City Council - Regular Meeting

for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Clerk, will you call the role? Or here, Burton here. Morales. Nash here. Dead here. Four present, two absent. Next up, we've got some minutes for approval. Madame Mayor, I move to approve the minutes from work session and regular meeting on April 7th, 2026. Second the motion. We have a motion, a second. Clerk Corus, yes. Hi Burton, yes. Nash, yes. Dead, yes.

All in favor? Motion carries. Uh, Madame Mayor, before we move into consent agenda, um, I move that resolution 154-26 be removed from the agenda to be taken up at a later date. Second the motion. We have a motion, a second. Clerk Corless, yes. Hi Burton, yes. Nash, yes. Dead, yes. All in favor? Motion carries. And then with that, Madame Mayor, I move to approve the consent agenda. Second. We have a motion, a second. Clerk Corless. Yes. Tyler Burton, yes. Nash, yes. Dead, yes. All in favor? Motion carries.

All right. I think next we have a a few three ordinances. Yep. On third reading. Third reading. Um, Madame Mayor, I move that further reading of OD8-26, OD9-26, and OD1 11-26 be dispensed with, and that the record reflect that they have been read the third time in full. A second. A motion in a second. Clerk Orus, yes. Ali Burton, yes. Nash, yes. Dead, yes.

All in favor? Motion carries. OD-8-26. An ordinance C25-0000009 for property located 8430 West Castle Street amending zoning classifications of the city of Boise City to change the classification of real property particularly described in section one of this ordinance and adjacent rights of way from R-1A residential large lot to R-2 residential compact setting forth a reason statement in support of zone change and providing effective date or D-9-26 an ordinance C25-0 0014 for property located at 6300, 6352, and 6450 North Row Street, Boise, Idaho 83714, amending zoning classifications of the city of Boyisey City to change the classification of real property, particularly described in section one of this ordinance and adjacent rights of way from R-1A, residential large lot to R-2, residential compact, setting forth a recent statement in support of subone change and providing effective feet. OD-11-26 an ordinance DOA25-000013 amending title 11 Boyisey city code development code removing electric vehicle parking requirements and modifying bike parking requirements in title 11 chapter 4 section 8 updating requirements for accessory dwelling units and tiny homes on wheels in title 11 chapter 3 section 3 modifying incentives in title 11 chapter 4 section 3 modifying the definition of dwelling in title 11 chapter 6 section 3 to allow a second kitchen. Modifying the airport influence area and wildland urban interface overlays in title 11 chapter 7 section 2 modifying the application of streetscape standards in title 11 chapter 2 making amendments to correct errors align language clarify procedures and ease administration of the code throughout title 11 approving a summary of the ordinance adopting a reason

statement and providing effective date. Madame Mayor, I move that ordinances uh ORD 826, ORD 926, and ORD 1126 be approved. Let's second the motion. We have a motion to second. Any discussion? Horus, yes. Hi Burton, yes. Nash, yes. Ste, yes.

All in favor? Motion carries. All right. Thank you. Um, we're going to move into subdivisions. it it for the most part what I do with these is staff does a brief presentation. I check in with the applicant to see if you're in agreement with the terms and conditions of the staff report. Doesn't look like anybody's signed up in advance. I'll confirm that and then typically if you're in agreement then we'll have council move ahead with action. Um and with that we'll start with the first one. Welcome David.

Thank you madame mayor. Members of the council, the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary and final plat for residential subdivision comprised of four buildable lots on 0.35 acres located at 2233 South Division Avenue in an R1C zone. The sub property is located approximately 386 ft south of Iowa Street and approximately 113 ft north of the entrance to Ivy Wild Park. The site is located within an established residential neighborhood and surrounded by single family detached homes. The nearest bus stop or the nearest bus route is along Broadway which about four blocks to the west of the property. This slide shows the site plan in the in the in the layout lot layout of the plat. In summary, the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary and final plat for the division subdivision which comprise of four town homes as seen here. The town houses will require their own zoning certificate approval which will be administrator reviewed after the subdivision and as proposed all lots meet the dimensional standards of the R1C zone and the subdivision will include cross-axis maintenance agreement with the share driveways. In addition, a condition of approval will require the installation of a 5-ft detach sidewalk 8ft landscape buffer with street trees. In conclusion, the planning and zoning commission recommended approval. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions for David? All right, Penelopey, good to see you. Um, I'll Are you in agreement with terms and conditions of the staff report? Great. I'll have the record reflect that you are. And with that, I'll confirm nobody's here for this one. And I'll have go ahead and have council take action. Good to see you, Penelopey. Madame Mayor, I move approval of SUB25-47, uh, preliminary final plat, um, at 2233 South Division Avenue. I second the motion. We have a motion, a second discussion.

Madam Mayor, just wanted to make note this seems like a great little infill project. Great part of town. I also think that Division has like the weirdest entrance going into a tennis court parking lot of almost any like park entrance in Boyisey. It's a little weird and confusing there. Um, but again, so great to get some additional uh units right next to a park, right next to a great place to live. And I appreciate you working with us on the sidewalk as well. So, thank you. All right. Clerk Corass. Yes. Hel Burton. Yes. Nash. Yes. Ben, yes. All in favor? Motion carries.

And now, welcome, Doug. We've got the tail wing subdivision. This Ben Simple. I think I saw Ben. Great. Anybody here for this one? Beyond Ben. Wonderful. We'll do the same thing.

Good evening, Madam Mayor and City Council. Before you tonight is a preliminary and final plat for the towing subdivision in an R1C zone. The subdivision complies with all dimensional requirements of the R1C zone. A sidewalk waiver to install attached sidewalk was approved for the frontage along Burke Avenue. As summarized in the project report, a recommended condition of approval requires an updated tree mitigation plan to compensate for an additional tree to be removed for detach sidewalk along Woody Drive. In conclusion, the planning and zoning commission recommended approval and I'd be happy to stand for any questions. Any questions, Madam Mayor? No questions. Just wanted to thank staff for some flexibility looking at the sidewalk. This is kind of exactly what we talked about a couple weeks ago of like

finding the right spot where it doesn't necessarily have to be detached, working with the developer to do it, detaching the other sidewalk where it does make sense. So, job well done. Um, finding that uh that flexibility where it's needed. All right. Great. I'll just make sure. Um, Ben Simple, are you in agreement with terms and conditions of the staff report? Great. I'll have the record reflect that. Confirm that nobody's here for this one. And with that, I'll put this before council. Madame Mayor, I move approval of SUB2-77 preliminary and final plat um at 3708 West Burke Avenue. Second the motion. Motion disc uh second discussion.

Madame Mayor. Yes. Um, I just want to This is to me this is an exciting small project. Um, but the some of the the lots are pretty small. 3,800 square ft um is smaller than we often see. So, I'm excited to see the project move forward with some smaller housing options um in that neighborhood. Thanks for bringing it forward. All right, clerk yes. Hi Burton, yes. Nash, yes. Yes. All in favor? Motion carries. Thank you. Next up, we have another um project with Ben Simple and Matt. Welcome, Mitch. Is anybody else here for this beyond the applicant team?

All right. Thank you and good evening, Madame Mayor, members of council. The item before you is a preliminary and final plat for residential subdivision comprised of four buildable and one common lot on 0.57 acres in an R1C residential traditional zone. The common lot on the north of the buildable lots will provide vehicular access to these four lots along its south. It includes a 5- foot wide landscape buffer with shrubs along the north and a 5 foot wide attached sidewalk along the south adjacent to those buildable lots. A variance was also included and approved by the planning and zoning commission to allow the proposed common driveway to exceed the maximum allowance of 150 ft. Additionally, the planning director approved a sidewalk waiver request to allow a 5-ft attached sidewalk along its street frontage to match the adjacent development to its north and south. In conclusion, the planning and zoning commission recommended approval and I can stand for any questions. Questions for Matt? Nope. Okay. And are you in agreement? All right. The record will will reflect that they're in agreement with the terms and conditions of the staff report. Nobody here for this one and so I'll put this before council.

Madame Mayor, I move approval of SUB25-97 preliminary and final plat at 3815 North Jackie Lane. Motion, we have a motion and a second. Madam Mayor, I feel like I have to say something again. I was about to give you the opportunity. Similar small lots. Um so excited to see this. And it's a it is a long skinny lot. So good job on um fitting it all in. Clerk Corus. Yes. Holly Burton. Yes. Yes. Dead. Yes. All in favor? Motion carries.

All right. And we've got Matt again for this next one. Um the JUB engineers van. Wonderful. Welcome. And um so you've seen how we're doing this. I'll just check in. Is anybody be on the applicant team here for this one? All right. Go ahead, Matt.

Thanks again, Madame Mayor, members of council. The item before you is a preliminary and final plat for residential subdivision comprised of one buildable lot located at 2521 West Victory Road in an R3DA HSO residential urban with development agreement and hillside overlay zone. This subdivision is similar to a previously approved subdivision from 2023 which was withdrawn. The applicant proposes a very similar subdivision layout with minor changes. The main change being that the original originally approved subdivision contains three buildable lots with a public street network intersecting it which has been replaced with a single buildable lot that's bisected by a public service drive network. The proposed lot conforms with the dimensional standards of of the R3DA HS zone. The subdivision is intended to accommodate a 300 unit multif family infill development and will be subject to design review approval in accordance with the associated development agreement. It proposes a public street along its eastern side that will provide access to a plan development adjacent to its east and then it includes an extensive network of public pathways surrounding the site. In conclusion, the planning and zoning commission recommended approval of the preliminary and final plan and I will stand for any questions.

Madame Mayor, I remember this one the first time um and I think that there was like two different applications that were coming in like backtoback and lots of conversations, you know, about what was happening here. Um the we still have the pathway um along the base of the is it the New York canal that's there or is that Renba New York? Yep. So we still got the the pathway going there in the bottom. There was also some I think concerns about the exit um going onto Victory Road. Um, I can't remember where we ended up if there was any additional requirements or or or is the exit exactly the same as what we had required or what it looked like for the previous application.

Uh, Madame Mayor, Council Member Halle Burton, thank you for the question. The area that the entrance is located is the same as was previously proposed. Um, and that would be subject to design review approval for the multif family. Uh I think a a main difference here is that there's also an entrance off of that public uh the eastern uh along the eastern boundary is a public road that will also provide uh access as well. Great. Thank you. And there's no there's no additional application for the lot next to it at this point, Madame Mayor. Council member Hi Burton. Uh not that I'm aware of.

Cool. Thank you. Yeah, kind of a bummer just because we had gotten such a long stretch of pathway in there from, you know, one spot to another one, but it's still nice to see um the continuation of that. So, I'm glad that you were able to keep that in there. Thank you. All right, I will check in with the applicant. Are you in agreement with terms and conditions of the staff report? All right, thank you. The applicant has said yes. I confirm nobody else is here beyond the team. With that, this one's for council.

Madame Mayor, I move approval of SUB26-4 preliminary and final plot for uh at 2521 West Victory Road. Second the motion. We have a motion to second discussion.

Madame Mayor, this this one was it was like an hour and a half long. It was a super long one. Um, it had a lot to do with a railroad crossing I think that was further down on on victory. And I think we've got another lot that's in this area today. Um, appreciate uh finding a way to move forward on this. This is a great opportunity, great spot to get more housing. And that pathway is such a great part of our pathways master plan. Um, and I know at some point we'll be able to work on the lot that's next to it as well. It was great when we had a couple of those things tied together. But again, great spot for housing. I'm glad we could keep those pedestrian improvements on a variety of different aspects of it. Thank you.

