Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening everybody. We can go ahead and grab our seats and get started. All right, good evening and welcome to the Boisee City Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. 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. If 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 a 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 could type in star9 to raise your hand. Each member of the public is allowed up to 3 minutes for testimony. We are strict at this time as it is limited in code. Finally, the applicant is allowed 5 minutes for rebuttal after which the hearing will be closed and the commission will deliberate and render a decision. Mr. Chair, you have the floor. Thank you, Crystal. Sorry, the hearing examiner stuff is still up here. I have the electronic version up here, though. That works. Thank you.

Okay. Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. Few things to start out with for tonight's proceedings. Um, you've already read that. Let me try that again. A little rusty here. Jeez. All right. This is the right one. 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, reszones, annexations, and code or comprehensive plan amendments. Any decision made tonight will 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 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. That means that if the applicant agrees with the staff report and if 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 order just detailed a few minutes ago with staff, applicant, neighborhood association, and then uh the public testimony. Thank you all for attending tonight. Will the clerk please call the role?

Danley. Hi here. Moore here. Schaefer here. Here. Deha here. Taurus here. Dome. Stallings. Defonsc here. Six present, two absent.

Very good. Okay. We're going to, as mentioned, start off with the creation of the consent agenda. First up are the work session minutes and the meeting minutes uh from January 5th as well as those of January 12th. Is there any discussion? Okay. If there's no discussion, I'll go ahead and place all of those meeting minutes on the consent agenda. Let's move forward to let's see item A. This is PUD22-63. This is Cole Architects located at 8133 North Bogart Lane. This is a time extension request. Just out of curiosity, the applicant present by chance? No. Okay. And not online. Doesn't have to be. All right. Unless there's any opposition, I will go ahead and place item A on the consent agenda. Okay. Hearing none, item A is placed on the consent agenda. That moves us to item number two. Eligible is SUB25-77. This is tail wing subdivision. This is a preliminary and final plat for a residential subdivision comprised of three buildable lots uh on 28 acres in an R1C zone located at 3708 West Burke Avenue. Is the applicant present?

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

Wonderful. Let the record reflect that the applicant is in attendance and does does agree with the terms and conditions staff report. Is there anybody in chambers or online who wishes to testify in opposition of item number two SUB 25-77? This is Tailwing subdivision. Seeing nobody in chambers, seeing nobody online, unless unless without any opposition, I'll go ahead and place item number two on the consent agenda. Okay, that takes us to item number four. This is SUB25-91. This is PAX Haven subdivision. This is also a preliminary and final plat for a residential subdivision. This one comprised of three buildable lots on 28 acres in R2 zone located at 2233 South Leadville Avenue. Is the applicant present? And do you agree with the terms and condition staff report? Yes, we do. Let the record reflect that the applicant is in attendance and does agree to the terms and condition of staff report. Is there anybody here in chambers or online who wishes to testify in opposition to item number four SCB2-91 Pax Haven Subdivision? Seeing nobody in chambers. Oh, and nobody online. All right. And with without any opposition, I'll place item number four on the consent agenda. With that, that is the creation of this of the consent agenda. Is there a motion,

Mr. Chair? Commissioner Moore, I move that we approve the consent agenda as constructed. Excellent. I have a motion by Commissioner Moore. Is there a second? Second. Uh second by Commissioner Torres. Any discussion? Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the role? Danley. I Moore. Yes. Schaefer. I Deha. I. Torres. I stfic. I. All in favor? Motion carries.

Very good. Uh, okay. That takes us to our first item of the night for a full hearing. This is actually brought to us by the city itself. And this is going to be the zoning ZOA25-13. This is zoning code amendment. And I think, yep, Diana is going to be here. Uh, take it away.

Mr. Chair, commissioners, for the record, my name is Diana Dupi and I'm joined by senior planner Andrea Tuning and I'm here to present COA 2513 amendments to the Boise City Zoning Code Incorporating technical edits edits and six policy code edits. As the application before you is a zoning ordinance amendment, the motion before the commission is a recommendation to city council and the approval criteria shown on the screen. Um, as many of you may remember, this is actually my third time coming with the C coming to the council for a zoning ordinance amendment. We've completed two in 2025. The first was uh an amendment to the appeals procedures for conditional use permits as well as um a shortly after we came back for about 140 technical edits and the um provision to allow tiny homes on wheels. On December 2nd, 2025, our team rece had a work session with city council. And at that work session, the council affirmed direction for the zoning ordinance you'll be hearing about tonight, which includes technical edits and policy topics. Um, as I've been saying, this will always be coming back with some technical edits. Um, so this one is no different. We have um a handful of edits which were itemized and included in the project report. These largely fall into the three categories on the screen. Some things around typos, formatting, and then clarifications to make sure that the goal of the code was clear, the intent of the code was clear. In addition, we have some edits that are what we call goal alignment. So, they help to establish kind of already um agreed upon goals that are within Blueprint Boise or other citywide goals such as housing affordability, transportation options, and land use flexibility. And lastly, we have a set of process improvement related goals. These are things that our staff have um figured

out through working with the code and we hope that they help to streamline and make the code more predictable. Um the next which is really the bulk of this presentation is going into each of the six policy topics that were affirmed by council. Um these are um have to do with electric vehicle ch charging, bicycle parking, um some ADU options, both junior ADUs as well as permitting multiple ADUs or tiny homes on wheels. Um we'll cover the zoning incentives which the commission has heard quite a bit about largely within the summer of last year. And then we'll do um we have some edits around our airport influence area. So, and this is something that the commission actually gave us feedback on last year when we were doing um our first technical edits which were around electric vehicle charging. We've received quite a bit of feedback from our development community as well as people working within the code that we needed to look back at our electric charging. Um there's also been some updates with the state legislature. So, our recommendation here is to remove this requirement for EV parking for all developments and instead add it as part of the sustainability incentive. What this actually would mean is if someone is voluntarily um electing to use our incentives, which I'll talk about later, um we would require developments uh containing 20 or more parking spaces to dedicate five as five% of those spaces as EV ready. Similar to the feedback we heard around EV charging, we also received quite a bit of feedback around bicycle parking and that's something the commission actually brought up last year. Um, so we've taken a look at that and in this amendment we have kind of have a suite of ways to address bicycle parking. The first is introducing alternative compliance. This is a process we already use for landscaping. So, we're applying

it to bike parking, but it's working with the applicant to make sure that the intent of the code can be met while maybe not necessarily holding them to the exact letter of the law. We'll be looking at this um through director's determination, focusing on making sure that the bike parking is still safe, secure, and usable for the residents. Um in addition, this is a small edit, but um kind of making some consistency within the code. current code requires um or prohibits encroachments u into the setback for bike parking. Instead, we're just referencing back to the already permitted encroachments. Um just a kind of implementation thing to make it easier to use. And then this is the another change that we've made which is really focused on right sizing our requirement. Um we looked at some comparable cities and then um what we've seen that about one bike parking spot per unit for multif family is kind of seems to be the sweet spot with comparable cities and actually when we looked back at our original recommendation in the 2023 modern zoning code. This was our original recommendation. So we're proposing to go back to one um spot per unit. And then we've noticed that industrial uses are very unique and that right now we have a ratio for requirements of bike parking and industrial uses just by square footage. That doesn't always capture how that industrial building is used. So instead we're going to recommend director determination so that we can work with the applicant to find where is the employee serving portion of the building. Um the next has to do with kind of creating more housing options. Um, we have heard feedback from the community and our council that they are interested in junior ADUs. And so what we've done is to look into how can we allow this type of unit and make it easier to do. So what this is is what we're calling a junior ADU, but the actual code edit is

allowing a second kitchen within single family homes when full interior access is maintained. This in effect creates an in-law suite, but often when in our current code, if you have two kitchens, you are now two units, which triggers a lot of building code requirements. Um, so the uh key to create interior access helps address some of those life safety concerns without triggering additional building permit requirements. Next, um through our previous zoning ordinance amendment, we got direction from city council to explore permitting two ADUs on a single lot. So, in this proposal, we have um proposed to allow two ADUs or tiny homes on wheels um in accessory to a single family home. This means it's a combination. So, you can do two ADUs, two tiny homes or on wheels or one of each on a single lot. Um as we were going through this we did um identify that this is kind of starting to create this need for us to further explore creating parody among single family homes duplex triplexes single family home with two ADUs and this is something that we have gone back to council with and asked for additional time to come up with a strong logical proposal so we can seek par and alignment in the code. So expect something like this in our next zoning or ordinance amendment. Turn the page, not flip the page. Um so and in addition, we're our next one is zoning incentives. So, as the commission may remember, Kyle Patterson, the director of organizational effectiveness, who is here today, um he presented to the commission in the summer about the work that we have done over the past year and a half to come up with a refreshed and refined housing

incentives proposal. Um in this ordinance, um we are or in this amendment, we are maintaining that summer proposal. we decided to hold off on submitting another application and instead um consolidate this as one single application so that we don't have so many versions of the zoning code. Um in as the summer proposal had we now have a simplified menu system. This allows uh this is now where you get to pick what is valuable to the developer. So they get to tell us what they would want um in exchange for providing affordable or sustainable housing. In addition, we've right-sized affordability requirements. Our current um incentives have the the area meeting income at 60% after a lot of conversation and feedback from the development community. 60% AMI was difficult to make work without additional financial subsidy. So, we've moved that up to 80% AMI. We've decreased the number of units required to qualify for the incentive. again trying to prevent the need to provide financial subsidy as well as modifying the term of affordability. In the current code, it's 20 years. We've actually extended that to 50 years so that we could have the long-term affordability. We've also expanded the incentive options now again wanting to have a robust menu. So, not only are you getting maybe a density bonus, but we have options for reduced lot size, additional parking reduction, or even the ability to exceed the parking maximum. So really creating as many options as we felt comfortable doing so that developers could pick what would get them to provide affordable or sustainable housing. So that was the summer proposal. Not much has changed except for these three bullets on here. And as I mentioned, we're going to because we're allowing bike parking alternative compliance for all developments, we remove that from the incentive menu because that was one of the options. We did add the requirement for EV parking if you're opting to do

the sustainability incentive. And then we've had some minor technical edits. We've been working with a staff team on how to implement that and have taken some really great feedback to do that. Um our last edit has to do with the airport influence area and specifically the B1 overlay. Um this is something that we also heard from the commission last year as ways as direction to look into. Um what we're recommending is actually a recommendation from both PDS and the airport. But this is something to provide both predictability to the development pattern and also ensure that the airport can have safe and consistent operations. So, we're recommending removing the conditional use permit for additional density within the B1 overlay. Um, and instead replacing that with the ability to have byite development. Um, and we have it based off of noise contours. So, I'll walk us through the map because there's a lot going on. Um, so I've highlighted only the B1, which is that tan area, and there's two different sections of the B1 overlay. There's the section circled in purple which is around Maple Grove area. We've seen some applications there where people have requested a CU to ex um to exceed the uh five units density cap. And then we also have the area kind of on the north side of the interstate um on the central bench. And those are both B1, but they have kind of different impacts as the relationship to sound contours, which is really um something that the airport is interested in maintaining and keep keeping folks um within certain areas. So, uh, what we're recommending is the area circled in purple, which is outside of the 60 DNL, which is day night level, I think. I always forget that. Uh, DNL, sound contour, they would have the uh, up to

25 units per acre and then within the 60 DNL line, they would be capped at that five units per acre. This, we think, will provide a lot of predictability for our developments. they won't have to go through the entire conditional use permit or appeal process and we're maintaining kind of what is important for the airport which is um that 60 DNL line. So that caps up all of our policy topics. Um we have received some public comment um and much of that has become through late correspondence but we've did receive two comments um generally talking about the housing incentives and some specific improvements as well as concerns about the west end in the R3 zoning through lake correspondents. We've received some general comments around seeking parody for smaller homes or plexes, recommendations for byite development for um of housing for faith communities, some support of rightsizing parking requirements including bike parking, general comments around wanting to speed up processing times, making it easier to build small homes, and then one comment in opposition of smart growth or pro housing needs. We have today received some um additional comments from Valley Regional Transit and then um some more comments from neighbors of Boise that came in today that we haven't had much time to digest. Um so with that, the planning team recommends approval of the zoning ordinance amendment and the motion before the commission would be a recommendation to city council. Myself or Andrea are happy to stand for any questions.

Great. Thank you, Diana. Okay, just uh clerks just pause the clock for a second. We're good with that anyway. just so that everybody in the audience understands. Um so staff and any applicant actually has up to 20 minutes to provide their testimony as per our code. Um we started with 10 just because that's kind of customary, but we allow up to 20 as long as the neighborhood associations get the equal amount of time. So uh Diana went to 12 I'm going to call it 12:30 just to be on the safe side. So, just so that you know then any of the neighborhood associations who we will be inviting up now, they have the equal amount of time. So, just so that you're aware of that. Okay. Uh, with that, let's go ahead and go to any of the neighborhood associations. Eric, you still with? No, this Eric, there's two Erics, two kingmakers here. Okay, come on up. And I don't know if any of the other neighborhood associations are here tonight and represented, but uh if so, then you'll be up next if you want to testify. Good evening, sir. You know the drill.

Uh is this thing on? It's the first drill. Uh Eric Hagen, North End Neighborhood Association Planning and Zoning Chair. Um, so we've had a chance to review all the proposed changes or clarifications and updates to the zoning code that staff have proposed and and we are mostly behind it. Um, just like everyone else who has submitted correspondence and we just have a couple concerns about things and and I will just kind of address a couple comments too as an architect having gone through and used the the zoning code. Um it's great that the city is doing this process of updating the zoning code every few months or every year. So uh we applaud that. Um I have found difficulty with clients trying to meet EV parking and bicycle parking. So uh it's good to see reductions on both of those. Um even though I do have an electric car when I'm not hobbling about with a broken leg, I do like to ride my bike. So, um, and I mostly just have trouble finding eating spots, but that's a side thing. Um, the junior ADUs, that's always been something that ends up happening in the North End with the existing houses when they want to move in a grandma, but they have an ADU in the garage in the garage in the back. So, it's nice to be able to have that. One of the biggest things that we see in the North End is a lack of affordable rental housing. And I don't see anywhere in there how this is actually going to fix that. Um, and we keep seeing projects get approved through this commission with rentals and affordable housing and then a month or a year later see that applicant come back and change those to condos. And that's not helping the the problem at all. That's exasperating it. So, if there's any way to kind of address that with these, I mean, these will most likely be rentals, tiny homes

on wheels, ADUs, micro uh ADUs, or whatever the word was that you used. Those are all great and I see those going in in that direction. Um, for the most part, I don't think it's actually going to affect the north end because the lots are all developed for the most part. Um, like I said, the biggest concern has been with uh affordable rentals. One item I do want to address or or comment on is the minimum living order sizes that are in the building code. And I know that's not your guys's perview, but the tiny homes on wheels generally do not meet the residential code requirements for minimum size of living spaces. So that's just something I would suggest that maybe staff um look at. And um those were the base basics of my comments. Uh, like I said, the North End is always open to providing more housing alternatives, uh, and being allow being able to allow employees and students the ability to live in our neighborhood as well where everyone is welcome. Thank you.

How's that thing not electrified? Too much money coverage. Okay. Are there any other neighborhood association representatives who wish to testify on this item? Mr. Chair, we have a hand up online. Okay. Thank you, Crystal. We do. And it's Katie Decker. Okay. Hi, Katie Decker. Hi. Um, do you need me to have my video on? I can try and find that.

Need your video, but if you can get a little closer to your microphone, that would be helpful. or the wizards in the back room can turn the volume up. One or the other. Can you hear me better now? Uh, it's tolerable. Do your best to that voice. That'd be great.

Okay. Uh, my name is Katie Decker and I'm testifying on behalf of the Veterans Park Neighborhood Association tonight. My address is 5001 Westimosa Street. Uh our main concern with the proposed changes are the modifications regarding streetscape improvements uh standards listed under line item two in the summary table. Namely that the edits in this section would provide a blanket waiver to streetscape standards for any development application located along a project currently included in either ACT's integrated 5-year work plan or CCDC's capital improvements plan. When I say currently, I mean at the time of application, not now. The problem here is that in the event that a project pencled into either agency's plan gets delayed or canceled, the city of Boise will now have entirely lost its power to have these streetscape standards fulfilled by a developer. The commission reviewed a project where this very issue arose in July of this year in interfaith sanctuaries application for a CUP along State Street. The commission unanimously agreed that while there was not a benefit to have streetscape improvements constructed before the planned work, it was also too risky to approve an exemption from those standards because if the planned work did not occur, then the streetscape improvements would never happen. The proposed changes before you tonight in item two would take that very issue and codify the loophole across all development in Boise and not provide any recourse for the city to improve our streets if agency projects are delayed or canled. I want to point out that my objection here is decoupled from the objections to the interfaith sanctuaries project. We know that the state legislature is working to discourage bike and pedestrian infrastructure and this modification looks like Boise willingly sacrificing one of its only tools remaining to get this infrastructure built. Um Chairman Danley, I'm quoting you here from the July hearing when this issue came up regarding the State Street Pathway. If that project goes away, there's nothing right now that states the project is going to stay within the 5-year work

plan or CCDC's plan. It could very well disappear. Then what? Then what? Then we are stuck and we have no way of getting what we've been working very hard over the last long time. Really staff has worked tirelessly with the plans, you know, and we've held our grounds with development to get this done. My belief is that you can find a way toward updates to the code that would acknowledge that a variance is not required in these situations, but that the onus to complete streetscape improvements remains on the developer within a preset time frame in the event that the project is removed from the ACD or CCDC plan or if it's delayed, for example. Such a modification to the update would still allow a developer in Interfaith Sanctuary's position to move forward, but it would protect the city of Boise from missing out on their opportunity to enforce updated streetscape SC standards if the project is not completed by a partner agency. Separately, I'd like to also point out that the edits listed in line item 40 of the summary table to remove the ability of the design review committee to modify projects to prevent quote the destruction or dimmunition of property values end quote. are further decoupling Boise's code from state law. Property value protections are one of the cornerstone stones of Lupa as the city staff have acknowledged. And yet the term property value appears only four times in Boise's current code. Muddying the links between the local code and the governing land you saw overlying it does a disservice to our review bodies, our applicants, and the public alike. Those were all I wanted to bring up.

Okay. Thank you, Miss Deck. Appreciate it. Okay. Any other neighborhood association representatives wish to testify? Looks like nobody else online's raised their hand. Anybody else in chambers one last time? Okay. If not, then we'll go ahead and open this up to questions from the commission.

Mr. Chair, commission a question for Diana. Um, so the increase from 60% on the affordability incentives, the increase from 60 to 80% was in large part due to conversations with developers in that do a lot of business in town. Were they mostly large scale developers or were they medium to large scale?

Uh, I'm going to try I'm going to Mr. Chair, Commissioner Seha, I'm going to do my best to answer this question, but I may tap in. um Kyle uh it was not only conversation with developers but actually a proforma analysis. So they looked at cost of construction and then in addition then the uh loss of the loss of rent or the amount of rent that would be gained at 60% AMI versus 80% AMI and then the benefits of the incentive and they saw that by capping rents at 60% AMI um they would there would be a significant gap that the incentives that we were offering didn't offer enough to make up for that gap and there would still need to be some sort of financial subsidy. So the benefit of a parking reduction did not offset the rent at 60% AMI. So not only did we hear from developers, they did their own independent um proform pro for modeling to understand that.

Did we see any differences between 60 and 80? Um yes uh we did they did see that it made it closer but we also had to change a lot of other things too to make it work at 80% AMI. We had to decrease the number of units as well as offer more things than just a parking reduction. So we did three different things to make it so that we could get affordable housing or sustainable housing or make it pencil. Of course the developers get to choose if they want to participate. Thank you Mr. Chair M Torres,

I want to follow up on that line of questioning. Um Diana, I um understanding the reasoning why this decision was made to go from the 60 to the 80%. Um sounds like the city understands, but I just want to kind of reiterate that means is it fair to say that without subsidies that means housing at that AMI is extremely unlikely to get built in Boisee? U Mr. Chair, Commissioner Torres, I think that that is why the city has made a commitment to invest in housing at 60% AMI through our housing investment fund, through our other programs that we're working to leverage and um bring that 60% or below AMI to the market.

I'll jump in on that. I I'm curious on this um 2 ADUs per lot. I think Mr. Hagen's point is well taken. So if a property owner does that, the intent is for it to be permanent housing, right? And and and yet it can easily be an overnight rental as far as our code is concerned. And I know that we're limited in our tools given our state laws, but is there an incentive that somehow can help that out? I mean, uh, we want this tool to be utilized, but we want it to be utilized for the residents of this city as opposed to visitors all the time.

Uh, Mr. Chair, um, that's not something we've done historically through our zoning code. We've, um, have some licensing requirements around short-term rentals, but have personally planning has not looked into an incentive program around short-term rentals, and there are some limitations at the state, right? It's a beast. Mr. Schaefer. Mr. Chair. Yeah, Diana, I wasn't quite sure I was tracking that discussion on the multiple ADUs. Can you just walk us back through that again?

Uh, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Schaefer. Yes. So, and we're talking specifically about two ADUs on the lot. Okay. Yes. So, we have we got direction from city council at our last zoning ordinance amendment to consider permitting two ADUs plus you know in combination with tiny homes on wheels. Um so that means right now a single family home can have one accessory dwelling unit but we specifically say one accessory dwelling unit. Our proposal says now you can have two accessory dwelling units. So a single family primary and then you could have a garage with two units in it. That's our proposal. Or you could have an accessory dwelling unit and a tiny home on wheel.

