
effect
that
is
is
is
going
to
be
helpful
unless
I'm
missing
something
because
I
see
on
here
it
says
asphalt
impervious.
G
S
L
S
The
light
pollution
won't
cross
boundaries,
things
like
that
and
then
in
terms
of
the
urban
heat
island.
Well,
I
totally
agree
that.
That's
something
that,
on
other
on
projects,
we
should
be
considering
when
I
review
blueprint
boise
and
the
only
the
only
portion
of
blueprint
boise
that
I
can
find
that
it
speaks
of
urban
heat
islands
in
regards
to
10
mile
creek
policies
and
public
service
facilities.
S
O
Yeah,
so
I
just
wanted
to
speak
to
that
too.
But
one
of
the
conditions
of
the
cup
is
that
the
location
is
compatible
to
the
other
uses
in
the
general
neighborhood,
and
I
mean
we
have
a
facility
here
right
next
to
a
residential
neighborhood,
and
I
think
we
do
have
to
make
some
allowances
and
it
seems
like
a
pretty
less
invasive
allowance
just
to
allow
for
a
little
bit
more
trees
or
whatever.
It
is
walls.
D
As
the
one
who
seconded
the
original
motion,
I
won't
be
supporting
the
amendment.
I
think
what
we're
doing
here
is
substituting
our
judgment
for
professional
planning
staff.
Who've
already
worked
with
the
applicant,
and
a
lot
of
us
here
are
professionally
trained
in
this
kind
of
thing,
but
I
just
don't
think
there's
any
reason
to
substitute
our
judgment
for
mr
wellins
on
this
one.
We've
got
an
amendment.
We
have
the
10
10
foot,
landscape,
buffer
and
requirement
for
trees.
D
C
Okay,
I'm
also
not
going
to
be
supporting
the
amendment
motion.
I
feel
like
it's
a
little
arbitrary
and
I've
been
convinced
by
the
evidence
that
was
brought
by
commissioner
moore,
citing
blueprint
and
code
okay.
So
let's
so,
the
motion
that
we
are
voting
on
now
is
an
amendment
to
the
approval
motion
that
would
require
15
feet
of
landscape
and
a
more
substantial
wall
will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote.
I
N
D
AA
K
C
I
AB
AB
On
july
16th,
the
opponent
appealed
the
planning
director's
decision
based
on
the
ground
school
field
shown
on
this
slide.
A
memo
submitted
by
the
appellant
on
august
27th
elaborated
on
these
grounds
for
appeal
and
included
the
following
concerns
that
a
conditional
use
permit
should
have
been
required,
as
the
existing
streetlight
pole
will
be
replaced
with
a
taller
pole.
AB
AB
C
C
AD
You
so
much
my
name
is
marcia
franklin
and
I
live
at
2521
west,
stuart
avenue
in
boise.
I
want
to
first
say
unequivocally
that
I
did
not
file
my
memo
late
as
the
applicant
alleges
in
a
document
that
was
filed
only
hours
ago,
I
actually
filed
my
initial
appeal
document
ahead
of
time.
On
july
16th,
on
july
26th,
I
wrote
the
planner
to
ask
when
additional
materials
were
due,
she
wrote,
and
I
quote,
for
appeals
of
administrative
applications.
We
do
not
have
a
set
deadline
for
materials.
I
asked
for
further
clarification.
AD
The
planner
wrote
back
for
appeals
of
hearing
level
decisions.
There
is
a
14-day
deadline
to
provide
additional
information,
but
the
requirement
doesn't
apply
for
appeals
of
administrative
decisions,
so
I
am
in
compliance
with
all
deadlines.
The
applicant
itself
could
be
seen
as
violating
a
deadline
by
submitting
their
document
only
hours
before
this
hearing,
as
it
was
due
last
thursday
at
4
59
pm.
AD
I
also
want
to
preface
my
remarks
by
saying
that
nothing
in
the
documents
that
I
submitted,
nor
what
I
will
say
today,
is
in
any
way
impugning
the
work
of
our
city
employees.
I
know
they
take
their
job
seriously,
they're,
often
under
great
pressure
and
they're
doing
the
best
they
can
they've
all
been
very
polite
and
professional
in
my
interactions
with
them
and
I
appreciate
their
service.
AD
Nevertheless,
I
strongly
believe
that
procedural
errors
occurred
in
the
sighting
of
this
facility
and
in
the
process
of
approving
this
permit.
I
also
believe
there
are
deficiencies
in
the
staff
report.
You
have
an
additional
letter
about
that.
I
have
to
say
this
is
one
of
the
most
difficult
things
I've
ever
done,
because
I
am
not
comfortable
at
all
taking
positions.
AD
Never
in
my
most
imaginative
moments
would
I
have
guessed
that
I'd
be
talking
to
you
about
this
subject
or
have
spent
so
much
time
on
this
matter,
but
in
the
end,
the
same
training
and
skills.
I've
used
for
the
past
35
years
in
my
job
are
what
also
led
me
to
realize
that
something
was
just
not
right
in
the
situation.
AD
So,
as
a
citizen,
a
taxpayer
and
a
homeowner
in
my
neighborhood
for
three
decades,
I
thought
it
was
incumbent
for
me
to
say
something
and
to
seek
a
remedy.
My
appeal
is
focused
on
procedural
issues,
which
are
entirely
allowable
and,
in
fact,
are
critical
to
consistent
and
properly
functioning
government.
I
will
also
address
a
recent
dc
circuit
court
of
appeals
decision
because
it
directly
relates
to
the
procedure
you
will
engage
in
today,
namely
your
vote.
AD
The
situation
began
on
april
25th
2021
when
I
came
home
from
work
to
find
heavy
machinery
on
my
lawn
and
had
already
significantly
damaged
it.
I
learned
that
the
contractor
was
attempting
to
bore
several
large
strands
of
fiber
under
the
yards
on
the
east
side
of
26th
street
from
stuart
avenue
south
towards
pleasanton.
The
process
was
failing.
Eventually,
a
backhoe
was
used
to
trench
a
large
hole
in
my
yard
that
didn't
work,
so
they
opened
up
the
street
to
lay
the
fiber.
I
was
confused
about
the
installation
because
we
already
have
high
speed
fiber.
AD
I
was
told
that
it
was
for
5g
that
it
was
terminating
at
the
site
of
a
wooden
light
pole
30
feet
from
my
property.
I
was
also
informed
that
the
poll
would
be
removed
for
a
new
poll
with
antenna
panels
on
it.
There
had
been
no
notice
from
the
city
that
such
a
poll
had
been
proposed
or
approved
when
I
called
boise
pds.
I
was
referred
to
the
light
pole
division.
AD
This
procedure
isn't
transparent
in
any
way,
doesn't
comport
with
city
code
or
the
master
agreement
with
verizon.
In
essence,
it
gives
back
door
and
non-public
approval
to
a
poll
site
before
it
is
formally
approved
in
this
instance,
because
of
that
pre-approval.
As
far
back
as
july
2020,
the
applicant
notified
the
highway
district
that
it
was
requesting
right-of-way
access
to
bore
fiber
to
the
site.
AD
The
applicant
identified,
the
gbs
coordinates,
and
the
poll
number,
which
is
the
same
pole
near
my
house
with
the
pole,
location
and
the
right-of-way
secured
the
applicant
then
engaged
in
the
costly
process
of
laying
fiber.
It
stands
to
reason
that
this
expense
would
not
have
been
undertaken
without
the
foreknowledge
that
the
poll
would
be
approved.
Administrative
approval
for
this
was
a
feta
complete
just
rubber,
stamping
what
had
already
occurred.
This
denies
citizens
the
right
to
a
fair
hearing.
AD
There
were
other
procedural
breaks
as
opposed
to
providing
a
detailed
description
of
the
other
sites
examined,
which
is
required
by
code.
The
applicant
provided
only
a
few
words,
not
even
a
full
sentence
about
two
sites,
both
of
which
were
clearly
inadequate
to
begin
with,
such
as
one
near
a
high
power
line,
one
was
said
to
be
on
private
property,
and
that
is
not
accurate.
These
meager
descriptions
should
not
have
been
approved
because
they
don't
need
code.
AD
If
I
understand
the
descriptions
collect
correctly,
these
sites
were
also
inappropriate
to
begin
with,
because
they
were
either
on
private
property
or
were
too
close
to
home.
So
I
don't
know
why
they
were
looked
at,
even
though
additional
information
is
allowable
in
an
appeal
situation.