Yeah, madame mayor. Yes, I just want to echo uh council member Hib Burn said is I I remember this one coming before council and I kept looking for the real where's the railroad crossing on here? But it is that parcel next to it. Um this location is is great for multif family housing. It's really centrally located. A lot of great amenities with bus stops, grocery stores, and happy to see this go forward. So, thank you for bringing to this bringing this to us tonight. All right. Clerk Royless, yes. Hi Burton, yes. Nash, yes. Dead, yes.

All in favor? Motion carries. And one final subdivision. We've got David Moer back up here for um SUV 2585. The applicant is Overland Storage, Jay Walker. Hello. Oh, both of you. Great. All right. Um, and the is anybody here beyond the applicant team for this? Okay. Sorry about that. Madame Mayor, members of the council, the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for commercial subdivision comprised of four buildable lots on 6.15 acres located at 12353 West Overland Road and MX2 FPOD DA zones. That's a mixeduse general flood plane protection overlay and there's a development agreement. The subject property is located at is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Cloverdale and Overland Road. The Ryenbball Canal extends along the east side of the property and the north and the northwest and the northwest portion of the property is located within the flood plane of FiveM Creek. The existing neighborhood is a mixture of multifamily residential uses and commercial uses

along Overland Road with single family residential to the north and south. The city of Meridian absuts the subject property to the west. This slide shows the site plan and the preliminary plat for the four lot commercial subdivision comprised of commercial developments along Overland Road and residential uses to the south on the south parcel. The proposed all as proposed all the lots will meet the dimensional standards of the MX2 zone and there is a recorded cross-axis agreement over the adjacent parcel to the west which provides access to lot one. The proposed preliminary plat is consistent with the conceptual DA or conceptual site plan of the DA. The applicant is require require is required to install a 10-ft detached sidewalk and 10-ft landscape buffer along both street frontages and also a 10- foot wide pathway will be installed along ride canal abudding the subject property. However, the pathway will end at the north side of lot one and then connect to Mova Way across a recorded crossaxis agreement since the development to the south within the city meridian did not provide a pathway connection. The planning team did receive a letter of opposition from the public expressing concern for traffic and building height of the potential future residential development on lot one. In addition, traffic impacts on the adjacent neighborhood to the west is anticipated to be minimal since Mondova Way provides secondary access to the self- storage facility and the proposed multif family development on lot one. ACD stated they will grant temporary full access to Overland Road from to from the site, but this will be restricted in the future. And as for the neighbors concerns regarding the height of the building height on lot one, this this is this is not part of the subdivision application and will and will be reviewed separately with a different planning application in the future. The planning and zoning commission recommended approval of the subdivision. Thank you.

Any questions for staff? Yeah, madame. Um you mentioned just the something about the pathway and the um cross access agreement and then something about the border of Meridian and I think I maybe just missed the last part related to Meridian.

Yes. Uh madame mayor members of the council the pathway is this green area this line here extending along Ry Book Canal which was the applicant is is going to install and was required as part of the DA. It stops here and then there's a cross recorded cross access agreement that allows this to access to Mova away here. Um there was initial discussion about extending the pathway south across lot one and then terminating it on the south border but to the south of this is Meridian and that area has already been developed with a subdivision. So it would back up into the backyard of an existing duplex.

Okay. Yeah. Great. Thanks for that clarification there. Um, at first I didn't quite get it and it was sort of like a a little bit of a trigger or a reminder that like maybe we should be talking about Meridian to make sure our pathways plan connects with each other. Um, so yeah, thanks for that clarification, Madame Mayor. Yes. Uh, David, are self- storage units allowed by right in all of our MX cells? Madame Mayor, members of the council, uh, not by Wright. This s this cell storage unit was approved back in 2018 with a conditional use and then the approval of that conditional use was specified and written into the development agreement so it never expired. Okay,

Madame Mayor David, thank you for bringing this to our attention. Um, quick question. So is the main access point for this off of Overland Road? Madame Mayor, members of the council, that is correct. the main access for the commercial developments and the self storage would be the access point off Overland. There's a secondary access off the back um that would feed lot one which is the future residential and it it provides just a back door I guess to the self storage and so that that cross access easement um does go into Mato and will be an access point as well.

Madame Mayor, me members of council that is correct and it's already been recorded and it was required as part of the DA at the time. Great. And my only concern is Oakland's a very busy road as we all know and um with that ease or the access point right there close to that intersection, it seems like it'd be quite a bit of traffic, but um I see the approval was here from ACD um granting that. It's a very odd shaped lot. Um it's it it you know creativity here on the the self storage lots but I just want to note for the record a little bit of concern having that access point run Overland Road. All right concern concern will be noted. Any other questions before I I see if you're in ter in agreement with terms and conditions of the staff report I'm getting thumbs up. So the answer is yes. Nobody be on the team is here for this. All right, I'll go ahead and put this in front of the council. Nice to meet you earlier in the elevator and thank you for being here tonight. U Madame Mayor, I move approval of SUB25-85 um at 12535 West Overland Road.

I'll second. We have a motion to second discussion. All right, clerk Corass. Yes. Holly Burton. Yes. Nash. Yes. Fed. Yes. All in favor? Motion carries.

All right. Thank you. Next up, David's still with us. We're moving into public hearings now. We've got CR25-24. So, for this one, um David's going to do this the city report. We've got is it David Blahett? David. Wonderful. As the applicant is here, um we don't expect any public testimony. Nobody signed up. I just want to make sure that we have neither the neighborhood association nor residents wanting to speak on this. All right. Well, I'll check in with staff will likely follow similar suit. Go ahead.

Thank you, Madame Mayor, members of the council. The applicant requests an an annex 0.89 89 acres with a zoning designation of I1 AIO WUIO which is light industrial with an airport influence area and Wland urban interface overlay. The site is currently zoned RU in Ada County. The central property is vacant and located on the west side of Federal Way across from the Micron campus. The Interstate 84 freeway is behind the site at about 150 ft to the west. There is a heavy equipment sales and industrial uses adjacent to the south with office buildings to the north. The applicant proposes to annex the subject property and construct a mechanical fabrication shop building on the adjacent property to the northwest. The subject property will contain a parking lot for the new development and provide an additional access point on the federal way. It has a land use designation of industrial and is within the airport influence B overlay zone. The future mechanical shop building and the sensitive land overlays will be reviewed with subsequent applications. The proposed zoning designation of I1 is appropriate for the proposed use and location of the central property. In addition to policy, the comprehensive plan called to for coordinating and for the coordinating and sustainable growth growth patterns of of the within the Boise planning area of impact and to protect sections of this section of federal way for industrial development. The annexation of the subject property with an I1 zone will protect this established industrial area from encroachment by incompatible uses and the annexation of the I1 is consistent with the existing industrial uses in the area which includes the Micron campus. In summary, the planning and zoning commission recommended approval of the annexation.

Thank you. Are there questions for staff? Madame David, can you go back to that last slide? When I look at this, am I looking at it that the light gray is already annexed in and the white areas are not annexed in? Madame Mayor, me, that is correct. This parcel is is an enclave. It's completely surrounded by the city. Perfect. Thank you. No further questions. All right. I'll hear from the applicant. You're welcome to come up. If you're in a ter in agreement with terms and conditions of the staff report, you can say that, too.

All right. Right. I will have the record reflect that and want to confirm that nobody is here for this item. Any additional questions for staff? Wonderful. I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and thanks for for being here with this proposal. Appreciate it. Uh Madame Mayor, I recommend approval of CR25-24 at 9145 South Federal Way. Second the motion. We have a motion and a second. discussion and mayor. Yes.

Um this is the easiest annexation I think I've ever done on city council. Um but it makes a lot of sense. You know, here we've got a spot completely surrounded by city of Boisey property. We've got a machining shop and industrial area, you know, right across from Micron. And so like when we look at an annexation, this is again about as easy as it gets and it makes a lot of sense. And so it fits into all the different things that we're trying to do within our comprehensive plan and our zoning code. So easy approval for this one today. Right. Thank you. Further discussion. Clerk Corass. Yes. Hi Burton. Yes. Nash. Yes. Dead. Yes.

All in favor? Motion carries. All righty. We'll move on to item number two. CPA 255. David again. And this one we've got Tammy Crawford. No. Okay. Great. I'm sorry. And what's your and what's and what's your name? I can't remember. I'm so sorry. David, that's right. Okay. Sorry, I couldn't remember that. Welcome back. Um, we have um we don't expect and we don't have anybody signed up, but is the neighborhood association here or the public here? All right. Um, we'll go ahead and start with staff and then I'll see if council has questions.

Thank you, Madame Mayor, members of the council. The applicant requests a comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use designation from industrial to compact on approximately 4.8 acres and a reszone of approximately 3.1 acres from I1 to R2. This property is located approximately quarter mile south of Victory Road and is part of a a small industrial enclave located at the south side of the established residential neighborhood. The residential neighborhood adjacent to the north and west is comprised of single family homes, duplexes, and multif family developments. Abuing the subject property to the south is a large self self-s storage facility. Adjacent to the east is the Union Pacific Railroad track which is located on an elevated BM. As such, it creates a barrier separating the site from the larger commercial neighborhood to the east. The overall area of the subject property is approximately 4.8 acres. The subject property is zoned R2 on the west side and I1 on the east side of the site with a land use designation of industrial over the entire property. Changing the entire subject property to a compact land use designation and reszoning the approximate 3.1 acre parcel on the east side from I1 to R2 is compatible with the comprehensive plan since it would reduce impacts associated with the current and potential industrial use uses of the adjac on the adjacent residential neighborhood. In addition, reszoning the east half of the site to R2 is compatible with the adjacent single family homes to the to the north across Wright Street, which is also zoned R2. The adjacent railroad track restricts how the subject property can be developed by limiting vehicle access to the site through the neighborhood to the north. Reszoning the area to a residential zone R2 will promote a safe and efficient network that minimizes vehicle conflicts between industrial and residential traffic. In summary, the comprehensive plan amendment and the reszone will would protect the adjacent residential neighborhood to the north and west from existing and potential

industrial development of the subject property. The applicant intends to construct a multif family development on site and this slide shows the conceptual plan for the multif family project. However, this will require its own design review application and approval which is not a part of the application before you tonight. In addition, there is a limited driveway connection under the railroad track through a tunnel on the from the subject property to the east and but the tunnel is small and cannot support a large amount of traffic. I've included a photo of the tunnel up in the corner in a basically the location of where it is located on uh with respect to the property. The planning team did receive letters of opposition from the public expressing concerns with the potential of increased traffic through the neighborhood and the lack of pedestrian and bike infrastructure throughout the neighborhood. To address these concerns, I would note that the comprehensive plan amendment and the reszone would facilitate residential infill on site which is more compatible in terms of use and traffic than the adjacent with the adjacent residential neighborhood than the industrial uses that are anticipated to occur within this industrial zone. In summary, the planning and zoning commission recommended approval of the comp plan amendment and the reszone. Thank you.

