►
From YouTube: Planning and Zoning Commission - 4/12/21
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
A
Good
tonight's
work
session
will
be
probably
pretty
quick,
we'll
just
go
over
the
agenda.
Real,
quick
and
then
have
a
quick
check
in
with
cody
and
probably
have
a
long
bathroom
break.
A
Letter
b
is
a
category
three
hillside
permit
time.
Extension,
that's
associated
with
number
one,
so
if
number
one
is
pulled
for
whatever
reason,
it
may
be
good
to
hear
and
review
both
of
them
and
adopt
both
of
them.
At
the
same
time,
although
b
is
a
separate
item
completely,
but
they
are
associated
so
just
fyi
number
or
letter
c
is
a
request
for
reconsideration.
A
We
haven't
had
these
in
a
while
for
pnz,
so,
basically
that
you
got
in
your
packet
with
late
correspondence
on
friday,
a
request
for
reconsideration
from
your
decision
from
last
monday
me.
A
It
is
at
your
discretion
whether
that
there
was
any
new
information
in
there
or
you
want
to
reconsider,
which
would
mean
that
we
would
bring
this
back
to
a
hearing
likely
in
may
and
hold
a
new
hearing.
You
can
certainly
advise
staff
on
what
you'd
like
to
see
differently
or
any
information
tonight
is
simply
a
yes
or
no
kind
of
answer
before
you
all.
A
There's
no
public
testimony
we'll
do
a
brief
presentation
from
myself
and
then
just
a
vote
and
that's
it
adam.
A
It
should
be
in
the
memo
that
was
attached,
so
the
this
is
coming
straight
from
code.
The
purpose
is
to
minimize
the
number
of
appeals,
excuse
me
and
prevent
new
information
from
being
presented
on
appeals
and
resolve
disputes
at
the
lowest
possible
level.
A
It's
applicable
upon
request.
The
review
body
may
consider
a
decision
for
good
cause,
and
those
can
include
a
party
requesting
reconsideration
has
relevant
information
without
relevant
information
was
not
brought
up
at
the
previous
hearing
or
the
information
was
not
previously
available,
and
then
it
goes
through
procedures
of
just
whether
it's
approved
or
denied
and
making
sure
that
we
notify,
according
to
the
process
for
notification
and
things
like
that.
D
B
A
A
D
It's
okay,
sorry!
I
was
like
so
so
this
reconsideration,
so
the
commission,
all
of
us,
we
vote,
there's
a
motion
and
everybody
is
eligible
whether
they
heard
the
item
last
week
or
not.
Is
that
correct.
A
Code
is
silent
on
whether
those
who
are
present
or
not
can
vote
or
not.
My
suggestion
would
be,
if
you
weren't
here,
then
you
might
not
vote
just
because
you're
not
familiar
with
the
request
yeah.
That
would
make.
F
If
a
commissioner
feels
that
they
should
abstain,
certainly
they're
welcome
to
do
so.
But
I
believe
that
at
least
in
reviewing
the
packet,
if
there's
enough
information
for
a
commissioner
to
determine
if
there
is
relevant
information
that
was
not
brought
up
at
the
previous
hearing
or
information
that
was
not
previously
available,
they
would
have
a
basis
to
them.
A
F
B
B
H
A
Okay,
any
other
questions.
Sorry
didn't
see
you
out
of
my
periphery.
These
masks.
Okay,
so
number
one
scp-21-11
on
pheasant
lane,
it's
a
prelim
plot
for
residential
subdivision.
We
are
recommending
approval
again.
This
is
with
item
letter
b
for
a
time
extension.
That's
the
associated
hillside
development.
Permit.
A
We
are
not
aware
of
opposition,
so
we
can
try
for
consent.
Number
two
is
pud
21-4
on
maple
grove,
it's
a
pud
for
a
four-plex.
We
are
recommending
approval.
I
believe
the
applicant
will
be
here
this
evening
opposing
some
conditions.
So
I
believe
we
do
need
to
hear
number
two
tonight.
A
A
G
G
So
I've
got
a
comment
on
this
towards
the
applicant,
but
nothing
that
changes
it
from
the
need
to
a
consent
agenda,
just
something
I
feel
that
is
needed
to
be
said
if
that
makes
sense,
so
I
think
that
there's
an
appropriate
way
to
do
that
and
I
can
make
the
motion,
if
necessary,
to
put
it
the
consent
agenda.
However,
you
want
to
handle
it.
A
My
I
mentioned
that
we
usually
approve
the
consent
agenda
in
one
fail
swoop.
So,
as
you
vote
or
before
you
vote,
you
might
make
that
comment
and
then
go
through
roll
call.
H
C
Yeah
great
after
we
build
the
consent
agenda,
usually
I'd
say:
is
there
any
discussion
really
briefly,
but
at
that
point
would
be
a
great
time.
C
C
A
All
right
number
four
has
been
withdrawn,
so
we
will
need
to
note
that
at
the
beginning
of
the
hearing-
because
it
was
noticed
and
advertised
for
this
evening-
but
then
no
no
motion,
no
call
for
comments
or
anything
or
needed.
We
will
be
hearing
number
five.
A
Number
six
cp
21-3
on
franklin
cep
for
mixed-use
personal
service
and
residential
use.
We
are
recommending
approval,
no
one
signed
up
in
opposition,
so
we
can
try
for
consent.
A
And
then
number
seven
pd,
21-7
and
suv
21-10
on
target
street.
It's
a
pediant's
preliminary
and
final
plot
subdivision
for
four
detached
single-family
homes.
We
are
recommending
approval.
We
can
try
for
the
consent
agenda
and
then
lastly,
number
eight
suv
21-7
a
preliminary
preliminary
platinum
residential
subdivision
for
16
buildable
lots
on
wichita.
A
So,
in
summary,
we've
got
minutes
a
b,
one,
three,
six,
seven,
eight,
oh
sorry,
six
and
seven
four
consent,
and
then
we've
got
c
to
here
for
the
request
for
reconsideration
four
to
withdraw
eight,
to
defer
to
site
specific
or
date
specific
excuse
me
and
then
we'll
hear
number
two
and
number
five:
did
you
get
all
that
got
it?
Okay,.
G
In
reviewing
the
several
packages
and
participants,
my
time
back
on
the
commission
something's
come
to
my
attention
that
I
think
that
we
as
a
city
need
to
address,
and
I
think
it's
actually
fairly
urgent
that
we
do
so
in
application.
After
application,
we
are
asked
as
a
commission
to
make
decisions
that
have
the
interest
and
the
determination
of
capacity
for
public
facilities
in
our
applications.
We
are
granted
all
kinds
of
information
with
respect
to
transportation,
sewer
water,
fire
trash
services,
public
health
and
other
things
when
it
comes
to
our
school
district.
G
So
it's
a
discussion
item,
I'd
love
to
to
be
able
to
pick
the
brains
and
hear
from
my
fellow
commissioners
on
this
issue
and
see
if
there's
any
consent
that
we
kind
of
generally
have,
and
maybe
some
recommendations
to
staff
bring
this
before
us
at
a
future
date
or
any
history
that
may
be
provided.
That
can
further
inform
this
discussion.
G
D
D
B
D
C
C
G
When
I,
when
I
look
at
our
agenda
or
our
our
specific
packages,
for
example,
we
have
copious
amounts
of
information
regarding
transportation,
typically
and-
and
those
comments
are
often
calculated
by
obviously
achd
itd
whomever
you
know,
whereas
when
we
review
information
regarding
schools,
we're
the
amount
of
information,
that's
provided
to
us
is,
is
to
say
its
minimum
isn't
even
accurate.
In
my
particular
opinion,
it's
it's
even
below
that.
If
there
is
such
a
thing
to
be,
to
be
frank,
we
get
more
information
on
sewer
capacity.
G
It
seems
to
me
that's
an
issue
at
the
very
least.
Even
if
it's
a
single
page
of
information
regarding
how
many
what
was
the
capacity
of
the
school
that's
serving
this
site,
what
does
it
sit
at
today?
Give
us
some
sense,
a
minimal
sense
of
what
the
impacts
could
potentially
be
to
give
us
further
information
and
be
able
to
answer
the
public
who's
coming
to
us
in
many
cases,
with
their
claims.
A
A
C
Thank
you
for
following
up
on
that
ceiling
manager,
commissioner
moore.
J
A
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair
commissioners,
you
guys
went
on
a
little
bit
longer
than
I
thought
you
were
a
little
chatty,
no
every
now,
and
then
a
commission
kind
of
steps
outside
the
lines
and
we
have
to
come
rain
them
in
a
little
bit.
So
I
had
to
come
this
evening,
no
and
all
in
all
seriousness,
I
haven't
seen
many
of
you,
I
suppose
milt
running
into
him
on
the
green
belt
and
things
like
that,
but
I
just
wanted
to
show
up
to
tonight
and
thank
you
all
for
this.
K
The
volunteer
work
you've
done
this
last
year,
it's
been
a
crazy
year
for
us
all,
whether
personally,
professionally
a
little,
both
you're
still
spending
time
away
from
your
families
on
nights
like
tonight
and
making
very
important
decisions
on
projects
that
make
a
lot
of
difference
to
a
lot
of
people
and
so
more
than
anything.
I
just
wanted
to
thank
you
for
sticking
with
us
this
last
year
and
hopefully
the
light
at
the
end
of
the
tunnel
continues
to
get
brighter.
So
thank
you.
A
C
C
C
A
A
A
After
that,
we
proceed
to
public
testimony,
starting
with
those
who
are
in
person
and
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
We
are
strict
with
this
time
as
it
is
limited
in
code.
