ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001/ City of Boise Summary The City of Boise proposes to amend Boise City Code - Title 11 (also known as the Development Code) and the associated zoning map. In addition to the proposed code text amendment, a comprehensive plan amendment is also proposed to ensure the comprehensive plan accurately reflects the new zoning districts. Prepared By Planning and Development Services Staff Recommendation Approval Reason for the Decision Code Text Amendment To successfully implement the City of Boise’s comprehensive plan and define a clear path forward that will allow our city to protect the things that make it special, a modern zoning code and new zoning map are necessary. The proposed development code will provide modern tools to implement the city’s long range planning goals and create a city for everyone by allowing people to have a choice in where the live, how they move throughout the city, where they are employed and shop, and ensure they are surrounded by safe and healthy environments. The proposed code complies with the approval criteria detailed in Boise City Code Section 11-03-04.1 (Code Amendment) and is further described in the project report. Comprehensive Plan Amendment For the comprehensive plan to effectively define the general vision for our community’s long-term future through the creation of goals, objectives, policies, and our Future Land Use Map, the language and terminology within the comprehensive plan, the development code, the zoning map, and the Local Land Use Planning Act must be consistent and support one another. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment provides that clarity and complies with the approval criteria detailed in the Boise City Code Section 11-03-04.16 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment) and is further described in the project report.
This report includes information available on the Boise City Website.
Planning Division Project Report File Number Applicant Property Address
ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001 City of Boise Citywide
Public Hearing Date Heard by
April 24, 2023, through April 27, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission
Author Reviewed By
Planning and Development Services Staff Tim Keane, Director of Planning and Development Services
Public Notification Newspaper notifications published on: Notice posted throughout the City and Area of Impact: Transmittal to all agencies and Neighborhood Associations: Press release to media outlets:
March 24, March 31, and April 7, 2023 April 5, 2023 February 28, 2023 February 28, 2023
Table of Contents 1. Project Information…………………………..…………………………………………
4
2. Development Code……………………………..…………………………………………..
4
3. Comprehensive Plan……………………………...…………………………………….......
4
4. Background and Analysis ………………………………………………….......................
5
5. Approval Criteria……………………………...……………..………………………………
18
Exhibits A. Proposed Title 11 – Development Code B. Zoning Conversion Map C. Redlined Comprehensive Plan D. Diagnostic and Solutions Report E. Community Engagement Summary – Initial Survey F. Community Engagement Summary – Module 1 G. Community Engagement Summary – Module 2 H. Community Engagement Summary – Revised Module 1 and 2 I.
Community Engagement Summary Module 3
J. Comprehensive List of Community Outreach Activities K. Agency Comments L. Public Comments
The City of Boise Planning and Development Services Department acknowledges the ancestral, cultural, traditional, and unceded territory of the Shoshone, Bannock, and Northern Paiute people on which our land use and development decisions are made.
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 2 of 19
1. Project Information Project Information Applicant Representative Location of Proposal Impacted Planning Areas Procedure
City of Boise Tim Keane, Director of Planning and Development Services All properties citywide All planning areas citywide The Planning and Zoning Commission provides a recommendation to the Boise City Council regarding the comprehensive plan amendment and the zoning ordinance amendment.
Description of the Request The City of Boise has made a formal request for a code amendment and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The code amendment proposes to repeal the existing Boise City Code Title 11 (also commonly referred to as the Development Code) and replace it with a newly drafted Boise City Code Title 11. This request will also include a proposal for a newly adopted zoning map as well. To ensure the Boise City Comprehensive Plan (also commonly referred to as Blueprint Boise) reflects the newly proposed zoning districts included in the new Boise City Code Title 11, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is also proposed.
2. Development Code (Boise City Code Title 11) Section 11-03-04.1(B)(7) 11-03-04.16(B)(7)
Description Code Text Amendment Procedures Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedures
3. Comprehensive Plan (Blueprint Boise) Chapter
Chapter 2: Citywide Visions and Policies
Chapter 3:
Themes, Goals, Objectives & Policies Environmental Stewardship A Predictable Development Pattern Stable Neighborhoods and Vibrant Mixed-Use Activity Centers A Connected Community A Community That Values Its Culture, Education, Arts, and History A Strong, Diverse Economy A Safe, Healthy, and Caring Community Places: • Mixed-Use Activity Centers
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 3 of 19
Community Structure and Design
Chapter 5: Action Plan
• Neighborhoods • Commercial/Employment Areas • Public/Institutional Areas • Parks, Open Space, and Conservation Areas • Corridors • Community Gateways and • Special Districts and Master Plan Area Future Land Use Map The Action Plan
4. Background and Analysis The Beginning of Land Use Planning in Idaho and What Guides Us Today Throughout the years, the State of Idaho has passed many legislative bills designed to address planning and zoning. While the first legislation pertaining to land use was established in 1935, there have been several other legislative actions throughout the years that have attempted to address local planning related concerns. In 1973, Governor Cecil Andrus was instrumental in garnering support for land use legislation to address growth and the loss of prime farmland and wildlife habitat. An interim study committee established by Governor Andrus would create a process for establishing land use policies, plans, and goals at the local level. After several years of public input and a significant amount of debate, Senate Bill 1094 became law in 1975. The statute can currently be found in Idaho Code Title 67 Chapter 65 which is commonly referred to as the Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA). The LLUPA requires Idaho cities and counties to develop comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. What are Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Ordinances and What Is Required? A comprehensive plan is a guiding document defining a general vision for a community’s long-term future. It outlines what the community values, how it would like to grow, and how it achieves that vision through principles, goals, policies, and actions to be implemented. Additionally, it includes a “Future Land Use Map” that creates the desired pattern of development and land uses across the city. The Future Land Use Map is not a zoning map; instead, it creates boundaries reflecting only a generalized pattern of development. The LLUPA required all Idaho cities and counties to develop comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances beginning in 1975. The City of Boise had already adopted its first comprehensive plan in 1963. Throughout the years, the City of Boise has adopted five comprehensive plans: 1963, 1978, 1985 and 1997 and the most recent comprehensive plan (commonly referred to as Blueprint Boise) in 2011. Blueprint Boise includes recommendations on land use, housing, transportation, sustainability, community design,
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 4 of 19
economic vitality, health and safety, and other areas that are described and enabled through the city's zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance.
In 2011, the City of Boise finalized its most recent comprehensive plan, Blueprint Boise. As a part of that planning effort, the community was asked what they valued about their community and residents responded resoundingly with “a good quality of life”. While the phrase “quality of life” means different things to different people, Boise residents were able to agree on a vision to grow in a sustainable, efficient, and responsible manner, maintaining quality of life and meeting the challenges of the future. They also agreed on seven guiding principles (Chapter 2), a Future Land Use Map establishing community structure and design policies (Chapter 3), planning area policies (Chapter 4), and an action plan (Chapter 5) that would identify ways for the city to evolve while also protecting quality of life. While the comprehensive plan creates a vision for the future, a zoning code, also referred to as a development code, creates the legal tools to implement that vision. Zoning codes define what can and cannot be built through the establishment of: • zoning districts that will allow or prohibit the uses or activities taking place on the land, • the design of buildings by establishing lot size, building height, setbacks, density, parking and other design and development standards, and • the processes and procedures that must be followed when making land use decisions. The Proposed Modern Zoning Code - Project Timeline and Process The city adopted its first zoning code on August 14, 1966. Throughout the years, the city has amended the code numerous times. The amendments have resulted in a document that is fragmented, difficult to use, and difficult to administer. Many of the foundational components of the code also do not reflect the values and needs of a modern Boise. Because the existing zoning code has not addressed the challenges and modern-day issues impacting the city, the City of Boise released a request for qualifications to prequalify consultants to assist the city with the creation of a modern zoning code in March of 2019. At that time, five consulting firms submitted materials to qualify. The City of Boise then solicited a request for proposals from those five qualified consulting firms. On August 12, 2019, the proposals were opened and carefully considered. The best qualified and highest ranked proposer, Clarion Associates, was selected and through
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 5 of 19
resolution number RES-456-19, a professional services contract was entered into between the City of Boise and Clarion Associates. To create a modern zoning code that would meet the city’s needs today and well into the future, the City of Boise and Clarion Associates created a process that would first assess how the current zoning code was performing and how it could evolve to implement the comprehensive plan and create a city for everyone. Once there was a clear understanding of the goals and priorities for the creation of a modern zoning code, the City of Boise determined it would be best to draft the code in three smaller and more digestible components which are commonly referred to as modules. Module 1 would establish zoning districts that will allow or prohibit the use or activity taking place on the land. Module 2 would establish the design standards that would create the look and feel of the building and site design through the establishment of setbacks, density, building heights, parking requirements, landscaping, and other applicable standards. And finally, Module 3 would establish the processes and procedures utilized when making land use decisions. All three modules would then be compiled to provide a final draft zoning code. And finally, the public hearing process would begin so that final revisions could be made to create a modern zoning code for the City of Boise.
Public Outreach and Community Involvement Associated with the Modern Zoning Code While the creation of the comprehensive plan included a tremendous amount of community input, the City of Boise believes that community input was also vital to creating a modern zoning code. As such, a robust three-and-a half-year community engagement effort began.
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 6 of 19
A Citywide Advisory Committee (CAC) was formed to hear from a wide variety of individuals that lived throughout the City of Boise and its area of impact. The CAC was comprised of 20 individuals who represented a balanced group of community members that live in various regions of our community, are from various age groups and represent a variety of stakeholder interests. The committee served as a sounding board for ideas and provided valuable direction and feedback throughout the process of drafting the modern zoning code. While members of this committee did not vote or have veto power over proposed revisions that were recommended, their opinions were carefully considered and shared with city staff and leadership. The monthly CAC meetings were open to the public and were also recorded and made available on the city’s YouTube channel. In addition to the committee’s feedback, several community members often shared their thoughts and opinions with the committee at the monthly meetings. In addition to this important advisory committee, the city provided numerous ways for our community at large to participate in surveys, meetings, and community conversations throughout the three-and-a-half-year community engagement process. The City of Boise provided in-person and virtual events that were held at a variety of times and locations throughout the city to accommodate various schedules and provide convenient engagement opportunities near where residents live. The Initial Assessments The City of Boise began the process of creating a modern zoning code by seeking feedback from the community regarding the current state of the existing zoning code through an online survey that was open to the public from November 16, 2020, to December 27, 2020. This survey revealed: • 69% of respondents either strongly agree or agree with the city’s vision within the comprehensive plan, Blueprint Boise. • Most respondents indicated they would like more parks/open space, downtown mixed-use, and mixed-use activity centers. • Respondents felt the existing development standards within the code are doing a poor to fair job of helping the city achieve its goals. • Many said the existing zoning code was generally too vague or that they felt standards were applied inconsistently, with too many deviations and variances granted. • Most respondents indicated building and site design (63%), tree preservation (59%), open space (58%), and access/connectivity (54%) as the most important elements to ensure high-quality development. • Respondents also recommended better aligning the zoning code with the comprehensive plan, addressing rapid growth, limiting exceptions and variances, and enforcing rules when they are not followed. A full summary of the results from the initial survey may be found in Exhibit E.
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 7 of 19
In addition to the initial feedback received from our community, Clarion Associates also noted in the Diagnostic and Solutions Report that a comprehensive update of the existing zoning code was needed to align with the goals of Blueprint Boise. It further noted the existing zoning code was: • A poor fit with Boise’s goals regarding community health, walkability, transitorientation, affordable housing, mixed-use development, and neighborhood character protection. • Poorly designed to protect what makes Boise unique through the tools or incentives to ensure the city retains its character. • Not adequately focused on equity and inclusion by adequately addressing needs of all communities. • Not designed for effective citizen engagement. The opportunities for engagement and the degree to which citizen can influence the outcome of development review decisions is unclear. • Unnecessarily complex and vague. Many design and development standards are very detailed and complex, leading to unpredictable outcomes and citizen distrust. • Dated and uneven. The lineup of zoning districts, lists of permitted uses, and development standards are in many cases very dated. • Poorly illustrated and not user-friendly. Once the assessments from the community and our consulting partner were complete, the drafting of the code began. The First Installment of the Code – The Zoning Districts and Use Regulations The City of Boise released the first installment (Module 1) of the zoning code in the spring of 2021 which outlined the proposed zoning districts that would exist throughout the City of Boise and the land uses allowed in these zoning districts. This segment of the code proposed to: • Condense and rename the zoning districts, • Allow new housing types within all residential zones, • Allow small-scale commercial in some residential zones, and • Create new zones that allow mixed-use development. The City of Boise sought feedback on this draft document from May 10, 2021, to June 15, 2021. Feedback was collected via a survey and a series of community conversations. Overall, during outreach we heard frustrations around the removal of R-1A, excitement around allowing more small-scale commercial uses in our residential zones, and residents wanted new zones that allow mixed-use developments. The survey predominantly received feedback from residents who own and live in single family homes from the North and East Ends. Overall, there was concern about how new housing would lead to too many parked cars, traffic, and the loss of trees. The largest concerns when allowing small scale commercial and retail in residential zones were noise levels, proximity to residences, CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 8 of 19
and parking. A full summary of the Module 1 community outreach can be found as Exhibit F. The Second Installment of the Code – The Development and Design Standards The second installment (Module 2) of the zoning code was released in the winter of 2022 which addressed development and design standards. These development and design standards included dimensional requirements (examples include building height, building setbacks, housing density), parking requirements, and incentives offered to developments that provide a community benefit. The segment of the code proposed to: • Update dimensional requirements by reducing the lot size that a residential building (single family, duplex, townhouse) can be built on. • Remove the density calculation requirement of dwelling units per acre in all zoning districts. • Add neighborhood protection standards requiring transitions between zoning districts. • Create new zoning incentives in exchange for energy or water-saving improvements. • Reduce off-street parking requirements for single family, duplex, tri-plex and four-plex’s from two parking spaces per unit to one parking space per unit. • Broaden the building and site design standards to apply to all new development throughout the city. • Establish standards for the safe design of driveways, streets, or pathways that help pedestrians, bicyclists, cars, and delivery vehicles circulate safely and efficiently. • Require site improvements such as landscaping, lighting, signs, and other onsite materials to be kept clean and in good condition. The city sought feedback on this segment of the code from January 27, 2022, through April 9, 2022. Throughout the community outreach, we heard concerns that the approach with Modules 1 and 2 applied “a one size fits all” approach and seemed to direct growth everywhere rather than strategically focusing increased density where there is sufficient public investment. Many individuals also noted that changes to the base zoning would negatively impact the existing overlay districts. While those issues were identified, the most concern expressed was regarding the proposal to reduce parking minimums for all single family, duplex, tri-plex, and four-plex’s from two parking spaces per unit to one parking space per unit. A full summary of the Module 2 community outreach can be found as Exhibit G. Revisions to the Zoning Districts, Use Regulations, and Development Standards Following the outreach efforts for the first and second segments of the code, city staff felt additional modifications were necessary to respond to the community feedback. As such, significant changes were made to the zoning districts and use regulations (Module
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 9 of 19
1) and the development standards (Module 2). The changes included four new goals for the modern zoning code to achieve. The goals were: 1. Have a variety of great neighborhoods. 2. Direct development where there is planned public investment. 3. Have a strategy to produce affordable and sustainable housing. 4. Manage growth along the edges of the city. Community engagement for the revised Modules 1 and 2 occurred throughout July of 2022 and the revisions to the modern zoning code were well received and garnered predominantly positive feedback from the community. Residents were receptive to adding density along our best-in-class transit lines as well as incentivizing affordable housing throughout our neighborhoods. This gave staff confidence that a solid foundation for the modern zoning code existed that we could continue to build upon. A full summary of the Revised Modules 1 and 2 community outreach can be found as Exhibit H. The Final Installment of the Code – Administration and Procedures Community outreach associated with the administration and procedures installment of the code (Module 3) took place from October 13, 2022, through November 16, 2022. During the engagement throughout this segment of the code, the community asked the city to: • Create a development process that will reinforce our city’s vision and goals, • Create a development process that will involve the community and partners early to ensure project concepts meet our desired outcomes, and • Create a development process that will result in excellent projects. Overall, the creation of application types was well received by the public to create a predictable public process for various projects in the city. Neighborhood associations were pleased to be included in the larger projects; however, there was still an appetite to be included in some of the type 1 and type 2 applications or for residents to receive mailed notification. Neighborhood associations also expressed an interest in a predictable time allotment for public hearings so they can properly plan for their allotted testimony time. The city also released a community development tracker which is an online tracking tool to provide real-time information on the location of developments and their current status in the review process. This tracker was very positively received, and residents had input on how to enhance the capabilities for additional transparency. A full summary of the Module 3 community outreach can be found as Exhibit I.
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 10 of 19
Community Outreach Opportunities Overall, the Modern Zoning Code project hosted: • 29 Community conversations throughout our city. • 5 Surveys with approximately 7,000 responses. • 35+ Stakeholder meetings. • 7 Boise City Council presentations. • 12 Planning and Zoning Commission and Design Review Committee meetings. • 23 Citywide Advisory Committee meetings. • Multiple rounds of mailers to Boise residents. A comprehensive list of community outreach activities can be viewed in Exhibit J. Community Partners The city also worked closely with our local media sources to share information with our community and invite them to participate in the process. Over the last three and a half years, radio coverage was provided on KRBX Radio (89.9 FM and 93.5 FM), KIDO 580 AM, Boise State Public Radio, and 103.5 Kiss FM. The project also received television coverage provided by KTVB, KIVI, and Fox News 9 and printed news coverage was provided by the Idaho Statesman, Boise Dev, Idaho Press, Idaho Business Review, Idaho Capital Sun, and Planetizen. Many agencies and associations throughout the community were notified of the proposed modern zoning ordinance, and many agencies assisted the city by participating and/or inviting their memberships to share their feedback with the City of Boise as the modern zoning code was drafted. This included : Ada County Highways District (ACHD), Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), Valley Regional Transit (VRT), City Go, Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), neighboring cities, Ada County, Ada County Parks and Waterways, Bureau of Land Management, Capitol City Development Corporation (CCDC), Fish and Wildlife Services, Idaho Fish and Game, Idaho State Department of Lands, Idaho State Department of Water Resources, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Idaho State Division of Public Works, Idaho Farmland Trust, Central District Health, utility providers, school districts, irrigation providers, Urban Land Institute, American Institute of Architects – Idaho Chapter, Boise State University, Boise/Ada County Homeless Coalition, Sierra Club, Golden Eagle Audubon Society, Idaho Walk Bike Alliance, Conservation Voters of Idaho, City of Boise’s Accessible Parking Committee, Boise Young Professionals, Boise Chamber of Commerce, Boise Realtors Associations, Building Contractors Association of Southwest Idaho, Idaho
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 11 of 19
Association of General Contractors, and various climate action and safe streets advocates. How We Notified the Community of the Application for the Modern Zoning Code In addition to the public outreach that occurred to guide the City of Boise as the modern zoning code was drafted, the city also provided notification of the application and public hearing to the community by: • Transmitting the application and a request for comment to all of our commenting agencies and entities, including registered neighborhood associations on February 28, 2023. • Providing a mailing to all registered neighborhood associations notifying them of an upcoming public hearing. • Publishing a description of the proposal in the Idaho Statesman on March 24, March 31, and April 7, 2023. • Providing a notice to other newspapers, radio, and television stations servicing the city for use as a public service announcement through a press release on February 28, 2023. • Posting notices throughout the city and Area of Impact utilizing an 11"x17" posting that is brightly colored and laminated. • Publishing notice in the citywide newletter known as In The Know on March 2, 2023, and March 10, 2023. • Distributing notice in the Boise City Utility bills for the March 2023 billing cycle. • Providing a dedicated webpage hosted on the City of Boise’s website that includes the proposed development code, the conversion map, and the comprehensive plan amendment proposed with the current development code and comprehensive plan amendments. The webpage also includes documents, community engagement materials and learning guides that have been compiled throughout the last three and a half years. The Modern Zoning Code – The Proposal After a three-and-a-half-year process of drafting a modern zoning code with the assistance of our community and our consultant, the City of Boise is proposing a draft zoning code be formally reviewed and approved through the public hearing process to meet our city’s goals and aspirations. The 611-page document is organized in the same order as it was drafted and is broken up into seven sections. Those seven sections within Title 11 include: • •
11-01 – General Provisions – This section contains the purpose and applicability of the code and its relationship to state laws, policies, and private covenants. 11-02 – Zoning Districts – This section creates the zoning districts located throughout the City of Boise. It includes five residential zoning districts, seven mixed-use zoning districts, three industrial districts, the maintenance of the city’s two open lands districts, as well as Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Specific CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 12 of 19
•
•
•
•
•
Plan districts. In addition to the base zoning districts, some lands may be designated in one or more of the proposed 12 overlay districts that pertain to character, design, or sensitive lands overlays. 11-03 – Use Regulations – This section identifies the land uses allowed in the zoning districts, indicates what type of approval of the use is required, and establishes standards for those uses that mitigate potential impacts and support the unique characteristics of the use in that location. This is done through a table of allowed uses as well as use specific standards. 11-04 – Development and Design Standards – This section provides standards for developing property to ensure the protection of the health, welfare, safety, and quality of life in Boise. It specifically establishes dimensional standards for lots and buildings such as lot size, street frontage, density, setbacks, building height, and open space. It also establishes how land is divided, how buildings and parking are sited and connected with one another, and requirements for parking, landscaping, lighting, signage, assured water supply, as well as the maintenance and operations of each of these standards. In addition to these general standards, it also creates regulations specific to the sensitive lands within the city that include the airport influence area, Boise River, flood hazards, hillsides, foothills, and the Wildland Urban Interface. And finally, this section also includes seven voluntary incentives available to provide public benefit through the increased supply of diverse, affordable, sustainable/resilient housing located near employment, goods and services, and/or the reuse of existing structures that will efficiently use the existing infrastructure. 11-05 - Administration and Procedures – This section of the code identifies the roles and responsibilities of appointed and elected boards and City Officials, departments, and staff in the administration of this Code and describes the review and decision-making procedures of applications for development. This section of the Code is guided by the Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA). 11-06 – Definitions – This section further defines the meaning of a word, group of words, a sign or symbol that is used throughout this code. In other words, it clarifies and further explains what is trying to be conveyed with one or a few short words. 11-07 – Adopted Specific Plans – This section includes the adopted specific plans and regulations associated with Harris Ranch, Barber Valley and Syringa Valley. This section of the code predominantly remains the same.
A copy of the full zoning code is attached as Exhibit A and can also be viewed at the City of Boise’s webpage dedicated to the modern zoning code. The Proposed Zoning Conversion Map In addition to the zoning code text, the code amendment includes a new zoning map because the proposed zoning code will replace the existing zoning districts with creates five new residential zoning districts, seven mixed-use zoning districts, three industrial districts, and two open lands districts. This map proposes to convert the existing zoning districts for each parcel within Boise city limits according to a set of conversion rules. The conversion rules were applied generally to each parcel. Exhibit B includes a link to the
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 13 of 19
conversion map that shows the existing and proposed zoning districts for each parcel throughout the City of Boise. The Zoning Districts The conversion rules for each of the zoning districts assigns one of the proposed zoning designations to each parcel based on its similarity to the parcels existing zoning designation and its location within the city. The table below describes each conversion rule used to create the conversion map. As the rules were applied generally, there are unique factors that influenced how the rules were applied for each specific parcel. When a specific distance for a conversion rule was proposed, such as 1/8 of a mile, every effort was made to convert the parcels that were completely within the specified distance. However, some parcels that were partially within the specified distance may have been included or parcels completely within the specified distance may have been excluded in the conversion if the conversion would end at a physical boundary such a street or alley. If a physical boundary did not exist, usually in areas of the city with disjointed or incomplete street networks, every effort was taken to convert parcels due to another form of boundary, often considering what the border would have been had the street network been consistent or at the boundaries of existing subdivisions. Proposed Districts Residential Districts R-1A Residential: Large Lot
R-1B Residential: Suburban
R-1C Residential: Traditional R-2 Residential: Compact R-3 Residential: Urban Mixed-Use Districts MX-1 Mixed-Use: Neighborhood MX-2 Mixed-Use: General
General Zoning Map Conversion Within 1/8 mile of centerline from a Best-in-Class Transit Route: R-2 All Other: Same as existing (R-1A) Within 1/8 mile of centerline from a Best-in-Class Transit Route or designated “Mixed-Use” in the Boise Comprehensive Plan along a Best-In-Class Route: R-2 All Other: Same as existing (R-1B) Within 1/8 mile of centerline from a Best-in-Class Transit Route or designated “Mixed-Use” in the Boise Comprehensive Plan along a Best-In-Class Route: R-2 All Other: Same as existing (R-1C) Same as existing (R-2) and previous R-1M Same as existing (R-3) Previous C-1, L-O, N-O, PC not identified in rule for MX-3 Previous C-2, C-3, C-4, and T-1 zoning districts, not identified in rule for MX-3 or MX-4
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 14 of 19
Proposed Districts
General Zoning Map Conversion Previous R-O, N-O, L-O, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, PC and T-1 zoning districts within 1/8 of a mile from the centerline from State Street, Fairview Avenue, Vista Avenue, the Greenbelt, and Federal Way Bike Path Previous R-O, N-O, L-O, C-1, C-2, C-3, PC and C-4 zoning districts located within 1/8 mile radius of a Community Activity Center or ½ mile of a Regional Activity Center as designated in the Boise Comprehensive Plan
MX-3 Mixed-Use: Active
Previous C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, L-O, N-O, PC located within the Boise Comprehensive Plan Downtown Planning Area south of Franklin Street to north of Jefferson Street Previous C-2 located on Main Street between 28th Street and 22nd Street
MX-4 Mixed-Use: Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Node MX-5 Mixed-Use: Downtown MX-U Mixed-Use: University MX-H Mixed-Use: Health Industrial Districts I-1 Industrial: Light I-2 Industrial: Heavy I-3 Industrial: Technology Open Land A-1 Open Land Very Low Density A-2 Open Land Reserve
Previous C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, L-O, N-O, PC located on between 17th Street and 16th Street from Idaho Street to State Street Previous R-O, N-O, L-O, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, PC and T-1 zoning districts located within ¼ of a mile of the State Street & Whitewater Park Boulevard, State Street & Collister Drove, State Street & Glenwood Street/Gary Lane, or State Street & Horseshoe Bend Road planned transit stations Previous C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, and R-O zoning districts within the Boise Comprehensive Plan Downtown Planning Area not addressed in the rules for MX-1 or MX-3 Previous U zoning district Previous HS zoning district Previous M-1 zoning district Previous M-2 zoning district Previous T-2 zoning district Same as existing (A-1) Same as existing (A-2)
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 15 of 19
The Overlay Districts The neighborhood, historic, and the Capitol Boulevard overlay districts did not change. The “Downtown Design Review” and the “Design Review” overlay districts were removed and instead all developments meeting the criteria regardless of their location in the city will be required to go through the Design Review process. A sensitive land overlay (Wildland Urban Interface district) was added and mapped accordingly. Proposed Districts Overlay Districts Character Overlay Districts HC-O Hyde Park Character Overlay NC-O Near N. End Character Overlay Neighborhood Overlay Districts BC-O Big Sky Overlay SC-O Sycamore Overlay Design Review Overlay Districts Convert to building design standards applicable to the same use and update the Design Review process CD-O Capitol Blvd. Design Overlay HD-O Historic Design Overlay Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts AI-O Airport Influence Area Overlay BR-O Boise River System Overlay FP-O Flood Protection Overlay HS-O Hillside Development Overlay WUI-O Wildand Urban Interface Overlay
General Zoning Map Conversion Conservation Overlay Districts Previous Hyde Park Conservation District (CHD) overlay Previous Near North End (NNE) Conservation overlay (/CD)
Previous Blue Sky Neighborhood (BSN) overlay Previous Sycamore (S) overlay Design Review Overlay districts Previous Design (D) overlay Previous Downtown Design (DD) overlay Previous Capitol Blvd. Design (C) overlay Previous Historic (H) and Historic District (HD) overlay Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts Airport Influence Area (from Blueprint Boise) Same as existing Same as existing Hillside and Foothills Development Regulations Ada County/Boise Fire Department Interagency Map
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 16 of 19
The Specific Plan Districts Specific plan zoning map designations were carried over without any modifications. Proposed Districts SP-1 Harris Ranch Specific Plan District SP-2 Barber Valley Specific Plan District SP-3 Syringa Valley Specific Plan District
General Zoning Map Conversion Specific Plan Districts Same as existing Same as existing Same as existing
Comprehensive Plan Amendment The comprehensive plan, Blueprint Boise, includes various references to the Development Code as well as language from the Local Land Use Planning Act. To ensure the language and terminology are consistent across these documents, the comprehensive plan amendment includes the following text changes: • References to the existing zoning districts have been updated to reflect the new zoning districts in accordance with the conversion table shown above (see Chapter 3, Community Structure and Design). • The term “Land Use Map” was replaced with “Future Land Use Map” to align with the terminology within the Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA). • Minor spelling or formatting errors were also corrected. A copy of the redlined version of the proposed comprehensive plan has been provided as Exhibit C to identify the specific changes throughout the document. Summary Boise is at a time of growth and change and our existing zoning code is not meeting our current and future needs. This is an incredible opportunity to determine how the City of Boise will deliberately and intentionally grow so we can protect the things we love such as our river, foothills, and open spaces, and provide vibrant, safe, unique neighborhoods where people live, work and play. To successfully implement Blueprint Boise and define a clear path forward that will allow our city to protect the things that make it special, a modern zoning code is necessary. The proposed development code will provide modern tools to implement the city’s longrange planning goals to create a city for everyone by allowing people to have a choice in where the live, how they move throughout the city, and where they recreate. The Planning staff finds the proposed zoning code amendment, zoning map and comprehensive plan amendment to be consistent with the standards for approval established within Title 11 of Boise City Code.
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 17 of 19
5. Approval Criteria and Findings of Fact Code Text Amendment (11-03-04.1(B)(7)) The Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny pursuant to Section 1103-03.4 and this Section. To approve it must be found that the amendment: i.
Complies with and conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, and Blueprint Boise, the city’s comprehensive plan, describes concrete steps the city should take to bring policies, investments, and ordinances further in alignment with the Plan. Specifically, Goal NAC11.3 of Blueprint Boise directs the city to update the zoning code to reflect the goals and policies of the plan. The following is a summary of how the proposed zoning code amendment will comply, conform, and further implement the comprehensive plan. Blueprint Boise Principles & Goals: Blueprint Boise identifies the following vision for Boise: Boise will continue to grow in stature as a world-class city with valued neighborhoods; outstanding natural, scenic, recreational, educational, historical, and cultural amenities; and economic vitality. Boise’s growth will happen in a sustainable, efficient, and responsible manner that maintains and enhances its treasured quality of life, while meeting the challenges of the future. Boise is committed to becoming a more sustainable community by taking steps to enhance the local, regional, and global environment. A sustainable community is one where the integrated economic, social, and environmental systems are structured to support healthy, productive, and meaningful lives for its residents, while laying the foundation for a high quality of life without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This vision is further clarified through the seven guiding principles found in Chapter 2 which include: 1. Environmental Stewardship, 2. A Predictable Development Pattern, 3. A Community of Stable Neighborhoods and Vibrant Mixed-Use Activity Centers, 4. A Connected Community, 5. A Community that Values its Culture, Education, Arts, and History, 6. A Strong, Diverse Economy, and 7. A Healthy, Safe, and Caring Community.
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 18 of 19
In addition to the seven guiding principles, the comprehensive plan also includes a Future Land Use Map establishing Community Structure and Design Policies (Chapter 3), Planning Area Policies (Chapter 4), and an Action Plan (Chapter 5) that identify ways for the city to evolve while also protecting quality of life. Proposed Zoning Amendment While the zoning code is a technical document, the goal of the code is to develop a set of rules that address how people use land within the city that complies with the vision identified in the city’s comprehensive plan. Zoning Districts The proposed zoning district framework establishes five new residential zones, seven mixed-use zones, and three industrial zoning districts, and maintains the existing two open land districts. This framework seeks to direct development where there is planned public investment and maintain a variety of great neighborhoods. The zone district framework implements Blueprint Boise’s vision for growth, specifically related to the principles: (#2) Predicable Development Pattern, (#3) A Community of Stable Neighborhoods and Vibrant Mixed-Use Activity Centers, and (#4) A Connected Community. Mixed-Use Zones The zoning district framework establishes zones to direct development into areas of the city that have existing city services or have been planned to receive additional services. The proposed mixed-use zones direct intensity and further investment into corridors that have the capacity and funding commitments to improve the quality of city services such as State Street, Vista Avenue, and Fairview Avenue, and Blueprint Boise’s-designated Community and Regional Activity Centers. Many of Blueprint Boise’s goals and policies prioritize creating quality mixed-use districts. Policy NAC2.1a 1 specifically supports the creation of the proposed seven mixed-use zones that allow for increases in intensity at various scales relative to the zones’ location within the city. Furthermore, Blueprint Boise provides guidance to ensure that as the mixed-use areas of the city become successful, design treatments prioritize quality sense of place and safety. 2 Section 11-03-02 of the proposed code requires high-quality streetscapes, building design, and amenities for each mixed-use zone. Additionally, the mixed-use zone proposal implements Goal EC8 3 with the creation of the Mixed-Use Downtown (MX-5) zone. This zoning Policy NAC2.1a: Establish mixed-use zone districts suitable for regional, community, and neighborhood activity centers. Include Opportunities for varied intensity and mix of uses based on the type of activity center and location. 2 SHCC5.5: Establish a Crime Prevention through Environmental Design program to promote building and site designs with well-defined and defensible spaces and an integrated mix of uses that provides opportunities for 24-hour activity. 3 Goal EC8: Continue to Enhance Downtown’s Vitality 1
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 19 of 19
district is one of the most flexible in the city which will further direct growth to the area in the city where there has been the most public investment and continue to position downtown to be a place where Boiseans can work, live, and play. Much of Blueprint Boise speaks to the desire to support the evolution of autooriented commercial centers located across the city to pedestrian-oriented centers with a strong sense of place where people can access goods and services. Blueprint Boise policy EC4.1b 4 and the Chapter 3 Future Land Use Map identifies areas across the city that are envisioned to serve adjacent neighborhoods, increase housing options, and establish a more transit-supportive pattern of growth. The proposed Mixed- Use Active (MX-3) and Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MX-1) not only require quality design standards that support pedestrian and biking trips but also permit a greater diversity of uses to allow nearby neighbors to meet daily needs for goods and services closer to their homes. Additionally, the increases in permitted development potential will allow activity centers to turn into community centers where people have the potential to live where they access goods and services. The mixed-use zones further connect land use decisions to the available and planned transportation network. The premise of the creation of the Mixed-Use Active (MX-3) and Mixed-Use Transit Oriented Development (MX-4) zones are to direct the highest intensity developments along corridors that have existing bestin-class-transit. This approach to land use/transportation integration supports numerous Blueprint Boise goals to create a connected community that uses new development to further transit-readiness and future investments in transit (Goal CC3 5, Policy CC3.1b 6, Policy CC3.2a 7, and Policy CC9.1a 8). The creation of seven mixed-use zones allow for service providers, including the city, to plan for and coordinate the efficient delivery and future expansion of public facilities (Goal PDP6 9 and Goal PDP7 10). Understanding the expected level 4 Policy EC4.1b: Promote the revitalization of established activity centers and corridors through the
implementation of planning area-specific policies contained in Chapter 4 and design principles for mixed-use activity centers and corridors contained in Chapter 3. 5 Goal CC3: Promote transit-ready development patterns 6 Policy CC3.1b: Promote development patterns with high-intensity activity centers or nodes consistent with the regional long-range transportation plan, Communities in Motion, and the Blueprint for Good Growth. 7 Policy CC3.2a: Identify appropriate sites for future transit development or expansion. 8 Policy CC9.1a: Promote development patterns that support existing transit routes and that will help build new routes and enhanced service over time. Transit supportive development patterns are particularly important along transit corridors and within mixed-use activity centers where higher densities can be accommodated. 9 Goal PDP6: Plan for and coordinate the efficient expansion of public facilities and infrastructure to serve growth. 10 Goal PDP7: Coordinate with utility providers to develop plans for services and facilities for longterm energy and utility needs for the City of Boise and the AOCI. CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 20 of 19
of service and aligning new growth to areas where planned investment will take place is critical to fulfilling the vision of a predictable development pattern. Blueprint Boise also recognizes the unique opportunities and challenges that come with having Boise State University within city limits. The proposed zoning code supplies further specificity to the boundaries of the Boise State University Campus through unique dimensional standards that are only applicable in the Mixed-Use University zone (MX-U) 11. Residential Zones The changes to the residential zone districts allow for a modest increase in the diversity of housing types with the intent to realize Blueprint Boise’s goal to provide residents the opportunity to seek housing in the neighborhood of their choice. The increase in residential zone flexibility seeks to make sure that all Boise residents can find a home that fits their lifestyle and budget. Additionally, the proposed incentives within the code ensure that new units created will be available to a range of residents. This concept is one of the core tenants of Blueprint Boise’s principle of a predictable development pattern and neighborhoods and activity centers. The proposed zoning code seeks to use residential allowed uses, incentives, and dimensional standards to promote neighborhood variety across Boise. This approach is aligned with many policies in Blueprint Boise that encourage housing choices, facilitating an integrated mix of housing types and price points appropriate to the varied financial capabilities of city residents (Goal NAC7 12, Goal NAC9.1 13, Policy NAC7.3b 14, and Policy EC1.2). The proposed increases in flexibility in the Residential Large-lot, Suburban, and Traditional Zones (R-1A, B, and C) are only allowed if the development addresses Blueprint Boise’s goals and policies: increasing infill in strategic locations or by providing deed-restricted affordable and sustainable housing (Goal PDP1 15, Policy NAC7.3(b) 16). Additionally, the zoning code amendment proposes increasing flexibility in the Compact Residential and Urban Residential zones (R-2 and R-3). These 11 Policy CEA9.4: Work with BSU and the surrounding neighborhoods to ensure that future development along the campus perimeter provides an appropriate transition of land use, scale, density, and design between university uses and adjacent uses. 12 Goal NAC7: Facilitate an integrated mix of housing types and price ranges in neighborhoods. 13 Policy NAC9.1(a): Encourage an adequate supply of safe, sanitary housing at costs appropriate to the varied financial capabilities of city residents. 14 Policy NAC7.3b: Implement standards that require a mix of housing types proportionate to the size of the development and provide incentives (e.g., density bonus or similar) for projects that exceed minimum requirements. 15 Goal PDP1: Identify priority areas and establish incentives for infill and redevelopment1 16 Policy NAC7.3(b): Implement standards that require a mix of housing types proportionate to the size of the development and provide incentives (e.g., density bonus or similar) for projects that exceed minimum requirements.
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 21 of 19
adjustments to both the dimensional table and the table of allowed uses are aligned with Goal NAC7.3 which states the city should allow a mix of housing types and densities by right in areas designated as mixed-use activity centers, compact and high-density residential on the Future Land Use Plan Map. Industrial Zones The proposed code amendment creates three industrial zones which serve as locations where a variety of light, heavy, and high-tech industry can occur. Maintaining these areas for productive industry will be critical to encouraging a strong diverse economy as envisioned in Blueprint Boise (Policy EC1.2 17) Overlay Zones In addition to keeping existing zoning overlays that protect historic resources and unique characteristics of neighborhoods (Goal NAC13 18, NE-CCN 1.2 19), the zoning code proposal includes new overlays that address several elements of Blueprint Boise. The establishment of the Wildland Urban Interface Overlay supports goals and policies for a safe, healthy, and caring community (Policy SHCC1.6 20) as well as the maintenance of the Boise River System Overlay (Policy ES7.1 21) Use Regulations The proposed modern zoning code regulates the land uses allowed in the city’s zoning districts, indicates what type of approval of the use is required, and establishes standards for those uses that mitigate potential impacts and support the unique characteristics of that use in that location. This section includes a table of uses and use-specific standards. Residential Uses Many goals and policies in Blueprint Boise call for encouraging and removing barriers to create a mix of housing types at various price points in Boise residential
17 Policy EC1.2: Maintain a sufficient supply of land that is reserved for a variety of industrial, retail, and office uses such as: heavy and light industrial; high-tech industry; regional retail; specialty retail; incubator retail and industrial; office parks; live-work; and high-rise office. 18 Goal NAC13: Protect historically and culturally significant resources that contribute to community identity and history. 19 NE-CCN 1.2: Establish additional tools, such as overlay or conservation districts, where additional guidance is needed to protect neighborhood character. 20 SHCC1.6: Monitor the effectiveness of provisions to protect structures and prevent loss in the wildland urban interface 21 ES7.1(a)(b) & (c): (a) Implement and periodically update the Boise River System Ordinance to achieve the goals of flood protection, fish and wildlife protection, pollution and runoff control, recreation, and development opportunities. (b) Place priority on the protection of environmentally significant areas and waterways, identified as Class A and Class B in the Ordinance, in that order. (c) Allow for urban interface with the river when there is no demonstrated adverse impact on wildlife habitat.
