City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay. Good evening. The mayor's absent tonight, so I'm going to um run the meeting on her behalf. Uh we start with an invocation, which we'll recognize with a moment of silence and then the pledge of allegiance. If you'd like to please join us, To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, thank you. Will the clerk please call the role? Corass here. Halle Burton here. Morales here. Nashstead here. Will its four present, two absent? Uh, all right. Moving right into it. We have a request for approval of the um minutes. Madame Mayor, I request approval of city council minute minutes from the strategic planning session and the minutes from the regular day meeting. That is a move for approval. Is that right? Great. We have a motion to approve the minutes. Second. And a second. Uh, will the clerk please call the vote? Morales?

Yes. Steed? Yes. Corus? Yes. Hi Burton? Yes. All in favor? Motion carries.

Okay. Next, we have some special business, which is the reappoint of Mark Guo to the building code board for a four-year term ending April 30th, 2030. I think I saw Mr. Guo here. Is that right? Oh, maybe not. And is he online? No. Okay. Um, great. So, I will bring that forward on the mayor's behalf. Madame Mayor, I request unanimous consent request um for Maruho to the building code board for a 4-year term ending April 30th, 2030. Great. Without objection, um will the clerk please call the vote? vote on that.

No vote on that. Thanks. Um, great. Well, thank you so much to Mark. Um, it's a huge commitment to serve on our public boards and commissions and we're very grateful for that service. U moving into the consent agenda.

Madame Mayor, request an approval of all the items that we have marked here on the consent agenda. Second. Great. Motion a second. Clerk, please. Morales. Yes. Stead. Yes. Orless. Yes. Hi Burton. Yes. All in favor. Motion carries. Okay. Next up we have an ordinance on first reading. Mayor, I ask for unanimous consent that all ordinances on first reading be read by number and title only and filed for the second reading calendar.

Second. Yeah, without objection.

OAD-12-26, an ordinance C25-24 for property located at 9145 South Federal Way annexing 1.05 acres of certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, adjacent and contigious to the corporate limits of the city of Boisee City, establishing and determining the land use classification of said 1.05 05 acres as I-1 light industrial establishing and determining the sensitive lands over overlay district of said acres setting forth a re reason statement in support of such annexation and zone change directing the city engineer to lodge and file a legal description and map for said annex lands and territory providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the ada county auditor the ada county treasurer the ada county assessor the ada county recorder and the Idaho state tax commission providing that a copy of said legal description and map of said lands and territory be recorded with the Ada County Recorder and filed with the Ada County Assessor in the Idaho State Tax Commission as required by law and provide an effective date. OD-13-26 and ordinance Zoa25-1 amending the Seringa Valley specific plan 2016 SV-01 as implemented by title 11 chapter 7 section 3 to establish the minimum square footage of commercial space within the VC village center subdist and provide an effective date Okay. Um, next we're moving into our public hearings. Um, we're going to start with C25-23. This is with the SD Land Consulting at 650 South Codell Drive, a reszone of approximately 089 acres at 650 South Codell Drive.

Oh yes, Madame Mayor. Thank you. Um, I want to address a recent uh meeting I had to assure the public of my impartiality on the Codell Cottage project. At a town hall on February 17th, I met a resident named Jenny and who had questions about housing and a project in our neighborhood. I made it clear at the time that I was happy to meet and to discuss how city council operates and our city's housing needs, but I could not address or discuss any specific development projects. I followed through on that commitment. I met with Jenny and her three neighbors. Uh March 2nd, we had some a very nice uh breakfast uh some coffee at our house and we discussed city council structure, our housing needs and how residents can effectively participate in public meetings and we also discussed potential um like an overlay district that they see we have in Big Sky subdivision. The codal project was not discussed. As with every matter that comes before this council, I approach this project with an open mind and am fully prepared to review and decide it based on the merits of the public record.

Thanks, uh, Council Member Corless. I'm going to hand it over to staff now. Please go ahead, Doug.

Good evening, Madame Mayor and Council members. Before you tonight is a resone of approximately 0.89 89 acres located at 650 South Codell Drive from an R1A residential large lot to an R1B residential suburban zone. Preliminary plat for residential subdivision comprised of four buildable lots is also included. As mentioned, the request consists of both a resone from R1A to R1B and a four lot subdivision. The findings for a resone are shown on screen. At the February 2nd, 2026 hearing, the planning and zoning commission recommended approval of the request. As shown on screen in the project report, the subject property is adjacent to a 2.64 acre R1B zone parcel and the R1B zone is supported under the suburban future land use designation. Properties to the east are higher densities and a resone to R1B will help provide a more gradual transition from the denser development pattern on the east to the larger lots seen to the west. The broader area contains a variety of zoning and densities as shown on screen along with surrounding bus routes. Subject property is just over a mile away from the town square mall and near three other activity centers. Concerns were raised by members of the public regarding the compatibility between the R1A and R1B zones. The dimensional standards for both zones are shown on screen with the differences being lot area, width, and density. The two zones do have the same setback and height requirements. The subdivision proposed will create four buildable lots and retain the existing house on lot one. Concerns regarding impacts to wells in the area was expressed. All lots will connect to city water and sewer and as such no wells or septic tanks are permitted within the project. The planning and zoning commission recommended two conditions to modify the access points to the location shown in red on screen. Namely, with lot two having a shifted driveway and lot three and four having a shared driveway. Troop Avenue adjacent to the subject

property is currently unimproved as shown in screen in the yellow rectangle with only one lane of travel. As summarized in the project report and the Ada County Highway District correspondence, this segment will be improved when the 2.64 acre R1B part parcel redevelops. The highway district provided no opposition in their comment received on January 26th, 2026. Public opposition to the proposal is discussed at length in the project report and summarized briefly on screen along with city responses. Opposition claims that the proposal is incompatible. The proposed lot sizes are proportional to the variety of sizes in the area, including a nearby subdivision with lots ranging from 0.43 to 0.55 acres. Concerns about traffic were brought up and the planning and zoning commission found that sheep avenue functions as a natural traffic plumbing mechanism and that the addition of three homes will not impact the traffic flow in a meaningful way. CCNRs were provided with references to minimum lot sizes. However, CCNRs are considered a private matter and outside the scope of the development application before you tonight. One comment in support was received on May 4th highlighting the compatibility and transition between the surrounding areas. In conclusion, the planning and zoning commission found the proposal complies with the necessary findings and standards of of a reszone and a preliminary plot and it aligns with blueprint boise as summarized in the project report. As such, the planning and zoning commission recommended approval of both requests and I'd be happy to stand for any questions.

Thank you so much, Doug. And I just want to clarify this um this is a public hearing for C25-23 as well as SUB25-89 which is the um preliminary plat um for the same subdivision at 650 South Codell Drive. Um okay so we'll next hear from the applicant or first is does anybody have any questions for staff before we move on to the applicant? Okay, I do have just one real quick question. Please go ahead. Council member Harden, can you just uh refresh me on the technical error in, you know, in section 1A that you were referring to?

Yes. Um, council president and council members, uh, the technical error is really meant to be essentially like something happened truly from a technical perspective. I know that's not necessarily a specific answer, but it's very much meant to be more of like a clerical error, things like that. Um in this case it was um changed conditions was the finding that was met for um section one not the technical error aspect. Okay just kind of refreshing there. So

there was a technical error on the current map in the in the character. So we thought that the either the zoning or the land use area might be something else but then it didn't make sense in this area. like we should have gone through and actually corrected that, you know, in a previous setting. And that's the technical error. Um, council member Hurbert, in this setting, there is no technical error that staff found. Staff did find that it's option B. Um, change conditions in the circumstances because it's a eitheror for that first one. Yeah, sorry. Read that wrong. Appreciate it. That's all good. Madame Mayor, Council Member Morales,

question for staff. Can you talk uh about the um fixing of Shupe Avenue? So, if this property wasn't being developed, let's say it was the property next to it, would it have to wait for this property to be developed to fix that road, or is it clearly the property next door that's completely relying on this? Essentially, I guess asked another way, do both of these properties need to develop to be able to upgrade that street? Madame Mayor, council members, uh, this property can develop as it is currently. It does not have to wait for the 2.64 acre adjacent parcel to redevelop. Once that one redevelops, Street Avenue will be fully improved because the unimproved right ofway is just that frontage of the adjacent property.

Okay, with no further questions, then we'll move on to the applicant's presentation.

Hi there. Are you Sabrina? Thanks for being here. Okay, I think we're ready. Madame Mayor, members of the council, hello and good evening. For the record, my name is Sabrina Dery. I am here on behalf of the applicant. U my business address is 5179 South Boven Avenue, Boise, Idaho 83716. And this evening I have the privilege and honor to presenting to you all applications for Cottell Cottages. So first um let me begin by telling you a little bit about Codell Cottages. It has been envisioned as a welcoming, thoughtfully designed infill neighborhood, one that future residents will love 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 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 amenities. As part of this proposal, the applicant is requesting a reszone and a preliminary plat approval. The preliminary plat includes four single family residential lots. One contains the existing home and will remain as part of the overall development. The subject site is a lot that was subdivided back in 1972 and is currently established in a land use suburban area within Blueprint Boisey. This area has been in a transition from the mixeduse 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. This area has been slated for future infill redevelopment. 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 designation 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 this property. As noted in the staff report, the site is immediately adjacent to an R1B zoning to the east and a mix of nearby zoning that includes R1C, R2, mixed use, 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 approximately 9,000 square feet up to 10,681 square feet, maintaining the neighborhood character while providing a thoughtful infill opportunity. So to better understand how this application fits within the broader area, it's helpful to look at the surrounding development pattern in detail. To the north, we have Maple Grove Acres platted in 1961. This establishes a long-standing lowdensity residential character. Several of these lots have been further divided over time through minor land divisions support demonstrating an ongoing pattern of compatible infill. Also to the north is Stonehouse Subdivision which was platted in back in 2006. To the east, the site transitions to Emily subdivision located within R1C zoning district as well as Cathedral Park town homes platted in 1994 representing 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. And to the west, a site is adjacent to town and country number seven, reinforcing the established residential context for the multiple sides of this project. Based on the surrounding

development pattern, we believe the request for lowdensity R1B zoning is consistent with the existing neighborhood character and represents an appropriate infill transition within the West Bench area. With our lot sizes proposed, the applicant is envisioning highquality single family residences that are consistent with surrounding neighborhood character and size and scale. The images shown represent conceptual home designs that reflects the overall vision for Codell 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 com these concepts demonstrate a thoughtful design neighborhood with wellproportioned homes, articulated roof lines, and materials that complement the existing res residential context. Overall, the intent is to create a home that feels established, timeless, and compatible with the surrounding area, reinforcing the lowdensity character and vision proposed for this R1B zoning. A neighborhood meeting was held on September 18th of last year, and many neighbors attended. The meeting generated a great deal of discussion, engagement, reflecting strong interest um that the residents have for their neighborhood. We recognize and respect the concerns expressed by the neighbors and understand that change particularly in older residential areas, established areas, can feel uncertain. So those concerns have been carefully considered throughout the design and planning of the project. At the same time, we believe the addition of three new single family homes will over time have a positive and meaningful impact on the surrounding area. The proposal represents an opportunity to be thoughtfully reinvest 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.

And in summary, um this project represents again a thoughtful, responsible infill design opportunity that aligns with City of Boise's long-term planning goals by adding three new single family homes within an established neighborhood. The proposal helps address city's ongoing housing shortage without expanding development outward or placing additional pressure on infrastructure at the urban fringe. Infill development like Codell Cottages plays a a critical role in making efficient use of land use, utilities, transportation networks while reinforcing neighborhood stability and reinvestment. The proposal respects the surrounding residential context through a lowdensity R1B zoning and appropriately sized lots in highquality design ensuring compatibility with the existing neighborhood. Ultimately, we feel that this strikes a careful balance between honoring the character of the area and meeting the very real need of additional housing in Boisee. It represents a tight of of intentional small-cale infill development that supports sustainable growth, contributes positively to the community over time. And on behalf of myself and the applicant, I would like to extend sincere thanks to city staff for their help and guidance. And um we're in full agreement with the staff report. And on that note, I would like to thank you all for the pleasure of your time, your thoughtful consideration, and respectfully request approval of this evening for our applications. Thank you so much.

Thanks, Sabrina. Um, before you step away, I just wanted to see if the if we have questions up here. Go ahead, Council Member Albertton. Yeah, Madame Mayor. Um, I think you already said this once already. Um, and square footage can always, you know, dictate what our decisions are, but I think you mentioned what the square footage was, and I was wondering if you could just remind me of that one more time. Yeah, absolutely. So, um, the square footage, Madame Mayor, Councilman Hi Burton, um, is 9,000 square feet and up to 10,681 square feet. And I think maybe that one slide had the exact square footage for each lot. But that's the range between the three of the the house size. I was going to say that's a really big house. Oh, no, no, no. I said lot size. Sorry. Yeah. You know the approximate square footage of the house?

I don't because we don't have anything planned at the moment. Um, they're big lots. I'm I'm assuming they'll be um single story to two story about two 2500 would probably be a good approximate estimate um just due to the size. Yeah. And they're about what is it 22 acres? Great. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry for misunderstanding your question. That would be a big house. Any other questions? No. Okay. With that then um thank you so much.

Um we will move in. Oh, is there a representative here for the neighborhood association? Um, that would be the West Boise. No. Okay. Um, then we'll move into the public testimony. Um, I will read off a few names so you know who what order we're coming in. If you'd like to come up and have a closer seat when you know that you're um when your name is coming up. Um, I'm going to start with the list I have in front of me. If you did not sign up in advance, you can still testify. Um, we'll go with the list first and then anybody else that wants to testify here and then I'll check to see if there's anybody online that would like to testify. So, first I have uh Deborah Bishop and then Sher O and then Susan Hines I think and then Sandra H it looks like. So, we'll go in start in that order. Um, hi Deborah. Thank you. Welcome. You'll have three minutes. Please start with your name and address.

Okay. Good evening. My name is Deborah Bishop. address is 700 South Codel Drive. Uh my name is Deborah Bishop and I own the property directly bordering the proposed project. I'm here tonight in strong opposition to the proposal to add three homes onto this propos onto this parcel. This development would have clear and lasting negative impact on my property, my quality of life, and the established character of our neighborhood. Quite simply, this proposal does not fit into this area. Our neighborhood is defined by a larger lots, open space, and low density rural feel that is not accidental. It is exactly what what residents, including myself, chose to live here and invest here. Forcing four lots onto less than one acre introduces a level of density that is fundamentally inconsistent with the surrounding properties and would permanently alter the nature of our neighborhood. I understand the justification for this proposal references the reasonzoning of the nearby property on Shupe Avenue, but that comparison just does not hold. Shupe already supports higher density developments, while Codell is clearly more spacious, low density area. The chute parcel is significantly larger, 2.7 acres for the four lots that were proposed, while this proposal attempts to achieve the same density on a fraction of that land. Additionally, those homes will be set back and not directly impacting adjacent properties in the same way. These are not equivalent situations and they should not be treated as such. There's also a very real impact to property of value. Homes in this area are valued for their space and their privacy. Placing multiple homes directly along my property diminishes both my uh uh diminishes both and makes my property

less desirable to future buyers. I've made meaningful financial investments into my home based on the existing character and spacing of this area. This proposal directly undermines that investment. Equally important is my impact is the impact on my daily life. It's not an abstract concern. Increased density at this scale will bring more noise, more traffic, lighting, constant activity and uh that it will be immediately adjacent to my home. It will be fundamentally it will fundamentally change how I'm able to live and enjoy my property. This decision is not just about what can be done with one parcel. It's about whether growth is handled responsibly and fairly. Approving a project like this places the burden of this decision squarely on the neighbor neighboring property owners who did not choose it. I respectfully urge you to deny this proposal and uphold the integrity of this neighborhood, the expectation of its residents, and the investments that have already been made here. I ask you to seriously consider this question. If this exact development were proposed directly next to your home,

that's the end of your time, but you can go ahead and finish your sentence. Uh, with this level of density and proximity, would uh, you believe that it was appropriate or acceptable? Thank you so much, Miss Bishop. Next, we have Sherry and then Susan Hines, I think, and Sandra Highland.