Finally,
the
applicant
is
allowed
five
minutes
for
rebuttal,
after
which
the
hearing
will
be
closed
and
the
commission
will
deliberate
and
render
a
decision.
Tonight's
agenda
and
proceedings
may
have
a
bit
of
a
delay
as
we
all
navigate
through
the
technology.
C
You
have
the
floor.
Thank
you
ceiling.
We
are
citizen
volunteers
appointed
by
the
mayor
and
approved
by
the
city
council.
We
make
final
decisions
on
conditional
use,
permits,
variances
and
appeals
and
recommendations
to
the
city
council
on
subdivisions,
rezones,
annexations
and
code
or
comprehensive
plan
amendments.
Any
decision
made
tonight
may
be
appealed
to
the
city
council,
provided
that
the
appeal
is
filed
within
10
days
of
this
hearing.
In
order
to
file
an
appeal
you
must
have
given
written
or
oral
testimony
at
tonight's
meeting.
C
So
that's
why
it's
important
that
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's
no
public
opposition,
the
item
will
be
placed
on
the
consent
agenda.
All
items
that
are
placed
on
the
consent
agenda
are
approved
with
one
motion.
Without
further
public
comment
for
items
not
on
the
consent
agenda,
we
will
hold
a
full
public
hearing
and
the
order
just
detailed
a
few
moments
ago,
with
staff,
applicant
neighborhood
association
and
then
the
public
testimony.
B
C
My
first
note
is
that
item
four
has
been
withdrawn.
This
is
car.
21-6
has
been
withdrawn,
so
we
won't
be
hearing
that
one
tonight.
C
C
M
N
C
C
D
C
C
Of
us
we're
gonna
get
through
it
yeah.
Thank
you,
okay,
great,
so
a
is
on
the
consent.
Agenda.
Item
b
is
a
cfh
18-29
from
our
key
development
group.
This
is
also
a
time
extension
for
2350
south
pheasant
lane
hillside
development.
Permit
is
the
applicant
present
great
and
are
you
in
agreement
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
staff
report?
C
C
C
Yeah
great
okay
is
item,
one
also,
your
your
application,
great
okay,
so
item
one
is
sub
21-11
for
hermosa
hills,
subdivision
2350,
south
pheasant
lane
a
preliminary
plot
for
residential
subdivision
and
are
you
in
agreement
of
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
staff
report?
Great?
Let
the
record
reflect
that
they
are
and
is
there
anybody
present.
That
was
hoping
to
testify
in
opposition
of
item
number
one
tonight.
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand
or
do
so
in
person.
C
Okay,
see
none,
then
item
number
one
will
be
placed
on
the
consent
agenda.
Also:
item
number
b,
cfh,
18-29,
marquee
development
group
letter
b.
Excuse
me:
the
next
item
for
consideration
of
the
consent
agenda
is
item
three.
This
is
car
21-7
for
kurt
height
222,
west
broadway
avenue
a
rezone
of
0.27
acres
is
the
applicant
present.
C
C
Since
it's
his
name
on
the
application,
hi
kirk,
are
you
in
agreement
of
the
terms
and
conditions
on
the
staff
report?
Please
unmute
when
you
yeah.
C
Great
thank
you
and
is
there
anybody
present
tonight
that
would
like
to
speak
in
opposition
of
this
item
tonight.
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand
or
do
so
in
person.
C
If
we
can
allow
him
to
speak
steve,
if
you
unmute,
then
we'll
hear
you
and
are
you
here
to
testify
in
opposition
of
item
three
tonight.
N
Madam
chair,
I
was
trying
to
get
my
virtual
hand
up
for
the
item.
2350
south
pheasant.
C
Okay
back
to
item
number
three:
is
anybody
here
to
speak
in
opposition
of
item
number
three
tonight.
C
Okay,
the
next
item
for
consideration
is
item
number
six.
This
is
cop
21-3
for
trout,
architects
at
522,
west
franklin
street,
a
conditional
use
permit
for
mixed-use
development.
I
do
see
trout
with
their
hand
up
here.
Are
you
once
we
get
give
you
speaking
permissions
here?
I
think
you'll
be
able
to
unmute.
Now.
Are
you
in
agreement
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
staff
report?
Yes,.
O
C
C
C
The
next
item
for
consideration
of
the
consent
agenda
is
item
number
seven.
This
is
pud
21-7
for
b
and
a
engineers
inc
at
511
west
target
street,
a
conditional
use
permit
for
planned
residential
development
and
also
sub
21-10
for
crawl.
Point
subdivision:
511
west
target
street
preliminary
and
final
plot
is
the
applicant
present
and
are
you
in
agreement
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
staff
report?
C
C
Great,
we
have
a
second
from
commissioner
schaefer
and
if
there
is
no
discussion,
will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote
stan.
L
B
C
C
Okay,
so
we're
gonna
start
with
item
c
cp
21-5
for
tim
opp,
requesting
reconsideration
for
1675
north
pine
v,
lane
conditional
use
permit
for
self-service
storage
and
we'll
start,
I
think,
with
saline.
Yes,
apologies
kevin.
I.
A
Did
that
last
week,
to
you
too,
should
be
just
a
quick
type
consent,
like
request.
So
last
week
april
5th,
you
heard
the
commission
heard
a
cop
21-5
at
1675
north
pineview,
for
a
self-serve
service
storage
use.
A
We
have
received
a
request
for
reconsideration
that
was
sent
in
with
the
late
correspondence
packet
and
amended
in
the
agenda
for
this
evening.
It's
at
the
commission's
discretion
to
approve
or
deny
that
request.
If
you
do
approve,
we
will
ensure
that
no
adequate
noticing
occurs
and
schedule
at
a
next
available
hearing
date.
C
D
Yes
and
I'm
chairman,
as
everyone
will
recall
last
week,
I
voted
against
approving
the
cup,
and
so
I'm
in
the
unusual
position
of
now
requesting
that
we
reconsider
that
vote.
Basis
of
my
motion
is
that
no
new
information
was
provided.
We
had
a
full-
and
you
know
very
lengthy
discussion
of
this
issue
last
week.
D
A
C
Okay,
great
will
the
clerk.
Please
call
the
vote.
B
P
E
Q
C
They
weren't
comfortable
since
they
weren't
here
for
the
hearing.
Okay,
great,
we'll
now
move
to
item
a
cup
19-9
for
design
resource
architects.
No!
Sorry,
not
a
item.
D
C
And
b
we're
gonna
start
with
one:
yes,
great:
okay.
This
is
sub
21-11,
hermosa
hills,
subdivision,
2350,
south
pheasant,
lane
preliminary
plot
for
residential
subdivision
for
17
buildable
and
for
common
lots.
Please
take
it
away,
mr
holmes,.
Q
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
commission.
I
think
I
can
keep
this
one
pretty
brief.
As
you
said,
it's
a
preliminary
plot
application
for
17,
buildable,
residential
lots
and
four
common
lots
on
17.3
acres
and
r1bda,
and
a1da
zones
also
is
an
associated
time.
Extension
request
for
the
hillside,
permit
that
came
with
it
and
really
this.
So
this
project
is
over
by
harris
ranch.
Just
north
of
barber
drive
there,
and
it
may
actually
look
pretty
familiar
to
some
of
you
as
it.
Q
It
was
approved
by
city
council
just
over
two
years
ago
now,
and
there
was
a
change
in
ownership
and
the
preliminary
plat
approval
expired.
So
that
brings
us
here
this
evening.
The
actual
application
itself
has
not
changed.
Q
The
comprehensive
plan
has
not
changed.
Development
code
has
not
changed,
so
we
up
until
this
point
had
not
received
any
letters
of
opposition
and
did
receive
a
letter
of
support
from
the
barber
valley,
neighborhood
association.
All
commenting
agencies
did
approve
of
the
project
with
standard
conditions
of
approval.
Q
Really
with
all
that
being
said,
you
know,
the
planning
team
is
still
recommending
approval
with
conditions
and
the
the
time
extension
will
be
extended.
That
decision
is
before
you
tonight
and
then
the
recommendation
to
city
council
on
the
subdivision
so
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have,
though,
madam.
Q
C
You
great
thank
you
well
next
year
from
the
applicant.
R
Andy
cabianca
323
west
jefferson
street
here
in
boise
83702.
We
acquired
this
property
with
the
intention
to
abide
by
the
recently
expired
d.a
and
preliminary
plot.
So
we're
coming
in
front
of
you
guys
after
meeting
with
planning
and
zoning
for
a
new
preliminary
plot
for
the
now
hermosa
hills,
previously
pheasant
heights,
with
the
conditions
suggested
by
planing
and
zoning,
the
the
biggest
or
most
substantial
condition
would
be
as
of
january
2021.
R
R
C
Okay,
so
this
is
in
the
barber
valley,
neighborhood
association:
do
we
have
anybody
online
or
in
attendance
tonight
that
is
here
to
represent
the
barbara
valley,
neighborhood
association?
I
do
see
a
hand
up
there.
S
Madam
chair
john
mooney,
7153
east
highland
valley,
drive
representing
the
barber
valley,
neighborhood
association.
Our
board
met
last
thursday
evening,
as
you
see
in
our
letter,
late
correspondence
to
kevin
regarding
pheasant
heights,
now,
hermosa
hills
we're
in
support
of
this.
S
It's
everything
as
we
worked
on
with
the
previous
applicant
a
few
years
ago,
we're
happy
with
everything
and
some
minor
changes
that
kevin
has
said
would
be
incorporated
in
the
final
plat,
primarily
regarding
lot
11.,
ensuring
there's
a
public
access
for
a
possible
trailhead
in
the
future,
going
up
the
side
of
that
steep
area
there.