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 22 of 19
zones (Policy NAC7.2 22, Policy NAC7.3a 23, Policy NAC11.3b 24, Goal NAC9). The zoning code proposal seeks to remove barriers by allowing an array of housing types by-right in the Compact and Urban residential zones (R-2 and R-3) and encourages the provision of not only missing middle housing (three to 12-unit developments) but income-restricted housing in the Suburban and Traditional Residential zones (R-1B and R-1C) by offering incentives. Additionally, the proposed modern zoning code legalizes several “non-traditional” housing types that Blueprint Boise identified as needed including cooperative housing (cohousing), single-room occupancy, and recovery residences (Policy NAC9.4 25). The use table also has been updated to provide more flexibility for live/work options (Policy CEA3.7 26). Most residential uses within the zoning code proposal include “use-specific standards.” These standards seek to mitigate impacts of the proposed use and regulate ways that the development positively contributes to the community. The proposed zoning code includes updates to the use-specific standards for common infill housing types such as triplex, four-plex’s, townhomes, and multiplefamily housing in alignment with Policy NAC3.1b 27 and Policy NAC7.4 28. These standards ensure adequate transition, massing, and bulk as newer housing types are created in existing neighborhoods. Blueprint Boise includes policies that encourage high-density residential development within activity centers and corridors (Policy NAC7.3a, Policy NAC2.2, Policy CC1.1b). In mixed-use zones, higher-density housing types are permitted byright. Additionally, the creation of the “Allowed Use and Allowed or Alternative Form” development application serves as a process incentive to further encourage higher densities in the appropriate mixed-use zones.
22 Policy NAC7.2: Encourage the maintenance and improvement of existing manufactured housing and mobile home developments and allow for new manufactured housing development within the city 23 Policy NAC7.3a: Allow a mix of housing types and densities by-right in areas designated as Mixed-Use Activity Centers, Compact, and High Density Residential on the Land Use Plan map. 24 Policy NAC11.3b: Remove barriers to desirable development patterns, particularly in those areas identified as areas of change in Chapter 4: Planning Area Policies. 25 Policy NAC9.4: Explore the feasibility of nontraditional housing models such as cooperative housing and single-room occupancy units to provide affordable housing and temporary or transitional shelter for those with special needs such as for the abuse, homeless and disabled. 26 Policy CEA3.7: Remove barriers to the creation of live/workspaces for artists through changes in the city’s development and building regulations) 27 Policy NAC3.1b: Develop zoning standards to implement the Infill Design Principles 28 Policy NAC7.4: Develop design standards to implement the principles outlined in Chapter 3 and that promote compatibility between housing of varied densities.
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 23 of 19
Commercial, Public, Institutional, and Civic Uses The proposed modern zoning code implements Blueprint Boise’s goals with changes to the use table for commercial, public, institutional, and civic uses. Updates to where commercial uses are allowed in the city support Blueprint Boise’s goal to locate daily goods, services, and employment closer to where people live (Policy EC6.1b 29 and Goal NAC1 30). This includes the allowance for neighborhood cafes, neighborhood markets, and other small-scale non-residential uses in residential zones. Additionally, the proposed code provides incentives for denser residential development and permits by right commercial and service uses near transit and activity enters to further shorten the distance people need to travel to access important destinations. Within the industrial zones, allowed uses seek to protect existing businesses from encroachment of incompatible or non-complimentary uses that would threaten their viability or ability to continue to operate (Policy EC3.2 31). This includes buffering standards when an industrial use is adjacent to residential uses, prohibiting new residential in industrial zones, and by delineating what uses should be allowed only in the light industrial (I-1) zone to not encroach on limited heavy industrial lands (I-2). Additionally, the update to the use table allows the city to address environmental stewardship goals including permitting small- and large-scale renewable energy facilities (Policy ES12.2b 32), permitting food production (Policy ES13.2 33), and expanding the permissions for urban farming (Policy ES13.1d 34). Development and Design Standards In order to implement the vision and goals of the comprehensive plan while also ensuring the protection of the health, welfare, safety, and quality of life for all Boise residents, the Development and Design Standards were created to address the physical relationship between development and adjacent properties, public streets, neighborhoods, and the natural environment. These standards seek to 29 Policy EC6.1b: Promote home-based occupations, live/work, and “cottage” industries to provide expanded employment opportunities and reduce traffic congestion and overall VMT uses and establish standards to promote compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood context. 30 Goal NAC1: Provide opportunities for residents to meet most daily needs within walking distance. 31 Policy EC3.2: Protect existing business and industrial areas from encroachment of incompatible or non-complimentary uses that would threaten their viability or ability to continue to operate 32 Policy ES12.2b: Identify appropriate locations for and allow for small- and large-scale renewable energy facilities 33 Policy ES13.2: Encourage food production in the city through targeted zoning amendments that address allowed uses, their location, and use conditions to ensure compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. 34 Policy ES13.1d: Provide incentives for the incorporation of community gardens and urban agriculture in residential development.
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 24 of 19
cohesively integrate the uses within zoning districts, facilitate transitions between zoning districts, and protect sensitive environmental resources, both within the city and on the edges. The Development and Design standards implement Blueprint Boise’s vision for growth, specifically related to the principles: (#1) Environmental Stewardship, (#2) Predicable Development Pattern, (#3) A Community of Stable Neighborhoods and Vibrant Mixed-Use Activity Centers, (#4) A Connected Community, and (#6) A Strong Diverse Economy, as well as the extensive design principles outlined in Blueprint Boise’s Chapter 3: Community Structure and Design. Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions The Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions facilitate a variety of neighborhoods and housing options by providing standards for compatibility across different housing types and uses and a compact, sustainable, and transit-supportive development pattern envisioned in Blueprint Boise (Policy NAC3.1b 35, Policy CC1.1a 36). In addition to the dimensional standards table, the code outlines detailed standards for residential small lots and neighborhood transition standards that are reflective of the infill design principles in Blueprint Boise’s Chapter 3: Community Structure and Design (Policy NAC7.4 37). It also provides flexibility through a list of acceptable exceptions and encroachments for unique design and sustainable practices, such as raised-bed gardens and rooftop solar panels (Policy ES12.2 38). A fundamental feature of the modern zoning code is the use of affordability and sustainability incentives to direct development where there is existing infrastructure and planned investment that supports a compact, sustainable, and transit-friendly pattern of development throughout the city while also providing a variety of housing options at a range of prices. By tying development potential to both affordability and sustainability, the code meaningfully and comprehensively supports many goals and policies of Blueprint Boise in the following ways: • Reduce water and energy consumption in new development by requiring efficient appliances and building practices (Goal ES9 39). • Location-specific incentives that encourage infill and redevelopment in areas that can be best served by and support the health of the public
35Policy NAC3.1b Develop zoning standards to implement the Infill Design Principles.
36 Policy CC1.1a Encourage infill development in order to avoid costly extensions of transportation
facilities and to minimize travel distances.
37 Policy NAC7.4 Develop design standards to implement the principles outlined in Chapter 3 and
that promote compatibility between housing of varied densities. 38 Policy ES12.2a Remove regulatory barriers to renewable energy usage and production in new development and the retrofit of existing development; Identify appropriate locations for and allow for small- and large-scale renewable energy facilities; Establish development standards to mitigate potential impacts from renewable energy facilities; Establish guidelines for CC&Rs that prevent barriers to sustainable building design and energy-saving installations. 39 Goal ES9: Reduce water and energy consumption in new and existing development.
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 25 of 19
•
• •
transportation system, as well as pathways and bicycle networks (Goal PDP1 40). Adaptive-reuse incentives that allow for flexibility in parking, setbacks, and density limits to encourage the rehabilitation of existing housing stock and maintain the existing character of neighborhoods rather than demolishing and rebuilding (Goal NAC4 41, Goal ES5 42). Provide incentives targeted at a range of AMI levels (60%, 80%, and 120%) and tailored for specific zoning districts throughout the city (Goal NAC9 43). Support community resilience during cyclical economic downturns by requiring deed-restricted affordability requirements for a period of 50 years and expanding possibilities for what homeowners can do with their property (Goal EC1 44).
Subdivision Standards When new lots are created, their layout and design have an impact on block patterns, sidewalk networks, stormwater drainage, sensitive lands, tree canopy, and other key aspects of the city’s integrated physical design. The proposed code’s Subdivision Standards, which would now apply to the creation of any new lot, are meant to ensure that both new neighborhoods and infill developments are consistent with the goals, policies, and design principles of the comprehensive plan by demonstrating assured water supply, providing adequate infrastructure, and contributing to a complete street network that safely accommodates all modes of transportation (Goal PDP5 45, Goal CC2 46). These required improvements include sidewalk installation, the use of non-potable water for landscape irrigation, and providing the necessary easements for utilities and implementation of the Boise Pathways Master Plan. Blueprint Boise and the neighborhood plans that have been adopted by reference frequently emphasize the importance of filling gaps in neighborhood sidewalk networks and requiring these improvements of new developments (Policy CC7.1a 47), as well as promoting the use of separate
40 Policy PDP1: Identify priority areas and establish incentives for infill and redevelopment. 41 Goal NAC4: Encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing housing stock. 42 Goal ES5: Reduce the amount of solid waste being landfilled or incinerated.
43 Goal NAC9: Assist the provision of housing for low- and moderate-income households
throughout the community.
44 Goal EC1: Minimize the impacts of cyclical economic downturns on the city and its
residents.
45 Policy PDP5: Require adequate public facilities and infrastructure for all development.
46 Goal CC2: Create an interconnected network of complete streets that serve all modes of
transportation. 47 Policy CC7.1a: Connect destinations with pedestrian facilities and encourage walking for a wide variety of trips by adding sidewalk connections, restoring damaged sidewalks, and requiring sidewalks as part of development approvals. CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 26 of 19
distribution systems for irrigation in new developments to make efficient use of critical resources (Policy ES14.3 48) Sensitive Lands Blueprint Boise’s principle of Environmental Stewardship provides guidance on how the city can protect and enhance the natural environment as it grows. Sensitive Lands standards seek to protect environmental resources such as the Boise River floodplain and foothills, as well as sensitive areas on the city’s edges where human activity is at higher risk of disrupting wildlife and heightened wildfire safety precautions are needed (Goal ES7 49). These standards also protect critical economic resources such as the airport from potential conflicting uses (Policy CC6.1b 50). Building Design The proposed modern zoning code includes requirements that relate to building design to reinforce existing and desired development patterns and building features. These high-level design requirements focus on promoting high-quality, pedestrian-oriented design within the public realm (Goal NAC12). This aligns with many of the design principles found in Blueprint Boise that seek to encourage new development that provides pedestrian and street connectivity, architectural variety, and desired mix of uses. Specifically, the proposed code requires all new commercial and multiple family dwellings to bring buildings close to the street, place parking behind or to the side of buildings, and provide clear pedestrian connections with generous sidewalk widths (Principle GDP-MU.4 51). Access and Connectivity The proposed modern zoning code includes new requirements to address access and connectivity to support comfortable walking, cycling, transit, and other active modes of transportation. Many of the required improvements in the code focus on requiring high-quality streetscapes, detached sidewalks, and safe streets. Blueprint Boise establishes the goal to become a connected city that provides safe and efficient facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, and transit through thoughtful land use decisions. The proposed code will now require developments to build pathways if identified in the Boise Pathways Master Plan and will require
Policy ES14.3: Promote the use of separate distribution systems for irrigation in new developments. 49 Goal ES7: Protect and Enhance the natural environment. 50 Policy CC6.1b: Adopt land use, zoning, and subdivision standards necessary to prevent the establishment of uses that are noise-sensitive or conflict with safe operations of the airport. 51 Principle GDP-MU.4(a): Design sites and orient buildings with an emphasis on the character and safety of the pedestrian realm: Bring buildings close to the street; Place parking behind or to the side of buildings; and provide clear pedestrian connections with generous sidewalk widths, lowlevel lighting, and outdoor gathering spaces. 48
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 27 of 19
detached sidewalks as part of development approvals (Policy CC7.1a 52 and Goal CC7 53). In addition to the requirement of sidewalks, the proposed code requires enhanced sidewalk width and design treatments when along arterials, collectors, or adjacent to mixed-use zone (Policy EC4.1 54). Furthermore, the proposed code implements Blueprint Boise by requiring all new development to provide for nonmotorized travel internal to the site, this includes elements like pedestrian pathways, easy access to the site from any transit stops, and marked crossings (Policy CC9.2d 55). Parking and Loading Blueprint Boise establishes many goals and policies that seek to use thoughtful land use to reduce transportation’s impact on climate change, create a more comfortable realm for non-motorized travel, and to support transit trips (Policy ES 1.4 56) The code seeks to implement these goals by modifying its general approach to parking and loading requirements. The proposed code establishes parking maximums for most commercial uses and reduces the parking minimums for some residential developments (Policy CC4.4c 57 and Policy CC4.4a 58). The proposed code promotes less carbon emissions generating travel by including new standards for electric vehicle parking spaces and bicycle parking (Goal CC1 59 and Policy CC8.2b 60). Landscaping, Fences, Walls, and Screening Blueprint Boise recognizes the integral role of trees and other natural amenities in environmental stewardship, public health, and economic vitality. The proposed code’s landscaping standards are intended to address the multiple benefits and functions that quality landscaping can provide: protecting and growing the urban tree canopy, increasing pedestrian comfort and safety, reducing negative 52 Policy CC7.1a: Connect destinations with pedestrian facilities and encourage walking for a wide
variety of trips by adding sidewalk connections, restoring damaged sidewalks, and requiring sidewalks as part of development approvals 53 Goal CC7: Enhance pedestrian connectivity and comfort 54 Policy EC4.1: Promote a positive image of the city to visitors by creating an attractive, wellmaintained public realm through enhanced streetscapes, particularly along gateways and corridors identified in Chapter 3: Community Structure and Design. 55 Policy CC9.2d: Provide clear pedestrian access to transit stops through the application of the Mixed-Use and Corridor Design Principles contained in Chapter 3. 56 Policy ES 1.4: Reduce carbon emissions from vehicles and discourage development patterns that rely solely on vehicles for transportation in an effort to reduce vehicle miles traveled. 57 Policy CC4.4c: To reduce the amount of parking required, establish maximum parking requirements for all non-residential uses. Parking standards should recognize: the availability and capacity of transit service; availability of alternative commute modes; access to off-site and onstreet parking facilities; and the availability of joint-use parking in mixed-use areas. 58 Policy CC4.4a: Create incentives, such as reduced-parking requirements or deferred development impact fees, when specific TDM parking techniques are implemented. 59 Goal CC1: Minimize the impact of transportation systems on climate change. 60 Policy CC8.2b: Promote the provision of safe, secure, appropriately designed and conveniently located bicycle parking and shower/locker/storage facilities. CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 28 of 19
impacts from the urban heat island effect and impervious surfaces, enhancing the aesthetics of the public realm, conserving water and other natural resources, and providing more beneficial habitat for native vegetation and pollinators. Updates to these standards support the goals and policies of Blueprint Boise in the following ways: • Water conservation and xeriscaping standards (Goal ES2 61, Policy ES9.1 62). • Street-frontage landscaping between the sidewalk and the street that provides protection to pedestrians and strengthens requirements for the use of Class II and III trees (Policy EC 4.1 63). • Additional buffering requirements on collectors and arterials (Policy CC72.b 64). • Additional standards for tree mitigation, tree species diversity, protection of trees during construction, and the use of Class III trees in parking lot landscaping to provide adequate canopy coverage of paved areas. (Goal ES6 65) The proposed modern zoning code will support, and over time help achieve, each of the seven guiding principles, the community structure and design policies, and the action items. ii.
Is required for public convenience or general welfare. The code amendment is necessary for public convenience and general welfare to create the zoning tools and mechanisms needed to allow the City of Boise to grow in a sustainable, efficient, and responsible manner, maintain quality of life and meet the challenges of the future regarding land use, housing, transportation, sustainability, community design, economic vitality and health and safety.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Section 11-03-04.16.B(7)) a)
Is required for the public convenience or necessity, or for the general welfare of the community.
61 Goal ES2: Protect surface water quality by enhancing natural watershed processes and promoting efficient water use. 62 Promote water conservation through ordinance revisions and public education that encourage the use of low-flow plumbing fixtures, drought-tolerant and native vegetation, and other lowimpact site development techniques in new development and rehabilitation projects. 63 Policy EC 4.1: Promote a positive image of the city to visitors by creating an attractive, wellmaintained public realm through enhanced streetscapes, particularly along gateways and corridors identified in Chapter 3: Community Structure and Design. 64 Policy CC7.2b: Minimize pedestrian conflict with vehicles by providing buffers between the sidewalk and automobile traffic and by combining adjacent property driveways to limit curb-cuts. 65 Goal ES6: Promote a healthy urban forest to enhance the city’s environment, air quality, and
appearance.
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 29 of 19
The comprehensive plan amendment is necessary for public convenience and general welfare to ensure that the City of Boise has a comprehensive plan that uses language and terminology that is consistent with the development code, the zoning map and the Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA). b)
Is necessary to address changes in conditions within the community that have occurred since the Boise City Comprehensive Plan was adopted or is necessary to correct one or more goal, objective, or policy that exist in the plan; The modern zoning code was drafted after the current comprehensive plan was adopted. To ensure that the City of Boise has a comprehensive plan that uses language and terminology that is consistent with the development code, the zoning map and the Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA), a comprehensive plan amendment is necessary.
c)
Is in compliance with and will further the goals, objectives, and policies of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan; The comprehensive plan amendment will provide consistency with the development code, the zoning map, and the Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA) and will further the vision and intent of the comprehensive plan by helping to implement goals, objectives, and policies located within the document.
d)
Will not create inconsistencies between the goals, objectives, and policies within or between any chapter of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan; and The comprehensive plan amendment will not create inconsistencies between the goals, objectives, and policies within or between any chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. In fact, the goals, objectives, and policies will not be modified by the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. The proposal makes minor text modifications only that will: o Update the existing zoning districts to reflect the zoning districts established with the modern zoning code. o The term “Land Use Map” will be replaced with “Future Land Use Map” to align with the terminology within the Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA). o Minor spelling or formatting errors will be corrected.
e)
Will not place an undue burden on transportation or other public facilities in the planning area and does not adversely impact the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services. The comprehensive plan amendment will not place an undue burden on transportation or other public facilities in the planning area and does not adversely impact the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services.
CPA23-00001 & ZOA23-00001 | P & Z Commission | April 24 through April 28, 2023 | Page 30 of 19
BOISE IDAHO
Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft FEBRUARY 2023
In partnership with:
Table of Contents Chapter 11-01 General Provisions .......................................................................................... 1 11-01-01. Title and Authority ................................................................................................... 1 1. 2.
Title................................................................................................................................... 1 Authority ......................................................................................................................... 1
11-01-02. Effective Date.......................................................................................................... 1 11-01-03. Purpose.................................................................................................................... 1 11-01-04. Applicability............................................................................................................ 1 1. 2.
Uniform Applicability ..................................................................................................... 1 Public Services Excepted ............................................................................................. 1
11-01-05. Area of City Impact ................................................................................................ 2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Area of City Impact Boundary Map ........................................................................... 2 Annexation Area ........................................................................................................... 2 Applicable Plan Policies and Ordinances .................................................................. 2 Coordination of Plan Amendments, Code Amendments, and Zoning Applications ................................................................................................................... 3 Renegotiation ................................................................................................................ 3
11-01-06. Relationship to Other Laws and Regulations ........................................................ 3 1. 2.
Other Laws ..................................................................................................................... 3 Most Restrictive Regulations Govern ........................................................................... 3
11-01-07. Relationship to City Policies and Best Practices .................................................. 4 11-01-08. Relationship to Private Covenants ........................................................................ 4 11-01-09. Transition from Prior Zoning Code ......................................................................... 4 11-01-010.
Severability ..................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts ................................................................................................ 6 11-02-01. Zoning Districts Established .................................................................................... 6 1. 2.
3.
Summary Table of Zoning Districts ............................................................................... 6 Official Zoning Map ....................................................................................................... 6 A. Incorporation of Map ............................................................................................. 6 B. Rules for Interpretation of Boundaries .................................................................. 6 C. Amendments to the Official Zoning Map ............................................................ 7 Organization of this Chapter ........................................................................................ 7 A. Base Zoning Districts ................................................................................................ 7 B. Overlay Districts ....................................................................................................... 7
11-02-02. Residential Zoning Districts..................................................................................... 9 1.
2.
R-1A Residential: Large Lot ........................................................................................... 9 A. Purpose..................................................................................................................... 9 B. Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections ...................................... 9 C. Dimensional Standards ......................................................................................... 10 D. Streetscape Standards ......................................................................................... 11 R-1B Residential: Suburban ......................................................................................... 12
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
ii
3.
4.
5.
A. Purpose................................................................................................................... 12 B. Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections .................................... 12 C. Dimensional Standards ......................................................................................... 13 D. Streetscape Standards ......................................................................................... 14 R-1C Residential: Traditional ....................................................................................... 15 A. Purpose................................................................................................................... 15 B. Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections .................................... 15 C. Dimensional Standards ......................................................................................... 16 D. Streetscape Standards ......................................................................................... 17 R-2 Residential: Compact........................................................................................... 18 A. Purpose................................................................................................................... 18 B. Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections .................................... 18 C. Dimensional Standards ......................................................................................... 19 D. Streetscape Standards ......................................................................................... 20 R-3 Residential: Urban ................................................................................................. 21 A. Purpose................................................................................................................... 21 B. Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections .................................... 21 C. Dimensional Standards ......................................................................................... 22 D. Streetscape Standards ......................................................................................... 23
11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts ................................................................................... 24 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
MX-1 Mixed-Use Neighborhood ................................................................................. 24 A. Purpose................................................................................................................... 24 B. Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections .................................... 24 C. Dimensional Standards ......................................................................................... 25 D. Form and Layout Standards ................................................................................ 26 MX-2 Mixed-Use: General ........................................................................................... 29 A. Purpose................................................................................................................... 29 B. Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections .................................... 29 C. Dimensional Standards ......................................................................................... 30 D. Form and Layout Standards ................................................................................ 30 MX-3 Mixed-Use: Active .............................................................................................. 32 A. Purpose................................................................................................................... 32 B. Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections .................................... 32 C. Dimensional Standards ......................................................................................... 33 D. Form and Layout Standards ................................................................................ 34 MX-4 Mixed-Use: Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Node ............................... 38 A. Purpose................................................................................................................... 38 B. Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections .................................... 38 C. Dimensional Standards ......................................................................................... 39 D. Form, Layout, and Design Standards ................................................................. 40 MX-5 Mixed Use: Downtown ...................................................................................... 44 A. Purpose................................................................................................................... 44 B. Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections .................................... 44 C. Dimensional Standards ......................................................................................... 45 D. Form and Design Standards ................................................................................ 46 E. Additional Standards ............................................................................................ 48 MX-U Mixed-Use: University ......................................................................................... 49 A. Purpose................................................................................................................... 49
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
iii
7.
B. Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections .................................... 49 C. Dimensional Standards ......................................................................................... 50 D. Streetscape Standards ......................................................................................... 51 E. Additional Standards ............................................................................................ 51 MX-H Mixed-Use: Health ............................................................................................. 52 A. Purpose................................................................................................................... 52 B. Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections .................................... 52 C. Dimensional Standards ......................................................................................... 53 D. Streetscape Standards ......................................................................................... 54
11-02-04. Industrial Zoning Districts ...................................................................................... 55 1.
2.
1.
I-1: Light Industrial ........................................................................................................ 55 A. Purpose................................................................................................................... 55 B. Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections .................................... 55 C. Dimensional Standards ......................................................................................... 56 D. Streetscape Standards ......................................................................................... 57 E. Additional Standards ............................................................................................ 57 I-2: Heavy Industrial ..................................................................................................... 58 A. Purpose................................................................................................................... 58 B. Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections .................................... 58 C. Dimensional Standards ......................................................................................... 59 D. Streetscape Standards ......................................................................................... 60 E. Additional Standards ............................................................................................ 60 I-3: Industrial Technology ............................................................................................ 61 A. Purpose................................................................................................................... 61 B. Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections .................................... 61 C. Dimensional Standards ......................................................................................... 62 D. Streetscape Standards ......................................................................................... 63 E. Additional Standards ............................................................................................ 63
11-02-05. Open Land Zoning Districts .................................................................................. 65 1.
2.
A-1 Open Land Very Low Density .............................................................................. 65 A. Purpose................................................................................................................... 65 B. Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections .................................... 65 C. Dimensional Standards ......................................................................................... 66 D. Streetscape Standards ......................................................................................... 67 A-2 Open Land Reserve ............................................................................................. 68 A. Purpose................................................................................................................... 68 B. Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections .................................... 68 C. Dimensional Standards ......................................................................................... 69 D. Streetscape Standards ......................................................................................... 70
11-02-06. PUD: Planned Unit Development ......................................................................... 71 1. 2.
3. 4.
Purpose ......................................................................................................................... 71 Eligibility Criteria ........................................................................................................... 71 A. Minimum Size of Planned Development ............................................................ 71 B. Mandatory Eligibility Requirements ..................................................................... 71 C. Additional Eligibility Requirements ...................................................................... 72 Identification of Base Districts from Which Flexibility is Requested ........................ 72 Areas of Flexibility Permitted ...................................................................................... 72
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
iv
11-02-07. Overlay Districts .................................................................................................... 73 1.
2.
3.
Character Overlay Districts ........................................................................................ 73 A. Purpose................................................................................................................... 73 B. Designation of Character Overlay Districts ....................................................... 73 C. Establishment of Character Overlay District ...................................................... 73 D. HC-O: Hyde Park Character Overlay ................................................................. 73 E. NC-O: Near North End Character Overlay ........................................................ 75 F. BC-O: Big Sky Overlay ........................................................................................... 77 G. SC-O: Sycamore Overlay ..................................................................................... 80 Design Review Overlay Districts ................................................................................. 84 A. Purpose................................................................................................................... 84 B. Designation of Design Review Overlay Districts ................................................ 84 C. Establishment of Design Review Overlay District............................................... 84 D. CD-O: Capitol Boulevard Design Overlay ......................................................... 84 E. HD-O: Historic Design Overlay ............................................................................. 90 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts ................................................................................ 93 A. Purpose................................................................................................................... 93 B. Designation of Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts................................................ 93 C. Establishment of Character Overlay District ...................................................... 93 D. AI-O Airport Influence Area Overlay .................................................................. 94 E. BR-O: Boise River System Overlay ........................................................................ 95 F. FP-O Flood Protection Overlay .......................................................................... 106 G. HS-O: Hillside Development Overlay ................................................................ 116 H. WUI-O: Wildland Urban Interface Overlay ....................................................... 123
11-02-08. Specific Plan Districts...........................................................................................129 1. 2.
3. 4. 5. 6.
Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 129 Scope .......................................................................................................................... 129 A. Examples of Specific Plans ................................................................................. 129 B. Specific Plan Elements ....................................................................................... 129 Land Use Controls ...................................................................................................... 129 Initiation ...................................................................................................................... 129 Minimum Area Standards ......................................................................................... 130 Additional Eligibility Requirements ........................................................................... 130 A. Natural Systems ................................................................................................... 130 B. Housing Affordability........................................................................................... 130 C. Sustainable Building Design ............................................................................... 130
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations ...........................................................................................131 11-03-01. General ................................................................................................................131 1. 2. 3.
Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 131 Organization of the Table......................................................................................... 131 Abbreviations Used in the Table .............................................................................. 131 A. Allowed Uses ........................................................................................................ 131 B. Allowed Subject to Use-Specific Standards..................................................... 131 C. Conditional Uses.................................................................................................. 131 D. A/C Uses ............................................................................................................... 132 E. Prohibited Uses .................................................................................................... 132 F. Symbols ................................................................................................................ 132
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
v
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Use for Other Purposes Prohibited ........................................................................... 132 Multiple Uses ............................................................................................................... 132 Previously Allowed Uses ............................................................................................ 133 Classification of New and Unlisted Uses ................................................................. 133 All Licenses and Permits Required ........................................................................... 133 Industrial and Heavy Commercial Uses .................................................................. 134
11-03-02. Table of Allowed Uses .........................................................................................134 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards .......................................................................................146 1.
2.
3.
4.
General Standards .................................................................................................... 146 A. Principal and Accessory Uses ............................................................................ 146 B. Additional Standards for Accessory Uses ......................................................... 146 Residential Uses .......................................................................................................... 148 A. General Standards.............................................................................................. 148 B. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) .......................................................................... 149 C. Dwelling, Single-Family Detached .................................................................... 150 D. Dwelling, Cottage Village .................................................................................. 150 E. Dwelling, Single-Family Attached ..................................................................... 151 F. Dwelling, Live/Work ............................................................................................. 151 G. Dwelling, Duplex, Triplex, or Fourplex ................................................................ 152 H. Dwelling, Multiple-Family .................................................................................... 155 I. Group Home, Federal Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) Small and Large156 J. Livestock and Animals, Accessory .................................................................... 157 K. Manufactured Home ......................................................................................... 158 L. Manufactured Home Community .................................................................... 158 M. Assisted Living Facility, Continuing Care Retirement Facility, Convalescent or Nursing Home, Fraternity or Sorority House, and Recovery Residence ........ 160 N. Dwelling, Co-Housing ......................................................................................... 160 O. Home Occupation, Other ................................................................................. 161 Public, Institutional and Civic Uses .......................................................................... 163 A. Adult or Child Daycare Uses .............................................................................. 163 B. Cemetery, Mortuary or Mausoleum ................................................................. 164 C. Jail or Detention Facility ..................................................................................... 164 D. College or Other Institution of Higher Education ............................................ 165 E. School ................................................................................................................... 165 F. Trade or Vocational School ............................................................................... 165 Commercial Uses ....................................................................................................... 166 A. Animal Day Care or Kennel ............................................................................... 166 B. Beekeeping, Accessory ..................................................................................... 166 C. Urban Farm .......................................................................................................... 167 D. Wireless Communication Facilities .................................................................... 168 E. Brewpub, Micro-distillery, or Micro-winery........................................................ 175 F. Food Truck, Accessory ........................................................................................ 176 G. Food Truck Court ................................................................................................. 176 H. Neighborhood Café ........................................................................................... 177 I. Sidewalk Café, Accessory ................................................................................. 177 J. Bed and Breakfast .............................................................................................. 179 K. Recreational Vehicle Park ................................................................................. 179
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
vi
L.
5.
6. 7.
Financial Establishment, Medical or Dental Clinic, Personal and Business Services ................................................................................................................ 180 M. Office .................................................................................................................... 180 N. Firing Range, Indoor ............................................................................................ 180 O. Retail Sales, Neighborhood ............................................................................... 180 P. Retail Sales Small, Medium, or Large ................................................................ 181 Q. Sexually Oriented Business ................................................................................. 181 R. Drive-Through Facility ......................................................................................... 183 S. Electric Vehicle Charging Station ..................................................................... 185 T. Service Station ..................................................................................................... 185 U. Vehicle Repair, Major and Minor ...................................................................... 185 V. Vehicle and Equipment Sales, Rental and Leasing, Light and Heavy ......... 185 Industrial Uses ............................................................................................................. 186 A. Artisan Industry .................................................................................................... 186 B. Light Industry and Heavy Industry ..................................................................... 186 C. Mining and Extraction ........................................................................................ 186 D. Outdoor Storage ................................................................................................. 187 E. Self-Service Storage ............................................................................................ 187 F. Trucking Terminal ................................................................................................. 187 G. Wholesale or Warehouse, Small and Large ..................................................... 187 H. Renewable Energy Facility ................................................................................ 188 I. Utility Facility, Minor ............................................................................................. 188 J. Composting Facility ............................................................................................ 189 K. Junkyard, Vehicle Salvage ................................................................................ 189 L. Recycling Collection Facility ............................................................................. 189 M. Solid Waste Transfer Facility ............................................................................... 190 Accessory Uses and Structures ................................................................................ 190 A. Unlisted Uses Accessory to an Allowed Use ..................................................... 190 Temporary Uses .......................................................................................................... 190 A. General ................................................................................................................ 190 B. Construction Office ............................................................................................ 191 C. Mobile Food Truck ............................................................................................... 192 D. Off-Site Construction Staging ............................................................................ 192 E. Sales and Leasing Office ................................................................................... 193 F. Seasonal Sales ..................................................................................................... 193
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards .........................................................194 11-04-01. Purpose.................................................................................................................194 11-04-02. Applicability.........................................................................................................194 1. 2. 3.
Generally .................................................................................................................... 194 Activities That Require Compliance with Specific Standards .............................. 194 Compliance with Design Standards Required....................................................... 195
11-04-03. Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions ............................................................195 1.
2.
General Lot and Form Standards ............................................................................ 195 A. Access to Public Street ....................................................................................... 195 B. Construction Over Platted Lot Line/Property Lines ......................................... 195 Dimensional Standards Summary Tables ................................................................ 195 A. Residential Districts .............................................................................................. 196
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
vii
3.
4.
5.
6. 7.
B. Mixed-Use, Industrial, and Open Land Districts ............................................... 197 Exceptions and Encroachments.............................................................................. 198 A. Permitted Exceptions to Minimum Street Frontage ........................................ 198 B. Permitted Encroachments into Setbacks......................................................... 199 C. Permitted Exceptions Through Building Height Limits ..................................... 200 Residential Small Lots ................................................................................................ 200 A. Purpose................................................................................................................. 200 B. Applicability ......................................................................................................... 201 C. General Provisions ............................................................................................... 201 D. Development Standards .................................................................................... 201 E. Design Guidelines ............................................................................................... 205 Neighborhood Transition Standards ........................................................................ 206 A. Applicability ......................................................................................................... 206 B. Building and Parking Area Setbacks ................................................................ 206 C. Building Height Stepdown .................................................................................. 206 D. Lighting Height .................................................................................................... 207 E. Screening and Buffering .................................................................................... 207 Other Form Standards ............................................................................................... 207 Incentives ................................................................................................................... 207 A. Purpose................................................................................................................. 207 B. Approval Procedure ........................................................................................... 207 C. Nonconforming Uses and Structures ................................................................ 207 D. Incentives Available ........................................................................................... 207
11-04-04. Subdivision Standards .........................................................................................213 1. 2.
3. 4.
5.
Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 213 Applicability ............................................................................................................... 214 A. General ................................................................................................................ 214 B. Exception for Five-Acre Parcel Division ............................................................ 214 Records of Survey ...................................................................................................... 214 A. Property Line Adjustment ................................................................................... 214 Subdivision of Land .................................................................................................... 218 A. Applicability ......................................................................................................... 218 B. General ................................................................................................................ 218 C. Design Standards ................................................................................................ 219 D. Utility and Pathway Easements ......................................................................... 220 E. Subdivision Buffers Along an Arterial and Collector Street ............................ 221 Required Improvements ........................................................................................... 222 A. Filing of Plans and Financial Surety ................................................................... 222 B. Water .................................................................................................................... 223 C. Sanitary Sewer ..................................................................................................... 223 D. Drainage .............................................................................................................. 223 E. Irrigation Conveyance ....................................................................................... 224 F. Street Lighting ...................................................................................................... 224 G. Access and Connectivity Improvements ........................................................ 224 H. Land Dedications ................................................................................................ 224 I. Landscaping ........................................................................................................ 225 J. Pressure Irrigation ................................................................................................ 225 K. Written Assurance ............................................................................................... 225
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
viii
L.
Proof of Compliance .......................................................................................... 225
11-04-05. Sensitive Lands.....................................................................................................225 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Airport Influence Area Standards ............................................................................ 225 Boise River System Standards ................................................................................... 226 Flood Hazard Standards ........................................................................................... 226 Hillside Development Standards .............................................................................. 226 Wildland Urban Interface Standards ...................................................................... 226 Foothills Development Standards ............................................................................ 226 A. Purpose................................................................................................................. 226 B. Applicability ......................................................................................................... 226 C. General Requirements ....................................................................................... 226 D. Permitted Development Densities .................................................................... 227
11-04-06. Building Design ....................................................................................................231 1. 2. 3. 4.
5.
Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 231 Applicability ............................................................................................................... 232 Compliance with Additional Form and Design Standards Required .................. 232 General Site and Building Design Form Standards ................................................ 232 A. Buildings and Parking Placement ..................................................................... 232 B. Building Entrances ............................................................................................... 232 C. Façade Transparency ........................................................................................ 233 D. Building Façade Articulation ............................................................................. 234 Use-Specific Building Form Standards ..................................................................... 235 A. Applicability ......................................................................................................... 235 B. Uses Located in the MX-1 District ...................................................................... 235 C. Uses Located in the MX-3 District ...................................................................... 235 D. Uses Located in the MX-4 District ...................................................................... 235 E. Uses Located in the MX-5 District ...................................................................... 236
11-04-07. Access and Connectivity ...................................................................................236 1. 2. 3.
4.
Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 236 Applicability ............................................................................................................... 236 General ....................................................................................................................... 236 A. Compliance with Life Safety Regulations ........................................................ 236 B. Americans with Disabilities Act .......................................................................... 236 C. Compliance with Solid Waste Ordinance and Solid Waste Design Standards ............................................................................................................................... 237 Design Standards ....................................................................................................... 237 A. Purpose................................................................................................................. 237 B. Public Streets ....................................................................................................... 237 C. Private Streets ...................................................................................................... 239 D. Alleys – Public and Private ................................................................................. 240 E. Cul-de-Sacs ......................................................................................................... 241 F. Block Size and Design ......................................................................................... 241 G. Cross-Access between Adjacent Mixed-Use and Nonresidential Uses ....... 242 H. Transit Stops .......................................................................................................... 242 I. Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity and Circulation ................................... 242 J. General Ingress and Egress ................................................................................ 244 K. Mixed-Use, Industrial, and Open Land Districts Vehicular Circulation ......... 247
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
ix
5.
L. Pedestrian Access and Connectivity ............................................................... 247 Compliance with Design Standards ....................................................................... 248
11-04-08. Parking and Loading ...........................................................................................249 1. 2.
3.
4.
5. 6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11. 12.
Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 249 Applicability ............................................................................................................... 249 A. Generally.............................................................................................................. 249 B. Exceptions ............................................................................................................ 249 General Parking Standards ...................................................................................... 249 A. Use of Parking Areas ........................................................................................... 249 B. Parking and Loading Calculations ................................................................... 249 C. Reductions of Existing Parking ........................................................................... 250 D. Parking for Unlisted Uses ..................................................................................... 250 Accessible Parking .................................................................................................... 250 A. Amount of Accessible Parking Required ......................................................... 250 B. Additional Requirements ................................................................................... 251 C. Traditional Accessible Parking Stall Dimensions .............................................. 251 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Standards ........................................ 252 Electric Vehicle (EV) Parking Spaces ...................................................................... 258 A. Number of EV Parking Spaces Required .......................................................... 258 B. Adjustment of EV Parking Requirements .......................................................... 258 C. Dimensions and Design ...................................................................................... 258 Parking Adjustments .................................................................................................. 259 A. Shared Parking Facility Reduction .................................................................... 259 B. Two Wheeled Parking Reduction ...................................................................... 260 C. Tree Preservation ................................................................................................. 260 D. Affordable and Sustainable/Resilient Housing Reduction ............................. 260 E. Adaptive Reuse Reduction................................................................................ 260 F. Transportation Demand Management Reduction ........................................ 260 G. Adjustments to Exceed Parking Maximums ..................................................... 261 Vehicle Parking Location and Design..................................................................... 261 A. Location ............................................................................................................... 261 B. Dimensional Standards ....................................................................................... 262 C. Tandem Parking .................................................................................................. 264 D. Driveways ............................................................................................................. 264 E. Surfacing .............................................................................................................. 264 F. Residential Garages ........................................................................................... 265 G. Parking Area Landscaping ................................................................................ 265 H. Parking Area Lighting ......................................................................................... 265 Required Bicycle Parking .......................................................................................... 265 A. Amount Required ................................................................................................ 265 B. Location ............................................................................................................... 266 C. Design Standards ................................................................................................ 266 Off-Street Loading Facilities...................................................................................... 267 A. Quantity and Size ................................................................................................ 268 B. Standards ............................................................................................................. 268 Modifications.............................................................................................................. 268 Compliance with Design Standards ....................................................................... 268
11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening ...................................................269 Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
x
1. 2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. 8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 269 Applicability ............................................................................................................... 269 A. Development ...................................................................................................... 269 B. Compliance With Existing Approvals Required ............................................... 269 C. Existing Parking Lots ............................................................................................. 269 General Landscaping Standards ............................................................................ 270 A. Landscape Plan Required ................................................................................. 270 B. Adopted Streetscape Plans .............................................................................. 270 C. Site Area Landscaping ....................................................................................... 270 D. Landscape Material Standards ......................................................................... 270 E. Water Conservation and Xeriscaping Standards ........................................... 272 F. Placement and Installation of Trees ................................................................. 273 G. Berms .................................................................................................................... 275 H. Clear Areas .......................................................................................................... 275 I. Irrigation ............................................................................................................... 275 J. Installation ............................................................................................................ 276 Street Frontage Landscaping .................................................................................. 276 A. Applicability ......................................................................................................... 276 B. Size and Location ................................................................................................ 276 C. Street Trees ........................................................................................................... 276 Site Perimeter Buffers ................................................................................................. 277 A. Arterial and Collector Street Buffering ............................................................. 277 B. Other Side and Rear Perimeter Buffers ............................................................. 278 Parking Lot Interior Landscaping ............................................................................. 283 A. Applicability ......................................................................................................... 283 B. Planter Design and Size ...................................................................................... 283 C. Landscaping Locations ...................................................................................... 283 D. Trees Required ..................................................................................................... 284 E. Lights Prohibited .................................................................................................. 285 Building Foundation Planting ................................................................................... 285 Tree Preservation ....................................................................................................... 285 A. Credit Towards Required Landscaping ............................................................ 285 B. Parking Reduction............................................................................................... 285 C. Mitigation Trees ................................................................................................... 285 D. Protection During Construction ......................................................................... 285 Stormwater Integration ............................................................................................. 286 A. Purpose................................................................................................................. 286 B. Design Standards ................................................................................................ 286 Fences, Walls, and Screening .................................................................................. 288 A. Permitted Fencing and Screening Materials ................................................... 288 B. Permitted Fences ................................................................................................ 288 C. Retaining Walls .................................................................................................... 290 D. Screening ............................................................................................................. 291 Alternative Compliance ........................................................................................... 294 A. Purpose................................................................................................................. 294 B. Process ................................................................................................................. 294 C. Standard .............................................................................................................. 294 D. Required Findings ................................................................................................ 294 Compliance with Design Standards ....................................................................... 295
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
xi
11-04-010.