Oh, that's no problem. Sorry. She is Susan. Thank you. No problem at all. So, um, Sherry, go ahead, please. Hi. Excuse me. Hi, my name is Sheri Okalini. I live at 700 South Codel Drive. I'm talking today for on behalf of Martin Urick. He owns the property that's also adjacent to the property on the back side. His Excuse me. His property was recently approved for reszoning, allowing for four homes on 2.7 acres, essentially halfacre lots. He worked closely with the county to ensure the development fit in the existing character of the neighborhood. His project was carefully planned and provide a gradual and reasonable transition between the larger nearly 1acre lots nearby and the surrounding neighborhood. He feels strongly that moving from his approved halfacre lots with less than a quarter of acre lots in the property disturbs the intended plan for the neighborhood. Such a short, excuse me, such a sharp change in density does not create a smooth or consistent transition of lot size or character from one lot to the next. It could negatively impact the overall cohesion and feel for the neighborhood. This is why Mr. Urick does not approve of the reasonzoning that is currently being presented.

I'm going to ask a quick question if I can. So, and you may not be able to answer it because maybe you're speaking on his behalf and he may not know, but um if he's speaking about it being an um inappropriate transition from his, you know, halfacre lots to the acre lots, what would be a more and I think this is looking at maybe just less than a quarter acre. What would be a more appropriate transition, do you think? uh off the top of my head, he when he originally proposed to split up his uh property, he was told by the engineer that they needed to be a minimum of half acre lots

and his his property is in the county. Is that right? Not within the city. It's it's backs up right to the property that's being zoned. Okay. He owns the strip that goes all the way back and that's 2.7 acres. So, he was going to split that up. He's going to have a one acre in the back and then 2.7 acres would be split between the other three homes. Got it. Which is what he was told had to happen. They had to be at least a half an acre lot. Yeah. No, I understand. For that property. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Madame Mayor, quick question on that. So, um I hear we're saying it's county property. I'm pretty sure that's actually city property that's out there.

City. Okay. Um do you know how long ago it was he went for a reason? Um I want to say it was in 2019. Okay. Okay. So probably Okay. Thank you Sher so much. And just I do live at the property also that is directly beside at 700 coderell sorry Sherry. I think at this point we're just taking questions and answers from the council and I think your her question was answered. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Council member Nash ask a question too. Okay. Okay. Um, we're gonna skip over Susan. I have Sandra and then Jane and then Marwin, I think. Marvin, do we have a Sandra here? Sandra Highland. Hi. Um, if Jane and Marvin would like to come up to the front, um, you guys will be up next. Hi, Sandra. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. Um, I live at 9535 West.

You can just adjust that mic. So, Um, I've lived there since 1978. Moved in there with my parents when I was in fifth grade. Moved out and recently um, uh, added on to my parents' home. My dad and my brother built on to it and I moved in there where we kept the acre lot because we like the acre lot feel. My mom has lived there since 1978. She is now 79 years old. She doesn't want all these homes around her home. This is her home. This is where she wants to die. It's where my dad died in 2021. I would like this not to go through. I'm strongly opposing this. It is not the fill of our neighborhood. It is not what we need in our neighborhood. I understand we need housing for other people, but we don't need it in our neighborhood and not in this fill. We've lived here. Most of us have lived there or houses have passed down to their children because of the fill of this neighborhood. We walk this neighborhood. We walk from one side Maple Grove all the way over to FiveMile. It is our homes. We love growing our food there. We love our mature trees there. We love the view. We want to keep it that way. We want our our elder people to be able to die in their homes with the peace that they had when they bought their homes. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Sarah. Okay, Sherry, where did she go? Where did Sherry go? Do you I was just Thank you, Council Member Hy Burton. You still had a minute left on your testimony. Did you have more that you wanted to say that was irregardless of the questions that were asked up here? Do you want to speak on your own behalf with that last minute? Please come on up and just state your name again for the record. Thank you. My name is Sheri Okalini. I live at 700 South Cautell Drive. My parents bought this house back in the early 70s and we've been in that property ever since. My kids have come. My dad had his grandkids there. They love playing in the backyard because it is such a big open area. My dad bought this property because it was a large acre. He wanted he didn't want his neighbors, you know, 10 foot from him so they could reach out, shake each other's hands. He wanted space to live. And then that is really, you know, I have now, my sister and I have inherited the property since my dad has passed away. And you know, it is something that would be very hard for us to see the properties splitting up. So, sorry. It would just be very hard for us. I mean, it would I'm so sorry. It would put a lot on us to have that property split up into so many different stages. I mean, I went to school here. I I went to West Junior High when it was down by the hospital. I went to Bora High. We graduated. So many families in

that neighborhood have raised their kids in these properties. They have sold to new families that want the big acreage. They don't want such chopped up housing right next to where we live. our property value is going to go. It's already gone down because without we can't even sell now because without saying that this property is in adjacent is going on to different property schemes. I mean that's really going to take an effect on our us living there and I just hope that you know you wouldn't want to see this happen in your backyard or your next door neighbor's yard. I I just would hope that that would help. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you for sharing that. Okay. Um I think we're on to Jane. Good evening, Madame Mayor and council members. My name is Jane Sparrow and I live at 110 South Codell Drive. Excuse me. And I am here tonight to strongly oppose the proposed resoning of our neighborhood in Boise. My husband and I have lived in this neighborhood for 22 years. I don't know why I'm so emotional all of a sudden. We chose the area intentionally for its larger lot through character and lower density living. We invested in our property, raised our family here, and built our lives based on the zoning and expectations that existed when we purchased our home. Over the years, we poured our hearts into this property. Every tree, every vine, and every corner of our land reflects years of work, love, and commitment.

Now, the city wants to change those expectations by forcing higher density infill into an area that was never designed to support it. This is not responsible planning. If the city believes increased density is appropriate, where is the supporting infrastructure? We still do not have sidewalks, curbon gutter, or road improvements necessary to safely handle additional traffic. Adding more homes means more traffic, more congestion, and greater safety confer concerns for families who already live here. Residents are being asked to accept these risks before the city fulfills its own responsibilities. This proposal shifts the burden of Boise's housing challenges onto established neighborhoods while ignoring the real impacts on existing residents. Growth should be strategic, not convenient. Reszoning should not be used as a shortcut to solve housing issues at the expense of homeowners. Property owners should not be penalized because the city failed to plan ahead. I would like to address a comment made during the previous PNZ hearing when residents were told we understand that change is difficult. Respectfully, this is not about being uncomfortable with change. We are not opposed to progress and we understand that Boise is growing. We love Boise. We are asking for what we're asking for is responsible planning, fairness, and respect. This is not about questioning whether this particular change is appropriate, safe, and equitable. This is about Sorry. When longtime residents raise concerns about traffic, infrastructure, safety, and the loss of neighborhood character we invested in for decades, those concerns should not be dismissed as fear of change. We are not children struggling with change. We are homeowners, taxpayers, and citizens asking our elected officials to make thoughtful decisions that protect both current residents and future growth. I

urge the council to reject this resoning proposal and require that infrastructure, safety, and neighborhood compatibility come first. Please vote no to the proposed resoning. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you so much, Jane. Sandra, did I skip over you? No, I I'm right after him and I thought you'd call my name. I'm sure this is great. No, no, no. You're great. You're Jenny then. Okay. Amazing. Marvin and then Jenny and then uh I'm having a hard time with that reading that name, but it looks the address starts with 255 if that's helpful. That's who's next after Jenny. Hi Marvin. Welcome.

Thank you. Um good evening madame president and council members. I'm here to speak in opposition to the proposed uh Ricky zoning of this property and I'd like to highlight three main concerns that I have which is housing density, road safety and water infrastructure in Phil Boise. Let's talk about currently you know each one of these properties are acres but we have the ability to to split them into half acres and then we can have two ADUs on it which would result in six properties and we're only talking about four with this here. So as far as infill, the way it sits right now is much better than what is being proposed. More importantly, the type of development would be better match for the character of our neighborhood. Incremental additions like ADUs fit naturally into the existing subdivision, whereas smaller density lots like mini cottage subdivisions will feel out of place and not match the subdivisions layout as it currently sits. Second are the roads. You've kind of heard a little bit about already. Uh they're narrow roads. They're very similar to the north end when you when all the cars you have one lane. That's what will be when we have cars on both sides. But we don't have curbs, gutters or sidewalks. So figure the north end without sidewalks. Where are the people going to walk? That's what we're dealing with here. And that's why we keep talking about the roads and the the safety with kids riding their bikes or people trying to walk. And increased density will also increase the motor amount of motor vehicles using this. Third is water. Now this place they're talking about getting water from Shupe across the Shupe bottleneck which also involves all the utilities you know but more important is the president by reszoning this will happen with the rest of the neighborhood. I already know that people have hit other people up regarding changing and basically um possibly buying their lots and we may end up coming back here again with another acre lot somewhere else in our subdivision. There are 205 properties. There's 205 wells. Uh we're we're

dependent on wells in our subdivisions and I know that you all have been hit with water. I I my past boss was on the council and she says the number one thing she dealt with was water issues in wells. So I won't go down that issue but um again wells are big big issue and as well will have to be drilled because there's no water infrastructure in this area. Um, this will be something that you drill a well, you get two wells that may fail down the line. If our zoning remains unchanged, growth could already lead to additional wells being drilled. The proposed resoning, increased density, the number of wells may multiply several times over. If it sits right now, we could almost double those wells from 205 to 400. But if we get three to four lots on each acre, we could triple or quadruple that. Before increasing density, would be far more reasonable to have a clear substained plan for water in our area um in water infrastructure in this area. And in closing, I would especially ask that you maintain the current zoning for this property and our subdivision. Once road infrastructure and water supply issues are properly addressed, it would make much more sense to revisit zoning and changes at that time. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, go ahead, Council Member Hie Burton, if you don't mind just staying for a question. Sure. So, I think I'm hearing from our city staff and then also from the developer that they aren't planning on drilling wells, but they're actually planning on hooking up to city water. Are you I just want to make sure that I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that you don't think that that's going to be possible? No. So they'll have to drill wells instead. I'm saying that we're looking at President. We're looking at one lot. So you're not talking about this lot. You're talking about future lots. This lot is going they're supposed to get it from Shupe, not from Cell there. There's no there's no water on Cottail. So you don't think that this lot is going to be able to be hooked up to city water?

I have no idea. I know that the lot next to them two n 2019 was going to be hooked up to city water and it still hasn't happened. I don't know what the water heck is. So, I don't know. Perfect. Thank you. But I mean, I'm just saying it's precedent for other lots in the subdivision. We'll follow this. Yeah. No, I appreciate it. That gives me a good question to ask our staff and follow up again with the developer to see if indeed there's the ability to run water there and what the requirement would be in order to run that water for the development to occur. So, thank you. Thank you,

Jenny. You're up. Thank you, Kathy. Thank you for that visit with us. You put a very human face on city council. It was delightful. My name is Jenny Hollenburgger. I live across the street from the development. And as you're aware, the property at 650 South Carter is located in portion number seven of the subdivision and country estates. This subdivision is subject to a declaration of protective conditions, covenants, and restrictions, which from now on out I will use CCR. It was dated August 15th, 1972 and recorded as the recorder's office in the city of Boise. We were annexed in 2000, but these CCNRs are still enforced and updated. Now, CCRs are legally binding rules set forth by a developer to manage the properties within a subdivision. They're set and bound. The rules are set and bound to the properties, not the owners of the properties. These rules are not enforced by the city, but are legally binding to all who own the properties. Included in these CCRs is a rule that no land can be sold or offered for sale containing less than one full acre and no dividing of lots. Now the chain there changes cannot be made to this rule without consent of 75% of the property owners. There are 86 property owners in this subdivision. There are only 15 in number seven. And we have petitions signed by all owners and with 230 signatures from surrounding people. Our on our petitions the ceiling that the 75% will probably never be met. Public opinion of this reszone and build is not what anyone wants. So this is what the CCNRs are protecting. Another rule from the CCRs that public opinion within the subdivision is legally important.

Um this these CCNRs have not been violated to date from 1972. The rules are legal in a court of law and are bound to the land and covered by an overreaching law in the state of Idaho. the local land use planning act or the loopa law. This law was enacted by the state legislature to have a consistent set of laws governing zoning and planning for the state of Idaho. In this law, there's a section with a definition for variances and the variance I I went through the different variances and one is that the variance needs to be in the public interest which this is not the case. And as you go lower down in the section of definitions, the variances, the desire for profit with a division of the property is also not a variance that is acceptable. And to the variance checklist, lastly, ACC874, I would like to know how you can do this and explain to us how this variance does not grant a special right and privilege for someone who's willing to violate our CCNRs. Um, if it's approved, it will violate the legal uh the legal enforcing of the quality of our neighborhood and its binding CCRs. We as residents of Boyisee and the West the West End, are we on the West End are asking for a denial of this variance to our neighborhood codes. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, okay. So, as I said, the next name I'm having a hard time reading, but it's the address starts with 255. that. Thank you. Please come on up. And then uh followed by Katrina and then I think maybe Heath

of Jerry Heling, 255 South Palamino Drive. I'm um here I live on the opposite end of the development, but we have a a lot that was sold and now is right up against Five Mile and and Stardust. It's now rental. And I'm assuming that it's possible that this could become another situation like this where somebody buys the property and decides that they want to add more than one house to that. I'm just hoping that this, you know, your decision now won't allow that to happen for the future for the other side of the of the subdivision. Um and um I think I don't know when maybe all of you haven't been here before we had the decision made on Cockril Street. There was a development north of this uh right where it turns and goes around the corner to Cotra and they decided that to have more homes on that acreage there than what is stipulated would not be a good idea. And I'm just hoping that you'll be consistent with that decision that uh you made then and keep our neighborhood uh with the same type of field and the same type consistency. Um I don't think that you're going to we we I don't think we would uh come up with a water problem. We just our water went um we had a well that was 68 ft. It went dry. We put a another brand new well in and uh it was it's at 205 ft. So, um adding more pressure on that neighborhood if you add more homes and if they do need wells, we would all be u diminishing our water supply there too

as well. Thank you. Thank you, Trey. Okay, Katrina is next and then Heath, I think it is. Uh, and then David and then Rick. If you guys want to come up to that front row so we can so you're up next. Hi Katrina. Welcome. Please start with your name and address. You have three minutes.

Madam President, my name is Katrina Little. I live at 10465 West Lontan Drive. Um, first off, thank you council for all you do every day for us. I really do appreciate it. Um, if you drive into our subdivision, you'll see it is these these large lots, lots of green space. People come here because of the large lots. um people like car guys or they have livestock, they have horses, they have their kids, some of it's multifilming. Thanks to you, we can now have a few ADUs, which thank you by the way. So, if you have a mother-in-law, a postgrad, a pregrad, you have you have the space to do that now, and that's fabulous. You know, some people have shops and we really like the the way the neighborhood is put together with the CCNRs. It it it's very inviting. We're very close-knit. Um we're very protective of each other. It's a very wonderful neighborhood to be in. Um this particular reasonzoning on this property would not fit what we have at this time. I think if maybe they were willing to do another home and split it into halfacres because you won't find anything smaller really inside of the town and country Maple Grove estates in the surrounding area that is smaller than a half acre and maybe one other home. I think you might find a lot more people be a lot more agreeable to that than this lower um cramped high density such. Um but that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Then Heath, I think

Heath doesn't want to speak. Thank you. Um and then David, welcome. And then after David will be Rick and then Cameron and then Roberta.

Thank you. My name is David Turner. I live at 9798 West Redberry Court in Boisee. I've lived here for about 45 years and I'm speaking uh to the report prepared by planning and the planning department on February 2nd 2026 and I'm focusing on your decision must comply with the vision of blueprint boyisey and the implementation of that vision in the Boisee city code chapter 11 and before I start that I wanted to address the the concept that uh the city really doesn't have to address the CCNRs. And under the code section 1108, it says that the city does not have to enforce them, but it also shouldn't impair them. And I think the fact that uh you would know that they're in effect, a decision tonight may be premature and would ask that any decision be postponed until this can be dealt with further with the applicant and the owner. Our neighborhood has over 200 homes with average lot size of 0.97 acres. It is bounded by Cadarell 5 mile Franklin Road and Interstate 84. There has been activity over the past 15 years in asking for the split of different larger lots. It usually has ended up with halfacre lots. So people have tried to be reasonable and not completely. In fact, I live in a neighborhood where that happened. Instead of 88 town homes, they put 15 uh halfacre lot homes. PDS says that the zoning change is justified because the area has changed due to the housing crisis in Boisee. The city's housing crisis does not mean that our neighborhood has changed. The current R1A zoning was not changed

by the new zoning code. PDS says that the requested R1B zone will be a gradual transition from the more densely built parcels to the east and that the parcel directly behind which you've heard about tonight is owned already R1B. But that owner's intent was to build four houses on two and a half acres instead of four houses on one or a total of four houses. That would be about a 400% increase in density. PDS references the future land use map flum and the map of stability and change to recommend the applications. Blueprint voicy appendix C indicates that these maps are guidelines only and not standalone decision-making tools. These must be applied in the context of the specific property and surrounding area. Blueprint Boyisey uh when under the West Bench CCN 2.1 states that considerations specific to the West Bench should include limits on overall lot coverage for infill development to protect the more open character provided by the area's larger lot sizes. It also says these are the kind of properties that should be considered small vacant existing built patterns less than the zoning allows. None of that applies to the subject property. So based on that, we I would respectfully request that these applications be denied and that the uh city postpone a decision tonight based on the CCNR issue. Thank you.

