2026-11-02 - Hearing Examiner

00:01Good afternoon and welcome to the city

00:03of Boise hearing examiner public

00:05hearing. A few things to start out with

00:07for tonight's proceedings.

00:08Everyone from the public entering the

00:10hearing virtually has been automatically

00:12muted and cannot speak. As the item

00:14you're interested in comes up for

00:15discussion, you will be called upon and

00:17unmuted.

00:18There is a chat function in Zoom. This

00:20is not part of the record and should

00:21only be used if technical difficulties

00:23arise.

00:24Our procedures for public hearings begin

00:26with a presentation from the planning

00:27team. Then we'll go to the appellant and

00:29or applicant and then the representative

00:31of the registered neighborhood

00:33association followed by questions from

00:35the hearing examiner.

00:36After that, we proceed to public

00:38testimony starting with those who are in

00:39person, then who signed up on the sign

00:41up sheet in advance, and then anyone who

00:44raises their hand virtually.

00:46If you are attending through your

00:47telephone, you can type in star nine to

00:49raise your hand.

00:50Each speaker should state their name and

00:52address for the record.

00:53Each member of the public is allowed up

00:55to three three minutes for testimony. We

00:57are strict with this time as it is

00:58limited in code.

01:00Finally, the applicant and or appellant

01:01is allowed time for rebuttal after which

01:03the hearing will be closed and the

01:05hearing examiner will deliberate and

01:06render a decision.

01:10>> Thanks Sabrina. So looking at

01:12this afternoon's agenda, we have the

01:13minutes from last month

01:15and then five new business items. The

01:18first one

01:19is a variance over at 1518 Fort Street

01:23for Timber and Love. We are recommending

01:24approval

01:26and have not received any correspondence

01:28against that. So that is eligible for

01:30the consent agenda.

01:32Item number two is a variance at 1224

01:35West Hayes Street.

01:36There is a recommendation of denial, so

01:38we will be hearing that one.

01:40Item number three is a variance at 2648

01:44Freight Street.

01:47We are having a partial denial, partial

01:50approval recommendation.

01:51So we will be hearing that.

01:54Item number four

01:56is a variance at two uh excuse

01:595620 West Fairview.

02:02Um the recommendation is for approval.

02:04So we can try for consensus. We haven't

02:07received any other correspondence

02:09related to that. And then finally

02:11item number five is a appeal of a zoning

02:15certificate approval for two accessory

02:17dwelling units at 2177 South Illinois

02:20Avenue.

02:22Um there were some late correspondence

02:23in there. We're recommending to defer

02:25that to the December hearing date.

02:28Um

02:30and with that, that's the entire agenda.

02:32And I'll turn it over to you Mr.

02:34Gillespie.

02:35>> Thank you Mr. Holmes. My name is Milt

02:37Gillespie. I'm an independent decision

02:39maker hired by the city of Boise and

02:41approved by the city council.

02:43I make decisions on variances and

02:45administrative appeals.

02:47Any request to reconsider these

02:49decisions must be formally requested in

02:52writing pursuant to the city code.

02:55Tonight we utilize a consent agenda.

02:57This means that if the applicant agrees

02:59with the staff report and if there is no

03:02public opposition,

03:03the item will be placed on the consent

03:05agenda. All items that are placed on the

03:07consent agenda are approved with one

03:10motion without further public comment.

03:14Uh tonight we have at least two items

03:16that are not on the consent agenda. And

03:18for those and any others,

03:20uh we will hold a full public hearing in

03:21the order just uh out detail the few

03:24minutes ago with the staff.

03:26Thank you all for attending.

03:28Okay.

03:29So uh let's I propose we do the consent

03:32agenda first then take care of the

03:34deferral

03:35and then move on to whatever's left in

03:37the order it's on the agenda.

03:39So uh without objection the uh regular

03:44meeting minutes from October 5th, 2026

03:46are

03:47placed on the consent agenda.

03:51First item for consideration is number

03:53one CVA 26-29

03:56located at 1518 West Fort Street. Is the

03:59applicant present?

04:02So noted.

04:03And Mrs. applicant, are you in agreement

04:05with the terms and conditions of the

04:06staff report?

04:08So noted.

04:10Uh is there anybody here tonight either

04:11online or in person who wishes to

04:13testify in opposition to CVA 26-29

04:18located at 15 18 West Fort?

04:24Seeing none, item one is placed on the

04:26consent agenda.

04:28The next item for the consent agenda is

04:30item four. This is CVA 26-36

04:35located at 5620 West Fairview Avenue. Is

04:39the applicant present?

04:41So noted.

04:42And Mr. applicant, are you in agreement

04:45with the terms and conditions of the

04:46staff report?

04:47Also so noted. Is there anyone here

04:49tonight who wishes to testify either in

04:52present or online

04:55uh in opposition to CVA 26-36

04:59at 5620 West Fairview Avenue?

05:05Seeing none, item four is placed on the

05:07consent agenda. So the consent agenda

05:11consisting of the minutes

05:14from October 5th, items one and item

05:16four is

05:17approved without any further discussion.

05:20Okay, next we're going to go to

05:23uh the deferral. So this is item five.

05:27This is

05:28C Z C 26-201

05:33um

05:34and I received a memo this morning from

05:37the city from Mr. Moser, the planner on

05:39this case.

05:41Uh he said that the building permit um

05:45had some changes that weren't

05:46anticipated in the initial application.

05:51And he said quote, as such, in order to

05:53address these changes within the project

05:55report,

05:56the planning team recommends this appeal

05:58application be deferred to the next

06:00available hearing date. Is the city

06:02still of that opinion?

06:05Is the applicant on this present?

06:11No applicant?

06:13>> Mr. Gillespie, I don't see him online.

06:14We did speak with them today and they

06:16are in agreement with the deferral

06:17though.

06:17>> Okay.

06:18Um

06:20okay, is the appellant present? This

06:23because this is an appeal, right?

06:25Is the appellant are any of the

06:26appellants present?

06:30Doesn't seem like it. Okay.

06:32All right. So my last question before I

06:35think about the deferral, is there

06:37anybody here tonight

06:39who would like to testify on

06:42CZC26-201

06:46who cannot come back for our December

06:487th meeting?

06:52Could you step forward?

06:54So what we're going to do if you like,

06:57it's up to you,

06:59is we can hear your testimony about this

07:01item now, but please understand that the

07:03the item may change because of the new

07:07building permit and information, but if

07:09you'd like to testify now, you may.