Gotcha. So you have both your mother-in-laws living at home. That would be a fun life. That's why it's movable. Yeah. Yeah. The wheels, the wheeled ones. Yeah. Okay. Um and then the the square footages, they didn't change at all with this. So we're refreshing my memory where we're at with that. They were 900 square feet. Correct. Is that right? Okay. Okay. Thanks, Okay, other questions.

Chair Commissioner Stfons. Is that on? Okay. Um I have a actually two questions. Um one around bike parking, the other one on the u uh the flight or the um uh the noise. Um so for the bike parking, now that the director will be able to determine where bike parking is placed in that, how will they make those determinations? Um, is it really just purely subjective or will they use some criteria maybe that they learned from the other cities where we did the the research?

Yeah, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Stfanic. Um we kind of similar to there's lots of different pieces within our code that have director determination and Crystal's team um and our design review team they've done great job of creating internal guidelines and here the priority is maintaining the intent and looking really specifically on why do we have the design requirements and it's looking at safety security usability and access. I mean we have some very specific regulations like it cannot be 50 feet further than 50 feet from the front door. What if it's 51 and then they would be coming in for a variance or what if you know so looking at the unique site conditions and still holding those um goals around safety, security and usability.

Okay. So those same things would come in apply in this scenario here. Okay. Um and then uh my other question is um so with the the airport zoning areas and now removing those to uh be the decibel level um what what is the timeline or the plan to renew the study on the decibel area um and how might that change um in the coming years if new types of um airplanes come to the airport? Um, Commissioner, that's a great question. Uh, we have been working very closely with our airport team and they're actually updating their master plan currently and it's expected uh, we were saying it was 18 months from the spring. So, um, we're we're in a good cycle. I think it may be finished in 2026. That does not for to the best of my knowledge that does not include a new sound update but they'll be considering what is how is the airport projected to grow and what additional studies would be needed to update that.

Okay. So potentially we might have to renew or review this um policy here potentially. Okay. Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Schaer. Yeah. Found that same one, Deanna. The 25 units and the five units per acre. Is that based on existing zoning? We just had one of these come through like last month or the month before. That's basically the existing zoning for those areas. Correct,

Mr. Chair, commissioner. Um, so it actually we worked with council and the airport. 25 units per acre is about what the very first of the CUP that came in and they approved in the purple circle. Um, and so that's what we worked at. the airport could feel comfortable with that. So that's why we did and it's up to 25. If you're R1C in that purple area, you're still capped at the R1C density. Okay. Okay, great. Thanks. Well, I'll follow up on that.

So yeah, this B1 area specifically with regard to the above 60. So this you this was 65 and we're now to 60. Is that correct? Is that how I'm interpreting that? That it was before the I think it was the B2 area was was a was a 65 decel. That was what was in front of us a month ago. That was the number that was up for debate and it was conditional despite there being multif family around it and them asking for I think it was seven units per acre.

Mr. chair. I'm not 100% familiar with that previous application. We I know that this proposal is in lock step with the airport's recommendation, but this drops this can just make sure I'm understanding this. This drops it down from 65 to 60 dB and it know it takes the cup out of the equation which it was before. So now it's five maximum and 60 as opposed to 65 and conditional.

Um, Mr. Chair, so currently in the code, and I'm I'm going to get to what I know is in the code. I don't know the very specifics of your application in the code, if you're in the B-1, which is defined not by a sound contour, but by the shapes on the screen, um, anyone can request a CU key. And so what we're recommending is if you're within the yellow line, which is the 60DNL line, you are capped at five units and that is predictability, but there's no ability to request a CUP. If you're outside the yellow line, which is that area near Maple Grove, you are um capped at 25 units per acre, but no ability to request a CUP. So our goal is to to remove the ability to request a cup to provide that predictability for both the development community and the airport.

We also then learned at this that particular hearing that then as when we adopted our previous this this version of our code and by changing this I think we're solidifying that that there's a number of units that would then be non-conforming. is that how do we have any sense of what that is because I know that that was a point of discussion uh previous um Mr. Chair, well that is already the case across the city and that would be the case for the area in the B1 that's by Maple Grove. So I don't think we're furthering the nonconformity. Okay.

And I Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Mr. Chair, Mr. Moore, I've got a airport question then. Um, so I did notice that schools, universities, churches, religious institutions were stricken from that airport influence B area too, whereas they were allowed in some parts of it previously. Is that correct?

Um, Comm Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moore, I So that was in the restructuring of the code. I think that what we did was just reformat it. All of that should be and we can confirm, but it should be the same. We just reformatted it. It does look like a lot of edits, but that was because we had lots of different lines and we decided to categorize it. Here are all the regulations as it relates to the B, the B1, the C, and the A. Okay. It just kind of reads like I think it reads like previously in the B1 those uses were conditionally allowed with noise sensitive you know noise level reductions whereas now it says they're prohibited.

Yeah. Um, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Port, we're looking and we're seeing that in the non- red line, we're looking at the current code, it they were prohibited. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Torres,

I want to pivot to uh something we talk about a lot up here, which is parking. Um, so you mentioned that one of the reasons for the reduction or the flexibility on on the bike parking is feedback we've gotten from developers about the difficulty of putting that in. Um, I'm curious, you know, we're seeing a lot of projects that are exceeding the parking minimums that are required, the car parking minimums that are required for projects. And I mean, I'm not a developer, so I will confess that right now, but I'm pretty confident, and correct me if I'm wrong, that parking for cars is a lot more expensive to build than parking for for bicycles. Um, and kind of related to that, I know in the incentives, there's a lot of things, you know, to give developers more incent uh more flexibility in in getting things built, but I saw we're also allowing the possibility of exceeding the parking maximums. And one of the the things about the modern zoning code when it passed is we were trying the city was trying to rightsize the balance between the amount of space we devote to things like parking and housing businesses mixed use infield development you know open spaces etc. So there's a question in there somewhere that I have but I think you have an idea where I'm going with that. So I'll let you just try to address my a comment.

U Mr. Chair Commissioner Torres I think that's a great point that you've made. Um I will speak that in the drafting of the modern zoning code we did very dramatically or not I'm not going to say dramatically we did reduce um parking requirements and also reduce parking maximums. So we may be seeing current applications and I can't I'm not a developer I can't speak for a developer but current applications adjusting to those new regulations by requesting to exceed the maximum or providing more than the minimum car parking. Um, we also, as I said, the one per unit for bike parking was our original recommendation when we moved forward with the zoning code and that through the adoption process, we did increase that and we actually scaled it by bedroom, which makes it in some cases the same or more than what we would require for car parking. Um, so again, looking at all of the requirements and um, that's our direction that we've received. Um, just as a followup on that, so would based on what you said, would you estimate, and I know you might not know the answer to this, but PE uh developers who exceed the parking maximums, are we still looking most likely at less parking than we would have seen under the old zoning code? Um, do you have any any kind of idea on that?

Um, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Torres, I would have to look at some specific applications. I don't think I could make a broad assumption. I think it's really dependent, as you all know, on the bedroom count, the um configuration of the units. So, I can't make that judgment right now. One last question on parking and then I'll let it go. Um I know it's not in this this proposal. Has there been any discussion of things of reforms such as eliminating parking minimums um along transit corridors or along I mean citywide potentially as well but and just letting the market decide the amount of parking to provide in developments?

Um commissioner Torres that was definitely a conversation we had through the drafting of the modern zoning code and we work with the community to kind of settle to find um agreement with uh our parking standards. Now, actually, and I maybe I see um Director Kle is here. Um we did receive some comment from Valley Regional Transit kind of requesting a similar thing just today. I really quickly read it, so I think that's what it was. She'll speak to that more. Um but this is our proposal as it stands um today. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moore

to follow up on the parking. So, if I understand it correctly, in our packet page 354, the gist is that one incentive for EV parking is that it does not count against your maximum parking. So, that's one way the city is proposing to get more EV parking is by allowing that to exceed the max. Um, Commissioner Moore, correct?

That could be one way. Um, or the other is um yeah, you could opt in to receive the sustainability incentive. So, you want to use an incentive to get a building height increase or kind of in that menu of incentive options and you'll choose that by doing the sustainability incentive, which means you need to do clean water, clean energy, um, energy conservation, and now we've added EV parking requirements to to get that benefit.

Understood. And Mr. Chair, I'm glad you mentioned building height. was one of the questions that I had in the you know your matrix the incentive is to increase building height by 10%. Typically where there's a height limit in a zone it's you know 55 45 ft 60 I think maybe 70 is one of them too that's not really enough to get another story it's kind of enough to get maybe a taller parapit or something like that. Was there any kind of discussion about increase an increase that's large enough to get another story or something more like that or I guess what was the logic on the 10%.

Yeah. Um Commissioner Moore that was something we did talk quite a bit about. Did we want to give enough to have another floor or we've already heard from home developers that oh 55 isn't quite enough. If only it was 60. If only it was. And so we've we decided and because it's applying across multiple zones, we landed on 10% so that in the R3 you're not necessarily getting another height, but you maybe can do a parapit or something um architect really interesting that they would want to do. So that's where we landed and that's the proposal, but we did discuss it.

I love that we define clean water. What if they do dirty water? What's the incentive there? Did I say clean water? I meant I probably meant something else.

It's okay. Just kidding. Um Diana, I'm going to ask you about uh the comments of Miss Decker with respect to the streetscape requirements. So that is in here multiple times with every one of our zones, and it does include the statement of or when streetscape improvements are programmed into the five-year work plan or CIP. Why not have a backs stop for when because it's not an if there are it's definitely a when some of those projects move in and out disappear altogether at times.

Um Mr. chair I we you know we had to work kind of around this like common sense approach of what is reasonable for us to um enforce over time and we had heard a lot if I build you know I'm coming through and the next year ACD is coming in and building a project or in two years or um they're doing design of the project so we had to make a judgment on what is possible for us to enforce when we have the application before us

and this is where we landed on that. So I guess the followup would be so in this Decker's line of thinking and is that you know when a pro if if we don't have the tool to enforce something because something is in the pipeline but then that pipeline is severed and the project disappears or it doesn't come back for however many years which happens because of various reasons. we potentially lose out on what would otherwise be a streetcape frontage improvement.

Yeah, Mr. Chair, yeah, it's the trade-off between or we're adding X number of expense to a housing project to build sidewalk that's going to get torn out two years. There's the rub and that's what you're hearing from the development community is the the there there concern of timing of well if we invest what could be a million bucks depends on what and where and then in two years from now that gets jackhammered up and the project goes through then what good is that? That's what you're hearing. So that's what this is. Okay, fair enough. Okay. All right. Other questions, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Moore, I've got another sidewalk question. So in the um

love sidewalk questions. 11049 the neighborhood housing points. Um there's a development standard to retain the existing 5ft attached sidewalk in the future. So if that property opts for that option, the property next door doesn't opt for, you know, the incentives and they do the detached sidewalk, the property on the other side does the same thing and they do the detached sidewalk. who builds the detached sidewalk later or is it just forever potentially that kind of attached detach that we've been trying so hard to get rid of for the time that I've been on the commission?

Yeah, Commissioner Moore, I think kind similar question to what I just said around if there but we have an we secure an affordable housing unit, what's the tradeoff there? And as we were kind of trying to scale up our incentives, that was what we were able to put forward. um we do put that requirement that the setback is from the future detached sidewalk. So at least we're not putting a brand new building in the um way of a future um where the detached sidewalk could be. But Mr. Sure commission

to follow up. I guess the point that I'm making is potentially this is a future ACD project or something like that to make it more complete then that would be the intent be a future public funded commissioner more likely that would be something we would have to come into. Okay. Again that's why we did say maintain a 5- foot attached sidewalk. Um you know there are many attached sidewalks that are substandard to that and so we did not include that. Okay. Have we had any progress on fe? Uh Mr. Terra, that is definitely something probably every year I think I look at. Um I don't have anything to report back at this time.

2027. Okay. All right. Any other questions? Good to go. Going once. Going twice. Okay, thank you, Diana. We'll go ahead and open this up to public testimony at this point. And there are five folks signed up. I think one of them probably already has gone. So, I'm going to start off with Deacon Tom Dominic. Welcome, sir, if you would come on up. Eric, are you going to testify? Okay. So, then next up is going to be I think it's Robert Elliott on deck. If you wouldn't mind, uh name and address for the record. and you have three minutes.

Mr. Chair, uh, commissioners, my name is Tom Dominic and I reside in downtown Boisee. I've lived in Boisee for over 50 years. I'm a Catholic deacon at St. Mary's Church and I am co-chair of Voice for the Poor, the advocacy arm for St. Vincent Depal Society and some of my colleagues are here. Our council of St. Vincent Depal has 12 conferences including seven in Boisee. I'm a home visitor for St. Vincent Depal. As a home visitor, I've helped at least 12 poor families each month for the past 15 years. And affordable housing is the top concern of the neighbors we help. We hear the cries of the poor people who are single mothers, people living in cars or shelters, people who are fleeing domestic violence, who live in garages, who are being evicted. We help students, the disabled, families, refugees, the young hardworking people and seniors. St. Vincent Apoll supports the proposed zoning code refinements because they will help provide more affordable housing in our great city. The refinements will likely help the poor afford a place to live. A single mom to live near her job. A senior on a fixed income not to have to leave the neighborhood where they live for decades. And they will help lower wage workers and teachers and service employees remain part of the community they serve. I want to tell you a couple of stories about what it means to the poor to find a place to live. First, we recently helped a single mother with two children. She requested help with rent. When we arrived at her apartment, I was shocked by the complete lack absence of any furniture, no beds, no tables, no chairs, no dishes or TV or really anything but some futons and blankets. We had to stand to speak with her. We helped her with rent and three beds and other furniture. Having no beds or other furniture or hardly any household items like towels or dishes would probably

upset a lot of people, right? Well, she was extremely happy, however. Why? Because she finally had a place for her family to live. Second, we helped a woman two weeks ago pay her security deposit. The woman, her husband, and three children had been staying at the Red Lion in shelter. She moved into her new home last Wednesday. I followed up with her on her movein day and asked how it felt to get out of the shelter and find a place for her family to live. She told me, "It's amazing. I can finally breathe again. It's like I can live again. Please approve the proposed refinements to our zoning code. Help the poor and lower income families find a place to live. Help them breathe again. Help them to live again. Thank you and God bless.

Thank you, Deacon." Okay, Robert Elliott and then a familiar face, Director Kle. And then last up is uh Pat Patrick uh Spout. Uh good evening, commissioners. My name is Robert Elliot. I live in Southeast Boisey by the university and I've lived in Boisee for a little over a decade. And I'm here tonight because I care deeply about this place I call home and in keeping it a welcoming and thriving place for all who want to live here. I strongly support the proposed zoning refinements for several personal reasons. First, for affordability and community. I have watched close friends move away from Boisee because they simply couldn't afford a home within their price range. Some of them now commute to Boisee from places like Meridian and Nampa, which only makes traffic worse and having people drive further into Boisee for their jobs isn't good for the environment. Uh, second about the success of ADUs. I myself currently live in an ADU. This has been fantastic for me uh as an affordable option for me to live in and I want to see these types of um modest neighborhood compatible homes become more accessible to others. I know and understand that this type of housing isn't for everyone, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't allow it for be allow for it to be an option for other people like me like me who might prefer smaller housing options. Uh next is the rightsiz parking. Uh my wife and I live close to downtown and we're able to walk and bike almost everywhere. Uh we never drive if we're going anywhere within the city and uh yet our home was required to have uh a number of parking spaces for uh when the ADU that I live in was put in that we simply don't use. So I support um fixing that to allow for more rightsiz parking. And then uh next is the reality of housing. So it is heartbreaking to

see people in my own neighborhood living out of their cars. And while the concept of minimum parking requirements sounds good, the reality is that we are creating an environment where we'd rather see where we'd rather have people living in their cars on the streets than we would have them live in houses without dedicated parking. Um, with that, I am asking for continued refinements to support uh Boise's values of attainable homes and walkable neighborhoods. Specifically, I would like you to uh create parody for smaller home types like duplexes and forplexes. uh streamline the processes for smallcale infill projects to make them more feasible and modernize the standards to encourage the same type of small charming homes that are already found in the older Boise neighborhoods like the North End. Uh thank you for your time and your continued service to the city.

Thank you, Mr. Elliot. Appreciate it. Mr. Chair, did we get an address? I'm sorry. We need into the microphone. Uh my address is 1037 West Hail Street.

Thank you very much. Thanks, Crystal. Okay. Uh Ela Cle and then Patrick Spouts. Good evening. It's great to be here and uh not surprising maybe to some of you that I'm here to talk about zoning. Um Elaine Kle 1011 North Street. Uh my professional address is 700 North 2nd Street in Meridian. I'm the CEO of Valley Regional Transit here to support the changes that you have before you in the zoning code and uh like the previous speaker talk about some things that I hope you'll consider in the next uh refinement. Uh it's exciting to see the code that I worked so hard on before I left the city finally uh not just get approved but be worked on and now being refined as you uh discover things that aren't working as well as you as you might like. My review of the things that um are before you um I'm certain there's there's many that you considered, but all of these I think are worthy. I think all of them will begin to continue to move the city uh toward more affordable housing. Um parking has been an issue tonight and that's the one thing that I'd like to talk about uh as a possible future refinement. I've talked to the director about that today. Sorry I didn't get these um comments in earlier so they'd be in the record. Uh, I was traveling and and frankly got off on which week it was. So, I would have otherwise. I apologize for that. But the um, Commissioner Torres talked about parking reduction. Some of the others of you did. And I think there's a real opportunity in the next refinement to

think about the high quality transit corridors. Although they're identified in the MX4 zone for parking reduction, I think we could go further and give um higher parking reductions for other uses that perhaps aren't in an MX4 zone but are on a high capacity or bestin-class transit corridor. Uh including extending those to more housing kinds of development. Right now, it's only multif family housing in MX4 uh that get the bulk of those. So, that's that's the main thing that we'd like to see. Um we'd also like to work with staff to figure out a process to bring other MX4 zones in as we extend um more highquality services such as we did on Fair View uh since this code was adopted. Um, but in general, just really excited to see this and um excited to see all of you and get reminded how much I I love this stuff and how hard you all work and how thankful I am that there are still people here working this hard.

Thank you very much. Thanks for being here. Okay, uh Patrick Spouts, thanks for joining us. and if you wouldn't mind name and address for the record.

Thank you, commissioners. Uh my name is Patrick Spouts. I live at 753 West Sandstone Court. Um I am a a founding member and board member for Neighbors for Boise and the Gem State Housing Alliance and was active in the original modern zoning code rewrite and on the citizens advisory board for that. And um I I'll just start by saying I'm really excited and proud of the positive things that came out of the zoning code. for about 18 months after we put it together, I would look at every project application that came through and counting up the number of ADUs and triplexes and forplexes that we were seeing. Uh, and was really impressed at the like step-wise function change in the number of ADUs that we saw as a result. Um, but I was disappointed that the number many of the other things we spent a lot of time discussing and working on and working through details, the triplexes, the forplexes, and some of the mixeduse stuff, um, we didn't see a lot in the first couple years after the modern zoning code rewrite. And so I'm really glad that we're here today looking at some tweaks we can hopefully trying to get more of the things that we intended to get and wanted to see out of the zoning code. Um, as you can probably guess, I would like us to go a little bit further. And I'm really proud of the city for the proformers they're looking at and looking at specific feasibility of what is going to get built under what constraints and conditions because I think whatever we put in our zoning code, it should be what we actually want to see happen. And so changes again on the parking continued discussion. I put my hat in the ring for less is more. And then for the some things like streetscape standards is another place where in unexpected ways when I talk to developers and talk to others that have engaged with that part of the code find it unexpectedly binding in micro ways. So continuing work to work on those things are things that I would strongly support. Uh but as the the list is here today I certainly support the six changes and I think they all move in the right direction.

Great. Thank you for all your hard work too. Okay. Uh is there anybody else in chambers? We don't have any anyone else signed up. So, if there's anybody else who wants to testify on this item, go ahead and come up now and state your name and address for the record. And I know I've got at least one online as well.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Ethan Mansfield, uh, 4409 West Albian Street, Boy, Idaho 8375. This is not the item I originally came to testify about, but I couldn't help myself when I heard the discussion about the airport influence area since it was my application that kind of initially drove that Hawkins application. I want to make it clear I'm testifying on behalf of myself, not Hawkins. But I've thought a lot about this issue and done a lot of research on it. So, um, just wanted to share. So, there's a lot of confusion because there's the airport influenced overlays and then there's the noise contours. Um, I would strongly recommend just adopting regulation based on the noise contours because as we talked about probably last year now, the FAA uses that regulation and that is kind of how land use is kind of regulated across the United States. Of course, different jurisdictions have different ways of handling that, but the noise exposure map and the noise contours change continually. The airport influence area was based on a 1996 determination of what the noise contours look like. They've gotten significantly smaller despite massive increase in air traffic. So the noise exposure contours are what are what defines what noise is and what impacts are. So I'd strongly recommend look maybe even putting a buffer. The FAA uses 65. Outside of 65 residential uses are allowed outright per the FAA. So perhaps if the city is concerned about future expansion and contraction of noise contours, they could peg it to the 60 to give them some buffer. um this does that this regulate or the change to this good gets towards that but it still incorporates the B1.

So that in and of itself despite being slightly more clear for developers just the incorporation of a totally separate overlay um is still very confusing frankly. So, um, all that said, I want to also voice my strong support for the changes to the modern zoning code that are being proposed tonight. Um, and I think they're working in the right direction. I think it's a great effort. Um, and I appreciate the work the city's done. Um, and I would also like to echo Patrick that less is more, especially when it comes to parking requirements because if if uh the property management feels that it can't be parked appropriately, they send that information to the developer, the developer decides whether or not to do the project. And so we may unintentionally be limiting supply by not letting the market figure out the right amount of parking. So with that, just thanks all for your help, all your work, and appreciate you guys.