It
should
have
been
additional
information
about
the
sites
in
the
original
application,
not
new
sites
looked
at
only
after
my
appeal.
AD
It
seems
clear
that
the
applicant
didn't
do
its
due
diligence
and
looking
for
alternative
sites,
because
it
already
had
a
site
one
now
with
fiber
all
the
way
to
it.
In
my
memo,
I
provided
photos
of
several
other
potential
sites.
There
are
even
more
most
are
on
nearby
thoroughfares,
which
are
more
appropriate
places
for
these
facilities
and
would
still
provide
coverage
for
the
area
you're
entirely
within
your
legal
right
to
consider
aesthetics
when
citing
one
of
these
fwcfs.
AD
Indeed,
your
code
says
these
facilities
should
not
be
quote
visually
obtrusive,
and
yet
this
type
of
pole,
which
will
be
much
higher
than
homes
around
it
and
its
dark
black,
is
not
aesthetically
appropriate
in
this
location.
In
addition,
the
noise
emanating
from
it
is
constant
and
can
be
considered
a
nuisance.
AD
The
applicant
also
did
not
do
its
due
diligence
for
the
study
required
by
the
city
to
indicate
the
need
for
the
tower
that
study,
which
is
a
one-page
drawing,
showed
no
existing
facilities
in
the
area
which
it
was
supposed
to.
Those
facilities
do
exist
at
23rd
and
main
27th
in
maine
24th
and
madison
21st
in
madison,
23rd
in
state
whitewater
and
stuart
and
29th
and
davis
street.
Another
has
been
approved
at
27th
in
pleasanton.
AD
There
is
ample
coverage
in
the
area,
nor
did
the
initial
drawing
show
that
service
will
be
significantly
improved
after
the
facility
goes
in
or
before
and
after
comparison
of
coverage.
Only
after
my
letter
regarding
the
staff
report
that
was
submitted
last
thursday
did
the
applicant
submit
an
additional
drawing.
A
study
was
sedated
yesterday
and
only
uploaded
today.
After
the
time
period
had
closed,
her
material
staff
should
not
have
approved
this
study.
AD
The
permit
is
for
the
co-location
of
wireless
panels
on
an
existing
street
light,
but
in
reality
the
existing
wooden
pole
will
be
removed
and
a
completely
different
pole
will
be
installed,
one
with
the
pedestal,
antenna
and
shroud
underground,
vaults
and
loud
cooling
fans,
regardless
of
whether
there's
a
wooden
pole
at
the
location.
Now
and
regardless
of
whether
the
new
structure
meets
height
restrictions.
AD
AD
The
court,
which
is
often
described
as
the
second
most
important
court
in
the
country,
ordered
the
fcc
to
either
re-evaluate
its
rf
guidelines
or
provide
a
reasoned
explanation
as
to
why
it
doesn't
need
to.
This
is
a
significant
decision.
It's
entirely
possible
that,
in
reviewing
its
reasoning,
the
fcc
will
revise
its
1996
guidelines.
Any
such
findings,
in
turn,
could
affect
the
sighting
of
cell
towers,
such
as
the
one
in
question.
AD
Another
option
would
be
to
delay
the
decision,
while
a
more
appropriate
location
is
found,
they
do
exist
and
nearby.
If
you
decide
not
to
delay
your
decision,
I
request
that
the
permit
be
denied
for
the
reasons
described
above
and
in
the
materials
I
submitted.
My
appeal
memo
describes
each
of
those
points
in
more
detail.
I
hope
you've
had
time
to
read
it.
AD
Staff
responded
with
its
own
memo
and
in
my
correspondence
filed
last
week,
I
show
how
there
are
numerous
deficiencies
in
that
report,
not
the
least
of
which
is
that
it
remains
silent
on
several
of
my
concerns.
In
addition,
many
of
the
responses
are
merely
conclusory
and
without
evidence
which
is
not
allowable.
A
staff
report,
as
you
know,
constitutes
the
findings
for
the
commission's
decision.
AD
A
decision
that
is
based
on
faulty
report
is
a
faulty
decision.
In
conclusion,
thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration
as
mentioned.
I
truly
never
thought
I'd
be
here
discussing
this,
but
I
hope
this
presentation
and
my
documents
give
you
an
understanding
of
why
I
felt
it
was
necessary.
Thank
you.
C
U
U
What
you
see
before
you
is
just
a
brief
summary
of
where
we
are
and
how
we've
gotten
to
this
point
on
the
next
slide,
we'll
just
kind
of
review
the
permit
process
and
the
approval
and
and
how
we
got
to
where
we
were
so
on.
The
next
slide
kind
of
gives
you
a
little
bit
of
timeline.
On
june
9th
verizon
submitted
application
for
certificate
of
zones.
Compliance
in
accordance
with
this
boise
city
code
on
july,
9th
the
planning
department
did
issue
its
recommendation
of
approval
on
the
next
slide.
U
It
goes
into
the
reasoning
behind
the
written
decision.
The
pcc
expressly
stated
as
further
detailed
in
any
attach
report.
The
wireless
communications
facility
complies
with
boise
city
code,
had
also
stated
that
new
antennas
cables
and
ground
equipment
are
being
solved
to
provide
new
frequencies
to
prepare
for
the
next
generation
and
to
relieve
the
capacity
coverage
of
the
area.
The
planning
team
did
find
that
the
applicant's
proposal
was
adequate
and
will
not
adversely
affect
the
neighboring
properties
and
is
in
compliance
with
requirements.
U
Listed
above
on
the
july
16th
dependent
files,
an
application
for
the
appeal
of
the
pds
staff.
Approval
of
the
applications
with
the
below
written
analysis
and
written
memo
form
that
the
decision
is
in
violation
of
the
constitutional
state
or
city
law
that
the
decision
was
made
upon
unlawful
procedure.
U
U
The
next
page
talks
about-
and
I
believe
this
was
commented
earlier-
about
an
appellant
filed,
a
memorandum
in
support
of
her
appeal
and
that
the
written
memo
contains
seven
grounds
upon
which
she
says
the
appeal
should
be
granted
and
on
the
13th.
The
planning
staff
prepares
a
written
memo
for
the
planning
zoning
commission's
hearing.
That
outlines
the
reasons
why
the
planning
director's
approval
of
the
permit
was
valid
and
why
none
of
the
grounds
put
forth
by
appellate
are
valid
or
sufficient
to
grant
the
appeal.
U
So
on
the
next
page,
we
talk
about
why
this
why
the
site
is
needed
on
the
next
page?
It
kind
of
just
gives
you
a
highlight
of
what
you'll
see
on
the
next
few
pages.
The
green
is
where
the
wireless
service
is
good,
the
yellow
is
where
the
service
needs
to
be
improved,
and
the
gray
is
where
the
wireless
service
is
at
bad.
U
So,
on
the
next
page,
what
you
see
here,
you
can
see
some
of
the
projects,
one
of
the
sites
off
to
the
right,
where
you
see
some
yellow,
where
you
see
some
gray
in
the
area
at
26
and
stuart,
you
don't
actually
see
any
coverage.
That's
because
the
coverage
is
not
there
on
the
next
slide,
we
show
what
the
coverage
will
be
would
be
after
the
site
was
approved
and
the
site
was
installed
and
built.
U
U
C
AC
Okay,
just
waiting,
I
don't
think
my
video
is
working,
but
my
name
is
alison
burke.
I
am
an
attorney
for
verizon
wireless.
My
address
is
633
17th
street
denver,
colorado
80202,
and
so
we
would
just
like
to
start
first
by
stating
that
we
fully
adopt
and
incorporate
the
planning
staff's
memorandum
and
their
analysis
recommending
the
denial
of
the
appeal
and
recognizing
that
our
application
was
complete
and
that
it
complied
with
the
boise
code
requirements
in
their
entirety.
AC
Keep
going
to
the
next
one
and
to
the
next
one
as
well,
and
so
miss
franklin
also
referenced.
A
recent
august
decision
from
the
dc
circuit
court
of
appeals
in
which
the
the
dc
circuit
did
not
actually
change
the
fcc
regulations.
It
did
not
change
the
guidance.
It
did
not
invalidate
the
federal
telecommunications
act
or
existing
rf
regulations
for
telecommunications
providers,
and
all
it
did
was
ask
that
that
the
fcc
provide
a
reasoned
explanation
for
its
guidance
or
re-evaluate
its
standards,
but
as
of
today
and
going
forward
until
that's
done.
AC
The
federal
telecommunications
act
is
still
good
law
and
the
rf
regulations
that
are
in
effect
are
still
good.