Madame Mayor, I have a question. Um, thanks for the information. David, can you give me an example of, as it's currently zoned as industrial, can you give me an example of what kind of use that might permit? Under the current zoning, I1, a trucking terminal would be an allowed use. Um, that would have specific uh design standards. So would a warehouse facility. Um they could put a heavy uh vehicle equipment or heavy equipment repair facility in there would be just outright allowed. Um allowed either conditionally or or just by right depending on what you're proposing. Light and light industrial would be could could go into an I1 zone. Um

thank you David. I think that helps me visualize what could go in there now. And I by the sound of those uses and what I know from other testimony that I've witnessed for those types of uses that comes with um diesel trucks running sometimes all hours. Um lights head headlights in and out from those trucks at a high high height than a normal car. Um is that right? And that maybe truck traffic in and out. Madam Madame may members of council that is correct. uh like a trucking facility, a trucking terminal or a warehouse would definitely increase the amount of semi traffic through the neighborhood and they couldn't use the the tunnel through it. It's just too narrow

because is it did I understand that correctly from your presentation? Sorry, madam mayor. Last one. Um that there is the only access to this property right now um for almost any use is through the neighborhood. Madame Mayor, me members of the council, that is correct. It would be Lindsay would be the direct primary access back to Victory Road which is about a quarter mile to the north. Great. Thank you. Further questions? Yep. Go ahead. Mayor, um

David, you may have said this already. Are there so when somebody builds next to the railroad tracks, are there any additional requirements as far as like sound, fencing, burm, you know, things that kind of prevent folks, kids, anybody, dogs, cats running from, you know, the development onto the tracks. Madame, members of council, that could be a concern and I I instructed the applicant as as they move forward into the design review to reach out to Union Pacific and see what those requirements are. That being said, this um railway track is elevated 25 feet to 30 feet above the site. It's on a big burm um at a higher elevation. So, you'd have to climb a pretty steep hill to get to it. Yep.

And then I know that this um this stretch it is identified in our pathways master plan, but my understanding is that the pathway would actually go in the railroad easement, not actually on the property easement. So, we wouldn't be requiring this property owner to do anything because it wouldn't actually be on their property. Am I understanding that correct? Madame May, members of council, that is my understanding. Okay. And Madame Mayor, I've got so many questions about this tunnel. Um, that looks like it was designed by like my next door neighbor or something like that. Like, it's just like a a culvert. I'm sure that's a compliment. I don't It's not. I mean, it's just like a drainage cover that goes underneath a railroad. Um, that doesn't really look to be

I I don't know. I look at it and think I might have to duck

so what what is this tunnel being used for now? Are we requiring them to like put any sort of pedestrian connection from one side to the other? What's going on with this tunnel? I just it's very bizarre to me. Madame members of the council, the tunnel is currently being used by the current property or the current business that's using the property which is a layown. It's a it's a drilling company. and using it for outdoor storage and lay down and they drive the drilling trucks through that tunnel to get access to Federal Way instead of going through the neighborhood. But um you know a drilling truck and and small lightweight trucks is one thing I don't know if a semi could fit through that.

Great. And so I mean I imagine that there's not a lot of places to cross that railroad close by. Maybe not even to Victory Road, but I know that we have Is there any advantage to trying to create a pathway connection from one side to the other? It looks like it maybe empties out onto the highway. It m Madame Mayor, members of the council, I think the applicant was initially with their multif family proposing to open that up as a ped bike connection through the tunnel to get, you know, so you don't to get a quicker access to federal. Although I have heard from uh one business owner on the other side because there are currently industrial uses over there and they expressed some concerns about putting bike and ped traffic through that industrial area. But it could be opened up as a bike ped to provide a quicker access to federal instead of going all the way up to Victory on Lindsay and then taking a right over the railroad track.

Great. Thank you. And and I can ask the applicant that a similar question as well. So appreciate it, David. All right, come on up. David Crawford with the applicant group.

Mayor, excuse me, mayor, members of the council. Uh, appreciate the staff uh, doing such a great summary of the analysis for the comprehensive plan amendment and the reszone. Property is currently two parcels of land. One is zoned R2 and one is zoned IIL. It's currently being used as a layown yard. We certainly feel that the R2 zoning would be more compatible with the neighborhood. Um we have been working with staff on the site. Uh that was the initial concept plan and we've had a subsequent one based on some ACD comments and staff comments where we have proposed a pedestrian and bicycle connection to that tunnel. We have reached out to the railroad company to no avail. Uh, no response, but we have I' I've reached out at least twice and have not been able to get a contact there yet. Um, the like David said, the it is elevated substantially in that area. If you're familiar with that Victory Road crossing, you can definitely tell uh how tall it is. that's uh probably a little worse here as far as that, but um so there's not a lot we can do about putting up a barrier to sound, but we would be certainly open uh to doing some sound deadening requirements that's similar to uh airport de uh zone development.

Yeah, Madame Mayor, I'll follow there. That sounds like the end of your end of your presentation for now. Yes. Great. Um, it would be interesting to know like if there's any I would imagine there would be some sort of specific requirements about putting up a fence between like a property and a railroad. Um, do you have you heard of any sort of requirements between as far as like a safety concern separating housing railroad when you're developing alongside of it? Mayor, members of the council, uh, absolutely. And we plan on fencing the railroad rightway property here and perhaps just having a small, uh, man gate to be able to get through with bikes underneath or direct access to that tunnel.

Yeah. Um, and so it it sounds like you would be fine with, you know, at least protecting at the very least an easement that would allow future use. I don't know at this point if there's any real connection that's going on from one side to the other, but it seems like if there's an ability to cross a railroad, you know, we should probably figure out a way to to protect that. Um, land use may change on the other side. It looks pretty industrial right now, but you know, maybe in the future that changes and there's a connection there. So, it sounds like you'd be open to making sure that there was an easement that at some point if it needed to could connect through that tunnel,

mayor, members of the council, um, absolutely. Uh we actually our property boundary is the railroad rightway boundary. So I don't know that an easement would be necessary. Um I I don't know that we could grant one under the tunnel anyway, but we would certainly keep our access open.

What I would um suggest that we consider for this given that this is a conceptual site plan and if I understand the process, it still has to go in for design review. And David, will you talk a little bit about that? And the reason I'm going to ask you to talk about that is I want given that UP has easements there as well. I don't want us to we can share I I think it best to share the intent because I don't want us to require an easement in an area that we aren't he that he might not be able to provide an easement because of how it interacts with the UP easement.

Yep. And totally. And madame mayor, just to be clear, I'm not necessarily talking about the um western boundary along the railroad tracks, more along right street as it would to that tunnel. So if we look here, there's kind of a preliminary sidewalk um that starts right at the entryway along Right Street. And if you took that sidewalk would kind of hit you right into the tunnel. That's actually the area that I'm more concerned about protecting is if so people whether they lived here or if they live somewhere else could go down right street and get from one side to the other. That makes sense. And David, where is the tunnel? David, um, David Crawford, where is the tunnel on this? I was looking at what I thought was a tunnel. I guess it's a basketball court.

Um, mayor, members of the council, it's essentially at our northeast corner. And so, perfect. Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. I just meant to say we have produced a site plan that does have a pedestrian connection all the way across uh, right street to there. Great. And then David, um could you just answer my question about process? Sure. Uh madame mayor, as u members of council, uh the next step on this would be a a designer view commission. It would be a commission level um application at designer view.

All right. And then so noted in the record, but also that you're already providing pedestrian access is the importance of that to ensure that we can get um folks moving from one place to the other ready for the opportunity in the future to go under that through that tunnel if possible. Yep. Yeah. And then madame mayor, just quick while you've got up there, David, any awareness of any sort of sound mitigation that is typically done with residential next to a railroad? Again, it's way up there in the sky, so I don't know that you could build the wall tall enough, but are you aware of anything, Madame May, members of the council, I'm not aware of anything particular uh for for um residential next to railroads? I I don't They don't happen too often. Yeah.

Where that where they're this close. All right. Anything further for the applicant? Is there anything else you'd like to add? No, thank you. All right. Thanks for being here. Uh, want to confirm that nobody's here for this one? All right. I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. Uh, Madame Mayor, I um, sorry, I move approval of uh, CPA 25-5 at 3412 and 3414 South Lindsay Avenue. I second the motion. Motion and second discussion.

Madame Mayor, um, I I think this is the best move for the neighborhood. I think that there'd be it would it makes clear sense to me if the options are industrial use or residential in the middle of residential that we choose residential. Um and I think it's going to really improve the pedestrian infrastructure along Lindsay with the in and right street um with detached sidewalks and um I think it's a a great use of that space. I think we'd hear a lot more if it was um going to be developed as is in industrial Yeah, Madame Mayor, I'm completely agree with Council President Ste. When I first um started the Boyisey Bicycle Project and moved into the Lust District, it was essentially a shipping yard and a layown yard and you would have these big huge industrial trucks rolling through the neighborhood all the time and it was loud. Um, you know, there was, you know, pollution, it was scary, you know, walking and riding around. you know, here we have an opportunity to make it a much more friendly use for the neighbors who are living in this area and potentially a connection that might be able to be used, you know, going going underneath the railway at some point. Um, it does seem to me like there is potential noise uh that you would experience living there with multiple railroad crossings and, you know, that's something that people are going to have to be aware of. And so I just ask as you go through this process and as we go through this process with staff um noting what potential requirements are out there and we can probably find that through uh Union Pacific to try to figure out what is the best way to mitigate this and then also just from a safety standpoint for you know kids and family members who are living there you know to try to keep them from playing on the railroad as as much as possible. That's definitely where I would have been as a teenager. Um but appreciate you bringing this forward. It seems like a great way to switch the land use into something that's much more compatible to this area and I think that there's some opportunities that we can figure out as we continue to go through the the rest of the development process.

Madame Mayor, uh just to add the conversation that's already been had and just to state my opinion on the record, uh would encourage the developer and staff to work together on pedestrian access even if it's not particular easement right there. making sure that things that would lead to an easement through there uh are accessible. So, I appreciate uh the rest of council bringing that up. Uh and I think this is a great uh great project. All right. Corus. Yes. Hi, yes. Nash, yes. Ste, yes. All in favor? Motion carries.

Yep. And now we've just have a need to have a motion on 2515 C 2515. Madame Mayor, I move approval of C 25-15 at 3412 and 3414 South Lindsy Avenue. Second the motion. We have a motion a second. Clerk Corus. Yes. Hi Burton. Yes. Nash. Yes. D. Yes. All in favor. Motion carries.

Thank you. Okay. Next up, hi Jesse. Welcome. And we have C25-3. We've got Jesse Lyall who's here to um provide the staff report. Um it looks like Becky McKay is here for with the applicant team engineering solutions and I see Kim and um Timothy Strauss are here. You're representing the neighborhood association this evening. So you'll have more time than your usual three minutes each. Um and so after we hear from the city and then the applicant, I'll come to you guys and welcome. It's good to see you. And then is anybody else here for this item? You think you are? This is the last item. Yeah. Okay. Um if you if you're here for something, unless you're here on the wrong night, this this is this is your chance. Um so after we hear from the neighborhood association, I'll open it up to members of the public to share their testimony. And then after that, we'll go we'll see if there's questions of staff again and then go back to the applicant team for closing remarks. and I'll check in to see if there's anybody online as well. And with that, go ahead.

