►
From YouTube: Citywide Advisory Committee Meeting #6 - 03/18/2021
Description
The sixth Citywide Advisory Committee Meeting for the Zoning Code Rewrite for the City of Boise.
A
A
I
did
want
to
go
ahead
and
introduce
all
of
our
staff
members
and
anybody
that
might
be
presenting
today.
So
everybody
knows
who
they
are.
We
do
have
our
current
planning
and
development
services
director
with
us
today.
Mark
lavin-
and
this
is
actually
his
last
week
with
us
so
we'd
like
to
thank
him
for
being
such
a
good
supporter
of
the
zoning
code,
rewrite
and
giving
us
all
the
resources
that
we
need
to
do
a
good
job.
So
thank
you
mark
we're
going
to
miss
you
and
with
go
ahead.
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
Any
of
those
types
of
things
are
always
at
your
fingertips,
so
you
can
always
use
those.
So
as
we
begin
today,
we
are
going
to
start
to
talk
about
some
of
the
zoning
districts
that
we
have
proposed
and
we'll
walk
you
through
that.
So
we'll
have
short
presentations
and
then
we're
going
to
present
to
you
questions
and
really
focus
on
some
good
quality
discussion
and
we'll
go
ahead
and
stop
and
set
you
up
for
that
discussion
to
happen.
A
If
you
have
questions
go
ahead
and
let
us
know
we
will
have
a
short
intermediate
break,
that's
five
minutes
in
the
middle.
So
if
you
do
need
to
use
the
restroom,
if
you
need
to
get
a
drink
or
just
stand
up
and
stretch,
that'll
be
the
opportunity
for
you
to
do
there,
and
then
we
also
are
going
to
allot
some
time
at
the
end.
In
case
we
do
have
any
attendees.
That
would
like
to
provide
comment
to
us
as
we
move
forward.
A
As
always,
I
just
kind
of
wanted
to
review
the
project.
Goals
of
what
we
are
trying
to
accomplish
is
really
implementing
our
comprehensive
plan
building
on
those
strategic
priorities
that
mayor
mclean
has
established
for
us
making
sure
that
we're
involving
and
engaging
our
citizens
and
stakeholders
as
we
move
forward,
making
sure
that
we
are
finding
that
best
blend.
That's
going
to
work
from
us,
so
that
might
be
a
mixture
of
traditional
form-based
and
performance-based
zoning.
A
We'll
take
a
look
at
that
incentivizing
and
making
great
design
and
diverse
mixed-use
land
ruses
throughout
our
city,
making
sure
that
we
have
a
development
process
that
ensures
predictability
of
all
of
our
decisions.
So
no
matter
what
side
you're
on
whether
you're
a
developer
or
a
neighbor.
You
know
what
you
can
expect
from
the
zoning
code
and
from
all
of
us
within
planning
and
development
services
and
making
sure
that
it's
user
friendly
that
everybody
can
use
it.
A
So
we
do
have
our
normal
rules
of
engagement.
We
all
do
really
great
with
that.
We're
going
to
treat
everybody
with
kindness,
be
open-minded
and
think
about
us
as
a
community
being
ready
to
share
our
thoughts
respectfully
and
we'll
do
that
without
interruption
and
the
best
way
to
do
that
is
if
you
would
like
to
speak,
go
ahead
and
raise
your
hand
and
we'll
make
sure
that
you
have
that
opportunity
and
then
really
just
being
ready
to
learn
and
doing
our
personal
best.
A
A
E
F
F
F
D
F
All
right
great,
so
with
apologies
for
what
just
happened:
let's
get
started
and
use
our
time
as
wisely
as
possible.
So,
as
andre
said,
we're
going
to
review
very
briefly
where
we
are
in
this
process
and
then
talk
about
three
fundamental
things
that
have
come
up
as
we
have
gotten
into
the
meat
of
drafting
module
one.
These
three
questions
we're
going
to
pose
today
were
on
the
agenda.
One
has
to
do
with
the
structure
the
zone,
district
consolidation
one
has
to
do
with
continuing
discussion
of
this
form.
F
How
do
you
control
the
form
and
make
sure
it
fits,
and
then
with
a
lot
of
local
examples,
that
andrew
is
going
to
weigh
in
on
what
compatibility
means
in
boise.
So
here's
the
timeline-
and
we
are
again
in
the
beginning-
we've
gotten
through
the
kind
of
diagnostic
report
we
are
now
in
module,
one.
We
are
in
the
process
of
drafting
it
and,
as
we
said,
this
march
meeting
was
added
to
the
calendar
to
give
us
exactly
this.
F
F
It
is
taking
shape,
and
next
month,
in
april,
at
the
at
the
meeting,
we
will
walk
you
through
the
actual
public
draft.
It
will
be
drafted,
it
will
be
available
for
public
comment
and
we
will
walk
you
through
how
we
made
some
of
the
tricky
decisions
to
deal
with
difficult
challenges,
so
districts
and
uses
module,
one
which
you're
drifting-
and
this
is
just
a
reminder-
we're
we're
not
making
this
stuff
up.
It
comes
from
blueprint
boise.
F
It
talks
about
mixed-use
zoning
districts
for
regional
community
neighborhood
activity,
centers,
varied
intensity
and
mix
of
uses
series
of
mixed-use
zoning
districts
to
promote
more
transit,
supportive
patterns
of
development.
Consider
form
based.
That's
why
form
based
is
back
in
the
conversation
today
encourage
a
mix
of
housing,
types
and
densities
in
residential
neighborhoods,
particularly
for
projects
greater
than
two
acres.
F
So
once
again,
I
just
reminding
you
this
is
stuff
that
has
been
on
the
books
for
many
years
as
guidance
in
boise
that
we're
trying
to
figure
out
what's
the
right
way,
to
put
it
into
a
series
of
rules
and
incentives.
So,
and
you
can
see
policy
recommendations
in
the
green
box
to
the
right
now,
let's
get
into
it,
we're
going
to
set
up
the
first
question
which
has
to
do
with
zone
district.
F
F
F
Cities
do
this,
they
cross
this
bridge,
they
once
a
generation
or
once
every
20
years
or
10
years,
but
usually
it's
less
frequently
than
10
years
kind
of
take
a
deep
breath
and
say:
okay,
we
we
do
have
guidance.
We
think
we
know
where
we
want
to
go.
How
are
we
going
to
revise
our
rules
and
incentives
to
get
us
there?
And
yes,
it's
going
to
mean
the
old
structure
that
we're
used
to
is
not
going
to
be
there
anymore.
F
It's
going
to
be
different
and
the
question
that
comes
up
along
the
way,
usually
is:
is
it
right,
it
will
get
us
there
and,
secondly,
can
we
be
fair
to
the
people
who
are
in
the
process,
every
property
owner
every
tenant
in
boise?
Who
is
going
to
live
through
this
process
of
the
change
of
rules?
All
I
could
say
is
you
know:
cities
gather
the
courage
and
the
vision
to
do
this
regularly
and
to
say
we
can
do
this.
We
can
cross
this
bridge.
That's
not
to
say
this
list
is
correct.
F
It's
to
say
that
if
it
seems
like
a
lot
of
change,
it
is
and
blueprint
boise
calls
for
a
lot
of
change.
The
real
question
is:
have
we
got
at
this
writer?
We
need
to
do
further
refinements
of
it.
I'd
like
to
point
out,
first,
I'm
going
to
walk
you
through
about
five
or
six
of
these
that
are
that
are
worth
significant
attention.
F
Basically,
when
you
want
few
houses
on
large
acreages,
because
that's
what
your
hillside
ordinances
say
is
appropriate,
the
second
is,
there
is
a
you:
could
you
use
it
for
kind
of
large
lot,
zoning
when
developers
don't
know
where
they
want
to
go
after
that?
We're
recommending
that
those
two
be
split.
F
We
are
also
recommend,
in
this
case
r1a
and
r1b.
You
have
r1a
r1b
and
c.
We
are
recommending
that
those
be
converted
into
r1b
that
the
r1a,
with
a
larger
minimum
lot
size
would
not
continue
that
the
new
minimum
lot
size
in
that
area
would
be
the
r1b
there's
far
more
r1b
than
there
is
r1a
in
in
boise.
F
Our
and,
and
the
question
is:
does
the
city
of
boise
side
need
need
a
large
lot?
Zoning
for
areas
other
than
sensitive
lands,
most
many,
many
cities
that
we
consider
this
kind
of
say.
No,
really.
We
want
to
go
forward
saying
that
kind
of
5
000
square
foot.
Lot,
it's
a
standard
lot.
That's
we
want
to
go
forward.
So
that's
a
recommendation.
F
F
This
is
where,
at
our
meeting
in
january,
you
said
come
up
with
a
district
that
allows
for
a
wide
variety
of
new
types
of
of
housing.
You
said
two
things
part
of
you
said
include
new
types
of
housing
in
the
existing
zone.
Districts
and
other
people
said,
but
we
also
maybe
want
to
consider
a
new
zone
district
that
has
a
very
wide
variety
of
housing.
F
F
We
have
in
limited
ways,
talked
about
putting
that
in
r1
a
b
and
c.
But
the
point
is
now:
here's
and
here's
the
point
we're
highlighting
this,
for
you
said
new
district.
When
we
looked
at
it,
we
said
well,
r1
right
now,
m
is
kind
of
a
one-off.
It
allows
only
a
few
things,
but
they're
intended
to
be
creative.
F
Could
we
and
we're
asking
you
this
question?
Could
we
broaden
the
variety
of
r1
m?
Call
it
rm,
but
make
it
broader,
rather
than
saying
we
have
r1m,
which
is
a
limited
variety
district
and
then
create
a
brand
new
district,
which
has
a
wider
variety
which
would
look
and
smell
a
lot
like
rm,
just
a
broader
version
of
it.
F
So
this
is
in
response
to
maybe
there's
a
need
for
boise
to
have
a
district
that
is
not
trying
to
get
new
types
of
housing
into
r1a,
b
and
c,
but
a
district
that
would
allow
broad
mixes
of
those
types
of
housing
uses
in
there.
So
that's
that
I
want
to
go
on
quickly
in
the
interest
of
time.
This
is
a
big
area.
I
we
will
not
beat
the
drum
anymore
blueprint.
Boise
clearly
says
mixed-use
districts
at
a
variety
of
intensities.
F
When
we
look
at
your
current
list-
and
we
said
this
in
in
january-
you've
got
a
number
of
them
that
real,
yes,
their
uses
differ.
Yes,
their
minimum
lot
sizes
differ.
Yes,
their
intensities
differ,
but
they
basically
are
aimed
at
small
scale,
neighborhood
scale
activity
centers.
We
are
recommending
those
four
that
are
highlighted
be
consolidated
in
the
mixed
use,
neighborhood
scale,
and
in
this
case
we
are
recommending
that
six
use
six
medium
scale.