Our
other
concern
is
regarding
lot
11
and,
as
the
applicant
said,
the
the
wui
and
wildland
fire
issues
and
vegetation
and
and
making
sure
there's
no
fuel
buildup
in
there.
S
Obviously,
that
was
the
side
of
the
table,
rock
fire
back
in
2016.
So
a
lot
of
local
concerns
about
that.
So,
in
summary,
the
neighborhood
associations
is
in
support
and
our
board
voted
unanimously
to
support
this.
We
didn't
have
any
testimony
in
our
at
our
meeting
last
week
to
imply
that
there
was
going
to
be
any
problems,
but
we
encouraged
folks
to
call
in
and
attend
this
meeting.
Thank
you.
C
C
Okay,
seeing
none
from
the
commission
we'll
next
move
on
to
public
testimony,
so
is
there
anybody
online?
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand
if
you're
interested
in
testifying
on
this
item.
If
you're
in
person,
please
come
right
on
up
to
the
podium.
C
Okay,
steve,
you
should
be
able
to
unmute.
Now,
please
start
with
your
name
and
address
and
you'll
have
three
minutes.
N
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
My
name
is
steve
burns.
I
live
at
3680
south
short
leaf
avenue
in
boise
83716.
I
apologize.
I
didn't
see
any
of
the
signs
on
the
property
un
until
today,
so
I
was
unaware
of
any
developments
that
was
happening
with
the
neighborhood
association.
N
I
just
saw
the
signs
today,
so
I
guess
I'm
wondering
from
the
developer
what
the
plan
is
there.
There
is
a
fairly
large
colony
of
southern
of
yellow-bellied
marmots
that
live
on
that
property,
and
you
know
ground
squirrels
are
not
able
to
just
relocate
very
easily.
The
conditions
have
to
be
right,
so
I'm
wondering
is
the
neighborhood
associated
station
asked
about
that
or
you
know
what
is
the
plan
for
dealing
with
the
fact
that
there's
quite
an
extensive
colony
of
marmots
living
on
that.
C
N
C
N
Yeah
I
mean
it
was
the
big
question
that
I
had.
Thank
you
great
okay,.
C
Thank
you.
Is
there
anybody
else
in
attendance
that
would
like
to
speak
on
this
item
tonight.
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand
or
come
on
up
okay,
seeing
none
then
we'll
move
back
to
the
applicant
for
a
five
minute
minute
rebuttal.
If
you'd
like
to.
C
M
We're
trying
to
try
to
do
this
on
one
motion:
the
move
that
we
approve
all
right,
recommend
approval
of
suv,
21-11
and
approve
cfh
18-29,
with
all
the
terms
and
conditions
as
written
in
the
staff
reports.
M
Well,
I
mean
real
quickly.
The
time
extension
is
very
straightforward.
So
the
cfh
item,
I
think,
that's
that's
very
straightforward
and
just
aligns
the
permit
with
the
other
planning
that's
occurring
on
the
properties
and
then
regarding
item
the
main,
I'm
the
subdivision,
I
think,
there's
nothing
in
the
staff
report.
That
indicates
there's
any
issues.
M
This
is
the
second
time
now
it's
been
through
the
process
here
at
the
city,
and
I
see
nothing
that
would
indicate
there's
any
any
problems
with
the
application.
M
G
I
just
felt
it
necessary
briefly
just
to
commend
the
applicant
and
the
neighborhood
association
in
particular
to
work
for
working
together.
It's
it's
a
rarity
in
our
state
that
we
have
actual
neighborhood
associations.
Not
everyone
can
sort
of
confuse
them
with
hoas,
very
different
thing
so
to
the
association,
the
applicant,
resolving
these
issues
and
moving
forward
on
a
good
path
that
they
all
agree
on
is
a,
I
think,
a
thing
worth
noting.
So
they
appreciate
it
for
all
the
efforts.
C
Thank
you
will
the
if
there
is
no
further
discussion?
Will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote?
Wait.
Sorry.
Actually,
this
is
I'll.
Just
repeat
this
is
to
recommend
approval
for
sub
21
11
and
approve
the
time
extension
for
cfh
18-29.
Will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote.
Q
C
I
I
The
planning
team
is
supportive
of
this
use
in
this
location,
as
it
meets
the
findings
for
a
conditional
use.
Permit
tonight's
discussion
will
focus
on
the
connectivity
and
design
of
the
project
due
to
the
location
of
a
driveway
across
the
street.
The
parking
area
of
this
site
is
located
in
front
of
the
floor
plex
rather
than
behind
it.
I
While
the
comprehensive
plan
and
design
review
guidelines
generally
prefer
bringing
buildings
towards
the
street
with
parking
areas
in
the
rear,
locating
the
parking
area
in
the
front
does
actually
provide
some
lovely
backyard
space
that
wouldn't
have
been
possible.
Otherwise,
so
considering
this
driveway
placement
and
the
resulting
awesome
backyard,
the
planning
team
is
requiring
a
robust
pedestrian
is
requiring
robust
pedestrian
connectivity
throughout
the
site,
as
well
as
a
pergola
and
a
picnic
area.
Within
that
backyard
space.
I
Excuse
me
condition
number
five
requires
a
walkway
connecting
the
northern
portion
of
the
pathway
to
the
southern
portion
in
the
rear
yard,
so
that
the
northern
unit
can
access
the
picnic
amenity
without
creating
an
unofficial
pathway
in
the
rear
yard,
which
would
likely
happen
as
residents
of
guests
of
the
northern
ground
floor
unit
travel
to
and
from
the
picnic
area.
On
the
southern
side,
the
planning
team
received
standard
conditions,
standard
comments
from
commenting
agencies
and,
as
such
staff
recommends
approval
of
pud
2104,
with
the
terms
and
conditions
listed
in
the
staff
report.
I
T
T
We
would
like
to
propose
that
we
provide
a
sidewalk
to
the
southern
portion
of
the
site
to
access
the
rear
yard
and
the
reason
that
we
oppose
a
sidewalk
to
the
south
and
to
the
north
and
a
connecting
sidewalk
is
in
general
for
privacy
for
the
residents.
We
feel
this
is
a
four
unit.
C
Thank
you,
ms
carson.
So
next
we
would
be
hearing
from
the
neighborhood
association.
Do
we
have
anybody
present
from
the
west
valley,
neighborhood
association,
to
speak
on
this
item
representing
the
neighborhood
association?
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand
or
in
person
if
you're,
here,
okay,
seeing
none,
then
we'll
move
on
to
questions
from
the
commission
for
staff
or
for
the
applicant.
D
I
Madam
chair
commissioner
gillespie
by
removing
condition
number
four,
you
would
remove
any
of
the
five
foot
walkways,
but
I
think
they
are
asking
you
may
want
to
clarify
with
the
applicant,
but
I
believe
they're
asking
specifically
about
just
keeping
that
southern
strip,
as
you
mentioned
at
four
feet,.
I
I
It
would
be
a
sh,
madam
chair,
commissioner
gillespie.
It
would
be,
as
shown
on
the
site
plan
without
the
red
and
yellow
lines,
so
they
would
exist
as
four
foot
sidewalk,
where
shown.
Madam.
C
T
Madam
chairman,
members
of
the
commission,
we
would
propose
that
we
removed
the
north
sidewalk
that
is
accessing
the
backyard
and
then
the
rear
connecting
sidewalk
shown
in
red.
We
would
keep
the
southern
sidewalk
that
is
accessing
the
backyard
and
that
would
go
to
four
feet
and
the
other
sidewalks.
We
have
no
issues
with
being
five
feet.
E
D
D
D
D
I
Madam
chair,
commissioner
gillespie,
you
know
you
make
an
excellent
point.
Typically
pathways,
especially
when
the
design
review
team
and
commission
gets
a
committee
gets
a
hold
of
them,
are
five
feet
wide
and
that's
throughout
the
site.
So
I
wanted
to
maintain
consistency
there,
but
certainly
the
commission
has
the
ability
to
modify
any
of
these
conditions
if
they
wish.
G
In
looking
at
the
site
plan
here
it,
it
seems
to
me
that
the
sidewalk
that
is
up
to
the
north
and
the
portion
that's
outlined,
or
that
is
highlighted
in
red,
is
a
direct
connection
from
what
looks
to
me
the
where
the
dual
entrance
to
both
units
are
and
a
shorter
route
to
the
back
side
to
where
this
amenity
is
located.
Is
that
correct?
G
I
Chair,
commissioner
danley,
it
is
the
shortest
route
from
the
lower
floor
unit.
The
upper
floor
does
not
have
a
stairwell
on
that
north
side,
so
the
upper
floor
unit
would
be
accessing
from
the
rear
yard
from
the
front
of
the
building.
C
I
Madam
chair
commissioner
danley,
it
sounds
to
me
like
the
applicant,
is
in
agreement
with
a
five-foot
sidewalk
in
the
adjacent
to
the
ada
space
and
in
all
locations,
except
for
the
southern
piece
that
connects
the
patio
to
the
pergola
with
picnic
table
in
the
rear
yard.
I
T
That
is
correct.
We
would
maintain
the
five
feet
in
the
parking
area
and
where
the
ada
parking
spot
is,
we
would
like
the
more
private
portion
of
the
site
to
be
four
feet,
which
is
the
southern
sidewalk.
C
C
C
Okay,
seeing
no
other
questions
from
the
commission
we'll
move
on
to
public
testimony.
Do
we
have
anybody?
Oh
wait.
I'm
sorry!
First,
we're
going
to
check
with
the
neighborhood
association.
Do
we
have
anybody
present
from
the
west
valley,
neighborhood
association,.
C
Okay,
moving
on
to
public
testimony,
if
you're
here
to
testify
on
this
item,
please
virtually
raise
your
hand
or
come
right
on
up
to
the
podium.
