Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening everybody. Welcome to the Boisee City Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing. A few things to start out with for tonight's proceedings. Everyone from the public entering the hearing virtually has been automatically muted and cannot speak. As the item you're interested in comes up for discussion, you'll be called upon and unmuted. There is a chat function in Zoom. However, this is not part of the record and should only be used if technical difficulties arise. Our procedures for public hearings begins with 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 can type in star9 to raise your hand. Each member of the public is allowed up to three minutes for testimony and we are strict at this time as it is limited in code. Finally, the applicant is allowed five minutes for rebuttal after which the hearing will be closed and the commission will deliberate and render a decision. Mr. Chair, you have the floor. [clears throat]

Okay. Thank you, Crystal. Okay. 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 city council on subdivisions, reszones, annexations, and code or comprehensive plan amendments. Any decision made tonight may be appealed to city council provided that the appeal is fi filed within 10 days of this hearing. In order to file an appeal, you must have given written or oral testimony at tonight's meeting. So that's why it's important to give your name and address when you testify tonight. We utilize a consent agenda. This means that if the applicant agrees 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 the order just detailed a few minutes ago with staff, applicant, neighborhood association, and then the public testimony. Thank you all for attending tonight. Will the clerk please call the role?

Stanley here. Moore here. Schaefer here. Deha here. Torres here. Don here. Stallings here. Deons here. All present.

Okay. Did you see the Zoom? Okay. Okay. Let's start off with the consent agenda. And first up is meeting minutes and work session meeting minutes or work session minutes from February 2nd and February 9th. Hopefully the commission's had an opportunity to review without if there's any conversation about it now. Otherwise, go ahead and place them on the consent agenda. hearing. None. Go ahead and put all four work session minutes and meeting minutes from February 2nd and 9th uh on the consent agenda. Move forward. Let's see. Item number A for item A, PUD23-33. This is Leap Charities. This is a time extension request and it's a conditional use permit for 30 at 3444 North Maple Grove Road. Unless there's any discussion or opposition, we'll go ahead and place item A on the consent agenda. Hearing none, go ahead and put item A on the consent agenda. All right, item one we're going to be hearing. We'll move forward to item two. All right, this is CVA26-9. This is Rodney Evans and Partners LLC as well as uh let's see, SUB25-95 or 97, pardon me. This is Kaufman subdivision. Both located at 3815 North Jackie Lane. One is a V variance request, one is a preliminary and final plat. Is the applicant present?

Yes. Okay. And do you agree with the terms and condition staff report? Yes. All right. Let the record reflect that the applicant is present and does agree with the terms and conditions of the staff report. Um, is there anybody here that or online that wishes to testify in opposition to item two, CVA26-9 or SUV25-97? Item number two, I'm sorry, what was that? That's different.

So are you just making sure this So this is if you have anything that you want to say in opposition to item two, which is this variance request or the preliminary plat located at 3815 North Jackie Lane. Then what that means is that we would proceed with a full hearing. If not, then we'll put on the consent agenda. Positive. Okay, we're good then. All right. Anybody online, Crystal? I didn't see. Okay. All right. With that, unless there's any opposition, we'll go ahead and place um item number two on the consent agenda. Last up, number three, SUB26-4. This is Hollowfield Subdivision. This is a preliminary and final plat located at 2521 West Victory Road. Is the applicant in attendance?

Can you raise your hand for me? Okay, great. And do you uh agree with the terms and condition of staff report? All right. Let the record refle reflect that the applicant is present and does agree with the terms and condition of the staff report. Is there anybody in chambers or online who wishes to testify in opposition to item number three SUV 26-4 Hollowfield subdivision preliminary and final plot located 2521 West Victory Road. I don't see any hands. Anybody online? Okay, with that, unless there's opposition, we'll go ahead and place item number three on the consent agenda. Hearing none, well, it's moved. All right, that concludes the creation of the consent agenda. Is there a motion,

Mr. Chair? Commissioner Moore, I move that we approve the consent agenda as constructed. Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Moore. Is there a second? I'll second. Excellent. I have a motion by Commissioner Moore and a second by Commissioner Schaefer. Is there any discussion hearing? None. The clerk please call the role. Danley, yes. Moore, yes. Schaefer, yes. Deha, yes. Hores, yes. Dome, yes. Stallings, yes. Stanson, yes. All in favor? Motion carries.

Okay, that I that moves us on to uh the one and only item for tonight, and that is item number one. This is C25-25 Babcock uh design group as well as SCB25-92 both located at 3099 West Moore Street. Mr. Exon, take it away. Mr. Chair, real quick, Commissioner Schaefer. Uh, thanks. I need to recuse myself from this item. I'm a partner at Lang Group and we're handling the site plans for this project.

Partner. All right, big guy. [laughter] All right, let the record reflect that Commissioner Schaefer is going to recuse himself due to being involved in this product project. So, he will be taking his things and sitting in the back, I guess. All right. Thank you. Go ahead.

Good evening, commissioners. Before you tonight is a resone on a preliminary plot located along Moore Street. The reszone comprises 3.45 acres with the request to change the zoning from R2 to MX1. Preliminary plot consists of 66 town home lots and one common lot. The subject property is adjacent to A1 zoning to the west and R2 zoning to the north, south, and east. MX4 zoning is located three and a half blocks away along State Street. The future land use designation is compact which does support the requested MX1 zone. Does support what?

The MX1 zone. There are changed conditions that warrant a reszone of 3.45 45 acres from R2 to the MX1 zone which are summarized on screen and described throughout the project report. The State Street TOD plan was adopted in 2019 which identifies Whitewater Park Boulevard and State Street as a designated station for public transportation. Additionally, the 30th Street master plan was adopted in 2012 and subsequently an urban renewal district was adopted in 2013. Um, Capital City Development Corporation collaborative projects are shown on screen as stars. Furthermore, the College of Western Idaho campus is currently under construction. Lastly, there are robust public transportation options and regional parks that have opened and been expanded since 2016, which further demonstrate the changed conditions of the area. As for the preliminary plat, all 66 town home units will take vehicle access from the new private alley network. Both sides of the alley will have 7 and 1/2 ft attached sidewalks, both for connectivity purposes and to provide enough clearance for aerial access required by the fire department. A recommended condition of approval would require all crosswalks proposed to be redesigned as elevated traffic tables to function both as a cal traffic calming method throughout the site and increase pedestrian safety. The town homes central to the development are proposed to front onto a common landscaped corridor while other town homes will front onto either Moore Street or Whitewater Park Boulevard as described in the project report. The Ada County Highway District's agency comment resulted in a recommend recommended condition of approval to address the northernmost access to be aligned with 32nd Street. A majority of the landscaping associated with the proposed subdivision is within a common lot. Some lots do contain small front yards with a tree within their lot lines. The total amount of common space

provided is about 24,567 square ft, which is about 18% of the total area of the project. The central corridor mentioned earlier also contains a some water features and appropriate tree species to accommodate a shaded environment. Lastly, each town home unit does have one tree generally located in front of each unit complying with that use specific standard for town homes. Public comments and opposition to the project were received. Concerns touched on the height, density, and traffic impact of the proposed subdivision. The R2 and MX1 zones both have the same height limit of 45 ft and no density maximums. As proposed, the town homes will be designed with two-car garages, either in tandem or sidebyside designs. Concerns were raised about the potential commercial uses permitted in the MX1 zone. The change conditions in the area described in the project report do warrant the reszone. If the subdivision proposal fell through and a commercial use were to be proposed in the future, they would need to abide by the requirements of the development code and subsequent approvals. Lastly, a comment was submitted from the owner of a landlock parcel described in the project report with questions regarding future access. A recommended condition of approval contained in the original project report and in the late correspondence packet require that an access easement to the landlock property be granted. In conclusion, the planning team recommends approval of the reszone and preliminary plat and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

All right. Thank you. Miss Beexton is the applicant and tenants. All right. Come on up. Familiar face.

Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Jeffrey Wle. I am counsel for the applicant. My address is 251 East Front Street here in Boisee Sweet 310. Uh we are here tonight before you on the reszone and the preliminary plat associated with this application. We are in agreement with the staff report and the analysis that has been provided and I want to walk you through uh how we got here. So as staff noted uh this property is approximately 3 acres. It has been owned by the Boisee Ada Housing Authority for several years. There have been a variety of applications, prior attempts to develop this site for for housing consistent with their mission. However, due to due to market factors and other reasons, they ultimately have decided to sell the property uh with the intention and desire that the focus be housing. And that is what my applicant client gardener group has come forward with. We want to be very clear that the intention of everything we're doing here is focused on building for sale town houses and that is what has really driven the request for the reszone. So there are two primary design uh challenges with this with this property. First, there is a very large sewer easement over the northern portion of the property running from Moore Street to Whitewater Boulevard that significantly limits what can be done on that portion. And that was done when uh when that major sewer connection was made over in the Whitewater corridor uh to facilitate that. So that provides a constraint on the north. The other depiction you see there is that with the

alignment of 32nd Street and 31st Street just beyond the boundaries the southern boundary of the property it further limits where you can place your internal circulation. So that is the reason that we have come forward with the request to reszone the property to MX1. Due to those constraints, to be able to meet the frontage requirements of the R2 zone would necessitate a street network which would significantly reduce the amount of housing that you could build on the property. So, as staff noted, there is between the R2 and the MX1, there is no difference in height. The heights are exactly the same of 45 ft. There is no difference in density. Both have no density limitations. With respect to setbacks, yes, the MX1 does have a slightly lower uh zero setback as opposed to 5 to 10 feet. And we've been respectful of that as we have oriented the buildings such that they are at least set back equal to what the adjoining buildings in the neighborhood are. And the front setbacks are comparable as well. So the reason that we've requested the reszone is it provides the flexibility necessary on setbacks due primarily to that frontage requirement that is required currently under the R2 zone. As we went through this design process with staff, uh we were given direction to go look at how a similar project was addressed on Arch Street, an application that came through last year that had a similar ride-of-way configuration due to the fact that that fronted on Eustick and Arch Street and access to Eustic was limited and here access to Whitewater is prohibited due to the nature of that roadway. So all the access has to be to Mor Street. So in doing that, we worked through these issues with staff and came to the

conclusion that rather than come in with a conditional use permit or request for variance that the appropriate way to handle this is with the MX1. And the MX1 is consistent with compact zoning. It is a use that does potentially permit other minor neighborhood oriented commercial uses that that could be involved. uh we understand the concern regarding that but we we believe that this is appropriate and that you're going to tie this to uh this preliminary plat and that will give us the ability to go forward with that. So as indicated uh we have one common lot where the access drive alley system will be located together with the amenity site amenity space and the service facilities. Uh, as also discussed previously, all of the buildings on site have been oriented with respect to how buildings are oriented on more street so that we don't have backyards aligned with either the front or the rear of of houses that that they're all aligned together. We have also reconfigured the access drive and its intersection with more street to comply with ACD's requirements. That was another item that we worked through with staff and we have worked to reconfigure interior guest parking to ensure that there is sufficient throughout the site. Now with respect to the landlock parcel that was raised, there is this landlock parcel. I think everything's been adequately addressed. We did request a modification to the conditions of approval were amendable to providing access to that. it. There have been attempts by that property owner and and the housing authority previously as well as my client to address it, but we will ensure that that access is provided subject to that condition. And as noted, uh we think it's important

to just specify, you know, its location and and specify that if that parcel develops, then it should participate in the uh the maintenance and operation of that common drive. But until such time as it as it develops, that that is not an issue. And with that, I'll stand for any questions.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wardle. Um, neighborhood association, this is West End Neighborhood Association. Is there a representative from that neighborhood association in attendance or online? Looks like no. Oh, wait, wait, wait. Well, the hand went down. I'm sorry. Okay, I got it.

Okay, so your question, we're going to be able to get to plenty of public questions just a minute. So, hang tight. Um, in the meantime, what I need to do is I need to ensure that the neighborhood associate, not an not an HOA, there's registered neighborhood associations, as many as you know, throughout Boisey. have a chance to be part of the initial part of this discussion. So, I had a hand online, but I don't think that person is there. Okay. So, I don't think there's anybody here from the West End Neighborhood Association who was wanting to testify on behalf of that West End Neighborhood Association. Correct. Correct. Okay. With that, we'll go ahead and open it up to questions from the commission and then we'll have public testimony. Any questions of the applicant or staff? Mr. Chair,

Mr. Stallings,

question for staff. Um, with the scale of this, the 66 units with six guests parking, can we talk about what parking ratio h how how was that considered? How was that ratio considered acceptable? What was the thought process behind that? Commissioner Danley and Commissioner Stallings. Um, with the development, it is developing as a single family proposal. Um, and with that, we still only do by code require one parking space per unit. With this proposal, the developer is proposing two parking spaces for each unit. Whether that's two in a garage side by side or more of a tandem format. Um, they are including six parking spaces to function as guest parking throughout that private alley network. That does also include one ADA accessible van space. Outside of that, there, you know, is public rideway. There is no parking along uh Whitewater Park Boulevard. That being said, there's a lot of connectivity throughout the greater area. Tons of bikeways, public transportation.

Followup, Mr. Chair. Go ahead. Um, is there does the city have any information on how these tandem garages are used? Um, in anecdotal experience, they're not always used to fit to cars there. It's a little more difficult. How does that Does the city have any information on how that is used in practice? Chairman, Commissioner Stallings, um, I do not have any of that information available currently. Um, however, the development code does consider tandem parking spaces to count as one parking space for parking calculation purposes. So, I have that information for you. Other questions? Chair.

Mr. Stefansic has a question for staff. Um, in this in this design, it may it might be for the applicant too. So they specifically designed part of the housing on Whitewater to face Whitewater. There's no parking along White Water. There's a bike lane right along there and everything. Um are there examples of this scenario playing out in other places around Boise? I I haven't seen that where they have a frontage where there's really no parkup drive up access to that where, you know, somebody might be delivering something and they need to get to that location and the route doesn't take them all the way into the backside of that. I I'm I'm just curious where that has existed here in Boise and have there been any issues?

Chairman, Commissioner Stefonic. Um there's a larger subdivision off of Hill Road, um the prominent subdivision where it is that format. Houses do front onto Hill Road directly with sidewalk connecting it to Hill Road whereas their garages are facing towards the rear. Um so it is a design that we do see consistently throughout the city various scales and to my knowledge there haven't been any issues with that. I just would add we've I know having been up here for a minute we've approved there's some on Eustic there's some on Overland as well over by Maple Grove 5 mile area and then a few other spots did you have anything to add Mr. Chairman, uh, Commissioner, yes, we we have evaluated in addition to those, there are a couple locations on Warm Springs where you've approved similar alignments with the houses fronting. Uh, I think it is going to be a discussion for us and and public works and fire about how these how those whitewater ones are going to be addressed, whether they're going to be addressed via more street, uh, which is my understanding, but that may be an issue. But that has been approved in multiple locations throughout the city, including also on Federal Way with the town houses that were constructed there.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Moore.

Mr. Uh so with the R or the MX1 use versus the R2 uh there's a little bit more commercial required or of permitted if you know the residential doesn't go through and the plat expires whatever. So there's a little bit more commercial that's permitted. There's some amount of commercial permitted in R2 I think but it's pretty minor. Um for the MX1 though commercial that all looks to be generally pretty small. I'm saying more or less under 5,000 square ft neighborhood kind of oriented banks, financial institutions, small neighborhood cafes and things like that. Is that kind of a good summary of what's permitted in MX1?