Commercial
districts
currently
and
hs
stands
for
health
services,
but
it
functions
more
like
just
a
mixed
use
set
a
district.
F
That
is
a
midi,
medium
level
of
intensity.
We
are
recommending
that
those
be
consolidated
into
one
of
two
things
if
they
were
at
major
corners,
the
places
that
are
designated
in
blueprint
boise
as
activity,
centers
or
major
potential
transportation
hubs
where
you
could
build
the
transportation
network,
mxa
and
mxs
being
street
oriented
meaning
in
between
those
nodes.
F
This
is
what
you
kind
of
need
to
do
to
develop
a
transportation
system,
create
nodes
of
activity,
allow
the
mixed
use
in
between
the
nodes,
but
at
lesser
intensities,
and
not
pretending
that
it
will
all
be
kind
of
a
walkable
center.
Often
it's
along
your
existing
arterials
and
collectors.
It
needs
to
be
zoned
for
what
it
is.
It's
street
oriented
mixed
use,
it's
street
oriented
shops
or
residential,
but
it's
not
a
center,
it's
fronting
on
a
street
and
it
doesn't
go
back.
F
F
Last
thing
I
want
to
highlight
is
in
the
overlay
districts
and
you
can
see
that
you
can
see
the
consolidations.
We
can
talk
through
any
part
of
it.
I'll
put
the
slide
back
up
if
you'd
like
you
now
have
obviously
conservation
and
neighborhood
overlays
those
are
being
carried
over,
but
grouped
together
as
character
protection
overlays,
the
yellow,
highlighting
says
right
now
you
have
your
design
standards
and
downtown
design
standards.
F
We
are
proposing
that
those
be
rolled
into
module
two.
Basically,
those
are
codified
as
and
and
updated
and
reviewed,
but
said:
that's
how
you
know
right
now.
You
apply
it
to
almost
every
multi-family
non-residential
use
in
the
city.
Okay,
that
doesn't
have
to
be
an
overlay
district.
That's
just
design
standards.
There
are
design
standards
for
multi-family.
There
are
design
standards
for
commercial.
There
are
design
standards
for
mixed-use
or
design
standards
that
could
be
for
industrial.
F
Those
are
just
design
standards,
they
cover
they
they
come
into
play
very
very
often
in
the
types
of
development.
I've
talked
about
make
them
design
standards
in
module
three,
so
they
don't
have
to
be
a
separate
overlay
district
that
allows
your
existing
capital
boulevard,
fairview
and
your
historic
district
to
isolate
and
give
extra
or
specialized
designed
standards
and
forms
to
those
particular
geographic
areas
to
have
overlay
districts
like
you
do
today,
the
d
and
the
dd
which
are
treated
as
overlapping
but
in
fact
cover
vast
vast
swathes
of
the
city
when
everything's
an
overlay
district.
F
It's
not
an
overlay
district
elderly
districts
are
to
aim
at
particular
things
that
you
want
to
achieve
in
a
particular
geographic
area
and
when
you're
so
broad
sweeping,
as
these
are
just
turn
them
into
module
two.
So
we
are
not
recommending
to
be
deleted.
It
would
be
a
big
change,
because
a
lot
of
people
look
at
these
in
the
designer
process.
F
So
that
is
the
three
things
I
would
like
to
highlight
and
I'll
be
very
happy
to
flip
back
and
put
these
slides
back
on,
but
the
question
we
wanted
to
lay
out
was:
what
do
you
think
is
this
getting
towards
what
blueprint
boise
said
in
terms
of
the
types
of
places
that
you
would
have
now?
Well,
I
want
to
foreshadow
your
design
review
process
is
still
there.
No
one's
asked
us
to
get
rid
of
it.
F
We
will
review
it
we'll
see
how
much
can
be
made
more
objective,
but
you'd
still
have
that
you've
still
got
the
dimensional
and
form
and
height
of
scale
standards.
That'll
come
up
in
module
two,
but
in
terms
of
a
structure
holding
blueprint
boise
in
your
left
hand
and
those
tables
in
your
right
hand,
do
you
have
any
feedback
for
us.
Don't
do
that.
Do
do
that.
I,
like
that.
I
don't
like
that,
and
and
what
did
we
miss
andrea.
A
I
think
that's
a
great
introduction
dawn.
So
if
you
take
a
look,
we've
got
23
existing
zones
in
proposed
clarion
has
15
zones.
So,
if
we're
looking
at
all
of
those
strategic
priorities,
can
we
provide
a
safe,
healthy
city
for
everyone,
a
house
for
everyone,
mobility
and
movement
for
everyone
are
those
things?
Can
those
be
accomplished
via
these
zones
that
we
have
proposed
before
us
and
so
jessica
has
posed
the
question?
Will
there
be
height
restrictions
in
the
proposed
r
zones?
A
A
G
Everyone,
I
have
a
question:
if
I
may,
what
could
you
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
the
difference
between
rm
and
r2?
The
way
you
describe
rm
with
words
sounds
like
what
I
envision
r2
in
my
mind,
to
be
I'm
sure,
there's
some
numeric
differences,
but
in
terms
of
the
concept,
if
you
could
split
that
out
a
little
bit
that'd
be
interesting.
F
Okay,
that's
good.
I
will
give
you
a
general
answer,
but
I'm
going
to
give
gabby
a
heads
up.
I
cannot
have
three
screens
here,
so
I
have
a
hard
time.
Looking
at
you
and
looking
at
the
powerpoint
and
having
some
of
our
draft
materials
at
gabby,
would
you
pull
up
the
emerging
in
draft
form,
use
table
and
highlight
any
of
the
differences
between
those
two
conceptually?
F
The
difference
is
r1
is
r2
is
a
medium
density,
residential
means
it
does
allow
multi-family
and
it
allows
it
is
a
you
know
you
can
do
apartments,
you
can
do
condos,
but
they're
going
to
be
low
rise.
Our
three
is
higher
or
mid-rise
housing
r2
is
supposed
is
really
a
multi-family
zone.
R1
rm
is
intended
to
deal
with
a
number
of
the
things
that
we
had
talked
about
earlier.
Cottage
housing,
co-housing
things
that
are
not
in
some
cases
as
big
as
an
apartment
building,
but
they
are
that
missing
middle.
F
They
are
the
things
that
often-
and
I
you
know
we-
let's
have
a
discussion
about
this.
Often
in
single-family
neighborhoods
people
are
existing
single-family
neighborhoods
people
are
not
sure
they
want
to
have
those
in
their
neighborhood,
but
going
forward
in
the
future
saying:
okay,
it's
a
neighborhood
that
allows
single-family
detached
and
attached.
F
It
has
town
houses
and
it
has
co-housing,
and
it
has
it
has
these
variety
of
of
kind
of
creative
forms
of
low
rise
that
you
could
mix
and
match
in
a
neighborhood,
so
that
in
the
future
that
the
current
r
1m
lands
would
would,
if
this
were
approved,
gain
that
level
of
variety
but
in
the
future,
other
lands
that
sought
rezoning,
for
example,
from
r1c
or
some
other
area
or
raw
lands
into
our
m,
would
also
gain
that
variety
gabby.
Can
you
help
me
a
little
bit
with
this
with
the
with
the
code
up
thanks.
H
H
H
F
I
Thanks,
andrea
yeah,
don
and
gabby,
I
guess
the
other
question
that
I
have
as
a
follow-up
for
rm
is:
is
the?
Is
there
a
strategy
behind
the
the
terminology?
Low
density?
You
know,
r1m
often
is
a
density
increase,
especially
when
it's
rezoned
right
now
is
there,
and
especially
when
we're
talking
about
cottage
villages
that
that
really
kind
of
spikes
density
in
its
own
right.
F
Well,
two:
two
answers
to
that
question.
The
well
three
answers.
First
answer:
we
really
struggle
with
what
to
call
this,
so
we
are
completely
wide
open
as
to
what
you
think
would
be
a
thing
to
call
it
cottage
density,
you're,
you're,
the
the
other
issue
is
cottage
density.
Yeah
usually,
and
we
haven't
drafted
this.
This
has
not
been
finalized.
Usually
when
you
allow
cottage
or
co-housing
development,
it's
fairly
limited
in
size
like
an
acre,
it's
a
half
a
block:
it's
not
five
acres,
it's
not
that
you
can
do
a
whole
neighborhood
of
it.
F
So,
yes,
it
is
half
block.
I
I'm
giving
you
an
example.
We
don't!
No
one
has
approved
one
acre
or
half
acre
or
two
acres,
but
it's
almost
always
limited
in
size,
because
people
view
it
as
a
way
of
using
land
that,
for
some
reason
or
another,
has
not
been
used
for
traditional
housing.
So
your
statement
is
correct.
Byron,
the
density,
the
number
of
houses
per
acre
goes
up,
but
usually
there's
a
size
limit.
So
instead
of
a
3
000
square
foot
house,
it's
a
1,
000
square
foot
house.
F
I
C
Yeah,
I
think,
generally,
what
you're
proposing
I
mean
without
still
digesting
it
without
looking
into
it
too
much
makes
sense
kind
of
trying
to
condense
the
zones.
I
guess
an
added
note
about
that.
Rm
I
mean
it
almost
makes
sense
to
me
to
just
drop
the
term
low
density
entirely,
because
I
I
think
what
byron
was
saying
is
true.
It
kind
of
implies
like
it
implies
single
family
or
something
that's
you
know
not.
C
I
guess
mixed
residential,
which
is
the
second
half
of
it,
so
I
I
would
just
say,
drop
it
or
or
come
up
with
a
better
term.
I
don't
know
I
another
question
I
kind
of
wanted
to
follow
up
on
which
gabby
had
started
kind
of
answering,
so
the
art
this
this
fourplex
cottage
court
type
stuff
is,
is
conditional
in
r2.
Are
we
then
saying
that
it
is
entirely
out
of
the
question
for
r1b
and
r1c,
or
is
it
conditional
there
as
well?
I
just
kind
of
want
to
understand
that.
F
H
C
F
Well,
we're
going
to
get
into
compatibility
quite
a
in
depth
later
on
in
the
meeting,
but
the
short
answer
is
for
each
one
of
these
things.
No,
you
know
where
this
is.
This
is
hard
stuff
to
think
through
what
might
be
acceptable
to
fit
into
that's
a
new
thing
that
we
haven't
seen
before
in
a
neighborhood
that
has
a
character
and
a
scale
and
a
height
and
a
feel.
So
we
are
aiming
at
saying.
F
If
these
things
are
allowed,
they
would
be
subject
to
height
or
scale
I've
written
things
that
say
in
a
you
know
like
an
r1b,
you
can
do
a
duplex
or
you
could
even
do
attached
in
some
cases,
but
no
more
than
four
units
you
can't
do.
Ten
ten
would
break
the
mold.
We've
done
things
that
say:
four
plexes
are
allowed,
but
not
in
a
house
that
is
more
than
25
bigger
than
the
average
of
the
houses
on
the
block.
