Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

No, it just started. Sorry, sorry. Okay.

Check this.

Thank you. Thank you. It's true. I don't know. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Cool. Yes. Yes. I don't think so. I don't think so. I don't think so. Then you're ready for experience. I know I'll . I think it's . Wait, maybe it's not, but maybe it's . I'm sorry. Oh, sorry. Yeah, I think I saw it. Yeah.

All right, everybody. Good evening and welcome to the Boise City Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. A few things to start out with for tonight's proceedings. Everyone from the public entering the hearing virtually has been automatically muted and cannot speak. As the item you're interested in comes up for discussion, you'll be called upon and unmuted. There is a chat function in Zoom. However, this is not part of the record and should only be used if technical difficulties arise. Our procedures for public hearings begins with the presentation from the planning team. Then we'll go to the applicant and then the representative of the Registered Neighborhood Association, followed by questions from the commission. After that, we proceed to public testimony, starting with those who are in person, then who signed up on the signup sheet in advance, and then anyone else who raises their hand virtually. If you're attending through your telephone, you can type in star nine, raise your hand. Each member of the public is allowed up to three minutes for testimony. We are strict with this time as it is limited in code. Finally, the applicant is allowed five minutes for rebuttal, after which the hearing will be closed and the commission will deliberate and render a decision. Madam Chair, you have the floor.

Thank you, Crystal. Good evening and welcome to Boise City Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. A few things, that's not mine. We are citizen volunteers appointed by the mayor and approved by the city council. We make final decisions on conditional use permits, variances and appeals and recommendations to the city council on subdivisions, rezones, annexations and code or comprehensive plan amendments. Any decision made tonight may be appealed to the city council provided that the appeal is filed within 10 days of this hearing. In order to file an appeal, you must have given written or oral testimony at tonight's meeting. So that's why it's important to give your name and address when you testify tonight. We utilize a consent agenda. This means that if the applicant agrees with staff report and that there is no public opposition, the item will be placed on the consent agenda. All items that are placed on the consent agenda are approved with one motion without further public comment. For items not on the consent agenda, we will hold a full public hearing in the order just detailed a few minutes ago with staff, applicant, neighborhood association, and then public testimony. Thank you all for attending tonight. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Danley. Moore. Here. Schaefer.

Here.

Deha.

Here.

Torres.

Here.

Dollings.

Here.

Defonsic.

Here.

Six present, one absent.

Thank you. So first we will go through the consent agenda. So I have minutes acceptance. So first I have minutes from the planning and zoning work session and meeting from June 1st and the planning and zoning work session and meeting minutes from June 8th. With no objection, I'll place those on the consent agenda. Seeing none. We'll go through the first item. So first I have item A. This is PUD 23-31 for Chrysalis Architecture. It's a time extension at 3223 North 36th Street. It's a time extension for a conditional use permit for a residential plan development comprised of 74 multifamily units on 8.3 acres located in R1C residential traditional zone. This is just a time extension, so with no objections, I'd like to place that on the consent agenda. So not a public hearing, just an extension. Item B, we'll be hearing. Next, we have item number 1, SUV 26-0010 from Moss Run Subdivision. This is at 10-201 West Shields Ave. It's a preliminary and final plaque for residential subdivision comprised of four buildable lots and one common lot on 0.68 acres in R1C residential traditional zone. And is the applicant present? Maybe online?

Who's been there? Madam Chair, I'm sorry, it's not granting me permission to let them speak, but they are online. Okay. Give me a second. Madam Chair, I'll be right back. I just need to be added as a co-host for this meeting. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Semple.

Yes, I'm here.

Great. And do you agree with the terms and conditions of the staff report?

Yes, we do.

Great. Let the record show that the applicant is present and does agree with the terms and conditions of the staff report. And is there anybody in chambers or online that wishes to testify in opposition to item number one, SUV 26-10? Seeing none in person. And no hands raised online. And if you are in opposition, you could raise your hand online if you'd like to speak. So seeing none. I'd like to move to move this to the consent agenda. Right. Item number two will here. Three will here so on to item number four. That is SUV 25-00033 for Barnwood commercial subdivision. That's at parcel numbers S 1506-11-0003 and S1506-14-1800. It's a preliminary plat for a commercial subdivision comprised of 33 buildable and nine common lots on 41.3 acres in the SP03-AIO-WUIO Syringa Valley specific plan with airport influence and wildland urban interplanetary urban interface overlay zone, is the applicant present? And are you in agreement with the terms and conditions of the staff report? Let the record show the applicant is present and in agreement with the terms and conditions of the staff report. And is there anybody in chambers or online who wishes to testify in opposition to item number four, SUB 25-33? Seeing none in chambers and no hands raised online, I move Place item number four on the consent agenda. And item number five will be here. So that wraps up the consent agenda consisting of work session minutes from June and meeting minutes from June 1st and 8th. Item A, 1, and 4. And I will entertain a motion.

Madam Chair, make a motion to approve work session minutes from June 1 and meeting minutes from June 1 as well as June 8 and items a one and four.

Do I have a second? All right, thank you very much. I have a motion and a second from Commissioner Seha and Schaefer. Any discussion? Seeing none, will the clerk please call the roll?

Moore? Yes. Schaefer?

Yes.

Teja?

Yes.

Torres?

Yes.

Dowling? Yes. Stefancic?

Yes.

All in favor? Motion carries.

All right. And next, we'll move on to, and thank you, and good luck with your projects. Next, we'll move on to item number two, or item number B, reconsideration request.

Sorry, I'm not sure.

Commissioner Schaefer.

My apologies. I have to recuse from this item as I'm a partner in that group.

Understood. Thank you. The records show that Commissioner Schaefer is recusing. And I think that first is a staff presentation. So, please.

Good evening, Commissioners. Before you is a reconsideration of CBA 2612 to deviate from the standards of the near north end character overlay located generally at 1110 West Hayes Street on... 0.42 acres in R3 NCO, residential urban with near north end character overlay zone. This was before the commission on May 11. With a conditional use permit modification, the CUP is not subject of this reconsideration request and all it is before you is the reconsideration of the variance. The applicant team has claimed that the denial of the variance burdens religious exercise and violated few religious freedom acts. The planning team does not find that the denial of the additional surface parking lot does not inhibit or curtail the applicant in an area with a plethora of alternative transportation options available. Additionally, there is a path forward to provide additional parking while complying with the requirements of the development code in the near north end character overlay. Additionally, the development code was applied neutrally and consistently to this property as it would be to other properties within the R3 NCO zone. As such, the planning team recommends the commission not choose to reconsider CVA 2600012.

Perfect. Thank you so much. And just to clarify, I didn't introduce the project properly. So that's item number B. It's CVA 26-00012 for the land group. The reconsideration request referred at 1110 West Bay Street. Reconsideration request of the denial of variance deviate from the standards of the near north end character overlay located at 110 K Street on 0.42 acres in an R3 NCO residential urban with near north end character overlay zone. I think the next the next part is our discussion, right? So Yeah. Is there any discussion? Would anybody like to make a motion?

Madam Chair, unless anybody has any questions, I move that we deny the reconsideration request for CBA 26-12. I'll second.

All right. I have a motion to deny from Commissioner Torres and a second from Commissioner Ceja. Any discussion?

Madam Chair. Commissioner Torres? I think we covered this issue pretty thoroughly during the hearing back in May. And, you know, I think it's worth noting that we consider land use policy and land use applications up here. Neutrally, we don't consider whether they're a church or whether they're a school or any other type of building or operation or entity. So I think our original hearing was pretty thorough on this. And that's why I moved that we deny the request.

I'm sure I don't have anything to add to that. I thought we had a good conversation. We listened to the information that was provided and I don't think that there was anything.

Any other discussion? Well, I'll add to that. I think agreed with Commissioner Torres and Commissioner Ceja. I also, you know, the only new information that we were presented in our staff report was about, you know, the the kind of acronym, but about the church use itself and the religious kind of protections. But I do agree with staff's kind of analysis of how that's being covered in the particular, you know, in the previous report and in our debrief of it and our conversation discussions after that. Um, and just how it's being addressed, even though not necessarily by name, it's still kind of compliant in that, in that way. So I agree with staffs with staffs kind of analysis and that as well, and how they've, they've addressed it in their staff report. So if there's no other discussion, we'll have a motion to deny the reconsideration request by commissioner tours. And the second by commissioner Schaefer will commissioner say, how will the clerk please call the roll more?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

All in favor. Motion carries.

Thank you very much. And moving right along to item number two is SUV 25 dash 96 innovative innovator subdivision. At 6310 South Orchard Street, it's a preliminary plot for a mixed-use subdivision comprised of 35 buildable lots next to AIO, WUIO, DA, mixed-use general with airport influence and wildland urban interface overlays and a development agreement. And I want AIO, WUIO, DA, industrial light with airport influence and wildland urban interface overlays and a development agreement zone. First, we'll hear from staff. Mr. Dennis.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioners. The item before you is a preliminary plot for a mixed-use subdivision comprised of 35 buildable lots on 135.9 acres in an MX2 AIO WUI DA and I1 AIO WUI DA zone. Shown here is a brief history of the site, which was annexed into the city in 2021 and has been modified a few times with At 1.1 million square foot warehouse previously approved via design review permit, which has since expired, followed by a shuffling of zoning until a similar preliminary plot was proposed, but withdrawn shortly after with the intent to submit a subdivision under the current zoning code, which is before you tonight. New public streets are proposed within the subdivision. Innovator Street along the northern portion of the site will be improved with 10-foot wide detached sidewalks separated by an 8-foot landscape buffer along its southern side. Similarly, Lake Hazel will be extended through the southwest to south portion of the site with a similar 10-foot wide sidewalk, 8-foot wide landscape buffer. And then a local roadway network proposed in the northwest corner, Origin Street and Aspire Avenue, which are both local roadways proposed with 8-foot wide landscape buffers and five foot wide detached sidewalks. The proposed lots in the subdivision meet the standards of the MX2 and I1 zones. And as conditioned, the proposal is in compliance with the development agreement. Vehicular driveways along each road frontage will provide connectivity to these lots and the recommended condition of approval requires the addition of a plat note that delineates a blanket easement for cross access and maintenance through the development. Shown here is the conceptual phasing plan with construction starting in the northeast portion of the site and proceeding west and south. In accordance with the development agreement, a recommended condition of approval requires the two and a half acre site be dedicated to the city of Boise for a future fire station prior to proceeding past phase one. Shown here is a summary list of recommended conditions of approval that the applicant has expressed opposition towards, which they may expand upon in their presentation. specifically the timing of the expiration of the preliminary plot. Which because this is a phase development will not expire so long as one phase of development is approved annually. This is a standard condition for face subdivisions and would simply require the applicant to request a time extension. Three years or so from city council approval day if the first phase was not constructed within that a lot of time frame. Uh, next is providing context to a condition that requires the blanket easement blanket cross access maintenance easement as a cloud notes, which planning staff is supportive of including the commercial portion as a inclusion on that condition. And then finally the timing of the required improvements to record the plot with the request of those prior being prior to the certificates of occupancy rather than prior to submitting building permits. And this codified timing is required in order to establish the lots for which future building permits would be applied for. And then here's a map of the summary of recommended conditions for the signal agreement with ACHD and the signal warrant analysis with ACHD. Lake correspondence was received from the applicant in response to agency comments received from ACHD, which stated that the intersection of the local roadway, Origin Street and Orchard Street to the west did not meet the separation distance from the intersection of Lake Hazel and Orchard Street near the southwestern portion of the site. This comment required Origin Street to be shifted to the north approximately 130 feet to meet this requirement. The applicant has provided this revised concept plan via email. And the planning team recommends the commission add a condition of approval, which requires the street layout be shown on the preliminary plot prior to the city council hearing. In conclusion, the planning team recommends approval of the preliminary plot, and I will stand for any questions.