07:15Yes, it's the same time I'm always on at

07:183 p.m. on the first Monday.

07:23You come back on that date. Okay, thank

07:25you very much.

07:26I think that's actually usually the best

07:29thing for the

07:30quality of the discussion. Is there

07:32anyone else who would like to testify

07:35today

07:36and doesn't want to come back on

07:38December 7th?

07:41Online's clear?

07:45>> We have one member online, Stephanie

07:46Curl. Uh

07:49that describes you. Would you raise your

07:50hand virtually? There's a little button

07:52um at the bottom of the bar.

07:55Perfect.

07:58Stephanie, if you unmute, we should be

08:00able to hear you.

08:03>> Okay. Um I mean I can come back as well.

08:06You said October?

08:08>> Thank

08:08>> you, Ms. Stephanie. I appreciate it.

08:10Okay.

08:11So, since everybody can come back and

08:13since all parties seem to be in

08:14agreement then my decision is to defer

08:17item five to the December 17th 7th 20 26

08:21meeting. Okay.

08:24With that, let's go to our first

08:26hearing. This is number two CVA 26-19

08:33a variance at 1224 West Hayes and we'll

08:37hear first from the city and Mr. Exton.

08:52>> Good afternoon, Mr. Glasspie. Before you

08:53today is a variance to deviate from the

08:55alley loaded accessory parking structure

08:57standards on 0.14 acres in an R3 NCO HDO

09:01residential urban with near north end

09:03character and historic design overlay

09:05zones.

09:07The request is to reorient an existing

09:08detached garage for legally

09:09non-conforming triplex. In this,

09:12variances are requested to deviate from

09:13the required backup space and the

09:15required 5-ft wide paved apron along the

09:17alley.

09:19The site has received legal

09:20non-conforming status which includes the

09:21substandard parking count for a triplex

09:24and the configuration of the parking.

09:26The site currently contains the

09:27appropriate 5-ft wide apron and the 22

09:29ft of backup space in the current

09:31configuration.

09:32While the applicant contends that the

09:33path of travel is dangerous due to an

09:35existing power pole, there are multiple

09:36side loaded garages in the area which

09:38function appropriately.

09:40There is a row of backup parking across

09:41the alley which also does not provide

09:42the adequate 22 ft of backup space.

09:46As summarized in the project report, the

09:48hardships referenced are self-imposed

09:49and created by reorienting the garage.

09:52This in concert with the lack of

09:53visibility since the garage is a fully

09:55enclosed structure

09:56and the row of backup parking result in

09:59safety concerns.

10:01Lastly, while the applicant references

10:02the under parked nature of the site,

10:04this is not adequate or this is not

10:06unique to the property as the Hayes

10:07Street corridor is known to be under

10:09parked and residential parking permit

10:11programs exist for on-street parking.

10:14In conclusion, the planning team

10:14recommends denial and I'd be happy to

10:16stand for any questions.

10:19>> Thank you, Mr. Exton. Is the applicant

10:21pres

10:25>> Mr. Gillespie, we have a David Rojas and

10:28he just got promoted to a panelist, so

10:30he should be able to hear us.

10:32David, if you want to unmute.

10:34>> Hello. Can you hear me?

10:36Hello, Mr. Rojas. This is Mr. Gillespie.

10:39Could you give your name and address for

10:40the record and then you have up to 10

10:43minutes to discuss your variance.

10:46>> Certainly. My name is David Rojas. I

10:48live at 1224 West Hayes in Boise here in

10:51Boise, Idaho.

10:52Um I have I'm applying for this variance

10:56because

10:57when I purchased this property, it kind

10:59of came it had inherited kind of a

11:01difficult parking situation.

11:04The garage doors face east and west or

11:08in a easterly westerly direction and

11:11there's a telephone pole

11:14just outside the front of the garage

11:16doors in addition to the side street

11:18setback that I have to utilize

11:21to go in and out of the garage.

11:25My car's width

11:27takes up most of the entire driveway

11:29with the city considering my driveway.

11:33So I have to go onto that side street

11:36setback which

11:38is attaches to a sidewalk

11:40and is just

11:43right on the on the alleyway going on to

11:4613th Street. You may have seen that

11:48that map that was up earlier.

11:52So really

11:54the building

11:55came with these

11:57these problems. They weren't

12:00self-imposed.

12:02And I'm hoping that my my letter

12:05explanation

12:08expressed the parking situation and the

12:10difficulty of the existing layout, uh

12:14one that had existed since the home was

12:17built in 1910.

12:19Um,

12:20the garage itself has heavy barn doors

12:23that the historical preservation

12:25district does not want to be removed.

12:28Um, that in itself, uh I think

12:31adds

12:32adds a lot of uh

12:33safety issues, uh having to get out of

12:35my vehicle, open up barn doors

12:38and then back my vehicle in. Um, there's

12:40just all kinds of inherent issues with

12:42the parking situation.

12:45Um, and in that same map, as you can

12:47see, all of the alleyway parking is in a

12:50north and south direction. That is what

12:52I'm asking. Uh

12:54that's also what I'm asking to do with

12:56my parking situation.

12:58Um,

13:00and

13:01I

13:02I just don't see that it would be a

13:04problem to do that considering that is

13:07how the parking situation currently is

13:10for the entire alleyway except my

13:14my my driveway and my parking situation.

13:18Um,

13:20I don't know I I don't really want to go

13:22into what this what the planners um

13:26are objecting to in any real specific

13:29way except that

13:30um I guess I'm I'm I I do think I meet

13:33the criteria for variance.

13:36Um, and I guess I'm opening this up to

13:37questions if you've got for me.

13:45I guess I'll just reiterate that it is a

13:47property specific hardship. It's uh not

13:50self imposed.

13:53>> I understand. Thank you, sir.

13:56All right. So, is there anyone here from

13:58the North End Neighborhood Association

14:00who would like to testify in this

14:01matter? Please.

14:05If you could start with your name and

14:06address, I'd be very grateful.

14:09>> Eric Hagen, 809 North 18th Street.

14:13Uh good evening,

14:15Mr. Glassby,

14:16um

14:17and Mr. Exton.

14:19The North End Neighborhood Association

14:22has discussed Mr. Rohasas project and we

14:26are in support of his variance request.