Law
and
verizon
complies
with
both
of
those
verizon
will
not
receive
its
license
from
the
fcc
for
this
particular
wireless
facility,
unless
it
complies
with
the
fcc
regulations
and
the
planning
and
zoning
commission
is
not
allowed
to
deny
a
permit
when
if
verizon
is
in
compliance
with
those
regulations,.
AC
And
then
I
think
the
last
thing
that
we'd
like
to
mention
is
that
miss
franklin
identified
a
number
of
kind
of
subjective
concerns
about
the
look
of
the
pole
that
it's
taller
than
the
houses
that
it's
black
and
unsightly,
but
none
of
these
are
requirements
in
the
boise
city
code
and
all
of
the
required
documentation
was
submitted
and
from
there.
I
think
we'll
turn
it
over
to
the
commission
for
questions.
AC
C
E
So
in
my
questions,
I'm
going
to
focus
on
what
I
think
is
the
most
salient
or
the
most
important
I
should
say
or
or
holds
the
most
weight
would
be
of
of
miss
franklin's
objections,
and
that
would
be
this
question
of
whether
a
conditional
use
is
required.
Because
is
this
a
new
poll
in
you
know
in
a
in
a
location
that
didn't
have
one
before
and
it
and
in
it,
because
if
it
is,
then
it's
sort
of
a
change
of
use
and
a
cup
might
be
required.
E
As
I
understand
the
logic,
so
is
the
city's
position
help
me
make
sure
I
understand
it.
So
if
you
could
repeat
it
and
or
tell
me
if
I'm
right
or
wrong,
the
city's
position
is
that
there's
an
existing
street
light
there
now,
but
the
the
report
says
a
street
light
facility,
so
I
think
of
like
a
factory
that
makes
street
lights.
So
can
you
tell
me
what
is
there
now?
E
AB
Yeah,
madam
chair,
I'm,
commissioner
of
gillespie.
Currently
what
is
located
at
that
location
is
a
25-foot
utility
pole
that
has
a
city
of
boise
street
light
on
it
following
the
installation
of
the
project.
If
it
is
approved,
there
would
be
a
35
foot
pole
still
with
the
city
of
boise
street
light,
but
also
including
the
wireless
communications
facilities.
E
Q
AB
E
Madam
chairman,
commissioner
gillespie,
so
the
appellant
is
alleging
that,
in
addition,
you
know
to
the
height
going
up
that
there's
going
to
be
noise
and
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
some
other
kinds
of
of
deleterious
effects
right.
So
it's
basically
noise
because
there's
going
to
be
machines
running,
I
didn't
quite
understand
that
and
then
the
folks
at
verizon
said:
there's
not
you
know,
there's
not
going
to
be
a
generator
there.
Could
you
just
explain
to
me
like
what's
really
going
to
be
there
that
might
make
noise
or
cause
you
know
disruption
in
the
neighborhood?
AB
Yeah
they
can
definitely
pop
in
what
will
be
there
is
the
pole
and
then
three
underground
vaults
that
will
hold
the
accessory
equipment,
as
verizon
stated,
there's
no
generator
associated
with
the
project.
So
while
it
is
expected
to
make
some
noise
not
at
a
level
that
would
be
considered
to
be
adverse
to
the
neighborhood.
U
Thank
you.
Yes,
yes,
hi
jason
evans,
3327,
north
eagle,
road
110-131.
Yes
to
answer
the
question
about
noise,
there
is
a
slide
hum
that
is
created
by
the
by
the
equipment.
There
is
no
generator
that
will
run
every
now
and
then
or
anything
like
that,
so
there
is
no
generator
noise.
The
hum
that
you
would
hear
would
be
the
standard
noise
that
you
would
hear,
perhaps
from
a
idaho
power
transformer
box
or
from
any
type
of
equipment
that
idle
power
would
as
well
have
in
the
right
of
way.
C
E
AD
C
AD
AD
Some
people
are
concerned
about
property
value
as
well,
but
this
is
these
are
I'm
concerned.
I
really
truly
am
concerned
with
the
procedure
of
how
this
occurred.
It
was
not
transparent
and
I
believe
it
should
have
been
and
so
yeah,
but
I
I
think
that
there's
many
people
who
are
concerned
about
potential
deleterious
effects
from
being
very
close.
AD
AD
O
AB
O
C
Okay,
see
no
further
questions
from
the
commission.
We
will
now
move
to
public
testimony.
If
you
are
online
and
would
like
to
testify
on
this
item,
please
virtually
raise
your
hand.
Do
we
have
anybody
here
in-house
that
would
like
to
testify
on
this
item.
Please
come
right
on
up
all
right
cnn.
We
will
move
to
diane
your
app
please
and
meet
when
you're
ready
start
with
your
name
and
address
and
you'll
have
three
minutes.
AE
AE
So
all
of
these
wonderful
effects
are
not
anything
that
will
result
in
any
utility.
For
me,
my
concerns
are
as
follows:
the
aesthetics.
When
I
first
heard
of
this
lease
to
verizon,
I
imagined
a
small
device
being
put
on
top
of
an
existing
wooden
light
pole.
I
did
not
imagine
a
new
intrusive,
35
foot
tall
pole
looming
over
our
quaint
neighborhood.
AE
AE
The
35-foot
tall
mast
that
would
be
about
two
feet
in
diameter
would
be
built
on
a
large,
concrete
pad,
and
I
have
just
now
learned
with
three
concrete
vaults
in
an
area
where
we
have
planted
and
nurtured
lavender
plants.
The
preliminary
construction
has
already
resulted
in
a
lot
of
disturbance
and
disruption
to
the
site.
AE
The
full
installation
of
the
pole
and
the
technological
hardware,
on
top
of
the
pole,
will
be
a
major
disruption
to
our
very
quiet
corner.
I
understand
that
it
is
in
the
road
right
of
way,
but
we
have
been
stewards
of
that
property
of
that
strip
of
land
through
the
time
that
the
house
was
built
in
1946.
AE
AE
I
C
AF
AF
I
was
struck
tonight
by
looking
at
the
signal
map
that
the
verizon
engineer
shared
that
it
indicates
that
the
signal
map
really
only
affects
the
r2
zone
and
the
residents
of
the
r2
zone
haven't
had
any
vote
or
any
say,
or
even
any
awareness
that
the
project
is
going
on.
That's
just
being
done
so
so
you
know
you've
heard
from
the
three
people,
who
probably
are
the
only
three
people
in
the
neighborhood
that
are
aware
of
this
tower
project
and
it's
a
tower.
It's
not
a
it's,
not
a
utility
pole.
AF
That's
a
steel
tower
you
I!
I
would
like
to
hear
see
the
commission
review
the
differences
between
the
photograph
of
the
pole
and
the
packet
and
and
the
diagram
or
the
drawing
of
the
tower
it's
a
black
steel
tower
with
with
rf
antennas
at
the
top
of
it.
So
so
I
I'm
I'm
adjusting
mostly
to
the
process
and
and
the
fact
that
the
neighborhood
is
largely
ignorant
that
this
process
is
going
on
by
having
an
administrative
review.
AF
If,
if
the
neighbors
had
not
become
aware,
and
if
ms
franklin
hadn't
done
the
research
and
the
homework
and
and
all
of
the
the
study
that
she's
done,
we
I
wouldn't
be
aware,
I
would
not
be
aware
this
tower
would
be
installed
and
I'd
be
looking
at
a
tower
that
I
frankly
don't
need.
So
that's
pretty
much
my
input,
the
the
administrative
approval
process,
has
not
served
the
neighborhood
in
in
in
this
change.
AC
We
would
just
like
to
reiterate
that
the
boise
city
code
outlines
all
of
the
requirements
for
administrative
review
for
this
wireless
communication
facility
and
verizon
complied
with
all
of
those
requirements.
That's
what
it's
required
to
do
and
that's
what
it
did
so
any
issues
with
the
process
or
with
the
submissions
it.
You
know
it's
not
it's
directed
at
the
wrong
place,
because
the
planning
staff
found
in
july
that
we
met
the
requirements
and
they
found
again
even
after
an
appeal
was
submitted
that
we
still
meet
those
requirements.
AC
C
AD
Very
much
going
back
just
briefly
to
the
noise
issue.
They
do
make
noise
and
there
are
people
who
have
trouble
sleeping
near
them.
I
don't
know
if
this
one's
going
to
be
different.