Chairman, Commissioner Moore, that is correct. Um, one use that is permitted in the MX1 zone is a drive-through facility. That being said, one of the specific requirements for a drive-through facility is that it explicitly does not create additional traffic onto local residential roadways. So, there is also that Especific standard innately tied to a drive-thru that would be applicable in this situation if a drive-through was proposed in the site in the future.

Okay. And [clears throat] Mr. Chair, follow up on that. So, a lot of maybe some of this commercial could be restricted by, you know, the local road access as opposed to having access onto from Whitewater Boulevard. Is that kind of generally correct? So, that might that might disallow some uses from even going there just because they don't really have access to anything above a local road. Is that kind of a good summary, Chairman? Commissioner, that is correct. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Mr. Chair, Commissioner Don,

um, one of the comments from the public talked about a ditch running through the project. So, I guess for staff, is there really a ditch running through and it's I don't see it on the drawings.

Um, chairman, commissioner, there is some irrigation infrastructure. The applicant, I believe, is proposing to bury that, and they could speak more to that process. Mr. Chairman, uh, Commissioner Don, yes, there is there are a couple irrigation facilities there and they would be tiled or relocated as necessary uh, within the property. Uh, one of the ditches essentially runs through the the middle of the property and off to the northwest. And then there are some other other facilities that run to the east. But obviously under Idaho code, we have to ensure that those are protected as we relocate them and they continue to to function and provide service to the adjoining properties.

I guess I follow up. I just want to make sure I'm clear. I think that what one of the areas that you're talking about I don't it doesn't seem like it's crystal clear to me but between building G and building J it shows on the site plan it looks like that does show up as landscaping in those and walk space around it is that so if let's see if we can swale or that's the so so there is a feature that we're doing here but that is divorced from the existing irrigation system. Okay.

So, the irrigation the existing irrigation uh facilities kind of run here and then over here and then up up to here. So, we will be tiling those and moving those out from underneath those structures uh consistent with the requirements of of the irrigation uh district and and consistent with Idaho law. But it's not going to be we're not as cool as it would be. Commissioner Danley to daylight that and have it run right down the middle of it. That's not it. So that space down the middle, that's fine. It's that's more of an envisioned walkway space that has some degree of landscaping in it. Correct. That is an Oops. That is an irrigated space.

Gotcha. Uh it is a landscaped space. Okay. There are amenities up there and down here. Okay. Great. Other questions? Y'all are quiet tonight. Mr. Torres,

you read my mind. Um, my question is for staff, just to emphasize again, I know you mentioned it in the initial report uh, presentation, the density, there's no limitations on density in either zone. Um, so these would be allowed for the most part under either the R2 or the MEX1. Is that correct?

Correct. Um, 22 units per acre would be an appropriate density in either zone. Um, with the fact that there is no density restrictions within the R2 zone. A lot of that is driven by, you know, the size of the lots, the shape of the lot, those natural characteristics similar to the MX1 zone. Mr. Chair, Mr. Stallings,

question for staff. Um, understanding that ACD said Whitewater Park Boulevard is operating below um, threshold levels of traffic study. Sorry. Um, and we don't have information on More Street as it's a local street. How are we basing the impact of the traffic on More Street without base data? German commissioner stallings. Typically with local roadways, ACD doesn't necessarily maintain a lot of traffic information on them. That being said, a lot of the widths for the ride ofways in this area are typical of, you know, standard functioning local roadways. Believe the actual rideway dedication in this area for that kind of grid network to the north is about 60 ft of rideway. So if needed, there are is room for ACG to come in, widen the roadways a little bit to install dedicated bike lanes, install curb and gutter in areas that don't have that, whatever it may be. Right now the roadways are about um 32 feet backup curb to backup curb, which again is pretty typical from what we see with a a standard local roadway.

Mr. Chair, Mr. Moore to follow up on that. So just to confirm this project with 66 units does not cross the threshold for a traffic impact study though. Is that correct? Chairman Commissioner Moore that is correct. Do you know what that Mr. Chair gohead? Do you know what that number is off the top of your head? I do not know that number off the top of my head. Unfortunately I think if I'm not mistaken usually it's a minimum I believe at least 200 but it might even be much higher than that. that margin of error on just in institutional knowledge that margin of error on that lower amount is pretty high.

Just FYI and you're right, the local streets, they don't really keep uh traffic data on. It's mostly the collectors and arterials. Doug, do we have a sense? I know that with the ITD property, it's been in the news a little bit and it as far as I'm aware and I think is it's the intention is to move back to it being a hub of all of ITD. Do we have a sense of the number of employees roughly that might be in that space eventually once it's all cleaned up? 300, 500, a thousand? Chairman, I do not have that information. Okay. Just curious, Mr. Chair,

Mr. Torres. Um, my question is for the applicant. Um, understanding that we're fairly early in the process of building these town homes. Um, one of the concerns the city is always trying to address is affordability. Um, can you give me a rough idea of what these units might go for? Uh, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Torres. Uh, that's a question I need to bring my client up for.

Uh, Weston Arnell. Uh, address is 800 West Main Street, uh, Sweet 1220 in Boisee. Uh, we are doing some market studies for the area. Uh, but we anticipate the town homes to be in the the 500 to 800,000 range. Okay. Any other questions? All right. A lot of head shaking left or right. So, okay. Going once, going twice. Okay. Well, we'll go ahead and close the question portion and we're going to open this up to the public testimony uh part of things. And so, here's how this will work. If you're unfamiliar, uh everybody in the audience and online will have the opportunity to come up and you'll have three minutes. Uh I need you to just simply state your name and your address for the record. And if you don't, we'll make sure we catch it. Um, if you are signed up on the signup sheet, you'll be called up first. If you have not signed up on the signup sheet, don't worry. We'll have an opportunity for anybody and everybody who has not come up. Um, as well as the handful of folks who are online. Okay. All right. So, first up is looks like Lisa Rolls followed by Elijah Mayor, I think it is. And if you could please just adjust the um microphone as necessary, that'd be great, too. Thank you. Hi.

Hi. My name is Lisa Rolls. I live at 894 North 31st Street. I live in one of the 11 skinny homes on the block between Moore Street and Gooding, very close to the proposed development. I submitted a letter to planning and zoning uh last week that describes all the reasons I think that this reszone doesn't meet the criteria of the Boise City Code for a reason. But I will reiterate my opinions here. The proposal is for a residential development in a residential neighborhood and I don't see that there's any change conditions that warrant a zoning change. Also, its size, scale, height, and density are clearly not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and it is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. It is not appropriate to put a large highdensity three-story attached multifamily development in a compact zone neighborhood that is primarily made up of one and twostory detached single family homes with street parking and alley access to garages and rear parking spaces. The proposed development is not respectful of or compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In the comprehensive plan, there is a section on infill design principles. In chapter 3, it says, and I quote, "The primary role of these principles is to accommodate increased densities where appropriate while protecting the character of the Boise's established neighborhoods. Types of considerations addressed by the infill design principles include the relationship to surrounding development, transitions in height and building mass, and other issues related to compatibility," unquote. With the current proposal, there is no transition in height and building mass, and the other issues

related to compatibility in this case are increased traffic and the significant need for additional on street parking in the adjacent neighborhood. The plan proposes 66 units each with essentially onecar garages and very few guest parking spaces. Where are the 50 to 100 additional cars expected to park? They will park on our neighborhood streets where current parking is limited. In fact, there are no parking spaces in the evening on my block because the current residents and their guests are parking there. With all the additional cars in the neighborhood, we are not going to be able to park in front of our houses and we may not even be able to park on our own block. It we're going to have a significant negative impact on our lives. Um, I appreciate the need for additional housing in Boise. I also appreciate the goal to provide infill rather than urban speak spread. Um I especially appreciate that there's guidance on the comprehensive plan on how to do infill development and this isn't it. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Next up. No, I can't have that. And I know you all want to. I get it. But we can't have that. All right. Everybody has to have their opportunity to be fair and heard. So, I need um Elijah Mayor and then Judy Victory.