Assured Water Supply.................................................................................295
1. 2. 3. 4.
Applicability ............................................................................................................... 295 Exemption ................................................................................................................... 295 Designated Water Provider ...................................................................................... 295 Elements of Demonstrating Assured Water Supply ............................................... 296 A. Physical and Legal Water Availability .............................................................. 296 B. Adequate Delivery ............................................................................................. 296 C. Financial Capability ............................................................................................ 296 D. Continuous Water Availability ........................................................................... 296 E. Water Quality ...................................................................................................... 297 F. Compliance with GMD, CGA, GMA, ARD Standards .................................... 297 Proof of Assured Water Supply Required ................................................................ 297 Representations ......................................................................................................... 297 Certification and Required Recertification ............................................................ 297 A. By the Designated Water Provider ................................................................... 297 B. By the Applicant ................................................................................................. 298
5. 6. 7.
11-04-011.
Exterior Lighting ...........................................................................................298
1. 2. 3. 4.
Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 298 Applicability ............................................................................................................... 298 Prohibited Lighting ..................................................................................................... 298 General Standards .................................................................................................... 299 A. Lighting Types and Efficiency ............................................................................ 299 B. Shielding ............................................................................................................... 299 C. Light Trespass ....................................................................................................... 300 D. Reduced Lighting During Evening Hours .......................................................... 300 E. Maintenance ....................................................................................................... 300 F. Parking Lots or Areas........................................................................................... 300 G. Canopy Lighting ................................................................................................. 300 H. Pedestrian-Scaled Lighting ................................................................................ 301 I. Lighting Within Planter Islands and Landscape Buffers .................................. 301 Alternative Compliance ........................................................................................... 301 A. Purpose................................................................................................................. 301 B. Process ................................................................................................................. 301 C. Required Findings ................................................................................................ 301 Historic Street Lights ................................................................................................... 302 A. Applicability ......................................................................................................... 302 B. General Standards.............................................................................................. 305 C. Exceptions to General Standards ..................................................................... 305 D. Installation ............................................................................................................ 308
5.
6.
11-04-012.
Signs .............................................................................................................308
1. 2. 3. 4.
Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 308 Applicability ............................................................................................................... 309 Prohibited Signs .......................................................................................................... 309 Signs Not Requiring a Permit .................................................................................... 310 A. General Signs ....................................................................................................... 310 B. Temporary Signs .................................................................................................. 310 Signs Requiring a Permit ............................................................................................ 311
5.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
xii
6.
7.
8. 9.
10.
General Sign Standards ............................................................................................ 311 A. Sign Measurement .............................................................................................. 311 B. Design ................................................................................................................... 312 C. Traffic Visibility ...................................................................................................... 312 D. Adjacent to Residential Zones .......................................................................... 312 E. Street Trees ........................................................................................................... 312 F. Maintenance and Repair .................................................................................. 312 On-Premise Signs ....................................................................................................... 313 A. Accessory On-Premise Signs .............................................................................. 313 B. Temporary Signs .................................................................................................. 318 Alternative Sign Plan ................................................................................................. 318 Off-Premise Signs ....................................................................................................... 319 A. Off-Site Identification .......................................................................................... 319 B. Poster Panel and Bulletin Panel Off-Premise Signs (Billboards) ...................... 319 Special Sign Districts .................................................................................................. 320 A. Capitol Boulevard Sign Standards .................................................................... 320
11-04-013.
Operations and Maintenance ...................................................................321
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Landscaping, Buffering, and Screening Maintenance ........................................ 321 Exterior Lighting .......................................................................................................... 322 Signs............................................................................................................................. 322 Noise............................................................................................................................ 322 Glare, Heat, Smoke, Fumes, Radiation, and Odors .............................................. 322 Vibration ..................................................................................................................... 322 Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................. 322 Waste Materials ......................................................................................................... 323
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures ..................................................................324 11-05-01. Purpose.................................................................................................................324 11-05-02. Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures ........................324 11-05-03. Review and Decision-Making Bodies ................................................................328 1. 2.
3.
4.
5.
Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 328 City Council ................................................................................................................ 328 A. Duties, Jurisdiction, and Authority ..................................................................... 328 B. Membership ......................................................................................................... 329 C. Procedures ........................................................................................................... 329 Planning and Zoning Commission ........................................................................... 330 A. Duties, Jurisdiction, and Authority ..................................................................... 330 B. Membership ......................................................................................................... 330 C. Procedures ........................................................................................................... 331 Design Review Commission ...................................................................................... 331 A. Duties, Jurisdiction, and Authority ..................................................................... 331 B. Limitations ............................................................................................................ 332 C. Membership ......................................................................................................... 332 D. Procedures ........................................................................................................... 332 Historic Preservation Commission ............................................................................ 333 A. Duties, Jurisdiction, and Authority ..................................................................... 333 B. Membership ......................................................................................................... 333
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
xiii
6.
7.
8. 9.
C. Procedures ........................................................................................................... 334 Hearing Examiner ...................................................................................................... 334 A. Duties, Jurisdiction, and Authority ..................................................................... 334 B. Qualifications ....................................................................................................... 334 C. Procedures ........................................................................................................... 334 Planning Director ....................................................................................................... 334 A. Duties, Jurisdiction, and Authority ..................................................................... 335 B. Qualifications ....................................................................................................... 335 Floodplain Administrator ........................................................................................... 336 A. Duties, Jurisdiction, and Authority ..................................................................... 336 City Engineer .............................................................................................................. 338 A. Duties, Jurisdiction, and Authority ..................................................................... 338
11-05-04. Common Procedures ..........................................................................................338 1. 2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
General ....................................................................................................................... 338 Four Paths for Review and Approval ...................................................................... 338 A. Type 1 - Ministerial Decisions .............................................................................. 338 B. Type 2 - Planning Director Decisions ................................................................. 339 C. Type 3 - Appointed Body Decisions .................................................................. 339 D. Type 4 - City Council Decisions ......................................................................... 339 Pre-Submittal Activities .............................................................................................. 339 A. Concept Review ................................................................................................. 340 B. Neighborhood Meeting ..................................................................................... 340 C. Interdepartmental Review ................................................................................. 342 Application Submittal and Processing .................................................................... 343 A. Application Submittal and Fees ........................................................................ 343 B. Application Processing ....................................................................................... 343 C. Concurrent Permit Processing ........................................................................... 344 D. Mediation ............................................................................................................. 344 Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing .............................................................. 346 A. Notice ................................................................................................................... 346 B. Public Hearing Procedure and Conduct ......................................................... 348 Decision ...................................................................................................................... 352 A. Decision ................................................................................................................ 352 B. Period of Validity ................................................................................................. 356 C. Regulatory Takings Analysis ............................................................................... 358 Post-Decision Actions and Limitations ..................................................................... 359 A. Appeals ................................................................................................................ 359 B. Modifications of Approvals ................................................................................ 363
11-05-05. Specific Procedures ............................................................................................366 1.
2.
Type 1 Ministerial Decisions....................................................................................... 366 A. Hillside Development Permit - Category 2 ....................................................... 366 B. Home Occupation Permit for Family Daycare Home .................................... 367 C. Record of Survey ................................................................................................. 367 D. Sign Permit for On-Premise Sign ......................................................................... 368 E. Temporary Sign Permit ........................................................................................ 369 F. Temporary Use Permit ......................................................................................... 370 G. Zoning Compliance Review .............................................................................. 370 Type 2 Administrative Decisions ............................................................................... 371
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
xiv
3.
4.
A. Allowed Use With Allowed Form ....................................................................... 371 B. Alternative Sign Plan ........................................................................................... 372 C. Certificate of Appropriateness - Minor ............................................................. 372 D. Conditional Use - Minor Expansion ................................................................... 374 E. Design Review - Minor ........................................................................................ 375 F. Floodplain Permit ................................................................................................ 377 G. Legal Nonconformity - Confirmation, Change, or Minor Expansion ............ 378 H. Planned Unit Development Modification - Minor ........................................... 380 I. Reasonable Accommodation for Accessibility .............................................. 380 J. Residential Small Lot Approval - Minor ............................................................. 381 K. River System Permit - Minor ................................................................................ 382 L. Zoning Certificate ............................................................................................... 384 Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body................................................................ 385 A. Allowed Use with Alternative Form ................................................................... 385 B. Certificate of Appropriateness - Major ............................................................ 386 C. Conditional Use Permit - Initial Approval or Major Expansion........................ 391 D. Design Review - Major ........................................................................................ 394 E. Floodplain Variance ........................................................................................... 397 F. Hillside Development Permit - Category 3 ....................................................... 399 G. Legal Nonconformity - Major Expansion .......................................................... 400 H. Planned Unit Development Modification - Major ........................................... 401 I. Reclassification of Historic Resource................................................................. 402 J. Residential Small Lot Approval - Major ............................................................. 403 K. River System Permit - Major ................................................................................ 404 L. Variance .............................................................................................................. 405 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council .................................................................. 407 A. Annexation of Land and Related Zoning Map Amendment ........................ 407 B. Code Adoption or Amendment ....................................................................... 412 C. Comprehensive Plan Adoption or Amendment ............................................. 414 D. Development Agreement or Modification ...................................................... 415 E. Major Historic Preservation Actions ................................................................... 417 F. Subdivision Plat - Preliminary .............................................................................. 425 G. Subdivision Plat - Final ......................................................................................... 427 H. Subdivision Plat – Replat..................................................................................... 428 I. Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning, including Planned Unit Development) ............................................................................................................................... 430
11-05-06. Nonconformities ..................................................................................................433 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Legal Nonconforming Uses, Parcels, and Structures ............................................. 433 Determination of Legal Nonconforming Status ..................................................... 433 Legal Nonconforming Parcels ................................................................................. 433 Legal Nonconforming Structures ............................................................................. 433 Legal Nonconforming Uses ...................................................................................... 434 Legal Nonconforming Signs ..................................................................................... 434 Legal Nonconforming Site Features ........................................................................ 435 Discontinuance of Use, Building, or Sign ................................................................. 435 Destruction by Calamity ........................................................................................... 435
11-05-07. Violations, Enforcement, and Penalties .............................................................435 1.
Authority ..................................................................................................................... 435
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
xv
2.
3.
4.
5.
Violation ...................................................................................................................... 436 A. General ................................................................................................................ 436 B. Affordability Incentives ....................................................................................... 436 Inspection And Enforcement ................................................................................... 437 A. General ................................................................................................................ 437 B. Inspections ........................................................................................................... 437 C. Withholding of Permits and Approvals ............................................................. 437 D. Abatement .......................................................................................................... 437 Remedies And Penalties ........................................................................................... 438 A. General Penalties................................................................................................ 438 B. Affordability Incentive Penalties ....................................................................... 438 C. Revocation of Permits and Certificates ........................................................... 438 Required Property Maintenance............................................................................. 439 A. Purpose................................................................................................................. 439 B. General ................................................................................................................ 439 C. Restoration of a Damaged or Dilapidated Building or Completion of an Unfinished Building .............................................................................................. 439 D. Due Process Hearing .......................................................................................... 439 E. Notice ................................................................................................................... 440 F. Required Findings ................................................................................................ 440 G. Restoration and Demolition ............................................................................... 440
Chapter 11-06 Definitions .....................................................................................................441 11-06-01. Meanings of Words Generally ............................................................................441 1.
2.
General Rules ............................................................................................................. 441 A. Meanings and Intent .......................................................................................... 441 B. Headings, Illustrations, And Text ........................................................................ 441 C. Lists and Examples .............................................................................................. 441 D. Computation of Time ......................................................................................... 441 E. References to Other Regulations/Publications ............................................... 441 F. Delegation of Authority ...................................................................................... 441 G. Technical and Non-Technical Terms ................................................................ 441 H. Public Officials and Agencies ........................................................................... 441 I. Mandatory and Discretionary Terms ................................................................ 442 J. Conjunctions ........................................................................................................ 442 K. Tenses and Plurals ............................................................................................... 442 Interpretations ............................................................................................................ 442
11-06-02. Rules of Measurement.........................................................................................442 1. 2.
3.
Density......................................................................................................................... 442 Fractions ..................................................................................................................... 442 A. Off-Street Parking, Loading, or Vehicle Stacking ............................................ 442 B. Landscaping ........................................................................................................ 442 Lot and Building Standards ...................................................................................... 442 A. Buildable Area ..................................................................................................... 442 B. Effective Lot Area ............................................................................................... 442 C. Floor Area, Gross ................................................................................................. 443 D. Floor Area, Net Leasable ................................................................................... 443 E. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) ........................................................................................ 443
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
xvi
4.
5.
F. Grade ................................................................................................................... 443 G. Grade, Established .............................................................................................. 443 H. Lot Area ................................................................................................................ 443 I. Lot Coverage ...................................................................................................... 443 J. Lot Depth ............................................................................................................. 443 K. Lot Width (Average) ........................................................................................... 443 L. Non-buildable Area ............................................................................................ 444 M. Open Space ........................................................................................................ 445 N. Percent Slope ...................................................................................................... 445 O. Story ...................................................................................................................... 445 P. Story Above Grade Plane .................................................................................. 445 Height .......................................................................................................................... 445 A. Building Height..................................................................................................... 445 B. Fence Height ....................................................................................................... 445 C. Retaining Wall Height ......................................................................................... 445 Setbacks ..................................................................................................................... 446 A. Definitions ............................................................................................................. 446 B. Measurement ...................................................................................................... 446
11-06-03. Definitions .............................................................................................................448 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
448 453 459 463 467 468 478 478 484 485 486 486 490 491 492 494 498 499 501 511 512 513 514 516 517 517
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans...............................................................................518 11-07-01. Harris Ranch .........................................................................................................518 Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
xvii
1.
2. 3. 4.
5.
6. 7. 8.
9.
Interpretation of District ............................................................................................ 518 A. Specific Plan District Established ....................................................................... 518 B. Boundary of Specific Plan District Established ................................................. 518 C. Interpretation of District Boundaries ................................................................. 518 Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 518 Conformity Required ................................................................................................. 518 Administration ............................................................................................................ 519 A. Harris Ranch Review Board ................................................................................ 519 B. Planning Director................................................................................................. 519 C. Design Review Commission ............................................................................... 519 D. Planning and Zoning Commission ..................................................................... 519 E. City Council ......................................................................................................... 519 F. Annual Review .................................................................................................... 520 Administrative Review - Use ..................................................................................... 520 A. Uses Specified Within the Harris Ranch Specific Plan ..................................... 520 B. Uses Not Specified Within the Harris Ranch Specific Plan .............................. 521 C. Application .......................................................................................................... 522 D. Fees ....................................................................................................................... 523 E. Review Period ...................................................................................................... 523 F. Term ...................................................................................................................... 523 G. Revocation .......................................................................................................... 523 Administrative Review-Design .................................................................................. 523 Hearing Process ......................................................................................................... 525 A. Procedure Before the Review Body ................................................................. 525 General and Specific Use Standards ...................................................................... 525 A. Purpose................................................................................................................. 525 B. General Standards.............................................................................................. 526 C. Specific Use Standards ....................................................................................... 528 Parking Standards - General .................................................................................... 541 A. Purpose................................................................................................................. 541 B. Use ........................................................................................................................ 542 C. Fractional Requirements .................................................................................... 542 D. Reduction of Parking Requirements (Single Use) ............................................ 542 E. Distance for Private Off-Street Parking When Off-Site .................................... 543 F. Restricted Parking ............................................................................................... 544 G. Compact Spaces ............................................................................................... 544 H. Tandem Parking .................................................................................................. 544 I. Drive-Through Facilities ....................................................................................... 544 J. Access to Parking................................................................................................ 544 K. Bicycle Parking .................................................................................................... 545 L. Parking Garage Screening ................................................................................ 545 M. Accessible Parking Spaces ................................................................................ 545 N. Exceptions ............................................................................................................ 545 O. Dimensions ........................................................................................................... 546 P. Design ................................................................................................................... 546 Q. Location ............................................................................................................... 546 R. Common Facilities for Joint and Mixed Uses ................................................... 546 S. Public and Private Parking Areas ...................................................................... 547 T. Parking Lot and Service Drive Improvements.................................................. 550
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
xviii
10.
U. Short Term Parking............................................................................................... 553 V. Loading Requirements ....................................................................................... 553 W. Temporary Parking Lots ...................................................................................... 554 Sign Standards ........................................................................................................... 555 A. Purpose................................................................................................................. 555 B. General Provisions and Requirement ............................................................... 555 C. Sign Orientation ................................................................................................... 556 D. Sign Area .............................................................................................................. 556 E. Street Address ...................................................................................................... 556 F. Blanketing of Signs .............................................................................................. 556 G. Signs Adjacent to Predominantly Residential Areas ....................................... 556 H. Signs in Areas Where a Use Exception Has Been Approved ......................... 556 I. Gateway Streets ................................................................................................. 556 J. Special Sign District ............................................................................................. 556 K. Sign Maintenance and Repair .......................................................................... 557 L. Abandoned Signs ............................................................................................... 557 M. Clear Vision Triangles .......................................................................................... 557 N. Further Regulation of Particular Sign Types ...................................................... 560 O. Signs for Which a Permit Is Not Required .......................................................... 562 P. Nonconforming Signs ......................................................................................... 564 Q. Prohibited Signs ................................................................................................... 565
11-07-02. Barber Valley .......................................................................................................566 1. 2.
3.
4. 5.
6.
Applicability of Ordinance ....................................................................................... 566 Interpretation of Districts ........................................................................................... 566 A. Sub-Districts Established ...................................................................................... 566 B. District Boundaries ............................................................................................... 566 Conformity Required ................................................................................................. 566 A. General ................................................................................................................ 566 B. Purpose of SP02-LR Sub-District .......................................................................... 566 C. Purpose of SP02-MR Sub-District ........................................................................ 567 D. Purpose of SP02-HR Sub-District ......................................................................... 567 E. Purpose of SP02-OMR Sub-District ..................................................................... 567 F. Purpose of SP02-OC Sub-District........................................................................ 567 G. Purpose of SP02-P Sub-District............................................................................ 567 H. Design Review ..................................................................................................... 567 I. Allowed Uses ........................................................................................................ 568 J. Lot and Structure Dimensions ............................................................................ 573 K. Property Development Standards .................................................................... 574 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements ...................................................... 575 Administrative Provisions ........................................................................................... 575 A. Plat Approval Criteria ......................................................................................... 575 B. Annexation into SP02 District ............................................................................. 575 C. Amendments ....................................................................................................... 575 D. Exceptions ............................................................................................................ 575 E. Periodic Review ................................................................................................... 576 Definitions ................................................................................................................... 576 A. Assisted Living Apartment .................................................................................. 576 B. Barber Valley Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance ............................................... 576
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
xix
C. Barber Valley Specific Plan ................................................................................ 576 D. Barber Valley Specific Plan Applicant ............................................................. 576 E. Barber Valley Specific Plan District ................................................................... 576 F. Continuing Care Retirement Community ........................................................ 577 G. Memory Care Facility ......................................................................................... 577 H. Skilled Nursing Facility ......................................................................................... 577
11-07-03. Syringa Valley ......................................................................................................581 1. 2.
3.
4.
5.
Applicability of Ordinance ....................................................................................... 581 Interpretation of Districts: .......................................................................................... 581 A. Sub-Districts Established ...................................................................................... 581 B. District Boundaries ............................................................................................... 581 Conformity Required ................................................................................................. 581 A. General ................................................................................................................ 581 B. Purpose of the Low-Density Residential (LR) Sub-District ................................ 581 C. Purpose of the Medium-Density (MR) Sub-District ........................................... 582 D. Purpose of the Village Center (VC) Sub-District .............................................. 582 E. Purpose of the Commercial/Business Campus (CB) Sub-District .................. 582 F. Purpose of the Industrial (IND) Sub-District ....................................................... 582 G. Residential District Standards ............................................................................. 582 H. Allowed Uses ........................................................................................................ 583 I. Lot and Structure Dimensions ............................................................................ 586 J. Property Development Standards .................................................................... 587 K. Design Review ..................................................................................................... 587 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements ...................................................... 588 A. Plat Approval Criteria ......................................................................................... 588 B. Annexation Into SP-03 Syringa Valley Specific Plan District ........................... 589 C. Amendments ....................................................................................................... 589 D. Exceptions ............................................................................................................ 589 E. Periodic Review ................................................................................................... 589 Definitions ................................................................................................................... 590 A. Syringa Valley Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance .............................................. 590 B. Syringa Valley Specific Plan ............................................................................... 590 C. Syringa Valley Specific Plan Applicant ............................................................ 590 D. Syringa Valley Specific Plan District .................................................................. 590 E. Boise City Code ................................................................................................... 590 F. Gross Acres .......................................................................................................... 590 G. Continuing Care Retirement Community ........................................................ 590 H. Memory Care Facility ......................................................................................... 590 I. Skilled Nursing Facility ......................................................................................... 590
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
xx
Chapter 11-01 General Provisions 11-01-01. 1.
Title and Authority
Title This Code shall be known as the "Boise Zoning Code" and is referred to in this document as the “Code."
2.
Authority This Code is adopted under the authority for the Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA) established in Title 67, Chapter 65, of the Idaho State Statutes including, but not limited to §676520 ("the Local Land Use Planning Act"); Plats and Vacations established in Title 50, Chapter 13; and Preservation of Historic Sites established in Title 67, Chapter 46.
11-01-02.
Effective Date
This Code shall become effective on ______. All references in this Code to the “Effective Date of this Code” or to the “Effective Date” shall refer to that date unless otherwise stated.
11-01-03.
Purpose
This purpose of this Code is to: 1.
Promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of present and future residents;
2.
Bring about coordinated and efficient development that encourages affordable and fair housing, stimulates economic opportunity, and promotes diverse, inclusive communities with a variety of housing choices for residents;
3.
Preserve and enhance natural resources, promote the use of environmentally friendly development practices, and promote energy conservation and alternative energy production;
4.
Protect the character of residential, institutional, business, employment, and natural areas;
5.
Achieve an integrated approach to land use and transportation to provide a safe, efficient, equitable transportation system for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and vehicles;
6.
Emphasize the importance of high-quality urban design in the built environment; and
7.
Protect the City’s historic resources and support the development of public spaces that promote community interactions, gatherings, and cultural events.
11-01-04. 1.
2.
Applicability
Uniform Applicability A.
It shall be unlawful to use any building, structure, or land or to erect, move, structurally alter, convert, extend, or enlarge any building or other structure except in conformity with the requirements established in the base zoning district, and in any applicable overlay zoning district, in which the structure, building, land, or use is located and in compliance with all applicable provisions of this Code.
B.
In addition to complying with all applicable provisions of this Code, no property shall be allowed to maintain an attractive nuisance or public nuisance at any time.
Public Services Excepted This Code shall not limit or interfere with the temporary use of any property as a public voting place, or with the construction, installation, or operation of the following by any public agency
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
1
Chapter 11-01 General Provisions Section 11-01-05. Area of City Impact 11-01-05.1 Area of City Impact Boundary Map
or private corporation, when such construction is otherwise in conformity with all federal, state, county, and city regulations: A.
Public street or highway.
B.
Poles, towers, wires, cables, conduits, vaults, laterals, pipes, mains, wells, valves, or any other similar distributing and transmitting equipment for telephone or other communications; electric power, gas, water, and sewer lines, provided that the installation shall conform when applicable with the rules and regulations of any federal or state commissions and agencies, or any other authorities having jurisdiction and subject to other city ordinance provisions, rules, and regulations; except that poles, towers, or similar installations of a height of 85 feet or greater are subject to the standards in Section 11-0303.5.I, Utility Facility, Minor. Electrical substations are considered a major utility facility and are subject to the requirements of this Code.
C.
Railroad right-of-way, excluding yards and stations.
D.
Incidental appurtenances to any of the above.
11-01-05. 1.
Area of City Impact
Area of City Impact Boundary Map The Area of City Impact is the area designated on the Boise City Area of City Impact Boundary Map as amended, incorporated in this Code by reference. Copies are available for inspection at the Planning and Development Services Department and on the City‘s website.
2.
Annexation Area Boise City shall limit its annexation to those lands within its Area of City Impact. If Boise City wishes to annex lands outside of its Area of City Impact, it shall renegotiate its Area of City Impact Boundary with Ada County in accord with Idaho Code 67-6526(d) unless renegotiation is not required pursuant to Idaho Code 50-222, Annexation by Cities, Category A.
3.
Applicable Plan Policies and Ordinances A.
The adopted Comprehensive Plan shall apply within the unincorporated part of the Boise Area of City Impact.
B.
The Zoning Ordinance set forth in Title 8 of the Ada County Code shall be used to implement the Comprehensive Plan within the Area of City Impact. All land use applications shall also comply with the provisions of this Chapter.
C.
The Boise City Uniform Street and Address Number Ordinance set forth in Section 7-4-1 of the Boise City Code shall apply to all property within the Area of City Impact. Street names and addresses shall be assigned by Boise City. Existing street names and addresses in the Area of City Impact, not in compliance with the Boise City Uniform Street and Address Number Ordinance at the time this Section goes into effect, shall not be changed until address changes are necessary for address continuity.
D.
The Boise City Impact Fee Ordinance set forth in Title 9, Chapter 2 of the Boise City Code shall be applicable within the Area of City Impact in accordance with the Agreement for the Collection of Boise City Park Impact Fees for Development in the Boise City Area of City Impact. Development of parks by Boise City within the Area of Impact shall be subject to
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
2
Chapter 11-01 General Provisions Section 11-01-06. Relationship to Other Laws and Regulations 11-01-05.4 Coordination of Plan Amendments, Code Amendments, and Zoning Applications
the provisions of the agreement, adopted by Boise City and Ada County, and made a part of this Code by this reference.
4.
5.
Coordination of Plan Amendments, Code Amendments, and Zoning Applications A.
At least 30 days prior to a Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) hearing, all County and City amendments to their respective Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Ordinances that apply within the Boise City Area of City Impact shall be sent by the entity considering such amendment to the other entity. The City shall send all Code Amendments to the County.
B.
At least 30 days prior to any public hearing, all County applications for subdivisions, rezones, and conditional use permits within the Boise City Area of City Impact shall be sent to Boise City. Written comments and recommendations shall be sent to Ada County no later than 24 days after the referral is received. The City Council may direct that the PZC or staff review and comment on such applications.
C.
Applications for Subdivisions and Zoning Map Amendments within the Boise Area of Impact shall occur as a result of a request for annexation to Boise City; however, Ada County may consider such applications in those exceptions where annexation is not approved by Boise City or where the parcel on which such application is filed is not contiguous to Boise City and therefore cannot be annexed.
Renegotiation A.
In accordance with Idaho Code 67-6526(d), the Boise City Council or the Board of Ada County Commissioners may request to renegotiate any provision of this Section 11-0105.5. Within 30 days of receipt of such written requests by each part, a meeting between the two jurisdictions shall occur.
B.
While renegotiation is occurring, the provisions of this Section shall remain in effect until this Chapter is amended or a substitute ordinance is adopted by Boise City and Ada County, in accordance with the notice and hearing procedures provided in Ada County and Idaho Codes, or until a declaratory judgment from the District Court is final. However, this Section or stipulated portions of this Section shall be of no further force and effect if both jurisdictions so agree by mutually adopted resolution.
11-01-06. 1.
2.
Relationship to Other Laws and Regulations
Other Laws A.
All of the provisions of this Code shall be liberally construed in favor of the governing body and shall not be deemed to limit or repeal any other powers granted under state statutes. Where this Code imposes greater restrictions than that imposed by other law or by private restrictions, this Code shall prevail.
B.
The stricter provisions of the Boise Air Terminal regulations, Central District Health, and other regulating ordinances or codes shall apply in the enforcement of this Code.
Most Restrictive Regulations Govern A.
Wherever the regulations of this Code require a greater width or size of building setbacks, are more restrictive as to height of building or permit a lower number of stories, require a greater percentage of lot to be left unoccupied, or impose standards that are more
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
3
Chapter 11-01 General Provisions Section 11-01-07. Relationship to City Policies and Best Practices 11-01-06.2 Most Restrictive Regulations Govern
restrictive than are required by any other City ordinance or regulation, the provisions of this Code shall apply. B.
Notwithstanding Subsection 1., above, in the case of a conflict between the standards in an overlay district and another provision of this Code, the provisions of the overlay district shall apply.
C.
Wherever the provisions of any other City ordinance or regulation require a greater width or size of building setbacks, are more restrictive as to the height of buildings or permit a lower number of stories, require a greater percentage of lot to be left unoccupied, or impose other standards that are more restrictive than are required by the regulations contained in this Code, the provisions of such ordinance or regulation shall apply.
11-01-07.
Relationship to City Policies and Best Practices
The City maintains a repository of adopted policies and best practices. These policies and practices may be used to supplement the interpretation of this Code when they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Code or other adopted city, state, or federal laws or regulations.
11-01-08.
Relationship to Private Covenants
This Code is not intended to impair or interfere with other regulations of private restrictions on the use of land improvements and structures. The provisions of this Code shall be in addition to, and shall not be deemed to repeal, abrogate, or impair any other ordinance, regulation, easement, covenant, or deed restriction. Where this Code imposes greater restrictions than that imposed by private restrictions, this Code shall prevail. The City shall not have any obligation to enforce any private covenant or agreement unless it is a party to the covenant or agreement; if the City is a party to the covenant or agreement, enforcement shall be at the discretion of the City.
11-01-09.
Transition from Prior Zoning Code
1.
The enactment of this Code shall not terminate or otherwise affect rights, Variances, permits, and approvals acquired or authorized under prior Code.
2.
Except as stated in Subsection 3., where any development permit or approval required by this Code and any Building Permit required by the City has been issued for the construction of a building or structure, and for an authorized use and occupancy of that use, in accordance with the law prior to the Effective Date, the building or structure may be completed in conformance with the approved plans and on the basis for which the development permit or approval and/or Building Permit had been issued, provided construction of the building or structure is commenced within 60 days of the effective date of the Building Permit and diligently pursued to completion.
3.
Applicants that have a valid pre-application meeting case number prior to the Effective Date of this Code but have not submitted a complete application prior to the Effective Date shall be subject to the terms and conditions of this Code. Upon showing an undue hardship, an applicant may be allowed by the Planning and Zoning Commission to process such applications under the terms and conditions of the previous Code.
11-01-010.
Severability
Each section, clause, and provision of this Code is declared severable. If a court of competent jurisdiction declares that any section, clause, or provision of this Code is invalid, the same shall not affect the validity
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
4
Chapter 11-01 General Provisions Section 11-01-010. Severability 11-01-06.2 Most Restrictive Regulations Govern
of the remainder of this Code as a whole, or any other part of this Code, or the application of the provisions to other persons or circumstances, and the remainder shall continue in full force and effect.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
5
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts 11-02-01. 1.
Zoning Districts Established
Summary Table of Zoning Districts The incorporated area of Boise City is divided into the zoning districts shown in Table 11-02.1, below.
TABLE 11-02.1: BOISE ZONING DISTRICTS RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
OVERLAY DISTRICTS
R-1A Residential: Large Lot
CHARACTER OVERLAY DISTRICTS
R-1B Residential: Suburban
HC-O Hyde Park Character Overlay
R-1C Residential: Traditional
NC-O Near North End Character Overlay
R-2 Residential: Compact
NEIGHBORHOOD OVERLAY DISTRICTS
R-3 Residential: Urban
BC-O Big Sky Overlay
MIXED-USE DISTRICTS
SC-O Sycamore Overlay
MX-1 Mixed Use: Neighborhood
DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICTS
MX-2 Mixed Use: General
CD-O Capitol Boulevard Design Overlay
MX-3 Mixed Use: Active
HD-O Historic Design Overlay
MX-4 Mixed Use: Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Node
SENSITIVE LANDS OVERLAY DISTRICTS
MX-5 Mixed Use: Downtown
AI-O Airport Influence Area Overlay
MX-U Mixed Use: University
BR-O Boise River System Overlay
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS
FP-O Flood Protection Overlay
I-1 Industrial: Light
HS-O Hillside Development Overlay
I-2 Industrial: Heavy
SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICTS
I-3 Industrial: Technology
SP-1 Harris Ranch Specific Plan District
OPEN LAND DISTRICTS
SP-2 Barber Valley Specific Plan District
A-1 Open Land Very Low Density
SP-3 Syringa Valley Specific Plan District
A-2 Open Land Reserve
2.
Official Zoning Map A.
Incorporation of Map (1) The location and boundaries of zoning districts are shown upon the Official Zoning Map for Boise City. (2) The Official Zoning Map shall be maintained by and copies will be obtained through the Planning and Development Services Department and shall be made available for review and inspection. A digital version of the Official Zoning Map will be made available through the City’s website.
B.
Rules for Interpretation of Boundaries Wherever any uncertainty exists as to the boundary of a district, the following rules shall apply:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
6
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-01. Zoning Districts Established 11-02-01.3 Organization of this Chapter
(1) Where any boundary line is indicated as following a street, alley, waterway, railroad right-of-way or public way, it shall be construed as following the centerline thereof. (2) Where a boundary line is indicated as approximately following a lot line/property line, such lot line/property line shall be construed to be the boundary line. C.
Amendments to the Official Zoning Map Changes to the boundaries of any zoning district require an amendment to the Official Zoning Map per Section 11-05-05.4.I, Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning, including Planned Unit Development).
3.
Organization of this Chapter A.
Base Zoning Districts (1) Content Sections 11-02-02 through 11-02-06 follow a common structure for each base zoning district in Boise. Each district includes the following: (a) A purpose statement describing the intended character of the district. (b) Chapters and sections of the Code that contain additional requirements for development in the district. (c) The basic lot and building standards that apply to development within that district such as lot size, setbacks, building height, and building form. (d) Other standards that apply to that district (as opposed to a specific use or type of development). (2) Graphics (a) Each base zoning district is accompanied by at least one graphic depicting how the lot and building standards apply to lots and building forms within the respective district. Such graphics and illustrations are intended to represent the general character of development within the district but are not intended to identify specific projects or locations within that district. (b) The graphics and illustrations are not regulatory and are not to be compared to the visual look of a proposed development. (c) The graphics do not reflect all standards from the Code that may apply to a project and are intentionally conceptual versus detailed. (d) Where an illustration is inconsistent with the respective table of lot and building standards or other text within this Code, the standards in the table and text shall apply.
B.
Overlay Districts (1) In addition to the underlying base zoning district, some lands may be designated in one or more overlay districts. Where a property is assigned an overlay district, both sets of regulations apply, with those of the overlay controlling in case of conflict. An overlay district may apply additional requirements or allow exceptions to the standard regulations of the base zoning district. Each overlay district title ends with “-O” (for overlay).
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
7
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-01. Zoning Districts Established 11-02-01.3 Organization of this Chapter
(2) Section 11-02-07 identifies the overlay districts and establishes the purpose and applicable standards that modify the requirements of the underlying base zoning district.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
8
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-02. Residential Zoning Districts 11-02-02.1 R-1A Residential: Large Lot
11-02-02. 1.
Residential Zoning Districts
R-1A Residential: Large Lot A.
Purpose The R-1A district is intended for predominantly residential uses on large “estate” style lots that allow low-density development and preserve a character in which homes are separated by relatively large yards.
B.
Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections All development shall comply with all applicable sections of this Code. Cross-references to some of the key sections are provided below. TABLE 11-02.2: CROSS-REFERENCES TO OTHER APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS CODE SECTION
SECTION REFERENCE
Use Regulations
Chapter 11-03
Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions
11-04-03
Subdivision Standards
11-04-04
Sensitive Lands
11-04-05
Building Design
11-04-06
Access and Connectivity
11-04-07
Parking and Loading
11-04-08
Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening
11-04-09
Assured Water Supply
11-04-010
Exterior Lighting
11-04-011
Signs
11-04-012
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
9
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-02. Residential Zoning Districts 11-02-02.1 R-1A Residential: Large Lot
C.
Dimensional Standards
The following table is a summary of the district-specific dimensional standards. Complete dimensional standards are included in Section 11-04-03, Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions.
TABLE 11-02.3: R-1A LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS LOT STANDARDS [1] Lot Area (minimum) [2]
20,000 sf.
Lot Width (average)
75 ft.
Street Frontage (minimum)
20 ft.
Density (maximum) [2][3]
2.1 units/acre
SETBACKS (MINIMUM) A
Front Front Entry Parking/Garage
20 ft.
Remainder of Structure
15 ft.
Side Street Entry Parking/Garage
20 ft.
Remainder of Structure [4]
20 ft.
Street Side
B
Interior Side [5]
10 ft.
C
Rear
20 ft.
HEIGHT (MAXIMUM) D
Building Height
35 ft.
Notes: [1] All Residential Small Lots shall meet the standards in Section 11-04-03.4, Residential Small Lots. [2] Minimum lot area and maximum density requirements shall not apply to Accessory Dwelling Units or Duplex Dwellings.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
10
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-02. Residential Zoning Districts 11-02-02.1 R-1A Residential: Large Lot
TABLE 11-02.3: R-1A LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS [3] Maximum density requirement shall not apply to properties using incentives earned pursuant to Section 11-04-03.7.D. [4] See Section 11-06-02.5.B(4). [5] No interior side setback is required between Single-Family Attached Dwellings.
D.
Streetscape Standards All development shall comply with the following streetscape standards. The stricter provisions shall supersede any inconsistent dimensional standards in Section 11-04-07, Access and Connectivity. (1) Each frontage on a local street shall include a detached sidewalk at least five feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-0409.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present. (2) Each frontage on a collector or arterial street shall include a detached sidewalk at least 10 feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present.
Figure 2.1. R-1A Streetscape Standards
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
11
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-02. Residential Zoning Districts 11-02-02.2 R-1B Residential: Suburban
2.
R-1B Residential: Suburban A.
Purpose The R-1B district is intended to accommodate predominantly residential uses on mediumand large-sized lots as well as supportive civic and community uses.
B.
Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections All development shall comply with all applicable sections of this Code. Cross-references to some of the key sections are provided below. TABLE 11-02.4: CROSS-REFERENCES TO OTHER APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS CODE SECTION
SECTION REFERENCE
Use Regulations
Chapter 11-03
Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions
11-04-03
Subdivision Standards
11-04-04
Sensitive Lands
11-04-05
Building Design
11-04-06
Access and Connectivity
11-04-07
Parking and Loading
11-04-08
Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening
11-04-09
Assured Water Supply
11-04-010
Exterior Lighting
11-04-011
Signs
11-04-012
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
12
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-02. Residential Zoning Districts 11-02-02.2 R-1B Residential: Suburban
C.
Dimensional Standards
The following table is a summary of the district-specific dimensional standards. Complete dimensional standards are included in Section 11-04-03, Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions.
TABLE 11-02.5: R-1B LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS LOT STANDARDS [1] Lot Area (minimum) [2]
9,000 sf.
Lot Width (average)
50 ft.
Street Frontage (minimum)
20 ft.
Density (maximum) [2][3]
4.8 units/acre
SETBACKS (MINIMUM) A
Front Front Entry Parking/Garage
20 ft.
Remainder of Structure
15 ft.
Side Street Entry Parking/Garage
20 ft.
Remainder of Structure [4]
20 ft.
Street Side
B
Interior Side [5]
10 ft.
C
Rear
20 ft.
HEIGHT (MAXIMUM) D
Building Height
35 ft.
Notes: [1] All Residential Small Lots shall meet the standards in Section 11-04-03.4, Residential Small Lots.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
13
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-02. Residential Zoning Districts 11-02-02.2 R-1B Residential: Suburban
TABLE 11-02.5: R-1B LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS [2] Minimum lot area and maximum density requirements shall not apply to Accessory Dwelling Units or Duplex Dwellings. [3] Maximum density requirement shall not apply to properties using incentives earned pursuant to Section 11-04-03.7.D. [4] See Section 11-06-02.5.B(4). [5] No interior side setback is required between Single-Family Attached Dwellings.
D.
Streetscape Standards All development shall comply with the following streetscape standards. The stricter provisions shall supersede any inconsistent dimensional standards in Section 11-04-07, Access and Connectivity. (1) Each frontage on a local street shall include a detached sidewalk at least five feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-0409.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present. (2) Each frontage on a collector or arterial street shall include a detached sidewalk at least 10 feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present.
Figure 2.2. R-1B Streetscape Standards
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
14
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-02. Residential Zoning Districts 11-02-02.3 R-1C Residential: Traditional
3.
R-1C Residential: Traditional A.
Purpose The R-1C district is intended to provide predominantly residential uses on smaller-sized lots as well as supportive civic and community uses.
B.
Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections All development shall comply with all applicable sections of this Code. Cross-references to some of the key sections are provided below. TABLE 11-02.6: CROSS-REFERENCES TO OTHER APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS CODE SECTION
SECTION REFERENCE
Use Regulations
Chapter 11-03
Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions
11-04-03
Subdivision Standards
11-04-04
Sensitive Lands
11-04-05
Building Design
11-04-06
Access and Connectivity
11-04-07
Parking and Loading
11-04-08
Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening
11-04-09
Assured Water Supply
11-04-010
Exterior Lighting
11-04-011
Signs
11-04-012
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
15
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-02. Residential Zoning Districts 11-02-02.3 R-1C Residential: Traditional
C.
Dimensional Standards
The following table is a summary of the district-specific dimensional standards. Complete dimensional standards are included in Section 11-04-03, Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions.
TABLE 11-02.7: R-1C LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS LOT STANDARDS [1] Lot Area (minimum) [2]
3,500 sf.