The
staff
report
didn't
indicate
that,
but
there's
definitely
noise
emanating
from
them
and
you
can
watch
people
walk
by
and
stop
and
kind
of
go.
What's
that.
As
far
as
the
studies
go,
you
know,
there's
going
to
be
obviously
a
blank
slate.
When
you
look
at
a
little
map
that
says
how
much
5g
is
there?
Clearly
there
isn't
any.
AD
So
it's
a
spurious
study
if
you
were
to
look
at
4g
and
you
look
at
that.
What
already
exists
right
now
for
coverage,
it's
quite
sufficient
and
there's
lots
of
fiber
as
well.
That
there's
there's
been
no
evidence
that
this
is
needed
in
this
place.
As
I
mentioned,
I
listed
all
of
the
other
wireless
communicate
wcfs
in
the
area.
AD
AD
AD
AD
They
should
have
gone
out
asked
for
a
particular
poll
gone
through
the
process
of
proving
why
the
tower
needed
to
be
there
and
then
get
it
approved
or
not,
and
then
start
the
process
of
chunking
the
fiber,
but
clearly
clearly
the
applicant
knew
that
it
had
the
ability
to
use
this
location
and
that's
why
all
that
pre-work
was
done
and
that's
really
what
triggered
all
of
this.
For
me,
it's
not
kosher.
AD
AD
We
are
looking
at
having
a
tower
in
our
neighborhood.
That
is
not
does
not
comport
with
this
residential
area
at
all
and
that
there
are
places
very
close
by
on
the
main
thoroughfare
like
27th
street.
It
could
be
used
and
still
provide
the
same
coverage.
I
should
say
too,
that
the
map
that
was
shown
it
really
doesn't
even
show
that
the
coverage
increases
all
that
much
a
little.
AD
My
house,
the
house
across
the
street
and
swimming
pool,
will
get
better
phone
coverage,
but
for
all
of
what's
happening
I
was
surprised
it
really
is
not
substantially
boosting
coverage.
So
I
I
really
don't
feel
that
the
case
has
been
made
that
this
particular
tower
needs
to
be
in
this
particular
location
or
that
the
procedure
was
followed
correctly.
Thank
you.
C
C
D
I
will
indeed,
since
it's
the
second
appeal
we've
had
tonight.
I
would
just
caution
people
here.
Look
we've
seen
these
things
before
this
isn't
our
first
rodeo
going
through
these
these
tower
things,
we've
seen
all
these
legal
objections
before
and
frankly,
all
the
legal
objections
for
this
appeal
have
been
debunked
all
over
the
country.
These
are
boilerplate
legal
arguments
from
opposition
groups
that
do
this
for
a
living
across
the
country.
So
I'm
really,
frankly,
super
disappointed
to
see
this
as
the
basis
for
an
appeal.
D
I
am
sensitive
to
the
fact
that
people
don't
understand
administrative
approval
process
and
that
neighbors
don't
like
change
that.
That
makes
a
lot
of
sense
to
me,
but
this
is
not
the
way
to
get
your
voices
heard
on.
These
kind
of
things
is
to
bury
us
in
boilerplate
legal
stuff
that
comes
from
some
foundation,
who
opposes
5g
towers
all
over
the
country.
It's
just
it's
not
the
way
to
get
it
done.
O
Madam
chair,
commissioner
chinfrog,
as
the
applicant
pointed
out,
they've
they've
met
the
requirement
of
the
administrative
review,
so
a
cp,
a
cup
would
have
been
required
if
there
was
a
new
poll,
but
there's
already
an
existing
street
light
in
that
location.
So
it's
not
considered
to
replace,
or
so
this
is
considered
a
replacement
poll.
O
C
I
C
Z
The
project
site
is
1.71
acres
located
at
1803,
south
maple
grove
road
in
an
a1
zone
district.
The
site
was
originally
developed
with
the
church
in
1983.
over
time
that
property
has
changed
hands.
The
site
has
been
acquired
by
the
chabad
jewish
center,
which
filed
for
a
cep
in
2018
that
included
a
church
expansion
and
an
addition
of
a
single
family
dwelling
to
the
site.
Z
The
grounds
for
appeal
are
for
the
proposed
basketball
court,
which
for
adversely
impacting
the
neighborhood
due
to
noise,
lighting
and
obstruction
of
you.
Late
correspondence
was
also
received,
which
included,
signed,
petition
and
letters
detailing
concerns
regarding
incompatibility
and
decrease
to
property
values.
Z
Z
W
Evening,
my
name
is
michael
valentine.
I
am
the
vice
president
of
the
board
of
directors
for
the
joliet
place
subdivision,
along
with
mr
calvin
we'd
like
to
present
our
opposition
for
the
modification.
If
I
could
I'll
go
ahead
and
read
this
now
withstanding
other
fiduciary
duties
and
responsibilities,
juliet
police,
neighborhood
association,
incorporated
board
of
directors
hereafter
referred
to
as
the
board
has
to
enforce
membership
membership,
meaning
tax
being
owners
and
real
of
real
est
real
property
within
the
boundaries
of
the
juliet
place.
W
A
short
history
of
the
at
eight,
the
property
at
1803,
south
maple
grove,
road,
boisei,
three,
seven,
zero,
nine,
which
is
currently
the
shabbat
jewish
center.
A
night
from
190
1990
excuse
me
to
2013,
was
new
life
church
from
2014
to
2017,
was
faith
community
and
from
2017
to
present
the
chabad
jewish
center.
W
Additionally,
when
speaking
with
homeowners,
they
have
a
major
concern
with
the
noise
factor
that
will
be
generated
from
both
the
playground
and
the
basketball
court,
as
outlined
in
our
petition
and
opposition.
This
position,
the
petition
circulated
the
neighborhood
the
last
week
of
august
and
the
first
week
of
september.
The
petition
has
been
rendered
with
this
letter.
W
W
There
are
no
playgrounds
for
basketball
courts
than
feet
of
the
private
residents
in
ada
county
that
we're
aware
of
finally
being
good
neighbors
has
been
and
will
continue
to
be
important
to
those
that
live
in
julia
place.
Neighborhood
community
in
the
summer
of
2011,
the
board
addressed
issues
with
the
pastor
of
the
new
life
church
and
they
were
resolved
again
and
again.
In
the
summer
of
2014,
the
board
had
a
meeting
with
the
pastor
of
faith
community
church
with
good
results.
W
The
same
cannot
be
said
when
it
comes
to
interactions
between
the
board
and
residences,
with
the
rabbi
of
the
chabad
jewish
center
and
still
ongoing
and
documented.
As
recently
as
august,
27
2021
good
neighbors
also
maintain
their
property.
The
property
at
1803,
south
maple
road
road
has
been
in
poor
shape
after
the
faith,
community
church
moved
untreated,
turf,
noxious,
weeds,
untreated
and
diseased
trees,
boats,
chairs
lumber
and
other
debris
uncovered
and
not
screened
from
view.
W
W
The
positioning
of
the
basketball
court
is
our
main
concern,
along
with
the
noise
from
the
from
the
playground
that
is
in
proposal
myself
and
and
mr
calvin
and
his
family
have
been
residents
for
over.
You
know.
Quite
a
few
years
of
myself,
I've
been
there
over
20
years
that
property
right.
There
is
pretty
much
of
an
eyesore
when,
when
you're
driving
through
it,
it
just
hasn't
been
kept
up
to
quality.
The
trees
are
in
dire
need
of
help.
W
The
grass
is
barely
maintained
and
we
also
see
a
lot
of
just
scattered
debris
and
so
forth
around
the
around
the
property
that
is
not
covered
out
of
view
out
of
sight
of
the
the
neighborhood
and
our
neighborhood
is
kind
of
a
u-shape
actually
goes
around
the
chabad
jewish
center,
and
so
there
will
be
a
lot
of
reflective
noise
off
the
walls
of
the
homes.
I
believe,
echoing
so
forth,
from
the
basketballs
bouncing
on
the
hard
concrete.
AG
Hello,
my
name
is
ariah
orr
and
my
address
is
725
east
2nd
street
in
meridian,
idaho,
madam
chair
and
other
commissioners.
Thank
you
for
your
time
tonight,
as
outlined
in
the
staff
report,
playgrounds
and
parks
are
in
out
are
in
allowed
use
in
an
a1
zone
because
of
this
I'll
try
to
make
our
rebuttal
short
is
to
not
spend
unnecessary
time
outlining
items
that
are
already
in
the
staff
report.
AG
One
of
the
items
addressed
by
the
appellant
is
the
issue
of
sight
lighting.