Thanks, Ethan. Okay, Eric. And anybody else after Eric who wishes to testify, please see uh nearest C.

Hi there, Eric Kingston, 1010 East Jefferson. And uh like other folks, I just want to say how much I appreciate you guys and your your hard work on this and the staff for all great their great efforts and um clear kind of descriptions of everything. Um I spent 30 years at IHFA um started their uh statewide housing information referral center ran that for three decades and along along with a housing hotline during that time I talked to about 30,000 people calling from all over the state a big chunk of those were from Ada County and Boisee and you know they didn't call me when everything was going great they called me when they were you about to be evicted uh a lot of times it was because an out ofstate developer investor or a de out of state investor purchased the house and jacked up the rents. And uh a lot of those people were women in their 60s,7s and 80s. And one of them that really stuck with me was a woman who told me she was 85 years old. Uh California investor purchased the rental she was in. And she said, "Listen, young man, before you give me the name the number for a homeless shelter, they weren't designed for pe for women my age."

That's a hard one to hear. And so what I guess I want to say is thank you for um the work you've done to you know move this modern zoning code through the process. Thanks to all the citizens of Boisee who voted for it and uh you know my my perspective you know this you know from dealing with economic development, community development over time and teaching a class called housing as a second language. Um what we need is more housing. And you know, I I used to think that the only thing we should be pursuing is affordable housing. You know, 60%, you know, that kind of stuff. But we need that. And we also need housing at all different price points. We need uh a mix of housing types and price points that meet the needs and incomes of all the people who live here. And when we have enough housing, we basically create competition for tenants. and that has the effect of lowering rents and also increasing the the treatment of tenants because of that competition. So I think uh you know the I just want to say I support what the modern zoning code is trying to do. Um and you know the the idea of creating smaller footprint compact development forms you know that are distributed across the community across neighborhoods that uh basically does a whole lot of things. It creates more housing choice for the people who live in in Boisee. Um, and it means that somebody who's maybe from a limited income household might live in a neighborhood with people from a different, you know, demographic, right? And that basically allows for uh development of social capital, you know, building social capital, having that social mobility and it creates economic opportunity for all those people. So, I think you're on the right track. Um, that's the feedback I get from, you know, kind of land use planning professionals from all around the

region. they look to Boisey as as really a leader in this area. So, um, thanks for what you're doing and keep it up. Thank you, Eric. Appreciate it. Okay, one more, I think. And if you would name and address for the record.

Sure. Hello, commissioners. My name is Jamie S at 4247 East Arbor Vita Court in Southeast Boise. Um, first of all, yeah, thanks for what you guys are doing. Uh thanks for the staff for uh the incremental improvements to the code. Um I think the the mission and the vision for why we wanted to pass the modern zoning code. Um it was interesting two years ago hearing people testify saying, "Hey, I'm against the modern zoning code because of my concern about affordable housing." and other people like I was saying I'm for it because I'm concerned about affordable housing. And you know the reality is is that the code in itself is not going to create the housing that we want. Um the restrictive codes of the past and across the country have largely shaped the market the system that produces the kind of housing that is telling us that affordable housing doesn't pencil. So I think it's incumbent when we um kind of continuously till a field for example and spray all sorts of herbicides and chemicals on it and we kill the soil life. Right? When you realize that's not a good idea anymore and you've got to you want to change practices, you've got to actually do something besides just stop those bad practices. You've actually got to reininoculate the soil. And so I think I would encourage the the commission and the city council to consider ways of um nurturing a community of diverse small incremental developers in our city. There's a number of cities across the country that are doing just that. Um I think that's an important element. Um, reform in the code is important and we got to keep that going, but we need to help get

people off the sidelines who want to develop the kind of housing that we say we want, the kind of housing that we used to build. The people who used to build the housing that we used to build, we're everyday people. We're your neighbors. We're your grandparents. We're, you know, and those were the the kind of landlords that um we we need we need again. So I want to encourage uh uh not just focus the code is important and I would say increase flexibility in the code um being able to mix allowed uses on a single project by right um so that we can have the kind of adaptive responsive designs and proformas that uh respond to the local needs. So that would be my suggestion. Uh keep going but um I would say maybe air on the side of flexibility, lighter touch for lighter projects for smaller projects. You know the scale of the uh of the touch I think is an important piece because and the timing of when fees are due because all that stuff keeps people who want to develop the kind of housing we want off the game field. Thank you.

Great point. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Is there anybody else in chambers who wishes to testify, come on up. And if there's anybody else uh who wants after this, there's a seat up here. Come on up so we can kind of keep moving.

Hi, I'll keep this brief. Um but my name is Amanda Reid. My address is 20003 South Kurr Street, Boisey. Um I'm also the organizer at the Idaho chapter of the Sierra Club. Um, we're an environmental organization committed to climate justice and also um just to keeping Boisey both clean and affordable. Um, I'm also I'm here to voice both my personal support and our organization support of these continued uh refinements that support attainable homes, walkable neighborhoods, and housing options for people at different stages of life. Um we also have a couple of high school students in the audience that are on our youth activist team um that are also in support of these refinements. Um so with rising inflation, folks losing their jobs and rent increasing every year, uh we think boyians need more options for affordable housing um in this city that they love. Uh when I personally was a renter, I looked for ADUs and small livable spaces, but I struggled to find any. Um, and then I just bought my first home last year and also just struggled to find homes that fit my budget. Um, and that were the size I wanted. Um, so yeah, we appreciate that Boisey has already taken important steps to support more housing choices. Um, and today we're just encouraging you to continue on that path um, and to support refinements um, specifically those that allow for smaller homes. Um, so yep, we'll hope you'll support these um, soy can stay a welcoming and attainable place for current and future residents. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Anybody else in chambers who wishes to testify? Okay, let's go. We have one person online. It looks like uh Adam Flity. A Adam's hand was up. No. Okay. Well, we can go to Alexander Mjar and then we can come back to Adam if Adam changes his mind. Alexander, you with us? Think we're getting close. The mute is off. Well, Adam's still on, but your hand is down, so I think we're good. Alexandra, one more chance here.

Hi, can you hear me? There we go. We got you.

Sorry about that. My name is Alexandra Mar. I live at 2222 West Kney Street and um I just want to like others voice my support for these updates to the zoning code. I really think um adding some realism to the incentives for affordable housing makes a lot of sense. I think um we really want that policy to be used and so I think matching it to what's possible and giving people options to figure out how to make it work is a smart change. Um one thing I see on there that I think I would encourage the city to look at um for future updates is allowing for smaller minimum lot sizes. Um when we talk about affordability for homes, a lot of times that means smaller homes on smaller lots. And I think that there's still room for improvement. um for allowing even smaller lots than we have in the current code. I think a lot of our most cherished neighborhoods and cute homes that that I really like seeing um are are smaller and and maybe non-conforming. So, I think really looking at how we can make those possible again um is is something I would I would encourage. Um, I also would throw my hat into the ring of folks who are encouraging looking at removing parking minimums or simplifying those. I really think um this the government doesn't need to be in the business of parking and the market can start to figure out u what's really necessary. Um seems like an overreach into uh private property. And um yeah, I just want to thank you again for for looking at this and I I hope that we'll continue to see um updates made as we learn about how this is actually being implemented. So, thank you.

Wonderful. Thank you. Okay, last call. Anybody in chambers or online who wish to testify on this item? Nobody in chambers? Nobody online. Okay, we'll go ahead and bring the public comment period to a close and city's got five minutes for rebuttal. Um, commissioners, community, thank you for your feedback. We don't have a rebuttal. Okay, we're good to go. So, the item is the hearing is now closed and the item is up in front of the commission for decision. Recommendation to council, by the way. Wow, you're eager to go. Jeez. All right, Commissioner Torres.

Mr. Chair, I move that we recommend approval of Zoa 25-13. Um, I guess there aren't really terms and conditions of the staff report, but if I need to say that with that. Okay. I've got a motion by Commissioner Torres to recommend approval to council. Is there a second? I'll second. I've got a second by Commissioner Sehaw. Thank you. Is there discussion, Mr. Chair?

Commissioner Torres. Um, first of all, Deanna, Andrea, everyone else on the planning team, I I appreciate all your hard work on this. I don't think there is a bigger endeavor this city has tackled in the last decade than this. Um, maybe COVID, but that's a whole different ballgame. Um, you know, so great work. We we all appreciate all the work you've done on this. My questions were critical mainly because of a lack of time and I didn't want to go on with millions of questions on this, but I think this is going to do a lot of good as far as allowing more ADU flexibility, tiny homes on wheels, um helping to get some of that more affordable, smaller, um housing built. Um I do, you know, still have concerns about some things. I I do share uh Miss Decker's concerns about the ACD 5-year plan and projects in that in that area. Um, I don't know what the right answer is there. I'm not sure this is, but it's not enough to make me not want to support this. Um, I I also appreciate staff addressing the airport overlay. Um, but I do have some concerns about making some things more more difficult in the process with that. Um, I I just give that as feedback for the future. Um, and I I have I understand the reasoning behind it, but I definitely have heartburn about the uh AMI being raised. Um, ultimately for the future, I just like many of the people in the crowd, I I want to encourage you to look further at parking. One of the most expensive things in all these developments we're seeing is the parking. And if we want more housing, I just think it's a better goal for the city to house people versus cars. Um, and with that, I'll let my fellow commissioners weigh in.

Thank you, Mr. Torres. Other comments? Commissioner Torres, I commission, I think you read my notes.

Uh, because I too have heartburn on the affordability item. Um, I hope the city planning staff consider, you know, something just doing some more analysis of whether there's some wiggle room between that 60% to 80%. Um, prior to my um, sitting up here, I paid very close attention to what was going on. And at one point I felt like we saw a lot of a focus on afford on workforce housing which tends to be that 80% AMI and above. I can think of one project um Miss Rodriguez the Denton project which was 60% AMI if I remember correctly. We have little peppers here and there and you know I agree we take whatever we can get but there's got to be something. We've got to bring in smallcale, medium, and large scale developers to the table to come up with something that that works if possible without that financial incentive. Um, I am super excited about the 50-year versus 20 or 25 year. I think you guys looked at that at some point during CO. Um, and let me see what else I have here. The airport influence area revisions are great. they make sense to me. Um let's see and I guess just one last um comment and that's if if we are serious about being a city for everyone, we not only need to look at diverse housing options, but I think um Eric from the public said, you know, we need to look at diverse housing options at different price points. Um we can't forget

um our working individuals, families who work in our city that fall below the 80% AMI. Um they too deser deserve to live in the city. Um so that's why I would encourage planning staff to really look at that. And one last thing, parking. I think when we looked at when we first started looking at the updates to the zoning code, I thought that was a no parking. There was like a no parking minimum. I think that's what I remember. And I thought that during the public meetings, we had a lot of people uh of a certain age category that came out who were absolutely opposed to that. And I agree with Commissioner Torres. If anyone's ever read parking or paradise parking or paved paradise um book on parking that has opened my eyes to some things and and we do need to look at maybe revisiting that zero parking minimum. So I will be voting in support.

Thank you. Commissioner Seha. Other comments? Commissioner Moore.

Mr. Chair. Um yeah agree with the comments here. I think, you know, I'd be curious to see how many applications the city receives for two ADUs or two tiny houses. Um, to see how that's utilized in the future and and maybe like in the next year if that's increase or that's housing type that we're starting to see more and more of and where we're seeing it. I imagine that it'll be popular with infill um with infill development. Something I would be curious about is looking at incentives to increase the minimum ADU size in relation to the primary dwelling. A lot of these um houses in maybe the north end, some of these other areas, the primary dwelling might be very small. So when you have a 70% of a very small dwelling, it could be very very small. Um and so maybe an incentive to kind of increase that 70% maximum um piece and then agree with um the comment to maybe provide some incentives to allow for small smaller minimum lot sizes. I think that's a that's a great idea and could be a good good way to get an alternative housing type um and just a a different creative way to handle infill and handle some of this development. So agree with everything including those comments.

Thank you Mr. Moore Mr. Stfons.

Mr. Chair, thanks. Um I I first want to thank yeah staff all the work um working through this. We know this is a dynamic uh uh document that it was going to continue to need to be changed. I know when I first testified in support of it, I knew it wasn't perfect and there were things that we were going to learn. Um but we need to get those things out there. Um and some of the things that are listed here today, I know there's a lot of items in different categories from parking to ADUs to, you know, air uh or soundcape there. and that makes it a little challenging sometimes to make decisions um when they're all lumped together. Um but that's just the nature of how these things come about. Um I know the value of the testimony and um all of the the submissions that we got that's really valuable. I learned things from those things that um get brought up even today. You know, better understanding the uh uh streetscape. Um I'm fully aware of how the 5-year plan changes, things get on it and then are removed. Um and that's that's concerning um as we think about those and the situation where there could be sidewalks and then gaps of sidewalks um on that. So I'm definitely going to continue to watch that as things unfold um here. But it's also nice to see that some of the things that we've come up. only been on the on the on the commission here for uh two months. So, it's been a short amount of time, but I've seen some of these things already come up. So, I appreciate you all listening and addressing some of these to make some of our work easier um to that. So, um and I want to echo really uh wanting to see um more clarity on yeah the the affordability of the housing out there and how we can really drive some of that um and not just leave it up to the market. Um and then yeah, parking for sure. Um yeah, let's let's let the market determine that and remove

um any of the minimums on that. Love to see that come ahead here. So I'll be in support. Thank you. Okay. No input from Seahawk fence. Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner.

I'll be I'll be I'll be kind. I'll be kind. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be quick, too. Um thanks staff uh for all the work. Nice job. Uh thanks for everybody that testified. Um I think the thread that I full support full support of all the changes. Um I appreciate the cadence that we're on, you know, and kind of evaluating this um ongoingly, you know, once a year or whatever we're at once every nine months. So u we're in a good cadence. I think that's great. Um I think a lot of these things are going to help that affordability piece that we're talking about, right? I I mean my day job I see like bike parking adds cost, excessive bike parking adds cost, excessive EV requirements add cost, streetcapes add cost. So by right sizing a lot of this maybe reducing those and looking at the right amount I think we're going to head in the right direction, right? And get those prices down and make it more affordable in the big picture. There is definitely risk. Um that five-year plan with ACD and CCDC is tough, but that's kind of the risk we got to take, right? Um, and you can't do it twice. There's a lot of waste in doing it twice, building something and having it removed within a couple years, right? So, um, I think that's one of the risks we got to take here, but I think this is going in the right direction for sure. Full support. Thank you, M. Schaefer. Okay. I'll try to be quick, too. I'm also in support of the motion. Also want to thank staff and all the people who participated in the process as well. It warms my heart to see so many fellow planning and zoning nerds here tonight. Thank you for coming out. Um, a few things I want to point out. I'm going to keep hitting Fee and Lou. If Lewon Idaho can figure it out, we can figure it out. They've had a policy for sidewalks for years. We can do it, too. Um, I'd love to see town homes continue to advance in our next iteration. It's a product I think that is is needed and desired and love to see more support from that. I think Commissioner Kle's points on transit and and we're moving next iteration beyond MX4, but best-in-class that should mean

something. I appreciate that, too. My last point is this. In 1970, 40% of American households were comprised of nuclear families with kids under 18. That number is now 17% and declining. We are having fewer children. And therefore, the composition of households is changing and therefore the housing landscape and demand of the product is changing too. And so this code, I believe, is meeting the moment. We are up against private equity firms buying housing for an investment return. We are up against overnight rentals which we all have stayed at, right? But we know that that's a market that competes against the needs of residents of this city, future and existing. We have out of state residents who continue to move here because we know it's a great place to be. We're competing against that, too. We also have very few tools in our toolbox because of what happens in the big domed building up the street. We know that there's limitations on what we're able to do in the world of affordability, for example, or preventing some of the things that we discussed even if we have the best of intent. So, all of those things are up against us, but I hope and and I'm I'm excited that our code continues to try to be tweaked thanks to the good work of the staff and everybody involved. Um, so I'll be in support of the motion. Would the clerk please call the role?

Danley, I. Moore, yes. Schaefer. I I Torres I Stfons I. All in favor? Motion carries. Great. We're going to take a 5m minute break and we'll return in at least five minutes.

Okay. If we can start to uh reconvene, we'll get underway. Okay. Uh the next item before us this evening is item number three. This is C25-23 SD land consulting which is a request for a reszone of approximately 089 acres located at 650 South uh Codell Drive and also a preliminary plat request as well for Codell Cottages subdivision. Okay. And looks like Doug. Excellent. Thank you.

Good evening commissioners. Before you tonight is a reszone request in a preliminary plat on 0.89 acres located at 650 South Colorado Drive. The request consists of a reszone from R1A to R1B in a four lot subdivision which will be discussed tonight. As shown on screen and in the project report, the subject properties adjacent to 2.64 acres of R1B and the R1B zone is supported under the suburban feature land use designation. Properties to the east are higher densities and a reszone to R1B would help provide a more gradual transition from the denser development pattern on the east to the larger lot seen to the west. The broader area contains a variety of zoning and densities as shown on screen along with surrounding bus routes. The subject property is just over one mile away from the town square mall and near three other activity centers and you can see it as the blue star on this map. Shown on screen are the dimensional standards of the R1A and R1B zones with differences being lot area, lot width, and density. The two zones have the same setback and height requirements. And lastly, a housing needs analysis was conducted in 2021 and update in 2024, which demonstrates the changed conditions that support the reszone request. The subdivision that is proposed will create four buildable lots and retain the existing house on lot one. Lot two will be accessed from Shupe Avenue and a recommended condition of approval would require the driveway to be shifted to the western half of the property to mitigate the existing step or the existing conditions on Shupe Avenue which will be discussed further in the next slide. Due to the setbacks of the R1B zone in the shape of lot 4, a recommended condition of approval will require lots three and four to utilize a shared driveway which is also supported by the comprehensive plan. Shupe Avenue adjacent to the subject property is currently unimproved with only one lane of travel. As summarized

in the project report, this subject will be improved when the 2.64 acre R1B parcel redevelops. There are existing overhead power lines which run down the middle of the rideway as well. Preliminary conversations with Idaho Power indicate that the power lines will remain above ground. As such, a recommended condition of approval will require the landscape buffer along avenue to be 10 10 feet wide with class one street trees to accommodate the future location of the power lines. Ada County Highway District provided no opposition in their comment which was received on January 26th, 2026. As shown on screen is a summary of the public opposition submitted along with the city responses which are also summarized in the project report. The R1B zone provides a gradual transition in development patterns. The subdivision is proportional to the lot sizes in the area and our recommended conditions of approval have mitigated for safety concerns to the greatest extent practicable. As such, the planning team recommends approval and I'd be happy to stand for any questions.

Great. Thank you, Doug. Okay, the applicant present.

Hi, come on up. Okay, I'm ready. Hello. Hello and good evening. Um, chairman, members of the commission, um, hello and good evening again. Um, my name is Sabrina Durie and I am here on behalf of the applicant. My business address is 5179 South Boven Avenue, Boisee, Idaho 83716. And this evening, um, I'm very excited to present to you our applications for Codell Cottages. So, first, let me begin by telling you about Codell Cottages. It has been envisioned as a welcoming, thoughtfully designed infilled neighborhood, one that future residents will be proud to call home. This boutique infill community provides a unique opportunity to create a quiet residential setting with generously sized lots that feel tucked away while still being well connected to the surrounding area. Perfectly situated near Maple Grove Road, this community offers residents convenient and efficient access throughout the Treasure Valley, helping reduce travel time to employment centers, schools, shopping, and recreational activities. As part of this proposal, the applicant is requesting a reszone and preliminary plat approval. The preliminary plat includes four single family residential lots, one that contains the existing home which will be remain as part of the overall development. The subject site is a lot that was subdivided back in 1972 and is currently established in in a land use suburban area within Blueprint Boisey. This area has seen a transition from mixed use

intensity near Maple Grove to our east with town homes and storage facilities with larger estate lots to the west. This site is located within the west bench planning area and this area has been slated for future infill development. You can see the area highlighted in the purple dot. This has been designated a level two area that is expected to experience some level of redevelopment over time. With the site designated as suburban on the future land use map and located within the west bench area identified for infill development, a reszone to R1B represents the most appropriate and efficient use of the property. As noted in the staff report, the site is immediately adjacent to R1B zoning to the east with a mix of nearby zoning that includes R1C, R2, mixed juice, and R1A zoning to the west. This context supports a transitional zoning approach that is compatible with the surrounding development patterns. The proposed R1B zoning is intentional and respectful of the existing established neighborhood. It allows for lowdensity residential layout with lot sizes ranging from 9,000 square ft up to 10,681 square ft, maintaining the neighborhood character while providing a thoughtful info opportunity. So to better understand how this application fits within the broader area, it's helpful to look at the surrounding development pattern. To the north, we have Maple Grove Acres platted in 1961. This establishes a longstanding lowdensity residential character. Several of these lots have further divided over time through minor land divisions demonstrating an ongoing pattern of compatible infill. Also to the north is Stonehouse subdivision platted in back in 2006 which includes

lot sizes similar to those proposed within our application. To the east, the site transitions to Emily subdivision. Pause. Pause. Pause. Pause. Pause. That's not going to happen. We appreciate the passion. We appreciate everybody's coming in and attending, but every single person in this chambers has the right to speak and to be heard and it not to be swayed one way or the other. So, I appreciate the passion. Please try to keep that to ourselves when you have your chance to come up and speak for the three minutes. We can you can say the things that you want to say at that point in time. But otherwise, I ask you to please refrain from that type of activity. Thank you. Please continue.