Lot Width (average)
25 ft.
Street Frontage (minimum)
20 ft.
Density (maximum) [2][3]
12.4 units/acre
SETBACKS (MINIMUM) A
Front Front Entry Parking/Garage
20 ft.
Remainder of Structure
15 ft.
Side Street Entry Parking/Garage
20 ft.
Remainder of Structure
15 ft.
Street Side
B
Interior Side [4]
C
Rear
5 ft. or 10 ft. [5] 15 ft.
HEIGHT (MAXIMUM) D
Building Height
3 stories, not to exceed 40 ft.
Notes:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
16
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-02. Residential Zoning Districts 11-02-02.3 R-1C Residential: Traditional
TABLE 11-02.7: R-1C LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS [1] All Residential Small Lots shall meet the standards in Section 11-04-03.4, Residential Small Lots. [2] Minimum lot area and maximum density requirements shall not apply to Accessory Dwelling Units or Duplex Dwellings. [3] Maximum density requirement shall not apply to properties using incentives earned pursuant to Section 11-04-03.7.D. [4] No interior side setback is required between Single-Family Attached Dwellings. [5] For the third story of a building when abutting a single-story building.
D.
Streetscape Standards All development shall comply with the following streetscape standards. The stricter provisions shall supersede any inconsistent dimensional standards in Section 11-04-07, Access and Connectivity. (1) Each frontage on a local street shall include a detached sidewalk at least five feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-0409.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present. (2) Each frontage on a collector or arterial street shall include a detached sidewalk at least 10 feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present.
Figure 2.3. R-1C Streetscape Standards
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
17
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-02. Residential Zoning Districts 11-02-02.4 R-2 Residential: Compact
4.
R-2 Residential: Compact A.
Purpose The R-2 district is intended to provide a flexible mix of compact detached, attached, and Multiple-Family housing as well as civic, community, and limited commercial uses.
B.
Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections All development shall comply with all applicable sections of this Code. Cross-references to some of the key sections are provided below. TABLE 11-02.8: CROSS-REFERENCES TO OTHER APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS CODE SECTION
SECTION REFERENCE
Use Regulations
Chapter 11-03
Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions
11-04-03
Subdivision Standards
11-04-04
Sensitive Lands
11-04-05
Building Design
11-04-06
Access and Connectivity
11-04-07
Parking and Loading
11-04-08
Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening
11-04-09
Assured Water Supply
11-04-010
Exterior Lighting
11-04-011
Signs
11-04-012
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
18
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-02. Residential Zoning Districts 11-02-02.4 R-2 Residential: Compact
C.
Dimensional Standards
The following table is a summary of the district-specific dimensional standards. Complete dimensional standards are included in Section 11-04-03, Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions.
TABLE 11-02.9: R-2 LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS LOT STANDARDS [1] Lot Area (minimum) [2]
2,500 sf.
Lot Width (average)
20 ft.
Street Frontage (minimum)
20 ft.
Density (maximum)
N/A
SETBACKS (MINIMUM) A
Front Front Entry Parking/Garage
20 ft.
Remainder of Structure
10 ft.
Side Street Entry Parking/Garage
20 ft.
Remainder of Structure
15 ft.
Street Side
B
Interior Side [3]
C
Rear
5 ft. or 10 ft. [4] 15 ft[5]
HEIGHT (MAXIMUM) D
Building Height
4 stories not to exceed 45 ft.
Notes: [1] All Residential Small Lots shall meet the standards in Section 11-04-03.4, Residential Small Lots. [2] Minimum lot area requirements shall not apply to Accessory Dwelling Units or Duplex Dwellings.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
19
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-02. Residential Zoning Districts 11-02-02.4 R-2 Residential: Compact
TABLE 11-02.9: R-2 LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS [3] No interior side setback is required between Single-Family Attached Dwellings. [4] For the third story or higher of a building when abutting a single-story building. [5] Reduced to 5 ft. when alley present.
D.
Streetscape Standards All development shall comply with the following streetscape standards. The stricter provisions shall supersede any inconsistent dimensional standards in Section 11-04-07, Access and Connectivity. (1) Each frontage on a local street shall include a detached sidewalk at least five feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-0409.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present. (2) Each frontage on a collector or arterial street shall include a detached sidewalk at least 10 feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present.
Figure 2.4. R-2 Streetscape Standards
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
20
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-02. Residential Zoning Districts 11-02-02.5 R-3 Residential: Urban
5.
R-3 Residential: Urban A.
Purpose The R-3 district is intended to provide predominantly residential development near retail, employment, transit, and other concentrated uses, as well as supportive civic, public, institutional uses, and limited commercial uses.
. B.
Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections All development shall comply with all applicable sections of this Code. Cross-references to some of the key sections are provided below. TABLE 11-02.10: CROSS-REFERENCES TO OTHER APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS CODE SECTION
SECTION REFERENCE
Use Regulations
Chapter 11-03
Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions
11-04-03
Subdivision Standards
11-04-04
Sensitive Lands
11-04-05
Building Design
11-04-06
Access and Connectivity
11-04-07
Parking and Loading
11-04-08
Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening
11-04-09
Assured Water Supply
11-04-010
Exterior Lighting
11-04-011
Signs
11-04-012
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
21
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-02. Residential Zoning Districts 11-02-02.5 R-3 Residential: Urban
C.
Dimensional Standards
The following table is a summary of the district-specific dimensional standards. Complete dimensional standards are included in Section 11-04-03, Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions.
TABLE 11-02.11: R-3 LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS LOT STANDARDS [1] Lot Area (minimum) [2]
Single-Family Detached or Attached: 1,500 sf. All Other Uses: 2,000 sf.
Lot Width (average)
20 ft.
Street Frontage (minimum)
20 ft.
Density (maximum)
N/A
SETBACKS (MINIMUM) A
Front Front Entry Parking/Garage
20 ft.
Remainder of Structure
10 ft.
Street Side Side Street Entry Parking/Garage
20 ft.
Remainder of Structure
15 ft.
B
Interior Side [3]
C
Rear
5 ft. or 10 ft. [4] 15 ft. [5]
HEIGHT (MAXIMUM) D
Building Height
4 stories not to exceed 50 ft.
Notes:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
22
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-02. Residential Zoning Districts 11-02-02.5 R-3 Residential: Urban
TABLE 11-02.11: R-3 LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS [1] All Residential Small Lots shall meet the standards in Section 11-04-03.4, Residential Small Lots. [2] Minimum lot area requirements shall not apply to Accessory Dwelling Units or Duplex Dwellings. [3] No interior side setback is required between Single-Family Attached Dwellings. [4] For the third story or higher of a building when abutting a single-story building. [5] Reduced to 5 ft. when alley present.
D.
Streetscape Standards All development shall comply with the following streetscape standards. The stricter provisions shall supersede any inconsistent dimensional standards in Section 11-04-07, Access and Connectivity. (1) Each frontage on a local street shall include a detached sidewalk at least five feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-0409.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present. (2) Each frontage on a collector or arterial street shall include a detached sidewalk at least 10 feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present.
Figure 2.5. R-3 Streetscape Standards
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
23
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.1 MX-1 Mixed-Use Neighborhood
11-02-03. 1.
Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
MX-1 Mixed-Use Neighborhood A.
Purpose The MX-1 district is intended to provide opportunities for a mix of neighborhood-serving small-scale commercial, institutional, and residential uses. It is intended to facilitate convenient, walkable access to these services while fostering pedestrian-oriented design and the creation of neighborhood districts.
B.
Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections All development shall comply with all applicable sections of this Code. Cross-references to some of the key sections are provided below. TABLE 11-02.12: CROSS-REFERENCES TO OTHER APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS CODE SECTION
SECTION REFERENCE
Use Regulations
Chapter 11-03
Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions
11-04-03
Subdivision Standards
11-04-04
Sensitive Lands
11-04-05
Building Design
11-04-06
Access and Connectivity
11-04-07
Parking and Loading
11-04-08
Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening
11-04-09
Assured Water Supply
11-04-010
Exterior Lighting
11-04-011
Signs
11-04-012
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
24
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.1 MX-1 Mixed-Use Neighborhood
C.
Dimensional Standards
The following table is a summary of the district-specific dimensional standards. Complete dimensional standards are included in Section 11-04-03, Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions.
TABLE 11-02.13: MX-1 LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS LOT STANDARDS Lot Area (minimum)
N/A
Street Frontage (minimum)
N/A
BUILDING SETBACKS (MINIMUM/MAXIMUM) Front
Min 5 ft. Max 20 ft.
Street Side
Min 0 ft. Max 20 ft.
B
Interior Side
Min 0 ft.
C
Rear Yard
Min 10 ft.
A
PARKING SETBACKS (MINIMUM) Front
20 ft.
Street Side
20 ft.
Interior Side
5 ft.
Rear
5 ft.
Any Yard Adjacent to Interstate (I-84 & I184)
10 ft.
HEIGHT (MAXIMUM) D
Building Height
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
45 ft.
25
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.1 MX-1 Mixed-Use Neighborhood
D.
Form and Layout Standards (1) General Standards for All Uses The following standards apply to all uses. In the event of a conflict with Subsection (2), below, the provisions of Subsection (2) shall apply. (a) Applicability i.
When the MX-1 district is applied to lands that have not previously been developed, the development shall comply with this Section 11-02-03.1.D.
ii.
When the MX-1 district is applied to lands that have previously been developed, the redevelopment shall comply with this Section 11-02-03.1.D to the maximum extent practicable if it involves one or more of the following:
iii.
A.
An increase in the total site area occupied by structures;
B.
An increase in the total gross square footage of structures; or
C.
An intensification of land use, as determined by the Planning Director.
In the event of a conflict between these provisions and any provision in Chapter 11-03, Use Regulations or Chapter 11-04, Development and Design Standards, the provision requiring the higher level of visual building quality and interest, as determined by the Planning Director, shall apply.
(b) Active Use Required Within each contiguous area of land zoned MX-1 that is under common control or ownership after the Effective Date, at least 60 percent of the approved ground floor street frontage shall be occupied by uses that are in active use by occupants or users of the building or development, or by the general public. This requirement is not met by ground floor parking areas, storage areas, utility facilities, or stairwells that are not accessible from the street frontage. (c) Streetscape Standards All development shall comply with the following streetscape standards. The stricter provisions shall supersede any inconsistent dimensional standards in Section 11-04-07, Access and Connectivity. i.
Each frontage on a local street shall include a detached sidewalk at least five feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II or Class III street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present.
ii.
Each frontage on a collector or arterial street shall include a detached sidewalk at least 10 feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II or Class III street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
26
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.1 MX-1 Mixed-Use Neighborhood
Figure 2.6. MX-1 Streetscape Standards
(d) Amenities An amenity feature that complies with one or more of the following standards: i.
A landscape feature clearly visible from the street and containing at least 200 square feet of area and a minimum width of five feet, or 10 feet if trees are included. Features may include enhanced landscaping areas, lighting, water, art, and/or provisions for seating;
ii.
An outdoor gathering area containing at least 400 square feet of area, that is clearly visible from an adjacent street, with seating for patrons; or
iii.
Another site feature that improves the experience of pedestrian and/or users of non-motorized vehicles experience, as determined by the Planning Director.
(e) Connectivity At least one pedestrian connection to the local street system in the adjacent neighborhood(s), that shall permit residents of such neighborhood(s) to enter the district without using a collector or an arterial street to the maximum extent practicable. (f)
Parking No surface parking spaces may be located between the building and any street adjacent to the property.
(2) Use-Specific Form Standards (a) Applicability i.
Each development containing more than 10,000 square feet of contiguous land area under common control or ownership that includes a principal use referenced in Subsection (b) below in a new primary structure shall comply with the following standards (Allowed Form). In the event of a conflict between these standards and applicable standards in Chapter 11-04, Development and Design Standards, the standards in this Subsection (2) shall apply.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
27
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.1 MX-1 Mixed-Use Neighborhood
ii.
If an application for an allowed use does not comply with one or more of the standards in this Section, an Alternative Form for the building or development containing the use may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.A, Allowed Use with Alternative Form.
(b) Residential, Commercial, and Public, Institutional, or Civic Uses i.
The use shall be located in a building at least two stories in height; or
ii.
The use shall be located in a building or development containing at least two different uses listed in Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses.
(c) Drive-Through Facilities Drive-Through Facilities shall comply with Section 11-03-03.4.R, Drive-Through Facility.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
28
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.2 MX-2 Mixed-Use: General
2.
MX-2 Mixed-Use: General A.
Purpose The MX-2 district is intended to provide opportunities for a mix of office, commercial, institutional, and residential at a scale designed to serve community needs broader than those of nearby neighborhoods.
B.
Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections All development shall comply with all applicable sections of this Code. Cross-references to some of the key sections are provided below. TABLE 11-02.14: CROSS-REFERENCES TO OTHER APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS CODE SECTION
SECTION REFERENCE
Use Regulations
Chapter 11-03
Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions
11-04-03
Subdivision Standards
11-04-04
Sensitive Lands
11-04-05
Building Design
11-04-06
Access and Connectivity
11-04-07
Parking and Loading
11-04-08
Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening
11-04-09
Assured Water Supply
11-04-010
Exterior Lighting
11-04-011
Signs
11-04-012
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
29
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.2 MX-2 Mixed-Use: General
C.
Dimensional Standards
The following table is a summary of the district-specific dimensional standards. Complete dimensional standards are included in Section 11-04-03, Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions.
TABLE 11-02.15: MX-2 LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS LOT STANDARDS Lot Area (minimum)
N/A
Street Frontage (minimum)
N/A
BUILDING SETBACKS (MINIMUM/MAXIMUM) Front
Min 5 ft. Max 20 ft.
Street Side
Min 0 ft. Max 20 ft.
B
Interior Side
Min 0 ft.
C
Rear Yard
Min 10 ft.
A
PARKING SETBACKS (MINIMUM) Front
10 ft.
Street Side
10 ft.
Interior Side
5 ft.
Rear
5 ft.
Any Yard Adjacent to Interstate (I-84 & I184)
20 ft.
HEIGHT (MAXIMUM) D D.
Building Height
45 ft.
Form and Layout Standards (1) Applicability (a) All existing and new development in the MX-2 zoning district shall comply with this Section 11-02-03.2.D.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
30
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.2 MX-2 Mixed-Use: General
(b) In the event of a conflict between these provisions and any provision in Chapter 11-03, Use Regulations or Chapter 11-04, Development and Design Standards, the provision requiring the higher level of visual building quality and interest, as determined by the Planning Director, shall apply. (2) Vehicle-Oriented Facilities (a) No vehicle-oriented ancillary facilities (such as Service Stations or Vehicle Washes) shall be located between the building and any street adjacent to the property. (b) Drive-Through Facilities shall comply with Section 11-03-03.4.R, Drive-Through Facility. (3) Parking No surface parking spaces may be located between the building and any street adjacent to the property. (4) Streetscape Standards All development shall comply with the following streetscape standards. The stricter provisions shall supersede any inconsistent dimensional standards in Section 11-0407, Access and Connectivity. (a) Each frontage on a local street shall include a detached sidewalk at least five feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present. (b) Each frontage on a collector or arterial street shall include a detached sidewalk at least five feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present.
Figure 2.7. MX-2 Streetscape Standards
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
31
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.3 MX-3 Mixed-Use: Active
3.
MX-3 Mixed-Use: Active A.
Purpose The MX-3 district is intended to provide opportunities for office, commercial, institutional, and residential uses to support active modes of transportation. This zoning district will require transit- and pathway-oriented development organized along the City’s Best-inClass Transit Routes and pathways at a scale designed to support the City’s transportation goals and investments and to serve community needs broader than those of nearby neighborhoods. This zoning district may be expanded as new investments in Best-in-Class Transit Routes and pathways are developed.
B.
Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections All development shall comply with all applicable sections of this Code. Cross-references to some of the key sections are provided below. TABLE 11-02.16: CROSS-REFERENCES TO OTHER APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS CODE SECTION
SECTION REFERENCE
Use Regulations
Chapter 11-03
Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions
11-04-03
Subdivision Standards
11-04-04
Sensitive Lands
11-04-05
Building Design
11-04-06
Access and Connectivity
11-04-07
Parking and Loading
11-04-08
Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening
11-04-09
Assured Water Supply
11-04-010
Exterior Lighting
11-04-011
Signs
11-04-012
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
32
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.3 MX-3 Mixed-Use: Active
C.
Dimensional Standards
The following table is a summary of the district-specific dimensional standards. Complete dimensional standards are included in Section 11-04-03, Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions.
TABLE 11-02.17: MX-3 LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS LOT STANDARDS Lot Area (minimum)
N/A
Street Frontage (minimum)
N/A
BUILDING SETBACKS (MINIMUM/MAXIMUM) Front
Min 5 ft. Max 20 ft.
Street Side
Min 0 ft. Max 20 ft.
B
Interior Side
Min 0 ft.
C
Rear Yard
Min 10 ft.
A
PARKING SETBACKS (MINIMUM) Front
10 ft.
Street Side
10 ft.
Interior Side
5 ft.
Rear
5 ft.
Any Yard Adjacent to Interstate (I-84 & I184)
20 ft.
HEIGHT (MAXIMUM) D
Building Height
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
70 ft.
33
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.3 MX-3 Mixed-Use: Active
D.
Form and Layout Standards (1) Applicability (a) When the MX-3 district is applied to lands that have not previously been developed, the development shall comply with this Section 11-02-03.3.D. (b) When the MX-3 district is applied to lands that have previously been developed, the redevelopment shall comply with this Section 11-02-03.3.D to the maximum extent practicable if it involves one or more of the following: i.
An increase in the total site area occupied by structures;
ii.
An increase in the total gross square footage of structures; or
iii.
An intensification of land use, as determined by the Planning Director.
(c) In the event of a conflict between these provisions and any provision in Chapter 11-03, Use Regulations or Chapter 11-04, Development and Design Standards, the provision requiring the higher level of visual building quality and interest, as determined by the Planning Director, shall apply. (2) Standards for All Development (a) Active Use Required Within each contiguous area of land zoned MX-3 that is under common control or ownership after the Effective Date, at least 60 percent of the approved ground floor street frontage shall be occupied by uses that are in active use by occupants or users of the building or development, or by the general public. This requirement is not met by ground floor parking areas, storage areas, utility facilities, or stairwells that are not accessible from the street frontage. (b) Streetscape Standards All development shall comply with the following streetscape standards. The stricter provisions shall supersede any inconsistent dimensional standards in Section 11-04-07, Access and Connectivity. i.
Each frontage on a local street shall include a detached sidewalk at least five feet in width that is separated from the curb line a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present.
ii.
Except as required by Subsection iii below, each frontage on a collector or arterial street shall include a detached sidewalk at least 10 feet in width that is separated from the curb line a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
34
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.3 MX-3 Mixed-Use: Active
Figure 2.8. MX-3 Streetscape Standards (Except State Street)
iii.
Each lot with frontage on State Street shall include a multi-use pathway at least 12 feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present.
Figure 2.9. MX-3 Streetscape Standards (State Street)
(c) Amenities An amenity feature that complies with one or more of the following standards: i.
A landscape feature containing at least 400 square feet of area and a minimum width of five feet, or 10 feet if trees are included. Features may include enhanced landscaping areas, lighting, water, art, and/or provisions for seating; or
ii.
An outdoor gathering area containing at least 800 square feet of area, that is clearly visible from an adjacent street, with seating for patrons.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
35
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.3 MX-3 Mixed-Use: Active
iii.
Another site feature that improves the experience of pedestrian and/or users of non-motorized vehicles experience, as determined by the Planning Director.
(d) Connectivity i.
ii.
At least one pedestrian walkway of at least 10 feet in width that is bordered by street trees, or by a public or private street with detached sidewalks at least 10 feet in width that: A.
Connects the MX-3 zoning district to one of the adjacent collector or arterial streets;
B.
Is bordered along at least 60 percent of its length by buildings with façades no more than 10 feet from the sidewalk; and
C.
Is interrupted by no more than one driveway per 200 linear feet, except as required by Idaho law.
At least one pedestrian connection to the local street system in an adjacent residential neighborhood, designed and located to allow residents of the neighborhood to enter mixed-use and nonresidential areas of the MX-3 zoning district without using an arterial street to the maximum extent practicable.
(e) Vehicle-Oriented Facilities
(f)
i.
No surface parking spaces or vehicle-oriented ancillary facilities (such as Service Stations or Vehicle Washes) may be located between the building and any street adjacent to the property.
ii.
Drive-Through Facilities shall comply with Section 11-03-03.4.R, DriveThrough Facility.
Ground Floor Design i.
Each building façade facing a public or private street that contains ground floor residential uses shall be constructed within 15 feet of each streetfacing lot line/property line and occupy at least 50 percent of the width of the primary street frontage.
ii.
Each building façade facing a public or private street or driveway with ground floor nonresidential uses shall:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
A.
Have at least 50 percent of the area between three and eight feet above the ground floor occupied by windows or other transparent building features through which activity inside the building may be viewed; and
B.
Have at least one door open during hours of operation and leading directly from the building interior onto the street (without an intervening shared lobby or entrances shared by multiple tenants or uses) for each 100 feet of horizontal façade length.
36
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.3 MX-3 Mixed-Use: Active
(3) Use-Specific Form Standards (a) Applicability i.
Each development containing more than 10,000 square feet of contiguous land area under common control or ownership that includes a principal use referenced in Subsection (b) below in a new primary structure shall comply with the following standards (Allowed Form). In the event of a conflict between these standards and applicable standards in Chapter 11-04, Development and Design Standards, the standards in this Subsection (2) shall apply.
ii.
If an application for an allowed use does not comply with one or more of the Allowed Form standards in this Section, an Alternative Form for the building or development containing the use may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.A, Allowed Use with Alternative Form.
(b) Residential, Commercial, and Public, Institutional, or Civic Uses i.
The use shall be located in a building at least four stories in height; and
ii.
The use shall not provide a greater number of vehicle parking spaces than the minimum required by Table 11-04.9: Off-Street Parking Requirements, as adjusted pursuant to Section 11-04-08.7, Parking Adjustments.
iii.
As an alternative to Subsections (i) and (ii) above, a Multiple-Family Dwelling may meet the requirements of Section 11-04-03.7.D(4) regarding affordable and sustainable development and earn the related incentives.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
37
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.4 MX-4 Mixed-Use: Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Node
4.
MX-4 Mixed-Use: Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Node A.
Purpose The MX-4 district is intended to provide opportunities for a mix of office, commercial, institutional, and residential uses to support transit. This zoning district will require transitoriented development concentrated at identified transit stations. This zoning district will be expanded as new investments in Best-in-Class Transit Routes are added and transit stations identified.
B.
Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections All development shall comply with all applicable sections of this Code. Cross-references to some of the key sections are provided below. TABLE 11-02.18: CROSS-REFERENCES TO OTHER APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS CODE SECTION
SECTION REFERENCE
Use Regulations
Chapter 11-03
Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions
11-04-03
Subdivision Standards
11-04-04
Sensitive Lands
11-04-05
Building Design
11-04-06
Access and Connectivity
11-04-07
Parking and Loading
11-04-08
Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening
11-04-09
Assured Water Supply
11-04-010
Exterior Lighting
11-04-011
Signs
11-04-012
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
38
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.4 MX-4 Mixed-Use: Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Node
C.
Dimensional Standards
The following table is a summary of the district-specific dimensional standards. Complete dimensional standards are included in Section 11-04-03, Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions.
TABLE 11-02.19: MX-4 LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS LOT STANDARDS Lot Area (minimum)
N/A
Street Frontage (minimum)
N/A
BUILDING SETBACKS (MINIMUM/MAXIMUM) Front
Min 5 ft. Max 20 ft.
Street Side
Min 0 ft. Max 20 ft.
B
Interior Side
Min 0 ft.
C
Rear Yard
Min 10 ft.
A
PARKING SETBACKS (MINIMUM) Front
10 ft.
Street Side
10 ft.
Interior Side
5 ft.
Rear
5 ft.
Any Yard Adjacent to Interstate (I-84 & I184)
20 ft.
HEIGHT (MAXIMUM) D
Building Height
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
70 ft.
39
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.4 MX-4 Mixed-Use: Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Node
D.
Form, Layout, and Design Standards (1) Applicability (a) When the MX-4 district is applied to lands that have not previously been developed, the development shall comply with this Section 11-02-03.4.D. (b) When the MX-4 district is applied to lands that have previously been developed, the redevelopment shall comply with this Section 11-02-03.4.D to the maximum extent practicable if it involves one or more of the following: i.
An increase in the total site area occupied by structures;
ii.
An increase in the total gross square footage of structures; or
iii.
An intensification of land use, as determined by the Planning Director.
(c) In the event of a conflict between these provisions and any provision in Chapter 11-03, Use Regulations or Chapter 11-04, Development and Design Standards, the provision requiring the higher level of visual building quality and interest, as determined by the Planning Director, shall apply. (2) Standards for All Development (a) Active Use Required Within each contiguous area of land zoned MX-4 that is under common control or ownership after the Effective Date, at least 60 percent of the approved ground floor street frontage shall be occupied by uses that are in active use by occupants or users of the building or development, or by the general public. This requirement is not met by ground floor parking areas, storage areas, utility facilities, or stairwells that are not accessible from the street frontage. (b) Streetscape Standards All development shall comply with the following streetscape standards. The stricter provisions shall supersede any inconsistent dimensional standards in Section 11-04-07, Access and Connectivity. i.
Each frontage on a local street shall include a detached sidewalk at least five feet in width that is separated from the curb line a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present.
ii.
Except as required by Subsection (iii) below, each frontage on a collector or arterial street shall include a detached sidewalk at least 10 feet in width that is separated from the curb line a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
40
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.4 MX-4 Mixed-Use: Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Node
Figure 2.10. MX-4 Streetscape Standards (Except State Street)
iii.
Each lot with frontage on State Street shall include a multiuse pathway at least 12 feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided to accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present.
Figure 2.11. MX-4 Streetscape Standards (State Street)
(c) Amenities Each development shall include an amenity feature that complies with one or more of the following standards: i.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
A landscape feature containing at least 400 square feet of area and a minimum width of five feet, or 10 feet if trees are included. Features may include enhanced landscaping areas, lighting, water, art, and/or provisions for seating; or
41
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.4 MX-4 Mixed-Use: Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Node
ii.
An outdoor gathering area containing at least 800 square feet of area, that is clearly visible from an adjacent street, with seating for patrons.
(d) Connectivity Each development shall provide the following elements: i.
ii.
At least one street that: A.
Is bordered along at least 60 percent of its length by buildings with façades no more than 10 feet from the sidewalk; and
B.
Is interrupted by no more than one driveway per 200 linear feet, except as required by Idaho law.
At least one pedestrian connection to the local street system in an adjacent residential neighborhood, designed and located to allow residents of the neighborhood to enter mixed-use and nonresidential areas of the MX-4 zoning district without using an arterial street to the maximum extent practicable.
(e) Vehicle-Oriented and Parking Facilities
(f)
i.
No Parking Lot unrelated to a Park and Ride Facility designated by the City shall be located within the MX-4 zoning district.
ii.
Where surface parking lots are part of a Park and Ride Facility designated by the City, no surface parking spaces or vehicle-oriented ancillary facilities (such as Service Stations or Vehicle Washes) may be located between the front façade of the building and any street fronting the property.
iii.
At least 80 percent of parking provided to serve a permitted or approved conditional use on the property shall be located in parking garages or alternate parking facilities, such as elevated parking lifts, rather than surface parking lots.
iv.
Any portion of a permitted Park and Ride Facility or accessory surface parking lot within 50 feet of a street frontage shall screen parked vehicles from view by installing a brick, masonry, or other appropriate screen wall between two and one half and three feet in height between the parking lot and the street.
Pedestrian-Oriented Design i.
The maximum length of each primary building facing a public or private street shall be 125 feet.
ii.
At least one walkway shall be provided from an adjacent sidewalk to each building entrance.
iii.
Where a sidewalk, trail, or other walkway crosses a street, driveway, drive aisle, or parking lot, the crossing shall be clearly marked with a change in paving material, color, or height, decorative bollards, or similar elements.
iv.
Where a lot or development includes more than one primary structure, a pedestrian walkway at least five feet in width shall be provided between at least one pedestrian entrance in each primary structure.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
42
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.4 MX-4 Mixed-Use: Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Node
v.
Along all public and private streets, all utility boxes and above-ground utility installations other than street and pedestrian light poles, traffic safety signals, and fire hydrants shall comply with the following standards to the maximum extent practicable and consistent with their function: A.
They shall be located to the side or rear of buildings; or
B.
Where a side or rear location is impracticable, they shall be set back a minimum of three feet from the sidewalk, and the three foot minimum setback shall be landscaped with shrubbery that will screen the utility structure from public view.
(3) Use-Specific Form Standards (a) Applicability i.
Each development containing more than 10,000 square feet of contiguous land area under common control or ownership that includes a principal use referenced in Subsection (b) below in a new primary structure shall comply with the following standards (Allowed Form). In the event of a conflict between these standards and applicable standards in Chapter 11-04, Development and Design Standards, the standards in this Subsection (2) shall apply.
ii.
If an application for an allowed use does not comply with one or more of the Allowed Form standards in this Section, an Alternative Form for the building or development containing the use may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.A, Allowed Use with Alternative Form.
(b) Residential, Commercial, and Public, Institutional, or Civic Uses i.
The use shall be located in a building at least four stories in height;
ii.
The use shall be located in a building or development that does not include a Parking Lot; and
iii.
The use shall be located in a building or development that does not include a Parking Garage with a greater number of vehicle parking spaces than the minimum required by Table 11-04.9: Off-Street Parking Requirements, as adjusted pursuant to Section 11-04-08.7, Parking Adjustments; and
iv.
The use shall be located in a building where at least 80 percent of the ground floor street frontage is occupied by uses that are in active use by occupants or users of the building or development, or by the general public. This requirement is not met by ground floor parking areas, storage areas, utility facilities, or stairs that are not accessible from the street frontage.
v.
As an alternative to Subsections (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) above, a Multiple-Family Dwelling may meet the requirements of Section 11-04-03.7.D(5) regarding affordable housing and sustainable development and earn the related incentives.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
43
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.5 MX-5 Mixed Use: Downtown
5.
MX-5 Mixed Use: Downtown A.
Purpose The MX-5 district is intended to provide opportunities for a mix of higher intensity office, commercial, institutional, and residential uses. The MX-5 district is intended to accommodate the needs of the city's Downtown Planning Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan and to provide for activities conducive to a compact, concentrated, and walkable urban downtown mixed-use center.
B.
Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections All development shall comply with all applicable sections of this Code. Cross-references to some of the key sections are provided below. TABLE 11-02.20: CROSS-REFERENCES TO OTHER APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS CODE SECTION
SECTION REFERENCE
Use Regulations
Chapter 11-03
Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions
11-04-03
Subdivision Standards
11-04-04
Sensitive Lands
11-04-05
Building Design
11-04-06
Access and Connectivity
11-04-07
Parking and Loading
11-04-08
Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening
11-04-09
Assured Water Supply
11-04-010
Exterior Lighting
11-04-011
Signs
11-04-012
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
44
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.5 MX-5 Mixed Use: Downtown
C.
Dimensional Standards
The following table is a summary of the district-specific dimensional standards. Complete dimensional standards are included in Section 11-04-03, Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions.
TABLE 11-02.21: MX-5 LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS LOT STANDARDS Lot Area (minimum)
N/A
Street Frontage (minimum)
N/A
BUILDING SETBACKS (MINIMUM/MAXIMUM) Front
Min 5 ft. Max 20 ft.
Street Side
Min 0 ft. Max 20 ft.
B
Interior Side
Min 0 ft.
C
Rear Yard
Min 0 ft.
A
PARKING SETBACKS (MINIMUM) Front
10 ft.
Street Side
10 ft.
Interior Side
5 ft.
Rear
5 ft.
Any Yard Adjacent to Interstate (I-84 & I184)
10 ft.
HEIGHT (MAXIMUM) D
Building Height
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
N/A
45
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.5 MX-5 Mixed Use: Downtown
D.
Form and Design Standards (1) Applicability (a) All existing and new development in the MX-5 zoning district shall comply with this Section 11-02-03.2.D. (b) In the event of a conflict between these provisions and any provision in Chapter 11-03, Use Regulations or Chapter 11-04, Development and Design Standards, the provision requiring the higher level of visual building quality and interest, as determined by the Planning Director, shall apply. (2) Standards for All Development (a) Active Use Required Within each contiguous area of land zoned MX-5 that is under common control or ownership after the Effective Date, at least 80 percent of the approved ground floor street frontage shall be occupied by uses that are in active use by occupants or users of the building or development, or by the general public. This requirement is not met by ground floor parking areas, storage areas, utility facilities, or stairwells that are not accessible from the street frontage. (b) Streetscape Standards A continuous public walkway, located between the face of building and adjacent street or a vacated street alignment, shall be provided and shall comply with adopted City standards, except that where this Subsection (b) lists more restrictive criteria, this Subsection (b) shall control. i.
The minimum width for clear pedestrian movement shall be seven and onehalf feet, and the overall width shall be at least 13 and one-half feet unless otherwise specified in the Downtown Streetscape Standards and Specifications Manual.
ii.
The location of the pedestrian zone and amenities zone on each sidewalk shall be consistent with those on adjacent lots and with those on adjacent buildings to the maximum extent practicable.
iii.
The paving pattern and the placement of trees and pedestrian amenities shall be unobstructed.
iv.
The sidewalk surface shall be skid resistant, free of surface obstruction, and of a smooth gradient. The cross slope shall freely drain and not exceed two percent gradient.
v.
Street trees shall be installed and shall be consistent with tree species on adjacent lots (except when existing trees do not comply with City standards). Street trees shall be one and one-half to three inch caliper, symmetrical, and shall provide no physical or visual obstructions within a clear vision triangle located at corners and alleys. Street tree spacing shall be of a consistent pattern, with a minimum of 21 feet, and a maximum of 40 feet between trees.
vi.
Pedestrian amenities shall be installed and may include benches, bollards, newsstands, kiosks, tree grates, bicycle racks, planters, and trash receptacles.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
46
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.5 MX-5 Mixed Use: Downtown
Pedestrian amenities shall be constructed of durable materials, of adequate quantity to meet the intended level of use, and compatible with the design of the space. vii. Pedestrian street lighting shall be installed, shall be a minimum of 12 feet and a maximum of 16 feet in height, shall replace mid-block high mast lighting, and shall be normally spaced at 60 feet apart unless otherwise required by the Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines. (c) Vehicle-Oriented and Parking Facilities i.
No surface parking spaces or vehicle-oriented ancillary facilities (such as Service Stations or Vehicle Washes) may be located between the building and any street adjacent to the property.
ii.
Drive-Through Facilities shall comply with Section 11-03-03.4.R, DriveThrough Facility.
(d) Ground Floor Design i.
At least 70 percent of the ground level, street-facing façade(s) must abut and be oriented to a public sidewalk, alley, or plaza.
ii.
Each building façade facing a public or private street that contains ground floor nonresidential uses shall be constructed within five feet of each streetfacing lot line/property line and occupy at least 80 percent of the width of the primary street frontage.
iii.
Each building façade facing a public or private street that contains ground floor residential uses shall be constructed within 15 feet of each streetfacing lot line/property line and occupy at least 80 percent of the width of the primary street frontage.
iv.
Each building façade facing a public or private street or driveway with ground floor nonresidential uses shall: A.
Have at least 60 percent of the area between three and eight feet above the ground floor occupied by windows or other transparent building features through which activity inside the building may be viewed; and
B.
Have at least one door leading directly from building interiors onto the street (without an intervening shared lobby or entrances shared by multiple tenants or uses) for each 50 feet of horizontal façade length.
(e) General Building Design i.
Each side of each primary building shall be designed to minimize or mitigate glare, reflected heat, and wind impacts on abutting properties.
ii.
Each side of each primary building shall be faced with high quality nonreflective materials such as stone, tile, and brick.
(3) Use-Specific Form Standards (a) Applicability i.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
Each development containing more than 10,000 square feet of contiguous land area under common control or ownership that includes a principal use 47
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.5 MX-5 Mixed Use: Downtown
referenced in Subsection (b) below in a new primary structure shall comply with the following standards (Allowed Form). In the event of a conflict between these standards and applicable standards in Chapter 11-04, Development and Design Standards, the standards in this Subsection (2) shall apply. ii.
If an application for an allowed use does not comply with one or more of the Allowed Form standards in this Section, an Alternative Form for the building or development containing the use may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.A, Allowed Use with Alternative Form.
(b) Residential and Commercial Uses
E.
i.
The use shall be located in a building at least four stories in height; and
ii.
The use shall be located in a building or development that does not include a Surface Parking Lot; and
iii.
The use shall be located in a building where at least 80 percent of the ground floor street frontage is occupied by uses that are in active use by occupants or users of the building or development, or by the general public. This requirement is not met by ground floor parking areas, storage areas, utility facilities, or stairs that are not accessible from the street frontage.
Additional Standards (1) Rezoning of Land Contiguous to Existing MX-5 Zoning District Only lands located in the Downtown Planning Area contiguous to existing land in the MX-5 zoning district may be rezoned into the MX-5 zoning district. provided the parcels are outside of the Near North End Character Overlay district. (2) Enclosure of Activities Required All warehouse, storage, repair, manufacture, and similar uses or related activities shall be conducted in an enclosed structure.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
48
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.6 MX-U Mixed-Use: University
6.
MX-U Mixed-Use: University A.
Purpose The MX-U district is intended to provide flexible, creative development on Boise State University’s (Boise State University) campus, including both new development and infill. This district allows for a mix of uses that support near-university residential, retail, and service functions.
B.
Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections All development shall comply with all applicable sections of this Code. Cross-references to some of the key sections are provided below. TABLE 11-02.22: CROSS-REFERENCES TO OTHER APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS CODE SECTION
SECTION REFERENCE
Use Regulations
Chapter 11-03
Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions
11-04-03
Subdivision Standards
11-04-04
Sensitive Lands
11-04-05
Building Design
11-04-06
Access and Connectivity
11-04-07
Parking and Loading
11-04-08
Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening
11-04-09
Assured Water Supply
11-04-010
Exterior Lighting
11-04-011
Signs
11-04-012
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
49
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.6 MX-U Mixed-Use: University
C.
Dimensional Standards
The following table is a summary of the district-specific dimensional standards. Complete dimensional standards are included in Section 11-04-03, Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions.
TABLE 11-02.23: MX-U LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS LOT STANDARDS Lot Area (minimum)
N/A
Street Frontage (minimum)
30 ft.
BUILDING SETBACKS (MINIMUM) A
Front
10 ft.[1]
Street Side
10 ft.[1]
B
Interior Side
N/A
C
Rear Yard
20 ft.[1]
PARKING SETBACKS (MINIMUM) Front
10 ft. [1]
Street Side
10 ft. [1]
Interior Side
10 ft. [1]
Rear
10 ft. [1]
Any Yard Adjacent to Interstate (I-84 & I184)
N/A
HEIGHT (MAXIMUM)
D
Building Height
Unlimited [2]; 70 ft. [3]; or 45 ft. or the maximum height of the Residential zoning district, whichever is greater [4]
Notes:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
50
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.6 MX-U Mixed-Use: University
TABLE 11-02.23: MX-U LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS [1] Only applies from edge of the adopted Boise State University campus master plan boundaries. [2] When interior to the campus. [3] Where the development site is located within 50 ft. of right-of-way on Beacon Street, Broadway Avenue, or Boise Avenue. [4] Where the development site is located within 50 ft. of a Residential zoning district (adjacent or across right-of-way).
D.
Streetscape Standards All development adjacent to the adopted Boise State University campus master plan boundaries shall comply with the following streetscape standards. The stricter provisions shall supersede any inconsistent dimensional standards in Section 11-04-07, Access and Connectivity. (1) Each frontage on a local street shall include a detached sidewalk at least five feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-0409.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present. (2) Each frontage on a collector or arterial street shall include a detached sidewalk at least 10 feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II or Class III street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present.
Figure 2.12. MX-U Streetscape Standards
E.
Additional Standards Fire access to existing and new buildings shall be shown on all required site plans. A letter from the Idaho State Fire Marshal verifying compliance of the building plans with state requirements regarding fire safety shall be submitted to the Planning Director prior to construction.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
51
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.7 MX-H Mixed-Use: Health
7.
MX-H Mixed-Use: Health A.
Purpose The MX-H district is intended to provide for health and medical related uses near major medical institutions. Limited office and Multiple-Family residential uses with similar land use characteristics and provide support services to the health and medical uses may be allowed.
B.
Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections All development shall comply with all applicable sections of this Code. Cross-references to some of the key sections are provided below. TABLE 11-02.24: CROSS-REFERENCES TO OTHER APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS CODE SECTION
SECTION REFERENCE
Use Regulations
Chapter 11-03
Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions
11-04-03
Subdivision Standards
11-04-04
Sensitive Lands
11-04-05
Building Design
11-04-06
Access and Connectivity
11-04-07
Parking and Loading
11-04-08
Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening
11-04-09
Assured Water Supply
11-04-010
Exterior Lighting
11-04-011
Signs
11-04-012
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
52
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.7 MX-H Mixed-Use: Health
C. Dimensional Standards
The following table is a summary of the district-specific dimensional standards. Complete dimensional standards are included in Section 11-04-03, Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions.
TABLE 11-02.25: MX-H LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS LOT STANDARDS Lot Area (minimum)
N/A
Street Frontage (minimum)
30 ft.
BUILDING SETBACKS (MINIMUM) A
Front
10 ft.
Street Side
10 ft.
B
Interior Side
C
Rear Yard
1 and 2 stories: 5 ft. 3+ stories: 15 ft.