Hello. Thank you for having us. Um I want to say that more street access it what it feels like is two parks cars are parked on either side of the street and then like one car can go down the middle. So that maybe two if you squeeze. So that's the access they're talking about that he was referring to. So hello commissioners and neighbors. I'm Alicia Meyer. I live at 829 North Veil Street. I live adjacent to the proposed development. I'm a social worker and a mother of an 11 and 14year-old. Our neighborhood is primarily single family homes. There are eight town homes just a couple blocks from this proposed development on Jordan Street that have been sitting for sale for over a year. The new town homes that were built next to this proposed development are going for over 800,000 each and are sitting on the market and have been since they were built. there. These are not the type of homes it seems like people want. I believe the answer to this is because they have no sense of community or open space in the way developers are designing for maximum profit. A quote from the EPA website on smart growth states, "Smart growth urban design prioritizes compact, mixeduse, and walkable development to preserve natural resources with open space requirements often exceeding 30% in planned unit developments, which is what this is, to balance density with quality of life. Best practices integrate functional accessible green spaces such as parks, trails, and plazas into the fabric of the neighborhood rather than treating them as isolated islands. I'm aware this land is owned by Boise Housing Authority. If they or the developer were to set aside a halfacre for a micro park right on More Street, I believe this could be of substantial value to our neighborhood and cultivate a sense of community while also creating housing that is both dense and desirable in the remaining part of the lot. I can tell you after living in this neighborhood for years, there is no good

open neutral space for kids and neighbors to meet that is safe for children and authentically accessible. My kids do not know any of the neighborhood kids and we have to drive to Katalpa or Sunset Playground to drop our kids off. So, I propose change the design to house residents but add a micro park there. And if this is not an acceptable idea, then I oppose its development because it will harm our neighborhood. And I think that's it. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate you coming out. All right. Next up is uh Judy Victory followed by Dennis Wilson. Um Judy Victory, 3112 Jordan Street. Um I live um this development is too big for our neighborhood. It's way too much. My home is at the intersection of 32nd Street and Jordan, which is one of the main streets that this traffic area would come out on. when they get to Jordan, they would take a left to hit Whitewater and there is just a crosswalk there for people. Um, there is also a housing development that someone mentioned that they put in adjacent to this area and these homes are sitting on the sidewalk. They are absolutely butdding up against the sidewalk. Um, I think this is way too much. The traffic will be horrendous and I'm not sure people will go out more street. I think they'll come down uh 32nd to Jordan and um I there will be hundreds of cars. Um can the schools handle the children that would come into here? And um I don't think it fits our neighborhood. Um something smaller would be suitable perhaps. We've lived here for 25 almost 26 years and known we call it the forest because it's been an open space uh known that it would be built sometime but this does not feel appropriate or um in alignment with our neighborhood and the neighborhood values. So good luck and apparently the zoning is pretty much the same the height and requirements and stuff. So why do they need the mixed use? Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate it. Okay. Dennis Wilson, followed by Jesse Roberts. Thank you. Dennis Wilson, 3112 Jordan Street. We've been there for 26 years. Uh they knocked down the house across the street, put four units. They knocked down the house over this way, they put up five units. They knocked down a house over there, they put up eight units. It's they're ruining the neighborhood. If you go down more east to leave during rush hour, which is already a mess, you go east on Moore, you're either going to hit 27th, which is 25 miles an hour. Nobody's doing it, or you're going to do a high-speed U-turn down Stewart to get to Whitewater. Uh they're going to come up 31st and 32nd. On 31st, they're going to run into all those trucks from Capitol Lumber. Um nobody's doing it. The neighborhood is 20 miles an hour. Nobody's doing 20 now. It's um it might good might be good for revenue enhancement and it might be good profit for the builders, but you're going to ruin our neighborhood. There's 66 units is another 120 Clarks with no easy access. Um it makes no sense at all. It's just ruining the neighborhood in the name of progress. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Okay, I've got uh Jesse Roberts and then Bob Reinhardt.

Good evening. My name is Jesse Roberts. I live at 1809 West Washington, but we own the property at 3021 West Moore, which is right next to the property in question, and we own the isolated landlock parcel. So, you'll forgive me. I had a plan statement, but um I just found out about this today. I've we have not been communicated with regarding the accessibility agreements to the parcel. So, I guess we just do have a few concerns and don't feel that this is probably this project is probably not ready for approval if that's what it's going forward to. Um we don't know what the conditions for access to the parcel are. We don't know what we would be agreeing to. No one has talked to us about this and I believe it was just recently um put forward to the city of Boise. So we still have a lot of questions about that. Um and we also we have been caring for that property and we want to be able to make sure we can continue to care for it in a way that is appropriate. Um we also have uh the they keep sighting I believe 3.05 05 acres on their um on their uh applications. I believe this includes property that belongs to us. The 3.05 I think um includes some stuff that was included in an erroneous earlier survey and then we had that survey corrected with Baka and um we believe the air the their acres should be 2.97. We've been assured several times that this isn't an issue and that it doesn't make a difference. And if that's the case, then that's fine. But um it it keeps coming up that it seems like more than we are aware that they have. Um and we just

want to make sure that everything is squared away before this moves forward so that our our family's property is is not at risk and that we can understand how we will be able to continue to maintain it. And that's all. Great. I suspect you'll hear something about that in rebuttal. Just call it approach. Thank you. All right. Thank you so much. All right. Bob Reinhardt.

Hi, my name is Bob Reinhardt. I'm at 3050 West Hester Street. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commissioners, and thank you to the hard work of the staff. Um, I want to echo some of the concerns that have already been voiced about parking and street and maybe register a couple of other concerns that I have. One is about height, um, which I know has come up as sort of this is within allowable, but my my two concerns about height are one that I don't think this height fits in the character of the neighborhood with one and twotory homes, and another is about privacy issues. I live on the south side of this property and I know there are some other folks that live on other sides of it and I don't I haven't seen any elevations. I don't think the developers offered us any elevations to be able to see what this would look like. But having a sense of 45 ft up, I imagine I'll lose any privacy that I might have had in my backyard. Um the landscaping is also a point of concern for me. As near as I can tell, these are 2-in caliber trees that are on the plan, which are pretty small compared to the pretty significant growth that's back there now. Um, and then the affordability. I'm really glad that you brought that up, Commissioner Torres. Um, I teach at Boise State. Starting salary there is somewhere around 75. I think a 500 I think a $500,000 mortgage a mortgage on that would be like $3,000. and that's right in the neighborhood of like 50% of your take-home salary. So, um I just wanted to point that out in case that becomes a point uh of support for this. It seems like a bit of a fake leaf. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming out. Okay, I have nobody else on the signup sheet. This is the opportunity now where you can come on up if you feel inclined. we will get your name uh on the signup sheet and you can have three minutes.

And if not, you don't feel like you have to come on up. If you feel like um you've the points have been made and you've already heard them, then again, you don't need to come on up. Here it come. You're welcome. And then I know that uh we have some folks online that we'll get to momentarily. And same thing, if you wouldn't mind, just adjust the mic, name, address for the record, and you have three minutes.