As
stated
in
the
original
cup,
there
is
a
conditional
report
condition
of
approval
that
requires
a
photometric
plan.
While
we
don't
have
that
available
to
view
tonight.
This
condition
of
approval
is
intended
to
mitigate
light
pollution
onto
the
neighboring
properties,
and
the
exterior
lighting
is
also
located
centrally
on
the
site,
which
further
mitigates
those
light
pollution
efforts.
AG
There
is
also
an
existing
six-foot
fence,
as
outlined
in
the
report
on
the
west
and
south
property
lines
that
are
abutting
the
neighborhood
properties.
This
fence
also
has
a
dual
purpose
of
mitigating
noise
that
may
be
generated
from
the
basketball
court
and
playground
the
current
use
of
the
site.
That
is
not
occupied
by
the
building
or
parking
is
already
being
utilized
as
a
park
in
play
area
by
the
chabad.
A
new
basketball
court
and
playground
is
not
a
far
cry
from
the
current
use.
AG
The
court
is
also
located
strategically
to
impact
as
little
neighbors
as
possible.
The
playground
is
also
located
in
a
similar
fashion
being
located
centrally
on
the
site.
The
established
zoning
codes
and
conditions
of
approval
from
this
condition,
or
this
modification,
but
also
the
original
permit
or
conditional
use
permit,
are
intended
to
manage
noise
and
light
during
the
use
of
the
site.
Additionally,
speaking
to
the
obstruction
of
views,
the
new
addition
of
the
mikva
will
not
be
higher
than
the
existing
building.
C
Thank
you,
mr
great,
so
with
that
I
will
call
to
see
if
we
have
anybody
representing
the
neighborhood
association
tonight.
I
think
this
is
the
southwest
ada
county
alliance
revenue
representative
from
that
neighborhood
association
here
tonight.
It
does
not
appear
so.
Okay
with
that
we'll
move
to
public
testimony.
N
L
N
AG
Yes,
the
basketball
court
is
oriented
in
order
to
like.
I
originally
said
the
that
part
of
the
site
is
right
now
intended
and
used
as
a
big
open
play
area,
and
the
chabad
is
trying
to
maintain
as
much
as
that
as
much
of
that
open
grassy
area
as
possible,
and
so
orienting
it
so
that
the
long
way
is
going
east
to
west
also
helps
to
keep
that
open
space
as
large
as
possible,
but
also
keeps
it
away
from
as
many
residences
as
possible.
N
L
N
AG
S
Z
E
Z
E
Z
X
Z
L
N
N
C
X
C
X
X
X
C
X
C
X
John
tetro
9120
west
mediterranean
drive,
boise,
idaho,
83709
and
I'm
here
to
oppose
mainly
the
basketball
court.
If
you
look
at
that,
is
that
up
for
everybody
to
see?
If
you
look
at
that,
you
can
see
our
subdivision
is
in
the
u
shape
and
if
you
put
up
the
yellow
one,
if
you
don't
mind
where
that
red
square
is,
is
where
the
first
church
well,
I've
been
there
15
16
years,
and
we
moved
to
that
community
because
it
was
small,
it
was
quiet
and
they
say,
location,
location,
location.
X
X
When
that
church
changed
to
the
next
church
from
new
life.
To
grace
or
faith
whatever
it
was
changed
to
that
we
had
the
same
issue.
We
went
over
and
talked
to
the
pastor.
We
asked
him
to
please
adjust
his
sprinklers.
He
did.
We
had
no
issues
there
and
then
about
four
years
ago
or
so,
when
the
center
moved
in
there
we
had
the
same
issues.
X
Here
our
homes
aren't
built
for
sounds,
for
example,
that's
that's
on
a
rug.
You
do
that
on
concrete.
I
don't
know
what
your
surface
is
back
there,
but
if
you
do
that
on
concrete,
it
echoes
through
our
u-shaped
community
right
there.
You
see
the
u-shape,
how
our
subdivision
is,
and
that
echoes
and
we're
feet
away
from
that.
Our
home
is
and
we're
not
designed
for
that.
Some
of
us
in
the
subdivision
there
don't
just
work
nine
to
five.
Some
of
us
work
all
three
shifts
myself
there'll
be
days.
X
I
do
20
hours
some
days
I'll
be
resting
during
wall.
Other
people
might
be
at
work,
the
nine
to
five
shift,
and
I
don't
need
bouncing
balls
or
people
making
the
noise
they
make
on
a
basketball
court.
Besides
balls
bouncing
on
on
the
court.
Even
if
you
rotate
that
basketball
court
it's
going
to
have
issues,
I
see
them
down
to
eight
seconds.
Is
there
any
way
I
could
get
another
minute
or
two?
I'm.
X
C
C
AA
AA
I
would
like
to
state
that
this
property
has
been
zoned
a1,
which
allows
parks
which
allows
the
basketball
court.
In
other
words
that
is
not
subject
to
this
conditional
use.
Permit
and
it's
not
subject
to
this
appeal.
Technically
hypothetically,
a
basketball
court
can
be
built
without
a
building
permit
without
the
conditional
use
permit.
AA
In
addition,
it
was
already
under
a
conditional
use
permit,
as
previously
mentioned,
for
two
property
owners
before
us,
using
a
similar
use
as
a
house
of
worship
with
excess
land
that
was
obviously
considered
for
expansion,
a
playground,
a
basketball
court,
etc
is
very
common
for
churches
and
houses
of
worship.
This
basketball
court
will
be
no
different
than
a
neighbor's
driveway
that
kids
in
the
community
gather
to
play
basketball
in
it,
and
it's
not
going
to
generate
any
more
noise
than
that.
AA
Finally,
I'd
like
to
say
that
flipping
the
basketball
court
90
degrees
would
be
a
great
disadvantage
to
our
usage
of
the
property,
because
it
would
eliminate
any
decent
size
or
configuration
of
a
playing
field
which
is
currently
there.
So
if
you
flipped
it
the
other
way
that
would
actually
greatly
adversely
affect
the
property
usage.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
all
members
of
the
commission.
I
really
appreciate
your
assistance
in
this
project.
AA
C
C
AG
C
G
X
X
X
That's
I
guess
a
one-story
house
they're
putting
in
there.
I
think
it's
a
one-story
house-
and
I
don't
know
the
square
footage,
but
it's
going
to
take
a
lot
of
that
green
off
of
that
property
right
there.
On
top
of
that
now,
they're
going
to
like,
I
don't
know
if
it's
asphalt
concrete,
what
type
of
quality
of
basketball
court
they're
going
to
put
in
there,
but
that's
that's
going
to
take
a
lot
of
green
out
of
there
too.
X
It
was
that
all
they
want
to
talk
about
was
putting
in
this
basketball,
court
and
playground
and
where
we
don't
want
any
modifications,
more
modifications
made
to
that
property
and
they
talk
about
other
houses
of
worship.
Having
playgrounds,
I
don't
know
one
house
of
worship
in
this
county
that
has
a
basketball
court
within
feet
of
private
property,
I'm
not
even
sure
if
there's
basketball,
courts
within
feet
of
anybody's
private
property,
and
I
would
hope
the
people
sitting
up
there
that
make
these
decisions
would
think
about.
X
If
you
were
in
that
close
proximity,
if
you're
one
of
those
homes
that
lived
in
that
close
proximity
of
that,
would
you
like
a
basketball
court
put
on
there-
and
I
know
I
spoke
earlier
as
just
a
resident
of
the
community,
but
mike
said
his
piece.
I
also
my
wife
and
I
sent
a
letter
in.
I
don't
know
if
it's
part
of
your
package
there
or
not,
but
I
grew
up
in
a
parsonage.
X
My
dad's
preached
from
the
greek
in
hebrew,
I'm
very
familiar
with
this,
and
I
also
know
that
my
father
never
accepted
one
dime
for
the
government
for
anything-
and
I
don't.
I
know
this
varies
from
this,
but
we're
all
tax
paying
homeowners
there
that
work
hard
when
we
pay
property
tax
that
that
section
right
there
doesn't
pay
a
dime
of
property
tax
that
I
know
of
now.
I
know
this
might
vary
from
how
you
guys
look
at
this,
but
this
will
devalue
my
property.
X
X
X
Well,
it's
that's
a
u-shaped
subdivision.
When
a
noise
is
made
on
that
property,
it
goes
through
the
whole
thing
like
knocking
off
all
those
houses
there.