Thank you. Next, we will hear from the applicant. So is the applicant present? All right, come on up. If you'll state your name and address, you'll have 10 minutes.

Thank you. My name is Patrick Connor with Adler Industrial. Address is 8665 West Emerald Street, Boise.

Thank you. Please go ahead. You have 10 minutes.

Thank you. Perfect. Good evening. Tonight we'll be presenting the Invader Subdivision. Matt did a great job giving a preview for it, so I'll be courteous of your time as I go through our presentation. As Matt said, there's some history on this project. Back in 2023, there was an application that came through By request of the city, it was withdrawn. So we come back to be in compliance with modern zoning code. And so that's the application for you tonight. It was annexed and zoned. I won an MX2 in 2025. There's development agreement in place. Focused a lot on the needs for fire coverage in this area. So they asked for a prepayment of $633,000 to be prepaid, which was paid earlier this year. and also the donation of a two and a half acre fire station parcel, which I'll show you, but we will be dedicating during phase one. We're happy to partner with the city to open up this area as we need to fund the fire station. So we've done a lot of progress in this area as far as utility investments, infrastructure investment. On this map, you'll see that we've extended sewer from the north from Gowan and from the west of Lake Hazel. Also, water was extended from Gowan Road to serve the Visionary Sudvision, and then all the way down Innovator to Orchard. Also, there was off-site Idaho power upgrades that were done. We also did a 25-acre environmental cleanup on our site, so it would be cleared by DEQ for development. All in all, we've spent over $20 million in extending utilities and infrastructure to the site. And as part of this investment, It's opened up this area to some of our neighboring projects because of our substantial investment here. Roadways and utilities owners and applicants in this area, some are here tonight for a barn road commercial, are starting to come through the process. Innovator Industrial Park is under review. Building permit is under review there. So this whole area is really kind of coming together, and we're looking forward to work with our partners and our neighbors to work on future roadway and intersection improvements. Just really quick, there's 35 total lots in this subdivision, 14 of which are MX-2 commercial lots, 21 I-1 industrial lots. The two and a half acre fire station lot is shown in the bottom left corner in the southwest corner. Our phasing plan is shown here with four lots in phase one, 11 lots in phase two, and the final phase in the northwest corner, which includes the commercial and six industrial lots and 14 commercial lots. Fire station partial is shown here. We are agreeing with the condition to have that dedicated during the phase one. It will be dedicated on a meets and bounds basis. The roadway and the infrastructure improvements to service this fire station site won't happen until phase two. Um, so the site can be dedicated to the city and then we'll be able to have that be a billable lot for the fire station, uh, in the future. So the traffic improvement, um, after our investments in infrastructure and roadways, uh, the next big stage is the, um, intersections improvements and more roadways in the area. So this is color coded based on, um, on phases. So what is shown in orange there has already been done. The extension of innovator road and visionary Avenue. What's shown in blue, it will be part of the first phase, which is the full extension of Innovator Road to Orchard and a portion of Orchard and then the Orchard-Innovator intersection. What's shown in green is for phase two, which includes the extension of Lake Hazel, a portion of Orchard, and then the intersections on the north side of the map shown here. And lastly, shown in red, we have the interior local street and we have the intersection of Pleasant Valley and innovator in phase three. I just want to point out this area on the north side. So the ACHD staff report requires two intersections be built at Orchard and Gowan and Orchard and Harvard intersections. The ultimate solution in this area is for the realignment of Orchard Street. And we're having conversations with ACHD and the city as there's more of a more people with applications coming through and more dollars being dedicated to this Orchard Street realignment. We would like to also advocate that the dollars being spent on these intersections instead be used as a fee in lieu and contribution to this Orchard realignment. And we're trying to acknowledge that in our conditions as something to be open to. We've worked with ACHD and we're working with ACHD on updating our analysis of the impact of our phase one in this area. So it's an ongoing conversation that we're having with ACHD and we believe that before council, we'll have a final staff report, which recommends the phasing of these phase two intersections on the north side of this map. As Matt alluded to, we have a few conditions of approval they're asking for. So some clarity in the time extension. So right now for sub-divisions, we have typically one year. Annually between plots and we're requesting 24 months, given the scale of these these phases. They're quite large with large buildings and the timing that it takes for these products to happen. We think 24 months is applicable in this situation. The second condition here is the blanket easement requirement. They asked for platinum to be acquired across all lots across the entire subdivision. We are fine with a blanket easement across the commercial portion, as that's typical, because there's shared driveways, shared parking areas. But it's not necessarily applicable for the industrial portion. Any lots that don't have access to public access roads can be satisfied with a cross-access easement with an adjacent neighbor, and it's something we do quite frequently. But having a blanket easement across the whole subdivision that every single lot is party to makes sense for the commercial portion, but not so much for the I-1 industrial area. And lastly, we are asking for just the landscaping portion of the streetscape to be reviewed at each design review application and then being installed by the building user or the owner at certificate of occupancy for each building. This is important for two main reasons. One, it's dry out there. We don't have irrigation. So it's very hard for us to water the trees as they're planted over a long period of time, keep them alive. Also, there's interior driveway locations, interior networking or road networks inside each industrial parcel that determines where the driveways go. So we're trying to avoid having to rip out trees that are just planted or struggle to keep trees alive without inconsistent watering schedule. And again, without having a building on site and a water service for each of those units, it's very hard to keep those street trees alive. A similar condition that we're asking for here was applied at the Visionary subdivision that is now platted, and it's worked out well there. And then lastly, just alluding to this ACSD condition of the two intersections of Orchard Harbour intersection, Again, we don't want to have, you know, to spend millions of dollars to have these intersections go in and then eventually have them being torn out whenever the orchard realignment goes in. So our stance is that we would like for our dollars to be used for the ultimate solution, which is orchard street realignment. And again, we're working with ACHD and the city in trying to organize how we fund the phasing of those intersection improvements there. So I stand for any questions you all have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And we'll hold for questions for just a minute. First, we'll move to questions from the commission. Neighborhood, thank you. Is there anyone representing the Neighborhood Association here with us tonight? I'm seeing South Cole Neighborhood Association and Stay With Friends. No.

Okay, looks like we don't have the neighborhood association.

All right, now we'll move on to questions for the commission. Thank you. Any questions?

Madam Chair.

Commissioner Stefanski.

Yeah, so just to clarify this for staff, so the three changes that they are asking for in the conditions 10, 14E, and 63, you're in agreement with those?

Commissioner Stefanczyk, Madam Chair, thank you for the question. The planning staff is in agreement with modifying only 14E to broaden, or I'm sorry, to narrow the language of the requirement for the blanket easement to only apply to the commercial portion of the subdivision. Staff is in agreement with the applicant's citation about egress through industrial For condition number 10, planning staff is not agreeable to amending that simply because the timing for phase, the development code allows phase developments to have preliminary plats that don't expire so long as one final plat is approved annually. And so If in the case that the final plot is not is not completed within one year of the previous or than two years of this city council's approval, then the applicant can simply request a time extension. So they're still built in.

Okay, so there is an avenue to address 10. If they get to a point, they can always just extension. We see them all the time.

Correct. That's correct.

And then just to clarify, sorry, 63, though, you are good with that if they only install landscaping as they go or you want it all set ahead of time?

Planning staff is not agreeable to amending condition number 63 simply because the bonding for subdivisions is worked into this as well. So the wording of that, basically the amenities and landscaping, a lot of those things can be bonded for. And so when they're bonded for, we establish, we record the lots, we submit building permits and approve building permits. And then those improvements are held to the certificate of occupancies for the buildings. So there's also an avenue built in for that as well. Okay.

And then their request for ACHD, that's an ACHD thing? That they have to, for their fees and how that is? That's correct. Okay. I wanted to make sure. Thank you.

Any other questions? I've got a question just to clarify what you just said. So I was just making sure I understand what the city's requirements are for number 10 for the time extension. So they have two years to complete the first You have two years to complete that or, you know, to submit that first phase of the plat. And then after that, they have a year to submit the next phase. And then after that, but after that first plat, they could submit an extension and then have their two years after that. And the extension is a hearing or is it just an admin level approval?

Madam Chair, that's correct. The time extension is it goes straight to city council as a consent item. And so the two years from approval is the city council hearing date, not necessarily this hearing date if approved.

Okay. So essentially what they're asking for is just one less application that goes to city council approval for that extension. Otherwise, it would be the exact same. You'd get your two years versus one.

Madam Chair, that's accurate. The only difference is that as conditions, they would not, the time extension, I'm sorry, the preliminary plat would not expire so long as one final plat is approved annually. And so the relief that the applicant is seeking for is that in the case of it takes longer than one year post prelim approval, At that point, they would need to follow the standard time extension process. So the relief that they're seeking is still kind of built into the application. I think that's pretty accurate, that it would just be an additional application, if only if a final plat took more than one year from the previous final plat to be recorded.

Okay, perfect. And then for 63, just so I understand, they don't necessarily have to build all of this landscaping. They just have to bond for it. So if you don't want to build for it, water it and all that stuff, you bond for it. It's basically promising that you're going to build it later. But you don't necessarily have to water it, make sure the trees don't die and things like that. That's the relief that would be achieved here.

of Madam chair condition number 63 basically builds in the bonding which all those type of conditions need to be fulfilled or bonded for to establish the lots as buildable and so The, the applicant could still establish and record these lots with those being bonded for If landscaping, fencing, et cetera, is bonded for, then the bond will hold up a future certificate of occupancy. So it wouldn't hold up. If bonded for, you could record the lots, submit building permits, receive building permits, start construction. You just wouldn't receive your certificate of occupancy. So as conditioned, they could bond and record lots without having to do any of these improvements. As long as they're bonded for, they could receive building permits and start construction. They just couldn't receive their certificates of occupancy until the bond has been closed out, meaning anything that was bonded for was eventually placed, watered, extended, etc.

Okay. And so the distinction here, it sounds like the city would require the whole landscape, like the whole, all of the common lot to be fulfilled for your first CO or is it a lot by lot basis? Yes.

Madam chair, it depends how the applicant chooses to break out their final plot. So it could be on a lot to lot basis.

Okay. So the city would allow it to be bonded lot by lot versus the whole deal.

In this instance, it would be phase by phase.

Okay.

Right. So with each phase, they would go through bonding for those required improvements.

Okay. So prior to the first building permit and the first phase, they need to complete the whole thing, the whole phase.

Prior to the first certificate of occupancy.

Gotcha. Okay. That's a good distinction. All right. I think that was my question. Commissioner Schaefer. You're done.

Yep. Sorry. And I was thinking out loud there too.

Yeah.

No. With your line of questioning. But Matt, just to be clear, they can bond for... They don't have to bond for all of everything that's listed there. They could build fencing, sidewalks, streetlights, for example, but only bond for irrigation and landscape, right? So it's not like that's not like a full list, right?