14:29As anyone who's driven through the North

14:30End,

14:31historic North End, historic Hayes

14:32District, you know all the way around

14:36all 5,000 structures in the North End,

14:38parking garages go right up to the

14:39property lines and there's side access

14:42and there's perpendicular access.

14:44And that's just the way it is in the

14:45North End. The new zoning code obviously

14:50applying it to new construction looks at

14:52it differently.

14:53And

14:55it's in conflict with the existing

14:57fabric of the North End neighborhood.

15:00So

15:02forcing people to demolish a perfectly

15:04good structure,

15:06waste resources and push it into their

15:08into their yard further to meet

15:10perpendicular and the 22 ft of backup

15:12space,

15:14while it might solve some problems, it

15:16creates other problems.

15:18Mr. Rohasas existing structure is about

15:2013 ft from the parking from the garage

15:22right now.

15:23If he moves it in another 6 ft, it's

15:25going to be less than the 8 ft required

15:26for a minimum open space, so

15:29it creates other problems.

15:32The existing conditions in the North End

15:33have existed this way for over 100

15:35years.

15:37Cars have been parking off the alley

15:39without 22 ft of backup space for

15:42decades and it seems to work.

15:46In order to

15:48change that would require a sea change

15:51across the entire North End and then it

15:53would the North End would lose its its

15:54character.

15:59The residential code allows for garages

16:01to be backup right against the rear

16:03property line

16:05for accessory structures, for accessory

16:06garage structures.

16:08This is in direct conflict with the

16:09parking section and the parking section

16:11seems to apply a blanket

16:14requirements of parking that works for

16:16retail strip malls and office buildings

16:19where you're going to have big trucks

16:20that are backing up against each other.

16:22And it requires 22 feet of backup space

16:25and it requires a 5-ft landscape buffer

16:28from the parking spot to the

16:31property line. All of these, while they

16:33make sense for commercial districts,

16:36commercial properties, we don't find it

16:38makes sense for residential districts,

16:40especially historic district like the

16:42North End or the

16:44Hayes district.

16:46So with all of that in consideration, we

16:49do consider

16:51the fact of where his existing house is

16:53and the proposed

16:55and the existing garage does create a

16:58hardship unto itself.

17:00And so with those, we are in support of

17:02his request.

17:04Thank you.

17:06>> Thank you, Mr. Hagens. So I have a

17:07couple of questions.

17:09Not for not for you yet.

17:11So Mr. Exton,

17:13so the garage in question is red one

17:15with the white doors. Is that correct?

17:18>> Mr. Glassby, that is correct, yes.

17:19>> And am I looking down the alley

17:23that is now the subject of discussion?

17:25>> Yes.

17:26>> So

17:27the applicant, just so I'm clear, the

17:29applicant is proposing to in a sense

17:32twist the garage 90 degrees.

17:35Is that correct?

17:37>> Not necessarily rotate the building

17:38itself, but add doors along, if you can

17:41see on my mouse a little bit, along this

17:43plane here. So

17:45>> 90 degree.

17:47But he's not rebuilding the garage.

17:49>> Correct.

17:52>> And

17:54let me make sure I understand this. So

17:56one of the points in your in the city's

17:59report was that then

18:01we'd have

18:02you know, there wouldn't be 28

18:0422 ft from the garage door clear.

18:09You'd be backing into the alley and then

18:11we have people on the other side of the

18:13alley also

18:15doing the same thing.

18:16>> That is correct, yes.

18:17>> Right.

18:19So

18:20in a sense, we're

18:22trading

18:23one non-conforming use for another

18:27non-conforming use.

18:29>> Mr. Gillespie, that is correct. As the

18:31site right now, this entire

18:32configuration has legal non-conforming

18:34status for when it was constructed and

18:36met all the criteria for that.

18:38With reorienting the doors, it would be

18:40creating new non-conformities that don't

18:41currently exist on the site.

18:43>> Thank you.

18:44Um

18:51I don't have any further questions. So

18:53we'll go to public testimony.

18:55So we're on item two. I didn't have

18:58anybody signed up on item two.

19:01Let me just double check that.

19:03Nope, didn't have anyone. So there

19:05anybody present in person who'd like to

19:07testify on this matter?

19:10Is there anybody online who'd like to

19:11testify?

19:13Okay. So that means Mr. Rojas, you have

19:16up to 5 minutes for rebuttal or any

19:19closing comments you'd like to make.

19:22>> Um if we could pull up exhibit F, I just

19:25want to um

19:27or maybe even one step before that, if

19:29we can pull up

19:32exhibit uh

19:36D.

19:38Uh this is a bird's eye view of the

19:40alley itself. Um

19:46I don't know if this is exhibit D, but I

19:48had mine marked exhibit D.

19:51>> Mr. Rojas, I don't have access to all of

19:53the exhibits you submitted. I have

19:54access to this photo.

19:57>> Okay. Well

19:57>> Overall aerial.

19:59>> Well, that's unfortunate. Um well with

20:01that with that sliver that you did show

20:03there, I just want to I just want to

20:04emphasize that

20:06up and down this alley, you have

20:09a you have adjacent parking all the way

20:11up and down the alley. So I don't know

20:13why this 120-ft section of the alley

20:17would make

20:18would would really

20:20interfere and impede any kind of

20:24uh backing up we're pulling in. Um it's

20:26identical all the way up and down the

20:28alley. If we could switch then to

20:29exhibit F we could or or maybe you don't

20:32have that. I did submit these exhibits

20:35um

20:37to you so I'm not sure uh

20:40do you have exhibit F? That's exhibit A.

20:47>> Mr. Rojas, these are the only photos

20:49included in the presentation. All of

20:50your exhibits were part of the staff

20:52report that Mr. Lessbee has access to

20:54and has reviewed.

20:56>> Well that's unfortunate. Um exhibit F uh

20:59essentially highlights the garage

21:01uh um

21:04length and width and a line is drawn

21:06down the block

21:08indicating that all of the cars that are

21:10not parked in the garage are parked

21:12essentially in the same footprint as

21:13that is that is my garage all the way up

21:17and down the alley. So there it just

21:20doesn't make any sense or it doesn't

21:21make it doesn't that that would be

21:25the one thing that's somehow keeping me

21:27from

21:28from reorienting my garage doors. But to

21:31emphasize that there is no no new

21:33structure uh there's there's nothing

21:35happening except the garage doors would

21:38be moving to a north and south

21:40direction.

21:49>> Mr. Rojas, does that conclude your

21:51rebuttal?