Thank you, chairman. To the east, the site transitions to Emily subdivision located within R1C zoning district as well as Cathedral Park town homes back platted 94. Represents a mix of residential uses and zones in close proximity. To the south, the property is bordered by town and country estates number seven, platted in 1972 with Interstate 84 located directly beyond, creating a clear southern edge to the neighborhood. To the west, the site is again adjacent to town and country estates number seven, reinforcing the established residential context on multiple sides of the project. Based on the surrounding development pattern, we believe the request of the lowdensity R1B zoning is consistent with the existing neighborhood character and represents appropriate infield transition within the West Bench area. With the larger lot sizes proposed, the applicant is envisioning highquality single family residences that are consistent with the surrounding neighborhood character and scale. The images shown represent conceptual home designs that reflect the overall vision of Pericottell cottages. While these plans are illustrative in nature and not final, they provide a clear sense of architectural style, massing, and quality anticipated for this infill development. These concepts demonstrate a thoughtful design, neighborhood, well-proportioned homes, articulated roof lines and materials that will complement the existing residential context. Overall, the intent is to create homes that feel established, timeless, and compatible with the surrounding area, reinforcing the vision for the proposed R1B zoning. A neighborhood meeting was held on September 18th. Many neighbors attended. The meeting generated a great deal of discussion and engagement reflecting the strong interests residents have in their neighborhood. We recognize and respect

the concerns expressed by the neighbors and understand that change particularly in older established areas can feel uncertain. Those concerns have been carefully considered throughout the design and planning of this project. At the same time, we feel that the additional of three new single family homes will over time have a positive and meaningful impact on the surrounding area. This proposal represents an opportunity to thoughtfully reinvest in and improve an underutilized infill property, placing it into the highest and best use in a manner that is compatible with the existing neighborhood and ultimately serves as a long-term asset to the community. In summary, um, this project represents a thoughtful and responsible infill opportunity that aligns with the city of Boisey's long-term planning goals by adding three new single family homes within an established neighborhood. This proposal helps address the city's ongoing housing shortage without expanding development outward or placing additional pressure on infrastructure at the urban fringe. Infill development like Potterell plays a critical role in making efficient use of existing land use, utilities, and transportation networks while reinforcing neighborhood stability and reinvestment. This proposal respects the surrounding residential context with R1B zoning, appropriate size lots, highquality design, and ensuring compatibility with the existing neighborhood. Ultimately, we feel this project strikes a careful balance between honoring the character of the area and meaning a very real need of additional housing in Boisee. It represents a type of intentional small-cale infill development that supports sustainable growth and contributes positively to the community over time. On the behalf of the applicant and myself, I would like to thank staff for their help and guidance throughout this proc process and we're in full agreement with the staff report.

And on that, I'd like to thank you all for your time, your thoughtful consideration, and allowing us to present our project to you this evening. Um, and I would respectfully request a recommendation of approval to city council. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jy. Okay, hang tight. We'll have questions for you in just a minute. Um, is the representative from West Boise Neighborhood Association here? This would be uh Judith Herman. I don't see that name online. Okay. Looks like that they are not here. Okay. So, in that case, we're going to go ahead and turn it over to questions from the commission.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moore. Um, I think a lot of the correspondence that I read was about this kind of section of Shep Avenue right adjacent to the site that kind of comes down to one lane and then but it's two lanes on either side. Um, looking at Google Maps, it looks like this is not the only access to this property and there are actually several like I think the pro the project reports at five or six and that's is that correct? Um, Commissioner Moore, that is correct. Yes, I believe there are five other exits to the general network of collectors and arterials throughout the neighborhood. Okay. And then, Mr. Chair, go ahead, Commissioner.

Uh, quick followup. So the ACD project report that I think was in the late correspondence that did not indicate any reservations about this project with regards to that particular access point. Is that correct? Chairman Danley, Commissioner Moore, that is correct. Thank you, Commissioner Swansonic. Chair. Yeah. Um yeah, clarifying um this is for the applicant to in the city. Excuse me. So, the city you you all said that they were going to have to move the driveway to the western to Codarell for these lots. Is that correct? Uh, Chairman Danley, Commissioner Soponic, that is correct. Yes. Okay. And you're in you're in support of you're fine with that, Chairman. Commissioner, yes. Yes, we are.

Okay. How does that is that going to impact? Are you going to rearrange things if you're going to not have an exit for that lot two there? Um, chairman, commissioner, I think lot two and four will share an access point. Um, so they'll have a shared driveway, kind of like a common drive. Mhm. Or three and four, excuse me. And then lot two, I think Doug wanted it the access point to be moved over a little bit. Um, due to the vision triangle as well as um, was there something else I was missing? Sorry, Doug.

Yes. Um, commissioners, also due to the nature of Shupe Avenue, reducing down to one lane right adjacent to where that driveway is currently proposed, shifting it to the western side of that street frontage helps provide more of that clearance. Um, both visually for drivers and then also just some of that safety, you know, backing out a car potentially into that pseudo blind spot with that unimproved ride of way. So, it's mitigating and kind of compensating for that. Okay, I think I misunderstood. I thought you meant change the access to cauterell as in the west. You mean just slide over the driveway to the west? Correct.

Correct. Yes. And we're happy to do that. And also, as you note in the ACD report, we'll be improving with um sidewalks. Any um improvements needed to be made to cautell and shoot based on their um findings and probably during the construction um we'll be upgrading. So, okay. Thanks for helping me understand that. Okay. Other questions, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Torres.

My question is for the applicant. Um, you probably have heard us talk quite a bit up here about AMI tonight. Um, so my question is, I mean, these are obviously single family homes. They look like they're fairly large and and fairly nice based on the images. Do you have a rough idea what these are going to go, what these are going to be priced at? I assume it's going to be market rate. Is that correct? Um um chairman um commissioner I didn't get an exact number but they are going to be larger lots um and probably larger single family homes um so I would estimate um starting point around 600 but I mean I'm I that's not I'm just guessing I'm not a realer so yes thank you

okay other questions Mr. Schaefer thank you Mr. Share Doug, just to confirm, um, we're going from R1 A to R1B. Setbacks are the same in both zones. Correct. Correct. And they're not asking for any variances from those setbacks. Correct. Perfect. Okay, that's all I have. Thanks. Okay. Anything else? going once, going twice. Okay, thank you, commissioners. I'll be back.

Appreciate it. We're gonna go ahead and open this up to uh public testimony. Okay, before we get started, I just wanted to run over a couple things. Again, um please state your name and address for the record and everybody will have their three minutes. The signup sheet has I was counting about 20 people. There's some folks online and I'm guessing there may be some additional folks in the chambers who may maybe didn't sign up um who want to testify. Totally fine. Um I would just my only words of encouragement are this and that is that if you if you get to the point you're 9 10 in and your points have been made, you don't have to testify, okay? For the sake of of expediting this and your evening and so forth. Just keep that in mind that as we get further into this, you're going to probably start to hear similar points being made. Having said that, you have every right in the world to come up and testify for your three minutes. So, okay, with that, um, also there's three seats up here. So, I'm gonna, uh, I'm going to name off the first few folks, and if the second and third folks wouldn't mind coming up this way and having a seat, then we can kind of keep moving. That would be great. All right, first up is Cameron Rifle, I think it is, followed by Jenny Halenberger. Is that right? And then Nathan Daring. Hello, sir.

Good evening. Um, my name is Cameron Reeel and I live at 1020 West Stardust Drive here in Boisee. Um, I want to open with saying I appreciate you guys this evening and allowing us to come here and um, have public comment. I'll be honest, I'm a novice at this sort of thing. So, please,

uh, I also want to say I appreciate your guys' levity this evening, like light lightening the mood a little bit. I'm a little bit, uh, intimidated by all of you right now, so that helped lighten it up. Um, I moved to Boyce in 1994, and I moved into the neighborhood. Uh, I was actually, I could boast, at the time, being the youngest homeowner in um, the subdivision, which is Town and Country Estates, which I think we should acknowledge and recognize the name that they came up with when they platted this subdivision. Um, I was 33 years old and we spoken a lot. I'm going to leave my prepared remarks because I'm gained some experience from listening to you guys and your questions this evening. Uh, Chairman Moore, I don't know how to address you. I'm sorry. I loved your your looking forward. You're thinking about future problems and impacts on things that are coming up and I wanted to acknowledge that. Um, in the 1970s, the urban renewal project uh demolished a lot of buildings downtown. And I think with 50 years of uh retrolooking perspective, we can say that we probably went a little overboard on getting rid of some of our old historic buildings and now we've got a lot of 1980s glass and uh concrete, which is nice, too, but it's not the same. Um, when I moved into this neighborhood, this is one of the only places in town that a young person could afford space. And we talked a lot about affordability and housing, but I think we're kind of painting it with a brush of all affordable housing should be small, town home, something, you know, uh, smaller uh, footages. And the thing I love about this neighborhood is it it gives the opportunity for young people like myself, um, the opportunity to have some space. We've got that diversity and choice, which I actually think somebody up here brought up earlier, diversity of choice. If all of the affordable housing is small housing with no land, we don't have the opportunity to have bees. Like we have beekeepers. We have uh previously we had a communal garden on one of the lots here because they're large enough to be able to do that. We'll take turns

planting, weeding, harvesting. Um this is just the first domino uh of the reszone. The reason I was able to buy in this neighborhood is because I didn't have to compete with a developer that was going to go and subdivide. It wasn't zoned for that. and we're gonna future generations won't have space. I have the ability to raise my children. I don't have to go to the park because I have a giant backyard that I can do that. Um, look at my time. Uh oh. Uh, so I just want to keep that in mind and present that back to you. Affordability should look at all cross-sections of property types, not just small houses on small lots. I love the fact that I was able to afford at the young age of 33 a lot where I can actually raise my family and enjoy some space and I think that that's this is one of the last neighborhoods that you're able to do that. Thank you.

Thank you for coming out, Mr. Rifle. Appreciate your your testimony. The only one intimidating is Commissioner Torres down there. He's menacing, right? All right. Uh Jenny, I think it's Alen Ber. Is that right? Oh, that's correct. uh Nathan Daring and then Tammy Staley.

My name is Jenny Hollenburgger and I live at 597 Coderell. We're located at the tea of the questionable narrow road. So, I would like to address some of the negative impacts of the proposed zoning project because I've lived here for 35 years, 34 years, and I've seen a lot of things coming down that narrow road that aren't good. So, I'm going to leave a couple things out. I have some zoning reszone things, but I'm going to leave them out because if you have a question about the city code they go to, I'd answer them. Could you bring up slide five, Doug? Yeah, you can see on the slide where we're going from west to east. I mean east to west, I'm sorry. And where you come from the east part of Boisey, actually I'm just going to read it. Shup Avenue is the entry road into our neighborhood from Maple Grove. There is another one, but it comes off Franklin. It flows through an area of dense development, apartment, town houses, and storage facilities. The sidewalks and road are developed to code up to but only up to Farmer's lateral canal bridge. Then the street narrows at 68% to a one-lane undeveloped rural road. Utility poles, water ditches allow for no there's no movement. Once you get in there, especially if there's another car, you're not going anywhere else. The bottleneck is and it it lasts for 138 ft. The bottleneck is dangerous for foot traffic, which we have about 60 foot traffic. They come from the denser part of our neighborhood and they walk it, which is wonderful. Tool school buses make two stops a day near this construction. Um, can you start some of those, Doug? Can you start some of those seven, eight, nine, and 10? Oh, we did a traffic study, which I left

out. Sorry about that. But um the traffic study was done in October of this year. We did one back in 2018 when we had another discussion about some development in our neighborhood. It was 395 in 2018 and it's 601 today that go through that shootute bottleneck every day. Um do you want to start some of those? This is heading east on Shupe. Um, this is from my house down and you can see that it's developed part of the way. There aren't any sidewalks and you guys put your sign where we queue up to go through. Um, eight is heading west on shoot. It's not very wide. And you have nine. Yeah, this is an attempt to pass. And Doug, can you put up the video, please? The reszone adds two new um move and some of this has changed since I we talked last time. There are two new egresses into the bottleneck. Um it's just

time. So ma'am, I'm afraid the three minutes. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you for coming out. Appreciate it. Um, okay. Nathan Dearing, followed by Tammy Staley and then Scott Staley.

Hello, sir. My name is Nathan Daring. My wife and I uh live at 100095 West Lanton. Um, about 30 years ago, we purchased this property uh frankly because of the space. Um, in the time that we've been there, we've raised cows, we've had chickens, um, we've, uh, enjoyed, uh, letting our son ride his dirt bike on our property. We've had, um, most of our neighbors have been there, uh, quite a long time. In fact, uh, we have very few homes that go up for sale in our neighborhood um, until someone is unable to take care of uh, the property um, or they pass away, which we've had several of around us. Um, now exiting my property, if I intend to go north, I have to drive out uh to five mile to exit because getting across the lane of traffic uh requires quite a bit of time if I'm wanting to go north. If I want to go south, I need to exit through Maple Grove. Now, neither one of these roads connect directly to Loanson. They horseshoe in. We were uh we bought our property before it was part of the city and so we were county for quite some time. When we became a part of the city uh they graciously gave us two stoplight or two uh uh lights, two street lights and that was all we received uh from being a part of the city. Most of our neighbors uh are owners. They live on the premises. There are very few rentals in our neighborhood. So, it's a a property that doesn't change nature very often. Uh we know our neighbors. We appreciate the um sharing. Um you know, just uh walking up and down the street. There are quite a few

children in our neighborhood. If we were to um begin increasing the density of our neighborhood, several things would happen. We know that this coming year is going to be a low water year because of the lack of snowfall. And already we've had to increase the depth of our well uh once and sometimes uh our neighbors have had to do that more often than that. We also are on ditch irrigation which we use I have two large gardens at my property and and fruit trees and grape vines and so we appreciate that ditch water but as more and more uh uh need comes from the water and more and more people are demanding that we will have quite a bit less of it. Um I I would request that you strongly consider keeping some of this wonderful piece of um Boise that we moved to Boise. Well, we moved to our property which then became Boise. We'd love for you to consider keeping our the nature of our neighborhood the way it is so that we don't double our density um increase our possibility of of safety issues um coming out on on either of those roads. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay. Tammy Staley, followed by Scott Staley, followed by Katrina Little.

Hi. Hello, commissioners. Thank you for your time tonight and listening to us.

Uh, my name is Tammy Staley. I live at 9700 West Lontan. We've lived here on that property for 20 years. We chose to move to this neighborhood for its uniqueness, the ability to have my horses and have a great neighborhood country feel without moving far out. Now, Kuna is not so far anymore, but um we love our neighborhood. We see deer. We see all kinds of animals. Um, and I would just ask that you consider because I've heard a lot of testimony tonight before this project about affordability housing and those things and it almost makes me feel guilty to have these beautiful pieces of property. But with that being said, I don't really be because we bought this with the intent of for the purposes that we use it for. We all do something a little bit differently. The other thing is is we don't have sidewalks. The water issues, many many people are having to redrill. Um, and I find it really interesting that ACD puts the markers in there and say that the majority of people go 20 miles an hour. I'm going to sit my lawn chair in the middle of the road and maybe they will slow down. People actually fly down there because Lhaton goes really from in the middle of Maple Grove where they want to put this housing development to

five Mile. We used to have dips and somebody complained about it and ACD got rid of those dips and opened it up. So now it's a huge problem. Our kids can't play on the in the street. they can't ride their bikes and those things that we all bought these properties for. And so I think that those things need to be taken into consideration as well. It's a beautiful area. My husband and I have been active community um members of this community for many years. our you know our whole 45 years of marriage and this is where we want to retire and we would like to hand this property down to our kids. I have a daughter who will never be able to afford a home in this area. Never. And so with that being said, we would like to offer them that opportunity because they won't be able to do it on their own. Um, I could go on a lot, but I will tell you in front of the property on the blind spot where they're um asking to put this property in, there's one house there right now, there are always cars parked in front of that house.

Thank you, Miss Staley. I need to draw your testimony to a close. Thank you for coming out. Appreciate it. Okay. Uh, Scott Staley, followed by Katrina Little, followed by Alan Stoddard. And again, if you wouldn't mind using some of the seats closer, that would help. Hello, sir. Come on up. And name and address.

Uh my name is Scott Staley. Uh I reside tonight at 9700 West London. Um uh I have one concern. Uh my concern is u if we go ahead and reszone this area uh that's going to increase uh traffic just to start with 300 to 400%. And that according that's according to the state of Idaho boyce state uh boy state report. Now, if that's going to be the case, then uh we're going to have by far we have enough tra now. We're going to have more a lot more a lot. And I don't uh what I am also concerned about is this reszoning, should it occur, is going to be the start of the degradation of the rest of the neighborhood. and all the people out here who are who I uh recognize and don't recognize. They're my friends. They're my neighbors. Uh they're there to be comfortable. They're there to uh have a home uh and not be told exactly what has to happen. And if you're going to reszone, that's exactly kind what you're doing. I before you vote on it, I certainly hope that you guys can uh maybe step back, go ahead and take uh take your house and put it at where my house is and think about it and then decide if you want to make such a big change because it's going to be complete degrag excuse me, degradation of that entire neighborhood. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much, sir. All right. Uh Katrina Little, Alan Stoddard, and then Michael Howenburgger. Hi. Hello, Mr. Chair. Um I brought paper exhibits. Am I allowed to hand those out? Uh I don't think we can at this point. The record has been uh declared already, but I will say that this is an item just making sure this is regardless of tonight is moving forward to council. So you would have an opportunity to submit your record to council. Okay. They were just examples of how um most of our neighborhood are these 1acre lots. Um sorry, my name is Katrina Little. I live at 10465 West Lontan. Thank you.

Um in the subdivision just down the road from the subject property. Um we also purchased this home for the same reasons everybody else here is telling you. Um their largest state style lots where the R1A zoning is very appropriate and was meant for these types of lots. Um, it sounds like there are other options where you could obviously have outbuildings. You may now be able to have 280 ADU units on your property without subdividing, which I think would be a better uh fit for a neighborhood. Many of us already have a second home on our properties. So, having that second option opens up more possibilities, and I appreciate that. Um, I just don't think that this one inside of an existing neighborhood needs to be subdivided and broken up into smaller pieces that don't fit the aesthetic of the neighborhood already. Um, we've all seen change. Um, except for I do feel like our neighborhood is very representative of how Ada County and Boise began and it should be preserved as such. It does feel like country living, country living in an urban setting. Um, I respectfully request your assistance in preserving our neighborhood. Um, thank you for your time, consideration, and commitment to our city.

Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate you coming out. Okay. Uh, Alan Stoddard, Michael Halenburgger, and then Sherry or Sheree Camas, I think it is. Crais, pardon me.

Good evening. Uh, thank you for uh, your time tonight. Uh my name is Alan Stoddard. I live with my family at 9505 West La Huntton Drive. And we've lived there for just over 20 years. And as you've heard, we're probably more more of the newer family, one of the newer families in the in the neighborhood. But our reason for moving there was because of what we have. We have that the lot size. we have uh had a place where our kids could grow and and again have their park-like atmosphere uh in the backyard. Uh those are the reasons that we that we chose to be there. Um it's probably not likely that Boisee will ever have any other subdivision, new subdivision like this developed. Uh so why are we trying to change what we have? Why shouldn't why we should be keeping some of these subdivisions as they are? I guess maybe I think of this proposal to uh subdivide this lot as a gateway uh subdivision or division reszoning. Uh as my friend Mr. Staley stated it it would lead to uh just continued reszoning of the different lots throughout the neighborhood. And could you then if somebody else wanted to afterwards, could you then deny that? Probably not. So, it would it would continue. Um if if if dollar signs to me were what I was seeking, then I would think, wow, I think you really should allow this because then maybe I can do the same thing. But that's not the purpose for us moving there or living there. We we did that. We made that choice because of what this area allowed

us to do and what it uh provides. Uh I think if this proposal, similar to the other uh lots that were subdivided a few years ago, uh which I think was not correctly stated in the opening. Um, this is four houses on a lot that's less than 1 acre when I believe those newer houses were they have probably a half acre each. So, it's really not similar to what was done previously in that area. Um just I I guess I'm just asking for your consideration uh as you hear from many of the uh current people who live in this area that yeah we understand this will eventually maybe not right away but it will eventually affect the lot right next to us the lot right across from us because it will if if this is approved those changes will happen and that's not what we want. That's not what we want for the neighborhood. And thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Stoddard. Appreciate it. Okay. Michael Howlandburgger, Sherry, I'm gonna miss it again. Craz Trevor Williams. Hello, sir. Hello. My name is Mike Colenburgger. I live at 597 South Cautell Drive. And uh my wife has already mentioned that about 601 autos go through this uh narrow uh uh spot. I can tell you that more people walk that area. Uh and we are surprised that hasn't been fixed. But uh also there was a comment made that that uh this would make a lot of people happy if this divi division or uh was granted. I would say the only the ones that are really going to be excited are those that move in there. Uh, as you see by the numbers, we we enjoy our our neighborhood. We're a a wellknit group of people that come together to help each other and uh uh this action may may possibly destroy what we have. And that's kind of how we look at it. Just a couple of things out of the Boisee City Code. uh in regards to the purpose of this code is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of present and future residents. We do not think this will help us at all. And number four on this is protect the

character of residential, institutional, business, employment and natural areas. And five was to achieve an integrated approach to land use and transportation to provide a safe, efficient, equitable transportation system for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit and vehicles. Uh there would we would uh as a people as a group again are are are grateful for the area in which we live. We see the potential for truly changing that to a point where where it would be detrimental to the families that we raise. My wife and I raised 14 children on that property. We have chickens. We have rabbits. We have a big garden, fruit trees. And uh so far, none of our children have been injured. I know some have been in that narrow stretch, especially that the I would plead that that be taken care of by the uh the city uh department of of roads, whichever you call that. Thank you for the time.