So
I
think
the
answer
is
yes.
We
will.
F
A
J
Okay,
so
this
is
richard,
so
thank
you
so
again
I
step
back
and
I
look
at
blueprint.
Boise
and
the
first
chapter
is
environmental
stewardship,
and
I
just
don't
see
how,
for
my
neighborhood,
any
of
this
will
promote
those
policies
because
most
of
those
ecological
services
and
environmental
benefits
come
from
in
our
land
in
our
area,
r1a
pastures,
still
some
small
farming
operations,
etc.
J
So,
for
instance,
those
many
many
blueprint,
boise
policies,
you
know
protect
night
skies
noise
mitigation,
you
know,
study
your
habitat
after
you
annex
an
area
protect
tree
canopy,
develop
an
urban
forest
aquifer
recharge
through
having
irrigation,
canals,
unlined,
preserve
natural
vegetation,
minimize
urban
runoff,
preserve
opportunities
for
urban
agriculture.
All
of
these
things
are
things
that
are
naturally
more
supported
and
more
likely
to
remain
intact
in
our
our
1a
lands.
So
if
you
just
simply
change
those
to
something
that
allows,
you
know
how
much
higher
density
by
right,
how
will
this?
J
How
will
that
entitlement
promote
these
environmental
stewardship
policies?
The
first
chapter
of
blueprint,
boise?
And
if
you
don't
do
that,
if
you
don't
have
some
mechanism
to
to
ensure
that
that
happens,
then
the
city
loses
its
negotiating
power,
which
otherwise
would
occur
upon
a
rezone
from
r1a
to
r1b
or
whatever.
So
again,
I
think
you
know
we
have
to
see
blueprint
boise
as
a
whole,
not
just
as
one
chapter
and
the
first
chapter
is
environmental
stewardship.
So
thank
you.
A
I
do
but
before
we
answer
that,
I
think
we
have
a
really
good
question
and
it
was
actually
francis's.
But
it's
going
to
tie
in
nicely
and
her
question
was:
will
agricultural
lands
be
included
in
boise's
zoning
districts
or
is
that
all
of
the
agriculture
outside
of
the
city's
jurisdiction?
So
I
think
both
of
those
tie
nicely
together.
So
I
mean
go
ahead
and
take
a
stab
at
that
don.
F
F
F
There
are
fairly
dense
cities
that
protect
night
skies
through
much
better
lighting
standards.
The
difference
between
a
5
000
and
a
9
000
square
foot
lot
to
be
very
frank,
is
not
going
to
save
you
on
night
skies
you
got
to
get
the
standards
have
to
be
strict
for
everybody,
your
yours,
your
stormwater
runoff,
and
trying
to
make
sure
that
you're,
not
over
and
and
stream
openings.
Those
are
in
my
mind,
those
are
strategies
that
that
are
serious.
That
need
to
be
implemented.
F
Usually
that
requires
a
lot
substantially
bigger
than
9
000
square
feet.
9000
square
feet
is
kind
of
in
between,
and
but
I
but
I
want
to
be
very
clear
richard.
I
I
take
your
comment
to
me.
You
disagree
with
the
merger
of
r1a
and
r1b,
and
I
I
want
to
I
want
to
acknowledge.
I
I
think
your
vote
is
don't
do
that.
That's
not
right.
F
My
response
is
I
hear
you
and
but
but
the
environmental
values
that
are
highlighted
at
the
beginning
of
blueprint
boys
you
take
kind
of
citywide
rethinking
of
how
you're
handling
with
stormwater
and
how
you're
handling
lighting
and
how
you're
handling
habitat
and
how
you're
handling
stream
corridors
most
cities
do
not
do
that
by
trying
to
preserve
large
lot
sizes
within
an
urbanized
area.
Is
that's
the
short
answer,
but
but
I,
but
I
hear
that
you,
I
think,
feel
strongly
this-
that
the
r1ar1b
is
a
bad
idea.
J
Well,
it's
the
conversion,
it's
the
conversion
without
and
losing
the
negotiation
power,
because
these
are
not
are.
These
values
are
very
rarely
brought
forward
by
staff
during
a
development
or
these
you
know
a
neighborhood
may
bring
them
up,
but
they
just
simply
get
pushed
aside
and
lost
so
the
time
to
do
to
ensure
that
they
are
the
city
does
take
them
seriously
and
the
city
has
the
power
then
to
implement
them
is
when
you
create
more
density
by
right.
Otherwise,
you
lose
that
power,
and
you
know
so
it's
more
than
just
r1a.
J
F
I
think
we
need
to.
We
need
to
put
this
on
the
table
for
the
whole
group.
This
is
an
issue.
You've
been
very
polite
and
very
articulate
in
raising
it.
I
think
at
least
three
times
and
maybe
in
some
writings
beside
that
we
we
just
need
to
put
it
on
the
table,
most
cities
when
they
rewrite
their
ordinances
and
once
again,
boise
will
determine
its
own
fate
here.
F
A
Typically,
agricultural
is
located
outside
of
urban
areas.
We
should
be
looking
at
a
small
produce
stands.
You
know
beekeeping,
those
type
of
urban
agricultural
means
specifically
because
they
they
do
provide
that
environmental
impact,
but
also
looks
at
the
preservation
of
cohabitating
with
bees
and
those
types
of
things.
So
that's
an
important
thing,
but
the
other
thing
that
I'd
like
to
bring
up
that
I've
heard
time
and
time
again
and
I'd
like
to
clear
up
is
that
when
we
re-zone
a
property,
we
should
not
be
negotiating
anything
at
that
point.
A
That's
what
provides
unpredictability
that
if
our
comprehensive
plan
is
clear
and
if
our
zoning
code
is
clear
and
everybody
understands
what
can
be
built
there
and
they
know,
what's
allowed,
that's
what
creates
predictability.
That's
what
creates
us
a
viable
plan.
So
that
we
can
plan
for
transit
so
to
get
transit,
you
have
to
have
a
dwelling
units
per
the
acre.
A
If
you
look
at
some
of
our
other
plans,
like
our
transportation
action
plan,
looking
at
those
major
corridors
where
we
want
to
be
best
of
class,
so
looking
at
state
street
looking
at
fairview,
then
down
milwaukee
as
one
and
then
also
looking
at
vista
avenue.
So
those
are
really
connecting
some
key
places:
our
regional
activity
centers.
So
looking
at
state
street
as
a
major
corridor,
our
boise
town
square,
our
airport
and
our
downtown
core,
because,
ultimately
that's
how
that
all
connects,
but
not
only
thinking
about
today,
but
thinking
about
the
future.
A
A
So
I
my
goal
is
to
make
a
very,
very
solid,
concrete
plan
for
us
to
move
forward
where
we're
not
negotiating.
We
know
what
we
expect
and
we
are
striving
to
get
there
and
that's
our
alarm
for
this
question,
but
we
still
have
some
hands
up
that
I'd
like
to
get
to
before
we
move
on
because
we've
got
shellin
drew
daniel
and
then
we
also
have
some
of
those
questions
in
the
chat.
So
if
we
could
just
answer
those
quickly,
that'd
be
great.
K
K
K
F
K
I
don't
consider
that
available.
Just
because
just
go,
I
mean,
for
the
sake
of
the
conversation,
I'm
sorry
I
didn't
mean
to
interrupt
on.
I
just
filled
the
conversation
and
going
back
to
andrea's
point
of
like
the
point
is
having
certainty,
okay
and
so
so
being
available
with
a
conditional
use
is
one
thing,
but
what
about
just
being
available
by
right
as
well.
F
Would
you
like
us,
are
you
voting
to
do
that
sounds
like
they
should
I'll,
be
very
honest
guys.
The
real
thing
we're
trying
to
do
here
is
is
find
a
balance
between
what
often
arises
as
a
very
strongly
articulated
desire,
not
to
have
non-residential
uses
in
residential
neighborhoods
and
the
desire
to
promote
mixed
use,
which
is
written
all
over
blueprint,
boise
in
various
ways
and
so
they're
short.
I
hear
what
you're
saying
I.
F
I
think
I
don't
to
put
words
in
your
mouth,
but
I
think
what
you
would
argue
for
is
by
right
use
of
some
of
those
things
in
those
residential
neighborhoods.
So
I
hear
that
when
we
back
up
to
r2
and
r3,
some
of
those
non-residential
users
will
be
allowed
in
those
areas.
It
makes
sense
to
have
supporting
non-residential
uses
in
apartment
and
multi-family
districts.
Usually
we
still
call
them
residential
districts
because
they're
usually
limited
to
ground
floors
of
multi-family
buildings.
So
can
I
do
a
small
coffee
shop
on
the
ground
floor
of
a
multi-family
building?
F
Yes,
we're
considering
it
excessive
accessory
and
supportive
to
that
building?
Yes,
you
can.
Oh,
then
it's
a
mixed-use
district.
No,
we
try
to
reflect
the
character
of
this
and
say
it's
treated
as
if
it's
supporting
the
primary
residential
use
of
this
district.
Could
I
walk
in
and
erect
a
starbucks
freestanding
in
the
middle
of
a
residential
district.
Small
city
say
no,
that
that
would
be
mxn
if
you
want
to
do
a
freestanding
commercial
use.
That
is
fine.
F
F
A
L
Yeah,
so
I
want
to
respond
to
richard
and
kind
of
this.
This
idea
of
negotiation
I
just
and
one
thought
I've
had
is
that
I
I
kind
of
view
this
process
as
the
negotiation
you
know,
and
so
that
I
think
we
would
all-
and
I
think
regardless
of
you
know,
I
think
richard
has
you-
know
big
heavy
values
around
certain
environmental
attributes.
That
are,
you
know
and
preserving
certain
kinds
of
land
and
so,
and
so
I
think
there
is
a
way
and
others
hey.
Let's
we
use
the
these
up
zones
as
ways
to
get.
L
A
little
we'll
know
which
parts
of
our
you
know
how
certain
that
districts
are
going
to
remain
and
the
ones
that
are
going
to
change
and
it'll
just
be
a
much
less
costly
time
consuming
process
to
to
bring
new
development
so
that
that
may
be
a
frame
that
helps
people
who
are
kind
of
trying
to
work
through
this.
You
know:
how
do
we
use
negotiation
now
to
try
to
you
know,
extract
things
that
we
think
are
the
benefit
of
the
city.
L
The
other
point
I
just
want
to
observe
is
that
obviously
the
details
I
mean,
I'm
generally
fine
with
this
new
grouping,
the
details
matter
a
lot,
so
you
know
currently
in
our
single
family
zones.
You
can
do
it.
You
can
have
duplexes
by
right,
so
we
now
can
do
adus
by
right
at
some
scale.
So
you
know
I
might
like
to
see
them
at
a
at
a
different.
You
know
at
a
larger
or
with
different
parking
requirements.
L
F
That's
right
well,
we'll
engage
in
part
of
it
next
month
because
we're
going
to
walk
you
through
this
and
things
like
what
are
the
conditions
on
adu?