21:53>> Well

21:54uh without exhibits um I'm kind of

21:57limited on what I can demonstrate. Um so

22:00I think that

22:01uh if you can picture uh the whole

22:04entire alley again and literally every

22:08property parking in the north and south

22:10direction but me I think oh that thank

22:13you there is exhibit F.

22:15Uh it's just simply showing that

22:18I don't I don't see the hazard or danger

22:21in me backing up or pulling in

22:24the same way that everybody else in the

22:26on both sides of the block, adjacent and

22:28on the on my side of the block,

22:31would be maneuvering. They're identical.

22:34So it's it's something that is

22:39I mean

22:40people would be expecting it.

22:42It's it's

22:43it just seems congruent it's congruent

22:46with every with all the other parking.

22:59>> Mr. Rojas, does that conclude your

23:01remarks?

23:03>> Thank you.

23:04>> Thank you.

23:15So I'd like to thank all the the parties

23:17as usual. Especially like to thank Nina

23:20for being here. It's very nice.

23:23I'm going to deny the variance for the

23:24reasons stated in the staff report.

23:28I think in this particular case I have I

23:30have two specific remarks I just like

23:34I'd like to make and elaborate on the

23:36staff report one.

23:39In this particular case, clearly, if we

23:41just look at the subject property and

23:43the issues specific to that garage,

23:46we're just basically taking a

23:48non-conforming use and adding more

23:50non-conformity.

23:52Cuz right now the orientation of the

23:55garage isn't really the problem. It's

23:57just the size and placement, which it's

23:59been there since 1910.

24:01But if we then flip it around,

24:04turn it 90 degrees, not only is the

24:06garage in the same place with the same

24:08form, but now we have additional

24:10non-conformity related to the 22-ft

24:13backup requirement.

24:15So

24:16that's just against the code. I mean we

24:19that's not something we should do

24:21lightly.

24:23My second point is with respect to how I

24:26think about

24:27uh and evaluate evidence of like what

24:30everybody else on the block is doing.

24:33And my basic um starting point is always

24:36an application

24:37should stand or fall just based on the

24:39conditions

24:41uh of the permitted property or the the

24:44property in question for the permit, in

24:46this case a variance.

24:48And just that. In other words,

24:51people or applicants or or parties

24:55uh need to focus on just the specifics

24:57of the property and not relate it to

24:59things that are really outside the scope

25:01of this application, which is frankly

25:04what everybody else on the block did

25:06over the last 100 years.

25:08Um if we wanted to have hearings that

25:11did that, they would become instead of

25:1320 30 minute hearings, they would become

25:16days long because we would have to get

25:18into the circumstances of each and every

25:20property down that block and then weigh

25:23that very carefully. Um the only place

25:26where that sort of stuff comes into

25:27consideration is when we're the code um

25:31directs us to consider um suitability or

25:35of of a property or of a building

25:37related to the other buildings around

25:39it. That's not the case here.

25:41So for those two reasons plus what's in

25:44the staff report, I'm going to deny the

25:45variance.

25:47Okay.

25:48So we're on to item

25:52four three.

25:54So item three is CVA 26-43

25:57Babcock Design 2649 East Freight Street

26:01and the applicant has 10 minutes of

26:04fame.

26:09Oh, sorry. You're right.

26:11I was looking at you guys and I thought,

26:13what a handsome bunch.

26:14So um sorry, Mr. Exton, why don't you

26:17start?

26:18>> Good afternoon again, Mr. Gelespie.

26:20Before you today is a variance request

26:21to deviate from the general site and

26:23building design standards and the access

26:24and connectivity standards on 18.83

26:27acres in an I-1 AIO WOO O industrial

26:31light with airport influence area and

26:32wildland urban interface overlay zone.

26:35The applicant or the application was

26:37noticed listing the land group as the

26:38applicant, but the correct applicant is

26:40Babcock Design.

26:42Specifically, the requests are to allow

26:44for three access points onto Freight

26:45Street and to allow for the building to

26:46be located more than 100 ft from the

26:48edge of pavement also along Freight

26:50Street.

26:52As it relates to the three access

26:53points, the planning director has

26:54allowed two access points for the site

26:57due to the industrial traffic patterns

26:58as anticipated. The development code

27:00does not allow additional access points.

27:02Since the site is plat and developed,

27:04there is no physical hardship present to

27:06justify those three access points as

27:07proposed.

27:09Summarizing the project report and shown

27:10on screen, other industrial sites have

27:12developed with two access points and

27:13function appropriately.

27:17As it relates to the placement of the

27:17building, there is a pipeline easement

27:19running diagonally across the property.

27:21This easement cannot be relocated and as

27:23summarized in the project report, the

27:24building is as close to the edge of

27:25pavement while still utilizing that

27:27space between the building and the

27:28easement.

27:31The variance request did initially

27:33contain a variance to allow for the

27:34building to be further than 100 ft from

27:36the edge of pavement along Eisenman

27:37Road. As outlined in the project report,

27:39the request was removed from this

27:40application to allow for the applicant

27:42team to still bring these two requests

27:44to the November hearing while working

27:46with ACHD on determining where the

27:48future edge of pavement will be due to

27:50CCD's capital improvement plan.

27:52This process was confirmed and agreed

27:54upon with the applicant on October 12th.

27:56Revised plans were submitted indicating

27:58that the building will not be within 100

27:59ft of the future edge of pavement and as

28:01such either a redesign or an additional

28:02variance request will need to be filed

28:04and this specific request is not before

28:06you today.

28:08In conclusion, the planning team

28:09recommends denial of the request to have

28:12three access points and approval of the

28:14request to locate the building more than

28:15100 ft

28:16away from the edge of pavement along

28:17Freight Street and I'd be happy to

28:18answer any questions.

28:21>> Thank you, Mr. Exton. Now it's your

28:23turn.

28:24Thank you for your forbearance.

28:30>> Thank you. I have a brief presentation.

28:31Am I able to advance the slides from

28:33here or

28:33>> I tell you to do it, Kevin?

28:38>> Did you start with your name and address

28:39for the record, please?

28:43>> Great, it works.

28:44Uh, thank you, Mr. Glesby. Good

28:45afternoon. I'm Jason Densmore with The

28:47Land Group. For the record, our address

28:49is 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle.

28:52Um, I'm here on behalf of the applicant,

28:54uh, Weyer Company, who um sent Dave Ward

28:58to join me. He'll have a small part in

28:59the presentation tonight.