All right. Thanks. My name is Chris Burnside. I live at 885 North 31st Street. Um, in addition to all the great comments that my neighbors and friends have made, I think it's important to call out a couple things. Um, during the courtesy public neighborhood hearing that the developers put together so graciously, um, we asked what what's the difference between R2 and MX1 to you guys? Why does it matter if there's no difference in density? You don't know if it's in height. And I quote, guy with the glasses there says it's pretty much just easier for someone to get a loan if it's under MX1. So the value for them is really in able to sell the houses. Uh Commissioner Torres, you mentioned the affordability crisis in Boise. How this project marries up with first of all the housing authorities's entire mission. But how does how does a half a million dollars to $900,000 town homes help anyone? Let alone the impact on the neighborhood. Doesn't help any problems. It solves nothing. It's going to be Airbnbs and vacant landlords. That's what it's going to end up being. This neighborhood is full of people that have lived here for 30, 20, 15 years in single family standalone homes. And in a normal situation, that same property would house five to six of those, maybe seven, eight. So now we're talking 16 cars, 25 cars. Now we have upwards of 120 cars all going to one little bottleneck and the impact on the roads and the traffic and the safety of our kids riding their bikes is being compared to data that we don't have on streets that we don't have data on. There's data on whitewater traffic but not on these residential streets. So how is the decision being hung on that other than a firet truck can fit down the street? I feel like there's got to be more data points than that to make this kind of decision.

You said yourself MX1 allows for a drive-thru. If that's on the table as a future option for this property, that's crazy because you just said the drive-thru can't negatively impact the neighboring streets. Well, a drive-thru, how many cars are that going to be a day? How can 66 town homes not actually exceed the count of a drive-thru? I mean, I can't even fathom a drive-through business all coming to one little corner at the end of a neighborhood block, not a apartment building, massive town home structures. All the other points are so valid and I appreciate everyone putting it together. Um, that's all I have.

Thanks, sir. Appreciate you coming out. Okay. Okay. Anybody else in chambers who wish to testify? Okay, you guys go ahead and come on up and just fill in this first row and then I'll just call you up one by one. All right, welcome. Name and address for the record.

My name is Bruno Lopez. I live at 32nd or 3200 32nd Street or Gooding Street. Um I've lived there for like 10 years now and I have a it's my I'm about to have a baby now and I have a couple young kids as well. They like to ride their bikes and we live on an easement. And so my girlfriend and I have cars. Our oldest is about to start driving. That's three cars. These guys are saying that it's twocar garages and only six visitors. That if it's single family, their kids are going to grow up. Where are their cars going to go? I mean, it's hard enough. I have apartments behind me. There's I think three four buildings with at least four of single families living in them each and we're same thing. It all bottlenecks right there. It's hard enough already to get out of in the morning. My girlfriend works at St. Luke's. She has a hard enough time having to take the kids to their schools and then shoot down Front Street or Myrtle. So, I don't think that any of this is being taken into consideration. and they're just trying to fill up the space when everybody, my kids like to go play there. I mean, like they said, they mention it, we call it the forest as well in Spanish, boske. [snorts] We all like it. It's a nice way to get into the park, the green belt. I mean, we all take our time. We walk through there. I take walks with her right now with her with her being pregnant now. It's a nice little way to warm up to get to the green belt. And I don't I don't want to change the neighborhood. We've been there long enough. And I feel like that neighborhood exemplify is a perfect example of what the boy downtown Boisey is. It's a community. It's family. It's you get to know your neighbors. You get to meet your friends. And it's green. That's what we're we are the city of trees. So that's all I got for now.

Thank you, sir. Okay. Um we go from left to right. [clears throat] Hi there. Uh my name is Katherine Mooney. I did sign I'm sorry. What was your last name?

Catherine Mooney. M O O N Y uh I live at 3015 West Morris Street. Our house um and our backyard also run across the backside of and adjacent to this lot. Um thank you for your time. Um uh I'll keep this short. I'll try to anyway so I don't ramble. Um I was born here in Boise and I've lived here most of my life. Um and I work over at the nearby school at Lola Elementary. Um uh my concern is the same with the amount of town homes that has s been suggested for this lot and the congestion and the extra pollution it will cause. Um one of the concerns I do have uh come from how this project will affect affect the neighborhood. Um we have a lot of refugees that live in the neighborhood. Um and there's mixed income. I feel like a 500,000 town home to a 850,000 town home um might seem a little crude to refugees. Um I lived in Malawi where segregation between whites and Africans still existed and there were still gated communities um with that disparity of poverty. Anyways, um there are a lot of kids that live in the neighborhood. They ride their bikes um with the extra traffic and especially too that since this is more street and 32nd Street, it's just a bend in the road. It's not like there there's a through road. Um so you're looking at a lot of extra cars um and a lot of congestion in that area is what I would probably imagine what would happen. Anyways, um I am also workingass. I don't make a lot of money with the school district. Um, so I

couldn't afford those town homes. So it is one of those things that um we just see that disparity with that. And I don't think that we need um homes like this. We need affordable homes in the neighborhood to keep it as it is. Um, also too, um, the name of the community, they want to have it as Rivergate, which I think kind of connotates a closed community. Um, and I would suggest a different name if this does go forward. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Hello.

Hi, my name is John Becker. I live uh 3021 West Moore Street, which is uh in the corner bordered on two sides by the proposed project. Um Steve uh when considering the future residents of this project, MX1 zoning will leave them with much decreased parking space for themselves and their guests, much decreased open space, perhaps as little as 2 feet per square res two square feet per resident. And because garbage trucks are not permitted to back up in our neighborhood such in a neighborhood such as this, the proposed dumpster locations will mean that some residents will need to walk or drive 250 ft each direction just to take out the trash. Also, R2 requirements. Also, the R2 requirement that there be a gap between every five residences is not a requirement on MX1 projects, which leads to further increase in density and lack of open space. I see no advantage to the future residents and this might set a a precedent for future developers when they say, "Well, they were allowed to do it. Why can't I just go MX?" Also, I take issue with the this the bid process. Um, the realtor against the realtor listed the property including 13 or 3,000 square ft of property that belonged to us or my daughter. Um, also he I asked to mention that or change it and include for future biders the easements that are required so I can get to my landlock property and also have a water get to it. He said, "Oh, we're not going to worry about that. Um, you [clears throat] can when that when we sell the property, you can

hammer that out with the uh future owners." So he's trying to sell property that he doesn't own that Baka doesn't own ours and he doesn't want to tell him about these easement rights. Um also I wonder it's well established that it's um 2.97 acres that we're dealing with here and they continue to call it 3.05 5 which is what it was before they discovered I discovered that um errant survey once they reszoned it in 2018 it came back down to 2.97 so um it's deceptive and I also wonder where this additional 510 of an acre that will be reszoned is coming from I talked to some of the neighbors you know because They mentioned 3.45. It's 2.97. Thanks for your time.

Thank you, sir. Okay. Want to pop up?

Hi. My name is uh James O'Keefe. I live at 881 North 31st Street. Um, a lot of great points have been brought up about traffic, the narrow roads, the congestion. and there's no outlets um in our neighborhood basically turning into a lot busier and congested uh areas ultimately. You know, I feel like there's people that know that this land is desirable, right? It's right by Quinn's Pond. It's good location, but the people need the neighborhood and the community around it should be considered on whether or not it aligns with what's already there. you know, does it benefit those around the area as well, or is it going to cause more um I don't know, animosity or or anything else. But yeah, I just I just hope that the neighborhood is is considered in all of this and it's not just, you know, oh, build as much as we possibly can, make as much money as we possibly can. Boise is a wonderful community. I've grown up here. I've lived here my whole life. Um the you know the idea of a park was a wonderful idea like there's no green space there's no yep pond is over there but that's not the same as you know a playground or a park. There's there's things that need to be considered to not just make the most money possible but to benefit the community around us. And I hope that you take that into consideration with something like this. It's not a small, oh, just check the box, change it to something different. Um, and so, yeah, I just I just hope you guys consider all of the aspects that go into something like this. Thanks.

Thank you for coming out. Okay.