Good evening, Madame Mayor and Council members. Uh the item before you is C23 and SUV 2512. This is a request to reszone approximately 8.65 acres located at 9744 State Street from R1A to R2 and a preliminary plat for a residential subdivision comprised of 78 buildable and 14 common lots on 18.9 acres. The full subject property is shown in red on the screen and the hatched area on the screen is the area of the reszone request. The subject property is designated compact on the future land use map as are the surrounding parcels to the northeast and west with one area having a high density land use uh designation to the southeast. Their surrounding parcels are zoned R1C to the northeast and west with R2, R3, and MX3 zoning near State Street. The applicant is proposing to reszone the property to R2 for consistent zoning throughout the subdivision. The requested R2 zoning is compatible with the comprehensive plan and appropriate for the location as the property is along an arterial roadway near commercial uses. There's also a planned multi-use pathway along State Street and there's been significant planning and investment along State Street with the long range vision to provide to hubs and extend the existing best-in-class transit route as proposed. All lots will meet the dimensional standards of the R2 zone. The applicant is proposing multif family uses near State Street and town homes and detached single family homes to the north. The applicant included preliminary site plans and renderings for the proposal which will be further refined during design review. The applicant is proposing no direct access to State Street, rather access from Gardener Lane, Utana Road to the north, Leighton Street, and Sloan Street. Sloan Street is currently a deadend road from Duncan Lane east of the subject property. However, uh there is an approval for the Westlock Village subdivision to the east that would extend Sloan Street to the property line providing that connection in the future. Part of the Westlock Village proposal

includes realigning Mer Lane to the site to connect to Duncan Lane, which included a council added condition to signalize the Mer Lane and State Street intersection prior to building occupancy. Comments were received from ITD in support of the signalation for the current proposal and the TIS included in ACD's comments for the current proposal indicate that this intersection is anticipated to exceed both ACD and ITD's operational thresholds and the PMP peak hour if left unsalized. However, ACD's level of service planning threshold policy states that the proposal does not exceed threshold at a high enough volume to require mitigation at the intersection with the current application. ITD and ACD have provided other traffic calming conditions and will require a right turn lane onto Gardener Lane from State Street, limiting Gardner Lane and State Street intersection to right in, right out and left in only and traffic calming via vertical deflection on Gardener Lane and Utana Road. Though though the proposed subdivision will not significantly increase traffic along State Street as shown in the TIS, the proposal will add additional traffic to the existing neighborhood. The nearest signalized intersection is approximately 1/3 mile to the west at Horseshoe Road and State Street. And with the limited options to turn east onto State Street toward downtown from the proposed subdivision, the planning team is recommending that the applicant work with ACD, ITD, and the adjacent development to implement a safe left turn onto State Street or otherwise mitigate traffic impacts uh from the eastbound vehicle trips onto State Street due to this development. The applicant is not in agreement with the post condition. On the screen is the updated landscaping plan provided by the applicant showing class 2 and three street trees within the right ofway. As outlined in the project report, all other subdivision requirements will be met as conditioned. If the council has specific questions on the internal subdivision layout or

conditions, I'm happy to provide more details tonight. Comments were received from the public and the neighborhood association with the general concerns outlined on the slide, including concerns of density, traffic impacts to the neighborhood, especially along Utana Road, access to State Street, and privacy and skyline impacts. The current design focuses density along State Street. However, no direct access to State Street is allowed. Conditions of approval from ACD and ITD require traffic calming and mitigation measures as does the recommended condition of approval to work with ACD ITD and the adjacent development to address the impacts of vehicles from this development traveling downtown along State Street. Additionally, the development code does not require fencing for subdivisions, nor does it regulate viewsheds aside from the height limits of the zone. In conclusion, the planning and zoning commission recommends approval with the revised condition shown on the screen and I'm happy to answer any questions. Um, I also have ACD available online to answer traffic related questions.

Yeah, Madame Mayor. Um, so couple questions here. So, there's two sort of um entries or exits. One going on to Utana, one going on to Gardener, and then a couple of other sub streets. Uh the substrates look relatively normal. The Utana and the Gardener one look different than most of the time. We we don't usually see a lot that kind of has, you know, these weird sort of peninsulas sticking out on the side. Were those I'm trying to figure out who whose property are those exit points onto Gardener and onto Utana. Is that public right away through ACD? Is that actually the property line that goes in that kind of weird peninsula form? Trying to figure out why those look so funny to me.

Madame Mayor and counselors, so I think it this diagram shows a little bit better. Um, but those lots are part of this entire proposal owned by the applicant.

Yeah. And I guess, Madame Mayor, were those always were those always part of the same lot? It looks to me like those are just regular housing lots that never have a house built on it and now it's going to have a road going through it. Like they look identical to the lots north and south, but they're entries and exits. So that's we just don't usually see a lot of properties that are have these kind of weird roads going right in through, you know, out. They're usually right next to a road. So just the sub streets on here don't quite make sense to me or these little peninsulas. and I'm trying to figure out like how it came to be shaped this way rather than those actually just being housing like something doesn't look right.

Madam Mayor and council members, um so I think the applicant can probably provide a little bit more detail about um how the purchasing of all this land happened. However, in infill properties, you do see some lots that are bought up or turned into right away with a subdivision process in order to grant access to some of these infill areas. Um yeah, and because this is a large infill project, there is a a relatively um connected roadway network proposed internally, but this is how they get access to that.

Great. And then maybe just kind of a followup there. I appreciate the explanation there and I'll definitely ask the applicant about it. Um typically when we see even in a large infill development or a subdivision development, you know, maybe like one or two different entryways. Um, and this one it looks like we've got four. Um, and so I'm curious if that is if that's requirement, if that's needed, if it makes sense to have this many entryways going in and out of all the different neighborhoods, or if there had been any conversations as far as trying to direct, you know, all the traffic to Gardener, Leighton, and Sloan instead of up to UNA. It just seems like there's a lot of different, you know, in-n-out points. And yes, it usually makes sense to make sure that there's a network and a grid, but like with the entry point going out onto Utana, that's awfully close as far as gardener lane when we look at a grid. So, I'm just wondering if there was any sort of conversations about the design of the entry and exit points and if they needed to have all four of them or had there been conversations about having less. Madame Mayor and council members, um this is a relatively large site, almost 19 acres, and so having multiple ways for vehicles to enter and exit, especially if you're looking at um the multif family traffic versus some of the single family traffic is something that we do try to provide um just with the additional connectivity points. Um I don't know if there was any conversation between the applicant and ACD about a minimum number of access points. Um however just generally we do encourage connectivity to provide uh different routes for residents.

Oh, Madame Mayor Jesse, can you go back and and um look at the condition that the team had put on this one? Can you kind of talk me through what to develop and implement a safe left turn on the state street? Is that referring to a signalized light? Madame Mayor and uh council members. So there is um plans for a signalized intersection with the realignment of Mer Lane and State Street. That's shown in green. Um and that is something that was conditioned by council for West Village subdivision uh which was approved a couple years ago. And um so once there is that signalized intersection in the extension of Sloan Street, that can take some of the pressure off of the rest of the neighborhood in this area for um you know the approximately 600 uh units between the two subdivisions that would be um in place here. Uh however, the condition was left a little bit vague as there could be other mitigation measures uh to kind of help keep some of the traffic impacts from the existing neighborhood.

Madame Mayor Jesse, can you maybe talk us through some of those mitigation um possibilities for this?

Madame Mayor and council members. Um so really the experts here would be ACD and ITD. there are, you know, other opportunities to partner with adjacent developments if that's something that could be worked out. Um, however, Utana Road is fairly narrow, um, and doesn't have any, um, curb gutter or sidewalk or really any pedestrian facilities. Uh so I think looking at the subdivision area and um the existing roadway infrastructure um I think there are opportunities for the applicant to uh provide some mitigation uh whether that be some uh improvements along Utana uh whether that be working with adjacent uh applicants um you know there's other opportunities as well. Jesse, thank you.

All right, we'll hear from the applicant now. Welcome. I feel very small at this point. She got me keyed up. Oh, there it is. Okay. And there's a clicker there. So, Murphy.

Yeah, I got it. Um, madame mayor, members of the city council, I'm Becky McKay. I'm with Engineering Solutions. Um, I'm a land use planner. I also my firm um that I'm a partner in. We also do civil engineering. Um, I've been doing this for 35 years. So, it's I started out with Mayor Kempthorne. That's that's how old I feel. That's how far back I go. Um I deal with development projects throughout the valley. Um mostly in Meridian, Nampa, Caldwell, Cuna, Eagle. Um and it's it's rare that we have projects uh obviously of this magnitude in Boisee. Um, so you don't see me very often because I'm in other jurisdictions where we have green field development. Um, I'm here this evening representing Challenger Development on this particular project that's before you. Let's see. Where do I have to

point this way? This way. Yeah. Towards the speaker. Oh, that way. That's what I was told. I'm pointing It's not doing anything. It's stuck. Oh, there it goes. Um, so as staff indicated, um, this is the old, um, Fron Witty Nursery.

Um, just to give you a little history and and location, it's it fronted on State Street. It had a an existing approach directly on State Street. Um the nursery was there from uh 1978 till 20 2021 until it moved to Nampa. Um, so the property was sold um to one of my clients and so we started meeting with the agencies about access and it became very apparent that uh direct access to State Street. um that was a historical access, not a deed access and that we needed to have interconnection throughout the the neighborhood in order to make the project work so we can send the traffic into different directions. So, uh, Madame Mayor, Councilman Halle Burton, to answer your question, they, my clients did acquire, um, the property going north. It was a parcel of record, a legal parcel of record going north out to UNA. UNON is designated as a uh local street intended at some point in time to be upgraded um as a collector and for a major bike uh artery going old to old highway 55. Uh my client also bought bought a parcel out to um gardener street and uh then we started meeting with the city of Boisee. This has taken many many years of of working on this uh with the city and um with H ACD and ITD. Um I met with CCDC because this is uh an urban renewal district. Um there was

also the state street uh corridor transit oriented development plan. Um, there was a Northwest Boisey neighborhood plan that was not adopted by the city, but there it was out there. So, we wanted to make sure that we had all of our foundations as far as what what the city wanted to see along this corridor. Um, initially the the staff said we want to see a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre. Um, I pushed back on that. I said, you know, that can only be achieved if it's all multifamily. And looking at the comprehensive plan, um, in this northwest uh, plan, it indicates diversity. So I said, our plan is, you know, I have a lot of single family dwellings that this particular project. So I want to have some transition in densities, some compatibility. So, um that this is not just threestory multifamily on the whole project. Um and the staff pushed back pushed back and we just kind of kept going and then uh the Westlock Village went through and they said, "Well, they're 20 24 25 dwelling units per acre. Uh they're going R3." And I said, "Well, you know, we we only want threetory multifamily and then we want to have cottages, single family, um, and town homes. Um, the property was annexed back in 2015 and at that time it was R1A. when you guys adopted your new um development code, then the front portion or the southern portion became R2. So, what's before you this evening is a reszone to