PARKING SETBACKS (MINIMUM) Front
20 ft.
Street Side
10 ft.
Interior Side
10 ft.
Rear
10 ft.
Any Yard Adjacent to Interstate (I-84 & I184)
10 ft.
HEIGHT (MAXIMUM) D
Building Height
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
78 ft.
53
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-03. Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 11-02-03.7 MX-H Mixed-Use: Health
D.
Streetscape Standards All development shall comply with the following streetscape standards. The stricter provisions shall supersede any inconsistent dimensional standards in Section 11-04-07, Access and Connectivity. (1) Each frontage on a local street shall include a detached sidewalk at least five feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-0409.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present. (2) Each frontage on a collector or arterial street shall include a detached sidewalk at least 10 feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present.
Figure 2.13. MX-H Streetscape Standards
(a) Vehicle-Oriented and Parking Facilities i.
No surface parking spaces or vehicle-oriented ancillary facilities (such as Service Stations or Vehicle Washes) may be located between the building and any street adjacent to the property.
ii.
Drive-Through Facilities shall comply with Section 11-03-03.4.R, DriveThrough Facility.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
54
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-04. Industrial Zoning Districts 11-02-04.1 I-1: Light Industrial
11-02-04. 1.
Industrial Zoning Districts
I-1: Light Industrial A.
Purpose The I-1 zoning district is intended to accommodate light manufacturing, assembly, fabrication, and technology-related land uses that may require significant transportation services but that typically do not operate during nighttime hours and are generally compatible with nearby commercial and residential areas when accompanied by substantial buffering, screening, and standards designed to mitigate impacts.
B.
Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections All development shall comply with all applicable sections of this Code. Cross-references to some of the key sections are provided below. TABLE 11-02.26: CROSS-REFERENCES TO OTHER APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS CODE SECTION
SECTION REFERENCE
Use Regulations
Chapter 11-03
Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions
11-04-03
Subdivision Standards
11-04-04
Sensitive Lands
11-04-05
Building Design
11-04-06
Access and Connectivity
11-04-07
Parking and Loading
11-04-08
Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening
11-04-09
Assured Water Supply
11-04-010
Exterior Lighting
11-04-011
Signs
11-04-012
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
55
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-04. Industrial Zoning Districts 11-02-04.1 I-1: Light Industrial
C.
Dimensional Standards
The following table is a summary of the district-specific dimensional standards. Complete dimensional standards are included in Section 11-04-03, Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions.
TABLE 11-02.27: I-1 LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS LOT STANDARDS Lot Area (minimum)
N/A
Lot Width (average)
N/A
Street Frontage (minimum)
30 ft.
BUILDING SETBACKS (MINIMUM) A
Front
Min 20 ft.
Street Side
Min 15 ft.
B
Interior Side
Min 0 ft. [1]
C
Rear Yard
Min 0 ft. [1]
PARKING SETBACKS (MINIMUM) Front
10 ft.
Street Side
10 ft.
Interior Side
0 ft. [1]
Rear
0 ft. [1]
Any Yard Adjacent to Interstate (I-84 & I184)
10 ft.
HEIGHT (MAXIMUM) D
Building Height
55 ft.
Notes:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
56
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-04. Industrial Zoning Districts 11-02-04.1 I-1: Light Industrial
TABLE 11-02.27: I-1 LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS [1] When adjacent to a Residential zoning district or residential use, 30 ft. minimum for all development under three acres, 50 ft. minimum for all development between three acres and 10 acres, and 100 ft. minimum for all development of 10 or more acres.
D.
Streetscape Standards All development shall comply with the following streetscape standards. The stricter provisions shall supersede any inconsistent dimensional standards in Section 11-04-07, Access and Connectivity. (1) Each frontage on a local street shall include a detached sidewalk at least five feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-0409.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present. (2) Each frontage on a collector or arterial street shall include a detached sidewalk at least 10 feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present.
Figure 2.14. I-1 Streetscape Standards
E.
Additional Standards (1) No uses that generate, use, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous substances (as set forth in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 116.4, 261.30 et seq., 302.4 and/or 355) are permitted. (2) All operations creating odor, dust, smoke, cinders, gas, fumes, noise, vibrations, refuse matter, water-carried waste, or other emissions shall be reasonably mitigated to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the surrounding land uses.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
57
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-04. Industrial Zoning Districts 11-02-04.2 I-2: Heavy Industrial
2.
I-2: Heavy Industrial A.
Purpose The I-2 zoning district is intended to accommodate general industrial activity with greater impacts than those in the I-1 zoning district, including uses that require significant heavy transportation services, uses that frequently operate during nighttime hours, and uses that require additional standards to protect health, safety, or general welfare. The I-2 zoning district should be separated from commercial or residential development.
B.
Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections All development shall comply with all applicable sections of this Code. Cross-references to some of the key sections are provided below. TABLE 11-02.28: CROSS-REFERENCES TO OTHER APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS CODE SECTION
SECTION REFERENCE
Use Regulations
Chapter 11-03
Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions
11-04-03
Subdivision Standards
11-04-04
Sensitive Lands
11-04-05
Building Design
11-04-06
Access and Connectivity
11-04-07
Parking and Loading
11-04-08
Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening
11-04-09
Assured Water Supply
11-04-010
Exterior Lighting
11-04-011
Signs
11-04-012
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
58
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-04. Industrial Zoning Districts 11-02-04.2 I-2: Heavy Industrial
C.
Dimensional Standards
The following table is a summary of the district-specific dimensional standards. Complete dimensional standards are included in Section 11-04-03, Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions.
TABLE 11-02.29: I-2 LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS LOT STANDARDS Lot Area (minimum)
N/A
Street Frontage (minimum)
30 ft.
BUILDING SETBACKS (MINIMUM) A
Front
20 ft.
Street Side
15 ft.
B
Interior Side
0 ft. [1]
C
Rear Yard
0 ft. [1]
PARKING SETBACKS (MINIMUM) Front
15 ft.
Street Side
15 ft.
Interior Side
0 ft. [1]
Rear
0 ft. [1]
Any Yard Adjacent to Interstate (I-84 & I184)
20 ft.
HEIGHT (MAXIMUM) D
Building Height
55 ft.
Notes:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
59
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-04. Industrial Zoning Districts 11-02-04.2 I-2: Heavy Industrial
TABLE 11-02.29: I-2 LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS [1] When adjacent to a Residential zoning district or residential use, 30 ft. minimum for all development under three acres, 50 ft. minimum for all development between three acres and 10 acres, and 100 ft. minimum for all development of 10 or more acres.
D.
Streetscape Standards All development shall comply with the following streetscape standards. The stricter provisions shall supersede any inconsistent dimensional standards in Section 11-04-07, Access and Connectivity. (1) Each frontage on a local street shall include a detached sidewalk at least five feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-0409.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present. (2) Each frontage on a collector or arterial street shall include a detached sidewalk at least 10 feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present.
Figure 2.15. I-2 Streetscape Standards
E.
Additional Standards All Allowed Uses that generate, use, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous substances (as set forth in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 116.4, 261.30 et seq., 302.4 and/or 355), shall require a Conditional Use Permit.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
60
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-04. Industrial Zoning Districts 11-02-04.1 I-3: Industrial Technology
1. I-3: Industrial Technology A.
Purpose The I-3 zoning district is intended to provide for manufacturing and technological facilities that may have a greater impact on the surrounding area than industries allowed in the Mixed-Use zoning districts. Lands in the I-3 zoning district should be served by major transportation facilities and be buffered from adjacent residential areas.
B.
Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections All development shall comply with all applicable sections of this Code. Cross-references to some of the key sections are provided below. TABLE 11-02.30: CROSS-REFERENCES TO OTHER APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS CODE SECTION
SECTION REFERENCE
Use Regulations
Chapter 11-03
Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions
11-04-03
Subdivision Standards
11-04-04
Sensitive Lands
11-04-05
Building Design
11-04-06
Access and Connectivity
11-04-07
Parking and Loading
11-04-08
Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening
11-04-09
Assured Water Supply
11-04-010
Exterior Lighting
11-04-011
Signs
11-04-012
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
61
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-04. Industrial Zoning Districts 11-02-04.1 I-3: Industrial Technology
C.
Dimensional Standards
The following table is a summary of the district-specific dimensional standards. Complete dimensional standards are included in Section 11-04-03, Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions.
TABLE 11-02.31: I-3 LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS LOT STANDARDS Lot Area (minimum)
N/A
Lot Width (average)
N/A
Street Frontage (minimum)
30 ft.
BUILDING SETBACKS (MINIMUM) [1] A
Front Street Side
B
Interior Side
C
Rear Yard
45 ft. + 1 ft. for every 1-foot increase in building height above 45 ft. OR 100 ft. [2]
PARKING SETBACKS (MINIMUM) [1] Front
20 ft.
Street Side
20 ft.
Interior Side
15 ft.
Rear
15 ft.
Any Yard Adjacent to Interstate (I-84 & I184)
20 ft.
HEIGHT (MAXIMUM) D
Building Height
150 ft. [3]
Notes: [1] If a development is part of an adopted Industrial Technology master plan, setbacks shall apply only to the perimeter of the campus.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
62
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-04. Industrial Zoning Districts 11-02-04.1 I-3: Industrial Technology
TABLE 11-02.31: I-3 LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS [2] Applies when the property is adjacent to a Residential zoning district or residential use, regardless of whether the property is located on the perimeter of the campus. [3] Controlled by a 45 degree angle of bulk plan from all exterior property lines up to the maximum height of 150 feet.
D.
Streetscape Standards All development shall comply with the following streetscape standards. The stricter provisions shall supersede any inconsistent dimensional standards in Section 11-04-07, Access and Connectivity. (1) Each frontage on a local street shall include a detached sidewalk at least five feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-0409.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present. (2) Each frontage on a collector or arterial street shall include a detached sidewalk at least 10 feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present.
Figure 2.16. I-3 Streetscape Standards
E.
Additional Standards (1) Operational Standards (a) No uses that generate, use, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous substances (as set forth in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 116.4, 261.30 et seq., 302.4 and/or 355) are permitted. (b) All operations shall be free of odor, dust, smoke, cinders, gas, fumes, noise, vibrations, refuse matter, water-carried waste, or other emissions.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
63
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-04. Industrial Zoning Districts 11-02-04.1 I-3: Industrial Technology
(2) Design Review (a) To mitigate potential negative impacts on adjacent development, a concept map differentiating "peripheral" and "internal" development areas is required as part of an application to rezone to I-3. Areas approved as "peripheral" shall be subject to Major Design Review pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.D. (b) Because these developments are usually large enough to create an inner character compatible with surrounding uses, areas approved as "internal" shall be exempt from the design review process, unless otherwise required by this Section. (c) Buildings taller than 45 feet in an area designated "internal" are subject to Design Review. The Planning Director may waive this requirement where it can be demonstrated that there are no material negative impacts associated with such buildings due to the proximity of surrounding buildings or structures.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
64
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-05. Open Land Zoning Districts 11-02-05.1 A-1 Open Land Very Low Density
11-02-05. 1.
Open Land Zoning Districts
A-1 Open Land Very Low Density A.
Purpose The A-1 zoning district is intended to provide for low density residential use and land uses requiring larger land areas for development such as parks, schools, golf courses, agriculture.
B.
Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections All development shall comply with all applicable sections of this Code. Cross-references to some of the key sections are provided below. TABLE 11-02.32: CROSS-REFERENCES TO OTHER APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS CODE SECTION
SECTION REFERENCE
Use Regulations
Chapter 11-03
Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions
11-04-03
Subdivision Standards
11-04-04
Sensitive Lands
11-04-05
Building Design
11-04-06
Access and Connectivity
11-04-07
Parking and Loading
11-04-08
Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening
11-04-09
Assured Water Supply
11-04-010
Exterior Lighting
11-04-011
Signs
11-04-012
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
65
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-05. Open Land Zoning Districts 11-02-05.1 A-1 Open Land Very Low Density
C.
Dimensional Standards
The following table is a summary of the district-specific dimensional standards. Complete dimensional standards are included in Section 11-04-03, Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions.
TABLE 11-02.33: A-1 LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS LOT STANDARDS Lot area (minimum)
1 acre
Lot width (average)
50 ft.
Street frontage (minimum)
30 ft.
Density (maximum)
1 unit/acre
BUILDING SETBACKS (MINIMUM) [1] A
Front
20 ft.
Street Side
20 ft.
B
Interior Side
10 ft.
C
Rear Yard
30 ft.
PARKING SETBACKS (MINIMUM) [1] Front
20 ft.
Street Side
20 ft.
Interior Side
20 ft.
Rear
30 ft.
Any Yard Adjacent to Interstate (I-84 & I-184)
30 ft.
HEIGHT (MAXIMUM) D
Building Height
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
45 ft. or
66
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-05. Open Land Zoning Districts 11-02-05.1 A-1 Open Land Very Low Density
TABLE 11-02.33: A-1 LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS 35 ft. [1] Notes: [1] Applies when the property abuts a Residential zoning district or a residential use.
D.
Streetscape Standards All development shall comply with the following streetscape standards. The stricter provisions shall supersede any inconsistent dimensional standards in Section 11-04-07, Access and Connectivity. (1) Each frontage on a local street shall include a detached sidewalk at least five feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-0409.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present. (2) Each frontage on a collector or arterial street shall include a detached sidewalk at least 10 feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present.
Figure 2.17. A-1 Streetscape Standards
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
67
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-05. Open Land Zoning Districts 11-02-05.2 A-2 Open Land Reserve
2.
A-2 Open Land Reserve A.
Purpose The A-2 zoning district is intended to provide for permanent open space and to properly guide growth of the fringe areas of the city. The A-2 district classification should be applied to property that is not intended for development, or for property that the city desires to be subject to stronger development limitations than would be provided by the A-1 district. Lands may be assigned to an A-2 district classification to: (1) Set aside lands for open space uses, including floodways, riparian areas, steep slopes, and flood control facilities; (2) Enhance and preserve the character of parks and other publicly owned properties; (3) Encourage agricultural and grazing uses; (4) Serve as a low intensity use zone.
. B.
Cross-References to Other Applicable Code Sections All development shall comply with all applicable sections of this Code. Cross-references to some of the key sections are provided below. TABLE 11-02.34: CROSS-REFERENCES TO OTHER APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS CODE SECTION
SECTION REFERENCE
Use Regulations
Chapter 11-03
Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions
11-04-03
Subdivision Standards
11-04-04
Sensitive Lands
11-04-05
Building Design
11-04-06
Access and Connectivity
11-04-07
Parking and Loading
11-04-08
Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening
11-04-09
Assured Water Supply
11-04-010
Exterior Lighting
11-04-011
Signs
11-04-012
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
68
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-05. Open Land Zoning Districts 11-02-05.2 A-2 Open Land Reserve
C.
Dimensional Standards
The following table is a summary of the district-specific dimensional standards. Complete dimensional standards are included in Section 11-04-03, Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions.
TABLE 11-02.35: A-2 LOT AND BUILDING STANDARDS LOT STANDARDS Lot Area (minimum)
40 acres
Lot Width (average)
100 ft.
Street Frontage (minimum)
100 ft.
Density (maximum)
1 unit/40 acres
BUILDING SETBACKS (MINIMUM) [1] A
Front
40 ft.
Street Side
40 ft.
B
Interior Side
20 ft.
C
Rear Yard
60 ft.
PARKING SETBACKS (MINIMUM) [1] Front
20 ft.
Street Side
20 ft.
Interior Side
20 ft.
Rear
60 ft.
Any Yard Adjacent to Interstate (I-84 & I184)
20 ft.
HEIGHT (MAXIMUM) D
Building Height
45 ft. or 35 ft. [1]
Notes: [1] Applies when the property abuts a Residential zoning district or a residential use.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
69
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-05. Open Land Zoning Districts 11-02-05.2 A-2 Open Land Reserve
D.
Streetscape Standards All development shall comply with the following streetscape standards. The stricter provisions shall supersede any inconsistent dimensional standards in Section 11-04-07, Access and Connectivity. (1) Each frontage on a local street shall include a detached sidewalk at least five feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-0409.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present. (2) Each frontage on a collector or arterial street shall include a detached sidewalk at least 10 feet in width that is separated from the curb line by a minimum of eight feet when a Class II street tree is provided or 10 feet when a Class I or Class III street tree is provided. This area will accommodate a landscape buffer and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4, Street Frontage Landscaping. Class I trees are permitted only when overhead powerlines are present.
Figure 2.18. A-2 Streetscape Standards
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
70
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-06. PUD: Planned Unit Development 11-02-06.1 Purpose
11-02-06. 1.
PUD: Planned Unit Development
Purpose The purpose of the PUD zoning district is to accommodate new and imaginative concepts in urban design and land development to promote and improve the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens in ways consistent with the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan. The principal use of this district is to promote innovative design that incorporates public amenities that provide significant benefits to Boise residents and that would not be required under other portions of this Code or other adopted City regulations. The PUD zoning district is not intended to allow deviations from the standards and requirements of this Code that are not accompanied by significant additional amenities or as a substitute for obtaining Variances pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.L. Areas rezoned to the PUD district shall be subject to a Development Plan or Development Agreement that shall be approved by City Council at the same time as the rezoning to PUD.
2.
Eligibility Criteria An application for rezoning to a PUD zoning district shall not be accepted by the City unless it complies with all of the provisions of this Subsection 2. A.
Minimum Size of Planned Development Each PUD application shall include a contiguous area of land at least five acres in size, all of which is under single ownership or control.
B.
Mandatory Eligibility Requirements Each PUD application shall include all of the following elements, each of which shall include a higher level of performance than otherwise required by this Code or other adopted City or governmental regulations, as determined by the Planning Director. If the PUD application does not contain the specific use type addressed by any individual eligibility requirement, the application is not required to comply with that requirement. (1) Pedestrian and Non-motorized Travel Enhanced opportunities for non-motorized travel, measured as the sum of the length of all designated public pedestrian and bicycle trails, paths, sidewalks, and walkways. (2) Parks and Trails Enhanced access to public or private parks and trails and enhanced landscaping and appearance of public or private parks and trails. (3) Housing Types Commitment to include at least three distinct types of housing as listed in Table 1103.1: Table of Allowed Uses or as determined to be distinct housing types by the Planning Director, each of which shall be occupy at least 10 percent of the residential development land or include at least 10 percent of the residential units included in the application, at the applicant’s option. (4) Ground Floor Activation If the proposal includes residential development, commitments that 60 percent of the ground floor areas of buildings along collector and arterial streets will be designed for and occupied by uses that are in active use by occupants or users of the building or development or by the general public and will incorporate building designs that help
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
71
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-06. PUD: Planned Unit Development 11-02-06.3 Identification of Base Districts from Which Flexibility is Requested
activate street frontages to encourage pedestrian use. This requirement is not met by ground floor parking areas, storage areas, utility facilities, or stairwells that are not accessible from the street frontage. (5) Building Design Enhanced building design through compliance with more of the Citywide or Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines (as applicable) or performance of such design standards and guidelines at a higher level of quality or visual interest, as determined by the Planning Director. (6) Utility Services and Green Infrastructure Enhanced protection of, or enhanced quality of service from, water, sewer, stormwater, electric, gas, and telecommunications systems. C.
Additional Eligibility Requirements Each PUD application shall include two of the following three elements, to be selected by the applicant, each of which shall include a higher level of performance than otherwise required by this Code or other adopted City or governmental regulations, as determined by the Planning Director: (1) Natural Systems Commitments to permanently protect and manage natural systems and resources on a larger percentage of the project site than otherwise required by this Code. (2) Housing Affordability Commitments to deed restrict for a period of at least 50 years at least 10 percent of residential units to households earning not more than 60 percent of the Area Median Income for the Boise area if the dwelling unit(s) is a rental unit or 15 percent of residential units affordable to households earning no more than 120 percent of the Area Median Income if the dwelling unit(s) is a for-sale property. (3) Sustainable Building Design Commitments that the project will include conformance with sustainable building practices including Silver Certification by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system or the adopted City of Boise Green Building Code.
3.
Identification of Base Districts from Which Flexibility is Requested Each PUD application shall identify which base zoning district established in this Code shall apply in each area of the PUD unless varied by the terms of the Development Plan and Development Agreement.
4.
Areas of Flexibility Permitted Each PUD application may request only the following types of adjustments from base zoning district standards: A.
Minimum lot sizes;
B.
Increased residential development density;
C.
Increased nonresidential development intensity;
D.
Reduced or reorganized internal building setbacks; and
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
72
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.1 Character Overlay Districts
E.
11-02-07. 1.
Additional types of housing.
Overlay Districts
Character Overlay Districts A.
Purpose Character overlay districts are intended to maintain the unique character of specific areas. A character overlay district is usually applied to residential neighborhoods with certain identifiable attributes embodied in architecture, urban design, geography, or history.
B.
Designation of Character Overlay Districts (1) Character overlay districts shall be designated by ordinance. Neighborhoods or areas selected for consideration for a character overlay district designation shall meet at least one of the following criteria: (a) Has a distinctive character with identifiable attributes embodied in architecture, use, development patterns, or history that make it a unique and integral part of the city's identity; or (b) Has a recognized neighborhood identity and a definable physical character that may have a high artistic value or a relationship to urban centers or historic districts that makes the area's conservation significant to the city's history or function. (2) Character overlay district provisions may apply additional requirements or allow exceptions to the standard regulations of the base zoning district. (3) Prior to recommending an area for designation as a character overlay district initiated by the Planning Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall: (a) Conduct any necessary plans, studies, research, or investigations; (b) Assess neighborhood and landowner support; and (c) Prepare a report containing recommendations. (4) Prior to adoption of a character overlay district ordinance in a district that may be of historic significance as determined by the Planning Director, the Historic Preservation Commission shall have the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed ordinance.
C.
Establishment of Character Overlay District Character overlay districts shall be approved as described in Sections 11-05-05.4.B, Code Adoption or Amendment and 11-05-05.4.I, Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning, including Planned Unit Development).
D.
HC-O: Hyde Park Character Overlay (1) Purpose The purpose of the HC-O District is to maintain the historical commercial district as a functioning community asset and maintain a mix of commercial, office, and residential uses. The district encourages land uses that are determined to be key to the district's long-term health and sustainability. The district regulations are intended to protect the historical and architectural character of Hyde Park and establish parking standards for this area. Parking requirements are on a graduated scale for certain uses to
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
73
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.1 Character Overlay Districts
encourage street-level retail and restaurants as well as second story office uses. Shared parking is encouraged to reduce the need for surface parking. (2) Boundary Map
Figure 2.19. Hyde Park Character Overlay District Boundary Map
(3) Uses The following uses are prohibited: (a) Parking Garages or Park and Ride facilities; and (b) New off-site parking lots as of March 16, 2006. On-site parking lots used as leasable off-site parking that existed prior to March 14, 2006, may continue to be used, but not expanded. (4) District Parking Standards (a) Parking requirements shall follow Table 11-02.36, below.
TABLE 11-02.36: PARKING ALLOWANCES IN THE HC-O LAND USE
GRADUATED SCALE OF USE/UNIT OF MEASURE
REQUIRED PARKING SPACES
0 - 40 seats 41 - 80 seats [1]
1 per 20 seats 1 per 10 seats
Over 81 seats [1]
1 per 2 seats
0 - 750 square feet
1
751 - 2000 sq. ft. [1]
1 per 300 sq. ft.
Restaurant
Retail
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
74
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.1 Character Overlay Districts
TABLE 11-02.36: PARKING ALLOWANCES IN THE HC-O LAND USE
GRADUATED SCALE OF USE/UNIT OF MEASURE
REQUIRED PARKING SPACES
Over 2001 sq. ft. [1]
1 per 200 sq. ft.
Street level
100 sq. ft.
Upper floor
300 sq. ft.
Office
Notes: [1] Parking requirements are cumulative.
(b) Outdoor or seasonal seating shall be counted as regular seating and is required to meet all parking and zoning requirements in this Code. Existing outside seating shall be considered a legal nonconforming use. (c) The allotment of parking for each business is available in the Planning and Development Services Department. (d) Tandem parking is permitted in rear yards with alley access, provided setbacks and appropriate backup area requirements are met. (e) All off-site parking shall have a valid contract. This contract shall state:
E.
i.
The location of the parking space(s);
ii.
The contract is binding on all successors and run with the land;
iii.
How the parking spaces are to be maintained and who is responsible;
iv.
That the parking cannot be revoked without prior approval of the City, and must show revocation for good cause; and
v.
Provide 60 days’ notice of termination to the City.
NC-O: Near North End Character Overlay (1) Purpose The purpose of the NC-O District is to: (a) Encourage continued residential uses; (b) Protect the historical and architectural character of the neighborhood using adaptive reuse methods; (c) Encourage redevelopment of sites and renovation of structures that contain established historic institutional uses; (d) Allow for adaptive reuse of existing structures for Multiple-Family residential and established historic institutional uses; (e) Prohibit demolition of structures for parking lots or new office developments; and (f)
Maintain the district as a transitional area between the commercial intensity of downtown and the adjacent predominantly single-family residential neighborhoods.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
75
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.1 Character Overlay Districts
(2) Map and Boundaries (a) Boundary Map
Figure 2.20. Near North End Character Overlay District Boundary Map
(3) Standards The following restrictions and allowances beyond the requirements of the base zoning district shall apply: (a) Parking Allowances for Adaptive Reuse in the MX-1 And R-3 Zone Adaptive reuse of a Single-Family Detached or Single-Family Attached Dwelling for office, Multiple-Family residential, or historic institutional use may be granted the following allowances for parking requirements: i.
Tandem parking in the rear yard, with alley access, is permitted.
ii.
Shared parking agreements and parking joint use agreements are required to the maximum extent practicable.
(b) Adaptive Reuse Limitation for Additions Buildings that are adaptively reused pursuant to the provisions of this Section may be expanded in size up to 50 percent from what existed on August 21, 2001, provided: i.
The expanded portion is in keeping with the architecture of the existing building; and
ii.
The site is large enough to accommodate the required number of off-street parking spaces without the granting of a Variance for setbacks or landscaping.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
76
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.1 Character Overlay Districts
(c) Standards for Parking Structures and Lots in the NC-O District On-site surface parking lots larger than 2,500 square feet are prohibited, unless incorporated within a new residential use or within and as part of the renovation, redevelopment, or expansion of an historic institutional use. As used in this paragraph, the phrase "incorporated within" shall mean located in an interior or rear yard of a development so that it is not visible from the public street. F.
BC-O: Big Sky Overlay (1) Purpose The purpose of the BC-O district is to: (a) Preserve the large lots and open character of the Big Sky Neighborhood; (b) Retain the rural personality of this unique location; and (c) Encourage agrarian uses through more flexible standards to maintain, protect, and enhance land use and livability. (2) Boundary Map
Figure 2.21. Big Sky Character Overlay District Boundary Map
(3) Residential Standards (a) Setbacks i.
New residential buildings, additions to existing residential buildings, and detached outbuildings greater than 500 square feet or 15 feet in height shall be subject to the following setback standards:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
77
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.1 Character Overlay Districts
ii.
A.
Front setbacks as measured from the property line shall be 35 feet minimum, 85 feet maximum, and within five feet of the average setbacks of the adjacent properties.
B.
Side and rear setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the property line.
Detached outbuildings with an area of up to 500 square feet and height less than 15 feet may have a reduced side and rear setbacks of 10 feet from the property line.
(b) Enclosed Garage Dwelling units, including each unit of a Duplex Dwelling, shall have an enclosed garage with an interior dimension of at least 20 feet wide by 20 feet long. (c) Entrances to Residential Units Front doors of residential units shall face the street. (d) Duplex Dwelling Standards Duplex Dwellings in the BC-O district shall be subject to the specific design criteria as per Section 11-03-03.2.G, Dwelling, Duplex, Triplex, or Fourplex and agricultural and setback standards described in Subsection (4), below. (4) Livestock Standards The keeping of livestock and agricultural uses in the BC-O district shall be subject to the standards of Section 11-03-03.2.J, and the standards in this Section. Where the standards of this Section conflict with 11-03-03.2.J, this Section shall control. (a) Allowed Uses The keeping of livestock, small animals, and similar or related agricultural uses are allowed in the BC-O district subject to the regulations of this Section. (b) Minimum Lot Area for Large Animals A minimum lot area of one-half acre is required for large animals as defined in this Code. (c) Animal Reserve Area A minimum area of one-half acre is required for the keeping and care of two animal units. Stables, paddocks, barns, and similar structures may be counted as part of the reserve area, but structures other than those related to the care of animals shall not be counted as part of the reserve area. (d) Minimum Lot Area and Location for Small Animals No minimum lot area is required for keeping small animals as defined in this Code. All animal units and small animals shall be kept behind the front of the principal dwelling. (e) Animal Density Standards i.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
The maximum animal density shall be two animal units per one-half acre of reserve area. Additional reserve areas shall be added in one-half acre increments to calculate the number of animal units allowed on a particular parcel. 78
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.1 Character Overlay Districts
ii.
(f)
The keeping of chickens in conjunction with the keeping of large animals is an exception to animal density standards. Up to six mature chickens may be kept simultaneously in addition to the large animals allowed per lot based on the density standard.
Setbacks and Enclosures i.
Concentrated feeding areas and buildings housing animals shall be located behind the front of the principal dwelling. Buildings for housing animals must also comply with the setback standards for the BC-O.
ii.
Livestock shall be kept within enclosures such that the livestock is prevented from encroaching on, and/or damaging, neighboring properties, fences, or vegetation or public streets. Enclosures may include but are not limited to fences, corrals, barns, and pens.
(g) Best Management Practices (BMPs) i.
Best management practices (BMPs) are intended to protect surface and ground water quality and to avoid any adverse impact to wells, irrigation ditches, and other beneficial uses. A BMP is defined as a practice or combination of practices that are the most effective, practicable means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by non-point sources to a level compatible with water quality goals. The following BMPs shall be met: A.
Fencing Enclose one or more areas on the site with a permanent fence or structure to function as a barrier to livestock and other animals as needed in order to prevent access to and protect streams, canals, and ditches from trampling, erosion, and contamination.
B.
Filter Strips for Streams, Canals, and Ditches Maintain a gently sloping strip of ground over vegetation to filter runoff from that portion of the site occupied by animals. Filter strips shall distribute waste matter uniformly across the high end of the strip, allow waste to flow through and across the strip, and shall promote the filtering of nutrients, runoff water, and other materials through the grass in a manner so that they are absorbed by the soil and ultimately taken up by the plants.
C.
Runoff Control System Employ a combination of practices to prevent animal waste runoff to surface water and adjacent properties. Practices may include diversion of runoff from the lot, roof runoff systems, lot shaping, settling basins, and filter strips or buffer areas.
D.
Liquid and Solid Waste Management System Employ a system for managing liquid and solid waste in a manner that:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
79
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.1 Character Overlay Districts
(i)
Ensures fecal matter and other solid wastes do not create or promote nuisances, odors, or disease-carrying insects and animals; and
(ii) Does not degrade air, soil, or water resources. The appropriate system shall typically include the frequent spreading of liquid and solid waste, composting of manures, and off-site disposal. ii.
G.
Additional BMPs shall be required if those listed above are shown to be ineffective. If a resident does not properly maintain or use BMPs, then the resident shall immediately cease the keeping of animals. The owner or resident can consult the following agencies for additional technical assistance: A.
Ada Soil Conservation District.
B.
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
C.
Idaho Soil Conversation Commission.
D.
University of Idaho Extension Service.
E.
Boise City Public Works Department.
SC-O: Sycamore Overlay (1) Purpose The purpose of the SC-O district is to preserve and encourage land use and development that is consistent with the semi-rural, agricultural character and lifestyle of the Sycamore neighborhood while promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare of present and future residents of the neighborhood and Boise City. (2) Boundary Map
Figure 2.22. Sycamore Character Overlay District Boundary Map
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
80
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.1 Character Overlay Districts
(3) Specific Standards (a) Setbacks Excluding lots fronting on 39th, Catalpa, and Taft Streets, the required setback for buildings and parking areas on vacant or undeveloped lots is determined by the average setback of the primary building on the two abutting lots facing the same street. The required setback shall not be less than 20 feet or greater than 40 feet. Additions to existing buildings in the SC-O district are also subject to this setback standard. (b) Agricultural Standards The keeping of livestock, small animals, and similar or related agricultural uses shall be subject to the generally applicable use standards of Section 11-03-03.2.J, and the standards in this Section (b). Where the standards of this Section (b) conflict with the generally applicable standards, this Section (b) shall control. i.
Allowed Uses The keeping of livestock, small animals, and similar or related agricultural uses are allowed subject to the regulations of this Section.
ii.
Minimum Lot Size A minimum lot or parcel size of 21,780 square feet (one-half acre) is required for large animals as defined in this Code. The area of the lot or parcel used for any human dwelling shall be included when computing the one-half acre minimum lot size needed to qualify for large animals.
iii.
Animal Reserve Area A minimum animal reserve area of 10,890 square feet (one-quarter acre) is required for the keeping and care of large animals. Stables, paddocks, barns, and similar structures may be counted as part of the reserve area, but structures other than those related to the care of animals shall not be counted as part of the reserve area.
iv.
Area for Small Animals No minimum lot area is required for keeping small animals as defined in this Code, although small animals are subject to the animal density standards. All small animals as defined shall be kept behind the front of the principal dwelling.
v.
Animal Density Standards A.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
The maximum animal density for large animals shall be one animal unit per one-quarter acre of reserve area. The reserve area shall be used to calculate the allowed number of large animals allowed on a particular parcel. For reserve areas larger than one-quarter acre, the one animal unit per one-quarter acre ratio shall be applied to determine the allowed number of animals. Shared reserve areas on adjacent lots may be added to the owner's reserve area to calculate the number of large animals allowed on the owner's lot.
81
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.1 Character Overlay Districts
vi.
B.
The maximum animal density for small animals shall be one animal unit per one-quarter acre of land area behind the front of the principal dwelling. The area used for calculating the allowed number of small animals shall not include land occupied by any building not used for housing the animals. For areas of land different from one-quarter acre, the one animal unit per one-quarter acre ratio shall be applied to determine the allowed number of animals.
C.
The keeping of chickens in conjunction with the keeping of large animals is an exception to animal density standards. Up to six chickens may be kept simultaneously and in addition to the large animals allowed per lot based on the density standard.
D.
No more than one rooster shall be kept on any single parcel, regardless of the size of the parcel.
Site Plan As deemed necessary, the Planning Director may require the owner or resident to submit a site plan, subject to approval, for the purpose of determining the amount of land available on a particular site for the keeping of animals pursuant to the standards of this Section.
vii. Setbacks for Concentrated Feeding Areas, Buildings, and Pasture and Reserve Areas Concentrated feeding areas and buildings housing animals shall be located behind the front of the principal dwelling and a minimum of 10 feet from all property lines. Fully enclosed buildings shall comply with the setback standards for the base zoning district and, therefore, may in some cases be set back less than 10 feet from the property line. Pasture or reserve areas shall be located behind the front of the principal dwelling and may otherwise be located at the side and rear property line. viii. District Perimeter Setback Animal reserve areas for large animals shall be set back a minimum of 30 feet from any residential lot located outside the SC-O district. ix.
Enclosures Required Livestock shall be kept within enclosures that prevent animals from encroaching on neighboring properties or public streets. Enclosures may include, but are not limited to fences, corrals, barns, or pens.
x.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) The owner or resident shall use Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect surface and ground water quality and to avoid any adverse impact to wells and other beneficial uses. A BMP is defined as a practice or combination of practices that are the most effective, practicable means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by non-point sources to a level compatible with water quality goals. Any owner or resident intending to keep livestock and other animals pursuant to this Section shall implement the following BMPs:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
82
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.1 Character Overlay Districts
A.
Fencing Enclose one or more areas on the site as needed with a permanent fence or structure to function as a barrier to livestock and other animals to prevent access to and protect streams, canals, and ditches from trampling, erosion, and contamination.
B.
Filter Strips for Streams, Canals, and Ditches Maintain a gently sloping strip of ground cover vegetation to filter runoff from the portion of the site occupied by animals. Filter strips shall distribute waste matter uniformly across the high end of the strip and allow waste to flow through and across the strip and shall promote the filtering of nutrients, runoff water, and other material through the grass so that they can be absorbed by the soil and ultimately taken up by the plants.
C.
Runoff Control System Employ a combination of practices to prevent animal waste runoff to surface water and adjacent properties. Practices may include diversion of runoff from the lot, roof runoff systems, lot shaping, settling basins, and filter strips or buffer areas.
D.
Liquid and Solid Waste Management System Employ a system for managing liquid and solid waste in a manner that: a) ensures fecal matter and other solid wastes do not create or promote nuisances, odors, and disease-carrying insects or animals, and b) does not degrade air, soil, or water resources. The appropriate system shall typically include the frequent spreading of liquid and solid waste, composting of manures, and off-site disposal.
xi.
Additional BMPs Additional BMPs shall be required if those BMPs listed above are shown to be ineffective. The owner or resident can consult the following agencies for additional technical assistance: A.
Ada Soil Conservation District Natural Resources Conservation Service.
B.
Idaho Soil Conservation Commission.
C.
The University of Idaho Extension Service.
D.
Boise Public Works Department.
xii. Periodic Assessment At three year intervals, the residents and property owners in the SC-O district and the Planning Director shall assess the impact and effectiveness of the standards of this Section in protecting residents and owners of the district and those outside the district from unwanted impacts.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
83
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.2 Design Review Overlay Districts
2.
Design Review Overlay Districts A.
Purpose Design review overly districts are intended to maintain the unique design qualities of specific areas. A design review overlay district is usually applied to residential neighborhoods with certain identifiable design features or attributes embodied in architecture, urban design, or history.
B.
Designation of Design Review Overlay Districts (1) Design review overlay districts shall be designated by ordinance. Neighborhoods or areas selected for consideration for a design review overlay district designation shall meet at least one of the following criteria: (a) Has distinctive design character with identifiable attributes embodied in architecture, urban design development patterns, or history that make it a unique and integral part of the city's design identity; or (b) Has a recognized neighborhood design identity and a definable design or historical character that has a high design value or a relationship to urban centers or significant areas of the city that makes the area's conservation significant to the city's history or function. (2) Design review overlay district provisions may apply additional requirements or allow exceptions to the standard regulations of the base zoning district. (3) Prior to recommending an area for designation as a design review overlay district initiated by the Planning Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall: (a) Conduct any necessary plans, studies, research, or investigations; (b) Assess neighborhood and landowner support; and (c) Prepare a report containing recommendations. (4) Prior to adoption of a design review overlay district ordinance in a district that may be of historic significance as determined by the Planning Director, the Historic Preservation Commission shall have the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed ordinance.
C.
Establishment of Design Review Overlay District Design review overlay districts shall be approved as described in Sections 11-05-05.4.B, Code Adoption or Amendment and 11-05-05.4.I, Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning, including Planned Unit Development).
D.
CD-O: Capitol Boulevard Design Overlay (1) Purpose The purpose of the CD-O district is to recognize the importance of Capitol Boulevard and to maintain and enhance its special character. The intent of these provisions is to protect Capitol Boulevard as one of the principal gateway streets in the State of Idaho and to visually link two of the most important historic buildings in the city - the State Capitol and the Boise Depot. The CD-O provisions also are intended to ensure consistent streetscape design along the Boulevard and protect a variety of uses that
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
84
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.2 Design Review Overlay Districts
are of importance to the community, including cultural centers and parks, Boise State University, hotels, retail establishments, and restaurants. (2) Boundary Map
Figure 2.23. Capitol Design Overlay District Boundary Map
(3) District Subareas The District is divided into four areas: (a) Downtown Corridor Both sides of Capitol Boulevard from centerline of Front Street north to the centerline of State Street. (b) Central Corridor Both sides of Capitol Boulevard from centerline of Front Street south to the Boise River. (c) Entrance Corridor East side of Capitol Boulevard from the Boise River to the Depot. (d) Exit Corridor West side of 9th Street and Capitol Boulevard from the Boise River south to the Depot.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
85
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.2 Design Review Overlay Districts
(e) Subareas Boundary Map
Figure 2.24. Capitol Design Overlay District Subareas Boundary Map
(4) Design Review Permit Minor or Major Design Review, as applicable pursuant to Sections 11-05-05.2.E and 11-05-05.3.D, is required for the following: (a) Increase in building size by 10 percent; (b) Replacement of more than 25 percent of a building; (c) Any new building; or (d) A façade remodel that uses different materials and design features (a color change or the addition of non-permanent features such as fabric awnings are not subject to Design Review). (5) Standards (a) Streetscape Requirements Streetscape improvements for Capitol Boulevard shall comply with the adopted Capitol Boulevard Plan and Action Program. i.
Applicability The streetscape improvements shall be required and shown on the development plans when:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
A.
Constructing a new building or parking lot; or
B.
Constructing an addition greater than 30 percent of the original square footage of the building, provided the addition is greater than 2,500 square feet gross floor area. 86
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.2 Design Review Overlay Districts
ii.
Standards A.
Downtown Corridor For each section of the Corridor, required improvements include, but are not limited to: (i)
Brick streetscape shall remain along the west side of Capitol Boulevard from Bannock Street to Front Street.
(ii) Streetscape upgrades consistent with the "Urban Sidewalk - Brick" prototype in the Capitol Boulevard Plan and Action Program along the east side of Capitol Boulevard from Bannock Street to Front Street. (iii) 10 foot wide detached sidewalk and nine foot wide landscape strip adjacent to the street with street trees, shrubs, and historic street lights along both sides of Capitol Boulevard from Bannock Street to Jefferson Street. B.