Madam Chair, Commissioner Schaefer, that's correct. You could split it up however you'd like. It's just what is approved and shown on final, on the plans needs to be accounted for. That's correct. Gotcha. Great. Thank you.

And then while I'm Well, I've got the mic, Madam Chair. And then Matt, on the, we do need, if we are in agreement with the request regarding the Orchard Street realignment, we do need a new condition in the report or not.

Madam Chair, Commissioner Schaffer, the last condition from the ACHC staff report that the applicant referenced wasn't included as a condition of approval within this staff report, so. that would be more of an ACHD conversation. From my understanding, it wouldn't change anything with this subdivision, with this condition of approval or process.

Right. The ACHD is the body that approved that request. Right. Great. Okay. Thanks.

All right. Any more questions?

I'm sure. Commissioner Sponsor? Do we give the applicant a chance to ask questions about these or...

If you have a question for the applicant.

Yeah. Can I ask you some clarifying pieces of what we just heard? So for number 10, so there is, right, you can ask for extensions on that. Does that make sense in your mind?

If you'll just state your name and address real quick.

Yes.

Patrick Connor, 8665 Western World Street. Um, the, the requirement in the code department makes sense. Uh, and we are asking for, um, a condition, a change, and I guess a variance from that because of the size of these phases. Um, you know, just in phase one, I mean, these, you're looking at four lots with large buildings. I mean, it's going to take years. Um, we're just asking, I mean, we very well could come back here every single year for a time extension. We're asking for the allowance to spread that out to 24 months for two years because it will take a good period of time to go through this project. And we won't move on to the next phase until the first phase is done. It's a little bit dissimilar for like a residential subdivision where you can predictably build out annually, which I think that this code would apply really well to. But with an industrial set of vision, it's a lot longer of a time period given the size and the scope of the buildings. So we are asking for those 24 months.

Okay. And then on 63, so the bonding, the landscaping, Does any of that kind of change how you navigate through that condition?

Well, not necessarily. I mean, again, these phases are quite large. I mean, just in that phase two, we're looking at 11 lots there. There's a lot of coverage. In industrial subdivisions, it's not like a commercial subdivision or residential where you have HOAs or these community irrigation systems or one. you know, entity that can water. With industrial, there's no common lots. Everything's dealt with on an individual lot basis. And so it just kind of makes it a little bit, you know, doesn't quite flow through well when we're trying to build the trees and if we're having to move some out and around. And Again, each user will have to have their own water permit to water the trees and everything like that. That's our request, is to have it applied at the design review basis, and it can be applied at that point. At that point, when they come in for design review, they'll have their their own landscape plan, and then it can be applied for at that point. Um, and again, this, I made a similar condition that was approved for the visionary subdivision, uh, just, just down the road. Um, that, that was approved and was, and made sense, um, for our future users and, and for the build out of this project.

So even though you can bond for it and then not plant the tree,

Yes, you could bond for it. I mean, there's a significant cost there that we're looking at that we're going to, again, these projects take years, a long time. And the cost of having a bond out there, I mean, there's fees and it's not like it's monopoly money. It's real money that's sitting out there that we're having to put up for the trees. So just, like I said, a visionary made sense. And then each user can... can put in the trees as required for their design review. And each one will be a little bit different from the next, depending on where they have their driveways and medians and whatnot.

OK, thank you.

Yeah.

Any other questions? I guess I have a question for staff again. There's no limit to the number of time extensions that we can, and then sometimes there's a limit to it. There's no limit for something like this.

I'm not sure that's correct.

Okay. And then, so the code doesn't really have anywhere, any way to regulate time extension duration In relation to lot size or project size or anything like that, that's just for the application itself. There's no way to regulate that for lot size.

Madam Chair, that's correct. The condition is worded almost verbatim from the development code. So you're right. It doesn't take into consideration the scope, the scale of size of developments.

Okay. Perfect.

All right. Any other questions? All right. Commissioner Shaffer.

Matt, the applicant referenced Innovator. Do we change Condition 63 with Innovator? Or with the other, sorry, the other sub?

Sure.

I don't recall that Madam chair, Commissioner Schaefer. As far as I know, condition number 63 is a standard condition. I wasn't the assigned reviewer for innovators. Sorry. visionary sub. So I can't speak to that directly. Thanks.

All right, seeing no other questions. All right, seeing no other questions, we will move to public testimony. So is there anybody in person or online who would like to speak on this topic of three minutes? If you're online, please raise your hand. All right. Seeing none, we'll move to rebuttal from the applicant. Since there's no public testimony, I'm not sure if you want to rebut, but you have five minutes if you'd like to speak on anything. You want to yield it? Okay. Okay. Let the record show the elephant yielded the five minutes bottle. And with that, we'll close the public hearing and the item is before the commission. And as a reminder, this is SUV 25-96 and we are the recommending body for the subdivision. I'll entertain a motion.

Madam Chair, motion to approve the sub 25-0096 innovative subdivision on 6310 South Orchard Street. with the adjustment to 14E as stated in the staff presentation of adding commercial portion of the subdivision in the highlighted section on the slide up there that we're seeing in front of us to that.

And just to clarify, that's a recommend approval?

Yeah, recommend approval. Thank you.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Perfect. I have a motion by Commissioner Svancic and a second by Commissioner Torres to recommend approval of SBB 25 with the modified condition 14E to add the commercial portion of the subdivision only on the Blake and Easement. Any discussion, Commissioner Svancic?

Yeah, I'd just like to comment on the changing of any of the conditions here. For 10 and 63, it seems like there is a process for 10 for you to navigate that. I know it sounds like more bureaucracy to go through some of that, but I think it's potentially opens up a gate for us if we start to create these exceptions or extend, create different time extensions when there is a process already in code for those time extensions there too. And then similar for the landscaping in 63 there. And 14E sounds like clear and reasonable to adjust those pieces. So that's... What i'll offer on that.

Thank you, Commissioner sponsor any other discussion Commissioner towards.

Madam chair, I don't have anything to add, I think staff explained the the reason for the conditions pretty well. And I understand the concerns of the applicant, but I think the city's the staff's position makes sense on this application.

Very much any other discussion on this one.

I don't have anything significant to add. I just want to reiterate the three same points. And unfortunately, the cost burden is just not something we're able to make a decision on in that way. I do think the staff did a great job of outlining why 10 and 63, just we have to hold the line.

Any other discussion? All right. I'll add to that. I'm in support of the motion. And I I agree. I mean, unfortunately, Citico doesn't give us an avenue or, you know, there's within the time extension criteria, it doesn't calculate project size. It makes sense to request that, though. I understand why. to minimize the number of times that you're coming through, given the duration of the project. I do understand that. But given that there's no limit to the number of time extensions and all of that, unfortunately, it's a lot of paperwork. But maybe something, I don't even know how you'd add it to the city code, but it could be something to think about. And same thing, agreed on item number 63. Totally understand that bonding for that is Very costly. But again, there's no limit kind of outlined in our city code for that. So I agree with the staff's recommendation as well. So if there's no other discussion, the clerk, we have a recommendation of approval of SUV 25-96 with the modified condition 14E. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Moore? Yes. Schaefer?

Yes.

Neha?

Yes.

Torres.

Yes.

Dowling. Yes. Stefanski.

Yes.

All in favor. Motion carries. Perfect. Thank you very much. Moving. Are we all good for a minute?

Do we need a break?

Good.

Good. Cool. All right, moving on to item number three, CAR 26-2, Mattson Homes, LLC. It was deferred from June 1st, 2026. It is at 4432 West Half Street. It's a rezone of approximately 0.34 acres from R1B SCO, residential suburban with Sycamore overlay. It's the R1C SCO, residential traditional with Sycamore overlay. Mr. Dennis, you're up.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As you said, the item before you is a reason of approximately 0.34 acres from R1B SCO residential suburban with Sycamore overlay to R1C SCO residential traditional residential traditional with Sycamore overlay. This is a brief history on the site. This Sycamore overlay was created in 2001. And in 2024, the applicant received approval of a reason of 0.71 acres, which included the now property to its left. From the base zoning of R1A to R1B, adjusting the maximum density allowance of from 2.1 units per acre to 4.8 units per acre. Following the approval of that rezone, the applicant received approval of a minor land division and to create two buildable lots and a variance to waive the requirement to install sidewalk. Shown here is a conceptual site plan of the proposed development. As you can see, the applicant intends to rezone to R1C in order to accommodate a four lot subdivision. These four lots on 0.34 acres constitutes a residential density of over 11 units per acre. Although as stated within the project report, a subdivision is not currently before the commission for a decision tonight. Rather, the applicant has chosen to pursue the rezone solely tonight, and if approved, will subdivide later. So for some neighborhood context, The site is located near the intersection of Taft Street and Sycamore Drive, the southwest corner of the Sycamore Overlay and Sycamore Neighborhood Plan, the purpose of which is to preserve and encourage land use and development that's consistent with the semi-rural agricultural character and lifestyle of the Sycamore neighborhood, while promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare of present and future residents of the neighborhood and Boise City. As stated within the project report, although the site is in a generally well-connected area in terms of alternative transportation, being within a quarter mile of State Street, an arterial roadway with a bus route and bikeway, MX4 zoning designation, and a community activity center where additional density is typically supported. However, the request does not align with the interests of public convenience and general welfare, which have been expressed through the Sycamore Neighborhood Plan's vision of low density, four units per acre in this area, of which the previous rezone approval and current R1B zoning is in alignment with. And although the applicant cited the adoption of the current zoning code, State Street Corridor TOD Plan and Communities in Motion 2050, Excuse me, as cited changes in the area for which the reason would be needed. Which is a required finding for reasons as stated within the project report. These documents were in effect and contemplated at the time of the previous reason and therefore not considered change change conditions for the planning team does not concur with with these for the following reasons. This table on the left shows the guiding documents that are applicable to this area and the request. As you can see, the Sycamore Neighborhood Plan envisions low density of four units per acre along the northern and southern edges of the neighborhood and a state density of two units per acre internal to the neighborhood. Whereas, as previously stated, the proposed development of four lots on 0.34 acres constitutes a residential density of over 11 units per acre, which substantially exceeds the density envisioned by this plan. Similarly, the neighborhood the cluster neighborhood plan intends to preserve historically rural character, the area, while still allowing reasonable growth through infill such as the previously approved reason request our one being. Finally, the adoption of the current with the adoption of the current zoning zoning code in 2023 after the previous reason of the subject property no changes were implemented implemented to the modified requirements of the sycamore overlay. that would indicate a shift in the city's vision in this area to move away from the rural character and towards densification. Therefore, the planning team finds the proposal exceeds the scale and the compatibility of its surrounding as detailed within these guiding documents. Public comments were received during the review of the rezone and as late correspondence, all of which were in opposition to the rezone and in support of the planning team's recommendation of denial. Shown here is a list of required findings for reasons of which the proposal has not met. And in conclusion, the planning team recommends denial of the variance request, and I will stand for any questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Nance. Next, we'll move on to the applicant. Is the applicant present? Rick, will you come on up and state your name and address, and you'll have 10 minutes.

Yeah, Zach Mattson, 1509.

Right at the mic, just so everybody on the mic can hear you.

Zach Mattson, 1509 West Boise Avenue, Boise.

Perfect. Well, you have 10 minutes.