C
Seeing
none
then
this
would
be
the
applicant's
opportunity
for
a
five-minute
rebuttal,
but
there
was
no
testimony.
Does
the
applicant
have
anything
to
add,
or
would
you
like
to
waive
that.
B
C
Ms
carson,
I
don't
have
anything
to
add.
Thank
you
great.
Thank
you.
We're
now
closed
with
the
public
portion
of
the
hearing,
and
the
item
is
now.
D
It's
always
the
little
things
that
are
the
most
complicated.
Have
you
ever
noticed
that,
yes,
I
moved
that
we
approved
pd
21-4
with
all
the
conditions
of
the
staff
report,
except
I
in
my
motion.
I
would
delete
condition
5,
which
is
the
solid
red
north,
south
connector
sidewalk.
D
So
I
I
guess
I
just
feel
like
we
designed
sidewalks
five
feet
for
a
whole
bunch
of
reasons.
Some
of
them
are
cane,
but
I
don't
I
sort
of
agree
with
commissioner
chris
that,
like
cutting
off
a
foot-
I
I
don't
like-
I
don't
get
it.
Let's
just
leave
it
five
feet.
If
we
could
go
back
to
the
picture
that
you
had
ethan
for
everybody,
I
think
that
north-south
connector
sidewalk
is
is
just
unnecessary
and,
and
frankly,
I
kind
of
agree
with
the
applicant.
D
It's
not
like
we're
gonna
track
in
a
trail
on
that
little
lawn
back
there,
people
are
just
gonna,
spread
out
and
play
and
walk
down
to
the
pergola,
and
if
the
applicant
thinks
that
putting
in
that
sidewalk
would
create
privacy
issues,
I'm
like
fine
it.
You
know
it
just
strikes
me
as
a
little
bit
of
oversteering
the
boat
to
get
down
to
that
level
of
requirement.
So
you
know
I
can
go
either
way,
but
on
balance
you
know
I
would
I
would
take
it.
I'd,
take
the
requirement
out.
D
D
C
Okay,
we
have
a
motion
to
approve
item
number
two.
This
is
pod
21-4,
but
remove
condition.
Number
five
at
3395,
north
maple
grove
road.
Will
the
clerk?
Please
call
the
vote.
Madam.
G
G
All
right,
I'm
just
gonna,
move
fast.
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna,
actually
vote
against
emotion.
If
you
could
pull
up
the
same
map
as
simple
as
it
may
seem,
knowing
this
world
of
pedestrian
access,
especially
around
the
world
of
ada,
there's,
not
a
guidance
out
there.
That
would
tell
you
forefoot
is
is
an
accepted
width
or
dimension,
and
it
goes
even
beyond
ada,
but
but
regardless
sticking
with
that,
you
you
lose
you
take
that
that
specific
segment.
B
H
G
Say
but
you
also
lose
connectivity,
you
lose
a
flat
out
convenience
that
respectfully
to
one
of
the
units.
You
also
end
up,
building
a
sidewalk
to
nowhere,
and
anybody
who
does
access
that
sidewalk
that
may
have
any
sort
of
a
mobility
disability,
pushing
a
scooter
doing
any
error.
Pushing
a
stroller
anything
is
instantly
met
with
a
bit
of
a
challenge
that
well
for
many
of
us
may
not
be
an
obstacle
for
many,
and
a
growing
population
would
be
so.
For
those
reasons,
I
will
vote
against
emotion,
adam
chairman.
D
To
clarify
my
motion,
it
was
clear
that
all
the
sidewalks
would
be
required
to
be
five
feet,
so
that
really
wasn't
the
issue.
The
issue
is
that
north
south
peace
and
my
understanding
from
well
I'll
just
leave
it
at
that.
C
B
N
B
C
Okay,
moving
on
to
item
number
five,
this
is
pod
21-6
for
jrs
properties
at
2454,
east
gown,
road,
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
planned
residential
development,
comprised
of
270
multi-family
units
and
a
height
exception,
we'll
start
with
staff,
and
please
take
it
away.
Mr
moser.
V
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
before
you
is
a
planned
residential
development
comprised
of
270
units
and
a
height
exception,
11.2
acres
and
a
c4d
and
r2d
zone.
The
subject
property
is
located
in
a
regional
activity
center
located
at
the
intersection
of
gallon
road
and
federal
way.
V
Adjacent
to
the
west
is
a
shopping
center
and
a
residential
neighborhood
comprised
of
single
family
and
apartments
is
to
the
to
the
north
and
to
the
east
and
to
the
south
across
gallon
road
itself,
as
they
can
land.
V
The
development
is
comprised
of
fourteen
three
and
four-story
multi-family
buildings,
the
clubhouse
and
playgrounds.
The
site
is
split,
zoned
between
the
c4
and
r2
and
the
site
layout
generally
locates
the
three-story
buildings
within
the
r2
and
the
four-story
buildings
within
the
c4
zone.
As
you
can
see,.
V
V
These
three-story
buildings
have
an
average
height
to
their
elements
of
40
feet
and
the
height,
and
that's
in
that
r2
zone,
which
is
on
the
north
parts
of
the
property,
is
35,
and
then
the
c4
has
a
height
of
45
feet
and
the
tower
elevator
tower
elements
of
these
larger
buildings
go
up
to
48
feet,
site
design.
V
Locates,
as
I
noted
that
the
three-story
townhouse-style
buildings
are
along
the
north
property
line,
which
is
consistent
with
the
adjacent
apartments
and
the
site
design
locates
the
larger
multi-family
four-story
buildings
into
the
interior
to
development,
the
height
exception
is
included
since
the
bill,
as
mentioned,
the
building
elements
such
as
elevator
towers
and
other
structural
elements,
exceed
the
height
of
the
zone.
As
such,
the
height
exceptions
for
these
structural
elements
exceed
the
height
by
three
to
five
feet,
not
by
much.
V
In
summary,
the
with
conditions
of
approval,
the
project
and
height
exception,
comply
with
all
the
required
findings
as
per
code.
In
particular,
it
complies
with
the
goals
and
policies
of
the
comprehensive
plan
and
also
residential
densities
of
20
units
per
acre
or
more
are
encouraged
and
anticipated
within
regional
activity,
centers,
which
this
site
is
located.
V
The
subject
property
is
located
also
within
the
airport
map
area
influence
map
area
b,
which
generally
prohibits
residential
uses.
However,
it
is,
or
the
site
is
located
outside
the
65
decibel
and
the
60
decibel
sound
contour,
as
you
can
see
on
these
maps.
So
this
can
show
to
you
what
the
the
current
airport
influences
be
shows
the
property,
but
the
nearest
sound
contour.
The
61
is
quite
a
distance
from
the
site.
V
V
Several
neighbors
expressed
concerns
about
the
project's
density
and
traffic,
and
I
would
note
that
the
location
is
ideal
for
high
density
residential,
since
it
is
located
adjacent
to
commercial
and
employment
opportunities
and
within
the
regional
activity
center.
It
is
also
there
is
capacity
on
the
adjacent
roadways
to
support
the
project.
I
would
also
note
that,
within
your
packet,
the
southeast
neighborhood
association
did
submit
a
letter
in
support
of
the
project.
V
C
Thank
you,
mr
moser.
Next
we'll
hear
from
the
applicant
please
come
on
up
we'll
start
with
10
minutes.
Please
start
with
your
name
and
address
and
then
just
go
right
into
it.
W
There
we
go.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
boise
planning
and
zoning
commission.
My
name
is
brandon
whalen.
I
am
with
hawkins
companies
located
at
855
west
broad,
that's
in
boise
83702.
W
W
Project,
as
mr
moser
stated,
there
are
two
zoning
designations
on
the
property.
A
portion
of
it
is
zoned
r2
with
the
balance
c4d
and
if
we
were
to
develop
this
property
to
the
fullest
extent
that
the
zoning
code
allows
for
each
of
these
zones.
We
would
have
approximately
415
units
on
the
property,
but
we
are
proposing
270
before
you
tonight,
which
is
about
65
percent
of
the
potential
that
would
be
afforded
if
we
maximized
the
zoning.
W
This
proposed
site
and
landscape
plan
shows
the
features
for
the
site
that
we
are
proposing
in
the
very
heart
of
the
property.
You
can
see
a
clubhouse
inside
the
clubhouse.
We
will
have
leasing,
agents,
property
management.
We
also
have
a
full
gymnasium
in
there
we
have
tanning
beds.
We
also
have
a
pool
area
and
a
hot
tub.
W
Just
to
the
northwest
of
that,
you
can
see
an
outdoor
play
area
for
children
to
the
bottom
right
hand,
side.
You
can
also
see
another
play
area
for
the
children
and
along
the
the
northeast
portion
of
the
property.
You
can
see
a
dog
park,
so
we
do
try
to
provide
a
lot
of
amenities
on
site
for
the
tenants
of
the
facility
to
use.
W
W
Buildings
that
are
viewed
to
the
south
that
will
actually
see
the
owahis.
So
we
think
this
is
a
very
exciting
piece
of
property
to
develop.
Residentially
david
stated
that
we
were
located
outside
of
the
65
decibel
contour
as
generated
by
the
noise
exposure
maps.
We
are
approximately
1.6
miles
outside
of
that
and
that's
the
threshold
for
what
is
compatible
with
the
airport
operations,
and
so
we
are
1.6
miles
outside
of
that
line
of
demarcation.
W
So
to
speak,
and
without
going
into
it,
we
you
can
go
to
the
next
slide.
Actually,
david
did
mention
the
conditions
of
approval
that
the
airport
had
generated,
and
we
agree
with
all
three
of
those
conditions
that
we
have
adequate
sound
insulation.