In
fact,
on
the
other
side
of
the
street,
you
can
actually
hear
that
and
my
my
hope
that
you
guys
would
consider
this,
even
though
it's
maybe
legally
okay
to
put
one
in
there,
just
because
it's
legal
doesn't
mean
it's
morally
or
ethically
right
to
put
one
in
there.
X
That's
my
wife
right
there
that
man
that
you
heard
talking
earlier
got
her
face.
One
day
was
yelling
at
her.
I
happened
to
see
it
from
my
windows
about
30
yards
away.
I
was
in
his
face
in
a
minute
surprised,
he's
still
on
his
feet,
but
that
has
nothing
to
do
with
what's
going
on
today,
but
they
are
terrible
neighbors
and
of
anybody.
A
church,
a
house
of
god,
should
love
their
neighbors,
not
sit
here
and
move
into
a
place
and
start
adding
on
stuff
and
asking
for
things
from
the
state.
X
X
They
put
up
a
concrete
10
by
20-foot
place
and
put
an
awning
over
it.
That's
all
they've
done
in
three
and
a
half
years,
and
now
they
say
oh,
what
are
you
thinking
about?
Maybe
doing
half
court?
Maybe
maybe
we'll
do
a
full
court.
Well,
pretty
soon.
There
won't
be
any
green
left
on
that
property
right
now.
There's
boats
out
there
there's
garbage
out
there,
there's
lumber
out
there
in
plain
view,
and
I
see
my
time's
up,
but
I
don't
know
how
to
address
you
guys,
but
thank
you
for
your
time.
Thank.
N
Yeah
man,
I'm
sure,
thank
you,
I
think,
at
a
high
level.
I
don't
see
much
of
solid
ground
to
support
the
appeal.
I
don't
think
there
was
any
sort
of
any
misjudgment
by
approving
the
playground
or
the
basketball
court
in
this.
In
this
situation,
I
would
like
to
entertain
with
my
fellow
commissioners
adding
a
condition
to
this
appeal
that
the
basketball
court
be
located
away
from
the
property
line.
N
I'm
not
quite
sure
how
best
to
phrase
that
you
know
we
have
testimony
that
says
they're
discussing
now
a
half
court
basketball
court.
It
seems
to
me,
though,
just
in
the
spirit
of
being
neighborly,
you
know
we
would.
We
would
want
to
see
this
basketball
court
away
from
the
property
line
right.
It
sounds
like
you
know,
there's
it's
not
the
best
relationship.
N
You
know
between
this
organization
and
the
neighborhood
currently,
but
I'd
like
to
see
you
know
at
least
maybe
that
olive
branch
presented
out
there
and
then
I
think,
on
the
flip
side
of
that
coin,
I
would
really
hope
to
encourage
the
neighborhood
to
be
a
little
bit
more.
Accepting
that
we're
talking
about
a
playground
and
a
basketball
court.
AH
Madam
chair,
commissioner
squires,
I
concur
with
everything
that
commissioner
schaefer
said.
You
know
we're
pretty
limited
in
what
we
can
review
tonight
and
there's
obviously
a
lot
of
emotion,
and
I
heard
it
on
both
sides
and
I'm
sorry
for
the
situation
that
you
each
find
yourself
in
and
I'm
hoping
that
you
can
come
to
some
sort
of
agreement
to
be
able
to
live
and
work
next
to
each
other.
AH
AH
Again,
I
think
staff
did
a
great
job.
Delaney
did
a
great
job
at
outlining.
You
know
these
are
permissible,
uses
view
sheds.
You
know
that
was
one
of
the
items
for
appeal.
Few
sheds
are
not
protected.
We
have
to
say
this.
I
think
at
every
meeting
these
days.
That's
just
simply
not
something
that
we
can
control,
and
you
know
the
lighting
was
an
item,
but
it
doesn't
sound
like
that's
truly
an
issue
at
this
point.
AH
The
other
thing
that
I
just
wanted
to
bring
up
is
you
know,
there's
always
this
conversation
about
property
values
and
what
will
be
impacted
and
what
I
can
tell
you
as
a
professional
planner
and
someone
who's
been
in
economic
development
for
22
years,
is
that
neighborhood
churches
typically
impact
property
values
in
a
very
positive
way.
I
I
could
not
imagine
in
any
situation
where
this
would
be
negatively
impactful
to
neighbors
into
your
property
values.
AH
Again,
that's
not
something
that
we
can
really
even
consider
tonight,
but
I
just
wanted
to
put
that
on
the
record
and
regarding
the
comments
about
property
not
being
maintained,
there
are
processes
for
that.
If
that
is
indeed
the
case,
I
I
can't
say
yes
or
no,
if
it
is,
but
if
it
is
there's
city
code
enforcement-
hopefully
you
all
can
come
to
a
agreement
to
be
able
to
work
together
moving
forward,
but
again
there's
a
separate
process
for
that
alone.
AH
L
I
H
H
L
H
Impacts
to
to
neighboring
properties,
you
know
whether,
from
the
you
know,
the
increased
intensity
or
location
of
a
basketball
court.
The
commission
certainly
has
that
discretion,
but,
of
course,
that's
not
to
say
whether
whether
you're
obligated
to
find
that
there
are
adverse
impacts.
So
the
commission
does
have
that
discretion
to
consider.
J
H
C
K
I'll
be
supportive
of
the
motion,
but
I
actually
would
encourage
potentially
this
change
in
the
orientation
of
the
basketball
court
for
a
very
good
reason
that
hasn't
been
brought
up
yet
I
grew
up.
I
grew
up
playing
basketball
and
this
is
probably
going
to
be
an
indication
of
how
well
there
are
a
lot
of
basketballs
they're
going
to
go
over
that
fence.
K
There's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
kids
shooting
from
half
court
that
that
ball
is
going
to
go
sailing
right
over
the
fence
and
it's
going
to
be
a
bad,
a
worse
situation.
Potentially
that's
going
to
cause
more
acrimony
than
already
exists,
and
while
I
respect
and
understand
the
desire
to
preserve
the
play
space,
this
in
that
instance,
the
noise
is
going
to
be
the
noise.
I
don't
think
that's
going
to
change.
I
know
that's
not
going
to
change,
but
at
the
very
least
we
can
do
something
about
that
and
I
think
we
should.
K
E
Movement
that
we
amend
mr
schaefer's
motion
to
include
a
new
condition
that
the
basketball
court
be
rotated
90
degrees,
so
that
it
has
a
north-south
orientation
and
that,
to
the
maximum
extent
possible,
it'd
be
placed
away
from
the
western
property
line
and
the
southern
property
line
too.
So
I
made
that
motion.
E
E
V
E
E
My
computer
died,
we've
been
here
so
long,
but
you
know
this
is
an
open
record.
I
think
the
fifth
criteria
for
conditional
use
permit
is,
you
know
it
doesn't
adversely
impact
other
properties.
I
think
this
is
a
very
reasonable
thing
to
do
to
minimize
impact,
and
I
think
it
would
I
I
don't
think
it'll
adversely
affect
the
applicant's
ability.
E
They've
got
a
lot
of
land,
so
I
don't
think
it's
a
big
deal
there.
I
disagree
with
chris
that
the
way
it's
oriented
now,
if
you
shoot
a
layup
and
you're
driving
east
you're,
gonna
run
into
the
wall
and
if
you
shoot
a
layup
driving
west
you're
gonna
run
into
a
fence
and
chuck
the
ball
over
into
this
guy's
yard.
So
like
guys,
let's
just
we
have
an
adverse
impact
here.
We
all
know
it's
not
like
the
end
of
the
world,
but
let's
just
rotate
that
court.
C
S
Commissioner,
so
I
I'm
in
sport
of
motion
rotating
and
getting
that
basketball
court
away
from
the
from
the
fence
and
and
for
child
care
uses.
One
of
the
discretionary
conditions
of
approval
is
to
provide
fencing
or
landscape
screening
from
adjacent
properties,
and
I
know
this
isn't
a
child
care
use
specifically,
but
it
is
a
child
play
area
that
you
might
expect
to
see
in
a
child
care
use
in
a
use
like
that,
additional
landscaping
might
be
required.
There
makes
sense
that
it
might
be
required
here,
just
in
a
similar
use
summons
for
the
motion.
D
I
will
be
supporting
commissioner
gillespie.
I
thought
the
exact
same
thing:
having
played
basketball
in
high
school,
that
gonna
be
a
lot
of
balls
over
the
fence.
That's
one
thing,
but
just
the
other
thing
too
is
just
doesn't
make
any
sense
from
a
circulation
standpoint.