Thank you, David. Uh next we'll hear from Rick. Hello. Welcome.

Thank you. Uh my name is Rick Reman. I live at 10,09 Stardust Drive uh in the Town and Country Estates. I've lived there since 1979. Uh you know, some some people like living downtown, some people like apartments or whatever. The people, most of my friends out here like having elbow room. We bought that property because of the CCNRs that say it will forever be oneacre lots. I can't tell you how many baseball teams, football teams, soccer teams practice in our field as we call it because it was too crowded at schools and too difficult for parents to go to. And this putting four houses or putting quarter acre uh properties with a house on them just does not fit in. We have deer. We have all kinds of wildlife. People grow gardens. We have community gardens. Uh and it is a community. You know, you can walk around our neighborhood. I don't care uh if you can even make it around because you're shopping and visiting with all your neighbors. We do have people moving in from California. They buy one acre lots. Why do they do that? Because they didn't want quarter. They didn't want apartments. And you guys have a heck of a job. I think your code says you're to represent the residents of this area or the whole city. You have lots of um people who want different things. So, I I respect the challenges with that. But this neighborhood has been there I I've been there 45 years, so it's got to be 50 years old or so. It is Town and Country Estates. It used to be a plum orchard. Um we do have city sewer in there now. Some people have hooked up to it, but we like well water. We don't like city water. We like elbow room. We

don't like having neighbors 10 feet apart. Even if we really like them, we still don't want them that close 247. So I just ask that you reject this because you will change the very culture of an entire neighborhood. And if you do that, what's next? Why should we change this thing? I don't understand. Is it more revenue? Is it green infill? I hear that term a lot. Same thing I heard 12 years ago when they annexed us into the city in the dark of night. And that was a a terrible event. So Jerry, other people that have had were around at that time, they all had the same concerns. We came to this very kind of meeting after the fact. They said, "We'll have eight parks out there." You know how many parks we have? Only the ones that are in our backyards. They said police could get there quicker. That's why we're going to get annexed in. Takes two minutes for a cop to get there. Oh, that's right. Eight of them live in the neighborhood at that time. Oh, we you'll get better fire protection. Takes two or three minutes for the fire truck to get there. Um, that area is just self- sustaining. You don't need to worry about it. We're just fine. But there's other areas you can go after. And infill, we've been trying to stop urban sprawl for 10 years. Doesn't look like we're having much success. and this move will not fix that at all. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, next we have Cameron and then Roberta and then Robert.

Good evening. My name is Cameron Reel. I live at 1020 West Stardust Drive. Madame Mayor, city council, thanks for the opportunity to address you guys this evening. I actually spoke at the planning and zoning committee as well. I feel so strongly about this that I'm here again tonight. I want to acknowledge that while the applicant's representative might have a Boisee address, the applicant does not reside in Boyisey, nor does he live in the home that he's attempting to redevelop. I think that that opportunism um will if if this zoning change is approved is only going to increase. And I'm actually in favor of housing affordability, but I think that that's um a there's a there's a scale to that, right? Housing affordability doesn't mean small home for everybody. When I was 33 years old, I was able to afford a house with an acre in this neighborhood. And it's one of the last remaining neighborhoods in the city of Boisey with this kind of space. And if we start chopping them all up, the only space that people of my economic opportunities will have will be in Middleton or out in the sticks and only the wealthiest Boiseians are going to be able to afford space. The average home sale price in this neighborhood because they're all older homes. And if you look at the the constituents here in front of you tonight who are not millionaires um and the only ones in Boyisey that going to be able to afford an acre will be the wealthiest 1% of boyians. This is the last neighborhood that I'm aware of where the average transactions around $600,000 which unfortunately is affordable in this current economic environment. if we start chopping them up, there aren't going to be 1acre lots for $600,000 left in Boisee. Um, so I am in I'm in favor of housing affordability, but at all levels. I think housing affordability can be small homes. We should have a affordable 1acre lots for people that want to raise bees or have a horse. Um

to address your question earlier, I think it was kind of misconstrued, but the the point about the wellwater and the city services is that the surrounding streets don't have that we have sewer, but we don't have water from the city. So, if we start chopping these all up and once this developer gets approval to do this, it's game on. We're going to be in front of you guys constantly. um we won't have city water. So, every new halfacre, third acre, quarter acre parcel is going to have to get water somewhere. And unless the city wants to budget to come in and tear up all the roads and put city water on 60 acres for every single house, and I don't know where that money is going to come from, because I'm assuming it'll all be in property taxes. Um but that's to address your question earlier, sir, that that's the water problem. If we divide all these up, and that's going to happen, if this gets approved, they're going to get sold. Um, we won't have the opportunity. I the bidding war will continue, and that's when the prices will go up and only the developers are going to be able to afford. So, um, I strongly protest this on the uh the case of affordability. I think we should have affordable 1acre lots for those of us that would like that opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you. Did Roberto want to testify? Okay, great. Um, Roberto Robert and then Jamie. Um, if you want to come up to the front so you're all ready to go. Welcome, Robera.

Hi, my name is my name is Roberta and um I'm actually housed on El Blanco. So, it's 545 El Blanco. So, the new subdivision thing I'm on this side of it, but it west. Um, I don't have all the logistics and all the little stats to throw at you about which cubicles or whatever. All I have is my um, experience of living on the corner of El Blanco and Sarinat, which is off of Five Mile. In the last 10 years, we've lived there. Um, we were the youngest ones on the road. We were the young ones when we first got there. And as the last 10 years, we've had um our elderly neighbors pass on and younger families move in. Over the last eight years, five years around there, we have over 20 children that live just in a direction. Four houses this way, that way, 20 kids, right? And they are so wonderful to have that kind of ambiencece in your neighborhood. We have no sidewalks. We have no lights. We have no um areas, no bike lanes. We have nothing for these kids to be safe. I see my elderly neighbors walking their dogs in the morning. I see our mid elderly neighbors in the evening. I see families up to like five or six adult family members walking along the road. We I my worry is that we won't have space and that there's going to it's dangerous. It's going to be dangerous for um our new families. And when I get all pretety and ready old, I'm going to have a hard time walking on those streets with that with being safe as well. Um, I see it every day. I was pulling out of my driveway today and I had two cars going this way and one going that way and this little four-year-old on his on his little bike pedaling around and they didn't see him. If we had more people,

more traffic, that's what really concerns me. So that's that's my opinion. Thank you. Thank you, Robera. I think we have Robert and then Janie. Did Robert want to testify? No. No. Okay. Robert is waving the right. Okay. Robert, if you'd like to testify, we'd love to hear you up at the mic and otherwise I'm going to mark. Okay. Thank you. Robert is waving um his spot in line. Janie, welcome. Hello. Good evening. I'm Janie Backer. I live at 314 South Carell Drive and I'm so nervous.

Oh, don't be nervous. It's We're just people, too.

We are a community and we love Boisey. We love our neighbors. On November 12th, 2013, the Boyisey City Council unanimously denied changes to our R1A zoning. That zoning allows every property owner to have a halfacre per house. Most of our homes sit on an acre, some as much as two acres. We already have zoning for growth. None of us are fighting that zoning. It's acknowledged. It's there. It's established. It's allowed. We are not arguing with what we have. It allows exactly for the growth, the gradual growth that Boisee wants to see. Residents of a neighborhood are affected daily by zoning. This property owner is not a resident that lives here with us. They're not creating a family life next door to us as a part of our community. We all know each other. We know each other's kids. We know where people work in their lives. They are seeking to alter our neighborhood with no implication to their lifestyle or their daily lives. Improving this will cause a ripple effect of precedence, which is what they're addressing with that long skinny lot against the canal. City Council said the canal in 2013 is the boundary that breaks up the density. And I ask you to look at that canal again as the boundary that breaks up the density between the different types of communities we have. We have apartments and town homes, smaller uh or higher density resident uh subdivisions. There's even a mobile home court. There's storage. We have a lot of diversity in our area, but we ask that you protect it. We have horses, goats, chickens, their odors, their sounds. We

like that type of rural environment. Um, by infilling at this high density, there isn't room for horses and goats, chickens. It changes it completely with that dynamic. um zoning changes can't be reversed is what we've learned. And so we ask that you protect the legacy of our neighborhood. We have diversity all around us and that you will help res represent us as the residents of Boisey. Thank you. And a quick question for you. Just I want to make sure that I'm understand the canal you're talking about the farmer's lateral. Yes, sir.

That's the one you're talking about that's a little bit further north. Yes, sir. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Great. Okay, next I think this is Bruce Todd and then and then maybe a name that starts with an S. Okay. I'm sorry, sir. Your time is has passed and unless it's on the mic, we won't be able to capture it in the record. Thank you, though. I'm asked to read this for Bruce Todd.

Thank you. Okay. Um, my name is Bruce Todd and I have lived in the Treasure Valley since 1973. Um, I have lived near the project site for many, many years and I approve of this project. I attended and spoke when the project was unanimously approved by planning and zoning earlier this year. And the reason I approve is because I recommend infill over city sprawl. This project fits the area. I approve infill projects almost every time, but especially when it fits the area. Due to conflicting schedules, I am unable to attend tonight's meeting, and I hope you'll accept my testimony. Thank you to your attention, respectively.

Thank you so much. And then for our record, would you mind please stating your name and address? I'm Annie and I'm the next one that's on that, but I don't have to know. No, no, no. You can still Oh, and that says Annie, not S. Okay. I'm sorry. You can still testify on behalf of yourself now as a separate testimony because that was not yours. That was Bruce's that you were reading. Oh, okay. So, if you would like to still testify, you're welcome to with the three minutes.

Okay. Um, I'm just obviously supporting the project because I see everybody I understand and respect the fact of the neighborhood and how wonderful the neighborhood is and it's always not in my backyard. And I hear it constantly and it's like, okay, well, you live in this great neighborhood and you're raising your families. Why can't we live in this great neighborhood and and build three houses to f for family to live in or for, you know, other young families to live in and enjoy? I mean, it's three houses because you want to respect the neighborhood and you're not going to put a huge, you know, apartment complex, but um it seems like nowadays in Boise, you either have the high apartments or you have this big huge developments. There's no just nice little neighborhoods. So, this infill piece is just perfect. It's exactly what the city wants. It's what the city's looking for and um it just shows development and that it's, you know, it's ineedable. It's going to happen and it should be for everyone. It's a city for everyone and so it should be neighborhoods for everyone, too. So, thank you.

Annie, would you mind stating please your address and also Bruce? Oh, yeah. Let me get Thank you. I think we missed that. I'm at 50 1507 South Lincoln, Boisey. Um, Bruce. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm going to ask the audience to keep it down and respect everybody else's opportunity to speak. Bruce, this is at 1701 West Resu. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. We appreciate your guys' time tonight. Thank you.

That is all I had on the signup sheet. Is there anybody here in the room that would like to testify that hasn't already? Please come up. feel free to sit in the front row and I'll I'll call each of you up one at a time. Um I'm going to start with this gentleman um in the black t-shirt. Please come right on up. Um state your name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes.

My name is Dr. David High Totower. I live on 211 South Cautell and um my biggest concern is the safety and in in Shupe. If you drive there, I suggest you all do. Um I usually run there in the morning and it's so narrow and right there in Shupe that it's really um as far as two cars passing. It's it's a problem if you have two cars passing and a person walking the street. It's not safe. And so my biggest concern is is the safety of the of the people that would just pedestrians walking because of the way Shupe is right now. And I also work as an ER doc. I really don't want to read them in the in the emergency department. So thank you. Thank you sir. Please come on up. Please start with your name and address and you'll have three minutes.

Okay. My name is Mike Holl Hollandberger. I live at 597 South Cautell Drive for the past 33 years. Very happy with that that life that we've raised several children. I too want to comment about Shupe and that access which is as is near where this this new development would like to go in. It goes from a 40ft road to a 20. Now those those are not exact figures but you'll find that it's very close to that. I have seen more cars hit the telephone pole, may never report it, but it's hit often and uh because of the it just narrows and it makes for a very uh you know bad experience especially for new drivers. A number another thing would be the apartments adjacent to Maple Grove coming in from the from the east. Uh often times they will double park on the street which has caused those those uh town houses uh to put up signs that there are no parking on that side of the street. uh it there's just so much so many people already in the area. So we've we we are concerned with additional traffic because this whole u area that we live in are used to walking the streets

and there's no sidewalk, there's no sign and frankly we don't want them. We like it. It's like being in the country and and uh and we get to know each other when we walk out front and say hi, how are you? And meet new member new u neighbors. It is a different lifestyle and uh anyway, we felt bad at at the response we got in the last meeting we were here. We felt like we weren't hurt at all. Period. We felt your decision, not you. I'm sorry those others the decision was already made. This is what they were going to do and and it didn't matter how we felt about it. But uh we think we have the law on our side. We do believe this is a legal thing that we can come that we the CCRs are are definitive in that others can't come in and change that law. We have a right to hold on to that. That's our hope and I appreciate your attitudes. I I felt much different here tonight than I have in the past. So appre appreciate your service. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Uh anybody else here? Did you just come up? Please go ahead. Is there is this anybody? Oh, please. If you would still like to testify on this item, please go ahead and have a seat in the front row so we we can just bring you each up one at a time. So, I'm going to now expect that the only people in this room left to testify are now sitting in the front row. Okay. Please go ahead, sir.

All right. Thank you so much. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to stand before you. Um, uh, it seems like every 3 or 4 years our neighborhood gets the opportunity to get up here and and defend our neighborhood against um, people who want to develop and um, we feel that the high density is not appropriate for this neighborhood. We go through this over and over and over again and we're really we're all kind of tired of it. I've been here probably a dozen times. Um, I've lived at uh at 444 South El Blanco Drive, right in the middle of subdivision for a little over 20 years. Um, I I love the democratic process. I love democracy. I love the way it works. The first glimpse of democracy that we that we get usually as children sitting around the dining room table and dad says, "Well, what do you want to do today? You want to go for a bike ride or you want a picnic?" Right? Hands go up and we have a democracy and we decide what we want to do. This is democracy. We have roughly 200 residents going against one positive vote that doesn't live in the neighborhood. That that sounds odd to me that we even have to debate this, but we've gone through it over and over. Halfacre lots are where we draw the line in the sand. Uh 15th acre lots aren't going to work for us in this neighborhood. It's not a safe situation on that corner. Um,

so we're country estates. Doesn't that say it all? You know, we're we're country estates. We want the flavor of country. When we um when we bought our property, we all had CCNRs that we agreed to when we purchased the property. I'm going to assume that this property had the same situation. They had CCNRs. They realized that they weren't allowed to subdivide that property, but now they're trying to do it anyway. So, it's a parking problem. Right now, there can be sometimes a half a dozen cars parked in front of that property. That's with one house. What's going to happen when we have four houses on that corner property? It's It's not a good situation. But I have one question for all of you. Have you even driven through our neighborhood?

We will not. We don't answer questions. You won't answer question. No, but we they might be addressed during the deliberation, but we're just taking comments at this point. Okay. Please drive through our neighborhood and see what the issues are. Okay. That's the job of our representatives. Thank you very Madame Mayor. Thank you. Go ahead. Just a quick question for you, sir, before you take a seat.

You talked about parking. That was actually the first time that came up today. We hear a lot about parking and it's usually because we're handling a denser application than this. So, I was surprised to hear that. I'm I'm curious. We had a gentle gentleman earlier that mentioned the buy right abilities to do at ADUs. So potentially more units. ADUs don't have any parking requirements unlike these single family homes would. I was a little perplexed by that. You probably wouldn't want this split up to have, you know, multiple ADUs without parking. Is that am I assuming incorrectly based on kind of your comment that parking is already bad and the ADUs may not be preferred if they don't have parking? Well, a ad ADUS is not a property split. Is that correct? ADUs remains part of that original property. That's that's like a granny suite.