Yeah. So first of all, I did want to point out a correction from, I think the very first slide where they showed the, um, The first rezone was actually 2023 before the new zoning code took effect. In fact, that application was submitted a few days before the public information came out on that. And then it was approved about two months before the zoning code got implemented. So that's the main change we're focusing on is that the new zoning code changed after the rezone was applied for previously, which also that wasn't me as applicant, I'm a new applicant. So, yeah, I mean, ultimately, we're just focused on the fact that, you know, it seems like the Boise Code and all the other plans around it, the transportation plan, really support higher density, not necessarily like zoning issues. mixed use or anything like that here but it does support uh in the future planning map uh suburban which is supported with r1c in addition two lots over to the east there's already r1c zoning uh along taft street the same way um it's my understanding it's a little bit lower density but it is going to r1c and then the property immediately next door at the church So that remained R1A zoning, but they split off two lots from behind that. And those two lots retained R1A zoning, but they're 7,200 square foot each. So that actually doesn't align with R1A or R1B zoning. They'd be more concurrent with R1C zoning. So that would basically make our lot three lots in a row, which essentially is R1C zoning. So we feel this plan should be supported. In addition, it provides a good buffer from the R2 zoning to the south and then the R1A further into the subdivision behind us. So we understand everybody in the Sycamore overlay is very passionate about their neighborhood and we appreciate that. If this was a property that was further inside that overlay and not along Taft Street, we wouldn't be bringing this application whatsoever. But with the Sycamore overlay, there was a couple of things even when they drafted that document, which by the way, predates the modern zoning code by 25 years. And one of the things about that overlay is they mentioned that Taft Street should have higher density because it doesn't have the same characteristics as the inside interior lots. They specifically say that. They do call out the four units per acre, but since then, obviously, the zoning density has changed throughout the city of Boise. The other things that have changed, or I guess from that original document, is they addressed Taft Street not having the proper sidewalks and safety. And so what we're proposing with our subdivision is to actually widen the street to ACHD standards, which is one half of 36 feet. Ultimately, that means widening that street on our side by about 10 feet from where it currently is at about 18 feet. And then we're also adding or proposing to add detached 10 foot sidewalks, which there's no sidewalks whatsoever along Taft Street in that area. There is a five foot sidewalk on the south side, but it ends approximately where our lot line is. So we feel like that would be a good opportunity to have some kind of crosswalk there where we're to implement safety devices or kind of a delineated walkway for the people in the neighborhood. A lot of the people in the neighborhood, you know, claimed even in that original document that that street, Taft Street, is a very used pathway or used roadway for walks and kids biking and that kind of thing. So I think our subdivision proposal actually will increase the safety of that street in general, which I think is a, you know, kind of something that they've been waiting on for 30 years and ACHD Even just recently, ACHD has kind of canceled and kind of plans of widening that road or adding sidewalks.

You have about six minutes if you want more.

Yeah. So I did want to address a few things, I guess, in the in the codes. So, you know, along the state street specific corridor, it does mention really wanting higher density housing within quarter mile. There's a bus stop. I think it's a relatively new bus stop as well. But that's like a thousand feet away in that Colister shopping mall area there. As well as, you know, there's, you know, obviously there's construction going along State 3 right there, which is basically just improving the transportation and ultimately, you know, adding more housing in a development like this, which isn't, it's not like this is really compact housing. We're not adding duplexes or fourplexes or anything like that. It's single family. So we feel like that's a good buffer. between the higher density and the lower density and still contributing to people that can use the bus system and the new bike lanes and all that infrastructure that we're putting in to help address the public transportation. And then, you know, along again, along with that, the new Boise zoning code, you know, I think we've realized that Boise is more focused now since 2023 on adding housing, whereas previously a lot of times, you know, maybe there's a little bit more pushback on adding housing. So I think that's kind of a, to me, you know, doing developments, it seems like the, you know, the city is much more open to adding housing than it was previously. And that's, you know, demonstrated by, you know, the ADU, adding ADUs, making that simpler, but also higher density throughout the other zones. And I think that's about all I wanted to address here.

Perfect. Well, if you'll just hang tight for a minute, we'll check in and see if the Neighborhood Association is available, and then we'll have questions for the commission. So, okay, so next is the Neighborhood Association. I have Collister, Nate Black. Is anybody from the Collister Neighborhood Association present, either in person or online? If you're online, you can raise your hand. And seeing none, we'll move on to questions from the commission for either staff or the applicants.

Madam Chair, Commissioner Torres. My question is for staff. The applicant mentioned the timing of the rezone in 2023. I just wanted to give you a chance to respond to that.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioner Torres. The applicant was correct in that the previous rezone was submitted within a week of the adoption of the current zoning code. So it did fall within that buffer of being reviewed and approved in 2024, but was still being reviewed and was approved under the legacy zoning code.

Madam Chair, another question for the applicant, please. Realizing that this is just a rezone and there's no subdivision application here, it's very early in the process for you if this were approved. Can you give a rough idea of will these be market rate houses? Will they be just for sale? Will they be rentals? Will they be affordable in any way? What's your estimate if you can give one on what the range would be on these houses?

Yeah, the idea would just be to build... Oh, sorry, Zach Madsen, 1509 West Boise Avenue, Boise. So the idea would just be to build houses that are for sale for the neighborhood. So... you know, depending on when they're marketed and sold there. I think the square footages are, we're on one of the diagrams, but they're going to be about 1750 square feet. So not necessarily entry-level housing, but you know, that's hard to do in Boise. I do actually have some other developments that I'm doing other places in Boise that are more entry-level, but this is, you know, kind of a mid-range housing product, which we feel like would fit in the neighborhood anyway.

So, so just to clarify, they would be market rate though.

Yeah.

Okay.

I have a question for staff. So the original rezone was approved under the legacy code and the applicant has indicated that the two homes behind the Colister Methodist Church were also approved. They were approved under the legacy code as well, right?

Madam Chair, Commissioner Seha, thank you for the question. The neighboring religious institution to the east, it was approved under the previous zoning code. And the reason why the size of those lots don't match the zoning is because the previous zoning code allowed planned unit developments as conditional use permits. And so those are PUDs. PUDs allowed reduced lot sizes and dimensional standard setbacks, that sort of thing. In in response to the applicant required amenities, so it was a previous condition of approval conditional use permit.

Thank you for the clarification.

Any other questions from the Commission. Well, everybody kind of thinks about it for a minute. I've got a couple of questions. So I think I remember seeing this back in 2023, but I don't remember, was there a sidewalk included? It was probably attached if there was, but do you clarify?

Madam Chair, thank you for the question. The previous rezone was a standalone rezone as well. Subdivision wasn't required. But that one, because the applicant at that time chose to minor land divide with the administrative application. Gotcha. So it didn't require going to a hearing. It's an administrative. It was a two lot split minor land division.

Okay. And so, but would a sidewalk be required for it to develop that?

Madam Chair, yes. The sidewalk was required. The applicant received approval previously for uh to waive that sidewalk improvement so um it was a sidewalk waiver that was i'm sorry sidewalk variance that was granted right okay and then do you know why what was the why was the the waiver accepted whereas they can do the sidewalk now um madam chair i think part of that is um better answered by the applicant why they can uh you know why they're proposing a sidewalk now but but not previously i can tell you previously it was the the variance was granted due to cited hardships from the applicant there was a canal that runs along the frontage parallel with taft street there's also existing trees i think if i'm remembering correctly uh those were the two of the main justification points for the previous variance. I also remember that there was an ACHC plan improvement along the south side. So those three really provided justification for connectivity, lack of connectivity on that subject site. But for the first part of your question, the rezone itself does not require a sidewalk. So it's just rezoning the property. The sidewalk would be required for a subsequent subdivision application.

Gotcha. OK. And so I guess same question for the applicant. So previously sidewalk waiver, but now we can do the sidewalk. So I'm assuming either the trees condition may have changed or, and maybe with the detached, you can get it outside of that lateral. Is that kind of.

Yeah, so they did have a variance previously. So for the single lot that's sitting there now, there's no requirement to put in any sidewalks whatsoever. To do a subdivision, we know we'd have to put in sidewalks, and we don't intend on submitting a variance at all for that. Part of the reason is, yeah, for that detached eight-foot landscape buffer, it allows to have the sidewalk behind the canal. And we do realize, too, as a subdivision, we'd have to probably pipe the canal off. um, or, you know, do something else to, to retain it. Um, but also doing more homes actually just, I mean, it allows for us to do that feasibly, um, versus with one house. A lot of times that's a, just a big expense that doesn't make sense for somebody to do. So, um, but, uh, but yeah, and it's kind of my, I don't know exactly when it changed, but the, the, you know, to have 10 foot detached sidewalks now, it seems like it's a relatively new thing. I And then the detached sidewalk versus the attached, I think that changed with the new zoning code. I'm not, you guys can probably confirm with that. But whereas previously, if that would have been a five foot attached sidewalk requirement, it would have been much more difficult to do.

Okay, understood. Thank you. And then, so another question for staff. Part of the whole reason, I think there was a piece in your staff report about kind of going we went through Blueprint Boise and kind of reviewed and updated all of the outdated things that it was referencing and that happened before the initial application so that had already been kind of updated and and we'd already determined that the sigamore overlay was still applicable and still current before the initial application was was made is that correct madam chair that's accurate yes um the blueprint boise was updated

excuse me, along with the development code. It was updated after the development code to reflect changing in zoning and things like that. That was really the largest thing because Blueprint Boise, like Mr. Mattson alluded to, for each land use, lists allowed zones within there. And so with the adoption of the new code, the office zones and the commercial zones needed uh were changed to mx zones within the development code but the blueprint boise was updated shortly after to bring it up to those standards so like the reflected changing and zoning and any other kind of um general updates like that and like you were saying that's correct that the sycamore overlay uh was not modified i'm sorry the the sycamore neighborhood plan and the other guiding documents weren't modified with that, weren't updated along with the update of the Blueprint Boise.

Okay. So we've determined that that's still current, even through the zoning codes, that didn't change at that point, even though the zoning code did update, including some densities and some proximity to transportation values and things like that?

That's correct. Okay.

Thanks. Madam Chair. Commissioner Sivancic.

This is just a clarifying question. It's really going to test how much history you have here. But did you look at the one on the corner of Hawthorne and Taft that is zoned R1C and it has a conditional use or a condition on that? Do we know what that is limited to? I think it's been referenced by the applicant and I think also some residents that submitted written testimony. Even though it's R1C though, is it limited to the amount of lots that can be on there or the size of those lots that are similar to R1B?

Commissioner Stefanczyk, to be honest, I don't know the ins and outs of the neighboring conditional use permit.

Madam Chair, members of the commission, that was actually my project. The development agreement on that essentially limited, it gave it the R1C zone, but then limited to R1B density and R1B standards.

Okay.

And it was done because of some setbacks for trying to make setbacks match on some existing structures in the area to get a record of survey.

Okay. So we can kind of read that as our one.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

And for the record, that is David Mosher.

All right. Seeing no other questions. Last call. Nope. All right. Well, with that, we'll move on to the public testimony portion. I have one person signed up, so we'll start there. And then after that, if you can just come up, but let's start with Wendy Ellestad. And if you'll give your name and address, you'll have three minutes.