Central Corridor For each section of the Corridor, required improvements include, but are not limited to: (i)
Relocated curb to form a 52 foot wide road Section measured curb to curb.
(ii) Sidewalks with pavers. (iii) Planters with street trees, shrubs, and low steel fencing, as shown in the Capitol Boulevard Plan and Action Program. (iv) Furnishing zone with historic street lights, as shown in the Capitol Boulevard Plan and Action Program. (v) Benches, litter receptacles, movable planters, bicycle racks, and newsstands, as shown in the Capitol Boulevard Plan and Action Program. (vi) Kiosks, public art, and transit stops may be considered. C.
Entrance and Exit Corridors For each section of the Corridor, required improvements include, but are not limited to: (i)
12 foot wide concrete multiuse pathway.
(ii) 8 to 10 foot wide landscape strips with lawn and street trees. (iii) A second row of deciduous trees. (iv) Historic street lights. (v) Bus stop shelters at select locations.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
87
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.2 Design Review Overlay Districts
(b) Building and Structure Setbacks i.
Downtown Corridor The setbacks of the underlying zoning district shall apply, except a 25 foot setback from the property line is required along Capitol Boulevard for any portion of a structure that is 45 feet or higher.
ii.
Central Corridor Minimum setbacks shall be as follows:
iii.
A.
45 feet from the centerline of Capitol Boulevard for structures up to 45 feet in height.
B.
75 feet from the centerline of Capitol Boulevard for any portion of a structure that is higher than 45 feet.
C.
Only approved awnings, canopies, or similar projections may encroach into the public right-of-way.
Entrance and Exit Corridors Minimum setbacks shall be as follows:
iv.
A.
20 feet from the property line along Capitol Boulevard for structures less than 45 feet in height.
B.
35 feet from the property line along Capitol Boulevard for any portion of a structure that is higher than 45 feet.
Required Improvements Within Entrance and Exit Corridor Setback Areas At-grade setback areas shall include landscaping, and one or more of the following: A.
An extension of the streetscape, such as a pedestrian space or a plaza utilizing benches, pavers, and other design elements;
B.
Sculptures, public art, or architectural design features;
C.
Canopies and other external decorative features, provided they do not encroach more than 30 percent into the setback;
D.
Sign(s); and
E.
Low decorative masonry walls of three feet or less (see also Section 1104-09, Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening.
(c) Parking Lot Setbacks and Requirements i.
Parking Lots Parking lots shall be located below or behind buildings facing Capitol Boulevard.
ii.
Parking Lot Screening Parking lots shall be screened using one or more of the following, unless otherwise approved by the Design Review Commission (DRC). A.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
Decorative masonry screen walls that may include wrought iron fencing. The maximum length without modulation shall not exceed 30 feet. 88
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.2 Design Review Overlay Districts
B.
Landscaping plantings that provide year-round screening.
(d) Building Design Buildings shall be designed to the highest standards with consideration of the following: i.
All building façade materials should be of high quality to enhance the appearance of Capitol Boulevard including, but not limited to stone, brick, or tile. The same façade materials or other architecturally compatible façade materials should be used for all exposed walls on all sides of the building and other architectural features.
ii.
Architectural style is not to be restricted; however, the appearance of the building shall be reviewed based on the use of materials and color, the quality of design, use of architectural details, and the scale, mass, and bulk with the overall Capitol Boulevard development.
iii.
Blank walls or faux windows facing Capitol Boulevard are not allowed.
iv.
Buildings located on corner sites that can be viewed from Capitol Boulevard should be given significance through the use of architectural elements, special materials, height, and/or entrance doors.
v.
Distinctive roof or other termination of the building façade.
vi.
Windows, doors, eaves, and parapets should be proportional to one another.
vii. New buildings and any modifications to historic buildings shall comply with the Design Guidelines for Boise City's Historic Commercial Districts and the Secretary of the Interior Guidelines. viii. Canopies and awnings at street level should not be illuminated and should be functional for purposes of pedestrian use. ix.
Mechanical equipment should be well screened from public right-of-way with materials that are harmonious to the building's exterior materials.
x.
Utilities shall be installed underground, except for transportation facilities.
(e) Lighting Pedestrian and landscape lighting is encouraged and street lighting shall conform to the Capitol Boulevard Streetscape Master Plan. (f)
Vehicular Access i.
Curb cuts shall be limited to the minimum width and number needed for safe vehicular access and pedestrian and bicycle crossings.
ii.
Access points shall be defined with landscaping or other decorative elements.
(g) Restrictions Along Capitol Boulevard The following shall not front on to Capitol Boulevard: i.
Off-street service and loading areas;
ii.
Trash dumpsters;
iii.
Outdoor storage areas;
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
89
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.2 Design Review Overlay Districts
iv.
Fuel pumps;
v.
Drive-up windows; and
vi.
Surface parking lots fronting on the street.
(h) Signage Sign standards for the CD-O district shall be as indicated in Section 11-04-012, Signs. E.
HD-O: Historic Design Overlay (1) Purpose The purpose of the HD-O is to promote the educational, cultural, and economic welfare of the public by engaging in a comprehensive program of historic preservation to promote, preserve, and protect historic buildings, structures, sites, monuments, streets, squares, and neighborhoods that serve as visible reminders of the historical, archeological, architectural, educational, and cultural heritage of the city. It is the further purpose of this Section for the social, economic, and environmental advantages of the city to promote the use and conservation of such property and to encourage new buildings and developments that will be harmonious with the existing historical, archeological, architectural, educational, and cultural buildings, structures, sites, streets, squares, and neighborhoods. (2)
Applicability These provisions apply to all properties in the HD-O district. In the case of properties located in both the HD-O district and a Character Overlay district listed in Section 1102-07.1, the provisions of this Section 11-02-07.2.E shall apply.
(3) Criteria for Designation Historic Districts and Historic Landmarks shall be designated by ordinance as described in Sections 11-05-05.4.E(2), 11-05-05.4.E(3), and 11-05-05.4.I. The buildings, sites, structures, and objects of an Historic District shall meet one of the following three criteria: (a) Historical or Cultural Importance i.
Has significant character, interest, or value, as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the city, state, or nation;
ii.
Is associated with the life of a person significant in the past;
iii.
Is the site of an historic event with a significant effect upon society;
iv.
Exemplifies the cultural, political, economic, social, educational, or historic heritage of the community;
v.
By being part of or related to a street, square, park, or other distinctive area, should be developed or preserved according to a plan based on historic, cultural, or architectural motif; or
vi.
Owing to its unique location or singular physical characteristic, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or city.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
90
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.2 Design Review Overlay Districts
(b) Architectural Importance i.
Portrays the environment in an era of history characterized by a distinctive architectural style;
ii.
Embodies those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural-type or engineering specimen;
iii.
Is the work of a designer, architect, or craftsman whose individual work has significantly influenced the development of the city, state, or nation; or
iv.
Contains elements of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship which represent a significant innovation.
(c) Archeological Importance i.
Has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in pre-history or history; or
ii.
Contains or is likely to contain physical remains, such as fossils, relics, monuments, art, or symbols, of past human life and activities.
(4) State Property Nothing in this Section 11-02-07.2.E or related to historic preservation or designation shall be construed to allow the designation, regulation conditioning, restriction or acquisition of historic buildings, structures, sites or areas, or other properties or facilities owned by the state or any of its political subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities. (5) Acquisition of Historic Property All lands, buildings, structures, sites, or areas acquired by funds appropriated by the City shall be acquired in the name of the City unless otherwise provided by the governing board. So long as owned by the City, historic properties may be maintained by or under the supervision and control of the City. (6) Acquisition of Historic Easements (a) The City may acquire, by purchase or donation, historic easements in any area within the jurisdiction of the city wherever and to the extent City Council determines that the acquisition will be in the public interest. (b) The City Council shall seek a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission regarding the historic easement and proposed resolution. (7) Ordinary Repairs – Public Safety Nothing in this Section 11-02-07.2.E or related to historic preservation or designation shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance or repair of any exterior feature in an Historic District, or of any Historic Landmark that does not involve a change in design, material or outer appearance thereof, nor to prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration or demolition of any such feature when the Building Official shall certify such is required for the public safety because of an unsafe or dangerous condition. (8) Maintenance and Repair Required – Demolition by Neglect (a) Any property located within an Historic District or Residential Historic District or designated as an Historic Landmark shall be preserved by the owner, or such Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
91
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.2 Design Review Overlay Districts
other person or persons as may have the legal custody or control of the property, against decay and deterioration and free from unreasonable structural defects. The owner or other person having legal custody and control of the property shall repair such resource if it is found to have one or more of the following defects, or other defects that in the judgment of the Historic Preservation Commission has a detrimental effect on the historical characteristics of the property or district. i.
The deterioration of exterior walls or other vertical supports;
ii.
The deterioration of roofs or other horizontal members;
iii.
The deterioration of exterior chimneys;
iv.
The deterioration or removal of exterior finishes or fenestration;
v.
The ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs and foundations including broken windows or doors; and
vi.
The deterioration of any feature so as to create or permit the creation of any hazardous or unsafe condition or conditions.
(b) If the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) makes a preliminary determination that a resource is being demolished by neglect, it shall direct the Building Official to notify the owner(s) of the resource of this preliminary determination, stating the reasons therefore, and shall give the owner of record 28 days from the date of mailing of such notice to commence work to correct the specific defects as determined by the HPC. (c) If the owner(s) fail to commence work within the time allotted as evidenced by a Building Permit, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) shall notify the owner(s) in writing to appear at a public hearing before the HPC at a date, time, and place to be specified in the notice, which shall be mailed at least 28 days before the hearing. The HPC shall also notify in writing adjacent property owners and the Registered Neighborhood Association of such hearing. The HPC shall receive evidence on the issue of whether the subject resource should be repaired and the owner(s) may present evidence in rebuttal thereto. If, after such hearing, the HPC determines that the resource is being demolished by neglect, it may direct the City Attorney to commence legal action against the owner(s) if the necessary repairs are not completed within 90 days or a time frame as specified by the HPC. (9) Exemption from Fire or Building Codes The City Council, in order to promote the preservation and restoration of any Historic Landmark, or property within an Historic District may, upon the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission, exempt an Historic Landmark or property within an Historic District from the application of the City Fire or Building Codes upon compliance with the criteria for exemption set forth in the Codes and upon a finding that non- exemption would prevent or seriously hinder the preservation or restoration of the Historic Landmark or property in an Historic District. Upon rescission of an historic designation, any Code exemption herein granted shall be revoked effective the date of rescission.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
92
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
(10) Notice of City Departments and Other Agencies In addition to all other transmittals and notices required by this Section 11-02-07.2.E, within seven calendar days after the designation by ordinance of any Historic District or Landmark, the Historic Preservation Commission shall notify all departments of the city and other governmental agencies having a regulatory or legally prescribed duty affecting such District or Landmark. The notice shall state the fact of such designation, identify the boundary of the District, or the address of the Landmark, and shall summarize the effect such designation will have. (11) Register of Historic Districts and Landmarks A current register and map of all Historic Districts and Landmarks that have been designated by ordinance shall be made available upon request from the Planning and Development Services Department or on the City’s website. Such register and map shall be made public and available to the City departments, other governmental agencies, and any interested person.
3.
Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts A.
Purpose Sensitive lands overlay districts are intended to protect unique environmental features and systems within the city from the impacts of development, or to protect public health and safety by including additional restrictions on development in or near areas where necessary and permitted activities may create additional risks to the public.
B.
Designation of Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts (1) Sensitive lands overlay districts shall be designated by ordinance. Areas selected for consideration for a sensitive lands overlay district designation shall meet at least one of the following criteria: (a) Includes sensitive environmental areas or systems or portions of systems that need additional protection from the impacts of development in order to retain healthy environmental functions or to protect a unique environmental feature within the city; or (b) Includes lands in or around an area where needed and permitted activities may create additional risks to public health and safety unless additional restrictions on the location and type of development or permitted human occupancy of those lands is subject to additional regulations. (2) Sensitive lands overlay district provisions may apply additional requirements or allow exceptions to the standard regulations of the base zoning district. (3) Prior to recommending an area for designation as a sensitive lands overlay district initiated by the Planning Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall: (a) Conduct any necessary plans, studies, research, or investigations; and (b) Prepare a report containing recommendations.
C.
Establishment of Character Overlay District Sensitive lands overlay districts shall be approved as described in Sections 11-05-05.4.B, Code Adoption or Amendment and 11-05-05.4.I, Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning, including Planned Unit Development).
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
93
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
D.
AI-O Airport Influence Area Overlay (1) Purpose The purpose of the AI-O district is to: (a) Promote development that is compatible with and protects the safe operation of the airport; (b) Ensure all development is compatible with the noise levels from operations at the airport; (c) Ensure future development within the Airport Influence Area is designed in accordance with the Airport Master Plan; and (d) Ensure compliance with applicable federal regulations and guidance. (2) Boundary Map
Figure 2.25. Airport Influence Overlay District Boundary Map
(3) Design Standards All new development and existing structures within the Airport Influence Areas identified by the City’s most recently submitted 14 CFR Part 150 Noise Exposure Map Sound Study shall comply with the following: (a) All new residential development and new Schools in Airport Influence Area A that are affected by average day-night noise levels in the 60-65 DNL and/or aircraft traffic patterns below 1,000 feet are required to provide insulation to achieve a sound noise level reduction of 25 decibels. (b) All development within Airport Influence Area B is affected by average day-night noise levels in the 65-70 DNL range and/or aircraft traffic patterns below 1,000 Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
94
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
feet. Residential development or other noise sensitive development such as Schools, Universities, Religious Institutions, or Adult or Child Day Care Facilities are prohibited within Area B. All compatible uses are required to provide insulation to achieve a noise level reduction of 35 decibels within the noise sensitive areas of a facility. (c) All development within Airport Influence Area B-1 is affected by average sound levels in the 60-65 DNL range and/or aircraft traffic patterns below 1,000 feet. New residential development is required to provide insulation to achieve a noise level reduction of 30 decibels. For new residential development, the maximum density is five residential units per acre with additional density being considered on a case-by-case basis pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.C, Conditional Use Permit - Initial Approval or Major Expansion. (d) Schools, Universities, Religious Institutions, and Adult or Child Day Care Facilities are prohibited. Commercial uses are compatible but are required to provide insulation to achieve a noise level reduction of 25 decibels within noise sensitive areas of a facility. (e) All development within Airport Influence Area C is affected by average sound levels greater than 70 DNL. Existing residential uses in this area are considered legally nonconforming. New residential uses in this area are prohibited. Nonnoise sensitive manufacturing, industrial and commercial uses are allowed but are required to provide insulation in noise sensitive areas of a facility. (f)
E.
All approved developments in the Airport Influence Areas are required to grant the airport an avigation easement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Sample avigation easements are available on the airport website.
BR-O: Boise River System Overlay (1) Purpose The purpose of the BR-O district is to: (a) Ensure protection from flooding; (b) Allow for conveyance of the 100 year flood flow to lessen damage to public and private properties; (c) Preserve, protect, and enhance the abundance and diversity of fish, wildlife, and riparian vegetation native to the Lower Boise River and its floodplain, and that of its tributaries; (d) Control runoff and pollution so as to protect water quality of the river and its tributaries; (e) Protect the Boise River as a public asset to the city and a major amenity for its citizens; (f)
Maintain the Boise River Greenbelt;
(g) Ensure that development is designed to enhance and protect rivers including riparian areas, fish, wildlife, and recreational values; and (h) Provide and maintain continuous public access to and along the river including appropriate facilities for parking of bikes and motor vehicles. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
95
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
(2) Applicability The following standards and regulations of uses within the district apply: TABLE 11-02.37: REGULATIONS AND USES
LANDS AND WATERS CLASSIFICATION
FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS
USE STANDARDS OF BOISE RIVER REGULATIONS [11-0207.3.E(7)]
MITIGATION SECTION OF BOISE RIVER REGULATIONS [11-0207.3.E(10)]
ENHANCEMENT SECTION OF BOISE RIVER REGULATIONS (WHERE APPROPRIATE) [11-0207.3.E(11)]
BOISE RIVER DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM PERMIT REQUIRED [11-0207.3.E(9)]
Class A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Class B
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Class C
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
(3) Map and Boundaries (a) Boundary Map A boundary map can be found on the City’s website. (b) Districts The Boise River System Overlay district shall include the following areas: i.
Floodway and Floodway Fringe Overlay Districts Lands within the 100 year floodplain boundaries adjacent to the Boise River, including lands designated within the Floodway (F) and Floodway Fringe (FF). These boundaries adjacent to the Boise River are determined by the FEMA Flood Boundary and Floodway Map. A copy of this map is available at the Planning and Development Services Department and on the City’s website. The Planning Director, with recommendation from the City Engineer, shall provide boundary interpretations where necessary. These areas are subject to the standards in Section 11-02-07.3.F FP-O Flood Protection Overlay and the standards in Subsections (4) – (10), below.
ii.
Alluvial Overlay District Tributary floodplains and associated alluvial fans (AO zones) standards are addressed in Section 11-02-07.3.F, FP-O Flood Protection Overlay.
(4) Boundary Descriptions (a) Floodway (F) District Boundary The Floodway District shall have the boundaries as follows: The Channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that shall be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot, as shown in the Flood Insurance Study for Boise City, Idaho. (b) Flood Fringe (FF) District Boundary The Floodway Fringe District shall have boundaries as follows: The area between the floodway boundary and the boundary of the 100 Year Flood. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
96
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
(c) Area of Shallow Flooding (ASF) District Boundary Description The Area of Shallow Flooding District shall have boundaries as area shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as an AO zone with base flood depths from one to three feet where a clearly defined channel does not exist, where the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate, and where velocity flow may be evident. (5) A, B, And C Lands and Waters Classifications The BR-O district includes lands and waters that provide natural resource functions and values including the preservation of fish and wildlife amenities shall be classified as "Class A, B, or C lands and waters." (a) Class A, B, And C Lands and Waters Established i.
A set of master maps delineating class A, B, and C lands and waters is located in the Planning and Development Services Department or on the City’s website. The precise boundaries shall be determined on a case-bycase basis based on available maps, studies, outside agency input and onsite inspections.
ii.
The Boise River Fish and Wildlife Habitat Study, (Sather-Blair, et al, 1983), shall be used as a reference that provides objectives for preservation and management actions for Class A and Class B areas. A copy of this study is available at the Planning and Development Services Department and on the City’s website.
(b) Class A Lands and Waters - Extremely Important for Preservation Class A lands and waters provide extremely important habitats for fish and wildlife and for flood control and protection. The objective is to preserve and protect these areas for their benefits to fish and wildlife in general and to protect Bald Eagle, Great Blue Heron, trout, and waterfowl habitats in particular. These areas include, but are not limited to: i.
Floodways;
ii.
Areas with a high degree of plant community diversity;
iii.
Black cottonwood riparian plant communities;
iv.
Riparian forests;
v.
Scrub-shrub wetlands;
vi.
Emergent wetlands within the floodplain (exclusive of working irrigation canals);
vii. A 300 foot radius around Great Blue Heron rookeries; viii. Eagle winter habitat which includes lands within 200 feet of the 6500 cubic feet per second (c.f.s.) line, as determined by the Public Works Department based on their monitoring of annual flows, east of Walnut Street on the north side of the river and east of Phase 4 of the River Run Subdivision on the south, and forested wetlands east of these points; ix.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
Lands within the riparian setback lands and waters;
97
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
x.
The banks of side channels and tributary stream areas within the jurisdiction of this overlay district;
xi.
Islands within the river;
xii. Trout spawning waters; xiii. Riparian areas of tributary streams within the jurisdiction of this overlay district including channels that convey floodwaters and areas that meet the definition of wetlands; and xiv. Lands currently identified as the Barber Pool Conservation Area. (c) Class B Lands and Waters – Moderately Important for Preservation Class B lands and waters provide good potential for improvements to natural resource functions and values. Development should improve natural resource functions and values and avoid negative impacts. Class B lands and waters include, but are not limited to: i.
Agricultural lands;
ii.
Gravel pit ponds and small lakes; and
iii.
Intermittent tributary streams.
(d) Class C Lands and Waters – Least Important for Preservation Class C lands and waters provide limited fish and wildlife habitat. Development should provide landscaping and habitat improvements. These areas include, but are not limited to: i.
Public and private parks where current uses preclude enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat;
ii.
Diversion dams;
iii.
Residential and commercial developments;
iv.
Lands surrounding gravel ponds;
v.
Subdivided properties;
vi.
Former industrial areas; and
vii. Vacant lands in urban centers. (6) Setbacks Setbacks are intended to protect and preserve the river, Greenbelt, Great Blue Heron rookeries, eagle perching, feeding, and loafing areas, and riparian areas. (a) Boise River Setback The setback for structures and parking areas is 70 feet from the 6500 c.f.s. line of the Boise River or 5 feet from the boundary of all dedications or easements granted to the City for Greenbelt purposes in excess of 65 feet. (b) Greenbelt Setback The Greenbelt setback for structures and parking areas is 70 feet measured landward from the 6500 c.f.s. setback line.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
98
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
(c) Great Blue Heron Rookeries Setback The setback for structures and parking areas is 300 feet from the 6500 c.f.s. around Great Blue Heron rookeries. Rookeries shall be designated by the City and the Idaho Fish and Game Department. (d) Eagle Perching, Feeding, and Loafing Setback The setback for structures and parking areas is 200 feet from the 6500 c.f.s, east of Walnut Street along the north side of the Boise River, and east of Phase 4 of the River Run subdivision along the south side of the Boise River. (e) Riparian Setback i.
Tier 1 Waterway A side channel with a width of less than 15 feet, measured from the top of bank, or with a flow of less than five c.f.s. shall have a riparian setback of 20 feet.
ii.
Tier 2 Waterway A side channel at least 15 feet wide, measured from top of bank, or with a flow of between five to 150 c.f.s. shall have a riparian setback of 25 feet.
iii.
Structure Setback A minimum of 15 feet shall be maintained between the riparian setback and structures.
(7) Allowed Uses and Improvements The following uses and improvements are allowed in Class A lands and waters areas subject to the standards for uses, mitigation and enhancement provisions set forth in this Section 11-02-07.3.E. (a) All uses not explicitly listed below are prohibited in Class A lands and waters areas. i.
Signs (non-commercial);
ii.
Existing restrooms and snack bars;
iii.
River bridges and paved access to river bridges;
iv.
Fish and wildlife habitat improvements;
v.
Irrigation weirs, diversion dams, and inlets;
vi.
Water inlets to supply domestic water;
vii. Greenbelt structures under existing bridges; viii. Greenbelt paths or non-paved pedestrian paths that may provide limited access to the river and may run into or through lands designated as Class A habitat areas; ix.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
Paved paths limited to: A.
Existing or expansions of public pathways;
B.
The Lander Street sewage treatment plant path;
C.
The Warm Springs Park area pedestrian path and bridge; and
99
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
D.
Where an existing railroad right-of-way is already located or other new areas that may be used as a multi-use public pathway;
x.
Natural parks;
xi.
Bank and channel stabilization projects;
xii. Hydro-electric and flood protection dams; xiii. Selected public piers and beaches; xiv. Public utility lines such as water and sewer lines; xv. Storm drain outlets and detention basins; xvi. Water pump facilities; xvii. Gravel extraction including reuse of gravel extraction lands; and xviii.
One dwelling unit per 20 acres or legal nonconforming lot.
(b) Uses allowed in Class B and Class C areas are limited to those listed in Table 1103.1: Table of Allowed Uses. (8) Standards (a) Standards Applicable to All Development Within the BR-O District i.
Emergent Wetlands In recognition of their importance and their scarcity, emergent wetlands shall be preserved as follows:
ii.
A.
Emergent wetlands surrounded by Class B or Class C lands may be replaced with a wetland of equal size, provided that the created emergent wetland has the same or greater degree of natural resource functions and values as did the impacted emergent wetland.
B.
The emergent wetland may be relocated anywhere on the project site, except within Class C lands.
C.
If the emergent wetland is relocated to a site within existing Class A lands, then the land area of Class A lands and waters shall be enlarged by an amount no less than the size of the impacted emergent wetland.
Enhancement of Water Resources Proposals to use or create a water amenity shall be designed to accommodate wetland and riparian functions and waterfowl, wildlife, trout, or warm water fish habitats.
iii.
iv.
Parks and Open Spaces A.
Park areas where sporting events take place shall be located outside of Class A lands.
B.
Open spaces such as parks, golf courses, greenbelt areas, or parking lots, within the floodplain shall be designed and operated to flood and provide storage capacity during flood flows in excess of 6500 c.f.s.
Emergency Access New developments shall include provisions for emergency access to the Boise River and Greenbelt as determined by the Boise Fire Department.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
100
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
v.
Greenbelt Access Developments shall provide for public access to the Boise River Greenbelt and public parking for bicycles and motor vehicles.
vi.
Landscaping Landscaping shall use native or naturalized plant materials that provide wildlife food and shelter for wildlife. Manicured landscaping and lawns are prohibited in Class A lands and in riparian areas and setbacks.
vii. Bank and Channel Bank or channel stabilization measures (e.g., rip-rap, drop structures, large cobble) shall include over-planting with shrubs and trees for the deliberate enhancement of fish habitat. viii. Screening Requirements
ix.
A.
Structures shall be screened from view from the Greenbelt and the river with landscaping that will grow to a height of at least 20 feet within 10 years.
B.
Parking areas located between a structure and the Boise River shall be screened from view by landscaping or decorative fencing at least five feet in height.
C.
Appropriate landscaping should be used to screen habitat areas from new development.
Construction Fencing Fencing shall be installed where construction activities abut a riparian area.
(b) Additional Standards Applicable to Class A Lands and Waters i.
Class A areas within a development or subdivision shall be preserved in single common ownership through a conservation easement or other method approved by the City.
ii.
The removal of living or dead vegetation from the floodway shall not be permitted unless: A.
The vegetation poses a threat to persons or property;
B.
The vegetation contributes to a dangerous restriction of the flow of floodwater; or
C.
The removal of vegetation is part of an approved mitigation and enhancement plan.
iii.
Removal of vegetation shall be confined to the minimum necessary, while still maintaining the natural riparian areas. Removal of vegetation is subject to approval by the Planning Director after review and recommendation by the Urban Forestry Division of the Boise Parks and Recreation Department.
iv.
Emergency situations under ii and iii above may require actions to be taken before the Planning Director can be contacted. If that is the case, then the action taken shall be reported to the Planning Director and mitigation efforts shall be taken if the Planning Director requires them.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
101
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
(c) Additional Standard Applicable to Class B Lands and Waters Development shall improve natural resource functions and values and shall mitigate negative impacts. (d) Additional Standard Applicable to Class C Lands Development plans shall provide for habitat improvements and landscaping to create screens and buffer between wildlife habitat areas and new. (9) Conditions for Permits Conditions may be attached that: (a) Require compliance with applicable specifications, standards or requirements of the Idaho Department of Water Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, the Idaho Fish and Game Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, the city, or other agencies. (b) Require preservation of existing vegetation, and mitigation or enhancement of natural resource functions and values as set forth in Sections 11-02-07.3.E(10) and 11-02-07.3.E(11). (c) Require landscaping consistent with the objectives of the Greenbelt or the extension of the natural setting of the river. (d) Limit reclamation of eroded stream banks in the floodway and require overflow channels to remain open. (e) Limit construction to certain periods of time. (f)
Require certification by a licensed engineer that conditions have been fulfilled.
(10) Mitigation (a) Purpose i.
The purpose of this Subsection (10) is to offset negative impacts of a proposed development on the natural resource functions and values in Class A and B lands and waters.
ii.
Mitigation goals for Class A and B lands shall be no net loss of existing natural resource functions and values associated with flood protection, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation and other goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Boise River Plan.
(b) Natural Resource Functions and Values Natural resource functions and values are: i.
Water quality;
ii.
Habitat for fish and wildlife;
iii.
Nutrient retention and removal;
iv.
Channel stability;
v.
Food chain support;
vi.
Flood storage and de-synchronization;
vii. Groundwater recharge and discharge; viii. Recreation; Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
102
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
ix.
Aesthetics; and
x.
Cultural resources.
(c) Mitigation Measures and Sequencing for Class A, B, and C Lands and Waters The mitigation sequence shall be examined in the order listed below. Several mitigation measures may be used in combination to provide the greatest protection to the resource. Different mitigation sequencing may be used provided extensive evidence is submitted and adequately demonstrates the impacts and public benefits available. The burden shall be on the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the minimum standards described in this Section. i.
Mitigation Measures for Class A and B Lands and Waters Mitigation measures from the most to the least preferable are:
ii.
A.
Avoid adverse impacts by selecting alternative alignments or locations.
B.
Minimize impacts by limiting encroachments, using less intrusive construction techniques, or other methods.
C.
Restore the impact area to as near its original condition as possible.
D.
In-kind on-site compensation.
E.
In-kind off-site compensation.
Mitigation Measures for Class C Lands and Waters Mitigation is not required. Development in Class C lands shall not adversely affect adjacent and nearby habitat in Class A or Class B lands.
(d) Procedures for Development of Mitigation Plan i.
Generation of Field Data To accurately describe existing conditions, constraints, and their magnitude, existing natural resource functions and values shall be assessed by the applicant. This assessment shall be provided with the project application for review by the city along with a comprehensive technical plan to mitigate for impacts to natural resource functions and values, or to enhance natural resource functions and values.
ii.
Early Coordination with Resource and Regulatory Agencies Consultation with government agencies that have resource responsibilities shall be initiated by the applicant as soon as practicable to determine the natural resource functions and values existing within the area requiring a River System Permit. Consultation shall also include a discussion of the presence of threatened and endangered species, and species of special concern; fish and wildlife habitat requirements and their sensitivity to disturbance; and measures needed to mitigate for project related impacts or to enhance existing habitat. Consultation shall be documented.
iii.
Comprehensive Mitigation Design Proposed modifications to Class A and B lands and waters shall include:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
103
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
A.
Preliminary Mitigation Plan A preliminary site plan shall identify the location and quality of existing natural resources, impacts to those resources attributable to the proposed project, and proposed mitigation measures.
B.
Final Mitigation Plan (i)
Upon approval of the River System Permit a final site plan shall be developed by the applicant that includes a detailed description, plan view, profile, and typical Sections of the mitigation project. The final site plan shall fully describe proposed changes to the resource and the materials and methods used to accomplish mitigation.
(ii) The final site plan may be offered to the state and federal agencies for review. Comments of these agencies shall be fully considered by the City in its determination of whether the final site plan is in accordance with the River System Permit. iv.
Performance Monitoring The applicant shall monitor the performance of constructed mitigation improvements for a minimum period of 18 months unless otherwise fixed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Acceptable performance shall be judged by comparing measured values to previously agreed upon standards.
(11) Enhancement (a) Purpose The purpose of this Subsection (11) is to encourage innovative development design to increase the quantity and improve the quality of existing natural resource functions and values. (b) Enhancement Plans Enhancement plans may be submitted but are not required as part of an application for a River System Permit. (c) Enhancement Design Standards i.
Enhancement of Class A, B, And C Waters A.
Enhancement of Waters Held by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game Enhancement or creation of water amenities that use waters held by Idaho Department of Fish and Game shall be designed for the propagation and perpetuation of fish and wildlife resources.
B.
Enhancement of Non-Idaho Department of Fish and Game Waters Enhancement or creation of water amenities not held by Idaho Department of Fish and Game may be designed to enhance fish and wildlife resources or to provide a visual amenity.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
104
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
ii.
Enhancement of Class A, B, and C Passive Open Space A.
Class A Passive Lands Class A passive open space shall be designed with the primary intent of providing enhancement to fish, wildlife and riparian resources with specific design or attention given to eagles, Great Blue Heron, trout, and waterfowl. Vegetation shall be predominantly native or naturalized plant species.
B.
Class B and C Passive Open Space Class B and C passive open space should be designed to encourage the creation of fish, wildlife, and riparian resources and to create transition between natural areas and areas of more intense development. Vegetation may be a combination of native or naturalized vegetation and ornamental or exotic species.
C.
Native and Naturalized Vegetation Native and naturalized vegetation should be located near established or created habitat areas and may transition to more ornamental species towards or within the development.
D.
Adjustment of Standards (i)
In order to provide an incentive for higher quality and more extensive enhancement plans, adjustments of zoning and subdivision standards may be requested.
(ii) Adjustments may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council on enhancement plans that have been designed in accordance with this Section and in compliance with the BR-O district. (iii) An adjustment of the standards may be approved when evidence presented meets the following conclusions of law: (1) that the proposed enhancement plan is in compliance with the applicable standards of Section 11-02-07.3.E(10), (2) that the proposed enhancement plan complies with all local, state, and federal laws and regulations, and (3) that the adjustments requested ensure a benefit to the public. E.
Adjustment Examples (i)
The adjustment of sidewalk standards for the construction of pedestrian, bicycle or nature trails that functionally replace the sidewalk. Provision of pedestrian pathways is encouraged on both sides of streets.
(ii) Reduction in street width standards to minimize impervious surfaces and to provide more land for vegetation and habitat improvements, provided, however, that private streets are to be discouraged.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
105
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
(iii) Density transfers and clustering of uses to provide larger areas for habitat improvements. (iv) Permit stream and irrigation system adjustments from the design requirements of Section 11-04-04, Subdivision Standards. (v) Permit fencing adjustments from irrigation and streams as required in Section 11-04-04, Subdivision Standards. (vi) Permit adjustment of drainage standards, as long as drainage and water quality goals are met. (vii) Permit flexibility in the enhancement of existing marginal Class A lands by permitting enhancements that improve the river riparian values. (viii) Adjustments that address public safety considerations. (ix) Flexibility in lot size and setback standards to provide large areas increasing habitat. Any adjustment or variance from setback requirements under this overlay district shall be shown to be: required by legal necessity (a taking would otherwise occur) or to promote and enhance public safety, or that strict compliance with the setback in a given area would result in more damage to the habitat and environment than would granting the adjustment or variance under the provisions of this and other overlay district(s) or other Code provisions. (d) Procedures for Development of Enhancement Projects i.
The same field data required to satisfy Section 11-02-07.3.E(10)(d), Procedures for Development of Mitigation Plan, shall be gathered and used to aid in the design of the enhancement plan.
ii.
A combined mitigation and enhancement preliminary plan may be submitted if the plans clearly designate that those features fulfill the mitigation requirements and that features fulfill the enhancement plan. Enhancement features may be considered part of a mitigation plan only if such features meet the standards of Sections 11-02-07.3.E(10)(a) and (c).
(e) Performance Monitoring The applicant shall monitor the performance of constructed enhancements for a minimum period of 18 months unless otherwise fixed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Acceptable performance shall be judged by comparing measured values to standards that were previously agreed- upon. F.
FP-O Flood Protection Overlay (1) General Provisions (a) Purpose i.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
The flood hazard areas of Boise City are subject to periodic inundation, which may result in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and government services, extraordinary public
106
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and general welfare. ii.
Flood losses are caused by natural forces and construction practices which increase flood heights and velocities, and by structures that are inadequately anchored and which may damage property in other areas. Uses that are inadequately flood-proofed, elevated, or otherwise unprotected from flood damage also contribute to flood losses.
iii.
The purpose of this Section is to promote public health, safety, and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed to: A.
Protect human life and health;
B.
Minimize expenditures of public money and costly flood control projects;
C.
Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding which are generally undertaken at the expense of the general public;
D.
Minimize prolonged business interruptions;
E.
Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains; electric, telephone and sewer lines; and streets and bridges located in Areas of Special Flood Hazard;
F.
Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of Areas of Special Flood Hazard so as to minimize future flood blight areas;
G.
Ensure that potential buyers are notified when property is in an Area of Special Flood Hazards; and
H.
Ensure that those who occupy the Areas of Special Flood Hazard assume responsibility for their actions.
(b) Methods of Reducing Flood Losses This Section 11-02-07.3.F(1)(b) describes guidelines and provisions for: i.
Restricting or prohibiting redevelopment that is dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which results in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights or velocities;
ii.
Requiring that development vulnerable to floods, including facilities, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction;
iii.
Controlling the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters;
iv.
Controlling filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage; and
v.
Preventing or regulating the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood water or may increase flood hazards in other areas.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
107
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
(c) Applicability The provisions of this Section shall apply to all Areas of Special Flood Hazard, within the jurisdiction of Boise City, and as such lands are identified, within the Floodway, Floodway Fringe, or the Area of Shallow Flooding. The Areas of Special Flood Hazard are identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in a scientific and engineering report entitled "Flood Insurance Study for Ada County, Idaho, and Incorporated Areas" dated July 19, 2020, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps, and flood profiles, along with all subsequent amendments which are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this Section. The Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Maps are on file with the Planning Director and the City Engineer. (d) Creation of Zones The Floodway Zone, the Floodway Fringe (FF) Zone and Area of Shallow Flooding (ASF) Zone are hereby created and shall have the boundaries as defined in Chapter 11-06, Definitions and shall have the requirements as set forth in this Section. (e) Exclusions Upon issuance of a Letter of Map Amendment or Letter of Map Revision, from FEMA, such land shall be deemed to be automatically excluded from the Floodway, Floodway Fringe and Area of Shallow Flooding. (f)
Compliance All development within the Area of Special Flood Hazard (ASFH) shall be undertaken in full compliance with this Section 11-02-07.3.F. Enforcement of violations shall be in accordance with Section 11-05-07, Violations, Enforcement, and Penalties.
(g) Abrogation and Greater Restrictions The provisions of this Section shall be in addition to, and shall not be deemed to repeal, abrogate, or impair any other ordinance, regulation, easement, covenant, or deed restriction. In the event that the provisions of this and any other ordinance, regulation, easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever has the more restrictive requirements shall control. (h) Severability Each Section, clause, and provision of this Code is declared severable as per Section 11-01-010, Severability. (i)
Interpretation All of the provisions of this Section shall be liberally construed in favor of the governing body and shall not be deemed to limit or repeal any other powers granted under state statutes.
(j)
Warning and Disclaimer The degree of flood protection required by this Section is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
108
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
may be increased due to artificial or natural causes. This Section does not imply that lands outside the identified Areas of Special Flood Hazard will be free from flooding or flood damages or that uses permitted within the identified Areas of Special Flood Hazard will be free from flooding or flood damages. This Section 11-02-07.3.F shall not create liability on the part of Boise City, or any officer or employee thereof, for any flood damages that result from reliance on this Section or any administrative decision lawfully made using this Section. (2) Floodway Zone (a) Allowed Uses All uses permitted by the base zoning district within this Code, and as amended are permitted in Floodway Zones to the extent that the uses are consistent with the standards of this Section. (b) Standards i.
No new development shall be permitted including fill, new construction, substantial improvements, or other development, unless: A.
It is public infrastructure, including but not limited to bridges, roadways, sewer, and water lines, and
B.
It has been demonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels within the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge.
ii.
All new development, new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with the applicable standards for uses in the Floodway Fringe.
iii.
Existing structures in the Floodway Zone that are displaced by floodwater shall not be reconstructed.
iv.
No alteration or relocation of a water course shall be permitted that would diminish the flood carrying capacity of the water course, or which would result in the flooding of lands which are not subject to flooding prior to such alteration or relocation of the water course, or which will result in adverse effects on other properties including but not limited to, bank erosion resulting from higher velocities, increased heights of floodwaters, extended flood duration, or alterations that may promote channel blockage.
v.
Uses on parcels that include any portion of a floodway shall provide for channel stabilization, bank stabilization, or a setback from the edge of the floodway sufficient to protect the use from flood related erosion. Such measures shall be reviewed by a licensed professional engineer for effectiveness for the flood flow and velocity conditions anticipated at the site.
vi.
Check dams shall be designed and reviewed by a licensed professional engineer, and reviewed and approved by the City Engineer to ensure the
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
109
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
safety of persons and property which could be affected by the construction of the check dam. vii. In areas where a regulatory floodway has not been designated, no new construction, substantial improvements, other development (including fill) shall be permitted within zones A1-30 and AE on the community's FIRM, unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point within the community. (c) Prohibited Uses i.
New construction or substantial improvements of residential and nonresidential structures, including both principal and accessory use structures, except as provided in 11-02-07.3.F(2)(b), above.
ii.
The manufacturing and storage of materials that are buoyant, flammable, toxic or explosive, or that may present a hazard to public health or safety in time of flooding.
iii.
Material stockpiles and permanently installed structures shall not be located within the floodway.
(d) Relocating the Floodway (Line) i.
All proposals to redefine the floodway boundary lines require a resolution from the City Council to adopt the amendments to the Flood Insurance Rate Map, and the Flood Insurance Study. The procedure shall include a review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (LOMC Process), the Department of Public Works, and the Planning and Development Services Department, prior to submittal to the City Council.
ii.
The Floodway Boundary Line may be relocated due to refinements of the floodway calculations based upon new information concerning the existing conditions.
iii.
The floodway boundary line shall not be relocated through physical alterations to the lands in the floodplain.
(3) Floodway Fringe (FF) Zone and Area of Shallow Flooding (ASF) Zone (a) Allowed Uses All uses permitted in the base zoning district within this Code and as amended, are permitted in the Floodway Fringe Zone and Area of Shallow Flooding Zone to the extent that such uses are consistent with the standards within this Section. (b) Standards i.
Uses A.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
Except for levees, all new development shall use methods and practices that minimize flood damage and prevent the increase in flood damage potential to other properties or other adverse impacts including but not limited to, bank erosion resulting from higher velocities, increased 110
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
heights of floodwaters, extended flood duration, or alterations that may promote channel blockage.
ii.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
B.
All new development shall use materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage.
C.
All new construction and substantial improvements to structures shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads including the effects of buoyancy.
D.