Hello. My name is Susan Crannle Mayer and I live at 1314 North Street. It was 10 years ago to this day that I purchased the house at 892 North 31st Street and that has been such a special place for me to live and now it's a very special place for me to rent. I think that we're in agreement that we know that this property will be developed at some point, but I just strongly believe that this is not the right development for this neighborhood. As you've heard from many people tonight, the parking on the streets have continued to grow in the last 10 years that I have been involved in this street. There is no more parking anymore. And when I look at the development of 66 proposed houses with not enough parking and only six guest parking spots, those numbers just do not make sense to me. When we had talked about a de development before, the concept of the fiveway stop sign at more came up and the safety that goes along with that. There's safety that goes along with children crossing Whitewater Boulevard to get to the parks. There's safety with additional traffic with delivery drivers. If you're thinking about reszoning it to potential businesses, the additional traffic that would come with that, just the sheer number of cars that would be driving up and down these neighborhood streets is not something that I think is what is right for this area. And so I um just hope that you will listen to all of the concerns from the neighborhood, not only for us, but for the people who would be purchasing these homes. Boyisey talks about affordable housing. If this was 500 to $800,000, I again would not be able to live in these houses. And if you're talking about 66 houses in such a small area, it sounds like not even the exact acreage um the accurate acreage that is on there. So, please do take into consideration what you're hearing from the neighborhood. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for coming out. Okay. Is there anybody else in chambers who wishes to testify uh on this item? Okay. We'll come back one more chance in a moment. I'm going to go to the folks that are online. I have at least one hand raised and that hand is Lenora Jones. Hi. Can you hear me?

We can. If you wouldn't mind just state your name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes. Lenora Jones. I live at 30001 West Moore Street. I have a nice script, but everybody has said every sentence on here except for the fact that my husband and I are both nurses. We have both cared for children who have been hit um on the way to school in our district. So, one of our children goes to a junior high. Um, it is dark and we live just outside of busing districts. So, the children in this neighborhood will not be able to be bus to their school. They will have to ride their bike or walk. And in December, January, and February, it is dark when that is done. So, um, I just wanted to add that along with the 66 units adds many vehicles. the roads can't physically absorb absorb that for safety reasons. Um, I'm not trying to be oppositional to housing. It's just that I want some planning for that, including thoughts about schools and children.

Okay, thank you very much. Uh, we'll turn our attention next to uh Lauren Pinezy, I think it is. Yes, you have that right. Lauren Peni, 2411 West Pleasantav. I am on the West End Neighborhood Association, although I'm not speaking on behalf of the Neighborhood Association. I um just wanted to mention a couple of things. Uh I I agree with many of the concerns of the neighbors in that area. That particular section of our neighborhood is a unique maze of streets and and complexity and it's not an easy out uh neighborhood. That's for sure. My concern is the spot zoning. Once again, here comes a project. It's zoned R2 and the developer comes and makes the plea to reszone to MX1. This is the same thing that happened over on Jefferson with that empty lot where Salvation Army used to be. Same thing. R2, they made an appeal for MX1. It got approved, but the same sorts of concerns. The other thing that I'm concerned about is the irrigation. There was mention of the irrigation canal. Has anyone contacted Boise Canal Company? This is a problem with new developments or even people buying single family homes. They bury the irrigation line and it screws up the irrigation for others in the neighborhood. I own a property that has irrigation. So, it's important to make use of that resource. Um, those those are probably my two my my two big things, the spot zoning and

the irrigation and not disrupting the irrigation canal. Boise Canal Company could help with that. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Um, let's go. I have a Justin Buckley.

Hi. Yes, thank you. Uh, Justin Buckley, my apologies. because I wasn't on earlier. I'm actually the president of Wina and um we won't necessarily want more than three minutes. So, I just want to establish that I did want to acknowledge um the residents that came out and spoke um about what's going on in their community. Um as a neighborhood association, we we do our best to raise the concerns of the neighborhood. Um and in this case um [clears throat] we do have one neighbor that lives uh nearby the project on uh Jordan Street. And um the concern once again is sort of the ingress egress which many people have talked about. And then also um another concern that had come to our attention as a neighborhood association is to really make sure that this project um doesn't it feels welcoming as you're walking around um rather than sort of a wall or like looking at the backs of garages, but that it actually does blend into the neighborhood. Um you know, I won't necessarily speak on density given the fact that R2 and MX1 are um pretty similar uh maybe exactly similar as far as units goes. So, I that's been addressed quite a number of times tonight, so I won't necessarily go there. Um, but also like one of the big concerns is the traffic at Stewart Moore and 28th Street and Ross. So, there's five um five streets that come together right there. And that's a pretty tricky intersection um right now with the current level of development that's happening on Stewart. So, with the addition of a potential of 100 plus more cars, I think that would definitely need to be addressed um to to really keep safety in mind and and I live in that part of the neighborhood and see a lot of children on their bikes, especially refugee kids um in the street, not necessarily using sidewalks. And you know, we can do our best to sort of demonstrate that, but also thinking about who's in our neighborhood and and

who else uses the streets other than, you know, those of us who are in cars. And um for the record, I live at 2750 West Reagan Avenue. My apologies on that. Thank you for the catch. I missed it, too.

Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Um Okay. Uh anybody else online? I see nobody else. Okay, last chance for anybody in chambers. Is there anybody in chambers one more time who has not testified, [laughter] who wishes to testify? Um, you have your chance now. All right. Well, with that, we'll go ahead and close the public testimony portion and we'll go ahead and have the

question. Is there a time that I that or do I do that as part? Okay. Uh you can't necessarily ask that of us directly, but I would say the appropriate way for this to handle is before we go to the rebuttal from the applicant is why don't you go ahead and come on up and state your name and address for the record. You'll have a couple minutes and if you just want to get your questions out, you can. And then at least there'll be a chance for them to be heard and potentially discussed, but no, you know, guarantee. Does that work? Okay, come on up then.

My name is Wendy Zerza. My address is 2252 Skipperling Lane and we own uh 3201 More Street which is right adjacent to this development. And my question was, can we require a traffic study? I know we don't meet the threshold of of it being a requirement, but I'm wondering if we can have one done anyway. Um, that's one of our main concerns is the parking on the street. There's also a church nearby and on Sundays there's quite a bit of on street parking already and it gets pretty congested there. And then the fiveway intersection is also a concern. And then um it sounds to me like the main reason for the request to reszone is to get rid of the setbacks to allow more town homes because of the sewer easement that prevents building town homes there. So, I'm wondering, is it possible to reszone it, just keep the zoning as R2 and make an exception for setbacks rather than reszoning it to MX1 because if the if it gets reszoned to MX1 and the project falls through, then it opens up an opportunity for other types of developments to happen. And that's all I had. Thank you.

Thank you very much, ma'am. Okay, last chance. Is there You have not testified, right? Okay. Well, then come on up. Say your name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes. Paula Weathers, 866 North 30th Street. I'm on the corner of 30th and more. Um, my question is if a contingency could be put in place for the developer to do some traffic calming along more street. Currently, traffic is a little speedy. I anticipate it to not get any better with more cars and I I just would like to ask that question.

Okay. Thank you very much, ma'am. You all fib to me. [laughter] I'm Anne Peton. My address is 2515 North 30th Street and I own the property at 315 Moore Street. And I just wanted to reiterate the concern about the traffic on these streets. Um, and that's that's it. I just wanted to be another person to confirm there's a problem. Thank you. Do we have the trap door set up here yet?