R2 of only the northern portion which is 8.65 acres. Um the compact land use designation um encourages detached single family, duplex, town homes, condominiums, multifamily. Um talks about densities 6 to 15 dwelling units per acre and pedestrianoriented uh streetscapes. Um, it talks about the project being incorporated into this transitoriented development that you have these hubs along State Street where you have commercial retail development that supports this higher density that we enhance the um bus service out here so that we have options whether it be bicycles, bus service, mass transit um or or vehicles, but that we encourage a different types of transportation in this area because eventually State Street will plug up with cars. Now, right now, obviously, ACD is undergoing a significant improvement project along that State Street corridor, and everybody has kind of been planning for long-term. We want to see State Street be instead of just um you know, your strip commercial, your parking lots out to the street, let's do something that creates a community. And so that's what we have really strived for with this particular project. Oh, wait. There it goes. Um, so that there you see the overview of the preliminary plat. Uh, it's a three-phase project. The first phase would be that

what you see to the north, which would be the town homes and the cottages. And then uh we would have a uh second phase would be part of the multifamily and then the third phase there would be multifamily also. Um we believe that the obviously the R2 is consistent with what we're seeing through this corridor area. Um we've seen a big transition. You have the silos and other multifamily projects which are forplexes. So there's a variety of two stories, four stories and a uh diversity in density. Um there are obviously utilities to this site. There's sewer, water, um obviously power, gas, etc. So So this is technically an infill site as we call it. Um, and one of the things that uh that we wanted to do was to make sure that this kind of gives you a blow up. You can see you can see the town homes. Those are two their units of twos, threes, fours. So, we tried to um have a variety of those. It's kind of hard to see. And then the multifamily, like I said, those are only three stories. When we met with the neighborhood, there were about 35 people. It was at the elementary school. The Northwest Neighborhood Association was there. Um, some of the things we talked about was they appreciated the threetory. They asked that, um, along Matlock Place that we replace the aging wood fence. Um, we did agree to to do that. Um, and then we talked about interconnectivity. This is is a pathway plan that we created because that was one of the things when we went before the plan

zoning commission. They said, you know, you're talking about pedestrian interconnectivity with the 12-oot multi-use pathway along State Street and you know, how are you connecting your project to it? And it was kind of difficult looking at the landscape plan for them to determine how much north south interconnectivity that we have. And so, as you can see, we connect pedestrian and vehicular to the north to UNANA and then to the west out to Gardener Street. And then there's an existing uh stub street there, um that we're connecting to on the east. Um ACD, uh one of the things that they brought up was man, oops, this thing's a little sensitive. I'm just

Am I going back forward or back? I'm just doing it for you. Oh, you're doing it for me.

Oops. So, on on the the town homes, I have 14 rear load and 38 front load. that gives you like a a variety of looks and you don't have all those car those garages oriented on the streets on the single family cottages. We have they're all alley load. Um we have uh a the two multifamily lots and then our like I said our gross density is 15.49 dwelling units per acre. Is she doing it for me? I mean, yes, but I need to go in the stitch. You need a What's that?

Are Is this the right slide?

Well, I was hoping to um to go back to the um landscape slide, the colored slide. There we go. So, that gives you the overall picture and and you can see the the multifamily. So the buildings are 24 units, two sto or yeah, threetory and they they're oriented towards State Street. And that was one of the things that the staff encouraged us. You know, we want the buildings oriented up to State Street. And then we want a significant amount of open space. We have a clubhouse, pool, playground. And then they wanted good pedestrian interconnectivity to the north. And you can see that on Leighton Street. Can I point? There we go. ACD. This is a stub street called Leighton. ACD wanted this to go all the way through to Gardener. I have no front-on housing on Leighton. So, it will allow for um it to kind of function like a collector roadway. All of these town homes here are rear loading and this is the front of the town home. Then Sloan Street is stops right here. The Westlock Village will extend Sloan and then ACD wanted this to be a public street teeing into Leighton. So, one of the things that they've been doing is is trying to improve the interconnectivity within this section. This neighborhood, you know, is very old. I saw some plats like clear back to 1933. And so, it lacks modern planning, pedestrian access, and so forth. So the

burden is upon us as an infill project to try to allow different options for these neighborhoods to for access and pedestrian networking. Uh you can see here we have the alley. Um these are all public streets. We had do have one common drive and then here I did a 24 foot um that's a public street but it's all single loaded. We have a pocket park here. Um, pocket park has benches and it has a picnic shelter and we have a pickle ball court. Yeah, go ahead. All right,

we're going to tag team here. Elizabeth Pickeritz with Given Personally, um, Langie's Council. I'm here to talk specifically about the condition of approval that we disagree with. And I'll try to move quickly. We have a slide with it on it. Um staff originally asked for a condition of approval to be added saying that we that could not have any occupancy until this intersection at State Street in Mer was signalized. I believe there's a letter in your packet. We did push back on that. Um and staff came back with this new condition. Unfortunately, the new condition does not fix the original underlying issues with the original condition. And in fact, we believe it does add a new issue. Given my lack of time, I will just sort of jump ahead. First, when you look at this condition, it is still not legally or practically workable. It's important to look at the data in the record. And here at this intersection, this development is only anticipated to provide 2% of the traffic. ACD policy has a threshold where if you're not responsible for 10% or more of the traffic, you don't have to do there's no mitigation required because it's really considered a regional traffic issue at that point in time. This intersection is currently by ACD standards, they believe that there currently needs to be one improvement made to it that's on the south side of the road to bring it up to par for current conditions. And with background traffic by 2030, they anticipate that this intersection will not be working, not even adding in this development. So, oh shoot, Madame Mayor, it's time.

Yeah, I'll I'll see if um council would like to ask questions. Madam, um I would like to understand the um the condition of approval situation, what you're objecting to and um if there's if you're suggesting a replacement um to mitate traffic to the standard of this. Okay. That whole time. Did you hear that?

Yes. Council member um Mayor Mlan, Council Member Ste. Yes. Um we are not recommending any additional condition. We are asking that this be eliminated in its entirety. This condition has the same problems as the last condition is that conditions of approval they need to have some sort of nexus or proportionality. And this is this condition is requiring the applicant to address a failing intersection and regional traffic that the project only contributes minimally to. Um the condition requires the developer to shoulder costs that go that are really regional transportation deficiencies above and beyond its impact. all of the other intersections and roads are operating acceptably per ACD and ITD policy. And so having this sort of open-ended condition and that's not tied to discrete concrete numbers or policies, it doesn't work. We've met with and we've agreed on all the other mitigation that ACD and ITD have required, but those are also based on concrete objective standards, which is why this condition is actually brings in it's in a lot of ways worse than the first condition because it's so vague and open-ended. There's no objective standards, no defined scope, and there's no way for us to measure compliance on this. Um staff believes that this allows for creativity. Um but I think council member Corass was right on track when she asked, "Well, what are some examples?" We don't know how to meet this condition other than signalizing that intersection, which is outside the scope of what we should be required to do practically and legally. And so we just don't have an answer for this. It's

really an impossible just an out there condition. Um conditions have to be clear and definite and this is not it's entirely subjective and it's unknowable how we would meet it. What would be considered approval? You're you're satisfied. All right. The council president saying she's satisfied. Thank you. I've got a question over here. Yeah. Madame mayor. So question here. So, as far as the um as the signalized uh intersection at Mer, do you have any idea of when the timeline of when that may go in? Like, is there any way of predicting um the installation date for that particular traffic light?

Mayor Mlan, council member Hallebertton, it is part of that adjacent developments conditions of approval. it's not part of one of the issues is it's not within the ACD um CIP and so there's no capital improvements money being set aside for it now or even through whatever year it goes through now 2040 um but it has been a condition of approval and that developer has entered into a cost share agreement where I believe ACD is agreeing to fund 25% of that but beyond that we don't know

and so madame mayor followup I to that. We've had um we've had a couple of other uh developments along State Street that we approved and then they didn't end up going through. Is it you're are you saying that you think that there's a chance that this one may not go through? Like it could not go through and then you would have no control over what the situation was like because it's not on your property and so how can you have any sort of influence on something that's beyond your control? Yeah. Mayor Mlan, Council Member Halle Burton, you just got to my third point

is that it is completely outside of our control um when this gets developed. Like of course everyone would like to see the more the additional development on State Street, but this is outside of our control. We have no ability to make them develop, determine when they're going to develop. Um it is an off-site improvement. Great. Um, madame mayor, I've got some additional questions, but they're not related to this particular owner question, these conditions. If other council members had ones about this condition, then certainly I'll take a break.

Questions about the condition? All right, we'll go in we'll move into other No, stay stay here though. I'm gonna Well, I'm going to work I'm going to work down the line. So, from Council Member Hie Burton and through to Council Member Nash, we'll just go that way.

And so, this may end up being for either of you. I appreciate the explanation for uh why the lot is shaped the way that it is and that was sort of what I anticipated like somebody must have purchased these lots for a road to go through to connect to the development. Um which makes sense also um is potentially pretty weird for like a neighbor where like they know that at some point something may develop next to them and it may end up being you know an apartment complex, it may end up being a duplex, whatever is in the zoning code. one of the things that they probably don't think it's going to be is a street that connects to a whole another street. And so I'm I'm trying to understand maybe you can outline the process of a little bit more of why um these are the entry and exit points instead of using some of the existing uh entry and entry points and the other substrates that we had available. So based on our conversations with Ada County Highway District and interconnectivity that needed to be built within this area, it was recommended by them that that we create some additional outlets. Now, those roadways are not up against You don't understand if you've been out to that neighborhood. Yeah. There's commercial development like adjacent to that road and there's all kinds of commercial trucks and vans. So, this area is kind of like a m mix mash of commercial and old residential single wide mobile homes, single family dwellings. I have landscaping on both sides of those roadways so I'm not putting I mean I think you're envisioning a road right next to somebody's sideyard. Um

yeah mad mayor and I have landscaping

so I guess what I if I'm guessing and we have ACD online I can ask them this question as well. ACD is trying to create connection and so Leighton Street, you know, potentially makes sense that we're trying to create sort of a grid system or that there's a planned road that's going to go through here. But as far as I can tell, I don't know that ACD has any planned roadways where it's like, hey, at some point we're going to bulldoze this house. We're going to put in a roadway to create a better grid system here. So it doesn't really seem like there was an anticipated roadway, you know, going at least through the north. Maybe Leighton at some point was trying to get connected or Sloan we had a sub street for. The sub streets make sense. What doesn't make sense is being able to take a house and all of a sudden turn it into a through street when neighbors who own the houses next to them had no idea that there was going to be a street through street running through their house at the point. So I'm I guess maybe this isn't a question, but like did ACD end up requiring you to have that many entry and exit points? cuz I I'm counting one two three four and then potentially is there two more planned for the future? Six.

Madame Mayor, Councilman Hib Burton, um from a transportation planning standpoint, you can never have too many connections because what that does is that distributes your traffic in multiple directions. Yeah, I understand that. And trying to keep keep it off stage. question for you is that I'm just going to ask that. Yeah, that

my question for you is that were you required to have this many entry and exits. Um because you've got one, two, three, four here and then I don't know if those two that are kind of in the northeast are those planned future substrate connections or just pedestrian ones. Were you required to have this many entry and exits into this property? They encourage multiple, but they did not specify that I had to have a specific number. No, thank you,

Madame Mayor. Um, yeah, thank you. This I love I like the development. The location is just odd. Um, I um just bec because of as council member Hallebertton said, we don't have the roadways. I can appreciate that we don't want to keep the state street connection. So when I'm looking at this um I guess my question is one for that Sloan Street connection. It's not there today. Is that dependent upon that development? Madame Mayor, Councilman Corass, um Sloan Street is stubbed, but there is a gap that is on Westlock Village. There was a discussion when they had submitted, they had initially culaced it and put single family dwellings around it. And in my conversations uh with the developers representative, a meeting took place between ACD, the city of Boisey and ITD, and it was determined that they would not culdeac Sloan, but they would connect it on through to our project.