Thank you, Mr. Halenburgger, and thank you for your service. Appreciate it. Okay. Uh, Sher Cremis Crais. I'm sorry, ma'am. I don't know why I'm having a hard time.

My name is Sher Kra. I live at 444 South El Blanco Drive and we've lived there for over 20 years, but I've lived in Boise for a long time and my husband has lived in Boise since he was three. Um, we also moved for the very same reason, for the space. I have horses, I have chickens. At the time we moved, my mother lived. We we our property came with a little mother-in-law cottage already on it and my mother lived there until she died and we were happy that we could do that for her that she could remain independent. Um the it this will not enhance our neighborhood in any way and the because of everything that everybody's already said but leaving some other stuff out is we have no sidewalks. We have no stop signs and or yield signs in our neighborhood because except for La Hatton which does get a traffic and even then it's not a straight shot to 5 mile from Maple Grove there there's very little traffic. Kids play street hockey, they play basketball, they ride bikes, they ride scooters. Uh there's all no matter the time of year people walk their dogs, run it. It is a well-used neighborhood and people like their space. I like my space. Um I agree that we live in a a very unique area. It was only annexed a few years before we bought. We are maybe one mile from Meridian or we wouldn't even be in Boise city limits. Um we do not have city services. We are on wells. We do not have fire hydrants and we have two street lights. So where is this subdivision, this miniature subdivision going to get its water? Okay. because supposedly no new wells can be drilled in the area. Again, the it was presented it it matched that stonehouse subdivision. That is not true. That was fought before we moved in. Someone

wanted to put some ridiculous number in there of 64 units. It was an 8 acre parcel. They came to the agreement of halfacre lots. You cannot put four halfacre lots on a 089 acre parcel. So, it is not comparable. And you talk about the uh development to the east. That's true and that's fine. That is not part of our subdivision. And our this house, the original property, it faces Codarell and it is part of that subdivision and they just want to add to Shupe and and that's great for that info. We don't have a problem with it. But it is that's where it stops. And then you enter our unique area where we feel safe. We know our neighbors, but we have space. We're not on top of each other. And yet, we're super friendly. And it's a wonderful place to live. And I believe it should be preserved. Everybody doesn't need to live in the same dense area. Um we we want to stay there. I say I'm staying there. They carry me out in a box. And so, but if you this were to happen in my neighborhood, that wouldn't be true for me anymore. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Kra. Trevor Williams. followed by John Kraus and then Connie William and Mr. Williams. I'm John Craus. Uh Mr. Williams doesn't want to testify. Okay. Go ahead. Can you raise your hand, Mr. Williams? We're You're for sure not going to testify. Okay, great. Go ahead, sir. Uh, yes. I'm John Kra. I live at 444 South El Blanco Drive. Just like to testify to the um I don't know if we can show that um topo map of the neighborhood again.

Pull it up as much as they can,

but um you'll see our our neighborhood is basically a quarter section. Uh, and the canal, Farmer's Canal is pretty much the um eastern border of the subdivision. The freeway is the southern border. Um, uh, Franklin is the north border. West border is five mile. Okay. Pretty good size subdivision. It was designed as a horse subdivision. Um, all acre lots. um with the exception of of a few that are two acre. Anyway, it's the flavor of the neighborhood that I'm getting at. We have a horse subdivision and once we start allowing higher density into that quarter section, is is that going to lead to one more um uh one neighbor after another is going to want to have higher density. Right? We've gone through this now probably at least four times since I've lived in the neighborhood where they wanted to do high density within that quarter section. Um, we allowed Stonehouse Subdivision uh to do halfacre lots. We really wanted them to stay at 1acre lots, but we we found a compromise at halfacre lots. Um, there's no way those big, beautiful houses that she showed are going to fit onto those shoe boxized lots. A 9,000 square foot lot's not going to give um a a home that is anything similar to the rest of the homes in the neighborhood.

So, we just want to maintain the flavor of our neighborhood. Um, and so that's that's basically all I wanted to say. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chris. Appreciate it. Okay. Connie Williams, followed by David High Totower, and then Martha High Totower.

Connie Williams. My address is 100030 Los Ranchos. I purchased the property 23 years ago, and I'm one of the young ones. All my neighbors pretty much have been there longer than I, but we purchased it when my children were seven and 10 for the exact same reasons that people have stated here. It's like living in the country and yet you can still get to work easily. And when we showed the property to my daughters, my youngest daughter was excited by the size of the backyard, but behind the backyard is the irrigation ditch and then behind that is the acre field. and she was excited and went running towards the end of the yard and we said, "No, the end of the property is clear back there where the fence is." And she threw her hands up in childlike joy and ran through the entire acre till she could touch the fence at the end of that acre. I could provide a country lifestyle for my children. We grow our own fruits and vegetables on this acre um with the irrigation ditch there. Every year the ducks come back and they nest. Um there are families walking. There are dogs through the property are foxes. People have chickens. One of my favorite parts is um seeing people go by with their horses that they are riding around the neighborhood. We have been one of the fortunate properties that have not had to redrill our well yet, but I have seen so many of my neighbors need to do that. And if we add more water demands, I may be included in that list of needing to drill. And I also feel like it's going to decrease our property values when we start subdividing. I would like to um maintain the feel of

this for my grandchildren. to come and visit and have this same type of property. Both my daughters have moved back. So, I would like my grandchildren to enjoy the same thing. And I would ask that you keep our neighborhood the way that it is. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Okay. David High Totower, Martha High Totower, and then Todd Little.

My name is David High Totower. I'm at 211 South Cautell. I live north of that. Um, I want to focus on two things. One is the bottleneck. First of all, I would challenge each one of you. I'd be glad to stand there while you do it. To have each of you walk through that bottleneck while there's two cars passing. I also work as an emergency medicine physician, so I'd be on hand because walking through that area is dangerous. And I didn't hear that the developer um suggested that he would solve that problem of that bottleneck. So, what that's going to do is the traffic's going to come down my street, the most of it, because of the bottleneck, and that's the north part, and that's where there is no sidewalk. We have approximately 10 kids that live down that area. There is no sidewalk um that goes from that hallway that goes from Carterell to Franklin. And so, there's another safety issue. Um so, there's two safety issues um on the situation. And so I just like not to have to work when I come home because of the safety issues. And that's what you all are are addressing right now because that is going to increase philanthropic. And yes, they propose single family homes, but my understanding is is that's a proposal. It's not in stone. So it could be a potential for a duplex or something. So it is going to increase traffic. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Okay. Martha High Totower, Todd Little, and then I have a couple that is signed up, but we'll go one at a time. Matt True, and then Sarah TR. Hello.

Hi, I'm Martha High Tower. I live at 211 South Cautell Drive. I agree with everything that's already been said. I won't say it again. One of the things they mentioned is that most of the houses in those one acres are on a well. A lot of them, if not all of them, are also on septic. I know that there is sewer and water that comes down to the eastern edge of our subdivision. There is some sewer that comes as far as our house, which is the third one in from Franklin. And I know that Todd's home, I think, has city water and sewer. But if you get into that quarter mile and you start that domino effect of subdividing, there's no services, there's no water line, there's no sewer line. And once you start subdividing and you make an exception, it's easier to do more and more and more. And they've mentioned the wells, but I don't think the city's going to want to run a sewer line in there. And yet, you're proposing putting all these homes possibly if the domino falls and there's not the ability to drill sewer or put a septic system on lots that are really small. You have to have a leech field. You have to have a holding tank. And I think that's going to cause an enormous problem down the road if you start this domino.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Todd Little and then Matt TR and then Sarah TR.

Yeah. Good evening. This is Todd Little. I live at 429 South Karell. Could I get slide five? I think the the one that Jenny brought up. Is that is that possible? Yeah. I wanted to show just a few points here. So where the car is on the left hand side looking at the picture where it's parked that's where the propo the proposed entrance for one of the houses actually is. So when you have two cars coming through the chute bottleneck which which is dubbed that by the the neighborhood right there at that that telephone pole is now where the entrance for that for the house is entered. If I could have those slides advanced as well. Um, and and by the way, you can see that there's two telephone poles, there's three ditches in the middle of this, and then there's a canal which the the Honda I think car is passing over at that point. It's all jammed right in this hund and some feet uh section. So, when we talk about the chute bottleneck, it's real. There's there's tree stumps off to the the south side of that. And then as you approach, there is a stop sign on the right hand side. Please advance the slides. Um, you can you this is this is on the east side. Another one, please. Where were those videos? I'm sorry. I thought that was the next one. But as you come into that, you actually have in a quarter mile stretch, you have three blind corners. Literally, you can't see around them. So, where that car is pulling out right now is the entrance that is proposed. But around the corner there's yet another blind corner and that's where the next entrance our our our driveway is proposed. I live a little bit north of this and it has a big ass turn around my my property. We have drifting going on in the in that

that section. Like I know what the the you know stats say, but the reality is this is the convergence point and we have a few in this neighborhood area, but this is the convergence point. And my question for the commissioners here would be why are we subjecting more traffic, more entrance, more housing into one of the major congestion points of this entire region. Now, I want to kind of end on something fun. So, what I want to end on is a year ago, I saw our neighbor, newly moved into the neighborhood, walking her donkey, literally walking her donkey through this. So, as we talk about, you know, the nostalgic, you know, section of this neighborhood, it's true. I mean, everybody who moves in is looking for that open space. It's the same open space we talked about in the foothills, but here it's in the central part of the valley and we're just asking you to preserve that. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. Okay. Uh Matt TR and then Sarah TR if Sarah wishes to testify.

Sarah Tru is my wife. I didn't even know I was going to speak, but I'm at 321 Cautell and to be honest, I'm that neighbor that literally I stand up for our neighborhood. They're like, you know, they're brothers and sisters from, you know, other families. And so their kids become our kids. And so we're always watching out like, dude, there's an weird car. I've actually had the police come over, you know, around the the neighborhood, you know, cuz there's abandoned cars and some weird fishy stuff going and stuff. But regardless, you know, I have my my little angel, my 10-year-old daughter. And so I'm just her protector, you know, and I'm the I'm the neighbor who jumps outside and jumps in the middle of the road. Literally, I follow the guy to his house and said, "There's one of three ways we can address you going, I you're like 65 70 probably 70 miles an hour, you know, screaming by our house. Speed limit is 20." And, you know, they apologized and I said, "I, you know, I don't want to go to the police." But regardless, I've had to jump out in the road because the neighbors straight across from me. They don't They parent differently than we parent, but he's got like a three-year-old that he's still got the training wheels on his bike, but they let him ride, you know, two blocks down the middle of the road, and I've had to jump out in the road to stop and warn drivers who are going 25, 30 m hour, and they're on their phone. How often, you know, it's easy to miss and not see a little three-year-old in the middle of the road, you know, but that happens so much like in our neighborhood. And you start seeing like, you know, kids get older and now their friends are coming over and all this stuff, you know, and they're literally in a hurry to get there and, you know, go where they got to go. So, they're not paying attention to the speed limit. And so, there's like the traffic has gotten a ton ton more fluent in our our stuff. And with the younger people, I've had to actually address it and be like, "Guys, come on. There's innocent kids here who, you know, can't watch out for themselves. So, can we take it down a notch?" And as soon as we open that door to the growth, like they've said, it's a domino. It's just gonna it's gonna start falling. And it's the safety. They haven't talked about, well, we're going to actually pay each person to take, you know, 2 feet

off each side so we can implement a sidewalk all the way down Codell and Shupe to implement safety and all these things, you know, so the kids will be safe. It's just no, it's not nothing's going to change. We'll be fine, you know. So, I just really want you to entertain and think about the safety of our kids. That's all. and my wife, she's not here. So, okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Okay. I've got I think it's Amy. Is it Wang Little? And then Sarah Silver Silva and then Pam Bria I think it is.

Okay. And then so uh maybe it's Josiah Silva last name Silva. Come on up sir. And then Pam I think it's Pria Price. Okay. Didn't get that one. Yes. Josiah Silva from 1085 West Sarinac Drive and uh I'm more so on the western end of the development and uh I came here to voice my opposition. I heard a lot of things today in the earlier part of the session which felt uh discouraging because of all the high density talk and uh the zero parking and and things like that which to me is discouraging because taking away your vehicle takes away your mobility. The reason I moved into this neighborhood in 2019 is because I wanted that space and to be able to breathe just like everybody else is saying. And one thing that I will summarize is that the recommendation to accept the subdivision went forward and I don't hear anyone supporting it that's in the neighborhood. One thing that was a priority that was listed here or mentioned here by you council members was diversity. And somebody the something that nobody has pointed out is the cheese the uh developer is saying that they are going to list these homes for in the $600,000 range. This is not affordable housing. This is a money grab. This is what it is. And that you let one domino fall and all of these houses are going to be subject to the same thing. Every time one comes up for sale, there's gonna be a developer and they're going to say, "Hey, that's a beautiful oneacre lot. Let's see if we can shove five houses on it." And the whole neighborhood goes

away. And I know that because I've been part of development as a tradesman in some of the north end lots. And we're taking lots up to the property line within inches and building new stuff and stacking it, forcing people in. And not everybody wants to live like that. Some people love it, but other people don't. And when I moved here to Boise, uh the character was described to me as the biggest small town in America because you had space to breathe and yet you knew all of your neighbors. And I want that to stay the same. But but you put that you you allow this subdivision to happen. And I feel very confident in saying that once one of the town and country estates goes into subdivision, then others will certainly follow and diversity goes down and we all end up in a high-rise, you know, or high density situation just like LA and some of the other places struggling to find a place to even park our car. And here we are circling the block just trying to find a place to stand. So, I will voice my opposition and hope that you'll take that into consideration. You

Thank you, Mr. Silva. Okay. Uh Pam Price and then I think it's Maryanne. I don't know what the last name is. I think it starts with a W. It's wake, but I she's I'm not sure she's going to talk. Okay.

I'm Pam Price. I'm at 645 South El Blanco Drive. And we lived across the FiveM for 20 years. and my husband trained for marathons and and triathlons and things running through our neighborhood looking for a house that we could buy someday. That was our goal and we finally found one 11 and a half years ago and bought it and has been such a joy to our family. We have 18 grandchildren, five children. Four of the children live within five miles of us. Our home is our family park. We do raise bees, garden, bouti, trees, but we raise children and our grandchildren um love coming and being there and we enjoy being it. We've looked forward to living in this neighborhood for years. I too feel like it would be a cancer to grow if we start subdividing and adding more houses per lot in our c in our subdivision because like a cancer it would grow and that is not what I want to have in my life. We've looked forward to having this. It kind of feels like the world's trying to take what we've worked hard to get away from us because they want it. But when they take it, it gets divided up and it's not what it is anymore. So, I really hope that you will not go ahead with this and put those four houses on that one little lot smaller than mine. I don't know how I would do that. It's just not big enough, especially for not the houses that they've gotten planned. You know, you're going to put those little U2A things 900 lot 900 acre and square foot things. Maybe you can get four of them on there, but the square the car would make it lots harder. And it is not a place. It's a park for the all those town houses, those people, they come and walk our park. Like I said, the people across five mile come and walk because it's the park that they can come to closely and getting out onto Five Mile with no and with that construction that's going to

be happening is going to be terrible. Getting on a Maple Grove without a stoplight, you've got a crossing walk, but not for a stoplight for cars. It is not conducive. And we don't want sidewalks. We want the country estates feel. That's why we moved there. That's what we want. And we don't want to have it taken away from us like things happen in other countries to c people that have something and everybody else wants it and they tear it apart. And I hope you'll not approve this. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Uh Marian Wake, you're not okay. Okay. So, that wraps up the folks who signed up officially. So, I'm guessing that there are some folks, as I anticipated, that would like to actually also testify. So, you're welcome to do so. I would encourage you to just again use these three chairs as you see people rotating through. Uh, same rule applies. Come on up, state your name, address for the record, and you'll have three minutes. Welcome, sir.

Hello, I'm Marvin Sparrow. I'm at 110 South Carell Drive. Mr. Chairman, committee members, commission members, um I want to focus a little bit on the infrastructure issues that are related to this reszoning from one from R1A to R1B specifically in uh that we know that this is going to change the zoning this one lot in our subdivision. This is probably going to to involve the whole subdivision. And so if we look at the subdivision, you've already told us from five miles the freeway to Franklin to Cautell Road, there's 190 homes, there's 190 wells. Um the infrastructure in the sorry there there's just no water. I'm not sure how they're planning to get water. Um but it would have to come from the tube and they'd have to go through a bottleneck and there's no way to get it through until that bottleneck's fixed, which means they're going to have to drill some wells. Um, all the roads to this area are really narrow. They're old rural roads built in the 60s and 70s. If you look at that Shupe map, it's a nice wide road, Shupe 1 age, and then it's still 6 and 1/2 ft shy of the road prior, you know, where Shupe was before it narrowed down. Like I say, there's no water in our neighborhood. There's no plans for water in our neighborhood. I don't see any city water coming in. We do have the Stonehouse subdivision has a community well uh and they handle that little area. They all have sidewalks, gutters. The rest of the neighborhood, no very minimal uh gutters uh and curbs and virtually no sidewalks otherwise in just that stonehouse area. Um if we do put if we increase this, we're going to be increasing this up to 570 lots if it involves the whole subdivision. That means we're going to have to have 570 wells. We already have

issues with water. We've had nine wells go dry in the last year and we haven't drilled any extra wells other than those that replace it. So water is a big issue and when we go to the city they say I'm sorry that's a state issue but that doesn't help us at all. We've already seen what's can happen in this area with an acre of land on Cruiser Drive at the very end which is right next to to our subdivision and they they put three houses in that 1acre lot. They elected not to go with the subdivision water. They drilled their own well and after they drilled the well within three days the main well for the community dried up. They got sand and they worked around with it, but they had to redrill the well and it took them six months to redrill it. So they went without minimal water during that period of time. So we're talking about safety to the area. Water is a big safety. If we don't have safety, we have sanitation issues. We have a lot of issues that related to water. And so we're extending wells. Uh if we are extending wells and reding wells in our area, you know, that is just something that's going to contribute to the water issues that we're having. Remember, like we said, when we lose our water, we uh we have no water for months. Water issues affect the safety of residents of our neighborhood. A home without water is not safe. Thank you, sir. We should look at a solution, not as a problem for them.

Thank you for testifying. Appreciate you being here. Okay. Um, whoever would like to come up next and again, name and address for the record, please.

Hi, my name is Nick Krabs. Um, I'm at 88 South Codell. Um, so I'm on the northernmost property on Codell. I'm probably the young guy in the neighborhood. Uh, I bought my house uh in 2019 at 33. Um, and I'm one of the few twoacre lots that is up in the neighborhood. Um, I bought that home with the intention uh to build an urban farm on it, which is exactly what I did. Um, chickens, goats, runner ducks, we sell uh right off the property. So, we have a herb garden, bees, everything you'd think of. I bought it because the neighborhood was this because it was this. That was the reason I bought it. I looked at almost 50 homes in Boise before I selected this one. Um, so it took me a long time to make a decision. My realer when he showed me this house, he said, "If you don't buy it, you're fired." Um, and so I bought it. Um, I think really there's a lot of concerns and I don't want to completely echo. I agree with almost everything that everyone said. The truth is is is really the concern is if you start allowing this development in this neighborhood, everyone's got a lot there that could be developed like this. All of us do, including mine. If that starts happening ones and twoozy, the character of the neighborhood will be completely changed. We moved here. We bought these properties to live like this, including me who's a young guy, right? I think you really should take a drive up there. I think you should look at these homes. I think you should look at this neighborhood. It is unique. It is something worth preserving. There are very few places in Boise that still look like this. And I know because I looked for a long time. And so I think that's really the concern that you're hearing from these neighbor. The safety issues, the water issues, all those things are real, too, right? This the roads in this neighborhood are they don't have sidewalks. There's they're smaller. If you start subdividing, you start adding traffic, you're going to have problems. I think all of us are concerned about our the price of our home. Certainly, we could sell to a developer, right? This if the zoning changes, and we could do that for all our homes. You'll see a lot of that going on. Now, I know you guys have a tough job, right? You have to

figure out how to make affordable housing in Boise. I don't think this is the neighborhood you want to do it in. I really don't. So, that'll give back my time. Thank you, sir. Appreciate you coming out. Okay, come on up. Try to sign up online. So, okay, we got you. Me.