Just kidding. All right. Anybody else? Okay, I think we're good. So now we'll go ahead and close the public hearing or the public testimony portion. We'll have the applicant come on up and have five minutes rebuttal and then we're going to take a little five minute break. Okay. Then we'll come back for a decision. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, again Jeff Bortle, 251 East Front, Boisey Sweet 310. I want to clarify something that's really important and the reason why we have asked for MX1 zoning is to enable us to be able to build these units on individual lots that can be sold and conveyed with V simple ownership. That's that's why we're not proceeding with R2. When our design team said it's so you can get a loan easier, it's so that buyers of these units can get financing easier. And Commissioner Torres, I I agree. I'm at a total loss in this market about what we do for affordability. There is a reason why the the housing authority has had this property. It's been approved previously with a variety of configurations of, you know, approximately 50 units. There have been other applications that have provided it, but it's just not workable at this site. And 500 to 800,000 is not inexpensive. But 500 to 800,000 that can be built on individually platted lots and sold as individual units does provide some marginal degree of cost savings for the ultimate consumer. What people don't appreciate is that yeah, we could build this as designed without asking for anything tonight as a condominium,

but you're not going to be able to finance that as easily. You're not going to be able to get the same rates as you would if they were individual town homes. We've heard concerns about, well, you know, these houses are 500 800,000 is is expensive. it is, but go look at new construction any place else on a larger lot and how much more expensive that would be. So even if you didn't proceed with this and you were to come back with something else, our team has really focused diligently over the course of the last year about how do we do it? We need more tools in the toolbox. Ideally, ideally, and it's one of those things we talked about when we were doing the modern zoning code and we had those discussions. It's that frontage requirement in so many of our zones that makes our infill development so difficult to do because these were these were uniquely sized and uniquely shaped lots when they were platted originally in 1910. And it's to be noted that when we look at the rest of the lots in the neighborhood, many of them have been divided multiple times. That's the reason that there is that uh that small inholding. So to clarify a couple other things. First of all, the housing authority is only selling to my client what the housing authority actually owns. And to the extent there is a an inholding that you've heard a couple individuals talk about, that is not subject to this discussion. There have been attempts by the housing authority and my client as well to work out whether it's an exchange or an acquisition and it just has not happened. So that's why we're here. That's what we're going forward with. It is infill is always hard.

And here you have three acres that are immediately adjacent to Whitewater, immediately adjacent to all of the amenities that we've invested in there, the infrastructure we've invested in there. As we worked with staff, we worked to ensure that along that northern property boundary where the sewer easement is that there will be the connection between this neighborhood and the parks and the green belt and those amenities. That's how we get these types of improvements. That's the community improvement. Now, we're dealing with a subdivision here that these lots were all platted in the early 1900s, 1930s, and we're always going to have those difficulties, but ACD has worked over the years to ensure that there is adequate rideway here. Are there rightaway improvements that will need to be made over time? Yes. Will we be improving the rightway frontage? Yes. Have we tried to orient all of the lots that we propose in a way that has the least amount of impact upon adjoining parcels? Yes, we have. We have either moved lots away from adjoining lots and residences and buffered those with landscaping and circulation or we've oriented them the same direction so that fronts both face north. This is an important site because this is the means that the housing authorities determined the sale of this enables it to go and address some of those other issues.

We've worked hard with staff to come to this plan. Request your approval. Yeah. Appreciate it, Mr. Wle. Okay. Okay. With that, we'll go ahead and conclude uh and wrap up the hearing itself. We're going to take five minutes, little break, come back, have a discussion and a recommendation. Yes. Okay. Uh I think we're all here. Yeah.

All right. If we can go ahead and reconvene, we're going to go ahead and um get this back underway. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you all for coming out and those of you online for testifying. Appreciate it. Okay. As a reminder, let's just reset. This is item number one. C25-25 and sub25-92 uh both located at 3099 West Moore Street. And as a reminder to the commission, we have an application for a reszone and a preliminary plat, both of which we are a recommending body, meaning this is going to go to city council for final approval or denial or whatever they want to do. With that, open it up to a motion and then we'll have some discussion.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Torres, I move that we recommend approval of C25-25 and SUB25-92 U with all the terms and conditions of the staff report. All right. I've got a motion by Commissioner Torres for uh for us to recommend approval to council uh for the reason and preliminary plot. Is there a second? Second. That's Commissioner Seo. Yeah. Okay. All right. Is there any discussion, Mr. Chair? Commissioner Torres.

Um, I want to just repeat something that Mr. Warl said, infill is hard. Um, having said that, this project checks just about all the boxes of what the city's trying to accomplish with the modern zoning code. It is a location that is near transit state. The state street bus network is very nearby. Um, it is near the green belt, it is near parks, it is close, relatively close to downtown. Um, it is an area where the city anticipates more densification overtime and more infill development over time. Um, one of the city's goals is to increase the housing supply as we talked about in pretty much every week. Um, 500,000 dollar homes give me heartburn. The the reality is though, state law prevents localities from requiring affordable housing at lower rates that than market rate. They can incentivize it, but they can't require it. Um there is there is evidence out there that housing housing at the price range like this that this development would you know potentially go for um that people who can afford those homes will move into those homes and that it frees up the older housing stock like many of the homes in your neighborhood for people who might be able to afford those. So it does put some downward pressure on housing supply. Having said that we we're still behind on on housing. You know, we've caught up a little bit since the zoning code went into effect, but we are behind still. Um, we need a lot more housing in our community. Um, the traffic situation is hard. Um, you know, I would encourage the developer to to to work with the neighborhood and I would encourage you to the extent that ACD is still allowed to do traffic calming to talk to your ACD commissioners, talk to ACD about that. And honestly, this comes up a lot up

here at this DAS. talked to the legislature. They have prevented ACD and cities from putting in traffic calming and safety improvements in neighborhoods that impede traffic. So, you know, there there's definitely organizations you can reach out to about those things. Unfortunately, our hands are kind of limited when it comes to that. You know, we just have to consider the the um application based on the code. And um I'm rambling at this point, so I will just conclude there and say uh that's why I support this motion.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Torres. Before we move on to any other discussion, I just need to make a clarification between you and Commissioner Sea. We did have the suggestion or the for the recommended or the revised findings. So I just want to make sure that your motion addresses those. I will say that it does. And I would second that. But I have a I have a additional uh question for you, Mr. Chairman. For me? Okay. Libra.

Yeah. a lot of um a lot of concern about traffic and I'm just wondering if we can consider amending this notion um to add a condition in the staff report that would I don't want to say require but somehow get ACD at the table with the developer and the residents to come up with traffic traffic calming um options. We know that they've done this in the past. I know they've done it in my neighborhood. Um, so I I don't know if that would be an option for consideration, but I do want to throw that out. I mean, Commissioner Torres stole my notes. Um, and so that was actually something I did want to mention as well, but I I wanted to ask if that was

Normally, it's the protocol that the chair doesn't say anything until the very end. However, you just asked a question directly of me. Yay. Top of my notes, it says added term of condition. Engage with ACD to determine proper speed management tools for more street, 32nd Street, 31st Street. So, I'm going to open that up real quick for discussion. Um, there's other things that I'll come back to, but I do think that that would be an appropriate amendment to the motion. um it doesn't specify the treatment. It does require as a term of condition that the applicant in ACD um look at re-evaluate speed management tools. And I think that the reason the nexus behind this is the following. The condition that the district has is that this application and this development not take direct access to whitewater. Fine. understand it's under their opices of access management. It's under safety. That's why they do that. However, what that then does is it triggers direct cut through traffic on local streets from stateish street all the way through these existing neighborhoods to access this. They're the exception. There's where to me it does elevate into a different condition because their policy is forcing anybody who's driving or delivering or what have you in and out of these streets. And so because there's an existing neighborhood because it's local and because they're forcing essentially this direct cut through through multiple blocks, I do think it warrants exactly what you said, but that's up to you all,

Mr. Chair Commission Torres. I'm willing to amend my motion to include that recommendation or that condition of approval. Does staff does Commissioner Torres need to read that or do you do you have it documented the amendment that I've just read out loud into the report? We're good. Thumbs up. Commissioner Sehaw. And I continue to second that. Okay. Now, is there any discussion?