Thank you. And so that decision was outside of my hands. Thank you. And that that makes sense. And um I understand why the connections there, but the timing is precurious. Uh question is on Gardener Lane and Utana where most I believe most of the traffic is going to come from. Do either one of those roadways have pedestrian improvements for sidewalks? Um they're they're kind of substandard. There's been some subdivisions on the western side of Gardener that are more urban oriented. Um but sidewalk down the road down but it's inter I believe it is intermittent

and and so um what we're required to do on gardener is we will build a turn lane that's our mitigation off of state and then we'll be installing a median that will only allow right in right out and left in no left outs of gardener. Okay. Um and then Madam Oh, and we will be doing traffic calming on Gardener and Utana. Can you talk about those traffic calming measures you're looking at?

Yeah. So, looking back at at some of the letters that were sent in that they've been asking for traffic calming since the Windco went in on the west side of Old Highway um 55. So, um, they've indicated that people drive too fast. So, ACD has is cognizant of that. So part of my ACD condition is that we will work with ACD staff to do traffic calming like chicanees or some type of measure that is acceptable to fire department and to ACD on both gardener and UANA.

Great. Madame Mayor, followup. Will you be installing any sidewalks along Gardener and Utana? We will have to we will be required to install sidewalks just where we have frontage. In my conversations with Mindy Wallace at ACD, she said they've evaluated UNANA and UNANA the way it has built out that it will take an Ada County Highway District project to go in and install bike lanes and pedestrian sidewalks that no developer has the ability to do it. There are power poles that are in the way that there are um it's the driveway orientations are not conducive. She said it will take an ACD major project.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Mayor. If I can follow up to that one unless there's more coming down there and I'll take my turn.

Yeah. So, I really appreciate what you're what you're trying to do here. I do actually appreciate the step down, the town houses, um the single family, the multif family there. Like this is the kind of development that I think we do hope we want to see sort of in this area. problem is that typically when a development of this size comes in, there's a really great there is a benefit to the public and that the street infrastructure gets significantly improved here because it's sort of tucked in behind all these houses then all the traffic is now going out onto these streets with actually no street infrastructure improvements. So not only do you have these cars that are coming out, you don't have any improvements that are on the road. So, the question is, has there been any conversations about um I know that you talked a little bit about traffic calming, but other ways that you're working with the ACD funding that you're putting in for safety improvements, any sort of commitments where since you're not actually having to put in surrounding infrastructure other than State Street, that you're putting funds or effort into other safety measures throughout the area. Um, Madame Mayor, uh, Councilman Halle Burton, this particular project will generate approximately $714,000 in impact fees. I did ask uh, ACD if that those monies could be allocated to like the Duncan realignment signal. And I was told since it is not in the CIP um that we are not eligible for any impact fee credits. So any participation in that realignment the signal would we would we would be double dinged. We'd pay twice.

No, that's a good answer to our question. I think that that's sort of where some concerns are emerging here. Um but I appreciate that answer. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, couple of questions. One, you had mentioned an urban renewal district. I, and maybe I missed the context of it. I thought the urban renewal district ended east of this property. Are you within the urban renewal district?

Madame Mayor, um, Councilman Steed, yes, we are. Okay. I I did uh when I met did my preapp with Boise City, I I think I did three or four preapps. They recommended I meet with CCDC and I did meet with Kevin Holmes when he was at CCDC and he confirmed that this it was within that boundary.

Okay, great. Thank you. And then um you also mentioned pickle ball. It looks like it's on the edge of the subdivision. Um what is just to the west of that pickle ball? Uh there is a single wide mobile home that is adjacent to gardener and then there's another uh home that is right up against gardener. Then they kind of have pastures behind their homes. So likely directly to the west housing someday, right? Um okay, thank you. I think maybe I have a follow-up question about that with staff.

Do you want to ask the applicant anything related to this movement? Yeah. I mean, so the I think the reason some of us are sensitive about pickle ball is because the city's seen um a lot of complaints with pickle ball near homes. And it does look like it's close to homes that you're building, but I guess even more important to me would be homes that are not within your subdivision that are on the outside. It sounds like there is one existing home there. Um with the potential for future redevelopment for other homes. Would you consider relocating it further in into the property?

Madame Mayor, um Councilman Steed, what we talked about with our client that if it was objectionable to the council due to noise um that we would um try to like do maybe a playground um we have a picnic shelter, we have picnic benches, we have grass area. Do something like a a playground. Um

thank you. Okay. Yeah. I don't I don't hate pickle ball at all, but it's become very burdensome for neighboring residents. So, I want to be mindful of that. Yeah, we we're being pressured by the pickle ball community that we need to include these in our projects as much as possible because there are so few places for people to go and it's popularity is gaining steam. My understanding is there's certain paddles and balls that aren't as noisy and we'll we'll move on to the next topic. That's those are the questions I had. Yeah. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Do does anybody I think that's it for you all. Is there are there questions for staff before we hear from the neighborhood association reps? I do have uh two questions for staff. Jesse, can you So, the condition that is in question here was not part of staff's initial recommendation. Is that correct? The commission process. Is that right? Uh, madame mayor and council members. So, the original condition was debated at planning and zoning u whether that that was an appropriate condition uh for this development. And in response to the planning and zoning commission's concerns as well as concerns expressed by the applicant, staff put forward the modified condition to allow more flexibility.

And the um just to clarify then if I can that the first the original condition did come from staff. Is that right? Or the original condition did come from the planning and zoning deliberation. Madame Mayor, council member said um the original condition came from staff. Thank you. And then um to their point, one followup again, Madame Mayor. Um to their point, can you speak to the argument that it's offsite and therefore cannot be conditioned?

Uh Madame Mayor and council members, so you know, off-site improvements have been conditioned before for other large projects. Um so you know defining uh the reason for it is important and just because of the impact of traffic from 300 additional units uh for this development and an infill area that doesn't have um a really builtout roadway network. Staff did think it was appropriate to have the applicant do some uh additional mitigation for the area.

Thank you. And then one last question Madame Mayor. Actually two last questions. Sorry. Um, so they mentioned that on Leighton ACD said it can't be improved for pedestrian access, I think is what I had heard from them, that there's power there and ACD told them that they can't improve Leighton with sidewalks or Oh, Utana. Okay. Is it Can you confirm that for me?

Um, yes, madame mayor and council member. So, Leighton Street can be improved uh to clarify and while there are um some infrastructure concerns along Utana, the ACD condition did talk about um having more of like a robust project for that uh to improve pedestrian access specifically and I think that we have D an ACD um representative online if you want to ask them additional questions.

Thank you. Okay, one last question for you Jesse. Um, can you speak to the pickle ball court? Is this part would this be part of the design review process? Does staff feel comfortable with that location? Can you help me out with that?

Madame Mayor and council members. Uh, so staff did uh include a recommendation that wasn't wasn't a condition of approval, but just a general recommendation to find a different um use for that park area because of the concerns that have come up with pickle ball. um however was not included as a recommendation of a or a condition, excuse me, uh to find a different recreational opportunity there. Uh that could be a condition that could be added. Um I think that answer your question.

Yeah. And I guess one follow up on that. If the property to the west ever redeveloped and homes were built and then they hated the pickle ball that was in the subdivision that they didn't even have access to use, would there be recourse at that point that the city could then step in and make a change in that or like what kind of control would we have over that after the fact? I'm just wondering is that something that's better if I'm concerned about that, is that better something that I could address now or could be addressed later on down the line?

Madame Mayor and council members, uh, this would be a a park area that's owned by the HOA and owned and maintained by the HOA. So, there's um definitely limited options for city enforcement later besides, you know, like following general noise ordinance rules. Uh so if there's a concern about the pickle ball specifically, this would probably be the best uh recourse to address that. Okay, thank you so much, Jesse. I think those are all the questions I had. Great. Madame Mayor, um I see ACD is on the line. Is it? Yes, you're welcome to ask.

Okay. Um hi Erin, this is Kathy Corlos. Um I wonder if you can kind of walk us through um we see in the report that uh the subdivision will contribute about 2% of the total traffic utilizing state street and more intersection. Can you equate that to cars or or what what does the 2% equate to? Madame Mayor, city council Aaron Williams, planning supervisor for ACD. Um, based off the applicants traffic impact study, ACD could not require them to make the modifications. And when you talk about the percentage, that's the amount of vehicle trips per day per household.

Great. Um, Madame Mayor Erin, can you tell us how how many of those trips per day make up that 2%.

Madame Mayor, City Council, one sec. So they would change per uh per street and per location identified within the ACD staff report. But based off their traffic impact study, let's see the for Matlock Avenue existing ADT was 347 anticipated 451. For Gardener Lane it was it is currently at 473 anticipated 1768. For Utana Road it is currently at 800 anticipated with this development,091. For Salone Street, it's existing 95 and anticipated 581. For Leighton Street, currently there's none anticipated with this development is 1,350. And for Winsforth Avenue, currently there's none anticipated with this development, 409.

Okay. And the threshold for ACD is 2,000 ADT average daily trips. Uh, madame mayor, followup. Erin, are there any um pedestrian improvements planned for um Garner Lane or Utana? Madame Mayor, city council, we do have called out in our 5-year plan from 2026, 2030, uh, Utana Horseshoe Ben Road to Dogden Avenue, uh, to build sidewalks on both sides of the roadway per the Northwest Boise neighborhood plan for Could you repeat that other street? Oh. Um, Gardener Lane.

Gardener Lane. Currently, there's none identified within our five-year plan, but if the city would like us to look into that, then ACD and uh city of Boise can coordinate on putting that within their uh five-year plan priority list. Okay. Thank you. Yes, Madame Mayor. Following up that, Erin, this is council member Jimmy Hollurn. Good to see you.

Yeah. Um, so we had a question for the developer and they talked about, well, it's going to generate this amount of funds in impact fees. And although that there's a 5-year plan for Utana, it's not actually in the capital improvement plan, I don't believe, at this point. So, the impact fees from this property probably wouldn't go towards that project on Utana because it's not in the capital improvement plan. Am I understanding that correctly,

Madame Mayor, City Council, that is correct. However, to my understanding, there is a call out to use funds to put them towards some sort of vertical element, whether that be speed cushion, chicanees, or uh speed humps, but we still need to coordinate that with the EMS services within the area to see what best fits and then when our projects go through, what makes the most sense. Yep, sounds good. Um, but it wouldn't necessarily uh translate out to filling any sort of sidewalk gaps that are along Gardener Uts that are in that neighborhood. Madame Mayor, City Council, you're correct on that. It wouldn't. Great. Thank you. Yep. And then, Madame Mayor, follow up for staff. Sure,

Erin, I think that's it for now. Thanks for being here. Yeah.