What
are
the
conditions
on
duplexes?
What
are
the
conditions
on
ground
floor
retail
uses
in
a
residential
district
things
like
that?
So,
yes,
we,
it
won't
be
too
far
down
the
road.
It'll
be
it'll,
be
public
next
month
and
we'll
walk
you
through
it.
So.
A
F
That
is
really
intended
for
more
density
than
that,
and
there
are
a
number
of
things
along
this
line
that
we
can
talk
about
next
time
in
terms
of
if
the
real
concern
is
the
people
who
have
a
particular
property
use
today-
and
you
want
to
protect
them,
there
are
lots
of
things
we
can
do
to
protect
them.
We
want
to
keep
an
equal
benefit
on.
Okay.
Is
that
a
rule
we
need
to
carry
forward
so
that
tomorrow
somebody
walking
into
that
zone
would
be
able
to
do
the
same
thing.
F
A
A
So,
if
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
send
you
some
maps
and
some
visuals
that
you
can
take
a
look
at
see
how
our
city
is
composed
today
and
then
how
that
might
change,
that's
going
to
give
you
some
good
ideas.
So
these
what
we
talk
about
today
will
probably
not
be
you
know.
The
end-all
be-all
they'll,
probably
just
pose
some
questions
to
see
how
things
would
change
in
the
future.
A
A
We
use
utilize
that
a
lot
we've
talked
about
that
as
a
committee
that
we'd
like
to
eliminate
that
use
and
really
create
a
zoning
code
that
allows
for
the
right
type
of
zones,
the
right
type
of
housing
products
that
actually
create
the
house
for
everybody
allows
for
us
to
have
an
efficient,
safe
transit
system.
Those
types
of
things,
so
all
of
those
things
have
all
popped
up
in
our
chat
and
I
think
that's
good.
F
So
I'm
happy
to
do
that.
I'm
going
to
go
to
that
slide
next,
but
I
do
want
to
encourage
everybody.
This
is
we
wanted
you
to
see
this.
We
wanted
to
talk
about
it
so
that
before
it
lands
on
your
lap
next
next
month,
but
please
do
think
about
it,
and
if
there
are
things
you
didn't
have
a
chance
to
say
today
or
upon
first
blush,
you
thought.
Oh,
that
sounds
fine,
and
then
you
go
home
and
say
wow.
I
I'm
not
sure
that's
fine
at
all,
or
vice
versa.
F
I
don't
I
don't
like
that
and
oh
wait.
I
think
I
I
think
I
see
the
reason
why
they
might
want
to
do
that.
Please
write
to
andrea.
We
are
this
is
the
beginning.
We
would
say
foreshadowing
that
you
and
the
public
that's
watching
or
participating,
can
see.
It
is
it's
it's
so
far
from
being
cast
in
stone.
It's
not,
but
the
nature
of
zoning
is.
We
have
to
write
it.
We
have
to
put
it
in
front
of
you
and
you
have
to
tell
us
over
time
what
we
did
wrong.
F
It
can't
just
talk,
as
you
can
see,
from
the
detail
in
this
table
and
there's
a
lot
more
detail
behind
it.
You
can't
talk
about
this
stuff
conceptually.
You
have
to
look
at
a
proposal
and
say
yep
or
nope
or
well,
you're,
half
right!
Okay.
With
that
in
mind,
let's
go
on
to
the
next
question
here.
I
think
I
can
still
advance
my
slides,
hopefully
yeah
I
can
okay.
F
So
let's
talk
about
form,
there
have
been
lots
of
comments,
blueprint,
boise
talks
about
mixed
use,
a
lot
and
it
talks
about
design
a
lot.
It
talks
about
fitting
in
with
the
character
of
boise
a
lot,
and
there
is
no
winner
in
this
thing
about
well.
Is
it
more
about
use
or
is
it
more
about
form,
it's
a
false
dichotomy.
F
Everybody
controls,
uses
and
forms
every
single
code
in
america,
controls
uses
and
forms
because
they
both
matter
when
people
say
a
form
based
code
versus
a
use
based
code,
they're,
really
talking
about
what
they
what
they
emphasize
or
they're.
If
they're
really
honest,
they
admit
this
is
a
blend.
This
is
even,
if
you
say,
a
form
based
code.
You
will
find
denver,
has
a
form-based
code
famously
form-based
code.
It
has
extensive
use
controls
very
more
extensive
than
when
they
wrote
the
form-based
code.
So
my
point
is
it's:
both
of
these
are
important.
F
F
When
you
say
form.
Is
it
I
just
want
it
to
be
pretty?
Is
it
compatibility
height
scale?
What
is
it
unpeel,
the
onion
peel
the
onion
and
say
what
is
it
about
this?
It?
You
know
kind
of
I'll
know
it.
When
I
see
it
doesn't
count,
you
know
yeah,
what
is
it
and
so
I'm
going
to
show
you.
This
is
something
that
somebody
else
developed
in
the
form
based
code
firm
diploma,
duane
platter-zyburg
in
florida
to
illustrate
he
actually
calls
it
a
formostat,
and
I
said
that's
great:
can
I
use
it?
F
He
said
have
at
it
go
ahead
and
use
it.
When
we
talk
form,
we
could
be
talking
building
mass
and
placement,
meaning
where
does
the
bulk
of
the
building
go?
How
close
to
the
street,
how
close
to
the
side
street,
how
close
to
other
buildings
it
could
be
site
design
standards
like
where
does
the
parking
go?
Does
the
parking
go
behind
the
building?
Does
it
go
beside
it?
Can
it
go
beside
it?
Must
it
go
beside
it
in
a
commercial
arterial
where
there's
only
one
lot
deep
before
you
get
to
residential?
F
Could
they
put
parking
in
front
of
it?
Some
people
say
some.
Some
form
based
codes
actually
say.
Well,
when
you
get
out
to
the
edges
of
our
city
in
this
bird,
it's
okay,
it's
it's
not
walkable!
It's
just
clean
arterial,
it's
not
walkable!
It's
it's
parking
in
front
is
fine.
That's
what
people
expect
entries
almost
you
could
you
could
say
we
want
placing
massing
parking
behind
the
building.
We
want
doors
on
the
street.
We
want
people
to
walk
in
and
out.
If
you
want
to
have
a
door
off
the
parking
lot.
F
Fine
but
you're
going
to
have
a
door
to
access
this
from
the
sidewalk
street.
Why?
Because
it
encourages
walking,
it
encourages
street
activity,
it
encloses
the
street.
The
street
doesn't
become
just
a
car
canal,
it
becomes
a
place
for
people
building
frontage
types:
does
it
matter
whether
it's
a
storefront
does
it
matter
whether
it
has
an
arcade
and
a
covering
for
weather?
F
What
what
are
the?
What
are
the
features
or
how
does
it
have
to
create
pedestrian
and
architectural
interest
on
the
street
a
roof
form
some
places
want
to
control
roof
forms
where
there
is
a
dominant
is
flat.
Roofs,
okay
is
everything
else
in
the
whole
area,
or
do
you
have
to
match
the
flavor
of
the
area?
Are
you
right?
We,
you
know
if
the
predominant
shape
in
this
part
of
the
city
is,
is
shed
roofs
or
hipped
or
sloped.
F
F
Do
you
care
how
much
of
the
ground
floor
is
windows,
so
people
can
theoretically
see
in
or
out,
and
even
if
it's
not
very
interesting,
you
know
that
I
got
to
tell
you
almost
every
newer
code,
we've
written
in
the
last
20
years
has
an
anti-blank
wall
provision
like
we
don't.
We
know
that
some
things
that
go
on
in
offices
are
interesting.
We
know
other
things
are
not
interesting.
We
know
that
sometimes
people
put
display
cases
and
you
can't
actually
see
anybody
doing
anything,
but
we
do
know
this.
F
We
know
that
extensive
blank
walls
are
not
going
to
help
with
pedestrian
walkability,
so
you
can't
do
that.
So,
do
you
care
about
ground,
floor
windows
and
how
much
of
them
do
you
care
about?
Second
floor
windows,
many
cities
that
care
about
brown,
four
windows
say
you
know
we
don't
actually
care
about.
Second
floor
windows,
I
mean
it's,
it's
do
what
you
need
do
what
you
got
to
do:
facade
articulation,
horizontal
and
art
and
vertical
articulate.
This
has
to
do
with
the
blank
walls.
F
But
I
want
to
point
out
the
question
of:
do
you
want
to
encourage
your
required?
Doors
is
separate
from
do
you
want
to
encourage
or
require
windows
is
separate
from.
Do
you
want
to
encourage
or
require
the
horizontal
articulation
meaning
do
there
have
to
be
something
every
so
many
feet
that
either
divides
this
up
into
a
pedestrian
scale
vertically
or
horizontally
a
pilister,
a
column
that
comes
out
six
inches,
an
indent
that
goes
in
four
inches
whatever,
but
that
helps
to
create
light
and
shadow
and
interest
architectural
interest
in
the
building
building
materials.
F
There
are
some
that
say
it
matters
a
lot
to
us.
We
want
stone,
we
want
stonker,
we
want
brick,
we
don't
want
x,
y
and
z,
you
do
you
have
non-style,
just
special
things
about
that
district.
Is
that
district
have
historical
lights
and
lamps?
You
know
the
historic
style
lamp
in
that
area
of
the
city.
You
you
have.
No,
you
have
things
to
do
that
and
then
architectural
details.
You
could
go
into
more.
You
know
they
all
have
some
sort
of
impediment
above
the
above
the
main
entrance.
F
They
all
have
an
inset
granite.
Setting
that
says
this
build
was
building
was
built
in
such
and
such
a
year,
and
we
we
like
that
you
got
to
fit
into
this
character
of
this
area.
The
point
of
this
guys
is
simply
it's
like
a
therm.
It's
like
a
rheostat,
it's
like
a
switch,
how
what
elements
of
form
and
why?
Why
is
that
important?
F
F
Yes,
we
care
about
windows.
Yes,
we
care
about
doors.
No,
we
don't
care
that
much
about
roof
form.
I
didn't
draft
this,
so
I'm
putting
them
in
the
order
that
the
author
did
it,
but
many
of
them
stop
about
half
or
two
thirds
of
the
way
through
and
say.
Some
of
this
is
fundamental
parking
behind
buildings
or
beside
buildings.
In
most
places,
doors
windows,
buildings
near
the
street,
horizontal
articulation
without
articulation.
Once
again,
I
am
boise
will
come
out.
F
This
discussion
will
come
out
in
boise
the
way
you
want
it
to
come
out,
but
the
question
that
comes
out
and
then
so
again
I'll
just
summarize
a
little
bit
usually
when
you
deal
with
form.
Obviously
it
focuses
mostly
on
multi-family
mixed
use
in
non-residential
buildings.
You
don't
have
a
lot
of
codes.