My name is Wendy Ellestad. I live at 3500 Sycamore Drive. Three minutes. Three minutes. Excellent. I would like to testify that I'm in great support of the staff report on this particular request. The Sycamore Neighborhood Association or the Sycamore Neighborhood Plan is one that was developed built from the ground up from neighbors around 20, 30 years ago in the late 90s. It's something that the neighborhood holds dear. The rural aspect of our neighborhood with no sidewalks and large lots is something that we specifically move into the neighborhood to retain. it's so important to us that several years ago we went door to door and we knocked on everyone's doors in the neighborhood and asked them whether or not they were still in support of the neighborhood plan specifically the large lots the rural character and whether it was something that they would support moving forward we had over 90 of the people in the neighborhood sign their name on a petition supporting the Sycamore Neighborhood Plan. It's not something that's defunct, and it's not something that we no longer pay attention to. We appreciate the reference in Blueprint Boise, and we also appreciate that the Sycamore overlay was retained during the Modern Zoning Code rewrite. Multiple of us are here tonight to make sure that you understand that we deeply appreciate staff paying attention to what's important in our neighborhoods.

Perfect. Well, thank you very much. You have a minute and a half if you want it. Otherwise, all right. Okay, so next I'm going to get anybody in person will go first. And then after that, if you're online, if you'll raise your hands, we'll have you kind of speak after everybody in the chambers. So if you're in the chambers, please come on up and want to speak on this topic. Please come on up. You'll have three minutes. Sounded like there might be a couple. Awesome. If you'll state your name and address, you'll have three minutes.

My name's Douglas Trinka, 3808 North Hawthorne Drive. I was the Neighborhood Association president during the rezone. So that was my comment about the R1CDASCO acronym there on that address. quote unquote R1C property that there is no R1C development standard within the Sycamore neighborhood. So I just wanted to really clarify that for everyone. The question that Mr. Mattson had to answer was what changed? He says that the zoning code changed. But you guys got to see a really lovely map of a rectangle for the Sycamore neighborhood carved out of the higher density areas of State Street around it. The new zoning code thought about this. They considered what to do here. They made a decision that nothing was going to change and that the Sycamore neighborhood would remain carved out with the same density that the Sycamore neighborhood plan calls for. So I don't see anything that has changed that would allow for an update to the recent rezoning to R1B. I also want to note that with regard to the sidewalk question, it would be really great to have sidewalks there. But that's not something that we're thinking about right now. This is a zoning question, right? And so we don't know, after this rezone is done, what the applicant is going to do with that space. He's not bound to do anything that he's promised today. There's no subdivision application before you. This is just, can we split this into four? And then who knows what's going to happen after that. I think that's all I've got.

Very cool. Thank you very much.

Thanks, y'all.

Thank you. All right. Is there anybody else in chambers who would like to speak on this topic? Come on up. You'll have three minutes if you'll state your name and address.

Hi, my name is Michael Bing. I live at 3209 North Hawthorne Drive, about five houses down from and around the corner from the property in discussion here. And I'm here to just basically discuss the, while this may not be directly applicable to the zoning, I want to point out that our entire neighborhood is using the, is part of the Boise canal company system. And we, every neighborhood, every property on that neighborhood floods irrigate. And that property that is in discussion right now, has a single drainage that is important to all of us. If that gets stopped up, we don't get any kind of drainage left in that and they have to shut down the canal system. The builder, other than saying, well, we're gonna cover it up, has not really addressed how they're gonna guarantee that we have still the drainage that's required ACHD was supposed to or had plans earlier this decade to widen the road. And I think that with widening the road should be involved with ACHD and the Boise Canal Company that this is addressed appropriately and not just a builder that's going to say, oh, we'll cover it up and not. And we took care of it because then ultimately it does fall upon the new owners of the property, each individual three or four owners to have to address the needs of our canal users. And state law says that we have the right to have it cleared and to make sure that it's treated appropriately, whether they're a canal user or not. It's a right of way and an easement. And so that's, What my main concern is, and this is why I'm opposing this change without appropriate addressing of how our canal system is going to be affected. Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right. Anybody else in chambers? Last call. Seeing none, we'll move online. I don't see any hands up, but give one second longer. If you do want to testify, if you'll just raise your hand. Seeing none. All right. Well, With that, we will move on to applicant rebuttal. If you'd like to rebut, you have five minutes.

Yeah. Zach Mattson, 1509 West Boise Avenue, Boise. Just in response to the last gentleman, I do want to reassure everybody that as part of conditions of approval with any subdivision, once we have to come in front of the same board and city council, and typically with every subdivision, we have to retain drainage and irrigation water. Um, so that's, that's all, you know, devised by engineers that, you know, make sure that, that, uh, irrigation water gets routed properly. And then, uh, the other thing with that too, is we have to provide access and easement for that. So we had in our initial, uh, plans even as well, that we would have the locations of the new irrigation boxes and they would have sufficient easements. In fact, we talked to the, uh, the irrigation company as well. And we, we know on that far east property line, we have to have a, I think a 10 foot easement versus a standard five foot setback. So that is addressed in our plan going forward. And then, you know, as part of the previous gentleman as well, you know, all of our plans have to come back before, once we do a subdivision, have to come back before the same board. So, you know, when they're, you know, bringing up certain concerns, you know, like putting in the sidewalk, you know, obviously I'm standing here today saying that we're going to put in a sidewalk because that's what we have on our plans. We've already accounted for that. We're not going to be seeking a variance. But if I'm standing here today and then two months from now, I come in for a subdivision, you know, application, you guys hear me say, Oh, we're trying to get a variance, you're probably going to deny that because it's all the same people. So I just want to address that point. The other thing too, that I think I think this was in effect before the previous subdivision, but I don't think many people pay attention to it is just the future land use maps. It's my understanding that those were implemented in like 2022 and not really before that. And the future land use maps now show that this area is supported by suburban zoning, which is it's R1A, R1B, R1C, but it does support R1C zoning. And we already have indications along Taft Street of a little bit higher zoning density than the interior lots. And again, I'm not going to come up a year from now and say, I want to rezone the lot behind it to R1C as well. This is specifically because it's along Taft Street. And back in that original neighborhood plan, it says that those lots don't have the same character as the interior lots. What has changed since that almost 30-year-ago plan is the new zoning, and the new zoning is encouraging more housing. Because I think everybody can realize that in order to combat the affordability crisis or the affordable homes is you need more housing. And so whenever we can provide more housing, that makes sense. I think that should be supported by housing.

by everybody and still you know retain the characteristics of those interior lots that everybody's so passionate about thank you thank you all right with that we will close the public hearing portion of this hearing and the item is before the commission and as a reminder we are the recommending body for this car 26-2 and we'll entertain a motion

Madam Chair, I move to recommend denial on CAR 26-2, Mass in Homes, based on the staff report findings.

I have a motion. Do you recommend denial? Do I have a second? Second. Great. I have a motion to recommend denial from Commissioner Seha and a second from Commissioner Stallings. Is there any discussion?

Madam Chair, it's pretty clear that the State Street plan was in place for transit. Communities in Motion was in place for transit. I was part of the Modern Zoning Code committee, volunteer committee, and the city went to great lengths to inform the community, including the development community. And I apologize, Mr. Mattson, if you were not living in Boise at the time. But they did do a really good job of trying to inform the public. I also want to note that during that timeframe, the initial draft of the rezone, included a change to the Sycamore overlay area. The final draft reverted back to the lowest density in the area. So I am in agreement with the planning staffs report and I don't see any change here. I will say that there's an opportunity to look at certain sections that are extremely close. And in this particular case, this particular area, it's less than two blocks away from a transit oriented development area. And I hope that the city in the future considers revisiting those particular segments of the area, not the heart of the Sycamore overlay, but those edges. So today I will be supporting the denial.

Thank you, Commissioner Seha, Commissioner Stallings.

Madam Chair, yeah, I wanted to just say I appreciate those who gave written testimony and those who spoke up tonight to the applicant. Personally, I also love more housing types. I appreciate the idea of what you may propose had this gone your way or if this goes your way. But I do believe in honoring a city for everybody is honoring the Sycamore overlay in here and what they fought for and what they've built and the character that they want in this area. I think that needs to be respected too. I think staff did a great job of outlining and really honing in on weighing it. I don't think this was looked at very lightly. While I appreciate that... I would like to see a little bit more density in my personal opinion. I do think there are other opportunities to find that. That's otherwise I really second what Commissioner Seha said.

Thank you, Commissioner Torres. Yeah, I'll be in support of the motion. I'm always reluctant to turn down potential new housing. I stay up here all the time about our need to build more housing to catch up to the demand and to bring down or at least stabilize housing prices in Boise and in the broader Treasure Valley. There are things I really like in this proposed project. I mean, I like the pedestrian improvements. I do think that those would be beneficial. And I'm sometimes frustrated that our zoning code isn't more ambitious than it is when it comes to housing and infill, but we're not up here to give our opinions on those kinds of things within reason. We're supposed to apply the code and we have a little bit of flexibility as defined in the code to make exceptions to things. And I just feel in this case, when you look at all the plans that were already in place, you look at the fact that the modern zoning code retained the Sycamore overlay, Unfortunately, well, you know, I agree with what Commissioner Seha said that this is an area that we should look at in future updates to the code. Unfortunately, I have to concur with my colleagues about denying this, recommending denial of this, I should say. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Torres. Any other discussion? No. Great. Well, I'll also be supporting the motion and agreed. I mean, any other location, R1, you've got R2, R1C adjacent. I mean, it, It's a transitional zone. Adding R1C there makes total sense in any other location. But this overlay district is very specific. It's been kind of re-looked at a few times. That was a good note from Commissioner Ceja. And I think it still stands. And that overlay district has broader impacts, right? Because your adjacency to lower density developments, smaller, shorter developments, will impact the adjacent properties as well. So there are some like broader impacts with your setbacks and your step backs that are required there. So any other location, I think it makes total sense. It's just the overlay district. The city has determined that is still valid and that is still something that we have in the code. And so with that, I'm in agreement with the city's analysis. And with that, we'll have a moment, we'll, Call the roll. And as a reminder, we have a recommend, we have CAR 26-2 and we're recommending denial. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Moore? Yes. Schaefer?

Yes.

Seha?

Yes.

Torres?

Yes.

Stallings? Yes. Stefancic?

Yes.

All in favor? Motion carries.

Great. Do we want to take a break before item number five?

All right.

Let's take a break and we'll be back at 735. Thank you.

Yeah. Yeah. That's awesome. That's awesome. Well, it's not. You all right? Yeah, that's right. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, that's right. Oh, sorry. Yes. Yes. So it's very well. Well, it's just like.

It's just not like we're. Yeah.

Yeah. Oh, okay. I forgot you were doing that. Yeah, that's awesome. Not against. I'm really looking into it all. Okay. Okay, good one.

We're gonna hold for five minutes. We're gonna hold for five minutes.

What are we doing here?

We're two minutes over.

Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Are we ready to keep moving?

All right.

I think we're ready to keep moving. We've got everybody up here.

Excellent.

Good, good. Okay, cool. So next up on the agenda, next up on the agenda is number five, CAR26-6 for Micron Technology. Hang tight with me for a second here. Parcel number S1608141800, S16081417250. And S1609300000. Got it. Annexation of approximately 23, 239.3 acres with the zoning designation of I3AIOWIODA. Industrial technology with airport influence overlay and wildland urban interface overlay and development agreement zone. for approximately 79.6 acres and a zoning designation of I3WUIDA industrial technology with wildland urban interface overlay and development agreement zone for approximately 159.7 acres. A modification of a development agreement is also included. In addition, we have CUP 26-12, also for micron technology, at parcel number S160841-7250, which is a conditional use permit for an electric substation on approximately 39.8 acres in a pending I3-AIO-WUIO-DA industrial technology with airport influence overlay, wildland urban interface overlay, and development agreement zones. Mr. Moser.