Uh, my name is David Turner. Um, I live at 9798 West Redberry Court, uh, Boise, Idaho, 8379. Uh, we're in one of the new, newer, uh, subdivisions within the subdivision. That was the one they talked about before. And so, uh, Chair Danley and commissioners, good evening. Uh, we have about 200 neighbors to reiterate that there hasn't been anybody here for this. There's about 200 neighbors that have signed uh a proposal or a petition opposing this proposal. It should be in your packet. I'm really want to talk about more of the legal requirements that I've read uh as far as the decision-making process. And I'm here I'm not here to tell you how to do that, but I've been here less than Mr. Stefonic. I've tonight. So I want to look at Boisee City Code section 11103 11041A 110546A3 and following and the blueprint Boisey uh specifically the section on West Bench uh CNN 2.21 21. The a lot of things have already been said tonight. Precedent certainly would be set. Staff has said that, well, there's an R1B right behind the subject property. But, uh, the development at that time was going to be four houses on 2.6 acres, not four houses on less than one. So, the density here is a 400% increase. It does not represent a smooth transition. uh as stated in the code and in uh blueprint boisey and it certainly doesn't help create predictability or uh stability in the neighborhood. Uh under 110404 it says that the patterns

of lots cons should be consistent with the city's adopted comprehensive plan and in that uh they talk about the lots that should be filled in. This lot does not fill any of those requirements. Uh it's not a vacant lot. It's not an unimproved parcel or underimproved. The woman who owned it before had a large garden, tons of fruit trees, and it was developed. The existing built pattern under R1A zoning is not less intense than allowed. And there's no history over the past 10 years of high tear down or redevelopment activity in the area. And my comment on uh the size you're looking at uh this acre would be divided into four parts anywhere from like 0.2 to 0.25 acres versus everything else in this area is at least a half an acre. And I would say that the neighbors are very welcoming. I'm in that subdivision where they were open to compromise along Caterell farther uh north. you've seen uh development take place over the last 15 years at least.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate you coming out. Thank you. Okay, come on up, ma'am.

Deborah Bishop, I am at 700 South Codel Drive. I own the property that borders this proposed project and my family purchased this in 1976. I grew up here and I've spent decades watching the surrounding area change. Over the years, I've seen farms and open fields along Shupe gradually replaced by dense housing developments. These ch changes have shaped both the landscape and my understanding of the importance of thoughtful growth and preservation. I'm here today to strongly oppose the proposed reasonzoning and subdivision of this property. The proposed changes would have a direct and negative impact on my home, my quality of life, and the overall character of our neighborhood. The community is an established older neighborhood where nearly every lot is close to an acre in size with one home per lot. This spacing and consistency create an open, cohesive aesthetic that defines our area. Allowing one property to be split up into multiple smaller lots would be entirely out of character, setting a precedent that could permanently change the look and feel of our neighborhood. Beyond the aesthetics, the infrastructure was never designed for higher density. The existing utilities and roadways already operate at near capacity. The exit street in particular narrows to one lane creating a bottleneck. The corner located diagonally opposite of the pro property has limited visibility. Additionally, homes would worsen uh additional homes would worsen traffic and congestion and raise serious safety concerns for residents and for visitors. There's also the matter of property values. A development of smaller, denser lots would not only reduce the appeal of

my own property, which directly borders this site, but could lower uh the overall property values throughout the neighborhood. Long-term, homeowners have invested significantly in maintaining the unique character in this area, and the proposal undermines this investment. It would also set that precedent for others in the future to purchase homes within the neighborhood with the intent to reszone and add more homes. While we acknowledge the investment and commitment of one individual, we respectfully ask that equal consideration be given to the investment of all property owners and that the decision reflect the broader impact of the group as a whole. For these reasons, we strongly oppose this and we thank you for your time. Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate you coming out. Okay, come on up. Chairman Danley. Commissioners, my name is AJ Cormier. I live at 9630 West Lontan Drive. Uh, a lot of things have been said today, so I don't want to repeat just a handful of those. Uh the developer suggested that this project creates a gradual transition to the denser R1B zones to the east. Concentrating four homes on a single acre parcel does not provide a transition. It concentrates density in a way that feels multifamily rather than single family. The visual and spe specialial character of the neighborhood is altered which directly conflicts with policy WBCN 2.1 which calls for infill to respect lot size, spacing and open character. Compatibility includes the impact on the existing resident's quality of life. This proposal primary benefits the non-resident owner while neighbors bear the consequences reduced open space, increased traffic, and a fundamental

change to the character of our neighborhood. Compatibility is not just about zoning on paper. It's about how this development fits into the lived environment. For these reasons, this project fails the compatibility standard and immater materially alters the established character of the neighborhood, increases safety risks, and favors private gain or the general general welfare of our residents. I respectfully request that the commission deny the reszone and subdivision and to protect the character of the Westbench neighborhood. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Bruce Todd and I live at 1701 West Residue in Boise. I moved into the area in 1972, 54 years ago. I grew up relatively nearby at the corner of 5 Mile Fairview in the 70s and I enjoyed feeasant hunting in the large farm fields in this area. Also, I'm a retired inactive licensed civil engineer with emphasis in land best use. I support this project for four reasons. Number one, infield projects are generally the best option for our area's inevitable growth. Number two, the proposed single family homes fit this clear need. Number three, these single family homes uh fit the area better than multifamily. And number four, infrastructure and transportation as addressed here fit the area and obviously much better than high density. In summary, I agree with your code which emphasizes infill instead of spread. This particular project of single family homes is an excellent design and accomplishes the best compatible land use. Thank you.

Thank you sir. Okay.

Hi. Thank you commissioners for being here on such a late night. Um I actually I'm Annie Quinn at 1507 Lincoln. I was not planning on speaking tonight. I was just here to observe. And what I have heard is um it sounds like it I mean it's a beautiful neighborhood with farms and or goats and chickens and fruit trees. I have five kids and it doesn't sound like my kids will be able to live in that neighborhood because there's no more houses. So adding three little houses in a beautiful neighborhood for my kids would be really nice. They can't afford the million-dollar homes that are coming in right now that's everywhere in all these new communities that are being developed, these huge master plan communities. Those are million-dollar homes. This is a nice neighborhood. It's a quiet neighborhood. My kids would love to raise their families there and be able to three homes is not a lot. Everybody can do what they want with their own lots. they can continue with their chickens and their cows and whatever else that they have and their gardening, but why isn't it for any anybody else to enjoy and be able to have that opportunity to be in a neighborhood like that? So, I support the project and respectfully ask you guys to look at that, too. So, thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Uh, anybody else? Hi, good evening. I'm Janie Backer and I live at 314 South Carroll Drive. On November 12th, 2013, the Boyisee City Council listened to the similar mo motion for our neighborhood and they unanimously denied the changes of our R1A zoning. That was Kle, Eberly, Jordan, Mlan, Quinton, and Thompson. at that time. Um, can you pull up picture one?

We're working on it.

Okay. Um, the character of our neighborhood is unusual and unique and at the time um, Mayor Mlan said the geographic boundaries of Franklin 5 mile the interstate and the irrigation canal provide a protected community for these 190 homes. um and that there was suitable for R1A in that section of the community. There is still plenty of adaptability for housing to be um built on halfacre lots since most of us have 1acre lots. There is room to add housing on any of those places. This is the character. Are you seeing this picture or just me? Okay. This is the character. Can you show the next one of Codell Drive? So you can see large trees um little road. Can you go to the next slide please? Um and the next one. Okay. So this is what was approved in 2013. This type of housing was added in. So you can see it's still wide driveways um modest houses. And then the next um this is the lot to the right. You can see the field of where they want to put two houses right there. Um, this will change the character significantly to shoehorn these houses into this space. When you drive down Cottel, it will stick out like a sore thumb because it is completely different from the facades of all the other lots that are on this neighborhood. Um, as everyone else has mentioned, um, once you change one lot, it is going to enable other developers to buy and want to change the next lot and the next lot. And I hope that Boyisey and quality of life is respected for all citizens and not just

certain types, that we have room in Boyisey for all types of housing and all types of family lifestyles. Thank you for your time. Thank you for coming out. Appreciate it. Okay. Anybody else in chambers want to testify? Okay. Hi there.

Hi there. My name is Jane Sparl and I live at 110 South Codell Drive. And originally I was going to focus on President, but I think that's been pretty well covered tonight. Um, so instead I'd like to just um tell you a little bit about where we live and sorry I'm a little nervous. So I get up in the morning and fix a cup of coffee and I look out and I have a view of the foothills. I have a a an area in the back where there's um irrigation the summer. We have a number of ducks and geese that are there. Every year we have an annual Easter egg hunt. Um we have an orchard of fruit trees, a vineyard of grapes. Um you know, we don't have a whole lot of improvements from the city of Boise, but we don't need them. We've done just fine. Thank you very much. with no sidewalks. However, it has made it a little bit tricky and dangerous to walk my dog and um just this afternoon I was walking my dog and now I'm paying much more attention to this because of what's going on and I had a UPS truck coming and I had a pickup coming and we had to take turns because there was no sidewalk. So, you know, you have to, as one of my neighbors was alluding to earlier with his young children, you have to be um careful. Um we, um we chose to live there. My husband and I, I retired from Hulu Packard Company and we looked long and hard to find a

place like Codarell Drive. We were on cruiser drive and we wanted a a place with property that we could we my husband planted the grapes. He planted the orchard. We've been there 24 years and it's it's just a wonderful place to live and you know one thing we've been before this commission before and one thing that the commissioners as Janie mentioned earlier recognized is they actually took drives down to our street and I don't remember Janie if you can tell me which commissioner it was

Maryanne Jordan made a point to say this is a unique property in the city of Boise that must be preserved. I welcome you to go back and look at those minutes and read through what what those council members thought. Also, I want you to come out and take a drive and stop and visit if you want. Come come look at what we've got. It is a really unique part of the city. Um I love Boise. Um, I I just I just close with this one statement. I just hope that I'm asking you to be the res representative of all the people here tonight, not just the representative of a non-resident owner and deny this reszone request.

Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate you coming out. Okay. Anybody else in chambers who wish to testify? Okay. Okay, I know there's some folks online. Uh, but the chairman has to use a little boy's room. So, I'm going to take five minutes. Stretch our legs.

There we go. If we can go ahead and reconvene. I'm going to go ahead and go on to the folks who are online who wish to testify, but I will come back to the chambers. If anybody still remains who has not testified, you'll have your chance uh momentarily. So, I have one person online with their hand raised and that person is Scott Smith. Hello, my name is Scott Smith. My wife

Hi, Mr. Smith. Uh, one second. We're just we're just getting ourselves set back up here and I think we're good to go. If you can speak up nice and clear and loud, we'd be appreciative of that. Thank you. Go ahead.

Copy that. My name is Scott Smith. Excuse me. My wife Michelle and I live at 215 South Codell Drive. Our attraction to Maple Grove Acres when we purchased a handful of years ago is that it was a wellestablished single family housing track. All right. It dates back to the 1950s. Our our particular home was built in 1962. This particular housing track has large lots, some between one and three acres. Um, we have on our particular lot, we have many mature fruit trees and and this particular neighborhood that we live in on Codell Drive, we're near Franklin. Um, and and most of the homes in our neighborhood show pride of ownership, which is, you know, hard to find these days. So, this particular neighborhood is absolutely amazing. I I do recommend that any one of your staff get in their car, come and check it out. Um, our position for the record is that we are in opposition of reszoning. We are in opposition of reszoning this to accommodate any duplex, triplex, forplex or any additional housing within this particular subdivision. As many people have stated, you know, the traffic is is becoming outrageous. It is posted at 20 miles per hour, which most people don't adhere to. This to include Amazon, Uber, Lyft, and UPS. We've we've requested um speed bumps be installed in our neck of the woods, so to speak, but um they've been refused multiple times by ACD. We've been declined. So, at this time, you know, my wife and I and all of our neighbors are in agreement that we would

like to be in opposition to this R1A to an R1B change in zoning because it's absolutely inappropriate and and we stand by this. It's unacceptable. Don't do it. Do not approve this. Get in your car. Come on, check it out and, you know, see for yourself why we chose to buy and live in this environment. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. Is there anybody else online who wishes to testify on this item? Okay, I don't see any other hands going up online, so I'm going to come back to chambers one more time. Is there Okay, come on up. Just if you have other folks just again use those three seats or these three seats and thank you. Hello.

Hi there. My name is Sarah Cormier. I'm at 9630 West Lontan Drive. Um I've born and raised Idaho and been here in Boisee and I wish I would have appreciated Boisee back when I was in my uh teens and 20s because I wish I had that place back. Um the the tagline for Boisee now, city of Boisee is a truly a place for everyone. If that's true, why are why are there's overwhelming opposition to the reasonzoning of that lot here? I would hope that that really is taken into consideration because if it truly is a city for everyone, the needs and desires of the people who live here for decades, our entire lives are being we feel like it's being completely trampled over to infill for for lower income properties or or uh single family units. um developers wanting to to increase their own net worth, our needs and desires are just we feel like it's just being trampled. So the the a city for everyone I I feel personally is kind of hypocritical um because again like I would say I am saying our way of life is being completely disregarded and that's what we are feel like right now and I would like to add that the people who are in favor of this resoning don't even live in our neighborhood. And so with that, I guess that's pretty much all I have to say and I thank you for allowing me to come up here and say that.

Thank you for coming. Appreciate it. Okay, go ahead, sir.

Good evening. Uh, my name is Brent Lulof. I live at 9731 West Redberry Court, which is part of the Stonehouse subdivision that was approved in 2006. Um, I wasn't going to speak tonight, but I wanted to give you some statistics, so I'll make this very short and brief. some statistics that hopefully you can take in consideration because you've heard the argument but now I want to get you the numbers behind it. Everything that you've seen from the canal westward to five mile which includes 202 parcels by my count the average lot size that you've heard tonight but the average lot size is 97 acres. That's what you're hearing tonight. the 2013 proposal that you've heard about that was ultimately rejected and then a subsequent proposal was submitted and you saw pictures earlier where there was proposed to be a large infill that was rejected and you heard that testimony. The ultimate result of that was an approval of lots that are now 69 acres. So what I'm describing is the character of the neighborhood which I believe has been spoken to and I believe it's code 11-01-3.4 four, which is protect the character of the residential neighborhood. It was also incorrectly stated earlier by the applicant that these lots as proposed are the same size as Stonehouse. The 15 lots in Stonehouse are 478 acres a piece, not 23 as proposed in the new development. So I think what I'm what I'm trying to summarize for you in numbers is what the character of the lot sizes are that you heard tonight and give you something to compare to as to why the character of the neighborhood is is needing to be propo or protected. I would also say is that if there's an opportunity for one house to be developed on the proposed lot that keeps it within approximately that 47.5 acre which is within the character of the neighborhood. So if there was an alternative, I would say one development, not four. So thank you.

Thank you, sir. Okay. Anybody else in chambers who wish to testify? Okay, come on up, ma'am. I've actually uh my name is Gail Black and I live at 514 South 12th Street. I wasn't intending to come and speak on Codoro. uh cottages. But having heard everyone, I do have something to say. I'm not from Boise. I'm from a bunch of other areas. And you when you have a situation such as this and hearing again and again, everyone has a well and it has that well is connected to a water table. And this area that is spoken so highly of so poetically of so beautifully of um is unique. It also evolved and it will continue to evolve and its limit is the table water. So leave them alone. You have another larger problem in terms of what you were speaking uh Chair Danley a while back having to do with the rock and the hard place between affordability and um the demographics of people moving in and housing etc etc. So there are a number of things that Boise itself needs to take a look at and I would hope that maybe by something that I say tonight you will take a look at it within a different perspective. I arrived here in 2010. One of the things I thought about this city was this is before jump was built. Um was wow there is such potential. There is such potential in this city.

And I'm looking around and I'm standing on street corners. I'm saying you could be in Europe if you're standing over here. You could be in the Mediterranean if you're standing over here. That's my point. You have a lot of qualities and places within this city that need to be developed if you have the eye to develop it and you have for equal reason to take a look and say well what do we not wish to develop because now that jump is built it doesn't broad street in Bodo does not look like Europe anymore it looks like something else and that's fair enough. It can look like something else. But this business, yes, it's densifying. Everything is densifying. The population is growing. It's going to get denser. It's going to be forced to go up. Take a look at San Francisco, which is where I spent almost 30 years. It is entirely filled with highrises. You don't want that for Boise. So take a good look around and enjoy your community.

Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Is there anybody else in chambers who wishes to testify? Looks like no. Okay, one last chance for anybody online. Okay, I see no hands online either. All right, last chance. Anybody in line or in chambers? All right, we're going to go ahead and close public testimony at this point in time. And the applicant has 5 minutes for rebuttal. Chairman, um, commissioners, thank you again for your time, um, and your consideration this evening. I would like to thank and acknowledge the neighbors who took their time to provide comments. We understand that some feel the small development will have a significant impact on the neighborhood. However, we respectively disagree that a reszone allowing three additional single family homes on larger lots arise to that level of impact. We believe that there's a clear net benefit for to the community through the ride ofway of dedication, public improvements, including new sidewalks and landscaping. In addition, we're consolidating access, as we discussed, to improve overall safety and functionality along Codell. With the recommendation of approval, this project moves one step closer to provide much neededed housing within the city of Boisee. As you are aware, um, and as Doug has mentioned, back in 2024, your housing needs analysis confirms an ongoing housing shortage and thoughtful infill projects like this. Adding appropriately scaled homes play an important role in addressing this need. Now, a few things that the neighbors did bring up. Um, the bottleneck, um, that is in front of the R1B project to the

east of us. And when that site does come in to develop, it's zoned R1B. It doesn't have an approved preliminary plat, but at that time the rideway will be dedicated. A sidewalk connection will be made to ours. So over time, there will be that connectivity that the city really wants. Um, as far as the domino effect, I heard quite a bit. So I I cannot speak on behalf of any other future applications. I can only speak on behalf of our application this evening. And the applicant has property rights. he has the right to come in and ask for um this reszone and um they're planning to develop um and want this to be a really nice quality infill site. Um concerning water um wells we're connecting to city services as you guys probably are aware um within the plat we'll be bringing um water through through all our whole site. So when those connection points are needed for the other sites um when wells and septic um fail, there'll be water and services available. Um as far as the country feel for the development, we we don't feel like the three additional homes will impact people's um right to I guess it's not right to farm statement since we're in the city, but they're kind of agricultural uses. We don't we don't want to impede on that. We want the nature and flavor of the neighborhood to stay the same. And as far as developing um anything outside of single family homes, that is not the intent. We're not doing town homes, duplexes. That would had to be proposed through our application. Um if I'm still correct, Doug, correct me if I'm wrong. So um and we truly believe Cutterbell Cottages will be a positive addition to the surrounding neighborhood and a benefit to the city of Boisey as a whole. um your city staff is recommending approval. Um and we agree with the staff

report and I know it's been a long evening. So I will cut um and thank you guys for your time again and stand for any questions that you may have for me. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. And thank you everybody who testified on this item this evening. Uh okay. The item the the hearing is now closed. The item is before the commission. We have two recommendations uh to make. One is for the reszone and one is for the preliminary plat. Both going on to city council one way or the other. Reminder, this is item number three, C25-23 and SUB25-89 CRO Cottages located at 650 South Codell Drive. The item is before the commission. Mr. Sea,

let me find my language. Um, I move that we recommend approval to city council on items. Sorry. Uh, SUV 250091. Nope. Sorry. 23 or 89. Sorry. SUV 25 um or C25-23 and um SUV25-89 and with the terms and conditions

in the staff report. Cool. Okay. I've got a a motion by Commissioner Sea to recommend approval to both uh the reszone and the preliminary plat. Is there a second? I'll second. I have a second by Commissioner Schaefer. Is there discussion?

Mr. Chair, um if this project was So, first of all, to the public, we are here to listen. Um, but at the end of the day, our responsibility is to look at the application and make sure that it adheres to what's in our zoning code. And based on what I have read and I took in notes from all of your comments today, um, as well as information that was submitted in the record, and if this project was being proposed in an area where it was only one or two acre lots and there was no adjacent property that was higher density, I may have a different perspective, but the fact is that there is higher density zoning. immediately to the east of this property. We're talking about three homes. I understand that three additional homes in your neighborhood is not what you want to see, but we at the city have two options. As um chairman uh Danley mentioned earlier, you know, we've got all kinds of changes. We've got folks coming in. We, you know, your kids are growing up. They want housing, too. Um, so we have two options. We build out into the desert and into the foothills or we build up in areas where we can or we and we add infill. And this to me is a good infill project. the R1A setbacks when you look at them and I think that um Commissioner uh Schaefer asked earlier uh you know just confirming what are the setbacks for these two R1A and R1B they're identical

so um that is why I am in support of the reszone and um the preliminary plat Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Seha. Is there other discussion, Mr. Chair? Commissioner Schaefer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, obviously, I'm in support of the motion as the seconder. Agree with Commissioner Seah's um summary. Thank you for that, Esther. Um, I also want to thank everybody for your testimony tonight and bearing with us. It's been a long night, a lot of testimony. Thank you all for um the tenor of the discussion as well. Um, I understand there's quite a bit of passion. Um, I went to Bora High School. I know the neighborhood. I've driven down the roads. I had a friend that grew up on Sarinac. So, I know exactly where you guys are. Okay. But so much of what our job here is to understand, you know, Boisey 100 years from now, Boise 50 years from now, and the challenges that we're facing um require difficult decisions like this. And I understand that it feels like a lot of homes right now, but I don't think that these three homes on the corner um are going to have a detrimental effect to the character of your neighborhood. And I want to be very clear. We're talking about one parcel tonight. One parcel that's being reszoned to um R1B, which is the zone immediately to the east of this parcel. So, we're discontinuing um the zoning that's there now. Um and as the applicant clarified, these uh homes will be on city water and city sewer. They will not be on wells. So part of the development pattern of the city is that when you are developing in this nature, you have to connect to city services. So there will not be wells on these properties. Okay? So I want be very clear about that and that is a requirement of the development code. Uh so when I look at this for all the reasons we talked about earlier with the previous application, the need for infill and more housing, uh the adjacent R1B to the east and even higher densities beyond that to the east, I feel like this is a a natural location for an infill of this nature.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Schaefer. Mr. Chair, further discussion. Uh Commissioner Torres,

um I'm also going to be in support of the motion. Um, I agree with everything the commissioners Seha and Schaefer said. Um, I also want to thank all of you for coming out and testifying. Um, you know, change is hard. Um, if you think about everything else in the world that has changed in the times that your neighborhoods have been there, it's virtually unrecognizable from when these neighborhoods were built. Um, having said that, as my colleagues mentioned, this is one lot. Um, we're deciding on one lot. None of you have to sell your homes to a developer to subdivide your your personal lots, your personal property. So, while this is change, it is ultimately gradual change. I I you know I can't speak to what's going to happen with every single house in your neighborhood and in the surrounding neighborhoods, but I doubt you're going to see all of them suddenly subdivided and turned into four houses or three houses or two houses or or you know who who knows what else. Um so I know change is hard. Um but um as uh as my colleagues mentioned, you know, we have a housing shortage in this community and and the city is trying to address that and infield development is a key cog in the ability to do that. Um so I'll be supporting the motion. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Torres, for the comment. Chair, Commissioner Stefans.