That
say
you
got
to
build
your
single
family
house
like
this.
F
If
some
cities
do
many
cities,
don't
most
cities
say
we're
not
going
to
get
in.
We
don't
have
the
staff
to
get
into
that
size,
height
and
scale,
of
course,
and
step
downs
to
the
lower
density.
Neighborhoods
earth,
that's
kind
of
a
given
guys,
unless
you
tell
us
not
to
do
it
most
places
say:
okay,
that
height
is
fine
in
that
location
as
long
as
it
doesn't
overshadow
the
houses
behind
it.
So
it's
got
to
step
down
buildings
near
the
street
doors
and
windows
facade.
I
got
ahead
of
myself,
that's
that's
the
usual
suspects.
F
Sometimes
we
don't
like
x,
y
and
z,
materials.
They
don't
belong,
and
sometimes
it's
in
the
downtown
area.
They
don't
belong.
The
rest
of
the
city
we're
not
going
to
worry
about
it
or
in
our
activity,
centers
in
downtown
we
care,
and
in
multi-family
we
don't,
you
know,
do
the
best.
You
can
because
we're
looking
to
not
drive
up
the
cost
of
housing.
Zoning
almost
never
addresses
architectural
style
or
color,
or
this
kind
of
site
specific
features.
F
Those
last
couple
panels
where
it's
kind
of
like
well,
but
in
this
area,
if
you
have
a,
if
you
have
a
particular
artistic,
foible
or
character
or
feature
in
that
area,
that's
usually
handled
in
a
different
way,
rather
than
just
form
standards.
So
again-
and
here
I
just
want
to
point
out-
you
guys-
have
a
robust
design
review
system,
we
will.
We
have
not
been
asked
to
get
rid
of
it.
We
have
been
asked
to
look
at
it
and
make
it
work.
F
F
So
with
that
lengthy
introduction,
all
of
that
was
background
to
say
when
people
say
don
you're
talking
use.
When
are
you
going
to
talk
about
form?
The
answer
is
it?
Will
you
will
see
substantial
com
components
of
form
when
for
the
activity
centers,
when
we
put
the
districts
out
next
month
and
more
of
it
will
come
in
module
two
because
that's
module
two
is
how
do
I
do
it?
Not?
What
can
I
do?
A
I
think
we
can
go
ahead
and
open
it
up
to
discussions,
but
even
just
to
kind
of
set
it
up
for
us.
We
heard
a
lot
from
you
that,
yes,
we
want
the
missing
middle.
Yes,
there
are
alternative
housing
types
or
even
developments
that
are
not
allowed
today
by
our
zoning
code,
but
then
it
was
also
followed
by
it
has
to
be
done
well
and
it
has
to
fit
in
it
has
to
integrate.
It
has
to
be
part
of
that
neighborhood.
A
A
How
can
we
achieve
that
and,
as
dawn
said,
that
yeah,
the
city
of
boise
has
some
great
design,
review
standards
and
downtown
design,
review
standards
and
guidelines
that
are,
they
apply
in
a
lot
of
areas,
but
there
are
a
number
of
areas
throughout
the
city
that
those
don't
apply
to.
So
we
need
to
make
sure
that
if
we're
looking
at
good
quality
design,
we
need
to
codify
that
to
make
sure
that
good
design
happens
everywhere.
Maybe
not
just
on
a
few.
I
Well,
I
assumed
all
the
architects
hands
would
go
up
immediately
after
don
open
the
questioning
up.
It
looks
like
they're
starting
to
pile
in
now.
I
think
after
having
gone
through
this
process
countless
times
you
know,
I'm
always
going
to
advocate,
for
you
know
stopping
don's
presentation
around
the
first
through
third
slide.
You
know
in
the
top
left,
it's
really
the
architect
and
the
owner's
burden
of
proof
to
demonstrate
how
their
design
meets
the
criteria.
I
Certainly,
zoning
criteria,
walkability
standards,
parking
standards,
etc
and
prescribing
too
much
in
the
zoning
ordinance
and
even
in
the
design
review
requirements
boxes
designers
into
a
corner
where
that's
precisely
what
you
get
throughout
a
city
is
prescribed,
off-the-shelf
designs
and
that
may
suit
some
degree
of
economics.
When
we're
looking
at
built.
You
know
building
affordability
into
certain
multi-family
housing
projects,
that's
certainly
a
strategy
that
some
designers
and
developers
take.
I
However,
it's
always
up
to
us
to
demonstrate
how
a
project
fits
into
neighborhood
character
and
whenever
neighborhood
character
is,
is
weaponized.
That
terminology
is
weaponized
all
the
time
to
try
to
reject
certain
projects
based
on
you
know,
everybody
collectively,
forgetting
that
design
is
subjective
and
art
is
subjective
and
beauty
is
subjective.
I
Once
we
get
past
all
of
those
hang-ups
there
really
what
it
comes
down
to
is.
How
is
this
project
contributing
positively
to
its
area?
How
does
it
contribute
positively
to
walkability,
and
sometimes
that
means
the
parking
is
going
to
be
in
the
rear,
and
sometimes
that
means
the
parking
is
going
to
peek
out
the
side.
You
know,
so
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
prescriptive
elements.
I
Certainly
those
appear
in
the
building
code
too,
as
a
way
of
allowing
certain
developers
certain
designers
to
find
safe
haven
under
some
fairly
safe
design
standards,
but
when
it
comes
at
the
cost
of
innovation
and
certainly
allowing
designers
to
do
what
they're
supposed
to
be
doing,
which
is
demonstrating
the
value
of
their
project,
that's
when
it
really
kind
of
works
against
what
we
really
want
as
a
city.
So
that's.
I
C
C
You
know
some
areas
less
than
others.
You
know
we're.
Gonna
have
as
much
as
people
hate
them.
We're
gonna
have
strip
malls,
we're
gonna
have
shopping
centers,
you
know
things
like
that
need
to
exist
for
city
to
function,
and
I
agree
wholeheartedly.
I
don't
think
we
want
to
hinder
creativity
by
saying
we're
not
allowing
this
material
or
you
must
have
x
amount
of
glazing,
especially
when
it
doesn't
relate
to
what
the
building's
being
used
for.
I
think
there
are
and
to
andrea's
point
I
yes.
C
I
agree
that
we
need
to
think
of
this
holistically
in
the
city,
not
just
kind
of
specific
corridors
and
specific
neighborhoods,
but
I
do
think
there
are
areas
that
are
more
sensitive
than
others.
You
know
the
shopping
areas.
Are
you
know
where
there's
existing?
You
know
strip
malls
and
shopping
areas?
I
mean
that's
that
it's
part
of
part
of
the
city.
It's
part
of
the
function,
so
I
mean
we
can
try
and
design
that
the
best
we
can
but
ultimately
drive
that.
So
thank
you.
A
D
Great
great,
you
know,
I'm
pulling
out
one
point
that
ian
said
and
dovetailing
off
of
what
byron
said.
One
of
the
problems
in
getting
far
too
detailed,
and
I
would
say
this
was
probably
a
little
bit
of
a
challenge
when
I
was
on
design
review
too,
with
the
design
review
guidelines
is
that
you
end
up
unintentionally
precluding
some
uses
that
you
didn't
need
to.
That
would.
D
You
know
permitted
in
the
zone
but
because
the
design
standards
are
so
strict,
the
use
doesn't
actually
function
or
there
is
just
a
better
way
to
do
it
for
the
use
like
a
couple.
These
are
very
minor
examples
that
came
up,
but
I
do
remember
you
know
we
had
a.
There
was
one
application
where
you
know
the
the
building
was
supposed
to
be
pushed
up
to
the
street,
but
it
was
a
car
wash
and
it
really
made
sense
for
the
cars
to
cue
a
different
direction.
D
There
was
another
one
where
you
know
there
was
the
use
was
a
pawn
shop
and
the
pawn
shop
operator
vehemently
did
not
want
people
exiting
out
the
back
onto
an
alleyway.
It
isn't
safe
for
any
of
the.
You
know:
it's
not
safe
for
anybody
in
that
business.
So
again
it
would
have
been
parking
up
at
the
streets.
So
there's
you
know,
you
know
I
and
those
are
kind
of
not
great
examples
for
what's
showing
on
the
screen
right
now.
F
So
that
that's
very
clear-
and
I
understand
I
get
the
comment-
we've
had
three
in
a
row
kind
of
saying
you
know
because
I
again,
if
I
was
to
telegraph
I'd,
say
a
number
of
cities
go
there.
They
go
six
or
seven
you're
kind
of
saying
three
or
four,
which
is
fine.
You
guys
have
a
it's
your
it's
your
decision.
You
have
a
design
review
process
that
you're
very
very
used
to,
but
I
guess
I
I'd
like
to
push
the
discussion
a
little
bit
further.
F
E
Oh,
can
you
hear
me,
I
found
my
mute
button.
Yay,
okay
yeah,
so
I
you
know
I'm
in
agreement
with
with
everyone
else.
You
know
I
I
I
don't
want
to
see
the
elimination
of
creativity
and-
and
you
know
some
new
inventive
designs
in
neighborhoods.
The
one
concern
I
have
is
to
address.
You
know
like
existing
neighborhoods
to
have
design.
E
So
you
know
if
there's
some,
you
know
if
we
can
include
language
in
the
code.
That
said
you
know,
if
it's
like
an
in-field
development,
then
it
needs
to
meet.
You
know
be
compatible
or
meet
some
of
the
basic
guidelines
of
neighborhoods
or
setbacks.
You
know
if
you,
if
there's
some,
if
the
homes
are
15
feet
from
the
street,
maybe
you
know
not
encourage
or
allow
homes
that
would
be
right
on
the
sidewalk
that
sort
of
thing,
but
otherwise
yeah.
E
F
Yeah
all
right,
just
by
way
of
quick
response,
it
is
pretty
common
for
newer
codes
to
include
in
in
air
in
existing
areas
where
there
is
a
fabric,
and
ironically,
sometimes
the
fabric
is
as
you
as
you
gave
as
an
example
15
feet
from
the
street,
regardless
of
whether
the
zoning
says
it
was
supposed
to
be
20..
Somebody
put
zoning
on
it
afterwards
and
the
zoning
says
20,
but
all
the
houses
are
at
15..
F
It's
pretty
common
to
have
contextual
setback,
standards,
contextual
alley,
access
standards
to
say
various
things
saying
you
know
in
in
defined
areas
of
the
city,
not
not
sweeping
over
all
neighborhoods,
but
in
areas
where
we
do
have
to
find
fabric
that
your
setbacks
and
they're
usually
front
setbacks,
but
sometimes
they're,
side
setbacks.
And
frankly,
sometimes
it's
lot
coverage
and
sometimes
it's
la
access
are
you
know
you
need
to
fit
in
with
that
pattern?
Yeah
you!
You
can't
do
something
very.