I guess my question is more units, less parking if you went the ADU route that was suggested earlier by another neighbor. I I didn't hear that. All right, never mind. I just know that they're one house and they'll have a half dozen cars in front of that house sometimes. I appreciate you bringing up the parking and that's okay. I don't question. When you when you have four driveways going into there instead of one and using up all that street. Thank you. Thank you. Please come on up. Um start with your name and address. You'll have three minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Jamie Rob and I'm at 1952 South Lost Trail Place, Boise, Idaho. Um as a realtor, I have expensive extensive experience showing homes in neighborhoods with diverse lot sizes. And I do think that a neighborhood retains its character and spacious feel when lots range from quarter acre to full acre. This is not the kind of high density that you see sometimes which would be out of character for the neighborhood. I'm just going to ask you to pause for one second. Yes.

I'm very easily distracted and like you're right in my line of sight. So I'm going to ask for folks who are in the audience to try to hold back their reactions um and especially chatter because I want to make sure just like you all when you were testifying that I'm 100% paying attention. Thank you. Um, our city is currently facing critical housing shortage and given that this specific location is centrally located and provides convenient access to the interstate resoning is practical and uh going to happen most likely. It's just going to be when and what kind of resoning happens. This size of resoning makes sense for what I see in other areas. Um, it's also important to note that community does benefit from the proposal by moving forward in this reszone. the developer is required to connect at the developer's cost to city water and install the sidewalks, enhancing the local infrastructure. That would not be um a cost that the community would bear. Furthermore, because the existing setbacks will remain unchanged, neighboring property owners will not have homes built any closer than they would now. And things like having horses, you would still, my understanding is that would not change what the existing property owners can do with their homes. Um, to put that a little bit into perspective, adding a 900 foot ADU with a garage is to have existing halfacre lot that had a home on it would be a very similar footprint to what's being done now. We just actually built an ADU. It took um a massive amount of time. I very much I know now there's some plans that are approved by the city but um in by the time we put in the roads and all those things it's not really a lot different than having existing homes except I think we'd have gone that other route honestly to add the home and have the space around it that's appropriate for parking and all those kind of things. Um I also don't think that it negatively impacts property values from what I've seen of comps. It often revitalizes the area. So, I believe this is a responsible way to grow the community.

Thank you, Jean. Appreciate it. Um, go ahead, sir. Three minutes. Please start with your name and address.

My name is Josiah Silva. I reside at 1085 West Sarinac Drive in the Town and Country subdivision. Um, thank you for the privilege of speaking. Am I Okay. Um, Blueprint Boisey isn't simply a zoning map. It's a policy document that carefully directs infill development towards specific clearly defined categories of land that can absorb change without undermining neighborhood stability. Appendix C is especially important here because it defines the intended type 2 areas of change which are meant to accommodate limited compatible infill. Those eligible property types are narrow and intentional. They include vacant or small lots, underutilized within the current zoning, and an area that has shown substantial permit or tearown activity in the past 10 years. None of those things apply. Now, I'm here not because I'm right next to the development, but I'm in the subdivision. The only people that I've seen testify in favor of this live like 20 minutes away or the developer or somebody else. They're saying it's responsible. Now, I'm looking at the site map, and I wanted to point something out that maybe has not been emphasized. I didn't see a site map, or maybe it wasn't emphasized. I saw a lot of things talking about the overall area and the R1B status to the east. And so, let me identify what's happening with the supposed transition, which isn't really a transition at all. You have town homes to the east, which are as low as 3,000t lots. Then you have across the canal 66 acres and now then we go to a/4 acre and then the 1 acres. Does that sound like a transition? It doesn't. It's not a transition. It's a break. And what it is is lets you horn a lot of property onto an acre. That's all it is. My own equipment because I run an excavation

company has been used to tear down properties on the north end. large lots affordable into double, you know, row houses with ADUs in the back. I don't even think anybody would be here if this was being split to half an acre. But we're talking about stuff, like I said, we didn't see a site map or at least I don't remember seeing it. A shared driveway, that's not, you know, a wide space. A nice animation with trees in the back. We're not talking about reality here. What we're talking about is the camel no camel's nose in the tent and I'm seeing it affect the entire development changing the character of Boisey forever and we're not going to have large lots available for regular people like me. I'm not rich. I just work hard. Okay? And so I'm asking you guys to comply with the code, the Boyisey blueprint that defines what this decision, we're not talking about is this a good idea. Is this going to fill in, you know, an affordable housing need. We have to comply with the code and this is clearly an attack on that code. It does not comply at all. And so I completely oppose it and I ask you guys to find that it also does not comply with the code as well. Please vote no.

Thank you, Josiah. Um, it looks like we have one hand raised online, so I wanted to check in to see if that person or anybody else online wanted to testify on this project. Yes. Great.

Hello. Hi, Allison. Hi. Am I on camera? Welcome. Am I on camera, too? I just don't even know. Um, we do not have you on camera right now, but if you wanted to turn on your camera, that would be fine. Um, but please go ahead. You'll have three minutes.

Okay, sounds good. Um, my name is Allison Frost. I live at 263 South Codell. I'm a resident of the Maple Grove Acres neighborhood. I'm here to express my opposition to the proposed reszoning at 650 Codell. As mentioned, this property is currently zoned R1A. It reflects the lowdensity single family pattern consistent with our surrounding neighborhood. That pattern is further reinforced by the CCNRs that have been mentioned governing the neighborhood that that reflect the same 1acre development standard. While private agreements, they represent the long-standing expectations that residents have built their lives and their property decisions around. Many properties here actively support agricultural uses like horses, chickens, other livestock, and that depends on space, separation, and consistency in surrounding land use. Introducing four homes on less than one acre creates direct land use conflicts and undermines how this neighborhood functions today. Denser development historically generates noise complaints and pressure to restrict the very agricultural uses our zoning was designed to protect. There are also safety concerns. As others have mentioned, our roads were not designed for the traffic volume that comes with increased density. Higher traffic creates genuine hazards for families or children, equestrians, and agricultural vehicles that travel the corridor. Parking and infrastructure in this area were similarly never built to absorb this kind of concentrated demand. And adding it in isolation creates imbalance rather than thoughtful growth. That that imbalance also introduces uncertainty that can directly affect surrounding property values. Beyond the physical impact, this proposal raises a serious equity issue. This resoning is being brought forward by a non-resident developer and I would encourage the council to give particular weight to the perspectives of all these people who actually live here and will bear the consequences of this decision. Approving this request allows one developer to sidestep the very zoning standards the rest of this neighborhood has consistently respected and depended on, and that is not equitable. It sets a troubling standard for how future requests will be evaluated. And that precedent matters deeply to me. I've seen this play out firsthand as I

previously lived in a neighborhood that began with the same oneacre pattern. One reasonzoning led to another and over time the incremental change became irreversible. Agricultural residents were forced to relocate. The character that had defined the community for decades was lost and what began as a single exception became the new norm. There was no going back. I'm asking this council not to start that chain here. Boise's own zoning framework emphasizes placing housing in the right places and ensuring new development fits within the fabric of existing neighborhoods. This proposal does not meet that standard. I am not opposed to growth, but growth needs to be placed where it fits and this does not. I respectfully ask the council to deny this reasonzoning request. Thank you so much. Thank you, Allison. Uh, okay. We do not have anybody else online uh looking to testify. So, we will then uh I guess before we move into rebuttal, are there any questions from the council? And would you like to hear rebuttal first? It could be for staff.

Mad mayor, if I could ask some staff questions, it also might be helpful for the um rebuttal to be able there's any any challenges there. Um, so a couple questions first, like let's see if we can put the the water city water issue to bed here. Is there a chance that this development tries to go in, it becomes impossible for them to hook up to city water and then they have to drill well water or is it absolute guarantee that if the subdivision goes in, they have to hook up to city water and pay for that hookup? Madame Mayor, council members, I feel very confident that they'd be able to hook up to city water. There's water lines in Shupe Avenue that then turn to the north along Potterell. So on one frontage, there's already existing water lines in the street.

I'm going to ask one question really quick on the water and can you who would pay for that hookup? Madame Mayor, council members, the applicant would be the one to pay the fees for the installation of the the service. Thank you. Yeah, madam mayor, just following up there. Is there a situation where the development tries to go in and runs into some sort of issues that make it impossible to hook up for water and then we just say, "Okay, we're going to just go ahead and let you do wells instead." Is that something that regularly occurs through development?

Madame Mayor, council members, I would say that's not a regular occurrence whatsoever. There is a provision in code that allows for that, but they would have to get approval from city council and I believe a couple other utility agencies to allow for that wellwater to happen. um code is very explicit that all subdivisions of land require connection to municipal water, municipal sewer. Great. Thank you. Um I have a question not regarded to water unless anyone else has a water question. Anybody else with water questions? No. Okay.

Okay. So, if I own a piece of land in this neighborhood and I decide that I don't want my land to be subdivided in the future after I sell it, after I leave it to my family, after I pass away, whatever it may be, do I have any opportunities to make sure that my land gets never subdivided? Can I put a deed restriction or is it just I can choose who I'm going to sell it to and then have faith that who I'm selling it to is not going to redevelop it at a higher density or are there actually like legal deed restriction type things that could be done?

Madame Mayor, council members, I do believe there probably would be a mechanism for a deed restriction. However, that would be again a private agreement there between the property owner and who whomever would be either inheriting or buying that property. Okay, great. Thank you, Matt. Uh my question is some not I guess kind of related. We had the CCNRs come up quite a bit. Can you just explain for us I don't want to be the explainer. Um our our duty in terms of our decision tonight and how CCNRs may or may not come into play there.

Madame Mayor, council members, the way CCNRs interact with our code is city code to city code. if CCNRs want to add extra layers to that, it's within the CCNR's perview. However, that is again a private agreement and outside of the scope of the development code itself. So, in terms of, you know, your decision here, it would be with city code.

I'm going to ask just one more question on CCNRs while we're there. So, um I guess I'm I guess I'm looking for just affirmation or clarification. Any decision made here tonight does not invalidate their CCNRs and they would still have legal ability to pursue that privately. Is that corre? Do I understand that correctly? Madame Mayor, that is correct. Yes, Madam Mayor. Did you have your question? Sorry.

Oh, okay. Uh, we'll just do questions on CCNRs right now. Anybody else have CCNR questions? Okay, I'm going to let you mad. Um so on the CCNRs looking at the code on the 1108 it says that the code is not intended to impair interfere with other regulations um and should including covenants um or CCNRs um but it says where the code imposes greater restrictions than those imposed by private the code shall prevail. But today there's no um as it stands as an R1A to me it doesn't seem that the code does restrict right it allows for those 1acre lots as is says in this though the CCNRs are half an acre as I understand however if this body was to make a change and improve um this reszone then there's going to be a conflict between the CCNRs and the zoning code. Madame Mayor, council member, the CCNR has discussed restricting a lot size to one acre for transaction or future subdivisions. Our code right now under the R1A zoning does allow for a smaller lot size than 1 acre. That being said, if city council did approve the reszoning preliminary plat for the subdivision, even though the approved lots would be smaller than one acre, again, that conflict there is essentially outside the scope of this application and a private civil matter there.

And just to confirm, so as today as a R1A, we allow for two houses per acre in R1A. So there is um so it is in conflict of the CCNRs today. Is that correct? Madame Mayor, council member, that is correct. Okay, great. Thank you,

Madame Mayor. U kind of in that same vein, uh uh what would what in the code by right would prevent the developer from building a three-story forplex on the property today, assuming they abide by any incentives or other requirements that we have. Madame Mayor, Council Member Nash, essentially if a proposal was to happen on a R1A property of approximately this size or 1 acre, if they complied with the incentive requirements and all other design standards for a forplex, they would be able by right to do that.

So, just restating this for the record, by right, the applicant now can build a three-story forplex on the property with no reszone. That is correct. Um, Council Member Morales, I'll come back to you.

Um, I think mine was related in terms of can you can you talk to um multiple members mentioned halfacre lots doing single family homes, two on two halfacre lots with two ADUs for a total of six units. Um, can you just confirm that by right process as well? Madame Mayor, council members, similar to Council Member Nash's question regarding the incentive process, that is also something that could um happen within our code currently. That being said, that's the code that was adopted and went into effect April 19th when this application came in. They came in under the previously adopted code before the incentives were um rewritten and reimplemented. to do a two lot subdivision with two single family homes and two ADUs on each lot, they would have to utilize um the incentives to get there. It would remove the requirement for the reszone, but they would have to still do the incentive to get there.

Um, one last question. Let's go ahead. Thank you. um to confirm if there um this proposal assumes road improvements including sidewalk on Shupe. Is that correct?

Madame Mayor, uh council members, that is correct. Shupe Avenue and Codell will both be improved to ACD standards for local roadway. Shupe Avenue since there is an overhead power line right there given the unimproved right ofway adjacent to the subject property that will have a little bit of a wider landscape buffer between the curb line and that sidewalk. So we'll have a 10 foot wide landscape buffer to accommodate for that overhead power line and then a 5 foot wide detached sidewalk. Cautell will be built to the typical 8 foot wide landscape buffer, 5 foot wide detach sidewalk. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay.

Uh okay, seeing no more questions up here right now for staff. Thank you so much, Doug. Um, we will move back to the applicant for a fivem minute rebuttal. Madame Mayor, council members, thank you again for your time and consideration this evening. I would also like to thank and acknowledge the neighbors who took time to provide comments. Um we understand that some of the neighbors feel that this infill um development they feel that it will have a significant impact on their surrounding area. However, we dis respectively disagree that reszone allowing for three additional homes um will not create create the level of impact that they feel. This application is not requesting any variances or exceptions. And the proposed lots will continue to um connect to city sewer and water um which we have confirmed with the engineering department and um the water um um the public water services and we do believe that the project will not create any negative impacts to for traffic. Um ACD did not have any comment concerning that. We believe that there really is a clear net benefit to the community through the rideway dedication, public improvements including sidewalks, landscaping. In addition, um we've agreed to consolidating with Doug's um recommendation the driveways for lots three and four to limit the amount of access points onto Codell to improve the overall safety. And then we feel that with a recommendation, this project moves one step closer to providing much neededed housing for this area. And as according to the city's 20 24 housing needs analysis confirms an ongoing housing shortage and thoughtful infilled projects like this um adding three appropriately scaled homes plays an important role in addressing the needs. So let me go through some of the

neighbors comments real quick before I um close my um my summary. Um, as far as the zone, the lot that's right next to us, the R1B lot, um, Doug can confirm, but that application, um, has expired. He has his R1B zoning, but as far as the lot layout, that that the plat has expired, so he's entitled to the R1B zoning standards, and he can um, as long as he's meeting the minimum R1B requirements, he can get as many as um um, as he's able to. As far as um a president's setting, um we're not not everyone if this application's approved is going to be obligated to reszone their property and subdivide it. It can still hold the same um character and nature. I know um one of the planning and zoning commissions at our hearing was just like this doesn't create a domino effect. This is the current application for today. And again, um we don't feel like everyone's going to come back out and reszone and subdivide. As far as um the CCNRs, um this is a civil matter. I don't know if your attorney wants to touch base on it. Um but we have um the applicant has attorney has reviewed the comments and um they disagree. And again, this is a matter that shouldn't be um addressed this evening. It'll be addressed um between the two parties um and in civil court if if needed. So, um let's see. Um again, some of the neighbors have been referring this to as high density. Um again, I respectively disagree. the R1B is probably one of your lower density zones um within your zoning code. So, we do not feel that this is dense. Um and as far as the property on

SHU um the R1B um site and I don't really have a good aerial but once that um portion of the property redevelops finally that additional 20 ft will connect to our sidewalk. So it it will um improve the area, improve the quality and function with the necessary sidewalks. Um and then um council member Hi Burton's question on the health district and well so when we ask usually for a reason and we're changing a use um especially subdivision, we're required to hook to city services um in order to get a well um there's a certain requirement from the health district department in a size that um we would not meet. So we have to um in order for the subdivision to work connect to services and we have worked with the engineering um department to make sure that there is sufficient infrastructure um for those connection points and um just to again oh 36 seconds um we just truly feel that this infill project will be a benefit addition to the surrounding neighborhood and to the city of Boisee as a whole. It is consistent with the staff's recommendation of approval. And we also received unanimous approval from your planning and zoning um commission. And with that, I'll um respectfully thank you for your time and respectfully request approval and I'll stand for any questions that you may have.