Thank you. Um, I'd like to echo some of my other uh commissioners here on on their thoughts. Um, and thank thank the uh community for coming out and it it's it's really amazing that how tight your community is and how supportive that is. And I think you have an opportunity to continue to keep the integrity of your your community um that way. uh this land owner has decided to um subdivide and reszone this and that is their their right and their ability to do that. It will bring some improvements into your your community whether those are things that you want or not. Um and it aligns with a lot of the directives and the um the reasoning and how we make our decisions um here. Um and I know there's some other elements that are complicated. Um the city of Boise does not control our roads. Uh that's the 80 uh uh Ada County Highway District. Um and so some of your traffic concerns and things like that are things that you can bring to that commission and discuss with them about how you want your community um to function and how transportation can work within that that respects um the your community. So there's an opportunity there. um for you to continue to um establish that uh your community in that way. Um so I just wanted to share that and uh that I'd be in support of this. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Stfans. Commissioner Moore, anything to add? You're good. Nothing. Nothing everybody has said.

Yeah. Okay. Um I'll be brief. Um we have requirements within our ordinance that for are specific to a reszone. There's four different criteria. Our preliminary plat also has requirements. In my opinion, I think that they've been fulfilled, albeit in agreement with with my fellow commissioners. I think Commissioner Schaefer eloquently stated a lot of I think the sentiment with respect to the challenges. Same with Commissioner Torres. I do want to add one thing that hasn't been discussed, and I know there's going to be some disagreement with me on this, and that's okay. That's what we're here to do. It's what these chambers are about. Um, but I I think it's important and that is this pinch point, the specific discussion point that's been brought up multiple multiple times. Um, if I were in your shoes, I would fight like heck to keep that because low-speed crashes don't kill people. Low-speed crashes might end up in an injury, but our high-speed corridors, our Fair View, our Franklin's, those are where fatalities occur. You have evidence in the video that was shown because of the good nature of everybody who lives there. You act great, right? You pause. You let your neighbor go, right? And those slow speed movements like that are what keep people alive. That's a good thing because what I also heard in these chambers is that there are on occasions sometimes when people go into the bigger streets and they're blowing right through in fact folks who go to other people's homes right and and talk have conversations about that because of the severity and the challenges of safety and I agree with that for 100%. So when this lot that's next to this proposed

lot is up in front of this body or ACD I if again if it were just with me this what you're seeing here is a bonafide approach to traffic engineering. It's an it's called a neck down. It's a specific strategy that's used to do exactly what is happening, which is let people really slow down, be very, very careful before going opposite and moving forward to keep speeds at a more appropriate uh speed, 20 m hour, which is what we want. So, I know that's a detail, but it's something that a lot of people brought up, and I felt like it's important to to address it. So, for what that's worth, but um also again, thank everybody for coming out and and and testifying and sharing your thoughts. Um I think we're good. So, with that, would the clerk please call the role?

Dan, I Schaefer. Yes. Deha. Yes. Torres, yes. Stfons, yes. All in favor? Motion carries. Okay, very good. This item will be before council officially again, so please stay tuned. Let's go ahead and take a couple of minutes. We'll let the chambers clear out um before we have our final item of the evening.

Okay, if we can go ahead and reconvene, we'll get this uh last item. I don't think it's one that will take terribly long, but famous last words probably. I know. I'm sorry. I as soon as I said it, I realized I just said that. So, okay. Uh, this is our last item of the evening. This is item number five, CUP25-46. This is located uh 76 767 South Pioneer Street. This is a conditional use permit. And Madison Lockhorn, go ahead and take it away.

Mr. Chair, commissioners, the item before you is a request for a conditional use permit for an allowed use with alternative zone specific standards for a food truck court on 2.4 acres located at 767 South Pioneer Street in a mixeduse downtown with flood protection in Boise River System Overlays zone. The subject property is a vacant lot located entirely within the flood plane bordered by two public pathways and contains Boise City sewer easements in an ACD storm water facility. The applicant is requesting to operate a food truck court on the site and the operation will include alcohol sales as a site is irregularly shaped and the the applicant is proposing the main entrance in the northeast corner along the pioneer pathway. This entrance will provide the ADA accessible path that is required as the site is comprised solely of grass. The applicant has proposed three additional entrances along the Pioneer Pathway. Staff recommends not approving the entrance in the southern location shown as number 15 as it is located near the green belt and pioneer pathway intersection and there are concerns with congestion. Staff has also has reservations on how the patrons of the site will navigate the main food truck area from the eastern half of the property to the western half. There are outstanding questions regarding the topography of the site and if the existing tree line would affect the alcohol sales requirement. Staff has not received confirmation that additional entrances will be allowed with the alcohol licensing. Continuing conversations regarding these questions will be required within the design review and alcohol licensing applications. Due to the permanent structures being proposed for alcohol sales, the project requires approval through an alternative form zone specific standards which are listed on the screen. Alternative zone specific standard review is necessary because the proposed structure will not

be four stories and there is an existing surface parking lot. The site plan and use complies with the 80% ground floor activation. The proposed structure are singlestory shipping containers. Due to the nature of the food truck court uses and their typical form, it is impractical to require a four-story building. These structures were not to mention on the site plan provided. However, allowing the two singlestory shipping containers does not hinder the site from redeveloping in the future as there are not many permanent structural improvements for the use. The existing parking lot is considered legally non-conforming as it existed prior to the adoption of the zoning code in 2023. Additionally, no parking is required to be provided in the MX5 zone, and it is a shared parking lot with no alterations proposed. Public comment and late correspondence was received from the public, the applicant, and parks and recreation. Public comment received in support of the use cited the business Green Acres provides a public gathering place for all ages and supports local businesses, food trucks, and musicians. Public comment received in opposition cited concerns with congestion along the pathway and the amplified noise. The applicant provided late correspondence requesting changes to conditions 6, 17, and 21. After review of those conditions, planning staff has modified those conditions as summarized in your late correspondence packet and the changes are bold bolded on the screen. In conclusion, the planning staff recommends approval with the modified conditions from the late correspondence memo. I will stand for any questions.

Okay, very good. Thank you. Uh the applicant is up next. Is it Aaron Sorenson? Good evening, commissioners. My name is Aaron Sorenson. My address is 5614 West Bloom Street and I'm here representing the Green Acres team tonight. Um, we have three speakers on behalf of this project. Um, before I dive in, I want to briefly note that this is a really challenging site. It's adjacent to the green belt as you have seen, uh, which has setbacks. There are flood related considerations that change how the improvements can be designed. Uh any permanent structure with four walls and a roof must be elevated above the existing grade above uh four roughly four feet. Uh which poses some challenges and the the reason why we spent so much time on the ADA compliance. Um and this additional complexity around access ADA coordination uh is very unique compared to the previous location. Uh these conditions are really important part of the context for this project that you're reviewing today. Um slide two. This is a proposal for a seasonal food truck port located at 767 Pioneer Street adjacent to the green belt and pathway. Um, our intent with the site is to create a well-managed temporary community space that fits within the constraints of the floodplane property while remaining accessible, safe, and compatible with the surrounding uses. Uh, I want to briefly walk through the project timeline because it explains several of the conditions in the request later on in this presentation. This project has taken place over the course of roughly a year and has required coordination across zoning, flood plane review, design

review and planning. The site has several additional constraints that differ uh from the prior location and required further analysis and mitigation in its planning. Um I think one unique thing if you take a look at the project timeline everything shown in that orange color is a permit and the construction is just the two blobs there. Construction is a very very small piece of this project. Um this has not been a simple or linear uh permitting process and much of the work has been focused on resolving site limitations rather than expanding the scope of the project. Um because of the site constraints and the amount of upfront work uh required to prepare this property uh we're anticipating an opening date to be later than original originally anticipated. Uh this schedule shown here has no slips. So if even one day uh goes uh that pushes the opening date further out. Um, planning staff has completed the review and is recommending approval of the conditional use permit. We understand that the recommendation reflects the staff's evaluation and that our proposal meets the applicable criteria. It's compatible with the zone and can operate subject to the recommended conditions. We're here this evening to confirm our understanding of those conditions and to clarify a few operational items. Um this slide here shows the updated site plan. The layout is intentionally compact and organized. It includes uh primary ADA accessible route uh which shown there in purple. Uh ADA seating and a viewing area. There's kind of a big uh spot to the left of the concessions that will allow folks with

wheelchair or um with mobility issues to be able to see the performances. Uh the concessions structures um are are going to be uh required to have flood plane certificates. Those will be the permanent affixed um on on foundations four feet up. Uh and then the deck will have to meet that. Uh and then the bicycle parking is pretty robust. We have 44 spots um identified. We've focused on keeping improvements minimal and reversible consistent with the temporary n nature of the operations in the flood plane context of the site. Um so everything but the deck and the permanently fixed um containers uh will be removed at the end of the 180 day day operating window. Um Green Acres has operated a food truck park and public events in Boisee for the last five years. During this time uh the team has operate they've had operational hours on-site management clear vendor and guest procedures. They have not received any formal complaints related to noise or behavior. These operating practices are well established and will continue at the new location. We have received overwhelming public support for this project from the community at large. We've included a few representative quotes from letters of support that were received. They speak to individual experiences with Greenacres, particularly around safety and management. Greenacres has had a positive and established relationship with the community. Um on the subject of access, uh just want

to show a snapshot of um where the main access and circulation is going to be coming from. Primary access is coming from the pioneer pathway with additional access points evaluated for safety and flow. Um, this is probably the most important uh ask that we have. I'm gonna have you switch the to the next. Um, we would really like to bring a question to the commission. The Greenacres team accepts the 180day limit. Um, we're simply requesting that it begins when the site opens to the public uh to account for the floodplane conditions and seasonal construction realities, especially this year as they're getting started. Um, there's some concerns that um the Green Acres team is not going to be able to operate for the whole 180day window if we have if we have that date set in stone. Um, looking ahead, we want to clarify that the direct green belt access um that point number 15 on the map is not proposed at this time. Um, we would welcome that connection in the future, but right now the cost makes it in infeasible for seasonal operations on a two-year lease. Uh we're open to continued coordination with parks and wreck if the circumstances change in the future, but today's request is intentionally limited to what's feasible and responsible for the project today. Um we understand the recommended conditions of approval and are prepared to comply with them. Our intent is to continue coordinating through the design review, flood plane permitting, the building review in a way that aligns with the temporary nature of the project and constraints of the site. Uh, in closing,

we appreciate your time tonight um and this evening and the opportunity to present this project. This pro project represents a continuation of established community use. It's been adapted thoughtfully to this new site. We're committed to operating responsibly and working through the next steps once direction is provided. And I thank you for your time. Okay. Thank you so much. Um, next up, neighborhood association. We still have Oh, we're good. We're good. Oh, sorry about that. My fault.

Okay. Is there anybody here from the neighborhood association who wish to testify? I don't think anybody is, nor online. Okay. Well, with that, we'll go ahead and open it up to questions from the commission. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moore.

Uh I'm a little bit I think this is a question for maybe staff. I'm a little bit confused about the 180day thing. Um the condition that I'm reading just says um the approval limits food truck is condition four and the this approval limits a food truck court operation to a maximum of 180 continuous days per calendar year in accordance with the flood plane regulations. Is that in the flood plane regulations that I missed or is that somewhere else where it dictates a start date?

Uh Mr. Chair, commissioners. Um, due to the property being in the flood plane, food trucks are reviewed as are viewed as a RV and RVs are limited to be within a flood plane for more than a m they're limited to a maximum of 180 days. So due to that, this property being operating as a food truck court, we have to limit it to 180day. Additionally, um, with the building department, since there's going to be a permanent structure, building department requires, um, bathrooms to be on site, and that is the maximum number of days that they will allow for temporary bathrooms.

Understood. And, Mr. Chair, but there's no hard start date into in these conditions. It's just from when you start. It's 180 days, not from April 1st. 180 days. It's just from whenever you open. Is that correct, Mr. Chair? Commissioners, yes, that is correct. Okay. Would you have something to add? Maybe I misunderstood um the the request.

Commissioners, I'm representing the applicant this evening along with Aaron. Um, I would just like to clarify the clarifying request. And it truly is a clarifying request. There was nothing that really said when that started. We were just hoping to clarify that if we did start the 180day clock when the operation opened to the public. There would clearly be several weeks of preparation before that. And we were hoping that we could not count that prep time towards the 180day period. the food trucks um would not be on site longer than 180 days. They would only come when the when the operation's open to the public. Mr. Chair,

so as a follow clarification, it sounds like that 180day clock might start when they start storing stuff based on the conditions of approval when they start storing stuff outdoors, have portable restrooms on site, and have food trucks on site. That might be kind of the trigger of that 180 days. Is that how I'm understanding the conditions? Mr. Share commissioners. The 180day operation period is based around the food trucks being on the site and the bathrooms being on the site. Okay. Understood. Thank you.

Is the clarification clear, Mr. Chair? No. I would like a clarification on the clarification or the clarification or the clarification. Is that 100? This is for staff. Is that 180 consecutive days or is it Is it uh just 180 days within a year? Mr. Chair, um commissioners, it is 180 consecutive days. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Schaer. Ethan, we need your name and address for the record, please.

My name is Ethan Mansfield and I live at 4409 West Alvian Street, Boise, Idaho 83705. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, further questions for the clarity. I'm sorry. I I totally missed my count that there are 180 consecutive days. Yeah. Okay. So, this would take if if the April date was in stone, then it would take you to the middle of October is what they're saying. So then may I please followup question to you then is does that work with your prep and your requirements like you can build everything and then the clock starts when you roll in?

Yeah, Mr. Chairman, uh, Commissioner Schaper, that's correct. That's kind of what we were anticipating. It was more of like a clarification. It was Yes. Okay. Sweet. The food RVs roll in. There we go. All right. Further questions? I have another one. Commissioner Shaver, thank you. I just want to make sure Ethan or Aaron um or Madison for that matter, we are so the only permanent structures um are the footings for the shade sails and the platform. Is that right? Is that right?

That's correct. And the only the only built items that require flood plane certification are the footings for the concessions because of the four walls and a roof y rule. Okay. Everything else is just normal building permit. Building permit. Okay. So concrete footings on and then you take the shade sails down in the offseason when you're not on site. So we just have the posts. Correct. Correct. Perfect. Okay. And then how do you ink the the shipping containers? Those have a foundation, too. That's the that's the future. Yeah. Yeah. They'll be engineered.

Okay, great. Thank you. I have a quick question. Can we pull the site plan up real quick, please?

Yeah. Can we blow that up as much as we can? I want to make sure I understand. So the ADA space that you discussed is if I'm understanding correctly, the little box that's below the orange box that says 14, that's space. Yeah. Okay. So then from the green belt, if someone was coming from the green belt and wanted to access that space, then it looks to me they would have to go either up the pioneer pathway and all the way around to do that or potentially farther down the green belt to the edge of the property and there may be I don't know if there's even going to be a connection over that way. Maybe not. But is that those are the two route options or is just the one to the P pioneer path?

Mr. Chairman, this is a fantastic question. So we uh thanks for bringing it up actually. I really appreciate that. So we originally thought that the best place to access this would be from the green belt.

In talking with parks, it sounded like um they were amenable. There were a couple different answers. One answer was they are not amendable taxes from the green belt because it would it was you know city prop parks property and there would be uh you know trampling upon the grass to get into the site. Um so you know one thing we considered was paving an ADA pathway or or basically putting chat down and allowing that access. The challenge with that was present. The challenge that parks brought to that was they were wanting to assess an access fee to access the green belt. And once we calculated the appraisal cost, the the ability to pay for what the appraised value was, 50% of the appraised value is what they were telling us. and the survey and construction of the path, the total came to between $40 and $50,000. And for a two season use, it just we the use can't support that, can't afford that. Um, frankly, it's like a third of the total construction cost of the project to just get green belt access. So, you know, we'd absolutely prefer an access here and we'd I I think be able to install some chat ADA compatible chat here, but because of those con um constraints, um it was decided that the best point of access was here. Um and so it kind of balances access to the parking area because many of these ADA users are going to be coming not via foot or bicycle. Many, not all. Um and you know it it does provide a pathway along the pioneer pathway if ADA uh users are coming from the green belt. That said, we would absolutely appreciate a pathway here. We

just cannot pay for it. It's also notable that um users of the roads while they pay impact fees do not pay an access fee to like put a driveway in, you know. So I think that you illustrated the complication because this is one of those sections of the green belt where the adjacent use is not immediately next to the path. You have this landscape area that's a buffer in between and because of that you have this challenge. Got it. Okay. Okay. Are there other Yeah. Chair Commissioner Stefonic has a look on his face.

Yeah. Can you help me understand uh this? Okay. So, there's the entrance. Now, all the where this the orange squares are and then the the speckled stuff, right? I read the notes in that. So, could somebody get from the parking lot right to the ADA path or is there any barriers or there's a curb? Is one of one of those is labeled as a curb? Is there or is there only if you're if you're in a wheelchair and you're all the way over on the far end is the only way out to go all the way back across to the star? Uh Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Safanchek, uh this is uh we are hoping that there will be some way to access this. All this stuff that is underneath the orange, which are food trucks, that's all compacted chat. So that is ADA chat.

Okay. Um so they this is the let's say the official entrance because this we do serve alcohol so we do need to have a fenced area. Um and that's what we're committing to. However, if someone was um had a you know someone with a disability showed up here and was like I'm not going over here. We could certainly open up a a route for them if it was needed. Um, but that's technically the entrance is here. But there's not like a fence there. I know there's this like picket f or not there is no fence along this area here. Okay. Yeah. So, it's just navigating through a substrate that changes. Uh, that's correct. Okay.

Mr. Chair,

Mr. Moore. Um, so one the one of the lake or the correspondents that we got was about noise concerns. And I've there's some narrative in the um in our packet about controlling the noise and and where that's coming from and locating it more internally. I see the stage kind of pointed semi internally. Is is the intent for like some speakers to be kind of point focused more around the site as opposed to just straight where the stage is pointing? Yeah. Uh, Chairman Danley, uh, Commissioner Moore, the stage is mobile, so we can move it to to create kind of the optimal conditions so as not and obviously the speaker system is mobile. So, the idea would be to have enough have the flexibility to kind of find the sweet spot. Um, in addition, um, as a reminder, we've operated, um, Green Acres has operated about 250 yards to the west of this site and has had zero noise complaints. So, we're like fully committed to adhering to the city's noise ordinance. Um, so if there is a complaint after, you know, if there's something that's not correct, um, and we're violating the city noise ordinance, we're obviously violating the city noise ordinance.

Sure. Thank you. Going to make a airport influence joke, but I'm a big noise guy. I'll refrain. Commissioner Shaver, uh, what are the hours of operation again? I know it's in the packet, but somewhere. Yeah. So, it'll be 9:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. One one breakfast truck and then multiple trucks for the afternoon. And this is not every day. This is uh Tuesday to Sunday or Wednesday to Sunday depending on uh budget, operational expenses, all that stuff.

Okay, thanks. Okay, any last questions? All right, I think we're wrapped up on that front. So, thank you very much. We'll go ahead and open this up to public testimony. I've got a handful of folks signed up. So, first up is uh Vicky Kimble. If you wouldn't mind, maybe just pull that mic just down a little bit. Perfect. And name and address. And you've got three minutes.

Um my name is Vicky Kimell and I live at 514 South 12th Street directly across from the proposed Green Acres outdoor venue. Approximately a thousand. My apartment building faces the site and is home to 45 senior residents between the ages of 70 and 90. Many of us spend a lot of time at home. So, the impacts of this proposal would be constant and very direct. I am my mic is dead, but I'm sorry. Okay, you can hear me now.