F
You
can
go
for
a
variance
and
show
a
hardship,
but
basically
the
rules
are
aligned
to
say
we
want
to
reinforce
the
established
pattern
of
the
blocks
on
which
these
types
of
structures
are
located.
So
it's
that
those
that's
not
uncon.
I
I'll
take
your
comment
as
a
vote
in
favor
of
that
kind
of
contextual
dimensional
standard.
M
Yeah,
just
real
quick
don,
I
think
I
agree.
I
may
deviate
a
little
bit
from
prior
comments.
I
I'm,
I
think,
I'm
comfortable
going
a
little
bit
further
here
in
certain
areas
and
maybe
that's
downtown
or
the
mixed-use
activity
centers,
where
we
have
either
existing
fabric
or
a
clear
vision
of
what
we
want
to
see
in
those
spaces
outside
of
those
areas.
I
tend
to
agree,
though,
with
maybe
dialing
things
back
a
little
bit
so
that
we're
not
precluding
things
but
yeah.
I
agree.
F
It
would
help
me
to
clarify
what
I'm
hearing
I
I
hear
you
know
it's,
maybe
some
people
who
would
go
up
to
six,
but
most
people
are
down.
I
would
clarify
in
the
place
in
the
cities
that
do
this.
They
usually
do
limit
it
to
downtown
and
activity
centers.
They
they
don't
do
it
everywhere.
Sometimes
they
apply
basic
and
you
know
blank
wall
standards
to
to
some
other
districts.
F
What
I
I
I'm
a
little
surprised
at
the
comments
that
I've
heard
so
far,
just
because
what
I
think
I
heard-
and
please
tell
me,
I'm
wrong-
was
that
there
was
some
frustration
over
the
design
review
process
that
there
was
a
there
was
frustration
over
the
time
it
took
and
the
outcomes
being
unpredictable,
and
so
I'm
I'm
a
little
surprised.
I'm
listening
carefully
and
you
are
the
committee.
F
I
am
not
the
committee,
but
I'm
a
little
surprised,
because
what
I'm
kind
of
hearing
is,
you
know
we
cut
we
kind
of
like
being
able
to
discuss
with
the
committee
what
we
think
fits
into
the
neighborhood,
even
though
it
takes
another
round
of
public
review,
or
it
could
take
more
than
that,
and-
and
I
thought
I
heard
something
different
earlier
in
the
process
saying-
if
there's
some
way,
we
could
add
predictability
and
reduce
the
time
of
getting
development
approvals.
That
would
be
a
good
thing.
So
what
am
I
missing
here?
A
A
D
Don
just
wanted
to
clarify
something
I
the
design,
review
guidelines.
I
don't
think
there's
how
do
I
put
this?
It
was
a.
It
was
a
really
good
process
like
the
way
that
those
were
put
together.
It
was
a
very
it
was
a
thoughtful
process.
Much
like
this,
and
I
I
think
the
problem
with
the
design
guidelines
is
that
they
fit
imperfectly
with
the
existing
zoning
structure
and
everything
else,
and
so
they
ended
up
adding
another
layer
of
inconsistency.
D
F
You
think
that
would
solve
the
what
I
perceive
to
be
frustration
with
the
process
and
and
dot
dot
and
and
and
that
alone
would
be
enough.
It
doesn't
need
to
be
in
the
code.
I
feel
real
nervousness
out
there.
The
people
who've
spoken
so
far,
don't
put
it
in
the
code.
We're
kind
of
used
to
used
to
having
it
out,
don't
put
too
much
detail
on
the
code
put
most
of
the
detail
outside
the
code,
but
get
it
right.
D
I
Thank
you,
andrea
yeah,
building
off
of
what
hillary
was
saying.
I
think
that
is
very
true.
I
think
the
design
review
standards
were
just
so
far
ahead.
They
were
much
newer
than
our
zoning
ordinance
and
there
were
elements
of
the
design
review
code
that
circled
back
and
then
became
re-codified.
I
think,
as
just
parts
and
pieces
into
the
code,
specifically
thinking
about
the
substandard
lot
ordinance
and
how
that
was
pieced
together
a
little
bit
later
too.
I
Are
we
predictable
in
the
density
and
the
setbacks
is
it
you
know?
Are
we
is
the
neighborhood
and
the
the
area
that's
affected
and
impacted
getting
something
in
the
public
hearing.
That's
predictable
and
it's
not
completely
out
of
left
field
with
the
intention
that
it's
going
to
be
negotiated
back
into
compliance
that
predictability
when
they
go
into
the
the
hearing,
and
they
know
that
those
design
review
elements
aren't
debatable.
They're,
not
traded
horse
traded
later
on.
F
And-
and
that's
that's-
that's
thank
you
for
that.
That's
a
very
that
helps
advance
the
discussion.
I
think
I
just
want
to
be
clear
in
in
my
mind.
It
is
very
important
that
this
process,
this
committee
and
the
public
when,
as
they
review
things,
we
fresh
out
this
difference.
What
do
you
have
to
do
in
order
to
get
an
approval
in
boise
that
you
can't
negotiate
your
way
out
of,
and
what
does
the
city
want
you
to
do?
I
think
this
should
versus.
Shall
question
is
fundamental
to
predictability?
F
F
It's
not
really
today,
but
a
lot
of
problems
go
away
in
terms
of
predictability
and
trust
if
the
new
code
and
the
new
design
guidelines
and
regulations
are
very
clear
about
the
difference
between
shells
and
shoulds,
if
everything's
a
should
and
all
the
shoulds
can
be
traded
against
each
other
to
try
to
get
to
a
deal
and
a
handshake,
that's
an
unpredictable
system
and
the
public
is
is
justified
in
saying
we
have
no
idea
what
they're
going
to
do
so,
this
question
of.
Is
it
a
shell?
Is
it
a
shell
in
that
district?
F
A
Okay,
we
have
jessica
and
then
we
are
getting
we're
just
a
little
bit
over
time.
So
if
we'll
hear
from
jessica
and
then
I
did
want
to
point
out-
marissa
has
noted
that
if
we
are
trying
to
be
more
walkable
and
likeable,
then
we
have
to
always
think
to
design
toward
the
walkability
and
the
bike
ability
and
those
people
using
those.
So.
N
F
A
O
A
F
Let's
go
then
we
have
a
third
one,
which
is
an
important
topic,
and
this
is
unlike
a
lot
of
what
we've
talked
about
in
past
meetings.
This
is
andrea's
going
to
help
out
on
this,
and
staff
are
going
to
help
out
on
this,
because
we
want
to
talk
about
some
examples
that
have
happened
in
boise
recently,
so
just
as
don
blathered
on
about
form.
What
do
you?
What
do
you
mean
by
form,
but
we
we
advanced
the
ball.
F
That
last
discussion
gave
me
a
much
better
sense
of
where
people
are
in
terms
of
thinking
what
they,
what
they
want
to
regulate,
as
opposed
to
discuss
in
your
design
review
process
in
terms
of
building
form.
So
this
is
a
similar
parallel
question.
What
does
compatibility
mean?
I
may
have
told
this
group
before
and
if
not,
I
will
tell
you
now.
I
hate
this
word.
F
F
I
will
foreshadow
this
by
saying
some
newer
zoning
ordinances
say
they
define
compatibility.
Compatibility
means
the
following
and
it
considers
the
following
elements
of
the
development.
So
you
name
them.
You
name
the
six
things
you're
going
to
look
at
for
compatibility,
but
again,
remember
the
remember.
I'm
going
to
back
up
a
little
bit.
There
is
an
issue
with
frustration
with
the
current
code
and
I've,
and
I've
learned
a
lot
about
where
that
comes
from
today.
F
So
I
heard
I
heard
what
we
had
in
the
last
10
15
minutes,
frustration
and,
and
then
also,
I
think,
some
angst
over
particular
development
decisions
that
have
been
made
by
the
city
over
the
past
couple
years,
which
travel
under
the
umbrella
that's
not
compatible.
It
shouldn't
have
been
approved,
it's
not
compatible.
F
A
Yeah,
I
think
so,
and
I
think
that's
a
great
example
to
lead
us
in,
but
then
I'm
also
reading
some
of
our
chat
comments
and
roberta
had
commented.
You
know
that
she
appreciates
the
concern
that
people
talk
about
when
they
talk
about
neighborhood,
character
or
compatibility,
but
when
she
listens
to
that,
you
know
it
can
be
subjective,
it's
squishy,
it's
not
tangible,
it's
not
predictable,
and
so
in
some
of
our
past
meetings,
we've
also
talked
about
you
know.
What
does
that
mean
and
some
people
brought
up
the
idea
of
hey?
A
So
then
I
talked
to
them
about
it
and
they
said,
oh,
my
goodness.
Yes,
that
development
created
some
change
for
us.
I
said
tell
me
about
it
and
they
said
well.
Our
parking
code
said
at
the
time
that
really
they
didn't
need
to
have
much
parking.
They
had
to
have
one
parking
space
for
every
unit
that
they
provided
and
then
a
minimum
amount
of
guest
parking,
and
so
they
literally
provided
you
know
the
135
spaces
and
plus
the
two
ada-
and
I
said
okay
and
what
happened
next.
A
So
they
said
well
that
specific
development
triggered
changes
in
our
code
and
they
explained
to
me
that
those
changes
occurred
and
it
created
a
whole
new
parking
structure.
And
so
today,
if
these
guys
were
to
come
in
to
ada
county
based
on
their
code
change-
and
I
assumed
that
each
one
of
these
units
was
two
bedrooms
that
so
today
they
would
have
to
provide
253
parking
spaces,
so
they
have
to
provide
two
spaces
for
each
unit,
plus
31
guest
spaces
for
a
total
of
253
spaces.
A
So
it's
a
pretty
significant
swing
from
where
ada
county
was
with
their
multi-family
standards
and
parking
to
where
they
are.
Today
that
was
a
big
swing
to
me.
Then
I
thought
it
would
be
also
beneficial
to
present
what
would
boise
city's
existing
code
say,
and
I
also
assumed
two
bedrooms.
So
if
this
was
built
in
the
city
of
boise
today
we
would
require
171
parking
stalls,
so
we're
kind
of
in
that
middle
between
that
135
and
that
253..
A
What
the
right
answer
is,
I'm
not
sure,
but
we
do
need
to
be
careful.
Just
based
on
my
conversations
with
ada
county.
They
said
that
the
reaction
was.
We
have
to
provide
a
lot
of
parking
now
because
of
the
comments
we
received
and
we've
probably
gone
too
far,
and
so,
let's
not
do
the
large
pendulum
swing,
maybe
look
to
where
that
ball
ends
in
the
middle,
to
make
sure
that
we're
accommodating
enough
and
trying
to
be
compatible
and
not
negatively
or
adversely
impact
that
surrounding
area,
but
getting
it
right.
A
So
I
just
wanted
to
follow
up.