Thank you so much, Serena. Um any last questions from the council? Um could you tell me what improvements the city's requiring of you uh on the street?

Sure. Um, Madame Mayor, Council Member Nash. Um, so the city's not requiring any improvements. It's ACD. The city does is wanting detached sidewalks. So, starting from the edge, we'll have detached sidewalks, curb, and gutter. And, um, I don't believe there's any additional rightway that ACD required, but we'll be making any improvements to Shupe and Codarell. If there's any um, cracks or in the roadway, um, we'll repave it. It'll be up to ACD's discretion and they'll go out there and inspect it. Um so we'll be meeting their um standards. Thank you. Council member,

um it sounds like you've already gone through quite a bit of the process and you're confident you're going to be able to hook up the city water. If this was approved, would you be supportive of a condition that it was contingent on being able to hook up the city water? Um, Madam Chair, council member, absolutely, we'd be happy with that. And I did, um, talk to the applicant, um, and we will be building single family homes, no higher than two stories. And if that's something that you feel that needs to be conditioned, um, we'd be happy with that as well. Okay. Thank you.

I mean, I will just clarify. I think the condition exists already that that requires them to hook up to city water, municipal water and sewer. Is that right, madam mayor, council members, that is correct. It's part of the standards of code itself. Thank you. Seeing no further questions, um I will close the public hearing. Thank you so much. Have a seat. And the item is now before the council. Madam Mayor, Council Member Holly Barton.

Um I'm going to do this in uh two separate motions. One for the zoning and one for the um subdivision. And this time if I forget the subdivision, please remind me do that. Um I move that we approve C25-23 reszone of approximately 089 acres at 650 South Codell Drive um from R1A to R1B. I'll second that for point of conversation.

Okay. So, I think it's always fair um that if a coun if so many people are going to show up to a council meeting that council members should at least explain what their decision-m is. Um, and I'm not going to treat you like children and tell you that change is hard. Um, but what I am hearing from many of you is that this change doesn't just represent a change to this lot, but actually a change to the identity in the neighborhood and your relationship um to that identity in the neighborhood as well. And so I hear that and I understand that. I also understand that when you come to a public meeting and you hear an entire neighborhood um and everybody, you know, who's here, you know, standing against something and then it maybe goes in a different direction, um there's a feeling like you haven't been heard. Um and so I I understand that and I don't blame you for feeling that way. I've been in public meetings before where I felt that way as well. Um what I would tell you is that I hear what you're saying and I understand that concern. I see how emotional this is for you and I see the challenges that are here. And it's not that I think that your emotions are wrong and that they don't deserve to be that way. It's that I disagree. Um I disagree with how you are looking at city code versus how our staff and myself are looking at city code, our land use map, um and our comprehensive plan. when we are up here on city council member as council members whether we like a project or not whether we think it's a good idea or not and I would actually say that I do think that this is a good-looking development and a good place for families to live obviously this is a good place uh you know for your families to live and I think that there's three other families that could live here as well and it would be another great neighborhood from them but that's not the decisions that we make up here we make decisions based off of the city code um our law um and then we use our comprehensive plan um as a lens um to make sure that we're looking at these things. And when I'm looking at our city code um our planning

and zoning staff's recommendation, they're doing the same thing in our city staff. What I'm seeing is a project that fits our city code, our comprehensive plan, um and our future land use map. And again, I think it's a great neighborhood. I think it's a neighborhood where if there were three additional families that were living there, um that's a benefit for them. And I would hope that that could be a benefit for you as well. So, I'm not going to sit here and pretend like um uh that I'm trying to make you happy at this point. I know that that's not the case, but I do think that there's a responsibility for me to let you know my decision-m in the process. Madame Mayor, Council Member Morales.

Yeah, I just want to thank everyone for coming out too. A neighbor asked us to consider, you know, if this was happening next to our our homes and I think I, you know, just taking another step, I can actually envision what your lots are like. I think many of us have lived on large lots before in our lifetime. Um I lived on a 0.91 acre lot at Cloverdale and Victory Road a little bit further out of town uh that lived was next to horses with llamas in the backyard and the biggest raspberry patch I've ever seen. No one will have a bigger one than I had as a kid and I loved that. Um you know growing up here I want to stay here with my where my family is where my mom still is. Um I live on a 0.19 acre lot now. Um these these homes are presented tonight are not even as small as my home. Um I think in a way cottages is a bit of a misnomer to be honest in the branding of these. Um these are these are larger homes. Um I think about that 0.91 acre lot. I looked it up on uh Zillow and it would be $650,000 today. the 19 um it was built in 1980 and I would you know my day job I would I wouldn't even get halfway to the annual income I would need to be able to afford that home that size of a lot and so as we as we grow you know a lot was brought up about 2013 um our population and especially in this valley has exploded and so thinking about growing up being a kid at Spalding Elementary um and finding places to live this I just need to call out is not a highdensity uh development It is higher density but is a low density development by our airport standards. Uh we've had a number of airport properties come before us for cups that want over five units per acre. That's the by right the airport's okay with five units per acre in the B1 zone near the airport. They're okay with that. Um it's low density. Um, I think there are for those that are worried

about parking and safety and higher even higher density than this, not high density, higher density, there are other routes that could be, I think, worse from your perspective. Um, and I think about parking in particular. These are single family homes that will have parking. Um, and they will be redesigning the streetscapes around them. They'll be providing improvements. Um, and as the rest of the, you know, properties adjacent, uh, develop as well, it'll be a lot safer spot. Um, these are these are improvements to streetscapes that everyday homeowners, many of you, myself, probably couldn't afford just to do for fun. Um, they have they tend to come with new development, right? With the the money that comes from from that. And so, I think there are some benefits um to this seen through that perspective. And I know that it's not it's not the same. It's not what what would be preserved. Um what what is desired to be preserved um what is today. Um so with that, I I want to thank everyone that talked about how important this neighborhood was to you. That is the kind of neighborhood so many of our neighborhoods are. I love going around Boisee. Um and it doesn't matter the density. People know their neighbors and people talk to their neighbors and there are children that are supported. takes a village and I hope that there is an opportunity to find more of that neighborhood character uh with this development. So, I'll be supporting the motion.

Member Goras,

thank you, Madame Mayor. um the application um put before us. You know, I just got to say I I love this neighborhood. Um I I love the fact seeing all of you come out tonight as a community to support one another, uh to support where you live. Um and you can tell that there's really a just a strong community feel that it's not just a land or a home. It's definitely a place and a community where people love and respect each other and look after one another. Um the application is asking us to consider something we're just grappling with in Boisee. Um how do we grow in a way that respects existing character while meeting the needs of a changing city? It's important to start I want to recognize the concerns of the residents um and that even adding what is considered low density in many ways three additional homes on a one acre for a total of four um it does represent change and neighbors are worried about that and about increased traffic about impacts to how that feels in the area and the uncertainty that comes with new development and I can tell you those concerns are valid and I hear Um, at the same time, I take a look at my job here on council and um and and I have to follow our city code. Um, this land is designated as suburban and the R1B zone does fit within there and within the plans. Um, so that's why you'll hear me supporting this motion tonight. But I do want to give you a little personal note. Um I'm in a similar subdivision area as you large 1acre lots and we've started to see the infill and same same thing we didn't we didn't have sidewalks um and it's it doesn't always feel safe walking dogs and kids in the area. I will say we started to see that infill development

and what it has brought is a lot of sidewalks because the only way we're going to get the sidewalks um is through a little bit of development and it now my neighborhood feels a little bit safer. Um, we have sidewalks to walk on and to walk our kids to ride the bikes. Um, and that's a little bit of the trade-off, but without some modest development, we won't see those improvements in the area. So, I hear you and I respect you and I appreciate you all coming out here tonight. Um, and I hope that you'll welcome some of these new neighbors and understand that the adding this modest density, it's really three additional homes will be um a much better fit within the neighborhood than what we'd see from other another development. Thank you. Okay, with that, um, I will ask the clerk to call the vote.

Morales, yes. Nash, yes. Stead, yes. Corus, yes. Hi Burton, yes. All in favor? Motion carries. Yeah. Madame Mayor, I uh move that we approve SCB2-89 um black uh subdivision 650 South Codel Drive. Second. Um, I think that the same discussion that was held a minute ago applies to this one, too. So, if there's no further comments, I'll ask the clerk to call the vote. Morales, yes. Nash, yes. Stead, yes. Corus, yes.

Ali Burton, yes. All in favor? Motion carries.

Okay. Thank you so much. We're going to take a fivem minute break before we pick up the next item. Okay, the band is back together. Um, next up we're going to hear C25-25. This is Babcock Design Group at 3099 West Morris Street, a reszone of approximately 3.45 acres. Um and um also SUB2-92 Boise City preliminary plat uh the Rivergate Town Home Subdivision. Um we'll hear it's Doug again.

Good evening again, Madame Mayor and City Council. Before you tonight is a redone of approximately 3.45 acres from an R2 residential compact zone to an MX1 mixeduse neighborhood zone located generally at 3099 West Moore Street. Preliminary plat for residential subdivision comprised of 66 buildable and one common lots on 3.05 acres of land is also included. As mentioned the reszone does comprise 3.45 acres with the request to change the zoning from R2 to MX1. The findings for reszone are shown on screen. At the March 2nd, 2026 hearing, the planning and zoning commission recommended approval of the request. Concerns were mentioned by members of the public regarding the different acreages listed for the rezone in the subdivision. The reszone is 3.45 acres rather than 3.05 because the rezone area extends into the right of way. 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. Future land use designation is compact which supports the requested MX1 zone. As summarized in the project report, there are change conditions that warrant the reszone. The change conditions include the adoption of the State Street TOD plan in 2019, the 30th Street master plan adopted in 2012, and an urban renewal district adopted in 2013. The nearby College of Western Idaho campus is currently under construction. And lastly, there are robust public transportation options to regional parks that have opened and been expanded since 2016, which further demonstrate the change conditions in the area. As for the preliminary plat, all 66 town home units will take vehicular access from a new private alley network. Both sides of the alley will have 7 and 1/2t attached sidewalks for connectivity and to provide enough clearance for aerial access required by the fire department. 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. The majority of landscaping associated with the proposed subdivision is within a

common law, and if approved, the town homes would be subject to an additional administrative approval as required by the development code. Public comments in opposition to the project were received. As summarized in the project report, concerns focus on privacy, density, and traffic. The R2 zone and the requested MX1 zones both have the same maximum height and density parameters. While not explicitly discussed in the project report, perimeter landscaping is required per the landscaping section of the development code to help enhance privacy between the town homes and the neighboring single family detached homes. Proposal does exceed the parking requirements of the development code as this is considered single family housing. The planning and zoning commission did add a condition at the hearing to direct the applicant to coordinate with the highway district on potential traffic calming measures in the area. Comments were also received regarding disagreements on condition 7 as recommended by the planning and zoning commission. The disagreement focuses on the location of the easement. Did want to note for the record that in the late correspondence memo, this was identified as condition six. However, in the actual action letter, this is condition seven. Um the location of the easement is seen on screen in yellow. The owner of the landlocked parcel would prefer to have the easement connect to the two properties and the two properties are outlined in red. The preferred easement of the property owner is location shown in blue. The general location which like I said is shown in yellow. The plan team is supportive of that location as it provides a safe route along a designated walkway and ensures access to the landlock property should ownership of the two red properties change in the future into separate ownerships. In conclusion, the planning and zoning commission found that the proposal complies with the necessary findings and standards of a reszone and preliminary plot and does align with blueprint poise as summarized in the project report. As such, the planning and zoning commission does recommend approval of both requests.

Thank you. Um, any questions for staff before we move on to the applicant? Council member Corass. No. Council member Hart. So to be clear, you're recommending the yellow path um as outlined, not the blue path um that we see here that was proposed by the land owner.

Um Madame Mayor, council members, that is correct. Yes, the yellow path is how condition 7 is currently written. Obviously, exact dimensions slightly different. Um, however, the plane team is more supportive of this location for that purpose of if ownership does separate in the future and there is a separate owner to that landlocked property compared to the other property in red, they still have legal access without having to get access into an additional property. Perfect. Thank you.

Okay, with no further questions at this time for staff, we'll hand it over to the applicant. Welcome, Mr. Wall. Council President Stead, members of the commission, city council, Jeff Wle, my address is 251 East Front here in Boisee, sweet 310 represent the applicant gardener company who has contracted to purchase this property from the Boisee uh Ada Housing Authority. And this is a parcel that has been owned by the housing authority for some time with a desire and intention to develop housing and for a variety of reasons have just been unable to and we're going to get to that. But the the purpose of this sale by the housing authority is to have the resources to be able to go do housing elsewhere. So, as we go through this currently, uh, agree with everything the staff has indicated. We'll get to we'll get to the location of the easement. We're kind of ambivalent about that. We'll get to some of the other issues that we know you're going to hear, but the property is currently zoned R2 and the R2 zone is a dense zone. In fact, the MX1 zone is functionally the equivalent of the R2 zone when it comes to density. The issue that we have, however, and I would add a couple of other changed conditions to the discussion that staff made is that with the construction of Whitewater Boulevard and that being an arterial to the southwest, limiting access there, as well as the presence of the Boisee City sewer easement that occupies this portion up here, developing this property. Jeeoff, we couldn't see your thing because we were looking at this screen. Where were you pointing?

Let's look over here. Uh oh, I killed it.

There it is. There we Okay. Yeah, it along that northern northwestern boundary is a significant sewer facility uh that was constructed when uh Whitewater was was built. And then to the northwest, there have been some additional town houses that have been built on the surplus property that came about and came into existence as a result of whitewater and the other changes that occurred there. So we have requested MX1 after much consultation with staff because to build this in an R2 zone, our intention is to build for sale units. In the R2 zone, we could do multif family, we could do condominiums, but if you were to build forale units, because of those limitations, you struggle to meet the requirements of the Boisee City Code due to frontage, setbacks, and the other dimensional requirements. So rather than come forward with a conditional use permit, seeking waiverss rather than seeking variances rather than going through those other processes after consultation with staff, the recommendation was to pursue the MX1 zone as that was comparable to some other locations where similar approvals have been granted in the city as a means to develop orale residences. So the design challenges there you can see it where that sewer easement is. If that sewer easement were on the property boundary you would be able to and if you had access we could put that in a public street but you can't. So that limits what you can do. That limits the location of public streets. Additionally, with the location and

alignment of 31st and 32nd streets, that also limits where you can provide uh if these were to be dedicated public streets where we're limited. But with the alley system staff noted, we can meet and satisfy that requirement. So, what is the difference between the R2 and the MX? Well, there is no difference in terms of the density, the maximum density permitted. There is no difference between the two zones in terms of height. The MX1 zone does have a zero interior side setback, but we have ensured that we have complied with the preferred setback along adjoining properties on those interior sides and with respect to the front setbacks uh with the MX1, you're able to come to the street as many of our policies orient and focus. So, the requested zoning is because of the flexibility on setbacks, the lack of frontage requirements, and this was modeled on the application that this council approved previously at 1076 West Arch Street. And I appreciate your staff's effort to guide us through this because the goal for this site has been to build residences that we can sell. And it was staff that suggested we take the approach that was approved in CIR 25006 because then we don't need any re v variances. We don't need any other relief. It's consistent with blueprint boyisey and it satisfies your design standards. Now, as staff indicated, there is one common lot that is the access the access alley drives as well as the site amenities. Now,

at PNZ, there were several concerns that were raised. One of them that was raised was based upon a statement that was made at the neighborhood meeting where when our design team met with them and the question was posed, why are you doing this? uh the statement was made it will be easier to finance and that was taken by at least one resident who testified that it was easier for the developer to finance. So why do this? This isn't about it being easier for the developer to finance. This is be about it being easier for homeowners to finance because building these as condominiums or building these as something else that we could do in the R2 makes financing harder. Financing is what limits home ownership unfortunately, but town houses on fe simple parcels are much easier for home buyers to finance. Next, we also heard concerns about traffic. Now the ACD staff report indicated that you can expect and anticipate based upon the IT calculations that this 66 lots will generate 343 vehicle trips per day with 34 of those being in the PMP hour. Now, ACD is requiring us to reconstruct more street uh to meet its current standard with a setback a uh with a stepped back u sidewalk. ACD prohibits access to whitewater. That's the reason that you know we're not providing access onto white water. and staff has requested us to provide neighborhood connectivity improvements by ensuring that pedestrian and bike access can get through the site and then on over to the regional parks that are