Madam Chair, sorry, David. Madam Chair, recuse on this item as stated earlier in the meeting. I'm a partner at Land Group. We completed some of the survey documents for this application. So I'm just going to recuse.

Thank you very much, Mr. Moser. Mr. Moser.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the commission. The applicant requests an annexation of approximately 239.7 acres with the zoning designation of I-3 industrial technology zone. with the following overlays, which include airport influence area, wildland and urban interface, and the development agreement. In addition, a modification of the development agreement to expand the DA into the area being annexed was included. The application also includes a conditional use permit for an electrical substation and the associated power transmission poles that are approximately 85 to 100 feet in height within the annexed area. The subject property is generally addressed at 8000 South Frederick Way, which is the main address for the Micron campus. This is the facility or the vicinity map of the general area. The 239.7 acre annexation area is located immediately east of the existing Micron campus outlined in green and within the Boise City area of impact. With a land use designation of pine community to the south and east of the annexation areas undeveloped land within Ada county and city of Boise in the portions of the annexed area. adjacent to the east and north of butts painted rich subdivision subdivision residential subdivision and the future rush valley residential subdivision. The surrounding area is primarily comprised of industrial and undeveloped land, except for the residential subdivisions along Columbia Road to the northeast. This slide also shows the Micron campus in the previous expansion, which includes the 386-acre annexation that happened back in 2022, outlined in blue, and the 517-acre annexation that happened in 2023 to the south, outlined in yellow. This slide shows the land use and zoning map of the surrounding area and the annexation area. The subject property is designated planned community on the comprehensive plan land use map, which permits the I-3 zoning and is consistent with the comprehensive plan, which calls for coordinated sustainable patterns of growth within the Boise area of impact and supports the annexation. The annexation is adjacent to city limits to the west and can meet the appropriate level of services. As part of the application and the greater micron campus expansion, the applicant proposed to change the AC hd master street map this slide shows the applicants proposed master. Changes to the master street map on the left and what the AC hd Commission approved on the right at their June 24 hearing. Based on the AC hd commission's recommendation, a conditional approval requires that micron technology dedicate right away across the property. as seen on the ACHD-approved Master Street Map, which included dedicating 100 feet of right-of-way along the future arterial roadways where it is located entirely within the applicant's property and dedicating half of the future arterial and collector roadways or right-of-ways where Micron controls just half of the future roadway. This slide is the conceptual master plan for the Micron campus showing the future phases and expansions of the campus, including the future large manufacturing chip building, which is known as ID2. And it's shown here on the plan just to get an idea kind of how the future phases of the campus will expand. This slide shows the site plan which includes the micron campus and it shows the airport influence areas annexation area and the new areas included in the DA modification. In addition to the annexation, the applicant proposes to construct an electrical substation and associated transmission power lines in the area being annexed. The site plan also shows the location of the proposed 40 foot high berm along the property boundaries and it appears that the construction of the berm has already started in Ada County. The intent of the berm is to screen the Micron campus from the adjacent residential neighborhoods. And in summary, the annexation and the DA modification to include the annex areas into the DA is consistent with the required findings of the development agreement as detailed within the project report. This slide shows the detailed site plan showing the annexation area. and the proposed electrical substation and transmission power lines. The electrical substation will include outdoor transmission or transformers separated by firewalls, modular east house units, and two buildings containing high and medium voltage electrical equipment. In addition, 14 new power transmission poles will be installed connecting the new electrical substation to the larger Idaho Power Transmission Corridor that extends across the annexed area. height of the proposed power power transmission poles will range between 85 to 100 feet in the heights these heights are similar to the existing transmission lines that already extend across the subject property these improvements will require a conditional use permit and the findings are detailed within the project port in summary the substation and power poles are cons are consistent with the findings of the development code the location is ideal because it is situated between the Idaho Power high-voltage transmission lines and Micron. The location will allow for efficient electrical usage while minimizing the need for extra power lines, and the electrical substation is separated from the residential areas by approximately 1,500 feet, and the power poles are separated from the residential uses by approximately 500 feet and screened by a 40-foot high berm. It will also locate within an open area not surrounded by buildings or other developments. The planning team received letters of opposition to the project from the public expressing concerns with the future roadway connections in the larger area and the adverse impacts associated with the annexation and the proposed improvements on the adjacent residential neighborhood. To address these concerns, I would note that the electrical substation and power poles are located about 1,500 feet and 500 feet from the residential neighborhood respectively. In addition, the changes to the master street map have already been approved by ACHD commission. And I will note that, however, I will note that an error occurred and two public letters from the Hawkins company regarding the proposed master street map change were not included in your project report by accident. Once again, the changes to the master street map were approved by the ACHD commission on June 24th and the recommendations were included as a condition of approval. I will also note that I believe the representative Hawkins company is here today and it appears the Commission will have opportunity to ask them any additional questions they have regarding their concerns after their testimony, if it is so desired. In summary, the planning team recommends approval of the annexation and conditional use permit. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Moser. Next we'll hear from the applicant and you'll have 10 minutes to state your name and address.

Good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners. My name is Jeff Binford. My address is 8000 South Federal Way. I'm representing Micron tonight. I'm the Senior Director of U.S. Expansion Planning. I'll take a few minutes to share some background about the project and about our request, and then I'll turn it over to Deb Nelson to provide additional details on the full application tonight. As you know, Micron is in a major expansion mode right now. We have announced $50 billion worth of investment in the Boise area, which includes building two leading edge manufacturing fabs on our existing campus. The city has already annexed and zoned much of the land that's needed for the expansion. And the facilities are currently under development. As you can see in this recent aerial image, the one on the left is what we call ID1. That's the existing building that's under construction. We began construction of that factory at the end of 2023. and all of the related facilities and buildings that are required to run that factory. Our new expansion that we announced last year, ID2, will mirror ID1. It will have all of the same buildings that are required to run that factory, including water treatment, a gas plant, and also the electrical yard, which we're here tonight to talk about. Our current application would annex the additional micron lands on the east side that are needed for the electrical yard that will be adjacent to ID2 facilities and adjacent to the existing Idaho power transmission lines. We definitely appreciate the work of the city on reviewing this application. And we are in full agreement with the staff report and the recommended conditions of approval, which also include the recommended conditions of approval from ACHD that we received last week. And we ask for your approval tonight. I'll pass it over to Deb now to discuss more details of our application.

And you probably know this with your name and address.

Yes, thanks, Madam Chair, members of the commission, Deborah Nelson. My address is 601 West Bannock Street in Boise, also here on behalf of Micron. And there's other members of the Micron team that are with us. And also, Idaho Power representative is here as well. And any of us may be available to answer your questions. So as David described to you, we have three applications before you tonight, annexation and zoning of approximately 240 acres to the I-3 industrial technology zone, a modification of the existing micron development agreement, and a conditional use permit approval or request for the electrical yard and power poles that exceed 85 feet. First, the annexation and zoning application. You can see there on the east side highlighted in green the approximately 240 acres that we proposed to annex. We're also requesting the I-3 zoning, which is consistent with the zoning throughout the campus, as you can see in the purple there. The annexation is appropriate because Micron has consented as the landowner, the land is contiguous to city limits in the areas within the city's comprehensive planning area where services are available. Annexing this property will further the city's comprehensive plan goals of contiguous and efficient development And it's aligned with the goal, the economic goals to support existing businesses and ensure sufficient land for clean high tech industry. The annexation specifically supports the comp plan southeast Boise area policy that identifies the land around the micron campus as reserved for future high tech industrial expansion. The development agreement modification is our second application. This would modify the existing and recorded development agreement to incorporate the proposed annexation area on the east, as well as an additional property that you can see highlighted in blue there that was part of the prior annexations and zoned I-3, but was inadvertently left out of the development agreement. As part of the city's adopted I3 zoning, you do have a requirement for designation of internal and peripheral areas. The peripheral areas require design review. This is really designed for large technology manufacturing campuses, understanding that the internal areas are really internal to the site and not outward facing. And consistent with this, the existing development agreement does include these areas. And with this modification, we are realigning those peripheral and internal areas and adding the new properties. So the yellow here demonstrates the internal area and then the boundary around it in white still has the peripheral areas. Our third application is for conditional use permit for the electrical yard with substation along with the power poles over 85 feet that are similar to the existing transmission lines that are in and around the campus. So as we described in our application materials and confirmed in the staff report, this request meets the city's CUP approval criteria. This location is uniquely suited for these uses since the substation and poles are placed between Idaho Power's existing transmission lines and the Micron campus. And they're separated from the residences by a large berm and a significant distance, 500 feet for the power poles and over 1300 feet for the substation, excuse me, over 1500 feet for the substation. The blue and yellow poles here that you can see, this is just, we added a little color from what David showed you so you could see what's existing. The blue and yellow on the outside are existing poles. The blue will just remain. The yellow are being replaced and rebuilt as part of this project. And the red are the new poles. There will be no material negative impacts due to the distance, the berm, and really the non-intensive nature of the use. The substation does not create any material noise that is detectable above background noise at the distance where it's located here. It does not have emissions or cause electrical interference. It will have no impact on the power service to adjoining properties. With these applications, we also wanted to notify the city and let you know about existing burn plans. So that's part of the design of this annexed area. These are actually already under construction pursuant to existing Ada County approvals. And upon completion, these berms will be up to 40 feet in height and up to 280 feet in width with a gradual slope profile that you can see here. They will be seeded with natural grasses that are appropriate from the area and consistent with Ada County approved grasses. At the request of ACHD staff and as mentioned by David, we also requested the master street map amendment to relocate a proposed arterial and collector system away from Micron's planned expansion area. We appreciate the city's letter of support of the master street map application to ACHD. And as was noted, the ACHD commission did approve the request for modification with changes to the alignment which Micron can accept. The city staff report now includes a proposed condition of approval that incorporates ACHD's recommended alignment and a requirement for dedication of right-of-way, and Micron also is agreeable to that condition of approval. We understand that the ongoing... I'm missing a slide here.

It's just out of order.

Okay. We understand that the ongoing expansion is certainly generating traffic impacts for the surrounding roadways around the campus. So we wanted to... highlight some of the additional projects that Micron is actively implementing to address traffic concerns. This includes routing most worker and construction traffic to the south side of the campus, adding signals and roadway capacity and really continuing to evaluate additional improvements as construction progresses with ongoing studies. In summary here, you can see, starting at the top, that there will be widening along Technology Way and a new signal there at the Circuit Lane. There'll be a new turn lane at what we call the mask buildings, the mask driveway along Columbia Road. And coming down Federal Way, there's improvements, frontage improvements, street lights. added all along Federal Way. There are new signals that are designated there towards the northwest corners of the campus there. There's an existing signal that isn't shown to the south as well. And so these signals are facilitating access to the campus and really directing a lot of the access to where we're also putting in new parking improvements to pull workers down away from Columbia Road and to utilize Federal Way. We're also making improvements along Eisenman Road exit working with ACHD and ITD. They're now on temporary signals and restriping of lanes to facilitate access there to a larger construction access on the south end of the campus. So Micron is also working with the city and specifically with the Boise Fire Department on a private road that Micron will construct through the campus utilizing construction roads where appropriate and extending where needed to accommodate emergency vehicle access in the event of a major emergency where Columbia Road is not accessible. This will not be a dedicated public emergency access that could facilitate future residential development because we don't control all the land. But we are working with our neighboring landowner. May I wrap up for another 30 seconds? Thank you. 30 seconds. Yes. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Micron will continue to make this available as long as we have the permissions. We'll continue to work with the fire department to facilitate that access. And we will also coordinate with ACHD on any connections to public right-of-way. So for those reasons, thank you for letting me have that extra moment. And we request your support of these applications. We'd stand for any questions.