Show
you
the
research
that
I
did
based
on
what
the
county
was
requiring,
what
their
current
standards
would
be
today
and
then
how
that
would
fit
in
with
what
the
city's
current
zoning
standard
is.
Then
I
also
heard
from
some
of
you
saying:
hey
will
you
take
me,
give
me
some
sights
throughout
the
city
or
our
area
that
I
can
visit
and
I
can
actually
stand
and
I
can
smell
and
I
can
see
and
I
can
actually
fill
so.
A
I
thought
it
would
be
appropriate
to
just
kind
of
walk
you
through
a
couple
of
those.
So
if
we
can
just
kind
of
quickly
go
through
the
slides
and
I'll
just
give
you
some
items,
but
this
is
actually
a
supporting
photo
of
the
development
of
what
happens.
I
visited
the
site
at
about
5
45
p.m,
on
a
day
a
weekday.
So
this
would
be
everybody
returning
from
home,
and
this
is
the
on-street
parking.
A
So
we
can
go
ahead.
So
the
examples
that
I
provided
you,
I
tried
to
give
you
a
good
variance,
so
you'll
notice.
Some
are
one
two
and
three
stories.
Some
are
cottage.
Some
are
just
three
plexes
four
flexes
those
types
of
things,
this
one's
found
in
garden
city
and
it's
actually
a
triplex.
So
it's
three
attached
units
and
it
provides
single
car
garages
and
we
can
just
go
to
the
next
one.
A
This
is
an
existing
fourplex,
so
it
looks
like
a
large
home.
It
exists
on
8th
street.
It
was
built
in
1900
again.
This
is
gonna,
be
about
two
and
a
half
stories
just
because
it
has
the
little
cupola
on
top,
but
you
can
kind
of
walk,
see
how
these
are
and,
just
as
you
are
going
about,
look
at
the
height
look
at
the
massing.
A
A
A
It's
two
stories
and
it
it
fits
into
the
neighborhood
really
well
go
ahead.
Somebody's
angry.
We
also
have
a
10
10
unit,
multi-family
development.
It
was
built
in
1947,
that's
on
the
corner
of
16th
and
bannock
street,
and
it
kind
of
has
almost
the
cottage
feel
mixed
with
the
courtyard
feel.
So
that's
kind
of
a
hybrid
there,
but
you're
going
to
see
some
areas.
It's
two
stories
and
some
it's
three
so
that
exists
there.
We
can
go
ahead
and
move
to
the
next.
A
A
This
is
a
courtyard
style
development.
It
has
a
total
of
eight
units.
It
was
built
in
1941,
so
it's
got
that
interior
common
space
and
then
it's
outlined
in
the
rear.
This
one
was
interesting.
It
had
alley
loaded
garages
a
single
space
per
unit
and
then
the
remainder
was
on
street
parking
and
we
can
go
to
the
next
one.
A
A
This
is
on
bannock
street.
This
is
seven
units,
cottage
style,
development,
again
single
story,
very
ranch
style,
brick
built
in
1951
in
this
particular
case
again,
all
on
street
parking
and
no
off-street
parking
provided,
excuse
me
and
go
ahead
and
go
to
the
next
one
again,
a
cottage
style
development
located
on
16th
street
seven
units
built
in
1925,
your
traditional
gable
style,
cottage
style,
homes
very
cute.
A
A
B
A
A
A
This
was
a
good
exercise
for
me,
looking
at
the
different
sizes
of
the
units,
so
a
lot
of
the
cottage
style.
Those
type
of
things
were
all
very,
very
small
units,
so
probably
studios
or
single
bedroom,
and
so,
when
we're
providing
housing
yep,
that's
going
to
be
one
component
that
we
want
to
think
about,
but
we're
also
going
to
want
to
think
about
individuals
that
have
families
and
have
those
larger
units
so
two
or
three
bedrooms.
A
If
we
are
building
these
streets
that
accommodate
for
on-street
parking,
if
we're
creating
these
paved
surfaces,
do
we
want
to
use
them
for
parking,
that's
an
effective
use
of
our
land,
or
do
we
want
to
use
that
as
visitor
parking?
Those
types
of
things
so,
just
when
you
go
out
and
visit
really
kind
of
take
it
all
in
look
at
you
know
the
overall
height.
Does
it
fit
in
what
size
of
units
do
you
think
they
are?
They
small
are
where
entries
and
doors
are
there
where
are
driveways
located?
F
Okay,
so
let's
just
go
once
again:
these
are
examples
of,
and
I
think
examples
for
you
guys
of
different
types
of
housing
and
the
the
the
question
behind
the
presentation
is,
you
know
what
makes
things
like
this
compatible
or
not
compatible,
and
we
just
put
a
list
up
here
just
to
try
to
draw
people
out
heights
is
often
high
at
the
list.
I'm
not
going
to
read
you
this.
You
can
look
at
this
list
itself
and
maybe
I'll
just
leave
it
up.
But
I'll
put
the
question
up
and
I'll
put
this
back
up.
F
O
I
I
You
know
conversion
really
when
you're
talking
you're
using
one
word
to
mean
another
impacts
are
really
where
most
people
are,
especially
in
neighborhoods
at
the
ground
level,
and
not
very
many.
People
want
to
to
stand
up
in
in
front
of
a
room
of
people
and
and
try
to
direct
a
conversation
around
the
about
the
positive
ways
that
compatibility
can
be
applied.
I
How
a
project
or
a
design
is
compatible
with
a
neighborhood,
because
that
there
are
literally
billions
of
ways,
of
course,
in
the
design
sense
that
a
project
can
be
compatible
with
the
area
around
it.
But
when
it's
used
in
the
negative,
it's
really
you
know
a
lot
of
times
talking
about
impacts,
and
so
I
wish
we
would
as
a
as
a
community
and
as
a
as
a
city
talk
about
impacts,
because
I
think
that
really
directs
us
toward
those
solutions
and
that
it
allows
the
designer
to
really
focus
design
solutions
toward
minimizing
impacts.
F
Byron
in
just
to
push
it
further
when
you,
but
let's
let's
push
a
little
bit
further.
What
do
you
think
is
in
many
people's
minds,
or
can
you
generalize?
The
first
example
andrea
gave
was
parking
impacts
they
it
related
to
an
over
over
correction
in
ada
county,
or
at
least
they
worry
that
it
might
be
an
over
correction
down
at
the
bottom
of
this
list
is
parking
impacts.
F
I
It
is
change,
that's
a
very
good
question
don.
It
is
change
a
lot
of
times
and
architects
are
usually
you
know,
to
borrow
a
phrase.
We're
often
like
the
doulas
there
that
are
trying
to
help
people
go
through.
Sometimes
what
seems
like
a
very
traumatic
change
right.
You
buy
a
home
in
a
single-family
residential
neighborhood,
and
you
expect
that
home
to
always
live
in
that
environment,
at
least
as
long
as
you're
alive
right
until
you
can
get
the
the
final
value
out
of
your
investment
and
so
doing
a
lot
of
adu
projects.
I
I
guess
gives
a
little
bit
of
perspective
on
that
most
of
the
time
people
can
understand
and
they
can
hold
in
their
heads
at
the
same
time,
two
conflicting
ideas
about
adus.
One
of
them
is:
I
want
the
ability
to
use
my
property
for
it
to
its
fullest
extent.
I
want
to
be
able
to
build
an
adu
and
not
have
my
neighbors
tell
me.
I
can't
build
an
adu,
but
I
also
at
the
same
time
want
to
be
able
to
tell
my
neighbors.
I
I
I
Realistically,
what
can
you
ask
for
from
your
neighbors
when
they're
making
improvements
on
their
house
realistically?
What
can
you
expect
when
you
are
living
in
a
metropolitan
area
that
changed
before
you
and
will
continue
to
change
during
your
lifetime?
And
after
you,
so
those
impacts
are
very
nebulous
and
there
is.
There
isn't
really
a
good
answer
for
that,
except
that
it
happens
with
a
lot
of
dialogue,
and
it
really
depends
on
how
big
those
impacts
are.
F
And
I
would
only
say
I
would
I
would
agree,
and
most
of
this
will
come
up
in
module
two.
We
we
wanted
to
do
this
as
part
of
the
uses,
because
in
some
cases,
next
even
module
one
will
put
you
specific
standards.
So
if
you're
doing
this
next
to
that,
you
need
to
do
x
and
it's
about
mitigating
adverse
impact.
So
it's
relevant
to
today.
It's
also
going
to
be
relevant
to
module
2,
but
I
would
just
urge
this
whole
group.
Let's
have
as
much
of
that
discussion
now.
F
It
helps
enormously
and
whether
you
decide
byron
raised
three
things
that
were
not
on
this
list:
privacy,
light
and
views-
and
you
know
if
those
are
important-
let's
list
them.
If
those
are
not
to
be
taken
into
account
incompatibility,
then
then
you
could
say
that
in
most
cities
I'm
not
predicting
how
this
will
come
out
at
all.
In
many
cities
they
say:
well,
everybody
expects
to
keep
the
views
they
had,
but
this
city
does
not
protect
views.
F
If
you
have
the
right
to
build
a
two-story
building,
then
you
have
the
right
to
build
a
two-story
building
and
if
it
blocks
views
it
blocks
views.
If
you
want
to
go
to
a
three-story
building,
then
we
consider
views,
but
you
don't
consider
it
as
compatible
within
the
realm
of
what
goes
on.
I'm
only
using
that
as
an
example
to
sort
that
out.
F
I
Up
really
quick
one
more
thing,
that's
kind
of
like
what
designers
are
supposed
to
be
doing.
You
know,
that's
that's
our
that's!
Our
job
is
to
try
to
mitigate
and
minimize
those
impacts,
and
it
it
offers
architects
an
opportunity
to
showcase
their
design
prowess,
really
in
being
that
in-between
agent
between
the
existing
property
owners
and
the
property,
that's
being
changed.
I
A
E
So
is
it
my
turn
now:
okay,
yeah,
so,
first
of
all
by
byron,
what
you
said
was
I
mean
it:
you
just
hit
the
nail
on
the
head
in
in
the
impacts
and
so
forth,
so
and
also
andrea.
Thank
you
so
much
for
those
examples.
Two
of
the
examples
that
she
shared
are
actually
in
my
neighborhood
and
they're,
two
universally
loved
projects.
One
of
them
is
the
newer
one
that
is
on
bannock
street
and
then
I
have
an
example
in
my
neighborhood
of
one
that
is
a
universally
hated
new
infill
project.
E
So
I'll
share
a
picture
of
that
out.
So
if
you're
wandering
around
my
neighborhood
yeah
that,
oh
you
just
passed
it
the
one
that
that
one's
in
my
neighborhood,
this
one
is
universally
loved
and
then
there's
the
other
one
on
16th
street,
the
cottage
style,
houses
they're,
the
ones
that
are
two
and
three
story.
E
And
they're
now
white,
this
that's
an
older
yeah,
this
one
they're
now
white
and
they
put
new
fencing
on
and
so
forth.