immediately across Whitewater with both Gwyn's Pond and the Esther Simplot Park located immediately to the south west of this site. We've also heard the concerns about parking. Now, because these are single family residences, they require one parking stall per unit. We provide twocar garages and the guest parking that is required uh is zero under your current development code. However, the current design shows six guest parking spaces and when this application comes back to design review, we've identified the ability to increase that number to at least nine. And depending on what your guidance is on what you want to do with the easement to the landlock parcel to the the southwest, uh that may affect the ability to do that. We think this is an appropriate amount of parking. We overpark too much and have required overparking of too much in this community for too long. Cars are not more important than people. And that's what we're trying to do here is to balance the need, balance the requirement. In fact, if we were doing an R2 development, uh potentially you could have even less parking requirement than what we're offering here. Now, you're going to hear testimony about this landlocked parcel. It is 30 ft by 52 feet. Uh in the prior consideration by the planning and zoning commission, we proposed a modified condition which is the condition 7 that staff had proposed. And with that, we

had agreed to provide a 20ft easement connecting across our property to the southern boundary of that, which would enable access, vehicular and pedestrian access to this location. Now, this this landlock parcel has been in existence for quite a while. You're going to hear you're going to hear uh testimony tonight by a property owner who feels that they've been agrieved by the housing authority on this. I can guarantee you there have been lots of bad surveys in this neighborhood, but we took the time and had an ALTA survey prepared to ensure that we knew where their property was as well as where all of the irrigation districts are. We proposed a land exchange. We proposed a purchase and partial exchange. unable to get it resolved, but it's not like this issue hasn't been in existence and the property owner hasn't had discussions with the BCHA in the past. We were we needed to move forward. So, we have moved forward. So, the condition that we originally proposed and the planning is only commission approved as this one, which provides for a 20-oot non-exclusive ingress egress easement for both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Apparently from the comments that were submitted to you, this is really offensive to the neighbor and it wasn't our intention. It was our intention to ensure that the neighbor could have access of a type that would enable them to potentially utilize that parcel for some point in the future. So, we propose based upon the comments that were provided a limited 10-ft x 46 ft non-exclusive ingress egress easement for pedestrian access to be provided between those two parcels. Um, that's what the neighbor has requested. That's what we would do. Now, the neighbor has also raised issues and concerns about the irrigation facilities. And I would

note we both have reciprocal obligations to each other under Idaho law with respect to easements relating to the irrigation facilities. Why? Because these irrigation facilities that serve this neighboring property also cross ours. We're certainly not going to violate the law. We do this regularly. We work with the irrigation authorities. And so the facilities cross both properties. Both properties have reciprocal easement and reciprocal obligations and both property owners must comply with the law. So the concerns about the irrigation are largely a red herring and should not be a basis for denying or modifying this application. So, in conclusion, this application proposes reszoning the property from an R2 to an MX with the purpose of platting 66 buildable lots. When we think about housing, we need all types of housing. We need large lot housing. We need small lot housing. We need cottages, although 2500 ft² may or may not be a cottage. We need apartments. We need condominiums. But as a proud owner of a condominium in Boise, Idaho, I know how difficult it is to finance even a modest condominium. So that's not really an option. We also know that there are a lot of multifamily. We have brought multiple multifamily projects to this council and have proudly developed those. But we also know it's important to build properties that can be sold to individual home builder home buyers so that they can have all the rights and benefits that all other homeowners have. So,

the last thing I want to note is you're going to hear a variety of alternative solutions to what should happen with this property. And I appreciate the fact that people have ideas, but BCHA has had this property for a long time. This is a last parcel. This is true infill development on roads that are platted and largely developed to modern standards with curb gutter and sidewalk and lower density in proximity to regional parks in proximity to to schools in proximity to the green belt in proximity to transit is not the answer. Low density housing in proximity to those things is immoral and it reflects the disinvestment and rejection of the planning decisions that have already been made. If we had proceeded with multif family on this site, we could have done it of right with nothing more than design review. But we're bringing this application to you, making this request because we think that this is a better solution for this site to ensure that 66 families can own homes in close proximity to everything that makes Boisee great. And with that, I'll stand for any questions.

Thank you, uh, Commissioner Corles. Madam Mayor, um Jeff, thank you um for bringing this to us and for going through um all the different um elements of this development. Quick question on number seven, the easement. The does the initial easement is it pedestrian only or is it pedestrian and car? If if you go with what city count what planning and zoning recommended, we're amendable to this being a pedestrian and vehicular easement. But if this is what the neighbor actually wants, uh, we're not amendable to that being vehicular because there is no reason and no ability to satisfy fire requirements with a vehicular connection at that location without us surrendering more property. So, if they want a vehicular and a pedestrian access, they can have it over our roadway system. If they don't, then this is what we're prepared to offer.

Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Madam Mayor. Council member Hen.

Um, so you have to do some uh I think sidewalk and pedestrian improvements on more. What's the extent just on your property line or further? Uh, Madame Mayor, Commissioner Hallebertton, and sorry last time for not noting that the ACD requirements are with respect to the frontage along more. But uh the other enhancement that and if you look over here, the other enhancement that staff has requested and we're amendable to is ensuring that this is an enhanced pedestrian and bicycle access from more street over here to Whitewater because the connection to the green belt is right there.

Great. So there's some additional um pedestrian bike improvements there. I believe there was another condition that um planning and zoning put on. I think it had to do with some traffic uh speed mitigation. So investments and and we were amendable to that condition. You know ACD as you look at more street you look at the other enhancements there. If there are things that are appropriate for that neighborhood we certainly are willing to work with ACD. The objection and concern however as always council member Hallebertton is it's always me.

It's it's always the last person. No, no. I mean, we're we're amendable to it, but to be honest, uh it's not really clear from ACD's data what else you would need to do on more to improve it. But we recognize there's ACD resources and programs. So, we will have that conversation with ACD. Okay, I think that's all the questions I got. Thank you.

Okay, seeing no further questions right now. Thank you. Um, we Is there a representative from the neighborhood here? Welcome. Who knew saying yes to the Western Neighbor Association would put me in front of you guys so often, but um, thanks for the opportunity to speak and hopefully um, represent some of the voices in the neighborhood association. So, um I guess bottom line here is the neighbor association takes positions to make sure that we get voices heard and I was present at the planning and zoning. Um I heard the gentleman that just spoke now. I heard him speak there. I also heard some of the the the deliberation around planning and zoning as well. So I would say from the neighborhood perspective um the packet covered clearly what many of the neighborhood is residents are concerned about. There's traffic, there's connectivity, there's density. Um, all those things will come up tonight, I think. Um, and I'll defer to there there's two other residents that live adjacent to the property and have done ext much more extensive research than me. So they're they're much more able to answer specific questions than I am. But I I will say that um some of the biggest concerns that I know that are a concern that did not make it to the planning and zoning notes and then subsequently this meeting is there's been a lot of attention paid to Jordan Street. So there's 32nd and 31st on Jordan, which is the assumption that's where the cars will leave. If you take a right out of this property, take a right on more. So I I believe that's going sort of easterly. Um they're going to come to a section at Moore, Ross, 28th Street, Stewart. It's a fiveway intersection. It's already pretty challenging. Um there's a lot of pedestrians, a lot of kids on bikes. Uh the sidewalks are very narrow there. There are sidewalks as

were previously mentioned, but they are very narrow for strollers, for people walking. Um 10 years ago, we didn't have a lot of that. In 10 years, a lot of people, a lot more children moved in the neighborhood. So, um, I really question how we assess pedestrian safety. Um, I don't know how we would assess that, but sort of posing that question for council in your in your consideration of this, um, I think some general concerns were that this could potentially create sort of a walled community and it wouldn't face the face the neighborhood. So, that is actually not the case. And so that was one of the concerns that came up to the neighbor association. So we were happy to see that the um there are doors facing more street. So it is going to feel cohesive in the neighborhood. So we we appreciated seeing that. And then um you'll hear tonight about a neighbor who collected 50 signatures opposing the development. I think I don't know that 50 really represents the whole area, but I would say that there's definitely a concern and a passion for for change here. And um I know that there's been a potential for op-ed pieces. And then um I would argue that the arguments against this development are compelling from a resident's perspective. I also understand that there's a need for housing. This is a great example of um putting density where it belongs. often that's I know that comes in front of you about density doesn't belong in our neighborhood. It belongs downtown. Well, this is a downtown neighborhood. Density does belong here. I think the concern is it's too much and I don't know what the magic number is. What the magic number of units and and I believe there's going to be a suggestion this evening about what that could possibly look like. Um 66 units um seems like a lot. I mean, it's a gut feel more than anything. And I think a lot of the concern of the residents is the amount. um the amount

of units there's always going to be the parking considerations. Um there was a suggestion of having considering moving this into a residential zone for parking stickers. Um having stickers on vehicles and I think that's that would be something that we would definitely like to see is is making sure cars are moving through if in case that in fact that's going to be the case. And I would also say as a person who walks in the neighborhood quite a bit, um 31st is definitely used for parking. Um most people do have off streetet. So I do want to acknowledge that people are choosing to park on the street versus using their off streetet, which was required likely when their home was built. So I don't necessarily want to say that um everybody's using their parking or their land efficiently because I I can't really prove that. But that street specifically is quite subscribed already. So adding this many units will add more pressure. More street not so much, but um definitely 31st and 32nd somewhat. Um I think another concern about traffic and and flow is there's only really two directions you can go generally or maybe like thinking about a quadrant of a circle versus being able to go north, south, east, and west. There's really only two or four ways out. And I think that's a big concern about all the cars have to come in pretty much in kind of a pie shape. I it makes sense in my mind, but either way, you can't really come from two of four directions. So, I think there's some concern there. And and lastly, I just want to say that legally it seems like this is a go. Um it seems like it meets all the conditions of the city's requirements. Uh likely blueprint boyisey, the modern zoning code. So, I want I want to acknowledge that, but I am asking that you consider some of these other circumstances that will will come before you tonight and we're also in your packet today for review that this does feel um while density is not being opposed, it feels like it's too many units. And once again, we don't really know what the magic number is.

And we also understand that um the developer has done a really a great job of making sure that once these are built that they are more accessible based in you know the access to financing for the consumer. So I do want to acknowledge that as well. So we're not necessarily looking and saying big bad developer here but we are asking for some other considerations and maybe some other deliberations um based in some of the testimony tonight. Thank you so much Justin. I think we did not get your name and address for the record. Uh Justin Buckley, 2750 West Reagan Avenue. Thank you so much. Any questions for the neighborhood? Council member Hartton.

Yeah, Madame Mayor. Um just so that I make sure I know what you're talking about. You're kind of talking about this pie shape of people coming in. Are you talking about 32nd Street and more? Like those are the two kind of where everyone's going to be coming in on? U Madame Mayor, Council Member Hely Burton. So if you think about it, um, so if you take a right out of, so Moore Street is sort of the short piece. Sure. On and then it sort of goes southeast from there. So if you take a left, you are pretty much in a corner. You immediately have to go north on 32nd Street and either right or left on on Jordan. Yep.

And those are where the the stop light there to get on White Water is. Or you could take a right and kind of go to 27th Street. um you could continue that way. Um if you take a right out of the development, you go towards 28th Street. And so while Moore doesn't make it completely to Stewart, it does sort of come into a fiveway intersection. So that that's a a concern that didn't that was brought up in P&Z, but I didn't see make it into the notes for you all. So that I mean, as a personal, as a resident, I would love to see that be a traffic circle where people don't have to stop at all and there's, you know, kind of a more presence at that intersection. That's That's the concern. But I think you're talking about that Y shape where it's like more 28th Stewart and then kind of whatever that little Yeah. section is there.

Well, it would be 28th, but it's actually Ross. Yes. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you so much, Justin. I think that's all the questions for now. Okay, with that, we will move into the public testimony. I have a handful of names here, so we'll start with that list and then we'll check in to see if there's anybody else in the room that have not signed up and then I'll check online. Um, so first I have Alisia, maybe please come on up. And then we'll have Jesse and um Susan. Oh, terrific group effort. Effort. Yes.

And Ann and Bart. Those are the names that I have. So we'll just start with that. Well, yes. Um, please adjust that mic so it's lined up for you. Sure. Okay. And start with your name and address, please. And you'll have three minutes.

Okay, great. My name is Alicia Meyer. Address 829 North Veil Street. Um, and I'm so I'm a neighbor of the proposed development. And these three acres are not replaceable. Nothing else exists like this in our neighborhood. You cannot get three acres back. Is jamming in housing opposed by a large percentage of the neighborhood the best that we can do with this opportunity? The city, the builder, and the neighborhood association could work together to create something that will be the best, most guided option for this lot. I'm not an urban planning expert, so I met with one at the property. What he pointed out were best practices for integrating new development into existing neighborhoods that were not being met by this development. They were one incorporating into the development a plan a buffer of detached single family homes similar to existing surrounding homes. Um

so this is so I'm sorry we'll have to capture your words in the microphone.

That is more street right there looking north at the property. That's single family one-story home. And all around it, our single family one-story homes. That's the width of our roads. And this is, if you keep going north on that picture, that's the other side of the property and the town homes that they're building that are towering over the existing one-story homes. So, that's what they're proposing to put into this lot, which is different than the entire area, which probably you all know if you've been through it. It's still mostly one-story homes. There are some town homes and apartments. Jordan Street apartments are amazing. You know, lots of children running and playing and green space in the center. I love that. So, I'm kind of that grain of like, let's develop, but let's develop with community as our as a guiding principle. How can we foster community? This development has almost no green space. It's like 18% is what the developer said and it's all little triangles that were not usable for building. So, that's the green space that neighbors are supposed to meet. So anyway, the that's the first principle of integrating into existing neighborhoods. Second principle, a guiding principle is um providing 20% or greater meaningful and usable green space. And so I have proposed which you can see that green square what if the city didn't sell that and created a pocket park that would be a asset to the neighborhood and this development for to bring together community to throw ball for their dog play with their children because there's nothing like that near it. LOL is a 14-minute walk. Fairview Park is a 22-minute walk and I know across the street is Whitewater Park but that's the whole cities. like I don't know any neighbors there, you know, it's everybody's. So, it doesn't foster the community. That is what neighborhoods really need for creating that. Um, number three, he said sufficient parking

for 66 units. Six spots is not enough for guests. Number four, 60% living space should be on the bottom floor for neighborhood integration and community engagement. This is um this is going to be the living space on the bottom floor. I mean on the the garage on the bottom floor, living space above. So it doesn't foster again that community. Uh number five, uh that's the end of your time, but you're welcome to finish a sentence. Okay. I only have three little things. Just a sentence. Yeah. Okay. Um uh the road access that it's not safe. It's

Thank you so much. Yes. Thank you all for your time and staying up so late and representing us.

Thank you. Um Jesse Roberts and then Susie. Susan will be up after that. Good evening. I'm Jesse Roberts. Um and I own the property at 3021 West Moore Street where my dad lives. Um I live at 1809 West Washington. Uh, I guess every time I come to one of these meetings, I have a speech prepared and then I find out something new about access to our landlock parcel. So, I guess we'll see how that goes. Anyway, um, I would say that our concerns with what they were talking about were that the conditions seem to be that we can maintain the landlocked parcel. Um, and it seemed very hard to be able to get a lawn mower around, watering around, especially under conditions of construction. I have no clue how we would do that if we didn't have that short if we were required to go around. Um, so those were just some of our concerns as well as I believe there was a condition about us paying like 167th of the road. I don't I have no clue what that amount of money is. So, those are just some of our concerns, but um I guess we'll figure that out at another time. Uh I have obviously come here against the reszone and against the property. Uh as a longtime owner of this property and boyisey resident, um I just don't think 60 plus three-story buildings next to our tiny little less than a thousand square foot houses in a modest neighborhood is appropriate. They will dominate the neighborhood. They will dominate the streets. Um people I'm sure we'll talk about what that's like. Um how small those roads are, lack of sidewalks, etc. Um and there it's just I just feel like

it's going to tower above our house. Um I also don't think that it's really serving what people who I hear from in Boyisey really want. People want green space. People want starter homes. Those are two things that are really lacking. And if we're filling everything with high-end town houses, there won't be any room for that green space and those starter homes. So, I do think I know this will probably happen, but I do think it would be a perfect opportunity for um the Boyisee space, open space levy that was voted on last year. We have very few riparian areas that are this large. Most of them are thinner strips along the green belt. We are very familiar with the deer and birds and other animals that make their homes in that lot that have babies there every spring. It is a beautiful, beautiful lot and it is a shame to lose it. Um, if we were to be losing it, it would be nice if it was something that the neighborhood wanted and that was really serving what people want in Boise. I don't think that there's a lot of people clamoring for high-end condos or town houses or whatever they're supposed to be called under MX1. So anyway, those are just my concerns and my my comments on the property. I don't feel like this project serves the neighborhood. I don't feel like it serves the land that it's being built on, and I don't think it serves the city of Boisey's needs.