All Manufactured Homes shall likewise be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement, and shall be installed using methods and practices that minimize flood damage. Anchoring methods may include but are not limited to use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors (Reference FEMA's Protecting Manufactured Homes from Floods and Other Hazards FEMA P-85 11/2009 for additional techniques).
E.
Drainage practices shall be used which minimize exposure to flood hazards.
F.
Manufacture and/or storage of material that is buoyant, flammable, toxic or explosive is prohibited.
G.
River crossings shall be designed to withstand the flows and velocities of the base flood discharge and shall not impede the flows.
H.
All development and structures shall meet or exceed the requirements of Section 11-02-07.3.E, BR-O: Boise River System Overlay, if applicable.
I.
Water velocities within the Floodway Fringe are not significantly increased so as to cause adverse effects on the site or to surrounding properties.
J.
Require adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes to guide floodwaters around and away from proposed structures.
Utilities A.
All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to prevent infiltration of flood waters into the systems.
B.
New and replacement wastewater disposal systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharge from the systems into flood waters.
C.
On-site waste disposal systems are prohibited in the Floodway Fringe Zone and Area of Shallow Flooding Zone.
D.
Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air-conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or otherwise elevated or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding.
111
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
iii.
iv.
Development Including Subdivisions and Manufactured Home Parks A.
All proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage.
B.
All proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage.
C.
All proposals shall have adequate drainage to reduce exposure to flood damage.
D.
Base flood elevation data shall be provided and shown on the Preliminary Plat for all proposals. Such elevation data shall be certified by a licensed professional engineer or registered land surveyor. Where base flood elevation data has not been provided or is not available from another authorized source, it shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other proposed developments which contain greater than 50 lots or five acres (whichever is the lesser).
Residential Structures A.
New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure (including but not limited to Manufactured Homes) located in the Floodway Fringe shall have the lowest floor including basements and crawl spaces, elevated two feet above the base flood elevation.
B.
New construction and substantial improvement of any residential structure located in the Area of Shallow Flooding (AO Flood Zone) shall have the lowest floor, including basements and crawl spaces, elevated one foot above the flood depth specified on the FIRM measured at highest adjacent grade, or at least two feet above highest adjacent grade when a flood depth is not identified. The height of the adjacent grade and the lowest floor including basement and/or the first floor shall be certified by a licensed professional engineer or registered land surveyor.
C.
Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: (i)
A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided.
(ii) The bottom of all flood openings shall be no higher than one foot above the interior or exterior adjacent grade. (iii) Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
112
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
v.
Manufactured Homes A.
All Manufactured Homes that are placed or substantially improved on sites: (i)
Outside of a Manufactured Home Community or subdivision;
(ii) In a new Manufactured Home Community or subdivision; (iii) In an expansion to an existing Manufactured Home Community or subdivision; or (iv) In an existing Manufactured Home Community or subdivision on which a Manufactured Home has incurred substantial damage as the result of a flood. B.
All Manufactured Homes shall be elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the Manufactured Home is elevated to or above the base flood elevation and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement.
C.
Manufactured Homes to be placed or substantially improved on sites in an existing Manufactured Home Community or subdivision that are not subject to the provisions of "A" above, shall be elevated so that either: (i)
The lowest floor of the Manufactured Home is at or above the base flood elevation; or
(ii) The Manufactured Home chassis is supported by reinforced piers or other foundation elements of at least equivalent strength that are no less than 36 inches in height above grade and be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral movement. vi.
Nonresidential Structures (Includes Accessory Structures Such as Sheds or Detached Garages) A.
Elevating New construction and substantial improvement of any nonresidential structures shall meet the following: (i)
When located in the Floodway Fringe, such structures shall have the lowest floor, including basements and crawl spaces, elevated to two feet above the base flood elevation. When located in the Area of Shallow Flooding, such structures shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to the level of the base flood depth as indicated on the FIRM or at least two feet above highest adjacent grade if no depth number is specified.
(ii) Elevations of adjacent grade and the first floor shall be certified by a licensed professional engineer or registered land surveyor to the Building Official.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
113
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
(iii) Nonresidential structures that are elevated, but not flood proofed, must meet the same standards for space below the first floor as described in Subsection v. above. B.
Flood-Proofing In lieu of elevating nonresidential structures as required in this Section, new construction and substantial improvement of any nonresidential structures shall meet the following: (i)
When located in the Floodway Fringe, such structures together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities shall be flood-proofed to one foot above the base flood level so the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water.
(ii) When located in the Area of Shallow Flooding, such structures, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, shall be flood-proofed to the base flood level so the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water. (iii) Structural components shall be capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy. (iv) A licensed professional engineer shall certify that the design and methods of construction are in accordance with accepted standards of practice for meeting provisions of this Section based on their review of the structural design, specifications, and plans. Such certifications shall be provided to the Planning Director. vii. Recreational Vehicles Recreational vehicles shall either: A.
Be on the site for fewer than 180 consecutive days and be fully licensed and ready for highway use (a recreational vehicle is ready for highway use if it is on its wheels or jacking system, is attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities, and has no permanently attached additions); or
B.
Meet the permit and elevation requirements for residential structures (Subsection v. above) and the anchoring requirements for Manufactured Homes (Subsection vi. above).
(4) Unnumbered "A Zones" (a) Allowed Uses All uses permitted in the base zoning district within this Code and as amended, are permitted in the Unnumbered "A Zone" to the extent that such uses are consistent with the standards within this Section.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
114
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
(b) Standards i.
ii.
Uses A.
The use shall meet the standards listed in the standards for uses in the Floodway Fringe Zone and Area of Shallow Flooding Zone in Section 11-02-07.3.F(3)(b)i.
B.
Where elevation data is not available either through the Flood Insurance Study or from another authoritative source, applications for Building Permits shall be reviewed to assure that proposed construction will be reasonably safe from flooding. The test of reasonableness is a local judgment and includes use of historical data, high water marks, or photographs of past flooding, where available. Failure to elevate at least two feet above grade in these zones may result in higher insurance rates.
C.
Require adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes to guide floodwaters around and away from proposed structures.
Utilities The utilities shall meet the standards listed for utilities in the Floodway Fringe Zone and Area of Shallow Flooding Zone in Section 11-0207.3.F(3)(b)ii.
iii.
Development, Including Subdivisions and Manufactured Home Communities The proposal shall meet the standards listed in the Floodway Fringe Zone and Area of Shallow Flooding Zone in Section 11-02-07.3.F(3). The applicant shall submit an application for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to Preliminary Plat approval and have obtained a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to any Building Permits for structures being issued.
iv.
Standards for Residential Structures The residential structures shall meet the standards for residential structures listed in Floodway Fringe Zone and Area of Shallow Flooding Zone in Section 11-02-07.3.F(3)(b)iv.
(5) Critical Facilities Construction of new critical facilities shall be, to the maximum extent practicable, located outside the limits of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Construction of new critical facilities shall be permissible within the SFHA if no feasible alternative site is available. Critical facilities constructed within the SFHA shall have the lowest floor elevated three feet or to the height of the 500 year flood, whichever is higher. Access to and from the critical facility should also be protected to the height used above. Flood-proofing and sealing measures shall be taken to ensure that toxic substances will not be displaced by or released into floodwaters. Access routes elevated to or above the level of the base flood elevation shall be provided to all critical facilities to the extent possible.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
115
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
(6) General Irrigation Floodplain Development Permit A General Irrigation Floodplain Development Permit (GIFD) applies to qualifying activities within the regulatory floodway or SFHA. These permits may be issued to an irrigation entity for a period not to exceed five years. Examples of activities eligible under this provision include: (a) Dredging and grading of irrigation and drainage channels when the fill from dredging or grading is not deposited on the banks of channels or anywhere within the regulatory floodway or SFHA for longer than 10 days. (b) Seasonal grading within natural stream channels to check or direct water into irrigation facilities (i.e., earthen “push-up dams” and “wing dams”). (c) Deposition of fill within the SFHA for less than 10 days. After 10 days, deposited fill shall be removed from the SFHA, or graded and compacted to existing grade within ± 0.2 feet. Deposition of fill includes deposition of material resulting from grading or excavating irrigation or drainage channels. Deposition of fill within the mapped floodway requires an individual permit. (d) Construction of new underground utilities that do not permanently alter the existing grade elevations by ± 0.5 feet. Excess soil from new pipes larger than 2 feet in diameter shall be disposed of outside the regulatory floodway and SFHA. (e) In-kind replacement of irrigation and drainage works or components including but not limited to control gates or head gates, measuring devices and their housing structures/stilling wells, culverts, pumps, pipes, flumes, siphons, and similar works. GIFD permits cannot authorize the In-kind replacement of dams or bridge structures. (f)
New driveways, trails, sidewalks, roads, and streets constructed completely at-orbelow existing grade.
(g) Armoring, stabilizing, securing, or in-kind replacement of existing infrastructure within the channel banks (such as bridge piers, sewer/utility supports and storm water/sewer drainage outfalls/headwalls) when the dimensions (bank slopes, channel location, channel elevation) of the channel are not altered. This should not involve replacement with larger or additional above ground infrastructure. G.
HS-O: Hillside Development Overlay (1) Purpose and Intent The purpose of the HS-O district is to ensure the development of hillsides and foothills is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and to ensure protection from hazards due to slope, erosion-prone soils, unstable soils, earth movement, and other geologic and hydrologic hazards. (2) Applicability These provisions shall apply to development on properties where the slope exceeds 15 percent or where adverse conditions due to slope stability, expansion soils, high water table and springs, erosion, or sedimentation are present as determined by the Planning Director or City Engineer.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
116
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
(3) Categories of Hillside Development Permits The Planning Director (with input from the City Engineer) shall determine whether an application may be processed as a Category 1, 2, or 3 permit. (a) Category 1 Category 1 Permits are issued by the Planning Director for minor, routine construction on prepared building pads and single-lots that do not involve significant grading. For example: i.
Single-Family Detached Dwellings or accessory structures placed on lots needing little modification, in a development for which a Category 3 permit has previously been issued.
ii.
Single-Family Detached Dwellings or accessory structures placed upon lots of record that comply with approved building envelopes and limits to grading and for which Category 2 Permit criteria are not exceeded.
(b) Category 2 Examples of the development requiring a Category 2 Permit are: i.
Exterior additions to existing structures;
ii.
Grading with significant modification of approved topography including: A.
A retaining wall that is greater than four feet of exposed height or more than one retaining wall when the horizontal distance between retaining walls is less than 10 feet and the total of all exposed retaining walls exceeds four feet in height; or
B.
An excavation or fill that exceeds the limits as defined by the International Building Code Chapter 18 and Appendix J as amended by Chapter 9-1 of the Boise City Code;
iii.
Access roads or driveways in excess of 100 feet in length or in excess of 15 percent grade. Such driveways shall be reviewed for impacts on drainage and soil stability, emergency access, access to the public street and potential physical impacts on neighboring properties; or
iv.
Multiple retaining walls located within setbacks, per Section 11-04-09, Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening.
(c) Category 3 Category 3 Permits are for PUDs, Preliminary Plats, or grading involving modification of approved topography beyond that allowed under Categories 1 and 2 including: i.
Projects where the Planning Director, with input from the City Engineer, determines that slope stability or drainage problems exist.
ii.
Projects involving modification of pre-graded lots in excess of 30 percent of the volume of previous excavation or fill or 30 percent of the surface area by square footage.
iii.
Projects involving modification of lots with natural topography in excess of 30 percent of the surface area of the lot.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
117
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
iv.
Projects not defined as a Category 1 or 2 but that fall under the purview of this Section 11-02-07.3.F.
(4) Hillside Development Restrictions Any area that presents one or more of the following limiting factors shall not be subject to development unless the project engineer can demonstrate satisfactorily to the City Engineer, based on the required technical reports, that these site limitations can be overcome in such a manner as to minimize hazard to life, hazard to property, and adverse effects on the safety, use, or stability of a public way or drainage channel. Such site limitations to be overcome shall include, but not be limited to the following: (a) Landslide areas or scarps, or areas of active landslides; (b) Lines of active faults; (c) Areas with expansive soils or collapsible soils; (d) Slopes greater than 25 percent; or (e) High water table and springs. (5) Hillside Development Standards (a) Standards Applicable to All Categories of Hillside Development Permits i.
Planning of development shall account for the topography, soils, geology, vegetation, outstanding features such as outcropping and cliffs, hydrology and other conditions existing on the proposed site.
ii.
Development shall be oriented on the site so that grading and other site preparations are kept to a minimum.
iii.
Essential grading shall be completed during site preparation, rather than left for future lot owners so that: A.
Shaping shall blend in with existing topography to minimize the necessity of padding or terracing of building sites; and
B.
Building pads and terracing shall be graded to blend into the natural contours.
iv.
Paving shall be completed within 60 days after final grading (final grading is any grading done after the placement of utilities).
v.
Areas not well suited for development because of soil, geology, vegetation, or hydrology limitations shall be reserved for open space.
vi.
Disruption of existing plant and animal life shall be minimized.
vii. Innovative methods of slope and soil stabilization, grading, and landscaping are encouraged. viii. Multiple access points and street grades that meet requirements of the Boise Fire Department and ACHD shall be provided. ix.
Pedestrian access to and through the project shall be provided.
x.
A bond and surety agreement or an irrevocable letter of credit in an amount of 110 percent of the cost estimated by the City Engineer is required to enable restoration of the site if the project is not completed as approved.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
118
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
The bonding shall be provided prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit or signing of the Final Plat by the City Engineer. xi.
Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the owner and/or developer shall provide a legally binding easement allowing the City of Boise and/or its agents to enter upon the property to do work, as deemed necessary by the City Engineer, to restore the site's appearance and drainage in case of noncompletion or substantial deviation from the approved plans of the project by the developer/owner.
xii. All work shall be performed in accordance with the latest approved contract plans and specifications. Work not in accordance with such plans and specifications shall not be accepted. Revisions to the plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer and Planning Director, allowing sufficient time for review, comment, revision, and approval. (b) Grading Standards i.
No grading, filling, clearing, or excavation of any kind in excess of 50 cubic yards or stripping of vegetation shall be initiated until the required final grading plan is approved by the Public Works Department and a Grading Permit is issued.
ii.
Fill areas shall be prepared by removing any organic material that is determined by the geotechnical report to be detrimental to proper compaction or otherwise not conducive to stability.
iii.
Borrowing for fill shall be prohibited unless the material is obtained from a cut permitted under an approved grading plan or imported from outside the hillside areas of Ada County. No cuts shall be permitted solely for the purpose of obtaining fill unless approved in the grading plan.
iv.
All retaining walls higher than four feet shall be engineered so that structural members are keyed into stable foundations and are capable of sustaining the design loads.
v.
Fills shall be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum density, as determined by AASHTO T-99, ASTM D-698, ASTMD-1557 or greater as recommended by the geotechnical report. The frequency of compaction testing shall be addressed in the geotechnical report and shall be approved by the City Engineer.
vi.
Cut slopes shall be no steeper than two feet horizontal to one foot vertical unless it can be shown by the project geotechnical engineer that steeper slopes are feasible, considering safety, stability, erosion control, and revegetation. For cut slopes steeper than two feet horizontal to one foot vertical, subsurface drainage shall be provided as necessary for stability.
vii. Fill slopes shall be no steeper than two feet horizontal to one foot vertical unless it can be shown by the project geotechnical engineer that steeper slopes are safe, stable, erosion resistant, and can be adequately revegetated. Fill slopes shall not be located on natural slopes two feet
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
119
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
horizontal to one foot vertical or steeper, or where fill slopes toe out within 12 feet horizontally of the top of an existing or planned cut slope. viii. Prior to placement of fill, the ground shall be prepared in accordance with the International Building Code Chapter 18 and Appendix J as amended by Chapter 9-1 of the Boise City Code. Subsurface drainage shall be provided as necessary for stability. ix.
The tops and toes of cut and fill slopes shall be set back from property boundaries in accordance with the requirements of the International Building Code Chapter 18 and Appendix J as amended by Chapter 9-1 of the Boise City Code.
(c) Re-Vegetation and Erosion Control Standards i.
Vegetation should not be disturbed beyond the limits of the approved grading plan.
ii.
Topsoil removed during construction shall be conserved for later use on areas requiring re-vegetation or landscaping.
iii.
Topsoil shall be placed at a minimum thickness of four inches.
iv.
The minimum acceptable plant coverage is 80 percent two years after planting.
v.
Seed mix shall include deep-rooted plants and subsequent planting of seedlings.
vi.
Erosion shall be controlled to prevent deposition of sediment on adjacent property.
(d) Hydrologic Controls i.
Interceptor ditches or other methods approved by the City Engineer shall be established above all cut or fill slopes, and the intercepted water shall be conveyed to a stable channel with adequate capacity. Provision for ditch maintenance shall be approved by the City.
ii.
Curb, gutter and pavement design and lot grading shall be such that water on roadways is prevented from flowing off roadway, except in conveyance conduits.
iii.
Natural stream channel shall be stabilized using a method acceptable to the City Engineer.
iv.
Runoff from areas of concentrated impervious cover such as roofs, driveways, and roads shall be retained on-site or collected and transported to a channel with sufficient capacity to accept the discharge without erosion or flooding. Provision should be made by the owner or developer for the cleaning of drainage facilities from the onset of construction through the completion of the project.
v.
Waste material from construction, including soil and other solid materials, shall not be deposited within the 100 year floodplain unless the City Engineer concurs that there is no reduction in storage and flow capacity of the floodplain.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
120
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
vi.
Drainage systems shall be designed to accommodate a 100 year flood event.
vii. With the exception of road crossings, approved drainage structures, and recreation and open space uses that do not involve the destruction of vegetative cover, development shall be prohibited within the 100 year floodplain. viii. Sediment catchment ponds shall be constructed and maintained downstream from each development unless sediment retention facilities are otherwise provided. Any facility used shall provide for the removal of surface debris and contaminants, as well as sediment retention. The facilities shall be designed to facilitate maintenance at minimal cost. Each completed phase of a drainage system shall be designed for the 100 year occurrence. ix.
The overall drainage system shall be completed and made operational at the earliest possible time during construction.
x.
Alterations of major floodways shall only be made with approved drainage conveyance systems and structures as approved by the City Engineer, Army Corps of Engineers, and FEMA.
xi.
Natural streams or improved open channels shall be preserved or provided for in major (10 acres or larger)catchments except where otherwise approved by the City Engineer. In minor catchments, drainage shall be permitted to be enclosed in conduits.
xii. Flow rates from a newly developed site shall not exceed the flow rate from the site in its natural condition prior to development. Exceptions shall be appropriate if compliance with the prior sentence creates more adverse impacts to the overall drainage area than other drainage alternatives. xiii. Drainage facilities shall be designed to coordinate with any Master Drainage Plan for the drainage basin in which the proposed development is located. xiv. Special drainage facilities or an overflow path for floodwater shall be designated in all locations where there is a sag in the profile of the street or at the end of a cul-de-sac that is lower than the intercepting street. Restriction shall be placed to protect the overflow path from the future building of any fence, shed, dwelling, or obstruction that would impede the flood flow. (e) Roadways and Circulation i.
Roads shall be designed to minimize land coverage and soil disturbance.
ii.
Existing deep-rooted perennial vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent practicable.
iii.
Variations in road design and construction and public right-of-way requirements shall be sought through ACHD in order to keep grading and cut or fill slopes to a minimum.
iv.
Road alignments should follow natural contours.
v.
Shared driveways shall be used to the maximum extent practicable.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
121
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
vi.
One-way couplets shall be encouraged where appropriate for the terrain and where public safety would not be jeopardized. Road width shall be a minimum of 20 feet to allow the passage of emergency vehicles.
vii. If the sidewalk is to be installed parallel to the roadway on fills, the slope shall be rounded for four feet from the back of the sidewalk. viii. A pedestrian pathway shall be required as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. ix.
(f)
Combinations of collective or common private driveways, cluster parking areas, and on-street parallel parking bays shall be used where possible to attempt to optimize the objectives of minimum soil disturbance, minimum impervious cover, excellence of design, and aesthetic sensitivity.
Maintenance The owner of any private property on which grading or other work has been performed pursuant to a grading plan approved under the provisions of the this Section, or a Building Permit granted by the Planning and Development Services Department, within a subdivision approved under the provisions of this Section 11-02-07.3.F, shall maintain in perpetuity and repair all graded surfaces and erosion prevention devices, retaining walls, drainage structures, means, or devices deemed not to be the responsibility of the ACHD or other public agency, and plantings and ground cover installed or completed. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the protective covenants for any subdivision or development.
(g) Adjustments The developer, the project engineer, or the developer's representative may request an adjustment of any of the provisions of this Section 11-02-07.3.D. The request shall be made to both the Planning Director and the City Engineer. The Planning Director and City Engineer shall notify the public of the request for adjustment in accordance with Section 11-05-04.5, Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing. After public notice and comment on the adjustment request, the City Engineer and Planning Director shall review and decide on the proposed adjustment. The decision may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. (h) Inspection and Enforcement i.
All construction subject to these regulations shall be subject to inspection by the City Engineer and Planning and Development Services Department in addition to inspections by the Project Engineer and consultants. When required by the City Engineer, special inspections and special testing shall be performed to verify conformance with these regulations. The developer shall bear the cost of special inspections and special testing.
ii.
If the City Engineer determines that any portion of the project is not in conformance with the requirements of this Section 11-02-07.3.F and no adjustment of such requirements has been granted, the City Engineer shall notify, in writing, the project engineer and/or developer. The project engineer and/or developer shall take prompt action to resolve the problem(s) enumerated. If corrective action is not taken to the satisfaction of
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
122
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
the City Engineer then the City Engineer shall cause a stop work order be issued by the Planning and Development Services Department, notify the agency issuing the bond or irrevocable letter of credit, shall cause the necessary work to be performed at the developer's expense, not sign the Final Plat, cause the Planning and Development Services Department to not issue any additional Building Permits for this development and/or collect on the bond or irrevocable letter of credit. H.
WUI-O: Wildland Urban Interface Overlay (1) Purpose The purpose of the WUI-O is to reduce the risks to human life, property, livelihoods, and wildlife within areas with higher risk of wildfire, and to recognize the clarify the respective roles of the City and property owners in the WUI-O to reduce those risks. (2) Responsibility Lands within the WUI-O are areas at higher risk for wildland fires and areas known to be frequented by wildlife. An increased risk to wildland fire will continue to be present in and around existing dwellings and new dwellings built in these areas, and it is the responsibility of the property owners within the WUI-O to assist the City to reduce those risks by maintaining their properties and avoiding actions that would increase those risks, as described in this Section 11-02-07.3.H. (3) Applicability (a) General The provisions of this Section 11-02-07.3.H shall apply to the following activities, except as listed in Subsection (b) below: i.
All new structures and additions to structures constructed in the WUI-O after the Effective Date; and
ii.
Renovation or modification of primary and accessory structures existing on the Effective Date that increase the gross floor area of the structure on the Effective Date by more than 49 percent.
(b) Exceptions The provisions of this Section 11-02-07.3.H shall not apply to: i.
Interior renovations, regardless of the gross floor area involved, unless they coincide with exterior modifications exceeding the 49 percent criteria given above.
ii.
Renovation of historic buildings where the proposed renovation is necessary to replace or repair materials that have deteriorated, or to restore historic buildings to their historic appearance in accordance with generally accepted historic preservation practices.
iii.
Relocation of historic buildings to recognized museums.
iv.
Construction, renovation, or modification of accessory buildings used for agricultural purposes and located 50 feet or more from all buildings containing habitable spaces.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
123
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
(4) Boundary Map
Figure 2.26. Wildland Urban Influence Overlay District Boundary Map
(5) Compliance Required (a) All properties and activities subject to this Section 11-02-07.3.H pursuant to Subsection (3) above shall comply with all applicable provisions of this Section 11-02-07.3.H and with all applicable provisions of the Wildland Urban Interface Fire Code as set forth in Chapter 14 of the Boise City Code as adopted and periodically amended or updated. (b) Should any provision within this Section conflict with any other provision of the Boise City Code, then the more restrictive shall control. (6) Wildland-Urban Interface Map and Classifications (a) The boundaries of the WUI-O and the boundaries of the risk zones, IR1, IR2, and other subdistricts described below are shown on the zoning map of that base district, and generally follow natural and manmade features. (b) These generalized risk zone boundaries are subject to interpretation by the Fire Code Official based on the most current fire site conditions and fire risk information, and that Official shall have final authority in determining which lots or parcels shall be included within the WUI-O district and the subdistricts described below. i.
General IR1 Areas IR1 areas are required to use Class 1 Ignition-Resistant Construction (IR1), that generally include foothills fire hazard areas. As the City annexes land to the north and west, the IR1 areas will be automatically modified to include annexed lands that are generally north and west of Hill Road.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
124
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
ii.
General IR2 Areas IR2 areas are required to use Class 2 Ignition-Resistant Construction (IR2), that generally depict valley, desert, and other occluded fire hazard areas. Interior lots for IR2 areas may be allowed to use Class 3 Ignition-Resistant Construction (IR3) if the Fire Code Official determines that such construction shall not materially increase the risk of fire-related losses or life or property.
iii.
Other Fire Risk Areas The Fire Code Official may identify additional areas at threat from wildfire, that may include but are not limited to properties adjacent to occluded undeveloped properties in areas not historically considered wildland-urban interface areas.
(7) Access Standards Access roads, driveways, driveway turnarounds, and driveway turnouts shall comply with the applicable provisions of the International Fire Code and Boise City Code. The Planning Director shall determine whether required access will provide public or restricted access, based on considerations of public safety and desired levels of connectivity. The Fire Code Official is authorized to require areas within 10 feet on each side of portions of fire apparatus access roads and driveways to be cleared of non-fire-resistive vegetation growth. The requirement to remove such vegetation does not apply to single specimens of trees, ornamental vegetative fuels or cultivated ground cover, such as green grass, ivy, succulents, or similar plants used as ground cover, unless the Fire Code Official determines they form a means of readily transmitting fire. (8) Building and Structure Standards Buildings in the IR1 and IR2 areas, including but not limited to IR2 perimeter areas abutting undeveloped land, shall comply with the following standards: (a) Roofs Roofs are required to be a Class A material such as cement shingles or sheets, exposed concrete slab, ferrous or copper shingles or sheets, clay or concrete tile, slate, and metal. The roof covering on buildings or structures in existence prior to the Effective Date that are replaced, or on which 50 percent or more of the roof areas is replaced, during a 12 month period shall be replaced with a roof covering required for new construction based on the type of ignition-resistant construction. (b) Building Appendages and Projections Unenclosed accessory structures attached to buildings with habitable spaces and projections, including but not limited to decks, shall be not less than one-hour fire-resistance-rated construction or shall be constructed of one of the following: i.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
Fire-retardant-treated wood identified for exterior use and meeting the requirements of Section 2303.2 of the International Building Code;
125
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
ii.
Heavy timber construction with following minimum dimensions: 6 by 6 inches for columns, four by eight inches for joists, four by 10 inches or six by eight inches for beams and three by four inches for ledgers; or
iii.
Other non-combustible or ignition resistant materials approved by the Fire Code Official.
(c) Siding i.
Siding shall be constructed of noncombustible and fire resistive materials that are: A.
Materials approved for not less than one-hour fire- resistance-rated construction on the exterior side;
B.
Heavy timber or log wall construction;
C.
Fire-retardant-treated wood labeled for exterior use and meet the requirements of Section 2303.2 of the International Building Code on the exterior side;
D.
Ignition-resistant materials complying with Section 4108.2 on the exterior side; or
E.
Other non-combustible or ignition-resistant materials approved by the Fire Code Official.
ii.
Required siding materials shall extend from the top of the foundation to the underside of the roof sheathing.
iii.
The siding on buildings or structures in existence prior to the Effective Date that are replaced or on which 50 percent or more of the siding areas is replaced during a 12 month period shall be replaced with siding required for new construction based on the type of ignition-resistant construction.
(d) Exterior Doors and Windows i.
Exterior doors, other than vehicular access doors to garages, shall be noncombustible or solid core not less than one inch thick.
ii.
Exterior windows, window walls, glazed doors, windows within exterior doors, and skylights shall be tempered glass, multilayered glazed panels, glass block or have a fire protection rating of not less than 20 minutes.
(e) Eaves and Soffits i.
Eaves and soffits shall be protected on the exposed underside by ignitionresistant materials in accordance with Section 4108.2 of the International Building Code or by materials approved for not less than one hour fire resistance-rated construction, two inch nominal dimension lumber, or one inch nominal fire-retardant-treated lumber or three-fourth inch nominal fireretardant-treated plywood, identified for exterior use and meeting the requirements of Section 2303.2 of the International Building Code. Facias are required and shall be protected on the backside by ignition-resistant materials in accordance with Section 4108.2 of the international Building Code or by materials approved for not less than one hour fire-resistancerated construction or two inch nominal dimension lumber.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
126
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
ii. (f)
Soffits and eaves shall be constructed as fire resistive materials and shall not include venting or penetrations.
Chimneys and Vents i.
Chimneys and vents serving fireplaces, barbecues, incinerators, or decorative heating appliances in which solid or liquid fuel is used shall be provided with a spark arrester.
ii.
Attic and dryer vents and other small openings shall be screened with oneeighth inch wire mesh.
(g) Underfloor Areas Buildings or structures shall have all under floor areas enclosed to the ground with exterior walls. (9) Defensible Space (a) A vegetation plan shall be required for new dwellings and residential subdivisions and shall provide a minimum of 30 feet of defensible space around the perimeter of each principal dwelling structure. (b) Within the defined defensible space, only plantings recommended by the National Fire Protection Association Firewise program and hardscapes including but not limited to concrete or masonry patios, walkways, walls, boulders, or rock mulch, shall be installed. (10) Vegetation (a) Landscaping shall include only fire-resistive plantings. (b) Landscaping shall include seed mixes and landscaping plants of native origin, suitable for dryland applications, and that are drought-resistant, and deer and elk resistant. (c) Landscaping shall not include Japanese, Chinese, European, or hybrid varieties of ornamental yew species. (11) Fencing (a) Solid fencing at least six feet in height shall be installed along all rear and side property boundaries that abut undeveloped property to provide visual barriers to deer and elk. (b) Where the requirement for a solid fence in Subsection (a) does not apply, fences using horizontal wires or rails shall have spacing between horizontal wires or rails of at least 12 inches between the top two and 18 inches between the lower cross member and the ground, with a maximum height not exceeding 40 inches. (c) Wrought iron, chain link, and fencing that includes points, spires or finials that can cause injury to animals are prohibited. (12) Incinerators, Outdoor Fireplaces, Permanent Barbecues and Grills (a) Incinerators, outdoor fireplaces, permanent barbecues, and grills shall not be built, installed, or maintained unless the Fire Code Official determines that the location, design, and operation of those items will not materially increase wildfire risk.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
127
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-07. Overlay Districts 11-02-07.3 Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts
(b) Where permitted by the Fire Code Official, incinerators, outdoor fireplaces, permanent barbecues, and grills shall include an approved spark arrester, screen, or door on each opening and shall be maintained in good repair and in a safe condition at all times. (13) Storage of Firewood, Flammable and Combustible Materials (a) Firewood and other flammable and combustible material shall not be stored in unenclosed spaces beneath buildings or structures, or on decks or under eaves, canopies, or other projections or overhangs. (b) When required by the Fire Code Official, unenclosed storage of firewood and combustible material in the defensible space shall be located a minimum of 20 feet from structures and shall be separated from the crown of all trees by a minimum horizontal distance of 15 feet. (14) Keeping of Domestic Livestock (a) Domestic livestock such as horses, llamas, and cows shall be fed in distinct, fenced enclosures that have fencing or other features to prohibit the entrance of big game into the area. (b) All feed shall be stored in sheds or enclosures and shall not be visible to big game animals on surrounding properties. (c) Domestic fowl shall be housed in wildlife-proof homes.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
128
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-08. Specific Plan Districts 11-02-08.1 Purpose
11-02-08. 1.
Specific Plan Districts
Purpose Specific Plan Districts provide a means to create new zoning regulations for unique areas and developments where other conventional zoning mechanisms cannot achieve the desired results. Specific plans shall implement and be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan including the Future Land Use Map and policies. The purpose of a Specific Plan is to create unique zoning regulations for the buildout of a community over time.
2.
Scope A.
Examples of Specific Plans Specific Plans may take the form of mixed use districts and planned communities or planned development. Each Specific Plan has its own non-transferable set of regulations. The regulations may include zoning standards, design guidelines, a site plan, an infrastructure plan, a phasing plan, and other elements. Specific Plans are adopted into the Code by ordinance and become either the base zoning district or an overlay zoning district for the property.
B.
Specific Plan Elements A Specific Plan may include many different chapters with detailed standards for the issues addressed in each chapter. For example, a large, planned community Specific Plan may include a detailed land use plan with lotting patterns, building envelopes, and street networks. Detailed zoning standards could be included that address setbacks, building heights, mix of uses, and parking ratios. A design chapter could describe materials, architectural styles, and sign programs. A landscape section could address open space with a plant palette and irrigation plans. A transportation chapter could include roadway cross sections and streetscapes, pathways, or a public transportation or transportation management program. An infrastructure chapter could address the location, sizing and timing of sewer, water, fire, and other facilities. An environmental chapter could address water quality, riparian protection, revegetation of graded slopes and similar issues. A phasing chapter could identify how the construction would proceed and at which point in time certain infrastructure elements would be installed. A review process chapter could describe the specific review and approval process for individual phases within the project. In this case, the Specific Plan might constitute all aspects of project approval short of subdivision Final Plat approval.
3.
Land Use Controls The type of uses and amount of development in a SP district shall be as established by the Specific Plan. Pre-existing legal nonconforming uses shall be permitted in a SP district. Any permitted or conditional use may be included in a Specific Plan District.
4.
Initiation An amendment may be initiated by a property owner or authorized agent, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or City Council. If the property is not under a single ownership, the majority of ownership shall join in the application, and a map showing the extent of ownerships shall be submitted with concept plans and materials. For the purposes of this Section, a majority of ownership shall be defined as either 75 percent of the affected owners or 75 percent of the
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
129
Chapter 11-02 Zoning Districts Section 11-02-08. Specific Plan Districts 11-02-08.5 Minimum Area Standards
affected land area. For projects larger than 200 acres, a neighborhood scoping meeting, per Section 11-05-04.3.B, Neighborhood Meeting, between the applicant and the City shall be conducted prior to application submittal to determine which supporting materials and specific plan elements shall be appropriate and required for the proposal.
5.
Minimum Area Standards The minimum area of a SP district shall be 20 acres.
6.
Additional Eligibility Requirements Each Specific Plan application shall include two of the following three elements, to be selected by the applicant: A.
Natural Systems Commitments to permanently protect and manage open space, natural systems, and resources.
B.
Housing Affordability Commitments to deed restrict at least 10 percent of residential to households earning not more than 60 percent of the Area Median Income for the Boise area if the dwelling unit (s) is a rental unit; or 15 percent of residential units affordable to households earning no more than 120 percent of the Area Median Income if the dwelling unit(s) is a for-sale property, for a period of at least 50 years.
C.
Sustainable Building Design Commitments that the project will include conformance with sustainable building practices including Silver Certification by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system or the adopted City of Boise Green Building Code.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
130
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations 11-03-01. 1.
General
Purpose The purpose of this Chapter 11-03 is to identify the land uses allowed in the City’s zoning districts, indicate what type of approval of the use is required, and establish standards for those uses that mitigate potential impacts and support the unique characteristics of the use in that location.
2.
3.
Organization of the Table A.
In Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses, land uses and activities are classified into general "use categories" and specific "uses" based on common functional, product, or physical characteristics such as the type and amount of activity, the type of customers or residents, how goods or services are sold or delivered, and site conditions. This provides a systematic basis for assigning present and future land uses into appropriate zoning districts and for avoiding overlaps and inconsistencies between similar land uses.
B.
The left-hand column of Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses lists all use categories and uses available in the city. Columns in the center of the table correspond to each base zoning district in the city and indicate whether the use is allowed in that district. The righthand column indicates whether Use-Specific Standards apply to that use in some or all of the zoning districts in which it is allowed.
Abbreviations Used in the Table A.
Allowed Uses An "A" in a cell indicates that the use is allowed by right and is not subject to Use-Specific Standards or other special conditions other than those imposed upon other uses by right in the district. Allowed uses are subject to all other applicable regulations of this Code. Allowed uses are generally reviewed through a Type 1 or Type 2 process, as shown in Section 11-05-04.2, Four Paths for Review and Approval.
B.
Allowed Subject to Use-Specific Standards An "A*" in a cell indicates that the use is allowed by right, subject to administrative review and the issuance of a Zoning Certificate to verify compliance with Use-Specific Standards. Use-Specific Standards are noted through a cross-reference in the last column of the table, and the cross-referenced content appears in Section 11-03-03, Use-Specific Standards. Uses that are allowed subject to Use-Specific Standards are generally reviewed through a Type 2 process, as shown in Section 11-05-04.2, Four Paths for Review and Approval.
C.
Conditional Uses A "C" or “C*”in a cell indicates that the use is allowed in that zoning district only if reviewed and approved as described in Section 11-05-05.3.C, Conditional Use Permit - Initial Approval or Major Expansion. Conditional uses are subject to all other applicable regulations of this Code, including the Use-Specific Standards in this Chapter and the requirements of Chapter 11-04, Development and Design Standards. The "C" designation does not suggest or require that the use will be approved in that district. Rather, each Conditional Use Permit application is evaluated as to its potential to have a positive effect
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
131
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-01. General 11-03-01.4 Use for Other Purposes Prohibited
on adjacent properties and surrounding areas, among other factors, and may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on the findings of the decision-making body. Conditional uses are generally reviewed through a Type 3 process, as shown in Section 1105-04.2, Four Paths for Review and Approval. D.
A/C Uses An “A/C” or “A*/C*” in a cell indicates that the use is allowed in that zoning district under some circumstances or in some locations, but requires approval as described in Section 1105-05.3.C, Conditional Use Permit - Initial Approval or Major Expansion under other circumstances or in other locations. The Use-Specific Standards cross-referenced in the right-hand column clarify those cases in which a Conditional Use Permit is required. These uses are generally reviewed through a Type 2 or Type 3 process, as shown in Section 1105-04.2, Four Paths for Review and Approval.
E.
Prohibited Uses A blank cell indicates that the use is prohibited in that zoning district.
F.
Symbols (1) An “*” symbol next to an abbreviation indicates that the use shall comply with UseSpecific Standards. Use-Specific Standards are noted through a cross-reference in the last column of the table, and the cross-referenced content appears in Section 11-0303, Use-Specific Standards. (2) A “+” symbol next to an abbreviation indicates that there are incentives available for that use within that zoning district, or that the use is only allowed if available incentives are used. Incentives are cross-referenced in Section 11-03-03, Use-Specific Standards, and the cross-referenced content appears in Section 11-04-03.7, Incentives.
4.
5.
Use for Other Purposes Prohibited A.
Approval of a use listed in Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses, and compliance with the applicable Use-Specific Standards for that use, authorizes that use only. Development or use of a property for any other use not specifically allowed in Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses and approved pursuant to this Code is prohibited.
B.
Any use allowed as a principal use in a zoning district is allowed as an accessory use to an allowed or approved conditional use in that zoning district.
Multiple Uses A.
A lot or parcel in a Residential zoning district may include only one principal use but may also include any accessory or temporary uses as shown in Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses, provided that a Conditional Use Permit is obtained for any conditional accessory use, and that all Use-Specific Standards applicable to each use are met.
B.
A lot or parcel in a Mixed-Use, Industrial, or Open Land zoning district may include multiple principal uses, including a combination of residential and nonresidential uses, provided that each use is either an allowed use or a conditional use in that zoning district, that a Conditional Use Permit is obtained for any conditional use, and that all Use-Specific Standards applicable to each use are met.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
132
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-01. General 11-03-01.6 Previously Allowed Uses
6.
Previously Allowed Uses Each use that exists on the Effective Date that is required by this Code to obtain a Conditional Use Permit, but that was a not required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit under the regulations in effect before the Effective Date, is deemed to have a Conditional Use Permit to continue operations as they existed on the Effective Date or as authorized by any approval or permit issued by the City for that property and use before the Effective Date.
7.
Classification of New and Unlisted Uses A.
In order to provide for new types of land uses not listed in Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses, a determination as to the appropriate classification of any new or unlisted form of land use shall be made by the Planning Director. When an application is made for a use category or use that is not specifically listed in Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses, the Planning Director shall provide an interpretation as to the zoning classification into which such use should be placed. In making such interpretation, the Planning Director shall consider its potential land use impacts, including but not limited to: (1) The nature of the use and whether it involves a dwelling unit; (2) Sales; (3) Processing; (4) Type of product, storage, and amount; (5) Enclosed or open storage; (6) Anticipated employment; (7) Transportation requirements; (8) Hours of operation; (9) Intensity of the proposed use; (10) The amount of noise, odor, fumes, dust, toxic material, and vibration likely to be generated; and (11) General requirements for public utilities such as water and sanitary sewer.
B.
8.
If the Planning Director determines that the proposed use should not be included in any existing zoning classification, based on the factors listed in Subsection A., the use shall not be conducted in the city unless and until City Council amends this Code to define the use and to indicate in which zoning districts, and under what conditions, it should be allowed.
All Licenses and Permits Required A.
All uses required by any unit of local, state, or federal government to have an approval, license, or permit to operate are required to have that local, state, or federal approval, license, or permit in effect at all times, and failure to do so is a violation of this Code.
B.
All uses subject to the operational standards of a local, state, or federal government agency, including without limitation the regulations contained in the Boise City Code and regulations of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, shall operate in compliance with those standards and regulations at all times, and failure to do so is a violation of this Code.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
133
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-02. Table of Allowed Uses 11-03-01.9 Industrial and Heavy Commercial Uses
9.