There you go. That's better. Thank I am concerned that this proposal would negatively affect nearby residents and interfere with our right to quiet enjoyment. Outdoor amplified music, increase traffic, and crowd noise, would be clearly audible inside our homes. This is not hypothetical. Music from existing venues, including Payup Brewery, is already audible from our building. Adding another outdoor stage directly across the street would increase the combined noise impact on residents. The current application also lacks clear limits. It allows amplified music during broad hours and does not clearly address the direction of the stage. Direction matters. If amplified sound were directed toward the river instead of toward nearby homes, the impact could be reduced. As written, the application allows sound to project towards residential buildings with very few safeguards. There should be clear restrictions. Amplified noise should be limited to specific hours such as late afternoon or early evening and limited no more than three nights per week. Without these limits, the overall noise impact on nearby residents would be unreasonable. This proposal also raises safety concerns. River Street is already a narrow and busy corridor used by cars, pedestrians, bicycles, and scooters. Seniors and other residents use this route to access ris boy river and the green belt. More traffic, food trucks, and crowds would make this area harder and less safe to navigate. The river and the green belt are public spaces that all resident Boisey residents should be able to enjoy safely. This proposal would make access more difficult for nearby residents,

especially seniors. If this conditional use permit is approved, I respect respectfully request that it expire after one year so noise and safety impacts can be reviewed before any renewal. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate you coming out. Okay. Uh Rebecca Ry and then Gail Black. I'm Rebecca Ry. I live at 514 South River um South 12th Street right by River. My living room and my bedroom Face River. I've been there for 13 years. Yes, I've seen some changes in the area. We had Pay move in, but we hear the music from Pat. We hear the bands. That's on the weekend until 9 9:30 sometimes 10:00. It's the bass we hear. So now you're adding the Green Acres. I've been to Green Acres down where they used to be. I loved it there. I love the music. I love the food. Um I could walk there. I I've spent many my times there. But moving it where it's going now will affect me. The noise to hear 5 days a week, my windows not being open when Pat plays, I have to have a headset on because I can't hear my movies. I can't turn it up because I live in a senior complex and I'm not affecting my neighbors than by turning my TV up louder at night. So for me, this adds I know it's changed, but it adds more to us as seniors. This is my home. I hope to live there maybe 20 more years. I'm a healthy, active person. I do the green belt. I do the races. But I feel that this noise is going to be too much and the traffic along the pathway or getting to the green belt and parking will disturb our quiet neighborhood what it used to be. Thank you very much.

Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Uh Gail Black and then Isaac Hton.

My name is Gail Black, 514 South 12th Street. Thank you all commissioners. Um, and I am here to underscore what my res fellow residents and neighbors have already said. Um, but I would like to point out that yes, music 5 days a week from starting at 9:00 a.m. or 11:00 a.m. to 9 or 9:30 p.m. Music is a personal choice. It's a very compact neighborhood. Everybody will be listening to this music that they didn't choose. Um, we have a very mixed neighborhood in terms of all ages and we have also a multicultural neighborhood. So that's additionally, is it their music either? No, not likely. Um and as a result, the neighborhood itself undergoes a stress that would mean that their home and their home streets are not very comfortable anymore 5 days a week. So, thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Okay, U Isaac Helton. And then that's the end of the signup sheet. So, if there's anybody else who wishes to testify, you'll be up in a moment.

Uh, thank you for your patience tonight and for for hearing uh my testimony. Uh, Mr. Chairman, commissioners, and uh and fellow citizens of of this city. Um, I I speak before you today as as someone who cares deeply about community. Um, and what I mean by that is that I value the connections that we make with one another. Um, with our actions, we can choose togetherness or its opposite. And I believe that each of us here today has experienced what division feels like at such a time as this in our nation's history. Um, as a Boisey resident and an Idaho native, a musician and supporter of the arts, I want to see Green Acres continue to thrive as not only a venue for live music, uh, and for, uh, local food and beverage vendors, but as a community forum, a space where people of all ages, walks of life, physical ability, genders, and economic class can meet to enjoy what their fellow citizens create. Greenacres has become a centerpiece of Boise's music and food culture uh earning a place in the hearts of countless Boiseians. Connections we make there shore up the fabric of our community in this city and and I believe that places like Green Acres are precisely where community building occurs. I could speak for the duration of my time um and much more describing how Greenacres and its owners Annie and Shawn have potent has have positively influenced my own success uh as a musician in Boise. And I feel justified tonight um in speaking on behalf of my peers who have played at Green Acres when I say that we all value their support. Hundreds of local bands um and acts uh play on their stage each year.

And uh Greenacres reimbures its music musical acts while allowing the citizens of Boise to experience a wide diversity of musical expression at no cost to them eliminating a barrier for low-income citizens and their families to um uh who are seeking a shared experience of the arts. Green Acres is precisely the kind of community-minded business that I feel that public figures of our city ought to support and facilitate. Um, with that in mind, I strongly encourage this committee to take into consideration the geographical location of Green Acres um as it is essential to its function as a community forum. Um, it welcomes people from the green belt itself a crucial element uh in strengthening Boise's community. I posit that Greenacres is in fact a complement to Boise's green belt, a place where its user groups can rest, hydrate, enjoy local food and live music. Um uh and and uh as a city which has done a lot to promote inclusivity and engagement, we need to look no further than establishments such as Greenacres as models for how to promote togetherness among our citizenry. Thank you very much,

Mr. Hton. Real quick, I don't think we caught your uh address. I don't think Oh, yes, of course. That is uh 721 East State Street, 83712. That works. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Okay. Is there anybody else in chambers coming up? And you guys are all welcome. Just one at a time.

Hey there, I'm Adam Kimble, 3814 Sage Creek, Boise, Idaho 83714. I'm the guy who always writes out a speech only to ignore it at the last minute. So I'm just going to go ad lib. I think everybody has made a lot of great points. Um there's one of these slides that I saw was number 10 if it's at all available. But I want people to think about kind of summer on the green belt. We all know the green belt is one of the great jewels. Boise, uh we love it. Uh, I think that no matter who you talk to in Boise, they say how how awesome it is. I commuted on it for more than a decade by bike. Uh, I know it really well. I never every bit of it and I know exactly where this spot is. And I want everybody to take a moment to think about what it's going to be like to be right across from a bridge in the summer where there's a takeout from floaters on the Boise River and there's a lot of live music going on and there's alcohol right there. and whether or not a little tiny fence that about that's about this tall is going to stop people from crossing over and milling about and waiting and looking for friends and other stuff. I think what's going to happen here is that we're going to find that there's going to be a huge kind of snarl on the green belt right through there that's going to be probably uh h have some potential even dangers in it with scooters and ebikes and people carrying tubes and people coming in for for beers and other things like that. It just seems like not a great place for this where it was further down uh kind of near the post office. Like it just didn't get wrapped up in all the floating summertime energy. And I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I think that it's not only an issue about is this the right place for truly a great business. It really is. Like I I'm a fan of Green Acres. I think it is the right the right business. It's just maybe not the right place. And in order to do that, I ask each one of you to think about what it's going to be like in summertime when you've got a lot of people on the green belt. You can't access it very easily. You've got seniors coming up. You know, the uh Pioneer Parkway, it's the only mode of egress really from like the library all the way down to the post office. And

suddenly that entire stretch feels like a queuing zone. Uh and I think it's not going to work very well from a lot of reasons. So, just wanted to share that and support uh the residents and especially the seniors that are only about 1,000 ft away. That's just over, you know, a block and a quarter, block and a half. We're talking about 10 hours of music, 5 days a week. That doesn't seem like anybody's idea of a good thing. Uh and so just wanted to share that. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Add two more.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Tammy Malone. Address is 271 South Langanger Lake in good old Star, Idaho. We've seen a lot of growth. So, this has been really interesting tonight. And I don't have to say good morning. We were starting to near that time. So, good evening. And, uh, I commend all of you on the work that you do. This has been really enlightening. Um, I usually speak from the heart. I'm a little tired, so I am going to read a letter that I did have prepared. I am joined tonight by um two ladies here, Terry and Danielle. We all are part of Bustin Out of Boise, a local nonprofit. I am the co-founder and current president of Bustin Out of Boise, and we walk alongside women that are going through um the challenges of navigating cancer, all women, all cancer. We're celebrating 13 years as a nonprofit here in Boise and very proud to do that. Our mission is simple but powerful to bring hope, community, and tangible support during one of life's hardest challenges. For the past four years, Greenacres Food Truck has graciously opened their doors and their hearts to us by hosting our annual event each September. It's called Say So Long to Summer. It's a free concert that we provide to the community. This partnership has meant the world not only to us but the women that we walk alongside of who are courageously battling cancer. Through this event, we have raised $57,000 the past four years without charging a single entry fee. We raised these funds because wonderful neighbors gathered in that welcoming space, ate great food, listened to music, and learned how about busting out of Boise impacts women and the women that are battling cancer. Every person that comes through our doors knows one woman, whether it's a co-orker, a neighbor, a family member, or themselves that has been touched by cancer. They get an opportunity to learn about that. And while they're there for

that very special afternoon each September, they have the opportunity to support us through donation, sign up for our newsletter, or buy raffle tickets from incredible companies like Alaska Airlines, who provides two roundtrip tickets each year to this event. Allowing Green Acres to open their new location means more of a commu more community magic can happen. It means more local musicians will be performing, more small food vendors thriving, and more charitable organizations like Beston Out of Boise have an opportunity to reach people. It's a ripple effect, the kind that strengthens Boise Boise's heart and our character. We're deeply grateful for the way Annie and Shawn and Greenacres have supported our cause and united our community around something joyful and meaningful. I hope you'll consider how their new location will continue to foster that same sense of belonging, generosity, and Boise spirit. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Thank you for what you do. Okay, one more here.

Hi, I'm Jordan Nardell's, 4409 West Albian Street. Um, and I'm here tonight in support of Green Acres. I've spent countless summer evenings there listening to local musicians and bands with my family and my friends, and I've seen firsthand how it brings uh people of all walks of life together regardless of income, age, race, background. Everyone is welcome there, and it's really more than a food truck park. It really is a community gathering space. Uh this project is a great example of pedestrianoriented, community focused development. I'm very supportive of the new location with its proximity to Ann Morrison Park, the green belt and the pioneer pathway uh which originally was intended to connect downtown Boisey to the green bell and the parks. So I think this is a great support of of that intended uh outcome of that of that pathway. Um all of which will make Green Acres even more accessible by foot and bike which is exactly the kind of connectivity and project we we value in Boyisey and want more of. It would activate an underutilized parcel and turn it into a vibrant gathering space. Greenacres is a small, creative local business with a vision. And sometimes innovative projects don't fit perfectly into existing regulations, as we saw in their presentation. Um, but I hope that doesn't become a barrier to something that clearly benefits the community. This is what community building looks like. I respectfully ask that you approve this project tonight and help ensure that any additional reviews are done expeditiously, they can move forward um and open in the spring on time. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else in chambers who wishes to testify? Go ahead. Come on up. And if you're I don't think we have anybody else online left. Oh, I guess we do. Alexander is going to raise her hand. So, okay.

I'm Georgia Garzy and I'm at um 523 South White Cloud Drive. Um I discovered Green Acres like a lot of people, which is actually through the music. Um, a little bit of a backstory is I migrated to Idaho from Washington in 2018 and I lived in Twin Falls for about four years while I went to high school and then came up to Boise to go to Boise State. I recently graduated this last spring and at that time I was just going to a farmers market when I started to hear the music of this really cool place, Green Acres, nearby. I stumbled over there and I re got to reimagine what co had taken away from me while I was in high school. there's not a lot of opportunity to go outside and be with people and you don't see people dance and you don't see people with their kids but also in all stages of life. Um you see couples, you see teenagers where it's a safe space that they can still go and they can enjoy music for free and then they can get food if they choose to or just spend time there. And so for me that was really really cool and it's something that my friends and I continue to do after that. Um, recently I actually interviewed and I'm now hired by them. And what I do is I'm assisting in operations, but also am their marketing person. And this last couple months, well, I guess not months, I've been preparing for this, but um, over the last couple weeks, um, I've been really looking into like pictures of, you know, what Green Acres is and looking at the reviews because I'm trying to like gear up for our big launch. and it's been so cool to see everyone what they have to say and that they get to dance and their experiences and how it was very similar to mine. Um, and so I just encourage you to kind of put that into consideration that it is for people of all stages of life. Um, and I'm really excited to continue to see this project go. So, thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. All right. I'm going to open it up to Alexandra Mar who's online and then we'll double check in chambers one last time.

Hello. Yeah, Alexandra Montaran, 2222 West Kney Street in Boise. Um, I just wanted to voice my support for this project. I think, um, this is exactly the kind of activation and community oriented business that makes the green belt even better. Um, and it's the kind of space that does engender that Boise kind culture that we have where you can meet new people, be exposed to new music, new foods, meet other members of the community, um, and gather with all ages, all incomes, all abilities, and just enjoy the best of what our city has to offer. And I I want to recognize how hard it is to do this kind of uh work. There's I think the you know applicant showed a multi-year process with so many permits and I think a lot of times it's we look at places like this and think it's easy. Oh, you're just throwing up at a container and bringing in a food truck, but there is so much process uh that you have to go through in order to create these types of spaces. And so I just want to shout out to the applicant like thanks for going through this and thanks for continuing to show up um to provide this to our community and I hope that the commission approves. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody else in chambers who wish to testify? Come on up, sir. Me too.

My name is uh David Vincenti. P I N C N T I also reside at 514 South 12th Street. I used to think Payet was loud when they had their entertainment on the slide you showed what everything they were going to provide. I didn't see the word entertainment. I didn't see anything about decimal uh uh pollution in our area that would affect more residents than could come here because of health problems. Somebody mentioned cultural. All I've ever heard at very good bands was country western. So what happens this cultural thing about the Arabic community that lives beside us? Nothing. There's nobody in the Arabic communities going to come down or hardly anyone to listen to country western. They don't appreciate that. We also have a Spanish community in our area. I don't hear any Spanish laabis or concertos. So, is that fraud when they don't tell everything that's going to be on that piece of property? It also has access from pay a brewery also has access from rivers. Rivers will not let the elderly park with handicap permits on the piece of property that in butts rivers. So, I don't know if that's the area. I I didn't really study the area that they're going to be in, but that's an awful large parking lot and the congestion and noise just from that. Somebody needs to stand out there. It's too bad you can't put this off for 6 months cuz somebody stands out there with a decimal reader and gets a true feeling of the noise generated just by pay let alone them. The other statement

that was made they had nobody complain about them. Well, I don't blame it because they're in a commercial area right across from Green Acres and those offices. I doubt if their windows are open, but I will start to check to see if they were open. The weekends, they're closed. and green green green acres didn't operate a full 180 days without intervals of uh uh one of our esteemed witnesses uh gets a news report from from Green Acres when they're available, what kind of music they're going to have. And so I don't remember her ever saying they're open every night of every day and night of the week. And uh I wish you would consider just the combined noise. And like I was previously mentioned, there's many elderly that voice an opinion of negativity that can't come to a meeting because of health problems. Thank you.

Thank you for coming out. Appreciate it, sir. Okay. Anybody else in chambers? I think we just about got it. A little guy back there. He needs to come up and testify. That one's asleep just like Commissioner Schaefer's about to be. So, all right. Anybody else want to testify? All right. I think we're in good shape. All right. Yeah, I'm sure they are. Okay. Five minutes of rebuttal.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll be quick um so we can all get to bed. Um a lot of testimony from both sides focused on the fact that this is an incredible third space. This third space is exactly what the city I think it wants to cultivate in the community. And you know, I think uh Madison, would you go to slide seven just so we can kind of talk operations for a second? I want to talk a little bit about inclusivity. Um Green Acres in my experience has been incredibly inclusive. I I play in a band. Um Isaac and I have jammed together quite a bit. Um and we uh you know, the music scene that Green Acres cultivates does have quite a bit of diversity. Not that I want to dwell on that, but you know, I think it's important to just mention that. Um another thing I just want to clarify because I'm really into clarifications these this evening. um is that you know this music won't be going from the moment we Greenacres opens to the moment it closes. You know there's usually one maybe two bands a day. Occasionally there's like a festival that happens so it's not like ongoing noise continuously. Um, we do want to be very respectful of our neighbors and that's why we have these signs. Like we're, you know, we'll have, and this is actually one of our conditions of approval is that we'll have um places for people to call Greenacres employees and talk to us directly, talk to Greenacres employees directly about any issues. In addition, you know, I do mention the noise ordinance, and the noise ordinance is put in place specifically to address nuisance. Nuisance being like improper amounts of noise spilling out into the community into places where it might not

be desired. And so with that noise ordinance, you know, that covers this sort of activity. Um, so, you know, there's code compliance if they if you know, if that becomes the issue. I mean, we'd obviously welcome any neighbor to talk to Green Acres first, but and and we'll be receptive and, you know, I think but that that is the backs stop, right? So, it's not like there's some wild west stuff going on that's totally unregulated. It is regulated and um I guess I just wanted to share that. I also want to share that these little ones do live nearby. You know, they live in the town homes across the across the park from the senior housing development. So, you know, this is so it's a neighborhood venture for for Green Acres, right? They can walk from their place down and and that's important to to them, the operators, and it's and like everyone's talked about, it's what makes Green Acres Green Acres is its location on the green belt.

Anything to add? Good. Okay. Thank you both. Appreciate it. Uh this is a CUP. So the item is in fact in front of us for a decision and the item is uh up for a motion. CU25-46 located at 767 South Pioneer Street. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moore, I move that we approve CP25-46 with all the terms and conditions in Staffport, including the revised ones in the lake correspondence. Okay, very good. Thank you for the clarification. I guess that's the word of the evening. Uh, is there a second? Second. Commissioner Torres, it's a second discussion, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Moore.

Um, yeah. Uh, I think this is a very appropriate use for this space. Um, it's a complicated little parcel, too. It's got, you know, flood plane overlay, Boise River overlay, flood protection overlay, Boise River overlay. In addition to being mixed use and having that for the, you know, the number of story minimum requirements, your activation requirements, it's complicated. And the fact the number of permits kind of that we've seen kind of goes to show that, you know, given the adjacency to the flood zone, there's not a lot that could really go here. um at least not without a lot of really complicated engineering. And I do appreciate the applicants um you kind of intent to maintain kind of a light footprint on the site, maintaining a lot of grass, a lot of that natural zone, keeping it fairly undeveloped, um minus some, you know, some accessibility upgrades and things like that. Um, on the subject of the noise piece, I think that the mobile stage is a great way to make sure that the noise is kept in check and to make tweaks over time to make adjustments and and kind of assess, you know, what's working, what's not working. It sounds like the applicant intends to do that and and is open to continuing that. And again, yeah, as the as the applicant state, I mean, if you know, the noise ordinance is there to to help with with problems if if that does arise. And with all of those reasons and the the uh conditions and the staff report and and all the reasons listed in the presentation um is for the project,

right? Thank you, Commissioner Moore. Further discussion, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Torres.

Um I won't add a lot. But I just want to note that, you know, I hear your stated willingness to work with the neighbors about the noise complaints and I just encourage you to keep that dialogue open and be willing to adjust. Um, you know, it's not going to make everybody happy if you're doing that, but at least that way you can hopefully mitigate some of the noise complaints or consider adjusting the hours of the music if necessary or the days or or whatever. Um, as far as the traffic concerns on the green belt, um, green belts a unique obviously resource in the community, but it's the same kind of condition we have when it comes to traffic on other streets or roads in the community. It's that unfortunately there's not a lot we can do about that. I mean, there it's a growing community. There's going to be times when there's gridlock and we just have to adapt and, you know, adjust based on what happens in those situations. But um I think this is a great community amenity and I'm in support of the motion. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Torres. Any other discussion? Sure. Commissioner Spons.

Yeah, I just want to express my uh support for um for this and applaud the applicant for navigating all of the permits and all the things that are out there. Um I'm excited to see Green Acres expand or not expand. Well, I guess maybe expand, it's a bigger space. um but still be around here on the green belt because it's uh definitely a big value in the community. Um and um and I applaud your you know willingness to to work and provide opportunities for people to provide feedback to you. Um I think that's really important to be a good community steward um and open that up and have that dialogue as uh chairman Torres uh indicated to as well. Um so yeah, just wanted to share that and um offer my support.

Okay, thank you Commissioner Stfansky Speedy. Commissioner Schaefer, thank you.

Uh, I just want to thank everybody for sticking with us tonight. It was a long night. I don't think we knew we'd be the song of a night, but it is what it is. That's fine. Um, so thank you. Appreciate you guys sticking around. Um, I'll be in support of the motion. Um, I I completely understand the concerns about congestion on the green belt and noise. I think there's um I mean we have obviously have code to address noise concerns. I also think this is a bit of a lowrisk two-year 180 days per year approach and you know if it doesn't work it doesn't work if you get a thousand complaints you know it doesn't work right so um I appreciate your approach to it and I think again it's a pretty low risk approach here and we'll give it a go in my opinion

okay thank you commissioner Schaefer good I'm gonna add one last thing I wasn't wanting to but eight years ago I sat in this chambers and we had an application in front of that was directly next to the Shakespeare's festival triplet properties wanted to put in conger 50 units next right next to the Idaho Shakespeare's festival and I am bringing my right back to that this that application we had TA systems and the whole nine was in this room it was crazy the fear was that introducing a residential use next to the Shakespeare festival was going to ultimately re result in complaints s from the new residents about the existing use and ultimately lead to the Shakespeare festival having to curtail their activities. That was the prevailing narrative. In this instance, what I'm think thinking about is the absolute opposite situation. And so when I hear the folks in this room talk about that line of travel directly from a stage where you are straight to where they're they are a living, it hearkens me back to that situation because I don't want to see you have be the result and the recipient of noise complaints. Item number 28 for the folks in the room here uh in terms of the conditions and and requirements is to comply with our code specifically around noise. So that is the the really the most that we can kind of do here um without going into the potential, you know, limiting hours and all that kind of stuff. They don't even exist yet. And I and I believe they're good a good neighbors, but I don't want to see you close because of all of the things that we talked about. So I think it's absolutely incumbent upon you guys throughout this summer to monitor yourselves, work with these folks, right? and make sure we dial that in so that we don't end up

here in a year, two years from now and having to move again. Right. So, I I'm hopeful that this is all resolved and and everybody works it out. So, okay. Um I think we're good. Will the clerk please call the role? Danley. Hi Moore. Hi Schaefer. Hi. Deha. I Stonic. I. All in favor? Motion carries. All right. Thank you all. This concludes the hearing. See you next Monday.