Thanks, Madam Council. Oh, I'm sorry, Jesse. Can you just hang tight? I think we have some questions. Sorry. Council member Morales and then Council Member Holly Burton. Go ahead. Thank you. Appreciate your testimony tonight. So, question for you about the uh shared private access maintenance cost. So that's if that property is developed. Are you does it make sense to you that you would have some shared cost, but your concern is just what is that? We have no idea what the question. So if the if the applicant was able to maybe provide a range like that, that would be helpful. You haven't received that yet.

The only communication I've gotten is that these and then I did message with uh Doug a little bit the other day. So, um, yeah, it would be nice to understand and know more, but our concern is if I got the impression that if we can't maintain the property that we forfeit the property and it would be very hard to maintain it by, you know, my dad pushing a lawn mower all the way around. I have no idea how water would get to it. And like I said, especially during construction. So, that's all. And yeah. Okay. I think I think that might be the end of the questions. Thank you so much. Okay, Susie and then Lisa and then Ann and then Bart.

Right. Good evening, man. M madame mayor and council members. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak this evening. My name is Susan Fendlemeer and I live at 1314 North 19th Street, but I purchased the house on 892 North 31st Street in 2016 and I still own that house. Um I am writing speaking to express my strong opposition to the proposed Rivergate town home subdivision on Moore Street in Boisee Idaho. Specifically the request to reszone the property from R2 compact to MX1 mixed use. My concerns are not about development itself but about the scale and density of what is being proposed compared to the existing neighborhood standards. First, the requested reszone would significantly increase density beyond what is currently permitted. The R2 compact zoning allows for 6 to 15 units per acre, which is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. In contrast, the MX1 zoning removes meaningful density limits and allows the proposed project to reach 22 units per acre, which is 0.05 of an acre, which is not accounting for per roadways, common, and common areas. This level of density represents a substantial difference from the established neighborhood. A development aligned with R2 zoning would be more appropriate and compatible with nearby homes. Second, the proposal includes 66 town homes with extremely limited parking with only it was moved up to nine guest parking spaces, one of which is designated ADA. There would effectively be just five sorry eight spaces for available for visitors. Given that most households have at least one vehicle and frequently host guests, this will push additional parking onto surrounding streets, which will worsen already limited on street parking and create an inconvenience for current

residents who will no longer be able to park in front of their own homes. Third, the anticipated increase in traffic raises safety and livability concerns. Adding 66 homes could introduce 100 or more. I saw the number 434 earlier. Additional vehicle trips per day on narrow neighborhood streets. This increase will lead to congestion during peak community hours and reduce safety for pedestrians, particularly children who currently walk or bike through the area. There this there is also the increased traffic of delivery drivers in these narrow streets. And as was mentioned earlier, there is not a through street to Whitewater. So, all of the cars will be going through the neighborhood streets, including the fiveway stop. I would like to address the point raised during the March 2nd Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and I wanted to thank you for acknowledging the way that we were spoken to at that meeting. Opposition to this project should not be characterized as resistance to change or development. Many residents, including myself, support responsible growth. However, that growth should respect existing zoning, infrastructure limitations, and neighborhood character. Finally, there is a concern that the proposed development does not meaningful contribute to housing affordability. Constructing small lot town homes at projected prices between $500 and $800,000 does not align with the city of Boisey's stated goals of increasing access to affordable housing. In closing, I respectfully ask the city council to deny the requested rezone to MX1 and request that any development on this site conform to the existing R2 compact zoning standards and that it would be a development that would fit within the neighborhood. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Susie. Madam Mayor, council member Halbertton. Susie, if you don't hang tight, Susie, good to see you. Um, you too. So on Moore Street, I've definitely walked and ridden around that area a lot. I can't remember exactly how much of it has sidewalks on it and how much doesn't. Um, so sort of between this street and I guess it would be 28th. Is it mostly have sidewalks on it now? Is it mostly not sidewalks? What's the road conditions between where the development's going in and 28th Street? Part of it is sidewalks and part of it is not. Um, and it is I would have to like I don't like it's on the north side of the road in some spots, but like not a lot on the side.

Yeah. Not the whole And there are a lot of children um who use that area and who are biking and playing um that are in the streets. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Uh thanks Lisa. Hello. Welcome. Please state your name and address and then you'll have three minutes. Hi, my name is Lisa Rolls. I live at 894 North 31st Street. That's on uh be between Moore and Gooding. I think that squishing 30 I'm all nervous. Um take your time.

Squishing 66 units onto three acres in the far back corner of our neighborhood is just wrong. The the issues I see are traffic, parking, and aesthetics. Our streets are narrow and so having all those cars coming into and out from one back corner of the neighborhood is going to cause traffic jams during the beginning and end of the workday. Um, the parking, the street parking is already utilized by the existing residents and putting a highdensity threetory packed in buildings next to one and twostory detached homes is not aesthetic and is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. The units each have one uh one garage which basically have room for one car and storage. Most families have two cars and guests from time to time and there's very few guest spots for people to park. So that puts that puts upwards of maybe 75 vehicles that need to park on our neighborhood streets. And if this if this development goes through, we not only will not be able to park in front of our homes, it's likely we will need to park one to two blocks away. This is not San Francisco. I used to live in San Francisco and I moved away because I couldn't because it was too hard for me to find a place to park near my house. Please don't approve this and make us live like that. Um, what else did I want to say? Um,

we rely we the citizens of Boise rely on you to uphold the infill guidelines in the comprehensive plan. This is not it. So, I don't see any reason that this devel this infill development needs to have 66 units. The only reason is greed. We need a city that is aesthetic and works for everyone, not just the greedy developers. Thank you. Thank you, Lisa. Um, Ann, you're up next. And then Bart,

I'm Anne Peton. I live at 2515 North 30th Street and I own the property at 315 Moore Street, which is uh the long lot adjacent um to the development. Um I I don't have a lot of extra to add. I just want to support the opposition that's already been presented. I'm very concerned about that fiveway intersection. Um it is a difficult intersection and I feel like something needs to be addressed and uh 66 units um feels uh way too dense um for this corner. It's just a deadend corner in the neighbor neighborhood and it is going to um create a lot of problems. And I know we have a push to have people not have cars and take transportation, but honestly, this is not New York City or LA. I mean, LA is not a good example because it's so spread out, but um it's kind of putting the cart before the horse. I think that we need to be more realistic about um how many cars people do have and where they're going to fit. Um, there are a lot of smaller homes in this neighborhood and a lot of parking on the street that's already used. Um, thank you.

Thank you. Um, so we've got Ann next is Oh, that was I'm so sorry, Ann. My mistake. Bart is up next. And then that's the last person I have on this list. Who's Bart? Is Bart here to testify? right quick. No. Okay. Let the record show he has not. Um, if there's anybody else that would like to testify that has not already signed up, please come forward. Please sit in the front row. Um, and I was going to designate the guy in the pink shirt, but you guys can duke it out on who gets to go first. Okay. Please start with your name and address. You'll have three minutes.

My name is John Becker. Um, my daughter Jesse owns the property at 3021 Westmore where I live and uh, it's adjacent to this property. I sent testimony via email to all of you. I wonder if you for great

and you did see when he when Mr. Wordle dictate says that we refuse the offer for a land swap of sorts that you saw the particulars of that which I found laughable. I mean ridiculous but I guess that's what they're offering. So this is a follow-up testimony followup uh followup to the written testimony. Um, how do we appreciate council responding at the end of the meeting to the concerns I expressed on my written testimony? Um, oh, I'm just learning about how to Where are my photos? But

oh, yeah, there they are.

Oh, so there there's a picture. My main concern right now is um along with theirs is the easement issue for the ditch. The green line that shows the property we boundary we share and then as it goes out down towards the park exit in exits into the park. Um my reading of the regulations, the uh ditch regulations are 7.5 feet on each side of every ditch throughout the city. Let me get back here. Um so my ditch passes through Baka property and then travels uh to the east edge of the project and then it flows under Whitewater Parkway. I'm especially excited about the easement at the far end of our ditch. My neighbors and I have frequent visits visits from the wildlife uh coming to poach our vegetables and this easement will allow them easy access from the park as opposed to it being fenced off if these easements easements do not exist. Um, by the way, that easement also 7 and 1/2 ft between our property, um, would be nice. It's the one they proposed that maybe they'll acquies to. Um, let's see next. Oh, and in the last three, these easements are very important. In the last 3 years, I know of five ditch blockages that have occurred, you know, that took considerable effort, including the last one that ACD just uh spent4 million dollars um cleaning the pipe going under 23rd Street that eventually ended up in my land. Um, and I'm also, yeah, I'm curious to hear

how the developers plan to, uh, keep the water running through their project and over to the neighbors on the other edge of the project. Um, um, what are their names? Wendy and Steve. Let's see. Madam Mayor, how much?

Mr. Baker, that is the end of your time. You are welcome to one more sentence. Jeez, I'll make it a long one. Okay. Um, oh, I feel that this is just a spectacular piece of property in Boise and the neighborhood and the property deserve a much better treatment. Uh, with maybe uh water features that could be added would make it much nicer and more a family feel. Um, I proposed that maybe we could turn this into more open land. Um, people can run their dogs. I'm still Thank you, Mr. Baker. I think that was the end of the time. Thank you so much, Mr. Baker. We appreciate your testimony. Thank you.

Will you respond to my concern? That will be up to the applicant. Okay. Yeah. Thank you so much. I do. And if that seven how how that 7.5 will apply in this case. Thank you. That will be up to the applicant if he wants to address that in their rebuttal. Thank you. Um, okay. Yes, please. Sure. Last time I spoke publicly, I was probably 19. Right. Please pull that down. So, accommodate. Please start with your name and address. You'll have three minutes. Thank you.

Yeah. My name is Michael Schwarz. I live at 30006 West Hester Street. Um, I emailed with Councilman uh Jimmy Hallebertton very briefly. Um, I Let's see. I I like what I'm hearing as far as the just the density is a lot. 66 seems like a lot. not opposed to something certainly open space would be most preferred. Uh I'm here because there's there's a path that exists from Moore Street to Whitewater Road. And I emailed uh Councilman Hallebertton some time ago asking about prescriptive easements. And what this means is that if a neighborhood has been using a piece of land in a notorious way, meaning it's not hidden to the owner and it's done without interruption over a certain period of time, then the neighbors could go to the courts. Not there's no not threats could go to the courts and seek a quick or a a quiet title for the easement. But it's recommended, of course, that we negotiate something. Um, it's a really nice thing to have that path. So, I I don't know what's going on. I don't know the difference between your zones and all this stuff. Um, but I know that the one thing I would really ask is that there is a path from Moore, it's foot path, bike path only, from more street to Whitewater. Um, I'm tempted to share something personal, but I don't know if I should.

Um, I think I'll pass on that part, but um, it's it's meaningful to me because I used to walk there with my daughter who's now deceased and you guys all know her cuz she was the first suicide at Boise in 2023. So, that's a little bit about me. I'm a clinical social worker. I work with a lot of people that work really hard all the time and they're never going to be able to afford a house. Um, to my understanding, housing is in control of this property and you guys want to sell the property to a private entity who wants to create affordable housing. $500,000 is not affordable housing. Getting, you know, granite, marble, three bathrooms in a two-bedroom house is not affordable housing. It doesn't speak to it. So, can private enterprise be moral? Absolutely. This is 66 is a lot. I'm a little scattered here because I brought up EDA, but um look, there are um tons of examples across this country. Dallas, Texas, Richmond, Virginia, Austin, Texas, Eugene, Oregon, right? You know this, right? My time. There is I'll finish my sentence. There is tons of examples of cooperative private owner stuff. A a developer is going to want to do it for their own reasons. It can't be moral.

Thank you. Mary and Jordan was in this Maryanne and Jordan 14 years ago. Thank you. I've got I've got a question for you. Yeah, go ahead. Um, first of all, good to see you. Um, sorry about your daughter. My my daughter Josie went to high school with her, so

know know the situation. Um, and I appreciate you bringing up the idea of the prescriptive easement. That might have been like a year or two ago. I can't remember how long it was. Uh, because I had actually never heard of a a prescriptive easement before. And then that concept, it's really interesting. The way that I'm kind of seeing it is I am seeing a connection from more bicycle and pedestrian connection almost kind of like if 32nd Street just kept on going but for walking and biking only. I know that that's not the same path as kind of what exists now that kind of cuts through the middle. Do you see that as addressing that concern or not addressing that concern? I I you know uh it addresses a concern. I was kind of I float the idea in my own head of like some sort of memorial marker for

for the kids for our community. Um anyways, that's me. So, no, it doesn't have to be that sweet spot, although that is a sweet spot and I think it would be kind of a rebel rousing, you know. Um but as long as there is a foot and bike path. Cool. Cool. Thanks, Michael. It's good to see you. Thanks, Mr. Schwarz. Thank you so much for your testimony. Maryanne Jordan came off the stand and said, "Do you know this story 14 years ago?" You have like You have three words left. What did George say?

Yeah, you're curious. She came on in one of these in one of these groups. She came off and she said, "Forget it. We need to maintain the spirit of this community." 14 years ago. So, be cool if someone else joined. Thank you. Um, that's all I had. I think we have one person online. Um, so please, if you're online, go ahead. Leah, can you hear us? Yes. Can you hear me? This is actually Bob Reinhardt. I'm here with my wife, Leah McMillan. Can you hear us? Yes, Bob. Please go ahead. Thank you.

Thank you. This is Bob Reinhardt and Leam McMillan. We live at 3050 West Hester Street. um that's on the south edge of this development. If you look at the map, it's the third property in from the left. Uh and I'm hoping that the developer can speak a little bit more about their plans for the irrigation ditches. Um this is brought up by one of the neighbors, but I' I'd just like to reiterate, we're very curious about the plans for these ditches that are currently open. Um, and I just wanted to chime in and and co-sign that question. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay, with that I think that's the end of our public testimony. Um, so we'll move back to uh any questions from the commission before we go to the applicant's rebuttal. Thank you. The council I somehow just put myself right back in the planning and zoning. applicant started see when I come here. No questions. Madam Mayor, I do have a couple question for um

in regards to the pathway. Can can we bring up um the map and just see where that pathway is connecting um more street? That good. Okay, that one right there. Okay,

great. Thank you. And then uh second question is do we have anything in our conditions addressing irrigation? So, Madame Mayor, um, council member, with irrigation, they will have to receive approval from the irrigation district before any of those lines can be relocated. One thing to also point out regarding the pedestrian bicycle connection between More Street and Whitewater Park Boulevard. One of the recommended conditions of approval is that all of the sidewalks internal to the site are part of that easement, not just the one direct connection. So, for example, everything shown in blue, various shades of blue will be part of that, as well as some of those sidewalks that aren't colored in in this connectivity plan. Thank you,

Madame Mayor. Can you explain the difference between the shades of blue? Yes, madame mayor, council members. Um, the applicant can confirm this on their behalf, but I believe the blue is the preferred pedestrian routes and what they imagine the like higher desire would be and then the light blue would probably be more of the just the residents utilizing that space.

Mor. Um, so when we have a application come in front of us, a lot of times we have them do bike pedestrian connections. We can see that here. We have them do sidewalk improvements that are on the border of the property. Um, we see that here as well. Often times the complaints are further down the street. So here we've got some neighbors who've brought up some concerns about that kind of funky five-shaped intersection that's, you know, at least two or three blocks I believe down the road. What is our ability as far as requiring improvements that are actually not on the piece of property that's being developed?

Madame Mayor, council members, there is some threshold of being able to require traffic mitigation offsite. However, typically there has to be a substantial justification for that. I know there have been examples previously, for example, off of State Street kind of in the northwest where there have been conditions about adding a traffic light somewhat off from the street frontage. Um, but I believe for example that subdivision has over 100 units. Um, and so that's kind of the nexus there, whereas something like this, I don't know if it could meet that threshold to potentially require that off-site improvement in the highway district size.