Well, like I said, Commissioner Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Commissioner Torres stole my notes, but I I still um have a couple of items to say, and that is to share, and that is um I understand that change is hard. Um, but this parcel is really ripe for infill development. I mean, you you heard it tonight. You heard it from Commissioner um Torres. Like, it's near the green belt. It's off Whitewater. It's within walking distance to one of I think it might be the bestin-class uh bus rout uh bus route which is State Street, the number 10 bus. Um and you also have developing an existing amenities nearby. Um I like um many of you who spoke this evening um expressing your concerns. I have the same concern with affordable housing. I could not afford to live here today. um if I hadn't have purchased a place 20ome years ago, 20 years ago. Um and so, you know, like ideally it would be great if we could require a condition on these development applications that there was some percentage of affordable housing units, but as Commissioner Torres stated that the city can't do that. And I would echo his his comment and and that is please if that is a huge concern or a concern to you, please reach out to the state legislature. They have more of a say than we do. So, and I I also want to note one last thing and that is that we do have the comprehensive plan and we have the zoning the modern zoning code and at the at the end of the day we look to our comprehensive plan but what guides us is our zoning code.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner S. Any other comments? Mr. Chair, Commissioner Moore.

Um, sure. I I am in support of the motion. Um I think you know this this particular application is very appropriate for this location. I'm seeing you know R2 is the general neighborhood. There's R3 adjacent within a block. MX4 is within what is that two two and a halfish blocks. So you've got kind of that already started that mix of uses adjacent to the property. You've got Whitewater Whitewater Park Boulevard. It's adjacent to a large park. It's adjacent to a connection to the green belt. Amenities. All the things that we're looking at putting density towards MX1 and R2 don't have different density. Um the reason for the reszone based on the plat is to allow those minimum lot sizes. uh not necessarily an increase in density, but being able to accommodate a different housing type, a different housing product dimensions, just a variety in housing adjacent to these areas using, you know, our MX1 zoning, using our R2 zoning. Those two provide different products. Um, and so for that reason, I'm comfortable with the MX1 zone right there, especially because it is very from a volutric standpoint a very um compatible zone with our two. You'll see similar heights, you'll see similar kind of densities, things like that. on the plat standpoint, you know, I think the neighborhood association brought up the um brought up, you know, making the neighborhood feel welcoming based on the plat that we're being presented. All the street frontages along the street, the Moore street that all has front doors, it would appear um

along Whitewater Park Boulevard all has front doors. So, I think that this neighborhood outwardly has been designed to kind of give you that feeling of front doors, give you that more urban feeling or give it give you that more welcoming feeling. Um, and I understand that the rest will be worked out in DR. Um, but with with those uh for all those reasons, um, it's support the motion. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Moore. Any other conversation comments rather? Mr. Sure, Mr. Stallings.

I will not be supporting this motion. Um, while I fully support infill housing and infill development and recognize the importance of additional units in this area, I appreciate the the variety of housing type. Um, my concern again lies with the amendment to the motion, but I just I it wasn't enough for me. Um, I I'm not sure the infrastructure in this area and the assumptions particularly with parking and traffic are sufficient and stress tested. Um, as much as ACD can assess that roadway, if as staff noted, if they do decide to widen it, that takes away more parking and then it just makes a bigger issue with the parking that seems to be um six six stalls for 66 units is tight. And I do see that overflowing into the adjacent neighborhood. And if we, you know, if we want these homes for all that includes kids and elderly and everybody more than just cars. And so, um, while this looks like a great application on paper, the pra practical application and the density with only 18% open space really just didn't feel like the development does a good enough job of working with and folding into this existing neighborhood.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Stallings. Any additional comments? Uh, chair, commissioner stons.

Yeah. Uh, I'd like to express my support for this motion. Um, I want to echo a lot of the same things that we've heard from, uh, the commissioners that are in support of it. Um, I realize nothing is perfect. Um, but, uh, I believe the applicant and the design has tried to, uh, make as many of the adjustments as possible, um, to fit this into this space. Um, and I appreciate the work um that went into that and considering all of those a aspects. Uh, the location of this plot is uh I think really valuable for uh the community to be able to put in more infill because of the access to all of the amenities in the area. Uh the park access right across the street. Uh that's an amazing park and there's uh lots of um great features there for families to engage with uh to as well as was mentioned previously the transportation um access to as well uh the location for um any residents that potentially move in there that are use bikes. Um, it's great access. Um, and I think as we see Boise grow and we build more infrastructure too along those lines, I think we will see more people have less cars. If you can live in an area like this and you can bike to the park, you could walk to the park. Uh, you can get to work uh downtown. There is a less likelihood of you needing a car. Um, and uh, I know that's not everybody, but I think more and more people will see that the car lifestyle that has been developed in a lot of our communities uh, will be um, lessened here in designing an infill uh, such as this. Um, and so these are some of the reasons why I'll be in support of this motion.

All right. Thank you, Commissioner Stfans. Commissioner Don, um, thank you. Um, I will be in support of the motion. Um, and I'm in agreement with all the comments and or comments and made by my fellow commissioners. Uh, I have compassion for the neighbors and what's going to go in there. Um, and I understand Commissioner Stalling's issues. Um, but it is a realist realistic project for the site. So, with that, I'll be in favor of the motion.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Don. I'll try to be brief. Um, couple things I would add. I I I get the parking issue. I think it's important to un to remember that the city has a residential parking permit program and I would encourage the neighborhood to potentially engage the city in that. That is a bonafide program. It establishes a district that is only for the residents and that might include the new development too, but it does restrict some of the parking activity that might otherwise be occurring and it's at your fingertips as a tool. Um, spot zoning. I I vehemently disagree with that because when we're talking about spot zoning, what we're talking about is is a change in zoning that is very different than what already exists and specifically to the benefit of the application applicant. This is residential. Everything around it is residential. The underlying land use is residential. It's compact in in it in the land future land use map. the application is is compact um as was even stated by some of the folks who testified this evening. So I don't see that at all as as a as a realistic um you know accuse accusation I guess I'll say. Um I do think I love the phrase it's a little speedy. I don't know who said that but I'm still on that the technical term love it. Um I agree with you. I think that's something that we need to address. Um, and I think with the amendment that we put forward, I hope that that moves forward, especially with the uh the city council backing that up. Um, [clears throat] one last thing I guess I wanted I wanted to point out was that I know there's a bit of a skepticism on the notion of cars and and driving, but the the the truth of the matter is national research backs that up because if you go back just about a decade ago, 10 trips per home was the number. Now it's eight. Eight number eight trips per home is now the the national standard. And that's because we are driving less. I guarantee you. You know why? Most people in this room have probably had something delivered to their home in the last few days. And

that's a trip that you would have otherwise taken. And that's happening more and more and more and more and more. We're not going to the movies. We're not going to do these things for better or worse, you know, but it's part of this shift that's happening. And so car trips are happening less. Um, the one thing I guess I would add too is legitimately I the frustration with the ITD campus, right? But the truth of the matter is there's soon going to be hundreds of folks who are right across the street working. Well, that might be an opportunity to have that nearroximate sort of live work concept. But in any case, um, I think that's all I wanted to add. So, I'd be in support of the motion. Okay. I think we've all had our conversation. We have on the record, by the way, um a motion by Commissioner Torres and a second by Commissioner Sehaw. That motion is to recommend approval of the reszone and preliminary plat with two changes. One is the revised condition that was added late in the late correspondence and then the additional uh condition of ACD and the applicant working together on speed management tools with the specific streets cited in the in the comment. Okay, with that, would the clerk please call the role?

Daily. Hi. Moore, yes. Schaefer. Oopsies. Deha. Yes. Torres, yes. Don, yes. Darlings, no. Stfans, yes. Six in favor, one opposed. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. That concludes tonight's hearing.