29:01Um, we appreciate staff's work on the

29:03applications and their report that they

29:05summarized for you today.

29:06Um, as you mentioned, we're down to two

29:08variances. The first is the building

29:10placement along Freight Street, and the

29:13second um

29:14has to do with the three driveways.

29:16Because staff recommends approval of the

29:18first variance, I won't spend very much

29:20time on that and will focus most of my

29:22time on the discussion about accesses

29:24from from Freight Street.

29:26Um, our position is pretty simple. The

29:28way the site fronts the street network,

29:30how the building will operate, and the

29:32need to keep trucks and cars separate

29:34from each other all support the relief

29:36that we're asking for related to the

29:38access points.

29:41So as I mentioned, um we're in agreement

29:43with staff's um analysis of the Freight

29:46Street building placement variance and

29:48um

29:49appreciate their recommendation of

29:50approval for that.

29:52We would ask today that you support

29:54their um recommendation and adopt the

29:56findings for that item.

29:59I'll spend more time on the three access

30:01points from Freight Street

30:02um as designed.

30:06Sorry.

30:07Skipping ahead.

30:09The variance number one

30:11um

30:16already lost my place in my notes. I'm

30:18sorry.

30:19Uh, variance number one does deal with

30:21the existing Marathon pipeline easement

30:23that crosses the property diagonally. It

30:25prevents us from putting the building

30:26any closer to Freight Street.

30:28Um, we appreciate staff's

30:31understanding of that issue. We have

30:32designed the building with kind of that

30:35um

30:36articulated frontage to put as much of

30:38the building near Freight Street as is

30:39possible.

30:42Regarding variance number two, this

30:43one's a little bit of a tougher nut to

30:45crack.

30:46Um staff describes the property as

30:48large, flat, undeveloped.

30:51While that's kind of true, it really

30:53doesn't get to the real issue.

30:55Um the property is not constrained by

30:57being large or flat or undeveloped. It's

30:59constrained by its significant frontage

31:02on arterial roadways.

31:03It's pushing 1,900 ft of of frontage on

31:07Eisenman Road, either the north-south

31:09segment or the east-west segment that

31:10turned and goes towards the the

31:12interstate interchange.

31:14But we're not allowed to take front take

31:16access from any of that frontage. The

31:18property has very small frontage, 506 ft

31:21on Freight Street,

31:22of which 150 ft is too close to

31:24Eisenman, and we're not allowed access

31:26there either.

31:27So really our effective frontage is only

31:30about 356 ft where we need to provide

31:34access that can support the the proposed

31:36development.

31:38By consolidating all of our access to

31:40that relatively small frontage, we need

31:42to make sure that it works extremely

31:43efficiently because there's not

31:45opportunity for traffic to be

31:46distributed more widely across the site

31:49or access the roadway network in more

31:51locations.

31:52That fundamentally is the hardship on

31:55our property is that we're constrained

31:56by

31:57the

31:58significant frontage on arterial

32:00roadways that prohibit access.

32:04Um as designed, um we've proposed a site

32:07plan that does require three access

32:10points. From west to east, the one

32:13nearest Eisenman Road would be primarily

32:15for passenger access.

32:16There's some 200 parking spaces along

32:18the west facade of the building that we

32:20want to be able to for employees and

32:23visitors to access readily and get out

32:25onto Freight Street from.

32:27In that area over the pipeline easement

32:28that we were talking about north of the

32:29building, there's around 80 additional

32:31parking spaces there.

32:33Um

32:34by having a second access point

32:36dedicated to passenger access vehicles,

32:38we spread out some of that um passenger

32:41and

32:42passenger car load and uh get those

32:45people access into and out of the site

32:47onto Freight Street in a better

32:48distributed fashion.

32:50And then most importantly, it allows us

32:52uh dedicated truck access from the

32:54turnaround at the west end of Freight

32:56Street

32:56to separate

32:58trucks from and big trucks

33:01from the passenger and vehicle cars.

33:04Um it's really

33:06not a fundamental question about um

33:08having less driveways be safer. It's

33:12if we really don't think that less

33:14driveways is safer. In this case, it's

33:16about having enough driveways to

33:18separate passenger cars and let them

33:20access the site efficiently

33:22completely separate from truck traffic.

33:27In staff's analysis, they compared and

33:29in the slide that you saw a minute ago,

33:31they compared our proposed building

33:32number five to an earlier project also

33:35developed by Boyer Company immediately

33:36across Eisenman from this site that was

33:39Boise Gateway building number one or

33:41Verde.

33:42Um staff compared the two and

33:44concluded that other sites in the area

33:46have been able to work just fine with

33:47two accesses and therefore I think they

33:50posited that our project should also be

33:52able to work just fine with two

33:53accesses.

33:54The comparison wasn't

33:56I don't think apples to apples. Boise

33:58Gateway Building one is only 168,000

34:01square foot building, 142 parking

34:03spaces, and it does have two access

34:04points

34:06to Freight Street.

34:07I think a more appropriate comparison

34:09might be Boise Gateway Building

34:11um two, which was also Amazon's BOI five

34:14distribution center.

34:15Um it's very close. You can see in the

34:17metrics here. Very similar in size,

34:20279,000 square feet versus our proposed

34:23268,000 square feet. Similar number of

34:26passenger vehicle parking spaces at 308

34:28to 272.

34:30But Boise but the Amazon building

34:33um uses four access points to Freight

34:36Street um completely separating

34:38passenger cars and trucks.

34:40Uh it's it's more in our view a similar

34:42paradigm to

34:44the proposed Boise Gateway five, and

34:46helps paint our case a little bit better

34:48about the importance of separating

34:50passenger cars and truck traffic.

34:53I

34:54again, and to the point that you made on

34:56the last application, this is not about

34:58a look down the alley to see what other

35:00people have done and then applying,

35:02you know, past conclusions on other

35:03projects to this one. We're just

35:05indicating that um we think that more

35:08than two access points is really

35:10important for the safety of Boise

35:12Gateway Building Five to operate

35:13correctly.

35:16ACHD supported the three driveways in

35:19their site specific conditions of

35:20approval and staff report. Um, they

35:22noted of course that direct lot access

35:25to Eisenman Road is prohibited.

35:27They included in condition number seven

35:29their support for the three proposed

35:31accesses to Freight Street,

35:33and they also noted that the traffic

35:35study review, which was based on three

35:37access to Freight Street, required no

35:39additional mitigation and met all of

35:41ACHD's policies.