To
have
a
concrete
barrier
going
across
the
whole
property
doesn't
doesn't
make
any
sense
to
me
at
all.
Q
N
L
C
N
E
E
C
L
A
C
C
Start
with
item
number
nine
pud
21-37
for
jbi
elemental,
llc
at
2393,
north
wildwood
street,
a
modification
to
previously
approved
planned
residential
development.
Please
go
ahead,
oh
and
it
also
includes
suv
21-40
for
atrium
heights,
also
at
2393
north
wildwood
street.
A
preliminary
and
final
plot.
Please
go
ahead.
Miss
garlic,
great.
Z
Thank
you
good
evening,
madam
chair
members
of
the
commission.
Before
you
as
a
quest
for
the
pud
modification
and
subdivision,
the
project
site
is
0.97
acres
located
at
2393,
north
wildwood
street
and
r1c
zone.
The
applicant
requests
a
conditional
use
permit
modification
comprised
of
eight
attached.
Single-Family
townhomes
and
one
detached
single-family
home
also
included
the
preliminary
and
final
plot
for
one
common
and
nine
buildable
lots
in
2018,
a
pud
was
approved
for
eight
attached
town
homes
as
a
multi-family
product
and
won
a
one
detached
single-family
home.
Z
A
request
to
rezone
the
site
from
a1
to
r1c
was
also
approved.
At
that
time,
the
current
applicant
is
requesting
to
modify
that
original
pud
to
convert
the
eight
attached
multi-family
townhomes
into
eight
attached,
single-family
townhomes
on
individual
lots.
The
project
includes
waivers
for
the
interior
side,
setbacks,
lot
sizes
and
lot
width.
Z
With
the
recommended
conditions
of
approval,
the
proposed
development
will
be
compatible
with
the
surrounding
residential
area
as
it
meets
all
perimeter,
setbacks
and
height
requirements
of
the
r1c
zone.
Planning
staff
recommends
approval
with
conditions.
The
motion
needed
this
evening
is
a
recommendation
to
city
council
for
the
subdivision
and
a
final
decision
for
the
pud
modification.
C
AJ
My
name
is
jory
delgado,
I'm
with
jbi
elemental.
I
apologize
for
not
getting
my
video
to
work.
I
had
to
join
on
my
phone
because
my
computer
died.
I'm
going
to
keep
this
short.
I
figured
it
would
be
on
the
consent
agenda
just
because
we
completely
agree
with
all
of
your
guys's
recommended
conditions
of
approvals.
So
I
don't
want
to
waste
anybody
else's
time
by
going
back
through
all
of
this.
C
C
O
L
C
AJ
I
I
think,
I'm
good
again.
Our
team
is
our
team
is
good
with
all
the
conditions
of
approval,
if
you
guys
have
any
questions
for
me,
I'm
more
than
happy
to
answer,
but
I
feel,
like
I
have
talked
to
the
planner
delaney
about
this
multiple
times.
So
I
think
that
we're
good
with
all
of
your
guys's
conditions.
C
S
C
S
C
S
C
C
Last
item
on
the
docket
item
number
eleven:
this
is
pg
21-39
for
hawkins
companies
at
2454,
east
gown
road.
This
is
a
modification
to
previously
approved
planned
residential
development,
to
increase
the
number
of
multi-family
units
and
we'll
first
start
with
staff
when
you're
ready.
Mr
moser,
please.
AK
AK
The
commission
approved
a
plan
this
plan
residential
development
a
few
months
ago,
and
this
approval
was
appealed
to
city
council.
Council
approved
the
project
with
additional
conditions
regarding
the
design
of
the
main
service
drive
through
the
site.
The
applicant
is
now
requesting
to
modify
to
modify
the
project.
The
the
main
modification
proposed
is
increasing
the
density
from
270
to
287
dwelling
units.
This
will
be
achieved
by
increasing
the
building
height
of
three
buildings
from
three
to
four
stories.
AK
AK
This
is
the
proposed
site
plan
which
identifies
the
building
being
or
identifies
the
site
design
and
shows
the
buildings
which
are
being
in
red,
which
are
being
increased
from
three
to
four
stories.
The
height
of
the
four
story.
Buildings
are
45
feet
with
only
the
stair
tower
elements
reaching
a
height
of
48
feet,
the
height
of
the
c4
zone
is
45
and
a
height
exception
was
approved
with
the
original
pud.
AK
C
AL
Good
evening,
madam
chair
commissioners,
my
name
is
ethan
mansfield
representing
hawkins
company
at
855,
west
broad
street
suite
300.,
it's
great
to
be
presenting
to
you
all
again
and
I
am
pleased
to
present
an
improved
canyon
ridge
apartment
project.
Pud2139
david
did
an
excellent
job
outlining
the
project
and
the
changes
we've
made
to
accommodate
an
additional
17
units,
as
well
as
the
changes
we've
made
to
incorporate
city
council's
conditions
as
a
result
of
the
previous
appeal.
AL
AL
We
also
shifted
several
townhome
units
to
the
northern
edge
of
the
development
and
extended
the
drive
aisle
southward
to
connect
to
the
primary
access
drive
next
slide.
Please,
none
of
the
buildings
on
site
will
exceed
the
48
foot
height
limit
granted
in
the
previous
approval,
which,
as
a
reminder,
only
exists
to
house
elevator
equipment
in
the
center
of
the
roof.
AL
In
response
to
commission
and
council's
concern
that
the
project
provided
too
much
parking,
we
reduced
our
parking
ratio
from
1.85
spaces
per
unit
to
1.75
spaces
per
unit.
We
are
providing
64
parking
spaces
less
than
the
maximum
allowed
by
boise
city
code.
Next
slide,
please.
Overall,
it's
a
pretty
straightforward
project
with
minimal
changes
from
the
previous
approval.
As
such,
we
respectfully
request
your
approval
of
pud
2139,
with
the
terms
and
conditions
listed
in
the
staff
report.
Thanks
and
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank.
C
K
Just
a
couple
quick
questions,
so,
mr
moser,
can
you
remind
us,
the
commission?
I
don't
see
a
letter
in
here
from
the
school
district.
I
know
we
got
one
from
the
in
the
original
application
and
I
understand
this
being
a
tweak
to
the
original
one.
There's,
probably
not
a
requirement
for
them
to
submit
one.
But
can
you
remind
for
this
for
the
record
what
this
boise
school
district
said
with
regard
to
the
capacity
of
their
nearby
schools
in
this
project.
AK
K
Thank
you.
My
other
question
to
mr
mansfield
welcome,
be
here.
My
question
is,
is
that
there
seems
to
still
be
a
little
bit
of
lingering
question
as
to
whether
there's
going
to
be
angled
or
parallel
parking
with
the
access
road.
I
know
one
of
the
letters
that
we
received
had
to
do
with
the
sheriffs
and
bicyclists
going
through
there,
and
the
ability
of
drivers
on
was
specifically
around
angled
parking
to
be
able
to
see
bicyclists
and
be
sure,
especially
those
you
know,
lower
profile
and
so
forth.
K
AL
Commissioner
danley,
madam
chair,
commissioner
danley,
we
did
incorporate
city
council's
condition
of
angled
parking.
We
added
the
sheras
to
enhance
bike
connectivity
through
the
site,
which
was
a
condition
of
council
councils,
while
still
maintaining
the
30
foot
wide
direct
access
required
by
the
easement
language
in
the
master
declarations
of
the
shopping
center.
AL
We
considered
installing
dedicated
bike
lanes,
however,
that
we
felt,
when
placed
within
the
drive
aisle
within
the
angled
parking.
We
could
have
actually
potentially
more
conflict,
and
it
just
didn't
make
sense
to
us,
given
that
we
had
to
maintain
that
30
foot
wide
unobstructed,
drive
aisle
no
parking
within
there.
No
anything
else,
really.
We
felt
that
cheryl's
provided
some
acknowledgement
that
bikes
could
move
through
the
project
without
compromising
the
30-foot
required
direct
access.
K
K
They
have
to
be
kept
up,
they
fade
you
know,
and
and
as
soon
as
they
do,
people
forget
that
they
exist.
It's
not
arguably
the
best
tool
in
the
shed,
as
you
know,
but
it
is
a
tool,
and
so
just
something
to
consider
is
that
those
things
have
to
be
maintained,
and
I
obviously
you
are
responsible
to
do
that
is.
C
AK
Your
members,
commission,
that
is
correct.