W
C
You
so
much
first,
we'll
just
check
to
see
if
we
have
a
representative
from
the
southeast
neighborhood
association,
please
raise
your
hand
virtually
or
come
on
up.
M
Question
I
think
I'll
start
with
staff
might
be
for
the
applicant
as
well.
Thank
you
both
for
the
presentation,
the
numbers
that
caught
my
eye-
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
reading
this
correctly-
is
that
the
it
seems
to
me.
We
have
an
awful
lot
of
excess
parking
at
the
project
seems
like
in
the
report.
I
think
there's
344
stalls
required
by
code,
but
they're
proposing
454.
V
Madam
chair
members,
commission,
that
is
correct.
They
are
perform
proposing
that
much
parking.
That
being
noted,
it
does
not
exceed
our
parking
maximum
standards,
but
you
are
correct.
M
W
Requires
madam
chair
councilman
shafer,
that
was,
we
try
to
find
the
balance
between
providing
enough
parking
so
that
everybody
can
readily
find
a
space
near
the
unit
that
they
are
renting
without
providing
an
excess
amount
of
parking
and
it's
a
difficult
balance
because
of
where
the
property
is
located
or
what
tenants
we
are
proposing.
W
But
in
our
application
we
were
really
focusing
on
the
noise
exposure
maps
that
were
being
generated
by
the
part
150
studies,
and
with
that
mr
riddle,
who
was
here
earlier
today,
just
a
week
and
a
half
ago,
reached
back
out
to
us
and
said
hey.
You
know
what
we
have
really
considered
your
application
materials
and
we've
come
to
the
determination
that
residential
development
on
this
property
is
suitable
and
it
does
not
conflict
with
airport
operations.
W
And
if
that's
the
facts,
would
you
take
this
application
back
and
see
if
you
can
take
some
of
that
excess
parking
that
we
feel
you
have
and
bring
forth
a
project
that
is
even
more
densely
developed
than
what
you're
proposing
today?
And
we
found
that
to
be
a
very
exciting
revelation
to
come
from
the
planning
department
and
one
that
we
told
him
that
we
would
absolutely
consider.
W
But
we
told
him
that
we
have
a
contract
that
expires
within
three
days,
so
we
wanted
to
move
forward
with
the
application
for
270
units
at
this
point
in
time.
Hopefully
gain
your
approval
of
this
application,
but
then
go
back
to
the
drawing
board
to
see
if
we
are
indeed
providing
too
much
parking
on
the
property
and
see
if
there
are
opportunities
for
possibly
podium
style
part
are
podium
style
buildings,
so
we
have
parking
underneath
and
that
can
free
up
some
space
for
additional
buildings.
W
D
The
proposed
development
is
not
consistent
with
the
interim
airport
influence
area
policy
adopted
in
2020,
which
allows
for
residential
development
in
the
area
b1
to
be
increased
from
3du
per
acre
to
5du
per
acre,
if
compatible
with
the
existing
residential
development
in
the
area.
The
interim
policy
does
not
specifically
address
influence
area
b.
D
D
D
He
then
goes
on
to
say,
and
he
says
that
that
3
to
5
du
per
acre
bump
is
in
area
b1.
But
then
he
says
the
inner
policy
does
not
specifically
address
influence
area
b.
What
is
the
difference
between
influence
area
b,
the
direct
object
of
the
second
sentence
and
area
b,
one
a
noun
that
appears
in
the
first
sentence.
V
Madam
members
of
the
commission,
the
these
are
two
different.
Two
two
distinct
airport
influence
areas
area
b1
allows
for
under
our
current
adopted
airport,
influence
allows
for
some
residential,
but
at
a
lower
level,
three
or
five,
depending
on
where
it
falls
within
that
sound
contour,
whereas
b
doesn't
allow
any
so.
D
V
Separate
and
distinct
areas,
b1
is
out
towards
the
other
side
of
the
airport.
I
don't
think
you
see
it
that
much
on
this
side
per
se.
There
are
two
distinct
areas.
D
D
E
We
have
modified
some
of
our
policies,
specifically
in
area
b1,
where
we've
increased
it
and
we
had
not
done
anything
in
area
b.
And
so
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
be
consistent
with
what
we
did
in
that
other
zone
and
we're
allowing
residential
development
up
to
the
existing
densities
that
are
already
there.
We're
not
trying
to
increase
the
densities
which
would
create
a
precedence
where
maybe
another
property
is
going
to
increase
even
more,
and
then
it
would
begin
to
have
adverse
impacts
on
the
airport.
D
D
Thank
you
matt.
If
the
applicant,
you
can
so
I'm
just
curious
again
in
vain
of
the
madam.
V
Madam
chair,
remember:
the
commission,
and
maybe
matt
could
further
elaborate,
but
he
does
they
do
go
on
within
their
their.
Their
memo
do
state
that
this
does
not
violate
the
faa,
grant,
assurance
21
and
will
and
that
compa
or
that
residential
is
compatible
here
and
that
they
would
be
amenable
to
it,
provided
that
it's
consistent
with
the
surrounding
area-
and
there
is
an
apartment-
complex
directly
next
door
to
this.
This
isn't
in
a
regional
activity
center,
which
is
ideal
for
supporting
this
type
of
density.
V
It
is
outside
of
the
the
65
decibel
contour,
which
is
really
where
that
bee
was
trying.
That
b
zone
was
trying
to
limit
density,
but
the
new,
sound
studies
that
we
have
is
indicate
those
those
old
survey.
Surveys
are
not
exactly
accurate,
so
we're
trying
to
adjust
the
we're
trying
to
adjust
for
the
new
data
that
has
been
that
has
not
been
fully
adopted
yet
into
into
the
zoning
ordinance,
and
maybe
matt
could
better
elaborate
on.
But
that's
my
understanding
that
they
basically
did
state
within
letter.
C
X
One
I'll
jump
in
thank
you
and
thank
you
for
the
question,
commissioner
gillespie,
but
I
think
that
it
was
explained
very
well
that
initially,
the
zoning
that
was
developed
did
not
comply
because
under
previous
noise
studies,
under
the
current
and
most
recent
noise
study
that
we
have,
it
is
outside
of
what
we
would
consider
the
noise
impact
area.
And
so
we
did
not
specifically
object
to
to
this
request.
C
D
Good
evening
miss
hop
so
this
up,
I'm
just
a
little
bit
confused.
Normally
when
we,
when
we
get
a
note
from
an
agency-
and
they
say
it's
not
consistent
with
the
adopted
policy
of
the
city.
D
That
usually
means
at
least
to
me
that
the
agency's
recom
is
is
recommending
denial
of
the
application,
because
it's
not
consistent
within
this
case.
What
matt
called
the
adopted
interim
airport
influence
area
of
policy
which
he
says
was
adopted
in
2020..
So
could
you
clarify
what
the
airport's
view
is
of
what
your
recommendation
or
your
finding
is
for
this.
X
I
would
be
happy
to
so.
I
think
the
point
that
we're
making
in
that
memo
is
that
the
policy
existing
policy
did
not
does
not
align
with
the
existing
conditions
today,
so
the
policy
is
not.
The
existing
zoning
has
not
been
updated.
The
policy
only
addressed
area
b1,
so
we
wanted
to
go
ahead
and
address
b.
X
G
Not
a
question,
but
more
of
a
point
is,
unless
I'm
reading
it
incorrectly.
One
of
the
requirements
in
the
staff
report
is
even
though
the
applicant's
proposal
is
outside
of
this
60
and
65
decibel
area,
and
especially
in
light
of
the
the
new
research,
that's
been
done
on
sound
levels.
One
of
the
conditions
is
sound
insulating.
V
Madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
although
it's
it's
outside
the
sound
contours,
the
65
decibel
sound
contour,
which
is
measured
on
over
a
24
hour
period.
The
airport
did
feel
that
there
were
there
might
be
single
noise
events,
because
it
is
still
in
the
flight
path
for
the
approaching
planes
that
might
exceed
that
from
time
to
time,
and
therefore
they
thought
sound
insulation
would
be
would
be
something
that
would
be
needed
in
this
location.
G
L
C
D
Just
a
quick
question
for
the
applicant,
so
you'll
note:
the
city
is
asking
you
to
put
in
270
bicycle
spaces.
Is
that
correct.
W
Madam
chair
member
gillespie,
yes,
they
have
asked
us
for
one
bicycle
parking
per
unit.
We
do
have
several
units
that
have
garages
underneath
them
all
of
the
townhouses,
so
we
would
include
their
bicycle
parking
within
their
enclosed
garage.
D
W
Madam
chair
member
gillespie,
we
are
comfortable
with
all
conditions
contained
within
the
staff
report
from
the
planning.
D
L
G
I
am
not
aware
of,
and
I
did
not
see
in
the
staff
report,
any
potential
transit
lines
that
exist
or
are
planned
in
this
for
general
vicinity.
Is
that
correct.
V
Madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
that
is
correct,
there
are
none
and
I
went
to
the
2.0
and
I
did
not
see
any
plan.
Thank.
G
M
Just
a
couple
of
quick
questions
for
david
for
staff,
david
I've
got
this
right
there,
the
height
variants
they're
requesting.
I
believe
it's
three
feet.
I
forget
the
zone.
Sorry
I
apologize
so
we're
the
max
in
the
one
zone
is
45
and
they're
asking
for
48
and
in
the
other
zone.
What
is
it
the
height
I
believe
the
max
height
is
31?
Is
the
max
30.
V
For
the
r2,
madam
chairman's
commission,
the
r2
max
height
is
35
and
they're,
requesting
40
to
the
top
of
the
structural
element.