Thank you very much. Right at 30 seconds too. Awesome. Well, before we move to questions, we'll check in with the neighborhood association. I'm seeing Southeast Boise neighborhood association, Eric Berg. Don't see him in chambers and I don't see his hand online. They're still saying no. All right. Well, next we'll have questions from the commission. So any questions?

Adam Chair. Commissioner Torres. You look like you were going for it. Commissioner Svancic and I are like racing for the button. My question's for the city. So there were some concerns raised in the, I don't remember if it was in the original staff report or in the late respondents by Ethan Mansfield about a solar project located near this. Can you address those?

Not if you're a member of the commission. I believe there was a solar project that was proposed out in the county land that these future roadways that were initially proposed might extend through. But I think that was withdrawn or has expired. I think the applicant might build a, there were two of them. One was up closer in and one was farther out. I think the one that was closer in, I don't think it's proceeding forward anymore. And I believe that was all that it with the, during the ACHD meeting, they were discussing the future maps.

Do you have anything to add to that?

Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioner Torres. Yeah, I think that covers it. There is an approval for a solar farm there that is not yet constructed, but the way ACHD approved the master street map, there is no road that is going south now through that area. And so they only approved the portion at the north, and then they requested that the agency's Micron and surrounding landowners continue to work on any future plans that go south of the Micron campus to facilitate future connection to Blacks Creek. And so that is not part of the current Master Street Map amendment approved by ACHD.

Thank you. Madam Chair, just another question. On the map, when we were looking at the different power poles, the ones that were being replaced, the ones that are being added, and the ones that are going to remain, I apologize if I missed in the staff report. Can you clarify, are they all the same height generally? Are they similar in height? And this can be for either staff or the applicant.

Madam Chair, Commissioner Torres, I think I can address that. So the existing poles that are in that area range from 70 feet to 100 feet now, and they will be in that same range going forward, more 85 to 100 feet is the expectation, which is why they're included in our conditional use permit. And so they'll be in a comparable size to the existing poles.

Okay, thank you.

Madam Chair. Commissioner Sponsor.

This is a question, I think, for the applicants. I'm sorry. I tried to get you before you sat down. For the berms you're building, the purpose of them is to shield residents, or not shield, but view of site. There's a large gap in the berm in the design. Can you explain why there's a gap if it's supposed to limit the view of the power stations?

Madam Chair, Commissioner Stefanczyk, did I say that correctly? Thank you. So the original plan for the berms did not have that break, but it was part of a change in part because of communication with the neighbors. There was a preliminary neighborhood meeting to discuss this, and we wanted to provide emergency access through there. They requested a break in the gates to allow emergency access through the gates as well. Yeah, through the, well, it's two different things. Initially, it was to create gates in the fence to allow emergency access to run behind their neighborhood, but in between the berms in the neighborhood. And then more recently, yes, there's been discussion about the road that would also connect through there. The berms are intended for two purposes. One, because Micron needs for its grading facilities, which is part of the 80-county grading approval. to move the dirt. We've got to do a massive amount of excavation to accommodate the ID2. And so it is to facilitate the larger project balancing of the site with the dirt available. It also is intended to create screening. And so that's why they're being designed the way they are and located in the places where they are. So it's for those two purposes.

Well, thank you. And I have one other question about the berms. So you mentioned the grass that you selected for the berms was approved by the county, right? It's the county mix. And so actually, this is a question for staff, though. Is the city and does it have the same vegetation mix that's acceptable, given that this is also a WUI area?

Madam Madam Chair members of Commission. I'm not an expert per se on mix, but the Parks Department did didn't know or. Did right or provide commented in or for the project and didn't they didn't specify any concerns regarding the mix with their comments. OK, cool. Just wanted to check said see that.

Manager, I have a question for staff and possibly the applicant. So along the same lines. The county – the seed mix that was shared is something the county would like us to – or the applicant to move forward with. In light of – I don't know if it's just me, but I smell smoke in here. But in light of the smoke that we see out there and the range fire that we – have seen this afternoon. I think the only comment that we received via email was from a resident from the adjacent subdivision who expressed a number of concerns. One of them was fire as well. Would there be, and I guess maybe this is a question for the staff, rather than planting Is there an option to place something there that is more fire resistant?

Madam Chair, members of the commission. I guess that's kind of what the native grass selection is trying to do. It's trying to provide native grass. If you don't plant anything there, then you're going to get weeds or something else invasive that might take control. So we're trying to plant it or seed it with something that we want to see, and that would theoretically be native and would ideally hope control the fire. Beyond that, or if there's any other solution, I I mean, I would have to talk with like the fire marshal and see what their thoughts are on that, if there's another option out there. If that answers your question.

Yeah, I was thinking non-vegetation. I hate to say it, but like bark, not bark, but like rock of some kind. Just something to think about.

If you've got any here.

I think David answered it very well. I think that is the intent of that ground cover. It's also for stability.

Any other questions?

I've got a few questions while everybody kind of thinks a little bit more on the topic of that. You know vegetation things like that I know there's there's a lot of discussion about the amount of space it's either gravel or stuff that doesn't defensible space essentially or something like that around the electrical substation there's a requirement for that. They have one of the conditions is that they'll meet fires requirements which fires requirements is that they'll meet the current. fire code requirements. So that would include any sort of requirement for a buffer zone that doesn't have vegetation and things like that. Is that correct around this electrical substation?

Madam Chair, members of the Commission, that is correct. I mean, the substation will have to comply with our WUE standards and our fire safety standards, which I believe the applicant is intending to do based on their project report and letter of explanation.

And on the terms of this kind of vegetation berm, this is a WUI zone. So there are kind of requirements for dispensable space. So there's a certain landscape requirement that you're allowed to build around buildings and structures and things like that in a WUI zone. Is that how I understand WUI?

Madam Chair, members of commission, within the WUI zone, we do, or the fire department does have a list of preferable plants that we would like to see, native plants that are fire resistant. And they do have a list of plants that they don't want to see in that area too. And I believe the applicant's selection here is, you know, is kind of, is in line with our WUI standards.

Right. So that kind of helps go both ways. It helps kind of fires from the grasses surrounding and anything internal. It kind of is pulling a little bit of double duty in this case, I would assume.

Madam Chair, Madam Chair of the Commission, that is correct. You know, also our WUI standards are intended to provide that buffer between structure, whereas the berm is not necessarily a structure that we're trying to defend against. But the grass selection is that they're trying to reseed it with is part of that overall fire safety plan.

Madam Chair, may I add a comment to that too? Please. So within the substation, there will be gravel on the ground to create that defensible space around the buildings as well.

Perfect. Awesome. And then the last piece that I had kind of right offhand was that southern roadway. So that is no longer part of the Master Street Map for ACHD. It's based on the revised Master Street Map. So if any other areas, because I see something from the Department of Lands with the concern about getting rid of that southern extension as well. If anybody else wanted to add that southern extension back to the Master Street map, they would need to apply to ACHD and go through that application process.

Madam Chair, members of the Commission, you know, any adjustment to the Master Street Map would have to go back to the ACHD for their approval. So if somebody wanted to come back and readjust it again or change it or add, it would have to go back before the Highway District Commission.

Sure. And then the Highway District, if something was approved utilizing that extension, they don't just take that away as part of a Master Street Map kind of revision. That's something that either the approvals were expired or something like that. That's why they allowed that Southern extension to go away. Or is it a must be built first sort of thing. And I see.

Madam chair, I think I can probably answer your question or add comments to your question. So Micron proposed the Southern extension to connect down to Black's Creek to create additional connectivity in the area and to try to highlight for connection of future residential area to our east and to our south. And it was really to highlight the location of the road that would service the largest amount of developable land in the future. That portion going down is not currently in the master street map. and was not approved by ACHD for this particular amendment cycle. So it's not in there now and it was just our proposal and that portion of the proposal was not accepted. So there isn't anything currently planning to connect down to Blacks Creek. ACHD simply offered the comments that I mentioned earlier about the agencies and landowners working together to facilitate a future road location in response to future development needs. So I think that, did that address what you were trying to get at?

It does. Yeah. Thank you for the clarification. Awesome. Well, those were all my questions. Are there any other questions from the commission? All right. Seeing none, we'll move on to public testimony. I have four people signed up, so we'll go through this list first. After that, we'll move to anybody in the chambers and then anybody online. So we'll start with Robert Carels. I hope I pronounced that right. But if that's you, please come on up and we'll take your name and address. Is Robert Carels still here?

We'll check back in later.

Next, we'll go to Megan Compton. That's you. You'll come on up, state your name and address, and you'll have three minutes.

Hi, my name is Megan Compton. My address is 7710 South Wagons View Avenue, Boise, Idaho, 83716. So I come to speak to you today regarding the annexation of the land, turning it from a rural type land to an industrial level three technology. So not against the micron development. Love the cranes. Love the power poles. Bring it on. Love the tanks, right? Those are awesome. My concern, though, is that all of what was proposed in the Micron plan, as well as what's being proposed in the ACHD plan, as well as what was identified on the 2023 planning and zoning redevelopment plan has nothing to do with maintaining the character of upper Columbia, right? And so I'm just here today before the planning and zoning committee to propose that we develop an upper Columbia overlay type concept so that as we develop out this area to support Micron, because this is where all of the Micron employees live, right? As we develop this overlay out, we are strategic about what this looks like, right? That this community and this neighborhood that we are developing to support the Micron expansion makes sense and it looks right. And I want to be there to help support and bring that along. You know, one of the things that I would recommend is that some level of open space remain. I say that because this is the upper desert. The Math Technology Center's employee shirt literally has antelope on it, okay? There's an animal crossing right under Highway 21 right there. So my concern is that if we take away all of the open space and those animal corridors, we're losing that high desert habitat that is unique to Boise, right? It is what all of our wild urban land interface is. So I just would like to put that out there that my name is Megan Compton and I would like to help work with Micron and other landowners, aka Simplot, to develop a very strategic approach to the neighborhood as we develop it out. And as Idaho Power and Micron uses that open land to just be cognizant of the animals and just the character of that part of the community. So thank you.

Thank you. And next on our list is Ethan Mansfield. And as you know, name and address, please. You have three minutes.