Okay. Thank you. Um, and you know, if you don't feel like you have the ability to answer this question, that's okay. So, a lot of people have said, since this is city Boisey property, you know, why don't we develop a park on there or why don't we do this other type of cooperative? Um, but it's Boisee Ada County Housing Authority property. Can you explain the difference between that or our ability to have control and require the land to be used one way or the other? Yeah, Madame Mayor, council members, I can't get into the full details of the dynamic there because I'm just not the most familiar with it. However, the Boise Housing Authority is a separate um entity from the city of Boise. So, we as the city do not have ownership over this property and it is within the discretion of the housing authority to do with what they see fit with the land. And in this case, they've identified um selling it off um to this developer is one of their options that they've been exploring.

Great. And I think we have, you know, one or more uh board members on the authority, but we're that one person isn't the sole decision maker on on what happens with that piece of land. Great. Thank you. Yep. That's all I got. And mayor, Council Member Morales,

um we have a question for you about the um shared maintenance of the private access road. Um I'm sure this isn't the only property that has had a situation like this. Can you talk talk to us about what staff involvement is on figuring that out? What the thought is on the ratio that's been uh presented here and then just kind of you know providing um some sort of analysis of how much that would actually be to another property owner.

Madame Mayor, council members, I would say typically with a shared maintenance situation, you'll usually see those with a private roadway. Typically those costs are spread split equally to everyone who accesses that. So I would say best practice is to have the 167th because if this project or if this landlocked property were to develop in some manner and maintain access that is vehicular as well to the service drive they are or sorry this private alley network they are utilizing that. They are contributing to wear and tear and therefore also would typically contribute to maintenance. Um, that being said, as well with landlocked properties, it is also best practice to maintain some level of access. That being said, City of Boise doesn't typically ever dictate where that access goes. Um, so this was the condition provided by the applicant. Like I said, he's in favor of the way this condition is awarded because it provides that independent access from the other property that's under common ownership. If the property owners of the properties in red and the developer wanted to work out a separate agreement in addition to condition 7, granting an easement similar to what's shown in blue on this screen, you know, that would be considered a private matter. Um, and they're more than welcome to pursue that easement, you know, separately. Um, but that granting of the blue easement would not fulfill condition 7 as it's currently been recommended by the planning and zoning commission. I believe I answered all the questions.

Yeah, I think that that's helpful. So, am I understanding this correctly that if they just got the blue easement that there would be in their mind there wouldn't be contributions that would need to be made for the yellow line on this graphic that 167th possibly. Okay. And then just to confirm the 167th is because we're expecting that that property could only develop one unit. So, it' be the 67th unit on this this development. Madame Mayor, council members, that is correct. Yeah. So it would be 66 units plus this one additional parcel. So 67 you potential users of the network.

Okay. And then another followup here. Um what are the chances that this development's number could change and and then what would happen with this condition in terms of that that calculation in terms of number of units on this proposed development? Uh, madame mayor, council members, I would say if there was a change in unit count, we would probably require a new preliminary plat just for a cleaner record there. Um, I don't anticipate the number increasing just given the configuration and the the dimensions required within our code. Um, that being said, if the developer wanted to modify a proposal in the future, not act on this subdivision should it be approved or the reason should it be approved, came in with a smaller unit count, again, I would imagine we would want to see a new preliminary plat for that. And then potentially this condition could um be another condition of approval on that subsequent preliminary plat with an adjusted number to reflect appropriate shares. Okay, with no more questions, then we'll move. Thanks, Doug. We'll move back to the applicant for a fivem minute rebuttal. Council members, Jeff Wle, address 251 East Front Street, Sweet 310, and also 4250 Haststack, Boise, Idaho 83716. Proud Boyceian. Now uh let's go back to that slide and we will address the question that was posed. There are two colors there. We are amendable to a public access easement for pedestrian and bicycle access over the dark blue. The light blue are landscaped areas that are walkways interior for the benefit of those residents. We do not think that easement should en encumber the light

blue. And from our discussion with staff, I think we were all in agreement as to what the scope of the dark blue easements would be. That that provides connectivity from more street for pedestrians and bicycles and dogs and whatever to get to Whitewater. Now, if we can go back to my my slides, um, you know, I was talking to Mr. Story and I, you know, this is what we do, right? We show up and we give you guys applications and we show you things, but people don't see the work that we do to make sure that your codes are followed and that we've addressed things. So, as we look at this site, this is not what the original site plan that my clients took to staff and brought to me were. The original site plan had houses backing up to those residences on Hester and backing up to the residences that you've heard testify here immediately to the east. We didn't have a good front door with front doors and the faces of these houses and the living space facing More Street. We didn't have connectivity through the site. Now, you know, I'm you guys know I'm a mercenary. This is what we do. But we don't bring you things that a we're not proud of and b that we haven't put the time, effort, and energy in to address the issues. A purposeful decision was made so that houses are aligned to the extent possible in the same direction as the other houses on Moore Street. That on Hester Street there in the in the south southern corner, rather than put town houses back up against that fence,

we can provide a landscaped buffer and the access alley drive there providing separation. We can also orient the front of units to whitewash. So that's not back of house. It's something that's been done in various loces throughout the city to address those issues. We also told our client we needed to green up the center that our owners and our residents needed that mew as their community space. Now, I appreciate the concerns that have been articulated about a community meeting place, but let's not lose sight of the fact that we are providing a 400 foot long path connecting this neighborhood with the ribbon of parks that this community has invested in for over 50 years with the green belt, with Whitewater Park, Esther Simpplot Park, Quinn's pond and accessibility to all of our other parts. As for that intersection at Steuart, that absolutely that is that is a plat problem that has existed in this community for time and memoriam because that's where you had multiple different platundred years ago get platted in different directions and different orientations. But ACD and the city we have solutions to that and we heard from the neighborhood association maybe a traffic circle is appropriate there and that is a relatively simple solution and certainly we will raise and discuss that with ACD consistent with that condition. Now I want to talk about the irrigation in visiting with my client. The reason that we proposed this condition with shared access over

our private alleyway was to ensure that if in the future that parcel were to develop, access could be given. But in Idaho, we're responsible for our ditches and were responsible for our cost of sharing private roads. That's all I was trying to do there was ensure that we gave them a 20 foot wide access easement out to that drive. There was nothing nefarious. Now we have proposed this a 10- foot wide easement if that's what they want. But in visiting with my client, we're amendable to agreeing to both of these conditions. The caveat being, you know, this 10- foot wide easement that is for their pedestrian use only to get back to that parcel to do whatever it is they want to do. That's not the vehicular access because we are not redesigning this site to provide any other additional turnarounds or compliance with with anything else. And there is a specific reason why the language has been drafted and proposed as we have because if that parcel develops we should have you know it's a good use of property to ensure that we have accessibility and we're willing to facilitate that. So I would recommend that you impose condition seven which I numbered six because that's what we did at PNZ and impose this one too. I think they accomplished the same thing. I at the end of the day, we're talking about a neighborhood where this is the last parcel, but this is a parcel that is separated from the rest of the riparian areas by one of our major in infrastructure investments that we've made. It is not pristine habitat.

It is property that has been designated for housing and that is what we're trying to do. I stand for any questions. Thank you. Any questions? Yeah, Madame Mayor. Um, so condition six or whatever you have listed on here. Um, that's the pedestrian easement from the property, private property to the small piece that's right there. Correct. Um, in your proposal here that you would consider, are you asking them to pay for that or are you saying that you No, we will create a 10- foot wide easement providing access. We will not improve it.

Uh, we're not going to provide a sidewalk. We're not going to do anything that we're going to improve it consistent with our development plan, but they will be able to take access over that. Okay, great. Um, have you do you have to go to ACD if this were to get approved today? Would you have to go to ACD then actually get your traffic mitigation plan approved? How's that next step been ordered? uh council president instead commissioner council member Hely Burton. Um the way that PNZ imposed that condition isn't that there's an additional ACD approval as I understand it. It's rather that we and your staff and ACD have that conversation.

So you've already gotten approval from ACD. No. No, we haven't gotten approval from ACD. We have ACD's staff report recommending approval and the modifications and we will take if we get an approved preliminary plan tonight we will go have those conversations with ACD because you will have to get approval from AC. We will have to revise the site plan to address the two changes that they requested to sidewalks.

Great. So we had this um uh application that came in front of us a couple weeks ago on State Street. We denied it a multif family um because they weren't actually having to do any sort of sidewalk improvements. They were sort of interior to a bunch of different houses. And so here you've got some sidewalk improvements on more. Awesome. Um you've got some pedestrian connectivity. Actually a pretty significant stretch. You know that that 400 ft. Awesome. And you've got what I would consider good density in this area, but density that's going to generate some traffic. Um and it's going to generate some traffic at an intersection that's probably not real great over there on Stewart. So can you What do you feel like your responsibility is as the developer at looking at that intersection that is going to now have more traffic um for the folks that are living there as well as folks that are in the neighborhood and your responsibility improving conditions um at that intersection? Uh, Council President Stead, Council Member Hie Burton, um, you raise an interesting question because it's always an issue of off-site improvements. And I would note that ACD is requiring us a to rebuild that segment and widen that segment of Mor Street, modify the sidewalk, and also do the same on Whitewater. So, it's not like there aren't it's not the same situation as you guys had over in Northwest Boise. I think we can have that conversation, but at the same time, and not to diminish people's perception, but the reality is the local street data that ACD did, they have not measured traffic on these streets for 10 years, but the data from 2016 shows the various intersections here interior to this neighborhood that they valued and evaluated were at 3, 400, 500 trips per today.

Now, that sounds like an awful lot to people, but 300, 400, 500 on a local street is well below its level of service. And so, yes, ACD has data on Steuart. We know what that is. We know that there's an issue there. But that's an example of where as an applicant, we're willing to have that conversation, but we all have to link arms and go together, not just have neighbors throw up their hands and go, "Oh, our neighborhood's bad." I I think I' I think I've got your answer there. Um, and it does sound like you are in in agreement to work with our staff and ACD to address some of those traffic mitigation or speed mitigation, safety mitigation concerns. I will tell you that if the city of Boise had its own transportation department, we would just flat out require it. We would use the impact fees from this exact development to make you pay for that intersection. We don't. That's the tricky part. um is that we've got two different agencies that make it really tough when one of the main concerns that we've got coming from people is traffic and parking and limited ability to do there. But I think that um I appreciate that there is an expectation that you agree with to address some of those concerns down the road and I don't need a response from them and that's all the questions I got.

Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. I think we're all set. Um with that then we will close the public hearing and the item is before the commission. the council. You can take the girl out of the commission, but you cannot take the commission out of the girl.

Madame Mayor, council member Corv, I request um that we consider approval of C25-025 at 3099 Westmore Street, the resone of approximately 8.45 four or five acres. Madame Mayor, second. Okay, great. I have a motion to approve uh D25-25 in a second. Um any comments? Council member Corus.

Yeah, thanks um Madame Mayor. Um there's a couple reasons why um I'm looking to approve this um development tonight. I like the idea that um we are looking to build a variety of homes in Boise and from what I hear from a lot of constituents is the need and the ability to want to purchase a home. Um we've seen it done a really good job lately with multif family housing and standing up housing for availability to purchase is one area um I hear time and time again from constituents. So that is the main reason why I'm purching um supporting this tonight. I am concerned about that intersection um down the road. I don't know what we can or can do with ACD on that that fiveway intersection. Uh regardless of this development, that intersection's been there. Um, I appreciate what the builder and uh developer has done to take a look and design and redesign uh to find interconnectivity um within the development and also to the beautiful Whitewater park. Uh has lots of green space and activities for kids and residents to enjoy. It's very walkable, bikable neighborhood with a connection to the green belt as well and the short distance to downtown. Um so that's why I'll be supporting this tonight. Madame Mayor,

Council Member Morales,

I think with this application, planning and zoning did a good job as well and considering the impacts to to neighbors and especially landlocked property. I um you know, I think the right the irrigation rights are well protected. There are multiple avenues uh to pursuing access here and terms of what the neighbors want to do. And so I think that um this property uh this developer is is doing what they need to do to to be right by them. Now, I'll just say I think one of the conversation pieces that's come up a couple times was um that this was meant to to try to bring affordable housing and you know housing is affordable to anyone, right? Different types of housing different people can afford. This one is this is going to be a little bit more expensive uh type of product because it is now a a market rate um housing development and not what originally was hoped to be um a capital A affordable project, something subsidized by um our taxpayers by the by municipalities. And I think what's really important to understand is that there were specific aspects of this property that prevented them from getting to the point they needed to to be able to develop that to make it clear the math uh the support that they had. Part of that is the state of Idaho and the lack of investment that they have in affordable housing. Frankly, if we had housing trust funds that could partner in to be able to help uh capital stacks for development, maybe this would be a capital A affordable um housing project. So, I think that is a failure. Um, but I am hopeful that our our uh local housing authority will be able to use these to find a more suitable location to build capital A affordable housing, something that uh folks at the lower end of the income brackets can can afford. Um, other than that, I think it's an important place for density, access to best-in-class transit, access to some of the best parks that we have in our city. Um, and I'm hopeful that it will these walking paths will be a great opportunity for the community to be able to connect. So, I'll be supporting the motion.

Yeah,

yep. Um, there's not too much to add on top of everything I think that two other council members already said. I just want to make sure that we have some direction for staff that there is an expectation to make sure that we're working with ACD to figure out what um speed mitigation looks like and safety looks like at that intersection. um trying to understand what the future plans are for ACD there currently or if there not any future plans um what makes sense uh for this developer to be accountable to knowing that they have agreed to some levels of mitigation. So I want to make sure that we are addressing that. Um I really appreciate the work in getting uh the bike path and ped um through the development. This is one of those really great situations where a development can come in and actually add a really great amenity um that would have cost the city a ton of money to put in a key, you know, connection there. You were just walking on it when it was a dirt path. Um and that served the need at the time, but having an actual, you know, multi-use path going through this area is a really great connection um for this neighborhood and over uh to Whitewater Park Boulevard. I totally understand like how nice it is to have a big bare lot next to you and and how fun it is to play. Um, and I understand a desire to like, why can't we make it a city park? And the reality is is that we're not going to. Um, we've got a huge park right across the street. We've got our 10-minute walk to a park goal, and that 10-minute walk to a park goal guides where we build our future parks. And by that policy and from an equity standpoint, we aren't going to build new parks in areas that already have access to incredible parks in the green belt and open space. We are going to be prioritizing the other areas that sort of lack that. So again, I understand that want. Um but from an equity standpoint and from a city policy standpoint, that's not where we're going to be spending the limited city funds. We're going to try to find those other areas that have access to those things. Um doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice to have um in every area that we could possibly put one. I think it's great that we actually have an opportunity for home

ownership here. Um at whatever price point it ends up being, it's still uh housing houses that are on the market for people to be able to purchase in an area where it makes a lot of sense. Um, and I would also add this going right in next to CWI, a local community college. Um, lots of employment in the area and public transit. Um, so I think this checks a lot of those those boxes there. Okay. If no further comments, uh, will the clerk please call the vote? Morales? Yes. Nash, yes. Steed, yes. Corus, yes. Hallelbertton, yes. All in favor, motion carries. Thank you. And I would take a motion to adjurnn. Madam Mayor,

Madame Mayor, um we have a motion for the subdivision as well. Thank you. Uh Madame Mayor, I recommend approval of subdivision 20 25-092, uh the preliminary plat for the Rivergate Town Home subdivision at 3099 Westmore Street. Thank you. Is that move to approve? Yes. Thank you. Great. And a second from Council Member Morales. Um I think that the same comments hold for this as well. Um so if there aren't any further comments,

Madam Mayor, I just want to make one quick comment. Um just just for a reflection is that the property that's owned by the Boyisey City Ada County Housing Alliance um over the past years, they had made two due diligent efforts to try to develop this property. Um just want to note that on record and that they were just it wasn't feasible. they weren't able to make the stack and um that's why they had to look for an alternative solution to be able to afford to make affordable housing. Thank you. Uh will the clerk please call the vote? Morales, yes. Nash, yes. Stead, yes. Corus, yes. Ali Burton, yes. All in favor? Motion carries. Okay, great. Now I can take Madam Mayor. Council member Moran,

my youngest birthday tonight, so I'd like to move to adjourn. Terrific. Happy birthday. Um, all in favor I Great. Thank you. We're journed.