The
new
owners
of
this
property
made
it
very
attractive
and
we
were
happy
to
see
him
keep
it.
We
were
concerned
that
this
would
be
leveled
and
something
else
would
be
built
there,
because
I
think
it's
built
it's
it's
either:
r,
o
or
c
two
and
then
but
the
example
of
the
property
that
I'll
send
to.
E
You
is
an
infill
project
that
went
in
about
five
or
seven
years
ago
and
it
fits
in
with
what
brian
was
describing
when
and
you'll,
and
it
comes
a
lot.
I
hear
it
a
lot
in
pnc
hearings
where
you
know
they're
like
we'll
give
an
example
of
a
bad
project.
It's
this
one
at
jefferson
street.
But
what
the
neighbors
don't
understand
was
that
was
within
code.
E
E
E
F
So
byron
raised
three
factors
that
we
had
not
listed
you've
raised.
Well,
it
may
be
listed.
I've
gone
to
a
different
slide,
but
you've
raised
the
roof
shape
being
out
of
context
and
also
the
height
being
height
is
usually
number
one
on
everybody's
list.
Well,
if
it's
too
tall,
then
don't
talk
to
me
about
how
it's
compatible.
I
you
know
there
are
ways
of
shaping
buildings
to
make
them
compatible.
F
But
my
point
is:
it's
usually
high
on
people's
lists
utilize,
those
two
things
height
and
roof
shape
in
both
of
those
cases,
some
newer
codes
say,
look
yeah
we
zone
to
what
we
want
to
have
here
and
three
stories
is
what
we
want
to
have.
So
if
you
have
a
two-story
house
and
they
build
three
sorry,
you
know-
maybe
maybe
maybe
you
want
to
think
about
selling
and
building
a
three-story
house,
some
cities
do
that
others
do
the
opposite.
F
Yes,
you
have
three-story
zoning,
but
if
the
predominant
height
of
buildings
on
either
side
of
you
or
on
that
block,
face
or
on
that
block-
is
two
stories
then
you're
going
to
be
limited
to
two
stories.
My
point
is:
you:
can
do
contextual
standards
there's
a
lot
of
philosophical
discussion.
Are
we
zoning
for
compatibility,
which
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
discussion
around
that
boise
right
now
or
are
we
zoning
for
the
density?
We
want
to
be
there
in
the
long
run,
but
both
options
are
pretty
common
in
newer
code.
J
Yeah,
so
this
is
richard.
Big
trees
are
a
thing
that
you
know,
people
feel
loss
of
compatibility
when
they
lose
those
I'll
just
throw
that
out
there,
wherever
you
can
put
that
regarding
the
parking
issue,
I
personally
have
always
kind
of
been
in
favor
of
reduced
parking.
You
know
less
less
asphalt
is
good,
but
it's
a
really
interesting
story
that
happened
in
our
neighborhood,
where
you
know
we
had
another
three-story
apartment
building
put
on.
J
You
know
greenfield
in
a
in
our
transit-oriented
development
area,
but
unfortunately
there
isn't
a
transit
there
and
one
of
the
interesting
things
that
came
out.
We
first
heard
complaints
from
the
a
nearby
apartment,
complex
owner
about
the
lack
of
parking
on
the
new
apartment,
complex
and
then
from
a
couple
of
the
residents
in
the
general
area.
It
turns
out
that
the
project
was
using
swales
for
their
storm
runoff,
which
means
a
lot
of
the
water
goes
out
into
the
street,
which
then
means
that
people
have
to
park.
J
Well,
if
there
is
a
curb
there
right
now,
achd
our
highway
department
considers
it
a
rural
area,
so
they
say,
swales
are
fine,
even
though
we're
building
a
three
three-story
apartments
there
in
this
particular
place.
It's
right
next
to
state
street,
where
the
traffic
is
habitually
at
60
miles
per
hour.
J
So
if
you're
turning
into
this
narrow
roadway,
you
really
seriously
have
to
look
in
your
rear
view,
mirror
and
and
wonder
how
much
do
you
want
to
risk
putting
your
brakes
on
before
you
turn,
you
have
to
thread
between
a
canal
into
this
narrow
street.
That's
often
filled
with
water
and
then,
when
it
rains,
it's
not
only
slippery,
but
people
even
park
farther
into
the
street
in
the
existing
apartments
because
of
the
swales.
J
So
my
point
is:
is
that's
everybody
knows
that
just
crazy!
Everybody
knows
it's
a
bad
design.
Achd
said:
oh
well,
if
it's
not
rural
for
swales!
Well,
then
it's
commercial,
because
it's
apartments,
so
swales
are
okay
as
well.
The
minimal
parking
then,
of
course,
puts
all
we'll
put
all
this
all
these
tires
and
and
obstructions
on
the
street
and
people
will
turn
you
in
there
really
rapidly.
J
It's
just
bad
and
the
way
the
system
worked.
You
know,
playing
in
zoning
and
city
council
said
well,
design
review
will
deal
with
it.
Obviously,
that's
a
problem
got
the
design.
Review
and
design
review
is
like.
Well,
that's
not
our
issue.
That's
achd
achd
never
had
a
public
hearing
because
it
was
under
100
units.
So
it's
kind
of
a
you
know.
Joseph
heller
kind
of
situation
and
the
outcome
isn't
good
and
it
frustrates
everybody.
And
everybody
knows
it's
bad,
so
I'll
just
leave
you
with
that.
O
O
I
don't
know
that
I
necessarily
have
the
language
to
articulate
engagement
with
the
street,
whether
that's
setbacks
or
buffering,
and
you
know
context
and
whether
that
goes
within
planning
or
is
more
in
the
field
of
byron
and
architecture.
But
I
think
there's
for
me
compatibility,
there's,
there's
a
big
difference
between
a
acute
cottage.
F
A
So
we
are
going
to
be
followed
up
by
brad,
but
I
just
wanted
to
add
just
because
I
have
heard
you
know
richard
brought
up
a
really
great
point
about
swales
trees.
Damon
also,
you
know
when
we
look
at
there's
open
space,
oftentimes,
there's
trees
and
those
type
of
amenities
that
are
on
a
parcel.
So
I
hope
that
you
can
see
how
we
have
all
of
these
different
competing
issues.
A
A
We
can
create
surveys
so
that
we
can
get
your
feedback
and
make
sure
that
you're
heard
or
if
you
want
to
share
with
your
group-
and
you
want
to
get
back
to
us
later.
We
can
do
that.
So
if
you
want
examples,
we
can
certainly
accommodate
you
and
make
sure
that
you
have
the
information
you
need
to
make
a
good
recommendation.
A
P
P
One
of
the
examples
yeah
something
like
that,
but
a
lot
of
these
houses
that
are
these
developments
or
these
multi-family
dwellings
you
put
in,
are
50
to
100
years
old.
You
know,
they're,
you
know,
they're
people
are
used
to
seeing
them
in
their
neighborhoods
and
we
got
to
remember
that
and
not
to
offend
anybody,
but
these
houses
were
were
built
back
when
we
were
driving
model
t's
or
something
and
and
and
the
wives
stayed
home
and
didn't
drive.
P
There
was
a
one
car,
you
know
family
and
so
those
those
kinds
of
things.
You
know
we
don't
even
notice
anymore,
but
if
you
go
to
trying
to
add
this
kind
of
development
into
an
existing
neighborhood
or
something
we're
in
a
modern
world,
you
know
everybody
has
a
car.
You
know,
there's
two
cars
plus
the
kids
car.
All
that-
and
you
know,
besides
that,
you
know,
what's
a
impact
on
sewer
and
water,
you
know
an
irrigation.
P
Another
thing
is:
you
know,
we're
adults
here,
we're
not
a
bunch
of
kids
that
our
parents
never
said
no
to
so.
If
you
buy
a
house
in
a
neighborhood
and
you
want
to
subdivide
it,
maybe
you
should
look
into
what
the
zoning
is
before
you
purchase
instead
of
trying
to
push
something
through
that
people
are
not
going
to
agree
with
so
anyway.
A
I
think
that
would
be
really
helpful.
I
want
to
remind
everybody
that
we
are
changing
it
up
a
little
bit
for
april,
so
instead
of
the
third
thursday
we're
going
to
meet
with
you
on
that
fourth
thursday
and
next
week
or
next
month,
is
going
to
be
a
big
heavy,
lift
so
be
ready
because
we're
going
to
release
a
draft
of
module
1
and
really
get
you
talking.
So
you
saw
kind
of
a
preliminary
of
how
the
zones
may
lay
out
as
we
move
forward.
A
We
might
change
those
based
on
some
of
the
initial
feedback
that
we've
heard
today,
but
then
you're
gonna
start
to
see
how
other
things
fit.
You're
gonna
see
the
use
table,
you're
gonna,
see
where
single
family
residential
dwellings
are
allowed
in
those
zones
where
they're
prohibited,
where
conditional
uses
are
and
so
be
thinking
about
those
you're
not
going
to
see
dimensional
standards.
A
Quite
yet
so
don't
expect
to
see
building
heights
or
setbacks
or
densities
that
are
attached
to
that,
because
that's
coming
in
module
two,
that's
just
too
much
for
us
to
handle
at
one
time,
so
we're
gonna
start
heading
that
way,
so
get
ready
for
a
really
big
lift.
It's
it's
going
to
be
big,
but
it's
exciting.
We've
got
lots
of
opportunity
ahead.
So
we
look
forward
to
your
feedback.
F
And
I
would
just
urge
you
as
you
as
we
put
out
this
public
draft
and
you
read
it
and
we
beg
you
to
read
it
remember
this
is
a
draft
and
it
is
there
to
be
commented
on
and
then
there
will
be
a
draft
of
module
there
and
it
is
there
to
be
commented
on
and
then
there's
module
three
and
then
there's
a
consolidated
draft.
So
we
are
headed
towards
the
first
of
several
at
least
four
rounds
of.
Did
we
get
this
right?
F
Did
we
not
hear
you
right,
and
I
would
urge
you
to
tell
your
neighbors
and
friends
the
same
thing?
You
know
this
is
a
work
in
progress.
They
have
to
put
a
draft
out,
they
have
to
hear
from
you
and
the
reason
we
do
this
is
it
gives
the
public
multiple
opportunities
to
say
you
still
didn't
get
it
right
or
I
guess
the
people
who
disagree
with
me
actually
outvoted
me
on
this
one.
F
The
point
is,
it
will
be
multiple
rounds
to
kind
of
say:
can
we
refine
this,
and
can
we
get
that
in
better
alignment
with
where
we
think
we
want
to
go
for
city?
So
the
fact
that
it
will
be
released
does
not
mean
it's
final.
It
means
we're
putting
it
on
the
page
on
the
on
on
the
website
and
the
public
and
you
to
review
it
and
tell
us
what's
right
and
what's
wrong,
so
I
think
we're
gonna
see
you
on
the
22nd
right,
andrea.