It
is
a
a
b1
airport
influence
and
all
that
was
generally
settled
with
the
original
cup
and
the
conditions
that
we
attached
to
the
original
cop
will
still
be
maintained
with
this
about
notice
the
fire
or
noticing
the
the
neighbors
through
the
lease
agreement
that
they're
here.
Although
I
would
also
note
that
the
airport
is
okay
with
this
going
in
because
it
is
outside
their
sound
65
decibel
sound
contour,
which
is
now
the
sort
of
triggering
mark.
AK
N
AL
Madam
chair,
commissioner
schaefer
those
were
the
only
garden
style
apartment
buildings
that
were
three
stories.
Basically,
all
of
the
garden
style
apartments
are
now
four
stories
tall.
We
felt
that
to
be
the
kind
of
least
impactful
way
to
increase
the
density
of
the
project,
to
kind
of
meet
what
you
guys
were
looking
for
guys.
Okay,
thanks.
C
Okay,
seeing
no
further
questions.
Thank
you,
mr
mansfield.
We
will
now
move
to
questions
from
I'm
sorry
public
testimony
it
gets
to
that
witching
hour
at
10
pm.
Do
we
have
anybody
present
in
chambers
that
would
like
to
speak
on
this
item?
Please
come
on
up
and
I
do
see
one
hand
raised
online
if
there
are
any
others,
please
go
ahead
and
raise
your
hand
online
too.
Please
go
ahead
and
start
when
you're
ready,
you'll
have
three
minutes.
Please
start
with
your
name
and
address.
AI
My
name
is
stephen
leonard.
I
live
at
3704,
east
alta
ridge
court
about
a
quarter
of
a
mile
from
the
development.
I
was
one
of
the
appellants
of
the
original
submission
of
this
project,
live
in
the
adjacent
columbia,
village,
neighborhood
and
testified
at
both
the
april
planning
and
zoning
hearing
and
the
june
city
council.
AI
AI
Any
further
increase
in
the
number
of
units
or
decrease
in
available
parking
might
unacceptably
impact
the
surrounding
neighborhood
and
the
businesses
in
the
columbia
marketplace
with
overflow
parked
vehicles,
as
commissioner
danley
suggested,
numerous
residents
of
the
surrounding
neighborhoods
have
expressed
alarm
over
the
increased
burden
that
this
development
will
place
on
the
already
overcrowded
trail.
Wind
trail
wind,
elementary
and
lebois
junior
high
school.
AI
AI
Mayor
mclean
and
the
members
of
the
city
council
expressed
both
surprise
and
pleasure
that
the
amicable
accommodation
reached
between
the
project
developer
and
the
impacted
residents
and
adjacent
business
owners
at
the
june
meeting.
That
accommodation
followed
from
the
expectation
that
all
parties
were
acting
in
good
faith.
AI
AM
AM
Thank
you
for
all
the
time
you
spend
I've
been
listening
in
the
entire
time,
grateful
for
all
you
do
for
the
city,
I'm
going
to
keep
this
short
and
ditch
my
full
three-minute
testimony
just
to
say
that
I
am
a
neighbor
in
support
of
this
project,
knowing
the
great
disparity
and
the
number
of
housing
units
that
we
have
in
our
city,
particularly
apartments,
and
what
that
does
to
you.
People
like
me.
AM
Several
years
ago
before
I
was
able
to
afford
to
buy
a
home
in
this
neighborhood,
we
rented
a
one
bedroom
back
in
2011
for
520
a
month
that
same
unit
went
for
195
dollars
a
month
last
year
when
I
saw
it
online.
So
there
is
definitely
need
for
this.
I've
heard
the
complaint
or
the
the
fears
of
schools
being
overcrowded,
and
I
have
three
children
depending
on
the
day
might
have
you
know,
might
want
to
have
more,
but
you
know
I
wouldn't
expect
trowen
to
expand
unless
the
need
was
there.
AM
We
live
in
one
of
the
best
school
districts
in
the
state
and
I
absolutely
believe
that
we
can
handle
additional
kids
development
is
has
added
our
neighborhood.
This
is
a
great
area
for
this
kind
of
density.
It's
next
door
to
high
that
next
door
to
highly
dense
apartments,
already
next
door
to
a
shopping
complex
that
honestly,
probably
will
become
better
because
of
these
housing
units
and
it's
also
within
a
bike
ride
of
our
state's
one
of
our
state's
largest
employers.
AM
So
I
fully
support
this
project
and
the
additional
units,
and
also
just
want
to
encourage
hawkins,
to
consider
allotting
some
of
these
additional
units
to
affordable
housing
in
a
neighborhood
meeting.
They
noted
they
don't
have
any,
they
don't
accept
housing
vouchers
or
any
projects,
and
I
would
love
to
see
if
there's
a
way
that
they
could
figure
out
how
to
how
to
be
able
to
do
that
in
this
this
community
and
be
good
corporate
social
responsible
citizens
of
our
business
community.
That's
my
testimony.
Thank
you.
C
AN
Thanks
very
much,
my
name
is
scott
mason.
I
live
at
2901,
east
hartley
lane
and
I
I
don't
have
blanket
opposition
to
the
amendment
and
I'm
sorry
to
take
up
time
with
this,
because
it
does
really
only,
I
think,
affects
us
here
at
our
house,
but
we're
right
on
the
corner
of
east
heart
leaf
and
the
units
on
the
east
side
that
will
be
going
up
to
45
feet,
look
directly
into
our
master,
bedroom
and
kitchen
dining
room.
AN
So
it's
definitely
going
to
have
an
impact
on
us,
and
I
see
that
there
are
some
trees.
I
think
of
class
two
trees
shown
on
the
drawing,
but
those
definitely
are
not
going
to
be
tall
enough
to
block
lines
of
sight
into
our
home.
I
have
had
some
dialogue
with
ethan
and
and
hawkins,
and
I
do
appreciate
their
you
know:
willingness
to
engage
and
acknowledgement.
You
know
that
that
we
are
impacted
by
this
and
they've
offered
us
five
hundred
dollars.
D
AN
Think
that
you
know
500
is
going
to
get
us
much
and
I
don't
know
what
avenue
the
city
has
to
help
us.
I
don't
know
what
options
we
have
through
this
process,
but
I
do
think
particularly
when
we
go
to
45
feet
here.
It
really
is
going
to
have
a
you
know
daily
impact
on
our
lives
here
in
our
house
and
that
I'm
hoping
that
someone
can
can
tell
me
you
know
there
is
an
option
either.
There
is
some
way
that
everyone
can
get
what
they
want.
AL
Madam
chair
commissioners,
this
is
ethan
mansfield,
representing
hawkins
at
855,
west
broad
street,
suite
300
boise,
idaho
8702.
I
just
have
a
couple
things
to
touch
on.
We
have
no
plans
to
increase
the
density
at
this
time,
so
just
wanted
to
throw
that
out
there,
commissioner
danley.
We
will
commit
to
maintaining
the
shareas.
AL
C
C
K
I'm
going
to
read
this
real
quickly
and
then
just
list
off
a
few
things:
a
location
is
an
infill
site,
an
unemployment
centric
area
with
thousands
of
jobs
within
a
mile
of
the
site.
Additionally,
it
is
within
a
walkable
and
bikeable
distance
to
a
public
park
and
a
grocery
store.
The
location
may
reduce
trip
length
and
encourage
bike
and
pedestrian
use,
and
the
highest
density
is
supportive
of
a
future
bus
service.
That's
just
one
piece
of
what
compass
wrote:
compass,
never
writes
things
like
that.
K
It
tells
you
a
lot
about
this
application
and-
and
I
think
it
speaks
volumes
of
it
for
25
years
this
spot
has
set
vacant.
The
market
didn't
come
about
with
commercial
or
retail,
which
would
have
induced
way
more
vehicle
trips
than
a
residential
use.
Itd
had
no
problem
with
it.
Achd
had
no
problem
with
it.
We
have
a
number
of
things
within
the
city
that
we're
trying
to
do
with
regard
to
housing,
multiple
types
of
housing.
K
K
Yes,
there
is
a
pro
a
program
right
now
that
the
city
of
boise
has
and
is
running
with
it's
a
it's,
a
collaboration
with
tree
canopy
network
as
well
as
idaho
power
and
it's
the
plant.
I
can't
remember,
but
it's
something
like
200
250,
000,
trees,
idaho
power
gives
these
trees
away
all
the
time
and
so
absolutely
there's
some
mitigation
that
can
be
done
at
in
some
cases,
no
cost.