35:44Um, I'd like to have Dave Ward up just

35:46to provide a little bit of context as

35:48the developer.

35:49He has three of our minutes it looks

35:52like.

35:52>> Thank you.

35:58Thank you, Jason. Thank you, Mr. Exton,

36:00Mr. Gillespie. My name is David Ward.

36:02>> Could you pull that down?

36:04>> Thank you, Mr. Ward.

36:05>> You're welcome.

36:06Uh,

36:07I work for the Boyer Company whose

36:09address is 101 South 200 East, Salt Lake

36:12City, Utah.

36:13>> Thank you, sir.

36:14>> Uh, we have been selected to serve as

36:17the development partner with the City of

36:19Boise for the Boise Gateway Industrial

36:20Park and

36:22uh we we'd like to believe that we are

36:23selected based on our firm's 50-year

36:25history

36:27and our experience and expertise in uh

36:29delivering

36:31high quality large-scale industrial

36:33products throughout the Western United

36:34States. Our firm has completed over 20

36:37million square feet of industrial

36:39uh buildings and we currently have about

36:42a half a million square feet projects in

36:44development right now.

36:46Um, we are constantly looking for the

36:48best practices to implement into all of

36:50our buildings.

36:52And uh

36:53we feel like the

36:56site plan that has been pushed forward

36:58uh represents

37:00industry leading standards

37:02and

37:03are reflective of the hardships that

37:05we've faced as Mr. Densmore noted

37:07because of the restrictions that have

37:09been placed on the access to Eisman

37:11Road.

37:12Uh

37:13in a perfect world of a flat undeveloped

37:16site, we would have loved to have access

37:18off of Eisman Road. It would make the

37:19site work better

37:21and it would serve the tenants in the

37:23building much better, but we understood

37:25um what is currently

37:27uh

37:28in the AC ACHD design manuals as well as

37:32uh

37:33guidance given by city staff on access

37:36to the arterial roads.

37:38So our three driveway

37:40plan is very very intentional in

37:42response to the restrictions that are

37:44being placed on this particular parcel.

37:48And the focus for us

37:50is safety

37:52and the importance of separating that

37:55truck traffic in both directions on the

37:58site because we can't have an a separate

38:00exit for trucks. Everything has to come

38:02in and out of the same driveway.

38:04And keeping a distance and not sharing a

38:07drive access which would be required if

38:09we had two driveways instead of three.

38:12Intermingling

38:14pedestrian

38:15passenger vehicles with trucks access

38:18is not only a bad idea, it's just not

38:20consistent with current design standards

38:22for modern industrial properties.

38:26So

38:28when we look when we asked for this

38:30decided whether we wanted to proceed

38:32with this variance request, we

38:35we decided to move forward because it

38:36felt so strongly about it. This is not

38:38about profit

38:40or making money or reducing costs. In

38:43fact, the proposed solution costs more

38:45than if we were to go forward with a

38:47redesign.

38:49We feel it's just absolutely the right

38:50thing from a safety perspective.

38:53And the hardship is not just on us. The

38:55hardship if we proceed forward will be

38:57on the safety of the people who use the

38:59building and

39:00our neighbors

39:02because we are forcing more traffic into

39:05lines of uh circulation with trucks.

39:08We're pushing more passenger vehicles

39:10into a singular

39:11entrance which then can result in

39:13additional backups on the roads

39:16adversely impacting our neighbors.

39:18>> Thank you, sir.

39:19>> Thank you.

39:21>> All right. Um is there anybody here from

39:28the Southeast Eisenman Neighborhood

39:30Association?

39:34Online. Okay. Hearing none, I get to ask

39:36questions. So I have a first a set of

39:38questions. I'll I usually start with the

39:40city and then I'll ask

39:42the uh applicant some questions. So

39:45Mr. Ekstrom, I just want to make sure I

39:47understand. So the city code really

39:49speaks to how many access points can be

39:51taken off one street?

39:53Is that correct?

39:55Or Or Cuz Cuz this it says you can take

39:59two.

40:00>> That is correct. Yeah. On Shown on

40:01screen right now is the direct quotation

40:03from code

40:05that restricts access to one access

40:08point for all properties across the

40:09city. And it allows the planning

40:11director in consultation with the

40:13Highway District and or Idaho Department

40:15or Idaho Transportation Department a

40:17second access.

40:19Anything above that currently in code

40:21requires a variance to have more than

40:23two access points which is why we're

40:24here today.

40:26>> So on the Amazon property which has four

40:29allegedly

40:31are they taking two off one street and

40:33two off another?

40:35>> Believe that was developed under the

40:37prior code.

40:39>> Okay.

40:39>> Yeah. So

40:40>> it's not really two per street. It's two

40:43total for the site.

40:45>> Correct.

40:45>> So

40:46So

40:50This hypothetically so if Eisenman was

40:53for somehow became available for access

40:55and I want to come back to that in a

40:57minute.

40:58They still would have to get a variance

41:00to put in that third access point from

41:03Eisenman.

41:04>> That is correct.

41:05>> Okay.

41:06Now I want to go back to that issue. So

41:08I did not understand your comments on

41:11future ACHD actions with Could you pull

41:15that page back that up?

41:17Can you talk to me about what this is

41:19telling me that's relevant to this

41:21application?

41:23>> Correct. Yes. So

41:24the CCDC this is within the Gateway

41:27Urban Renewal District. It's on their

41:29capital improvement plan to widen

41:31Eisenman from the two wish lanes that it

41:34is right now to a five lane cross

41:35section.

41:36>> Mhm.

41:37>> The development code does require the

41:39facade of the building to be within 100

41:40ft from the edge of that pavement

41:43if you have parking between the building

41:45and the sidewalk.

41:47With that the planning director has

41:49determined that with us waving

41:51streetscape requirements along Eisenman

41:53since it will be widened we can use that

41:55future edge of pavement of the widening

41:57to measure that 100 ft from as it

41:59relates to the Eisenman frontage.

42:01>> So that was to the benefit of the

42:03applicant basically.

42:04>> Correct.

42:06>> But we don't know anything

42:09but Eisenman would still be an arterial

42:11and it's likely that the ACHD would

42:13still prohibit

42:16>> Mhm. That is correct.

42:16>> for that reason.

42:18>> Correct.

42:18>> Okay.

42:20I want to Okay. Got that. Now I have

42:22questions for both or either.