Good evening, commissioners. Dave, before I start, could you pull up the master street map just so I have something to reference and we all have something to reference as I talk about it. My name is Ethan Mansfield, representing Hawkins Companies, 855 West Broad Street, Boise, Idaho, 83702. Well, Dave's pulling that up. I just want to say Hawkins is supportive of the Micron expansion overall. And I just don't want that to get lost in any of this testimony because this is pretty specific to a specific issue. Overall, very supportive of the expansion. I did just want to talk a little bit about our recommendations for the Master Street Map implementation. So ACHD... The master street map guides planners and policymakers where new public streets and connectivity should be dedicated and constructed with new development applications. On June 24th, ACHD recommended that the MSM be modified to better accommodate Micron's proposed expansion. With this, ACHD recommended that right-of-way be dedicated to reflect the new MSM alignment. The MSM is adopted by reference into the city's comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan calls for the annexation of land within the area of impact that complies with the city's level of service standards. Here are the standards for city streets. Streets must be provided in accord with the master street map and adopted plans. Condition number three within the staff report does recognize this. and requires dedication of right-of-way with this application. We strongly support this requirement because otherwise the project would not be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. We request that section 4F of the existing DA be modified to include condition three. Currently that section reads, ACHD has planned for a future public road connecting Memory Road near the Eisenbahn interchange to East Columbia Road. Micron shall coordinate for future dedication of right-of-way for the future public road in any external pathway. The future is now, and we think the development agreement should be updated to reflect this, not just the condition of approval. Unless this development is reopened again, this is the final opportunity to preserve the corridor and construct a road section that won't be fully paid for by other developers via impact fees or taxpayers if it gets constructed at all. And we are here to help coordinate the road's creation. In addition to the dedication of right of way, we are requesting that the city require Micron to construct roadway improvements within this right of way. Why? Because this roadway has always been planned. Because in the past five, excuse me, three years, whether the project value is $50,000, $500,000, $5 million, or $50 million, this city staff, this planning commission, and this council have always required public improvements where they are planned. They have not let plans sit on the shelf collecting dust. I'm happy to provide examples of projects at each scale where these public improvements were required. So to treat a $50 billion project differently would be to disregard the city's policies, plans, and culture of requiring public improvements with private development projects. Because of this, we request that the city require both dedication, both dedication, and construction of this roadway in section 4F of the development agreement.

Your time. Thanks. Thank you. All right. Next up, we have Bronson Grange. Same thing, as you know, name and address. Yeah.

My name is Bronson Grange. I'm at 855 West Broad Street. Good evening, commissioners. Boise's comprehensive plan section SECCN2 states one of the goals of the East Columbia area is to encourage higher residential densities adjacent to the Micron Tech Park. On Tuesday, January 27, 2026, City Council held a work session where they acknowledged their clear goal of adding more housing in this area. City staff's presentation to City Council in this meeting stated that this area is an ideal area for development, but stalled because there is currently no secondary access road. It is a commonly understood goal of the City to reduce vehicle miles traveled by providing housing near employment centers, and with our state's largest private investment ever currently happening at Micron, Clearly the goal would be to provide housing near this investment. None of this is possible without a secondary access road to the area. The lack of this road is creating a life safety issue for existing neighbors, and it is preventing the addition of housing for future residents who want to live close to their place of employment. So is there a precedent for the city to require this road to be built? We believe there is, and I'll just mention a few personal examples. At Maple Grove and Overland, we are nearing construction commencement on 162 unit multifamily development. During the early stages of planning and design, we were told that we would be required to construct a public road through our development in order to connect two other public roads on either end of our property for the benefit of the public, not ours. Because of the public benefit, we are happy to provide it. We have a 9.75 acre property under contract on East Columbia Road, and our hope is to provide around 200 units worth of residential housing to support Micron and its employees. We recently held a pre-op for this project, and in it, we were told that we would be required to provide a public road through the property that would eventually connect to public roads that Jim Conger was required to construct within his projects on either end of ours. Notably, there are no current connections to this road, but the future connections are planned. Again, this is not for our project's benefit, but for the public's benefit, so we're happy to provide it. We have been communicating with both Congress Group and Idaho Department of Lands, and we believe both are open to coordinating locations for this road. Between them and Micron, this would provide a nearly uninterrupted path for this road's installation. In summary, we have heard through several mediums that the city would like this road to be installed in order to facilitate development in this area. We are aligned with this goal. We've been required to build public roads for public benefit on several of our projects across the valley. We believe there's a path to obtaining access easements and or right of way for the vast majority of this road right now. If coordination efforts were to occur and we'd be happy to lead those efforts. We are asking that micron be subject to the same city requirements we have been subject to, which is to dedicate right of way and build portions of this road that are on their property. We believe there's a path to obtaining the rest of the right-of-way now and ask that Micron and the city work with us in these coordination efforts. Thank you very much.

Thank you. All right, that was the last of my sign-up sheet. We'll come back to Robert in just a minute. Is there anybody else in person? Would you like to come on up? And if you state your name and address, you'll have three minutes.

Hello, my name is Kathy Bean and... Hello, my name is Kathy Bean and I live at 5921 East Benridge Street, Boise. I live next to the Micron campus and while some people have enjoyed all the cranes and all the development there, That is not always the case for all of us. It has been difficult, but we did know that when we were moving there, that Micron was next door. Now, granted, when we first moved there, it was dubbed as out of bound. It was a rural area away from the city. We were not going to have apartments. We could see the antelope and the coyotes there, and we enjoyed living there. And now my concern somewhat with the annexation is we don't want high density. houses there. One because of the fire risk as well as the other reasons of why we enjoy living out there. The decreased light pollution, the less noise pollution, the views our quality of life would be impacted by any change. And that is also concerned with the mixed use. We also really don't want, while the fire risk is real and we do not want any other development unless another road is built, we don't agree with the developer Hawkins in what they are trying to do. They want a road there so they can, piggyback off that infrastructure to build an apartment complex right next to our development. Also as a 200 units that would increase the traffic to four to 500 cars and also impacting the fire risk and trying to get out of that area. So we are not in favor of that. Most of the residents are not in favor of that. And so I just wanted to express my views.

Thank you very much. Anybody else in person who would like to testify on this item? Seeing none, we'll move to online real fast and check in. Um, if you are online and would like to, um, would like to testify on this item, raise your hand. Nobody online. Okay. That takes care of that. All right. We'll do one last call for Robert Carels. Okay. Uh, and then nobody else in line on in person. Uh, so with that, we'll move to applicant rebuttal. If you'd like to, you'll have five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioners, Deborah Nelson. So just the few comments we heard, I can be brief on the dedication request for that to be included as a condition of approval that has been addressed already by the staff report and Micron is amenable to that condition of approval. The city staff adopted exactly what was requested and recommended by ACHD. The additional requests that are coming from the Hawkins companies are about construction of the road. The road, even with Micron's right-of-way, would not be complete. We don't control all of the right-of-way at the end or in the middle where that alignment is, and so it would be pieces. For this and other reasons, ACHD did not require Micron to build this road. Just practically, it wouldn't make sense to have pieces of a road. What they do note in their decision and discussed at the hearing is that it is in the capital improvements plan. And so whoever does ultimately, once the right-of-way is all available, construct this road, whoever that is, would have eligibility for impact fee credits. If that's not Micron, Micron will be paying the impact fees that will support this area. That's how ACHD has determined proportionate share for area roads. Micron will be paying significant impact fees to support roads around the campus, in addition to the mitigations that Micron is constructing around the campus to facilitate impacts from its own traffic and construction impacts. We also have heard from a variety of neighbors that some want additional emergency access, some are concerned about access that opens up development. So the context for why the Hawkins companies is asking for this is they need secondary access to support their development. They're looking to Micron to provide their secondary access. They know what the condition is right now affecting all those residential development areas that are capped until there is secondary access. Those developments have come in with those caps knowingly. And originally there was a condition when Rush Valley came in to construct additional secondary access north of Columbia Road up to Highway 21. When they came back in for a later expansion, they asked for that condition to be removed and got approval for additional homes. but they were at that cap. And so this road is not to serve or needed to serve micron use. It actually doesn't make sense within an industrial campus, but we've conceded to what ACHD has required here. And we do believe, we understand that it's on the master street map. And so we've done our part to address that and we'll comply with the conditions as recommended in the ACHD decision and incorporated into the city staff report. And that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. With that, we'll close the public hearing portion of the hearing. And the item is before the commission. As a reminder, we are the recommending body for the rezone and the deciding body for the CUP. And we'll entertain a motion. Madam Chair. Commissioner Sayonara.

I move to recommend approval of CAR 26-6, which is the annexation piece, and also recommend approval. So recommend approval to city council on CAR 26-6, and then recommend approval as P&Z commission on the CUP 26-12. Great. And that's just terms and conditions of the staff report.

Great. Thank you very much. And for the CUP, that's just approval. Mm hmm. Perfect.

Second.

Great. Second from Commissioner Torres. Do I have any discussion, Commissioner Seha? Um,

I felt like the staff report was pretty clear on this. I appreciate the clarification on the Hawkins development piece and the secondary access. That was helpful. But yeah, I don't have anything to add to the staff report. I think it was pretty clear. And that is why I am suggesting a recommendation to city council on approval and approval of CEP.

Thank you. Commissioner Torres. I don't have a lot to add. I hear the arguments from Mr. Mansfield about the secondary access. I'm inclined to defer to staff and ACHD on that. So, you know, that's the only thing I really wanted to address. I agree the staff report was very thorough overall on the project, and that's why I will be supporting the motion. Thank you.

Any other discussion?

All right. Madam Chair. Commissioner Stallings.

Yeah. Second, what my fellow commissioners have noted. I too appreciate Ethan's, Mr. Mansfield's comments about these roadways and the opportunity to put them in now. I do agree with the applicant in they don't own all of the land to be able to do this. So I see... you know, the issues here. And I appreciate the staff and its work throughout this whole thing to help bring this vision to life. I really appreciate the 40-foot berm, whether it's, you know, to displace some of the site dirt, for lack of a better word. But I also really appreciate that it allows a visual and sound barrier for the other sides of this property. I do think that I, you know, This is planned for this industrial use and this efficient aligning with Idaho powers. They're already established infrastructure and there are transmission lines. Yeah, I'm going to be in support of the motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Stallings. Madam Chair, I think it was inferred in the motion, but if we could be more specific, there is the annexation and the DA modification. So I just want to make sure that that's accounted for in the motion.

Yes, I apologize. Yeah, the CAR 26-6, which includes the annexation and a modification of a development agreement.

Does that work? Cool.

I'm also amenable to that.

Second on the omitted. Perfect. Well, if there's no other, you're the only one. If there's no other comment, I'll add in my two cents. Agreed with, um, fellow commissioners. I do think for the second, that kind of second access, you know, does it make sense to keep it off of the master street map? Does it make sense to keep at, to keep it in or consider it more in the future? Um, if we're adding this many jobs to this area, maybe more, we could anticipate more housing. if you need that second access to add more housing close to where you work, maybe that's something to consider for ACHD in the city. Something to think about. Just an avenue to get more housing close to where people work, which is in line with Boise's current zoning code, Blueprint Boise, all that good stuff. Otherwise, totally agree with conditions of approval. I think, you know, it's very, the electrical substation has been placed far away from residential. There's, you know, buffers built into the WUI zone that kind of help mitigate wildfire. All of this rezone is WUI overlaid. Um, And so, yeah, with that, I'm in agreement with the motion. And with that, we have a recommendation of approval for the annexation and the DA mod and approval of the CUP. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Moore? Yes. Teja?

Yes.

Torres?

Yes.

Dollings?

Yes.

Defonsic?

Yes.

All in favor? Motion carries. Perfect. Thank you very much. And we are adjourned.