Gotcha,
okay,.
G
W
Madam
chair,
commissioner
danley.
Yes,
we
did
try
to
address
that
and
currently
it
lines
up
exactly
with
heart,
feather
road
across
grand
forest
boulevard.
And
what
we
are
proposing
to
do
is
to
vacate
that
right-of-way
and
and
the
access
point,
that
is
on
east
red
cedar
lane.
That
goes
into
the
neighboring
development.
That's
actually
on
our
property
and
they
have
a
cross-access
easement,
benefiting
them.
So
we're
anticipating
bringing
property
or
bringing
people
driving
cars
in
on
that
alignment.
W
And
then
it
would
extend
on
into
the
albertson
shopping
center.
And
so
therefore,
it
kind
of
off-centers
between
the
current
alignment
with
hearthfeather
across
grand
forest
boulevard.
W
We're
also
hopeful
that
people
recognize
that
this
is
a
living
environment,
that
there
are
people
coming
in
and
out
and
p
speeds
will
slow
down,
because
when
we've
been
out
there
at
times
taking
pictures,
people
do
look
at
it
as
kind
of
a
free-for-all,
and
so
we're
hopeful
that
the
new
alignment
being
a
little
less
convenient
for
cut
through
traffic
will
help
to
cut
down
in
the
past
through
traffic.
J
Madam
chair,
commissioner,
moore
just
to
follow
up
on
the
the
height
requirements,
and
this
is
the
or
the
height
exemption.
This
is
a
question
for
the
applicant
so
for
the
height
exemption.
J
If
I'm
reading
the
plans
correctly,
it
looks
like
those
are
just
for
those
little
stair
pop-ups
and
that
would
just
be
an
exemption
in
that
r2
zone
of
5
feet
and
then
it's
for
the
elevator
pop-ups,
and
that
would
just
be
an
exemption
in
that
c4
zone
of
something
around
three
feet.
Like
commissioner
schaefer
had
stated.
W
Madam
chair,
commissioner,
moore,
yes,
you
are
correct,
they
are
really
just
the
elevator
pods
and
actually
we
were
trying
to
treat
them
as
architectural
features.
We
are
trying
to
do
a
flat
roof
on
these
buildings
and
so
to
break
up
that
flat
plane.
We
were
looking
for
opportunities
for
a
vertical
disruption
in
the
long
linear
length,
and
so
we
were
trying
to
get
a
twofer
in
in
that
sense,
with
the
stairs
and
the
elevator
pods,
using
those
also
to
break
up
the
roofline.
J
L
J
W
J
All
right
and
madam
chair
can
we
share
more
and
then
just
one
follow-up
question
so
on
the
and
this
might
be
first
staff
or
the
applicant,
the
surrounding
properties,
these
little
white
roofs
are
those
parking
structures.
W
Madame
chair
member
commissioner
moore
those
are
the
neighboring
properties
garage
units.
I.
C
Okay,
cnn,
I
will
slowly
move
on
to
the
we'd
move
on
to
hear
from
the
neighborhood
association.
Oh
I'm
sorry.
We
did
that
next
we're
gonna
move
to
public
testimony,
so
anybody
here
that
would
like
to
testify
on
this
item.
Please
come
on
up
to
the
podium
and,
if
you're
online,
please
virtually
raise
your
hand
now.
C
Y
Y
This
proposal
will
drastically
change
the
character
of
the
entire
columbia
village
residential
neighborhood,
which,
as
you
know,
is
several
thousand
primarily
single-family
homes,
with
one
small
apartment,
complex
adjacent
to
the
proposed
property.
It's
not
slightly.
The
proposed
project
is
not
slightly
more
dense
than
the
surrounding
neighborhood.
It's
dramatic
increase
in
density
compared
to
anything
nearby.
Y
I
would
hope
that
you
consider
your
first
priority
protecting
the
light.
The
lifestyle
and
well-being
of
the
citizens
who
already
live
here,
as
well
as
the
profits
of
developers
and
increasing
the
tax
rolls
over
the
past
five
years,
traffic
on
highway
21
has
already
increased
dramatically,
as
the
population
down
on
warm
springs,
looks
for
escape
routes
from
that
developing
area.
Y
Forest,
a
few
yards
from
that
intersection,
further
complicating
the
traffic,
the
the
road
that
you
commented
on,
that
little
access
road
through
the
proposed
development
parallel
to
highway
21
is
presently
used
by
the
the
columbia
village
population
as
the
only
access
and
egress
route
to
the
columbia
market
marketplace.
Y
Y
Everyone
from
columbia,
village,
as
well
as
the
new
developments
around
micron
and
people
going
down
highway
21,
will
have
to
exit
south
onto
federal
highway,
make
a
difficult
left
turn
onto
federal,
another
difficult
left,
turn
onto
highway
21
and
then
circumvent
the
property
which
is
going
to
cause
tremendous
traffic
impaction
at
both
the
highway
21
federal
intersection
and
the
grand
forest
highway.
21
intersection.
C
Thank
you,
mr
leonard.
That's
the
end
of
the
three
minutes.
As
per
our
code.
Next,
we
will
hear
from
david
becker,
I
believe,
go
ahead
and
unmute
sir,
and
please
start
with
your
name
and
address
and
you'll
have
three
minutes.
Z
My
comment
is
very
specifically
about
that
road:
that
access
road
that
we've
been
talking
about,
that
is
a
heavily
accessed
road,
not
only
by
the
residents
of
columbia
village,
but
there
are
hundreds
of
vehicles
that
pass
through
there
every
single
day
in
the
summer
time,
when
you're
watching
recreational
vehicle
traffic
rb
traffic
that
goes
through
there,
there
are
tons
and
tons
of
vehicles
that
travel
through
there
every
day
to
get
to
highway.
21.
Z
there's
also
fuel
trucks
that
go
in
and
out
of
there
every
day,
because
that's
the
easiest
access
to
get
to
the
fuel
station,
the
number
of
tractor
trailers
or
semi-trailer
trailers
that
traverse
that
road
is
significant
as
well.
I
have
myself
two
semi-trailers
that
come
to
my
place
of
business
every
single
week.
Z
They
have
to
come
in
and
out
through
that
area
if
they
had
to
close
that
area
for
any
reason
or
reduce
their
ability
to
travel
through
there.
Their
way
to
get
out
is
only
to
go
through
the
front
of
the
albertson
store
where
there
are
three
pedestrian
crossways
and
then
they're
going
to
have
to
go
to
the
only
other
exit
which
is
on
lake
forest
turn
left
and
then
to
catch
the
traffic
light
on
lake
forest
and
federal
way.
Z
They
could
also
go
behind
the
albertson
shopping
center
and
come
through
and
access
the
other
entrance
to
the
other
apartment
complex.
That
is
on
the
opposite
side
of
albertson's
and
come
on
out,
but
I
think
that
would
probably
be
a
difficult
traverse
for
them
as
well,
and
it
would
also
interfere
with
the
traffic.
That's
coming
in
out
of
that
very
large
apartment,
complex
on
the
opposite
side
of
albertson's.
Z
I
really
don't
have
an
opposition
to
the
building
of
the
apartments
themselves,
but
that
access
road
and
the
number
of
parking
spaces
that
are
on
the
left
and
the
right
side
of
that
road
is
going
to
greatly
inhibit
the
traffic
that's
coming
through
there
and
getting
in
and
out
of
the
albertson's
parking
lot.
Without
that,
access
is
going
to
be
detrimental
to
that
shopping
area
and
to
those
that
live
and
work
in
that
area
to
get
in
and
out
for
shopping.
Z
Every
day
at
least
twice
a
day
for
about
40
minutes,
the
traffic
that
goes
from
the
mcdonald's
parking
lot
or
drive-through
travels
all
the
way
around
into
the
entrance.
It's
backed
up
on
federal
way,
and
that
happens
at
least
twice
a
day,
inhibiting
the
entrance
in
and
out
of
the
parking
lot.
Thank.
C
P
Hi,
my
name
is
anthony
fondino,
I
own
the
ups
store
in
the
columbia
village
marketplace.
P
6568
south
federal
way,
I
am
also
a
resident
of
columbia,
village,
we're
all
for
bringing
more
people
in
it's
good
for
business.
P
The
main
thing
is
that
road
that
access
road
there
are
only
if
we
take
that
out
not
going
through
the
other
apartment,
complex,
there's
only
two
exits
for
the
shopping
center,
there's
three
entrances,
but
only
two
exits
left
that
road
that
would
be
coming
out.
The
tractor
trailers
for
albertsons
take
that.
P
If
you
look
at
the
map,
I
mean
any
big
rig
boats,
trailers
they're
all
going
out
to
grand
forest,
because
that
is
the
only
access
to
a
light,
a
traffic
light,
the
other
exits,
there's
no
traffic
lights,
they're
very
hard,
very
fast
to
get
across
the
lanes.
P
I
just
see
it
as
being
a
problem.
You
know
other
than
that,
like
I
said
we're
all
for
growth,
but
I
would
really
hate
to
see
people
using
the
the
roads
through
the
you
know,
propose
the
building
plan
or
through
the
the
apartments
that
are
there
now.
I
don't
think
the
residents
would
want
to
see
people
using
those
roads.
They
really
wouldn't
want
tractor
trailers
going
through.
You
know.
I
don't
I
don't
know
if
there's
any
other
way
to
open
up
another
entrance,
but
I
I
see
it
being
a
problem.
P
P
Thank
you
for
thank
you
for
taking
me.
C
Thank
you,
mr
fundino.
Next
we'll
hear
from
rob
stark.
Please
start
with
your
name
and
address
and
then
you'll
have
three
minutes.