42:25So um

42:28so can you pull up the page that shows

42:30what you're proposing with the three

42:32access points and then you had

42:35like text blocks next to it that explain

42:38what what you're proposing.

42:41Yeah. Is that it? Can we make that

42:44bigger?

42:47So

42:49let me miss make so you're proposing

42:51three three access parts two of which

42:54are completely dedicated to passenger

42:56vehicles.

42:58>> Yes, that's correct.

43:00>> And number three, which I guess is the

43:02one closest to the freeway, so the

43:04furthest north I think

43:06is trucks only.

43:09>> That's right. It's closest to the

43:10freeway. It happens to be furthest east

43:13and it's accessed off of a

43:15cul-de-sac turn yes, sorry.

43:17>> I got it.

43:17>> North is to the left on

43:18>> Yeah, yeah, I always get

43:20That's why I kept going like this cuz

43:21I'm trying

43:22>> The truck access is being connected to a

43:24cul-de-sac at the end of Freight Street.

43:26>> Right. So people can Okay.

43:29So um your colleague said something I I

43:31didn't fully understand which was if we

43:33went to two

43:36access points

43:38trucks would need to use both because he

43:41said then there would be mingling of

43:42passenger cars and trucks

43:45at the passenger access point.

43:48Is

43:49did I hear that correctly?

43:51>> Uh I'm not sure if you heard it

43:53correctly. I think what we were trying

43:54to say is that if

43:56the

43:57variance request falls down and we're

43:59only allowed two access points to

44:02Freight Street

44:03we will need to reconfigure the parking

44:05to interconnect

44:07uh some of the passenger area to that

44:10truck drive on the east side

44:13which would mean that then we're

44:14co-mingling trucks entering the site

44:17from the cul-de-sac with passenger

44:19vehicles that might be trying to exit to

44:21Freight Street at that easterly

44:22driveway.

44:24>> So I guess my next

44:25>> That's what we're trying to avoid.

44:26>> Right. So my question is why do you have

44:29to

44:32co-mingle why do you have to then

44:36let's just say for purposes of this cuz

44:38this is the only

44:39circulation pattern analysis I have or

44:42is this.

44:43So let's say you eliminate the middle

44:47access point which is now called

44:49passenger access two.

44:51Why do you have to then

44:55connect those parking lot spaces by

44:59passenger access two to the truck lane

45:02that's located further east.

45:04I I I don't understand

45:07why you have to do that. You could just

45:09have one

45:11passenger access for all those parking

45:13spots.

45:14And you'd probably move it a little bit

45:16for, you know, more centrally in fact. I

45:18don't know.

45:20>> What we're we're trying to do is um

45:22allow the people who have parked in

45:23those passenger

45:25vehicle lots to access out to Freight

45:28Street efficiently. And to the extent

45:31that the

45:32one, wherever it is, might become

45:35bottled up from time to time

45:37um

45:38to to get to the other one and go all

45:40the way around the building, around the

45:42fire lane on the south side and then out

45:44is really not

45:45efficient.

45:46Um so we'd like that small area of

45:48parking that's north of the building

45:50over the pipeline easement that we were

45:51talking about

45:53to be able to kind of cross access

45:55within the site.

45:56And that's unfortunately what would

45:58cause that that mingling because then

46:00they're using the truck drive.

46:02>> Do we have a pointer that I can use or a

46:04like a flashy lighty?

46:08So

46:10so Doug, can you get a cursor up there?

46:12Okay, move it all the way down to the

46:14opposite corner. Now move it all the way

46:17across. Now there.

46:18So if I park there

46:20I have and I and I go out the closest

46:24access point. Doug, take me out the

46:26closest access point.

46:28So I have so that guy who parks way down

46:30there, he's going to drive by

46:33200 parking spaces on both sides.

46:36Okay, now take me to the parking those

46:39right there. So that guy, he parks right

46:42there. Now take me out number one,

46:44right? So in order to get out, that guy

46:46has to drive by a fifth of the number of

46:49parking.

46:51So I'm not sure I understand

46:53why does adding that second part

46:57you know, so instead of driving by

46:5930 parking spaces, the guy in the upper

47:01left hand corner has to drive by 10.

47:05So and the the guy still down at the far

47:07corner still has to drive through 200

47:10you know, by. So I'm not

47:12honestly, I'm not understanding your

47:13argument

47:14that adding a second spot in that place

47:19helps that much with congestion cuz the

47:21real congestion is created by having

47:23that long [groaning]

47:27row of parking along Eisenman.

47:29Right? I mean, what we really need for

47:31internal circulation is an Eisenman

47:33connection in the middle of that side,

47:36right?

47:37We don't need another one up on Freight

47:39Street, do we?

47:41Like I don't think the the marginal

47:42benefit of that Freight like I'm not

47:45asking a question. I apologize. Could

47:47you please explain to me again

47:49>> We don't disagree that

47:50>> Can you please explain to me again

47:53like

47:55why you think that middle access has a

47:58material impact on the parking

48:00circulation for vehicles?

48:02>> Yeah, we don't disagree at all that

48:04overall site circulation would be

48:06benefited greatly if there were access

48:08to Eisenman, but both the city and ACHD

48:11have been clear that we're not getting

48:12that.

48:12>> Yeah, and I obviously

48:14I don't have the authority to do that

48:17if if you did, we might have asked for

48:18that as our variance.

48:19>> Yeah.

48:20>> Uh

48:21but because of that limitation and all

48:23of the traffic having to be funneled

48:25back to Freight Street, we think there's

48:28potential, particularly during afternoon

48:30shift change and some of those high

48:32volume times that if all of the

48:35passenger vehicles have to be focused to

48:37just one driveway, it'll be more

48:39congested. And so having a relief valve

48:42at the other access point that doesn't

48:44cross-mingle with truck traffic will

48:47improve site circulation.

48:49It's supportable by ACHD. We just have

48:52this

48:54issue, problem with the code.

48:55>> Problem with the code.

48:56>> two, not three.

48:57>> It says two, not three.

48:58>> That's a problem for me too.

48:59>> And and irrespective of property size or

49:01any other issue, you only get one unless

49:04planning director thinks you should have

49:06two.

49:07Thank you.

49:07>> Did you

49:09Did you want to add something?

49:10Why don't you throw your name and

49:12address in the record. Thank you guys

49:13for your patience.

49:14>> apologize if I created any confusion.