So, when we approve the the property next door, we're getting improvements on State Street. We're also getting pedestrian and sidewalk improvements on Duncan. There's benefit for the neighborhood because these streets are getting safer for them to walk and bike on. and addressing some of the safety concerns that maybe are generated from the extra vehicle trips per day here on this development because it's sort of like in the middle of this envelope um and it's not actually touching any of those streets that's going to impact all these additional uh trips get generated but there's not actually safety improvements on the road outside of maybe some cushions and stuff like that like sidewalk gaps aren't being fixed additional bike lanes etc etc so I'm curious if there are other mechanisms for when we see a development like this that's going to potentially add safety concerns to the neighborhood and it actually isn't implementing any sort of infrastructure. Do we have any other lever or leverage um opportunities to increase some of those safety measures um through this process?

Madame Mayor and council members. Um, so that's a great question and so off the top of my head, I know that there have been other projects. I think like one was Vista Point, um, or somewhere in that area that did require some offsite improvements in the form like of a pedestrian flashing beacon. Um, that's the one that I can think of immediately. I do know that has been a requirement in the past. Great. Thank you.

All right. Now we'll hear from the Northwoods Neighborhood Association. Welcome.

That's great. Yeah. So, Timothy Strauss, welcome.

Okay. Yes. My name is Timothy Strauss. I live at uh 10348 Utana Road. Um, and uh, Madame Mayor and council members, I would strongly disagree with the applicant as far as if they're building buildings and housing that's going to impact traffic. Why would they not be responsible for some of the infrastructure that's needed to handle that extra traffic? And uh I I don't get uh I've got that those same lists that uh the gentleman from ACD said here. Gardener Lane right now they're saying is 473 going to increase to700 that's not 2%. That's hundreds of percent. uh Leighton Street which there is no previous because it's not a through street going to be 1350 trips per day that's 1350% um Utana Road currently they say is 800 going to increase to,91 I would disagree with that because I live on Utana even the school bus speeds down Utana Um, so I would disagree with with them not being responsible for the infrastructure to handle traffic uh especially on Utana. And I would like to point out that sidewalks on Gardener, the only place there is a sidewalk on Gardener is at that southwest corner uh intersection where there was just

recently a new mechanic shop in put put in and they were required to put the sidewalk in in front of their place on Utana Road from the stretch from Matlock to Old Highway 55. There was a residential lot, a third acre lot that was subdivided for three houses. They were required to put a sidewalk in front of that place. That's three doors down from me. and then uh a lot across the street which was just recently approved for subdivision into three lots. The gentleman that's owns that is required to put a 5-ft sidewalk with a 10-ft engineered uh landscape in the front, which is ridiculous because all the street along there is uh street side parking with the exception of a few that have driveways. Um and if if they would have to go through ACD would have to go through and uh make all these improvements, they'd be taking everybody's front yards. There would be no front yards and no driveways into their garages. Uh, so I I mean I I know that uh our neighborhood association president sent you guys uh a lot of our uh paperwork here. And as far as uh the entrance from this

subdivision onto State Street, I my wife and I personally spoke with uh ITD. They're saying that they didn't get permission, but they never even asked permission to come out of that subdivision where the original entry onto State Street is. And uh so uh and the whole thing is the residents are not so much opposed to housing being put in there. It's the fact that they're bringing a sub stub out onto Utana and out onto Gardener. Then they're limiting the gardener because there will be no lefthand turns from Gardener onto State Street to head downtown. Also, it's it's only going to be a right-hand exit. Uh so that means anybody that's wanting to go downtown that's coming out gardener is going to either have to continue on down uh Utana to hit old Highway 55 and come out at the red light at the stinker station. And uh it I mean it's it's just a whole big mess. And uh also uh as Mr. Hallebertton knows that Utana is part of your northwest bicycle pathway and it's already dangerous with no sidewalks, with no curbs, uh, you know, the the pavement just drops off, you know, I mean, doesn't really drop off. It's but it's gravel and it's already uh kind of dangerous

and uh a lot of people use that for bik bicycling and I have actually stopped people in front of my house and asked them how they feel about this and a lot of them are pretty upset that that they're going to have to contend with all this extra traffic and let's face it the bicycles don't want the speed bumps either, but uh you know, I mean, oh, and the conditions of approval, they're they're already planning on doing the town houses and the single family houses as phase one. And the the condition was that uh they can't get any uh occupancy approval till that lane Duncan Lane intersection is finished. I don't disagree with that. Uh because it is a subdivision. It is a developer's responsibility I feel to provide necessary traffic control, traffic access, uh especially to State Street because the way it is right now, they're either going to have to come out Duncan, they can't come out Gardener unless they're going west. So that means they're going to have to go down uh Utana to Old Highway 55, come out at the red light at Stinker and also the uh they could go out uh Leighton, but that goes through the Matlock subdivision. So that there's several little side narrower side streets there and then they come out on Duncan.

So, uh that that's a kind of a no-brainer to me. But, uh uh oh, and also the uh I am aware that uh ACD does have the plans for sidewalks on Old Horseshoe Bend Road on Old Highway 55 there, but it's only on Old Highway 55. And the only other place that has a sidewalk on Utana is right in front of the uh senior uh living thing there at the end of Utana right straight across from the Winkco. And they put the sidewalk drops but never put a crosswalk in there for the older folks that live there to cross over to go get groceries at Winkco. Uh they have one up the street further. Um which is kind of a ridiculous place for it because I mean there is a school up there but there's no sidewalks and uh so that that was kind of a ridiculous thing there. They should have put the crosswalks at UNA and uh the WCO area. Um uh the conclusion that uh our president uh Richard Llewellyn said is uh because this applicant application requires significant reason, it must be evaluated not only whether development is appropriate in general

but on whether its impacts are appropriately placed within the existing infrastructure and network. Uh, also in our conversations with ACD, we've been to a couple of the uh, ACD meetings and they've told us that there's no way they can even go on to UAN and require people to give up their front yards. And Madame Mayor, that's time. Okay,

so your time is up, but I'll see I really appreciate the thoroughess of your testimony and I'll see if anybody has questions for you. Thank you. All right, it doesn't look like it right now. Um, can we call out what after them? Sure, we do that too. Um, but Oh. Oh, because we have a Gotcha. Okay. Sorry. We're trying to decide when when to take a bathroom break, but

um I I'm going to go ahead. Let's go ahead and hear from Kim and then I know there's there's probably just one more of you from the public, but we'll take a quick break and then be back. Go ahead. Okay, Madam Mayor and council members, and I got to say, I first heard about Utana and some of the issues on the street from you at the neighborhood association meeting that I visited last year. It's nice to see you both again.

Yeah, it was nice to see you there as well. Um, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening. We've lived on Utanis since 1990 and the street was dead end. And then apartments and subdivisions were built to the east of us and the street was punched through and then WCO and Home Depot and those stores were put in. People come from the east up our street. It's the straightest direct path to avoid State Street, to get to all those businesses, to get to Horseshoe Bend and Highway 55 to the north, to avoid the stop light at Horseshoe Bend Road when the traffic backs up and at Highway 55 to the north. Traffic increase and speed are already an issue on our residential street. Our street used to be a quiet street. It's not anymore. Our street is, as Tim mentioned, part of the Northwest Bikeway. We have no sidewalks, no crosswalks to the businesses across Horseshoe Bend from us. Many people travel up and down our street to avoid the stop lightss. And with the possibility of the Costco development being put at the top of the hill at Horseshoe Bend, um, Hill Road and Highway 55, that's going to increase that problem. People come in on Gardener off of State Street, come up Gardener and onto UNANA to get to those destinations to the west and to the north. Numerous times I've requested speed control on our street. The speed limit was 25. They've lowered it to 20. If

they didn't follow and obey the law at 25, they're not going to at 20. People go up and down our street. Maybe 10% of the people drive the speed limit. Many, many drive, I'm sure, 50 or 55. If if the city would put someone out there with a a speedometer and check traffic, you would see what I'm talking about. It's it's not safe to walk sometimes on the streets. Um, all traffic, according to this developer, all traffic that wants to go east out of that subdivision will have to come out UNANTA to get onto State Street to head to head east because they can't get to go east any other way. Um, they did not I've got a letter from ITD showing that they did not request access to State Street directly from this subdivision. They only planned to invade our neighborhood. Um, other like um, Eagle Lakes has 250 dwellings that enter and exit directly onto State Street.

That's fine. and two town houses silo has 54 alpine landing. Your time is up. So, what I typically do is just ask for you to wrap up with a sentence. Okay. All right. We're asking that you please reconsider exiting the traffic from this development through our neighborhood, protecting our older residential neighborhood from this invasion. Would you want your street in front of your home to be a frontage street for State Street? Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate your time. Yeah. Thank you. All right. We're going to take a five minute break and then we'll be back.

I'm sorry. I should have asked if you were planning on staying for the whole thing and if you weren't, just let you talk. But okay. Thank you, Mayor Pat. City Council. My name is Martha and Martha.

I live on Utana Road. Uh Mr. Hallebertton, you addressed my concern because I live in that lot right that they bought in order to have an exit onto uh Utana Road. So, at this point, I'm it's, you know, we recognize that something's going to go in there and something's going to happen, but the way in which this whole thing has been planned, there's no infrastructure on Utana Road. The only, like she said, the only place where there's a sidewalk, they made the developer put it in to to break up their um to break up their lot. So anyway, I just I don't want to see the kids getting hurt on the way to school. I don't want to have to go running out there like I've done when they fall off their bicycles and help them get up. If they have a proper infrastructure before you put all the heavy equipment in, then I just think every it'll work. I don't I I have no opposition to having the the the the uh whatever the project happen and I just want to make sure that it is done with safety and consideration for the people who live there and if there is a spot in the that somebody can point me to in the Boise code that does allow somebody to buy a lot like that and then add it on to their uh construction plan. I'd like to know where it is. Thank you. That's it. We can all have a good night.

Thanks, Martha. All right. Is anybody else here to testify on this item? Anyone online? Okay. Now, I'll see if um council members have questions for staff before we go to closing comments. Madam Mayor, I've got a question for staff and I I think I know the answer, but like I was asking it earlier. Um Martha just asked it as well. So, somebody has a lot that's right next to my house. It's zoned a certain way. I can anticipate at some point that like maybe it's going to get redeveloped into whatever fits for the zoning on that particular lot, but I probably don't imagine that it's going to be turned into a street. Is there a process? Is it a separate process where somebody can turn a lot into a street versus a house? Like it seems strange to me that if there wasn't a planned street that somebody could purchase it and then turn it into a street in the future. May and I I anticipate it's that they made it part of the larger lot and then when they made it part of the larger lot then part of that larger lot is a street. But can you explain that to me a little bit?

Madame Mayor, uh, council members. Uh so again this is a really large property and so I think access um and having multiple points of access was a problem for them initially. Uh the subdivision process does allow any parcels that are under the same ownership or um within the same project area to dedicate roadways and this is just the mechanism um to dedicate roadways to connect to gardener for this property.

Yeah. So I think what I'm hearing the process is is that you have your lot then you buy another lot and then you go through the process of combining that lot into your lot. Is that what happened? So like they they originally they they purchased this Fron Woody lot and then they purchased two more pieces of property and at some point they combine these into the same lot or is it still three separate lots? Uh madame mayor and council members. So, they did do some property line adjustments or consolidations. I'd have to look at what the exact process they went through already was. Um, currently the entire project area is four separate lots, but those two lots that were um more individual parcels have been combined into that project area.