AA
Robert
stark,
6865
east
warm
springs,
avenue,
boise
83716.
I
am
a
board
member
on
the
barber
valley,
neighborhood
association,
but
I
am
representing
myself
as
a
citizen
today,
madam
commissioner,
chairman
commissioners.
While
I
am
not
completely
opposed
to
the
building
of
a
multi-family
housing
development,
this
location,
I
am
very
concerned
that
the
traffic
volume
on
the
access
road
between
the
shopping
center
in
grand
forest
that
currently
crosses
the
property
is
not
being
adequately
accounted
and
planned
for
the
revised
tis
report.
AA
Dated
march
12th
shows
an
existing
pm
peak
hour
volume
southbound
on
grand
forest,
just
south
of
red
cedar
of
104
vehicles.
It
also
shows
an
existing
pm
peak
hour
volume
on
southbound
grand
forest
at
highway
21
of
213
vehicles.
This
means
the
existing
pm
peak
hour
volume
entering
grand
forest
from
that
access
road
is
109
vehicles.
AA
This
is
the
route
that
residents
who
live
south
of
highway
21
in
the
neighborhoods
off
of
columbia,
road,
the
eastern
part
of
columbia,
village,
surprise,
valley,
canyon,
point,
the
southern
part
of
the
barber
valley
and
boise
county
used
to
leave
the
shopping
center.
This
shopping
center
contains
the
closest
grocery
and
gas
station
to
these
communities
and
is
also
a
popular
fuel
and
feuds
food.
Stop
for
people
going
to
lucky
peak
reservoir
and
boise
county
to
recreate.
AA
It
appears
that
the
easement
is
going
to
remain
open
for
this
traffic,
but
that's
an
awful
lot
of
traffic
to
be
driving
right
through
an
apartment,
complex
and
will
include
vehicles,
towing
boats,
snowmobile
trailers
and
travel
trailers.
This
will
create
a
safety
issue
for
tenants
attempting
to
access
the
clubhouse
pool
and
playground,
as
well
as
a
quality
of
life
issue.
For
those
tenants.
AA
There
is
also
the
concern
if
this
easement
is
closed
during
construction
and
or
once
the
development
is
finished
due
to
traffic
and
safety
concerns
for
the
tenants,
those
109
peak
hour.
Trips
will
then
have
to
leave
the
shopping
center
to
the
north,
making
a
left
turn
on
the
lake
forest.
Another
left
turn
onto
federal
way
and
then
a
third
left
turn
onto
highway
21..
This
is
not
an
optimal
option.
I
would
respectfully
urge
the
commission
to
require
some
sort
of
allowance
and
planning
for
this
unconsidered
volume
of
traffic
that
currently
flows
through
this
property.
AA
C
Thank
you,
mr
stark.
Do
we
have
anybody
else
who
would
like
to
testify
on
this
item
tonight?
Please
virtually
raise
your
hand,
I
did
see
a
comment
in
the
chat,
but
just
a
reminder
that
the
chat
is
not
part
of
the
public
record,
so
anything
that
needs
to
that
would
like
to
be
submitted
needs
to
be
done.
Audibly
here.
C
W
Madam
chair
members
of
the
boise
planning
and
zoning
commission,
my
name
is
brandon
whalen,
I'm
with
hawkins
companies,
and
we
recognize
that
traffic
is
a
concern
on
that
existing
access
road.
As
I
stated
it
feels
somewhat
like
a
free-for-all
and
that
there's
cars
coming
and
going-
and
I
don't
know
that
it's
patrolled
and
so
cars,
I
think,
have
feel
as
though
they
have
free
right
to
speed
and
and
move
forward
without
inhibition.
W
We
took
that
into
account.
That's
why
we
tried
to
realign
it,
so
it
wouldn't
be
as
convenient
for
pass-through
traffic,
because
we
feel
traffic's
a
lot
like
water
and
it's
going
to
go
to
the
easiest
access
point
to
get
off
the
property
and
so
we're
planning
on
some
traffic
calming
measures
on
that
access.
W
Road
having
landscape
planners
bulb
out
a
bit
to
provide
pedestrians
refuge,
so
they
have
a
shorter
road
to
cross
and
hopefully
that
will
get
vehicle
speeds
down
and
we're
also
hopeful
that
they
might
choose
other
access
points
off
of
the
property
than
this
access
road.
That
is
somewhat
uncontrolled
at
this
time.
W
We
do
feel
that
you
know
there
there
will
be
pass-through
traffic.
The
the
gentleman
said:
there's
a
109
peak
pm
traffic
trips,
which
is
approximately
one
car
per
every
or
excuse
me
1.5
cars
through
there
every
minute,
and
so
we
feel
that
that's
not
a
burden
that
should
be
used
to
deny
this
application.
W
We
feel
that
the
realignment
will
help
mitigate
those
issues.
We
also
think
the
traffic
calming
measures
that
we
will
incorporate
will
help
mitigate
those
issues
and
we're
also
hopeful
that
there
will
be
less
people
using
this
road
because
it
becomes
a
little
less
convenient
cars
that
want
to
get
from
other
neighborhoods
into
the
alberson
shopping
center.
W
Just
south
of
this
development
there
is
a
dedicated
right-hand
turn
into
the
shopping
center,
so
people
can
easily
access
the
shopping
center
without
going
through
the
apartment
complex
and
if,
if
there
is
any
question
well
that
that's
just
that
is
the
extent
of
my
rebuttal.
We
recognize
that
there
are
traffic
trips
on
that
access
road.
We
have
planned
to
realignment
and
we
do
plan
to
use
traffic
calming
measures
to
help
mitigate
the
traffic
on
that
access
road,
and
with
that
I
ask
for
approval
of
pud
21-0.
C
D
C
Great
this
is,
do
we
have
discussion?
Would
you
like
to
start,
commissioner,
danley.
G
AB
G
Of
pm
nam
peak
trip
numbers
as
they
stand
today,
do
amount
to
really
two
to
three
at
most.
You
know
in
in
a
minute
which
isn't
very
significant,
even
in
our
application
here
in
our
packet
in
front
of
us,
future
losses
still
remain
at
an
a
or
a
b
in
in
the
10
20,
even
30
years
from
now.
G
I
would
be
remissed
on
the
one
point,
which
is
unfortunately,
our
letter
from
the
school
district.
This
is
one
that
may
have
prompted
some
discussion
in
pre-commission,
but
I
certainly
would
have
liked
to
have
seen
more
from
our
school
district
in
response
to
this.
We
didn't
get
very
much,
and
hopefully
it
may
end
up
being
a
resolution
for
future
applications,
but
that's
not
here
nor
there.
One
point
worth
noting
I
will
say
that
did
that.
I
think
we
were
wrong
according
to
compass
anyway,
on
in
their
letter,
that
is
in
our
application.
G
The
value
right
2.0
does
show
that
this
will
be
site
to
a
future
transit
route.
So
with
respect
to
parking
something
maybe
to
consider
further,
I
don't
have
any
changes
that
I
would
like
to
make
to
my
original
motion
at
this
point,
but
at
this
point
I'll
be
standing
in
favor
of
my
own
motion,
madam.
D
So
I'll
be
supporting
the
motion,
I
think
we
hashed
through
the
airport
issues
and
we
had
a
pretty
clear
statement
of
support
from
the
city
staff
at
the
airport.
I'd
just
like
to
say
two
things
about
just
generally,
and
I
think
commissioner
chris
sort
of
touched
on
this,
but
to
control
traffic
in
this
area.
We
need
to
put
housing
there
right,
there's
a
bunch
of
jobs,
there's
a
bunch
of
services
and
the
reason
there's
so
much
traffic.
There
is
because
everyone
lives
far
away.
D
So
one
of
the
ways,
in
fact
the
best
way
to
control
traffic
is
to
put
housing
where
the
jobs
and
the
household
services
are,
and
this
is
the
place
for
that.
It's
it's
got.
The
most
dense
accumulation
of
jobs
in
probably
in
the
state
of
idaho,
is
right
there.
So
that's
an
unambiguous
good
thing
and
reason
to
do
this.
D
Second,
with
respect
to
this,
this
fronted
road.
So
this
road
is
on
the
applicant's
property
right.
They
do
have
an
existing
access
agreement
which
they
have
to
respect,
but
that
respect
doesn't
mean
that
the
frontage
road
as
it's
currently
configured
is
the
right
of
everyone
who
uses
it.
It's
not
it's
an
access
agreement
and
the
applicant
is
making
a
reasonable
concessions
to
create
and
maintain
that
access.
D
D
So
I
didn't
find
that
the
issue
of
the
frontage
road
and
the
cross
axis
was
a
compelling
reason
to
deny
this
application
and,
in
the
other
respects,
I
think
the
application
meets
all
the
code
requirements
and
I
appreciate
the
applicant
bringing
this
one
forward
and
I
think
it
would
be
a
big
benefit
to
this
part
of
the
city
to
get
this
kind
of
housing
in
this
location.
Thank
you.
U
Madam
chair,
commissioner
squires
commissioner
gillespie
stole
a
couple
of
my
thunderous
points
that
I
had
hoped
to
make
but
good
job.
I
could
concur
fully
with
those.
The
only
two
other
comments
that
I
would
perhaps
make
is.
If
the
applicant
is
going
to
come
back
before
this
commission
with
a
revised
application,
I
would
like
to
see
more
density.
U
M
M
I
think
the
applicant's
done
a
nice
job
with
this
with
this
project
and
this
these
parcels,
I
spent
enough
time
out
there
to
drive
past
that
that
this
project
site
many
times
wondering
when
something
gonna
happen
out
here
right,
and
I
think
this
is
a
nice
fix
and
a
nice
fit
for
that
site.