49:16The the the concern with if we were not

49:19to make the connection to the truck

49:20drive access and to remove the

49:22centerpiece, the center access for the

49:25passenger vehicles

49:27is the the

49:29potential for congestion as Jason

49:32mentioned and the bottle point will the

49:35bottle the choke point will be the

49:37bottleneck choke point will come at the

49:39access point on Freight Street for the

49:42vehicles, but then also on that internal

49:45spot.

49:46>> right right right.

49:46>> Right where you think everything's

49:47coming together in a very very short

49:49area.

49:50>> Yeah.

49:50>> And and that is you can say is an

49:53inconvenience in lieu of a hardship on

49:55people exiting the site.

49:58What I'm very concerned about is people

50:00getting into the site when you're so

50:03close to the intersection.

50:06>> Mhm.

50:06>> And keep in mind we have

50:09right now it services

50:11over what 450,000 square feet. No, more

50:14than that when you include the Winco

50:15Distribution Center and for future

50:18developable land to the west, that

50:20intersection is only going to get more

50:21and more congested.

50:22>> Right.

50:23>> So having everything of all those

50:25parking spots funnel into that one

50:29access point I

50:31feel is just a real bad idea and the

50:33hardship again is created. We our

50:35initial designs for this included access

50:38off of Eisman Road, but through

50:40discussions with staff at ACHD and the

50:42city, it became very apparent that that

50:44was not desirable and we

50:46we agreed. We went forward with their

50:48desires, but it shifts the challenge to

50:51to another place and now to get pinched

50:53in and to claim there isn't a hardship,

50:55we just disagree with that assessment.

50:59>> Thank you.

51:08>> [clears throat]

51:09>> I'm thinking about

51:11Give me a minute.

51:25Okay, so I don't have any other

51:27questions at this time. I may come back

51:29and ask more questions and we have to

51:31kind of open it up, but it's not like we

51:32have a big public

51:34record here or audience. So um why don't

51:37we go to public testimony and start in

51:39person first? Is there anybody here um

51:42would like to testify on this issue?

51:47So I had three people sign up on the

51:49sign up sheet.

51:50Um

51:53Oop, wrong one.

51:55Nope, I just had one. I just had

51:57Joseph Larea.

52:00That's you. Okay.

52:02Get your three minutes of fame, Mr.

52:04Larea.

52:05>> Uh Joseph Larea, the applicant. Joseph

52:07Larea, the applicant um with Babcock

52:09Design Group.

52:10I live at well 800 uh West Suites what

52:15we 9 9 910. But um

52:18we've been working through this

52:19throughout some time and of course

52:21Eisman would be the best.

52:23But through the hardships of waiting

52:26and the safety issues as well, we feel

52:29that this is the best solution

52:31or a compromise of a solution. And I

52:34just

52:35I thought that was a sign up sheet. I

52:36didn't know I was re-speaking. So

52:38>> It's okay. You did fine.

52:39>> said, I'm in favor of the three

52:41entrances and I think it's a wise idea.

52:44>> Thank you, sir.

52:46Okay, is there anybody online?

52:49All right.

52:50So um

52:52applicants, you have up to 5 minutes for

52:55rebuttal or closing arguments.

53:02I No, let me think about that. I'm I'm

53:04trying to think about it.

53:20So I'm going to just have to ask some

53:21more questions which will recycle

53:23everyone's opportunity to comment and

53:25rebuttal and all that

53:27but

53:28heck.

53:29Um

53:32so I guess my question um

53:36to the city is with respect to the three

53:39driveway plan

53:41does it meet ACHD's

53:44spacing and placing requirements?

53:47It's the applicant said that it did that

53:50they had approved it.

53:51>> Mr. Gillespie, in draft comments

53:52received from ACHD, they indicated ACHD

53:56was fine with the three access points

53:57their per their policy manual. However,

54:00city of Boise's development code in this

54:02specific example

54:04places more stringent requirements with

54:06the two access points.

54:07>> Okay. And so Mr. Accident is is the um

54:13is the two

54:16driveway limit

54:19um it's just a flat that's the only part

54:22of code that this is hanging up on. Is

54:24that or is there some other

54:26like

54:27you know parking or access requirement

54:30that I missed? Cuz I read the staff

54:32report. I only saw reference to the two.

54:35>> Mr. Mr. Gillespie, that is correct. Uh

54:38development code like I showed earlier

54:39references up to two. There is another

54:42section as it relates to kind of some of

54:43those conversations about access to

54:44Eisenman. There is a section in code

54:47that if you have more than one frontage,

54:48it has to be on the lowest volume street

54:50which is why we're

54:51um taking access off of freight street

54:53no matter what.

54:54>> Right.

55:08Okay, thank you very much.

55:11Um, so you can rebut or discuss if you

55:15you have a chance to talk about what he

55:16just talked about if you want to.

55:19And I just asked him about really what

55:22was ACHD to you and what exactly is the

55:25controlling part of code that staff is

55:27relying on?

55:29>> To add to what Mr. Exton said, yes, we

55:33have ACHD support in their draft staff

55:35report for the accesses that we

55:36proposed. Their policy manual does not

55:39does not limit the number of accesses to

55:41an industrial local street like Freight

55:43Street. We're only limited in how close

55:45to Eisenman Road a driveway could be

55:47placed.

55:48As long as we stay out of that 150 ft

55:50zone

55:51adjacent to Eisenman, ACHD's policy

55:54would allow us essentially an unlimited

55:56number of accesses, but they are

55:57supportive of the three.

55:59>> Thank you.

56:09All right.

56:10My decision is to deny the variance CBA

56:1326-43 for the reasons written in the

56:15staff report.

56:17However,

56:19I would like to encourage the city to

56:23revisit the

56:26absolute hard number two

56:28with respect to certain kinds of

56:30development.

56:31I think

56:34it's reasonable that the city adapts

56:36some limitations on number of access

56:39points, but I think that limitation has

56:41to be flexible with respect to the uses

56:44and particularly the number of parking

56:46spaces that a use

56:48is is commanding.

56:52And so that's my decision.

56:56Thank you very much.

56:58I can't

57:00Yeah. Oh,

57:01my bad. So let me clarify

57:04with respect to

57:06you had one, but

57:08I agree with the staff report that we

57:10should

57:11grant the variance with respect to

57:13building placement

57:15and deny the variance respect to a

57:17number of access points for the reasons

57:19stated in the staff report. I apologize

57:21for that.

```*