Great. Yeah. So, that makes sense. I think that you consolidate them and then you can, you know, when you're developing a large thing, then that potentially bees your exit point once it's consolidated. But, you probably couldn't do it just as a individual lot. Just decide to go ahead and build a street there. So, I think that's the process. Um, yeah, I I think that's the that's the only question I've got. Thank you. Other questions for staff? Nope. All right, come on up. Now, for those of you that are here, this is um when we do one of these and we hear correct. Am I been so long since we've heard one of these? Okay. Um, we then have the applicant do a closing statement

to put that slide up.

So, the question has arisen and I'm just going to ask that you be mindful of the time that you have um because we're going to stick with the five minutes. Yes, ma'am. Um, Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions. So if you look at this site plan here, this was a site plan that I had submitted to Sarah R and Johnny at ITD. And as you can see, it was utilizing the historical access that is

out to State Street. And Sarah reviewed that, came back to me and said, "We will not allow any access. The offset is 790 ft from Gardener and 790 ft from um and this approach here does not meet our standards. So we did look at that option. the email that was sent was was a new person at at ITD um that was not involved in this process. The question arises, what's the 2%? The 2% that is discussed in the traffic impact study and in the ACD report is the amount of our traffic that is going to go through that um that intersection with state highway 44. on these infill parcels. We do our best to provide interconnection. This whole corridor reading through all these documents talks about different modes of transportation. Bicycles, public transportation, cars, scooters, you name it. We're trying to create, it says in the in the study for State Street, we're trying to create densities that will allow us to have public transportation that is viable. That requires density. clear back in 2020 was a extensive article in the Idaho Statesman that talked about the city of Boise's planners doing uh long range planning to get infill developments redeveloped to higher and

better uses and create these nodes for commercial retail to sustain these higher densities. That's exactly what we're trying to do. We always have some deficiencies, but what you have to look at is what is the capacity of Utana? What is the capacity of Gardener? They're running at 400 and some 88, 800. Capacity of those local streets as is 2,000 vehicle trips per day. We are well under that. We are not exceeding those thresholds. We are meeting all the standards. We are coming in. We're making our improvements. We're paying our impact fees. We're building turn lanes. We are making a safer intersection at Gardener. We're going to come in and do uh traffic calming on Gardener, traffic calming on Utana. Utana is intended to be a non-ontinuous collector that feeds out to Old Highway 55. Um, ACD has indicated that a priority of theirs is to have a pedestrian-friendly crossing across Old Highway 55 from Utana to WCO for the residents that are going through there. We have a really good project. It meets your comprehensive plan. It has an a very, very good density at just barely 15 dwelling units per acre. I'll go ahead and let go ahead. I guess my last comment is on all these intersections eventually they all need work. They all need upgrade. Where do I start? Where do I stop? Do I have to keep making improvements all the way to downtown Boisee? That's why there are requirements on h what warrants an off-site improvement

and what does not. Thank you. Just to finalize and wrap this up, going back to the one condition this project does. It meets all of the city's um requirements. I do think this checks all of the various boxes for being a good infill development. It is the 19 acres. You've got to find ways to get out um of that. Otherwise, there's really only without an exit onto State Street, there's only one entrance and exit from this property um through another subdivision. So, that's obviously not ideal. But going back to the proposed condition, it doesn't mitigate the proposed condition does not mitigate this project's impacts. Instead, it's asking this project to essentially solve all these other bigger systemic regional impacts. And

you're at time, so I'll let you do one sentence. That's not a run-on sentence. And and and so it's just an attempt to use the project to fix a regional pre-existing um condition. And we do not think that's allowed um by law or practically speaking. It just doesn't make sense. Great. Thank you. All right. Um I'm going to close the public hearing. You're welcome to ask questions of staff. And you don't have to have if you don't have questions of staff, I'll take a motion and then a discussion. But um either either works right now.

Then may I'll start with a motion here. I'm going to make a motion that we deny C25-03 a reszone of approximately 8.65 65 acres from R1A to R12 at 9744 State Street. Second the motion.

Great. Um, so I'm going to do some explaining here. We'll see how it goes. Um, you are 100% right. Like these are are the kind of developments that we anticipate and that we want to see along State Street. We do want that density. It is a um where we're investing in our public transit system. Um, and we want to see infill here. And we expect to see infill on a big lot like we see here. This is a really large lot. And I think since all the different things that I've approved or denied on council, I don't know if I've ever seen this large of a lot where there wasn't a large investment in public infrastructure surrounding that lot that created the public good that we require to go with a reszone. Um, sure that there's good that comes with housing, but the surrounding neighbors have a negative impact with no real positive benefits that are coming from this. So, they're seeing all of a sudden more traffic coming into their neighborhoods with no additional infrastructure to address the safety mechanisms or the safety that would actually needed to be had there. I've never had a I've never approved anything here before where there was this much traffic without anything supporting the surrounding neighbors to address the safety concerns that go there. So, I've got serious concerns about that. I don't think that this is an impossible reszone or an impossible subdivision to get to, but I don't think that we're I don't think that we're that close. Um I think that there's some major changes that we would have to do, including waiting for ner to get a stoplight to go through. And I understand that that's beyond our control, but also it's a safety concern that isn't going to be addressed and isn't going to exist until that traffic light is there. and I don't want to put anybody in an unsafe situation in that neighborhood until that actually happens. So, for those two reasons, um there's just no way that I can feel comfortable approving approving the reszone. Um, very similar with council member Halle Burton. I think there I think our

residents have a level of expectation of what's going to be developed around them. And um, we're putting in um, buying lots and putting in roadways that never existed and never even planned to exist um, to fit into a project, a really nice project by the way. Um, I like the mix of housing here. The problem is for me it's the safety of getting the residents out of the subdivision and into any of the surrounding areas. Why State Street may be a corridor. We want to encourage um alternate modes of transportation. We want it to be safe for bikeways for scooters as we mentioned, but we can't get to State Street because there's no infrastructure to get us there. um we don't have a signalized roadway. When I look at our um comprehensive plan to prioritize capital improvements, it says to ensure adequate public infrastructure is in place to accommodate increased densities. Um and I don't see where we have adequate public infrastructure. So for that reason, um I don't feel that it does meet our comprehensive plan, which is why I'm recommending denial. Madame Mayor, um I'm torn on this one. I do think I'm going to support the motion, but I hope that um there's so much that I like about this project that I hope that um applicant will take this feedback into consideration and bring it back to us um either as a new application or a or ask for reconsideration with these changes that you're hearing from us up here. Um, to me, the biggest concerns um that are swaying me towards denial are um I appreciate the staff's

recommendation about the not using the pickle ball space next to on the exterior of the project. I would like to see that either moved internal to the project or change the use of it. I do think that that will become an issue later on that we have less control over. And then um I really appreciated your answer on the impact fees in response to council member Hybertton's question. Um but it is also true that we we usually see um improvements to the infrastructure in addition to impact fees especially from developments of this size. Um so I would like to I would like to see a little bit more of that. um like the I would like to see a little bit more of that as been. So whether that's accepting the condition that was proposed by staff to work with um to work with our sister agencies on a light or it's to figure out works for the pedestrian bicycle infrastructure. We just have such limited tools on how we can fund these things and um this is a great opportunity to um I love the diverse housing options. Um I like the way it's all facing interior. Um I appreciate the SK streetscaping and the connectivity that you've built within the site. um but would like to as as the point's been made would like to be sure that people are also getting off of the site and onto State Street um safely and I'm not sure we're seeing that yet and I I can appreciate the push back on the condition but um I would like to see uh if it's not that then what how are you going to satisfy this concern that we all have up here? So, I hope that we do see it again um with with some of the

feedback taken into consideration.

Madame Mayor, um I'm going to be a no on the motion. Uh I probably for a lot of the same reasons that council member Steed is a yes. Uh I'm hopeful that this could come back. I don't see these problems as unsolvable. You know, when we consider developments of this size on the edge of town, common complaint is building uh facilities like this uh without sufficient infrastructure. Uh this is a place where we have sufficient city infrastructure. We don't have all of the transportation infrastructure that we need. Um but we probably have 80 85% of it. And um uh I just want to like caution council um we we know we made big investments out there for our fire station and other public services and um it's really rare to get this many units uh inside the city limits and I I want to work toward getting council to a yes on this and getting the infrastructure that folks need out there to to feel safe. I do want to push back on some of the public comments about having another access point at State Street. Uh the city just was awarded a grant, I believe, to study uh a really dangerous place in the city on Fair between Fairview, Curtis, and Cole. And that study is likely going to show that the number of access points uh on Fair View is creating uh a far more dangerous um street uh for my neighborhood and I I would not want to create those same conditions in Fair View uh or excuse me

on State Street. Um so I'll be opposing the motion. Uh it looks like it's going to fail today the application. Um, but I hope that's not the end of it and that we can try to get something that works for the applicant and the neighborhood. Madame Mayor, can I just add one more thought? Um, I wonder I mean I don't I wonder if this is even I don't know if you've been in contact with CCDC about these these street improvement conditions, but that might be a place to take this conversation to. There might be some assistance there if it's in within the district. I just wanted to give that last offer.

Yeah. And and Madam Mayor, I whenever I deny something, I want to try to give like whatever the path forward is because like obviously there's there's there's going to be development here someday. There needs to be development. This is a good spot for it. If you look at the map of this whole area, what you'll see is it's it's an absolute mess. And the reason it's an absolute mess is because piece by piece by piece, you know, developers kind of come in here and put in some streets. And it's not a grid system at all. kind of there's a joke in Boston about the streets being designed by a horse that got loose one day. That's kind of what it looks like over here in Northwest Boise is that you go around and like there is no grid system. It goes in and out. It goes around all over the place. I think between CCDC, ACD, and city of Boisey, um knowing what our other developments are going to be could probably give some better advice to um the developer of what the street system needs to look like to make sense. And for me, it doesn't make sense putting it onto um Utana unless there's safe street infrastructure for the for it to go there. So then you're either looking at State Street, you're looking at the development next door with the development of Ner going through Duncan and then you're looking at Gardener and they're without having infrastructure there or a plan or an actual network for things to work. Then we're basically pushing people out on the streets that just aren't in any sort of position to um be equipped for that. So that's what I would recommend is that we would look at Duncan, we would look at Gardener, we would look at, you know, waiting for Ner to get through, but also trying to figure out what is the actual road system should be looking like to be more of a functional grid than again some sort of meandering um you know path that doesn't really make sense for natural travel.

All right, I think we've had a great discussion today. Um just so the public understands, unless there's a tie, I don't vote. Um, I would say on this that we do want more homes in Boisee and um, from a number of homes in the lot perspective, I think it makes a ton of sense. Um, I share council member Halle Burton's concerns particularly about Utana and the access here. Um, and you know would welcome understanding more from our staff why ITD given that there was an access point on state said no. um and how that looks like from like a overall planning and and where those access points are on state because for me I look at this and appreciate council member Nash's concerns about access points and and the fair view study that we're doing um but the the existence the the fact that one exists already that ITD said no um I it makes this really difficult for the developer to bring the homes um at the densities and with a community form that we want to see without putting that pressure onto a street like Utana that does not have the infrastructure um to to take these to to take this from my perspective though I'd like to see this many homes at the edge of our community because we want them within the city limit that say clerk

Corass yes Burton yes Nash no dead yes three in favor one opposed motion carries uh Madameir I move to adjurnn Second. We have a motion, a second to adjurnn. All in favor? I. We are adjourned. Thanks everybody for being here tonight.