Having
said
that,
you
know,
I
think
they
did
a
nice
job
with
the
layout.
I
too
am
not
all
that
concerned
about
the
access
drive
with
vxs
parking.
M
I
think
they
could
drop
some
of
those
stalls.
I'd
like
to
see
maybe
a
little
more
density,
I
like
to
see
maybe
more
green
space,
some
more
amenity
space
for
the
residents,
and
I
think
they
have
an
opportunity
here-
a
real
good
opportunity
to
maybe
utilize
some
of
that
excess
parking
to
really
think
through.
You
know
raised
crosswalks
across
that
access
drive
really
think
through
some
large
bulb
outs.
You
know
really
study
that
and
and
make
that
an
amenity
that
will
serve
the
greater
neighborhood
and
this
development
concurrently.
C
C
I
also
I'll
just
say
quickly.
I
also
am
supporting
the
motion
for
many
of
the
reasons
stated.
I
also
would
like
to
see
if
this
comes
back,
I'd
like
to
see
less
parking,
whether
that's
density
or
open
space,
I
would
take
either.
You
know
the
way
to
avoid
congestion
and
air
pollution
is
just
like
what
commissioner
gillespie
said:
build
housing
close
to
jobs,
shops
and
city
centers,
which
this
does
also
to
avoid
rising
crime.
C
You
know
build
mixed
residential
types,
have
apartments
near
family
homes
and
town
homes,
and
this
accomplishes
that
as
well.
So
I
support,
I
think,
it's
a
great
project
and
look
forward
to
seeing
what
comes
next.
For
it.
Is
there
any
further
discussion?
Okay,
we
have
a
motion
to
approve
pud
21-6
for
jrs
properties.
B
C
C
H
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
All
right
welcome
back.
We
are
closing
out
here
with
item
number
seven.
This
is
pod
21-7
for
bna
engineers.
Oh
no
wait!
It's
not.
X
C
AB
C
Okay
item
number
six:
this
is
cop
21-3
for
trout,
architects
at
522,
west
franklin
street
conditional
use
permit
for
mixed-use
development
comprised
comprised
of
personal
services
and
residential.
Let's
please
go
ahead
and
start
with
staff.
You're
up
miss
reign.
AB
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
commission.
This
item
before
you
is
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
mixed-use
development
comprised
of
personal
services
and
residential
on
.14
acres
and
lohd
cd
limited
office
with
historic
district
and
conservation
district
overlay
zone
located
at
522
west
franklin
street.
The
current
use
is
an
existing
2028
square
foot
single-family
residential
dwelling.
AB
The
existing
structure
was
built
in
1918
and
has
been
used
as
a
resident
since
at
least
1966..
The
applicant
proposes
to
convert
the
bottom
floor
of
the
building
into
a
personal
service
use
and
retain
a
residential
unit.
On
the
second
floor,
proposed
changes
to
the
exterior
exterior
will
be
minor
and
limited
to
the
rear
of
the
building
where
they
propose
to
add
an
ada,
accessible,
ramp
and
parking
area.
The
project
was
reviewed
and
approved
through
a
certificate
of
appropriateness
and,
as
conditioned,
will
meet
the
dimensional
standards
of
the
lod
zone.
AB
Many
of
the
same
goals,
including
to
serve
as
transitional
area
between
the
commercial
intensity
of
downtown
and
the
predominant
single-family
residences
of
the
north
end,
the
personal
service
use
is
low-impact
enough
to
be
appropriate
in
this
transitionary
zone
as
the
use
is
contained
within
the
lower
part
of
the
building,
and
the
only
proposed
changes
will
be
in
the
rear.
The
historic,
streetscape
and
residential
status
will
be
maintained.
AB
In
conclusion,
the
applicant's
proposal
will
have
limited
impacts
on
the
surrounding
area,
as
the
use
is
compatible
with
the
neighborhood
the
zone
and
the
overlays.
It
complies
with
approval
criteria
for
conditional
use,
permit
and
supports
the
spirit
and
intent
of
the
comprehensive
plan.
As
such,
the
planning
team
recommends
approval
of
the
application
with
conditions.
The
commission
makes
a
final
decision.
Thank
you
and
I'll
stand
for
questions.
Thank.
C
You,
mr
raine,
next
we'll
hear
from
the
applicant
we'll
start
with
10
minutes.
Please
start
with
your
name
and
address.
O
Good
evening,
madam
chairman
of
commissioners
eamonn
park
from
trout,
architects,
2504,
west
kootenay,
boise,
idaho
83705.
I
think
that
crystal
covered
the
project
quite
well.
I
I
don't
really
have
much
to
add
other
than
you
know
to
speak
to
sort
of
the
general
use
of
this
area
as
increasingly
mixed
use
per
adjacency
to
downtown.
I'll.
O
Also
note
that
there
is
an
interesting
threshold
in
the
boise
city
development
code
for
personal
services
at
a
thousand
square
feet
in
the
gra,
and
the
first
floor
of
this
project
is
proposed
to
be
1332
square
feet.
So,
under
the
under
that
threshold
hold
this
use
would
be
allowable
at
a
thousand
square
feet
or
below
and
is
conditionally
allowable
at
a
thousand
square
feet
or
above
which
we
are
just
slightly
that.
So
that's
really
all
I
have
to
say.
C
Great,
thank
you.
So
next
we
would
move
to
here
from
the
north
end
neighborhood
association.
I
don't
think
we
do,
but
do
we
have
anybody
present
that
is
representing
the
north
and
neighborhood
association.
Tonight
I
see
a
hand
up
from
eric
hegan
eric.
You
can
go
ahead
and
unmute.
Now,
please
start
with
your
name
and
address
and
you'll
have
10
minutes.
AC
Eric
hagen809
north
18th
street,
I
represent
the
north
end
neighborhood
association
as
their
planning
and
zoning
committee
member.
This
use
seems
to
be
in
line
with
that
area
and,
as
mentioned,
is
hidden
within
within
the
transitory
zone.
So
we
don't
see
any
any
problem
with
the
proposed
project
at
all.
C
Perfect.
Thank
you.
Okay,
great
from
with
that
we'll
go
to
questions
from
the
commission
for
a
staff
applicant
or
the
neighborhood.
C
AD
My
name
is
jim
chalfont.
My
home
address
is
3950
north
hackberry
way,
but
we
also
own
the
there's
a
vacant
lot
next
door
to
this
to
this
proposal,
where
we
will
be
building
a
home.
AD
The
our
concerns
are
on
a
couple
of
fronts.
One
is
that
a
salon
is
by
nature,
almost
a
retail
type
of
a
business
where
cus,
customers
or
clients
will
be
coming
and
going
throughout
the
day,
and
I
don't
know-
and
maybe
the
applicant
can
tell
me
what
their
hours
of
operation
are.
AD
I
don't
sometimes
salons
are
open
and
late
in
the
evening.
Sometimes
they're
open
on
weekends
and
so
it'd
be
interesting
to
know
that,
additionally,
my
understanding
is
they're,
they
are
putting
in
four
chairs
four
salon
chairs,
and
so,
if
they
have
four
parking
spaces
is
that
enough
to
handle
employees
and
customers?
C
Great
okay
last
call
for
testimony
on
this
item.
I
am
not
seeing
any
other
hands
so
with
that
we
will
go
back
to
mr
park
for
a
five
minute
rebuttal
if
you'd
like
to
use
it.
O
Thank
you,
madam
chairman
yeah.
I
would
you
know
we.
When
we
had
our
pre-planning
meeting
with
the
planning
team,
we
discussed
the
p3
parking
overlay
and
and
reductions
relative
to
that
overlay,
as
well
as
its
adjacency
to
mass
transit,
and
you
know
the
possibility
of
the
probability
rather
of
bicycle
parking
as
well
as
pedestrian
traffic,
and
so
the
reduction
or
the
proposed
reduction,
rather
from
six
required
spaces
to
to
four
required
spaces.
O
I
will
also
say
that
there
is
a
a
parking
garage
directly
across
the
street
as
well
as
you
know,
not
that
we
can
necessarily
count
it
against
our
parking,
but
but
to
our
on-street
parking
in
front
of
the
project.
So
given
its
its
proximity
to
downtown
and
how
dense
this
location
is,
I
think
that
the
parking
provided
on
site
should
be
adequate.
C
Thank
you,
mr
park,
and
with
that
we'll
close,
the
public
portion
of
the
hearing,
and
the
item
is
before
the
commission
manager.
C
J
Absolutely
I
love
seeing
adaptive
reuse,
especially
of
historic
buildings.
It
kind
of
preserves
the
character
of
the
neighborhood,
keeps
building
materials
out
of
lands
and
landfills
and
meets
all
of
the
kind
of
some
of
the
spirit
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
as
stated
in
the
staff
report.
J
On
top
of
that,
in
terms
of
the
parking
with
the
availability
of
on-street
parking
parking
garages
and
the
location
near
downtown,
I'm
perfectly
comfortable
with
the
amount
of
parking
that's
available
for
employees
and
for
visitors
there
and
the
relatively
low
intensity
of
the
use,
I'm
comfortable
with
with
the
whole
layout
on
of
that
just
because
of
its
particular
situation.
U
Madam
chair,
commissioner
squires,
I
will
just
say
that
I
concur
with
what
commissioner
moore
said.
This
is
a
very
low
intensity
based
use.
I
do
like
the
the
the
transitional
use
of
this
neighborhood
and
of
the
uses.
C
Great
okay,
seeing
no
further
discussion,
we
have
a
motion
to
approve
cp,
21-3,
522
west
franklin
street.
Will
the
clerk
please
call
the
vote.
Stan
aye
shafer.
B
C
Thank
you.
This
meeting
is.