Industrial and Heavy Commercial Uses All allowed uses that generate, use, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous substances (as set forth in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 116.4, 261.30 et seq., 302.4 and/or 355), shall require a Conditional Use Permit.
11-03-02.
Table of Allowed Uses
Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses lists the uses allowed within all base zoning districts. Each of the listed uses is defined in Chapter 11-06, Definitions.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
134
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-02. Table of Allowed Uses 11-03-01.9 Industrial and Heavy Commercial Uses
TABLE 11-03.1: TABLE OF ALLOWED USES A = ALLOWED USE
C = CONDITIONAL USE
* = USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS APPLY
+ = INCENTIVES IN 11-04-03.7.D (1)-(6) ARE AVAILABLE
ADDITIONAL ADAPTIVE REUSE INCENTIVES IN 11-04-03.7.D(7) ARE AVAILABLE A*/C* = CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES PER USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS
A-2
A*+
A-1
A*+
I-3
MX-3
A*+
I-2
MX-2
A*+
I-1
MX-1
A*+
MX-H
R-3
A*+
MX-U
R-2
A*+
MX-5
R-1C
A*+
MX-4
R-1B
ZONING DISTRICT
R-1A
SEE Chapter 11-02 FOR ADDITIONAL USE-SPECIFIC FORM STANDARDS
USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS
A*
A*
11-03-03.2.B
A
A
11-03-03.2.A 11-03-03.2.C
Residential Uses Household Living Accessory Dwelling Unit
A*+
Caretaker’s Residence
A
Dwelling, SingleFamily Detached
A*
A*
A*
A*
Dwelling, Cottage Village
A*+
A*+
A*
A*
Dwelling, SingleFamily Attached
A*+
A*+
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
Dwelling, Live/Work
A*
A A*
A*
A
A*
11-03-03.2.D
A*
11-03-03.2.A 11-03-03.2.E
A*
11-03-03.2.F
Dwelling, Duplex
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
11-03-03.2.A 11-03-03.2.G
Dwelling, Triplex or Fourplex
A*+
A*+
A*+
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
11-03-03.2.A 11-03-03.2.G
A*+
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*+ /C*
A*+ /C*
A*/ C*
A*
A*
11-03-03.2.A 11-03-03.2.H
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
C*
A*
11-03-03.2.I
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
C*
A*
11-03-03.2.I
A*
A*
Dwelling, MultipleFamily Group Home, FHAA Small
A*
Group Home, FHAA Large Livestock and Animals, Accessory Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
11-03-03.1.B 11-03-03.2.J
135
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-02. Table of Allowed Uses 11-03-01.9 Industrial and Heavy Commercial Uses
TABLE 11-03.1: TABLE OF ALLOWED USES A = ALLOWED USE
C = CONDITIONAL USE
* = USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS APPLY
+ = INCENTIVES IN 11-04-03.7.D (1)-(6) ARE AVAILABLE
ADDITIONAL ADAPTIVE REUSE INCENTIVES IN 11-04-03.7.D(7) ARE AVAILABLE A*/C* = CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES PER USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS
MX-H
MX-U
MX-5
A*
A*
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
Assisted Living Facility
C*
C*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
Boarding House
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Continuing Care Retirement Facility
C*
C*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
Convalescent or Nursing Home
C*
C*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
A*
11-03-03.2.N
Fraternity or Sorority House
C*
C*
C*
11-03-03.2.M
Recovery Residences
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
A-2
A*
A-1
A*
I-3
A*
Manufactured Home Community
I-2
Manufactured Home
I-1
R-3
MX-4
R-2
MX-3
R-1C
MX-2
R-1B
USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS
ZONING DISTRICT
R-1A
MX-1
SEE Chapter 11-02 FOR ADDITIONAL USE-SPECIFIC FORM STANDARDS
A*
A
11-03-03.2.K
C*
C
11-03-03.2.L
Group Living
Dwelling, Co-Housing
Residential Home Occupations Home Occupation, Family Daycare Home
C*
11-03-03.2.M A 11-03-03.2.M A
11-03-03.2.M
11-03-03.2.M
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
11-03-03.1.B 11-03-03.3.A
Home Occupation, Group Daycare Facility
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
11-03-03.1.B 11-03-03.3.A
Home Occupation, Other
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
11-03-03.1.B 11-03-03.2.O
Public, Institutional and Civic Uses
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
136
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-02. Table of Allowed Uses 11-03-01.9 Industrial and Heavy Commercial Uses
TABLE 11-03.1: TABLE OF ALLOWED USES A = ALLOWED USE
C = CONDITIONAL USE
* = USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS APPLY
+ = INCENTIVES IN 11-04-03.7.D (1)-(6) ARE AVAILABLE
ADDITIONAL ADAPTIVE REUSE INCENTIVES IN 11-04-03.7.D(7) ARE AVAILABLE A*/C* = CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES PER USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS
MX-3
MX-4
MX-5
MX-U
MX-H
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
Adult or Child Day Care Center, Small
Cemetery
C
11-03-03.3.A
C*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
C
11-03-03.3.A
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
A*
C*
C
11-03-03.3.A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C*
Community Center Fire or Police Facility
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
Jail or Detention Facility Mortuary or Mausoleum
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
A
A
A
A
A
Park or Playground
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Religious Institution
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
11-03-03.3.B
C*
Food Kitchen Forest Reserve or Recreation Area
USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS
A*
Adult or Child Day Care Center, Large Community and Cultural Facilities Art Gallery, Museum, or Library
A-2
MX-2
A*
A-1
MX-1
A*
I-3
R-3
C*
I-2
R-2
C*
I-1
R-1C
Adult or Child Day Care Adult or Child Day Care Facility
R-1B
ZONING DISTRICT
R-1A
SEE Chapter 11-02 FOR ADDITIONAL USE-SPECIFIC FORM STANDARDS
C
C
C
C
A
A 11-03-03.3.C
C*
11-03-03.3.B
A A
A A
A
A
A
A
C
137
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-02. Table of Allowed Uses 11-03-01.9 Industrial and Heavy Commercial Uses
TABLE 11-03.1: TABLE OF ALLOWED USES A = ALLOWED USE
C = CONDITIONAL USE
* = USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS APPLY
+ = INCENTIVES IN 11-04-03.7.D (1)-(6) ARE AVAILABLE
ADDITIONAL ADAPTIVE REUSE INCENTIVES IN 11-04-03.7.D(7) ARE AVAILABLE A*/C* = CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES PER USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS
A
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
C*
A*/ C*
A*/ C*
A*/ C*
A*/ C*
A*/ C*
C
C
C
C
A-2
A
Shelter Home
A-1
A
C
I-3
A
C
I-2
A
C
I-1
MX-H
A
C
MX-5
College or Other Institution of Higher Education
C
MX-4
A
C
MX-3
C
Uses Related to and Operated by a Religious Institution
MX-2
A
MX-1
A
R-3
A
R-2
A
R-1C
C
R-1B
Hospital
ZONING DISTRICT
R-1A
MX-U
SEE Chapter 11-02 FOR ADDITIONAL USE-SPECIFIC FORM STANDARDS
USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS
Education and Health
School
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
Trade or Vocational School
11-03-03.3.D C*
11-03-03.3.E
C C*
C*
C
C
11-03-03.3.F
Transportation Aircraft Landing Field Park and Ride Facility
A
A
Transit Facility
A
A
Transit Terminal
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
Commercial Uses Agricultural and Animals Agricultural Uses or Stables
A
Animal Daycare or Kennel
A*
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
C C*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A 11-03-03.4.A
138
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-02. Table of Allowed Uses 11-03-01.9 Industrial and Heavy Commercial Uses
TABLE 11-03.1: TABLE OF ALLOWED USES A = ALLOWED USE
C = CONDITIONAL USE
* = USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS APPLY
+ = INCENTIVES IN 11-04-03.7.D (1)-(6) ARE AVAILABLE
ADDITIONAL ADAPTIVE REUSE INCENTIVES IN 11-04-03.7.D(7) ARE AVAILABLE A*/C* = CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES PER USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS
A*/ C*
A*/ C*
A*/ C*
A*/ C*
A*/ C*
A-2
A*/ C*
A*/ C*
A*/ C*
A*/ C*
11-03-03.1.B 11-03-03.4.B
A A*/ C*
A*/ C*
A-1
A
USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS
I-3
A
I-2
A
I-1
MX-5
A
MX-H
MX-4
A
MX-U
MX-3
A*/ C*
MX-2
A*/ C*
C
C
A*/ C*
A*/ C*
Commercial Feedlot
C
C
Slaughterhouse, Rendering Plant
C
C
Urban Farm
A*/ C*
MX-1
A*/ C*
R-3
Beekeeping, Accessory
R-2
A
R-1C
Animal Hospital or Clinic
R-1B
ZONING DISTRICT
R-1A
SEE Chapter 11-02 FOR ADDITIONAL USE-SPECIFIC FORM STANDARDS
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
11-03-03.4.C
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A
A
A
A
A
11-03-03.4.D
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
11-03-03.4.D
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
11-03-03.4.D
Communication Facilities Attached Wireless Communication Facility
A*
Freestanding Wireless Communication Facility – Monopole/Structure ≤ Base Height of Zoning District Freestanding Wireless Communication Facility – Monopole/Structure > Base Height of Zoning District
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
139
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-02. Table of Allowed Uses 11-03-01.9 Industrial and Heavy Commercial Uses
TABLE 11-03.1: TABLE OF ALLOWED USES A = ALLOWED USE
C = CONDITIONAL USE
* = USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS APPLY
+ = INCENTIVES IN 11-04-03.7.D (1)-(6) ARE AVAILABLE
ADDITIONAL ADAPTIVE REUSE INCENTIVES IN 11-04-03.7.D(7) ARE AVAILABLE A*/C* = CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES PER USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS
C
C
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
Food Truck Court A*/ C*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
11-03-03.4.G
Neighborhood Café
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
11-03-03.4.H
Restaurant
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Sidewalk Café, Accessory
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A
A
A
A
A
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A
A
A
A
C
Tavern or Lounge
A-2
MX-U
C
A-1
MX-5
C
I-3
MX-4
C
I-2
MX-3
C
I-1
MX-2
A*
MX-H
MX-1
C
Food and Beverage Service Brewpub, MicroDistillery, or MicroWinery Food Truck, Accessory
USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS
R-3
R-2
C
R-1C
Other Communication Towers
R-1B
ZONING DISTRICT
R-1A
SEE Chapter 11-02 FOR ADDITIONAL USE-SPECIFIC FORM STANDARDS
C
C
C
C
C
A*
A*
11-03-03.4.E A*
A*
11-03-03.1.B 11-03-03.4.F
C 11-03-03.1.B 11-03-03.4.I C
A
Lodging Bed and Breakfast
A*
Hotel or Motel
A*
A*
A*
A* C
Recreation Vehicle Park Office, Personal and Business Service Financial Institution
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
A
A
C 11-03-03.4.K
C*
A*
11-03-03.4.J
A
A
A
11-03-03.4.L
140
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-02. Table of Allowed Uses 11-03-01.9 Industrial and Heavy Commercial Uses
TABLE 11-03.1: TABLE OF ALLOWED USES A = ALLOWED USE
C = CONDITIONAL USE
* = USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS APPLY
+ = INCENTIVES IN 11-04-03.7.D (1)-(6) ARE AVAILABLE
ADDITIONAL ADAPTIVE REUSE INCENTIVES IN 11-04-03.7.D(7) ARE AVAILABLE A*/C* = CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES PER USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS
MX-5
MX-U
MX-H
I-1
A
A
A
Office
A*
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C*
Personal and Business Service
A*
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
C*
C*
C*
Recreation and Entertainment Auditorium or Theater, Indoor Club, Lodge, or Social Hall
C
Conference or Event Center Firing Range, Indoor
A-2
MX-4
A
A-1
MX-3
A
I-3
MX-2
A
I-2
MX-1
A
R-2
A
R-1C
A*
R-1B
Medical or Dental Clinic
ZONING DISTRICT
R-1A
R-3
SEE Chapter 11-02 FOR ADDITIONAL USE-SPECIFIC FORM STANDARDS
USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS 11-03-03.4.L
C*
A
A
11-03-03.4.M
A
11-03-03.4.L
A
A 11-03-03.4.N
C*
Golf Course
A
C
C
C
C
Recreation, Indoor
A
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
Recreation, Outdoor
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
A A
C
C C
Retail Building Materials Retail Sales, Neighborhood <2,000 SF Retail Sales, Small <5,000 SF
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
C A*/ C*
A*
A
A* A*
A
A*
A*
A*
A
A
A
11-03-03.4.O
A
11-03-03.4.P
141
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-02. Table of Allowed Uses 11-03-01.9 Industrial and Heavy Commercial Uses
TABLE 11-03.1: TABLE OF ALLOWED USES A = ALLOWED USE
C = CONDITIONAL USE
* = USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS APPLY
+ = INCENTIVES IN 11-04-03.7.D (1)-(6) ARE AVAILABLE
ADDITIONAL ADAPTIVE REUSE INCENTIVES IN 11-04-03.7.D(7) ARE AVAILABLE A*/C* = CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES PER USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS
A*
A*
C
11-03-03.4.P
Retail Sales, Big Box > 60,000 SF
C
C
C
C
C*
C*
C*
C*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
C*
C*
C*
C*
A*
A*
C*
A*
C*
A*
Sexually Oriented Business Sexually Oriented Business
C*
A-2
A*
A-1
A
I-3
MX-U
Retail Sales, Large 10,001 SF to 60,000 SF
I-2
MX-5
11-03-03.4.P
I-1
MX-4
A
MX-1
A*
R-3
A*
R-2
A*
R-1C
A
R-1B
Retail Sales, Medium 5,001 SF to 10,00 SF
ZONING DISTRICT
R-1A
MX-3
USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS
MX-2
MX-H
SEE Chapter 11-02 FOR ADDITIONAL USE-SPECIFIC FORM STANDARDS
11-03-03.4.Q
C*
Vehicles and Equipment Drive-Through Facility Electric Vehicle Charging Facility Parking Garage as Principal Use
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
Parking Lot as Principal Use Service Station
A* C*
A*
Vehicle Fleet Operations Center Vehicle Repair, Major
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
A*
A*
11-03-03.1.B 11-03-03.4.R
C*
C*
A*
A*
A*
A*
11-03-03.1.B 11-03-03.4.S See Sections 11-04-06 and 11-04-08 See Sections 11-04-06 and 11-04-08
A*
A*
A
A
A
C*
A*
A*
A*
11-03-03.4.T
A*
11-03-03.4.U
142
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-02. Table of Allowed Uses 11-03-01.9 Industrial and Heavy Commercial Uses
TABLE 11-03.1: TABLE OF ALLOWED USES A = ALLOWED USE
C = CONDITIONAL USE
* = USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS APPLY
+ = INCENTIVES IN 11-04-03.7.D (1)-(6) ARE AVAILABLE
ADDITIONAL ADAPTIVE REUSE INCENTIVES IN 11-04-03.7.D(7) ARE AVAILABLE A*/C* = CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES PER USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS
C*
Vehicle and Equipment Sales, Rental and Leasing, Heavy Vehicle Wash
C
I-3
A*
A*
A-2
I-2
A*
A-1
I-1
A*
MX-H
A*
MX-U
A*
MX-5
MX-3
C*
Vehicle Sales, Rental, and Leasing, Light
MX-4
MX-2
Vehicle Repair, Minor
MX-1
R-3
R-2
R-1C
R-1B
ZONING DISTRICT
R-1A
SEE Chapter 11-02 FOR ADDITIONAL USE-SPECIFIC FORM STANDARDS
USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS 11-03-03.4.U
C*
A
11-03-03.4.V
C*
A
11-03-03.4.V
A
A
A
C
C
A
A
A
A* A*/ C*
A*
Industrial Uses Manufacturing and Processing Contractor Shop and Yard Industry, Artisan Industry, Light
A*
A*
A* C
A*
A*
A*
Industry, Heavy
C*
Mining and Extraction
C*
Storage, Wholesale, and Warehousing Bulk Storage of Flammable or Dangerous Materials Fulfillment Center
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
C* A*/ C* C*
C
11-03-03.5.A A
11-03-03.5.B
A
11-03-03.5.B C*
C*
11-03-03.5.C
A
A*/ C*
143
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-02. Table of Allowed Uses 11-03-01.9 Industrial and Heavy Commercial Uses
TABLE 11-03.1: TABLE OF ALLOWED USES A = ALLOWED USE
C = CONDITIONAL USE
* = USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS APPLY
+ = INCENTIVES IN 11-04-03.7.D (1)-(6) ARE AVAILABLE
ADDITIONAL ADAPTIVE REUSE INCENTIVES IN 11-04-03.7.D(7) ARE AVAILABLE A*/C* = CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES PER USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS
A-2
A-1
Outdoor Storage
C*
A*
A*
A*
Outdoor Storage, Accessory
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
11-03-03.1.B 11-03-03.5.D
Self-Service Storage
A*
A*
A*
A*
11-03-03.5.E
A*
A*
C*
11-03-03.5.F
A*
C*
A*
11-03-03.5.G
A*/ C*
A*
A*
11-03-03.5.G
C
C
Trucking Terminal Wholesale or Warehouse, Small
C*
C*
A*
Wholesale or Warehouse, Large
I-3
I-2
USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS
I-1
MX-H
MX-U
MX-5
MX-4
MX-3
MX-2
MX-1
R-3
R-2
R-1C
R-1B
ZONING DISTRICT
R-1A
SEE Chapter 11-02 FOR ADDITIONAL USE-SPECIFIC FORM STANDARDS
11-03-03.5.D
Utilities Power Plant
C
Renewable Energy Facility, Accessory
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
Utility Facility, Minor
C*
A*/ C*
A*/ C*
A*/ C*
A*/ C*
A*/ C*
A*/ C*
A*/ C*
A*/ C*
A*/ C*
A*/ C* A
A*/ C*
A*/ C*
A*/ C* C
A*/ C* C
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
C*
11-03-03.5.K
A*
A*
A*
11-03-03.5.L
Utility Facility, Major
C*
C*
11-03-03.1.B 11-03-03.5.H
C*
C*
11-03-03.5.I
C
C
Waste and Salvage Composting Facility
A*
Junkyard, Vehicle Salvage Recycling Collection Facility
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
Sanitary Landfill Solid Waste Transfer Facility Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
C*
11-03-03.5.J
C A*
A*
11-03-03.5.M
144
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-02. Table of Allowed Uses 11-03-01.9 Industrial and Heavy Commercial Uses
TABLE 11-03.1: TABLE OF ALLOWED USES A = ALLOWED USE
C = CONDITIONAL USE
* = USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS APPLY
+ = INCENTIVES IN 11-04-03.7.D (1)-(6) ARE AVAILABLE
ADDITIONAL ADAPTIVE REUSE INCENTIVES IN 11-04-03.7.D(7) ARE AVAILABLE A*/C* = CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES PER USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS
R-1A
R-1B
R-1C
R-2
R-3
MX-1
MX-2
MX-3
MX-4
MX-5
MX-U
MX-H
I-1
I-2
I-3
A-1
A-2
SEE Chapter 11-02 FOR ADDITIONAL USE-SPECIFIC FORM STANDARDS
USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
11-03-03.1.B 11-03-03.6.A
Construction Office
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
11-03-03.7.A 11-03-03.7.B
Mobile Food Truck
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
11-03-03.7.A 11-03-03.7.C
Off-Site Construction Staging
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
11-03-03.7.A 11-03-03.7.D
Safety Facility
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
11-03-03.7.A
Sales and Leasing Office
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
11-03-03.7.A 11-03-03.7.E
Seasonal Sales
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
11-03-03.7.A 11-03-03.7.F
ZONING DISTRICT Unlisted Accessory Uses Unlisted Uses Accessory to an Allowed or Approved Conditional Use Temporary Uses
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
145
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.1 General Standards
11-03-03. 1.
Use-Specific Standards
General Standards A.
Principal and Accessory Uses (1) Cross-References in Table of Allowed Uses The Use-Specific Standards listed in this Section 11-03-03 apply to those uses listed on the same line of Table 11-03.1, regardless of whether those uses are shown as allowed, conditional, accessory, or temporary uses. These Use-Specific Standards cannot be modified through the Conditional Use Permit process in Section 11-0505.3.A, but relief may be granted through the Variance process in Section 11-0505.3.L. (2) Resolution of Conflicting Standards If there is a conflict between these Use-Specific Standards and the requirements in Chapter 11-04, Development and Design Standards, these Use-Specific Standards shall apply, unless otherwise noted.
B.
Additional Standards for Accessory Uses (1) Purpose This Section contains general standards for all accessory uses, which must be customarily incidental and subordinate to principal uses. (2) List of Accessory Uses and Structures Commonly allowed accessory uses are shown in Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses, but that list does not include all possible uses that are secondary and subordinate to a principal use of land in each zoning district. All principal uses in a zoning district shall be deemed to include those accessory uses, structures, and activities typically associated with the use and may be approved by a Zoning Certificate if the Planning Director determines that the proposed accessory use complies with this standard and with all Use-Specific Standards applicable to the use. (3) General Standards for Accessory Uses and Structures All accessory uses and structures shall comply with the following general standards, except Accessory Dwelling Units, which are subject to the standards set forth in Section 11-03-03.2.B. In the event of a conflict between this Section 11-03-03.1.B(3) and Section 11-03-03.2.B, the provisions of Section 11-03-03.2.B shall apply. (a) Subordinate to Principal Use No structure or building shall be used for an accessory use unless the primary building is also being used. The accessory use or structure shall be conducted and/or located on the same lot(s) as the principal use. The principal use and the accessory use shall be under the same ownership and shall use the same utility meter, with the exception of an approved Accessory Dwelling Unit. In a Residential district, the gross floor area of the accessory structure or building shall not exceed the gross floor area of the primary building.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
146
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.1 General Standards
(b) Timing of Accessory Uses and Structures No accessory use may be established prior to establishment of the principal use with which such accessory use is associated. (c) Location and Setbacks i.
No detached accessory building or structure shall occupy any area in front of the primary building, unless approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission as a conditional use permit. However, on lots that have topographical or other physical constraints, the Planning Director may approve a detached accessory building or structure in front of the primary building.
ii.
Regardless of their size, detached accessory buildings shall not encroach into required street side or front yard setbacks.
iii.
Accessory structures such as decks and patios that are one foot or less in height as measured from the property's finished grade, may occupy any setback area.
iv.
Open post patio/shade covers, pergolas, and similar structures under 250 feet in area and less than 15 feet in height and attached to the home, may have rear yard setbacks of nine feet. Interior side yard setbacks shall be per the zoning district. For corner lots, a minimum 15-foot street-side yard setback is required. Structures that use these reduced setbacks shall not occupy more than 50 percent of the lot's rear yard widths.
v.
In-ground pools that are one foot or less in height, as measured from the property's finished grade, may occupy any rear or interior side yard area, provided a minimum three-foot setback is maintained from the pool apron or splashguard. Hot tubs, diving boards, decks, and other features that are more than one foot above grade shall be located outside of setbacks.
Figure 3.1. In-Ground Pool Setbacks
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
147
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.2 Residential Uses
vi.
Alley-Loaded Accessory Parking Structures A.
Alley-loaded parking and parking structures shall provide a backup area of at least 22 feet. This back up area may be within the alley and/or the lot but not within an accessory structure.
B.
A minimum five-foot paved apron is required regardless of alley width.
C.
For side entry alley-loaded garages the backup area shall be provided for on the lot and outside of the street side setbacks.
D.
Detached accessory parking structures that are over 500 square feet, but less than or equal to 1,000 square feet in area and that are under 22 feet in height (from grade to the peak of the roof) may be built to the rear or side lot line/property lines abutting an alley.
E.
Detached accessory structures over 1,000 square feet in area or over 22 feet in height (from grade to the peak of the roof) shall comply with the setback requirements applicable to primary structures.
vii. Residential Accessory Structures More Than 1,000 Square Feet in Area or 22 Feet in Height A Zoning Certificate is required for accessory structures over 1,000 square feet in area or 22 feet in height (from grade to the peak of the roof), subject to the following:
2.
A.
No commercial use shall take place within the building;
B.
The building shall be architecturally compatible with the primary building; and
C.
The building shall be compatible with neighboring properties in mass, and design.
Residential Uses A.
General Standards (1) Housing Variety in Multi-Building Developments on a Single Parcel Except in the MX-5 zoning district, new developments with multiple residential units on parcels between two and four acres platted and constructed after the Effective Date shall incorporate at least two housing types. Projects on more than four acres require at least three housing types. Housing types include: (a) Single-Family Detached. (b) Single-Family Attached. (c) Duplex. (d) Triplex. (e) Fourplex. (f)
Multiple-Family.
(g) An alternative housing type as approved by the Planning Director.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
148
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.2 Residential Uses
(h) A distinct building type may be provided as a substitute for one of the required housing types. A distinct building type can be easily distinguished from others through the use of one or both of the following design features: i.
A variation in length and footprint of 30 percent or more; or
ii.
A distinct variation in color and materials.
Figure 3.2. Housing Type Examples
(2) Block Level Mix of Housing Types No one housing type shall occupy more than 80 percent of any block face or street frontage exceeding 300 feet in length. B.
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) (1) Minimum lot area and maximum density standards shall not apply to ADUs. (2) The ADU shall not be larger than 900 square feet or the total floor area of the primary building, whichever is smaller, and shall not have more than two bedrooms. (3) Only one ADU is permitted on each lot or parcel where an ADU is permitted. (4) The ADU shall be created through one of the following: (a) Internal conversion of an existing living area, basement, or attic; (b) An addition to the principal dwelling unit; (c) An addition to a detached accessory structure; (d) Construction of a new Single-Family Detached Dwelling with an internal or detached ADU; (e) Construction of a detached ADU; or
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
149
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.2 Residential Uses
(f)
Conversion of an existing detached accessory structure or attached garage that does not reduce off-street parking below the minimum required for that lot.
(5) The ADU shall meet all of the dimensional requirements of the underlying zoning district as well as the provisions of the International Building Code. Allowed exemptions for accessory structures apply as described in Section 11-04-03.3, Exceptions and Encroachments. (6) The design of the ADU shall be compatible with the existing neighborhood by taking into account height, bulk, and site location, and incorporating materials, colors, and a design motif that is compatible with and complements the architectural theme and style of the principal dwelling unit. The primary and the ADUs shall be designed to portray the form of a single-family dwelling. Only one entrance to the structure may be located on the front building elevation of the house unless multiple entrances are already in existence. (7) One standard parking space shall be provided for ADUs with two bedrooms, in addition to those required for the principal dwelling(s), and shall meet the following standards: (a) The additional parking space shall not be a parallel space located on any portion of the lot abutting a public or private street or alley. (b) The parking space may be provided through unrestricted on-street parking areas abutting the lot containing the ADU. (8) Ongoing owner occupancy of either the principal dwelling unit or the ADU is required and shall be enforced by recording a deed restriction to that effect with the County Recorder. The applicant shall present evidence of such filing to the Planning Director prior to the submittal of a Building Permit. A temporary waiver of this requirement may be granted by the Planning Director in the case of a documented need for the owner-occupant to leave the premises for up to one year due to employment, illness, or other extenuating circumstances. Requirement for owner occupancy may be waived if the applicant meets all applicable requirements in Section 11-04-03.7, Incentives. (9) Impact fees for ADUs shall be assessed as determined by the applicable agency. C.
Dwelling, Single-Family Detached In the MX-1, MX-2, MX-3, MX-4, and MX-5 zoning districts, Single-Family Detached Dwellings are only permitted if a Building Permit for the dwelling was issued before the Effective Date.
D.
Dwelling, Cottage Village (1) This use shall not be located within 400 feet of another Cottage Village, measured at the closest points on the property boundaries. (2) The maximum size of each Cottage Dwelling is 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. (3) Individual cottages shall be clustered around a shared private common space containing at least 10 percent of the project area and with minimum dimensions of 15 feet in length and width.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
150
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.2 Residential Uses
(4) Parking areas shall be located on the side or rear of the development and may be aggregated for all units in one area. (5) A shared facility for communal cooking, dining, and other activities containing no more than 2,000 square feet may be provided and shall not count against the maximum density limits. (6) Lot and setback requirements for the base zoning district shall apply to the project site as a whole. (7) All projects containing five or more dwelling units shall comply with the standards in Section 11-04-010, Assured Water Supply. E.
Dwelling, Single-Family Attached (1) Orientation of Individual Dwelling Units The front door of dwelling units shall face a street meeting City or the Ada County Highway District standards, or a designated open space for use by residents and guests. New developments shall follow the lot patterning within the area and match like side and rear yards with one another to ensure a compatible design. (2) Architectural Elements Each attached unit shall have a façade or roof treatment that distinguishes it from the other attached units. Architectural treatments may include individual pitched roofs, modulated façades, porches, dormers, pop-outs, or vertical windows. (3) Private or Common Open Space A minimum of 200 square feet of private open space for each unit or common open space comprised of a minimum of 10 percent of the lot area shall be provided. This open space must be usable and shall not include driveways or parking areas. A minimum of 25 percent of the required open space shall consist of permeable ground surface with landscaping. (4) Landscaping One deciduous tree of at least one-and-one-half inch caliper shall be planted in front of each unit. (5) Assured Water Supply All projects containing five or more dwelling units shall comply with the standards in S Section 11-04-010, Assured Water Supply.
F.
Dwelling, Live/Work (1) The residential living space shall be occupied by the owner of the commercial or Artisan Industry use or the owners’ employee and may include individuals in that person’s household. (2) In the R-1A, R-1B, and R-1C zoning districts, the commercial activity area shall not exceed 50 percent of the gross floor area of the Live/Work unit or 1,000 square feet, whichever is smaller. (3) In the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts, the commercial activity area shall not exceed 50 percent of the gross floor area of the Live/Work unit or 2,000 square feet, whichever is smaller.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
151
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.2 Residential Uses
(4) Signs are limited to a maximum of two non-illuminated wall or window signs that shall not exceed six square feet in total combined area. (5) The work activities shall not create adverse noise or operational impacts on adjacent residential properties. (6) All projects containing five or more dwelling units shall comply with the standards in Section 11-04-010, Assured Water Supply. G.
Dwelling, Duplex, Triplex, or Fourplex If located on property in the R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, or R-2 zoning districts, the use shall comply with the following standards: (1) Minimum Lot Area and Maximum Density In the Residential zoning districts, minimum lot area and maximum density standards shall not apply to Duplex Dwellings. (2) Setbacks Setbacks are as required by the zoning district except covered front porches of a minimum five foot depth that face the street may have a 10 foot front setback. (3) Open Space Each unit shall have a minimum of 200 square feet of open space. This open space must be usable and shall not include driveways or parking areas. A minimum of 25 percent of the required open space shall consist of permeable ground surface with landscaping. (4) Landscaped Areas Any Duplex, Triplex, or Fourplex Dwelling shall comply with the landscaping requirements set forth in Section 11-04-09, Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening, excluding side yards that may be finished with decorative gravel, provided they are fenced and screened from street view and contained in such a way that the gravel will not spill onto the street or adjacent parcels. (5) Driveways Individual driveways in the front setback shall not exceed a width of 20 feet and shall be separated from other driveways by a landscaped area with a minimum width of seven feet. A Duplex may have a shared driveway width of a minimum of nine feet. A Triplex or Fourplex must have a shared driveway width of a minimum of 20 feet. (6) Right-Of-Way Improvements (a) All new dwellings shall provide a paved driveway apron that extends to the edge of street pavement of the roadway or an alley, if applicable. (b) All new dwellings shall provide curb, gutter, and detached sidewalk a minimum of five feet in width. Waivers or variations to this requirement may be granted by the Planning Director based upon site-specific conditions such as documented drainage problems that might result from the improvement of the roadway. (c) Dirt or gravel strips in the front yard or undeveloped public street right-of-way shall not be permitted. Irrigated landscaping shall be provided in these areas through license agreements with the Ada County Highway Department (ACHD).
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
152
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.2 Residential Uses
Bonding for landscape improvements may be allowed based on weather-related constraints. If ACHD denies the necessary license agreement, the requirement for landscaping shall be waived. (7) Design (a) To allow for variety and to promote original and distinctive design, and for the adaptive reuse of existing buildings and the placement of relocated Duplexes, the Planning Director may approve alternatives to the design elements in sections (b) through (i) if the Planning Director determines that the alternative meets the intent of these design standards. (b) All street-facing façades shall include architectural treatments to provide visual interest. Architectural treatments used to achieve this may include, but are not limited to, dormers, bay windows, vertical windows, exterior window treatments, varying roof pitches, façade modulation, and a variety of colors, materials, and textures. Alternative approaches to façade design may include either creating the distinct appearance of architecturally distinguishable dwelling units, or creating a more unified design that replicates the appearance of one Single-Family Detached Dwelling. (c) At least 15 percent of the area of street-facing façades shall be windows or doors. This calculation includes the area of all street-facing windows and entrance doors that are within a 45 degree angle of the street. Garage doors are not included in the 15 percent calculation. (d) The length of the garage wall or combination of garage walls facing the street shall not exceed 50 percent of the total length of the façade. Garages that are set back a minimum of five feet further than the street-facing wall of the dwelling unit may be up to 60 percent of the total length of the façade. Walls of side entry garages that use windows and other architectural means to provide visual interest are not included in this calculation. (e) On interior lots at least one unit shall have a main entrance with a door visible from the street. The main entrance of each unit shall include a covered porch that is a minimum of 25 square feet. If one or more units have an entrance facing the street, or more than one garage door is facing the street, the street-facing façades of adjacent units shall be offset from each other by a minimum of four feet. (f)
On corner lots each street façade shall have a main entrance with a door visible from the street. The main entrance shall include a covered porch that is a minimum of 25 square feet. Duplex Dwellings located on lots at the corner of two local streets shall not have more than two parking spaces accessed from each street.
(g) Balconies shall be located in areas that will cause minimal interference with the privacy of neighboring properties.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
153
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.2 Residential Uses
(h) Dwelling units shall not be arranged in two rows oriented perpendicular to the street with ground floor or second floor unit entry doors facing towards an unenclosed passageway or hallway:
(i)
i.
If dwelling units are arranged in two rows oriented perpendicular to the street, the primary pedestrian entrances of the ground floor units closest to the street must face the street; and
ii.
Any passageway giving access to units located behind the street-facing ground floor units shall be fully enclosed.
Two-story and three-story structures shall use one of the following methods to break up the building mass and provide visual interest to the side elevations: i.
The second story sidewalls shall have a minimum three-foot offset from the first story sidewalls. The second story shall be located furthest away from the side property lines; or
ii.
The building shall be set back eight feet from the interior side property line, with bay windows, pop-outs or other architectural features allowed at the five foot setback line, except that in the R-1A and R-1B zoning districts, the building shall be set back 13 feet from the interior side property line, with bay windows, pop-outs, or other architectural features allowed at the 10 foot setback line; or
Figure 3.3. Two-Story Duplex Example
(j)
iii.
The third-story sidewalls shall have a minimum three-foot offset from the second-story sidewalls. The third story shall be located furthest away from the side property lines; or
iv.
The building shall be set back 10 feet from the interior side property line, with bay windows, pop-outs, or other architectural features allowed at the seven-foot setback line, except that in the R-1A and R-1B zoning districts the building shall be set back 15 feet from the interior side property line, with bay windows, pop-outs, or other architectural appurtenances allowed at the 12 foot setback line.
Structures on Residential Small Lots shall be subject to additional criteria per Section 11-04-03.4, Residential Small Lots.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
154
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.2 Residential Uses
H.
Dwelling, Multiple-Family (1) Standards in the R-1B, R-1C, R-2, R-3, MX-1, and MX-2 Zoning District (a) The minimum usable open space or recreational space requirement shall be equal to 30 percent of the land area occupied by residential structures. Open space shall have a minimum dimension of 15 feet in length and width. For the purpose of this Section, usable open space or recreational space shall include landscaped areas, court yards, internal pathways, balconies, patios, sun decks, pedestrian walkways, playground areas, swimming pools, and all other exterior or interior recreational areas. Such areas shall be accessible according to the ADA guidelines and available to the occupants and guests of the building. Usable open space or recreational space shall not include driveways, parking areas, or loading areas. The open space or recreational space requirement may be reduced for projects that abut open space or recreational facilities, or that are within an Activity Center in which publicly available open space or recreational facilities have been incorporated. (b) The pedestrian circulation system shall provide safe and convenient access to and from other residential units, perimeter streets, parks, schools, public facilities, pathways, trails, parking areas, recreational facilities, amenities, and any shared facilities. Sidewalks shall be a minimum of five feet wide, however, the Planning may require the sidewalk width be increased to 10 feet if the Planning Director determines that additional width is necessary to accommodate the expected pedestrian traffic in high use areas. (c) Natural features and other potential site amenities shall be retained and incorporated into the design to the maximum extent practicable. (d) Fire escapes and unenclosed exterior stairs that provide access to an upper level are prohibited on any street-facing building façade. (e) If individual exterior entrances to dwelling units are not provided, an enclosed primary building entrance is required. (f)
At least two of the following amenities shall be provided in projects greater than one acre in size: i.
The building(s) shall use electricity or geothermal energy to meet all of its heating, hot water, and appliance energy needs for in all dwelling units.
ii.
Energy conservation measures demonstrating the building(s) shall consume at least 15 percent less electrical energy that would be consumed if the building(s) met the adopted energy code, based on modeling building energy performance comparisons.
iii.
The building(s) shall meet the adopted City of Boise Green Building Code.
iv.
The building(s) shall provide a private recreational facility, such as a swimming pool, tennis court, playground, community garden, or picnic area, in scale with the development;
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
155
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.2 Residential Uses
v.
The building(s) shall consume at least 15 percent less water than would be consumed if the building(s) met all applicable water conservation standards applicable to similar development; and/or
vi.
The development shall dedicate an amount of on-site storage space for waste diversion techniques (such as comingled recycling, cardboard recycling, and/or organics recycling) that is equal or greater than the amount of on-site storage space provided for solid waste.
(g) Building and site design shall provide for adequate transition into the surrounding neighborhood to ensure compatibility between the development and the context around it. Factors to be considered are setbacks, building height, building materials, bulk, roof design, parking area locations, and landscaped area locations. (2) Standards in the MX-3 and MX-4 Zoning District In addition to the standards set forth in Subsection (1) above, Multiple-Family Dwellings in the MX-3 and MX-4 zoning districts shall comply with the following: (a) Building Design Each building façade shall have a visibly distinct top, middle, and base that are distinguished from one another through one or more of the following techniques: i.
Provide a creative façade composition with a rich layering of design elements that provides visual interest from a variety of vantage points;
ii.
Design buildings that respond to unique site conditions and context;
iii.
Integrate sustainable materials and elements into the design of the building in a way that adds character and visual interest to the building;
iv.
Employ façade articulation techniques that reduce the perceived scale of large buildings and add visual interest; and/or
v.
Create clear and welcoming building entries.
(3) Standards in the MX-3, MX-4, and MX-5 Zoning District If within the past three years the principal use of the site included a Manufactured Home Community, Assisted Living Facility, Continuing Care Retirement Facility, or Convalescent or Nursing Home, or the principal use contained deed-restricted Affordable Housing or housing affordable for those earning 60 percent or less of Area Median Income, the establishment of this use shall require a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.C. (4) Assured Water Supply All projects containing five or more dwelling units shall comply with the standards in Section 11-04-010, Assured Water Supply. I.
Group Home, Federal Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) Small and Large In all zoning districts where these uses are listed as Allowed or Conditional Uses, these uses shall comply with those Use-Specific Standards, design standards, and other Code provisions applicable to the type of dwelling unit structure they occupy (e.g., Single-family
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
156
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.2 Residential Uses
Detached, Single-family Attached, Duplex, Triplex, or Fourplex Dwellings or MultipleFamily) in the zoning district in which they are located. J.
Livestock and Animals, Accessory (1) Accessory Livestock Uses The keeping of livestock shall comply with the following standards. (2) Animal Unit (a) An animal unit is: i.
One horse, mule, cow, llama;
ii.
Four sheep, goats, or swine;
iii.
Six geese;
iv.
10 rabbits; or
v.
Twelve chickens or ducks.
(b) The Planning Director may determine a unit number for animals not listed. (3) Standards (a) A minimum of one acre is required to keep livestock. For poultry and rabbits, the minimum area is one half acre. (b) With the exception of poultry and rabbits, a minimum contiguous area of one half acre (exclusive of structures) shall be designed for the keeping of the livestock. For poultry and rabbits, the minimum area is one quarter acre. (c) Livestock shall be kept within fences, corrals, barns, or pens. (d) Livestock enclosures shall comply with setback requirements. (e) The maximum density is two animal units per acre of area set aside for the keeping of livestock. For example, if one half of a one acre lot is set aside for the keeping of livestock one animal unit is allowed. Maximum density shall not apply to offspring under nine months of age, nor shall it apply to pets. (f)
Livestock and pets shall be kept so as to not cause adverse impacts on neighboring properties. This includes but is not limited to such impacts as odor, noise, drainage, erosion, and insects. The presence of such impacts can constitute a public nuisance that the City may cause to be abated.
(g) Structures housing pets shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from any building used or capable of being used for human habitation on adjacent lots. (h) It shall be unlawful to keep any animal listed in Section 5-1-8 of the Boise City Code under the auspices of this Section. (4) Exceptions to Minimum Area (a) Livestock may be kept on less than one acre when allowed by subdivision covenants or duly adopted overlay districts. If animal density is not addressed therein, the density requirements of this Code shall apply. (b) Livestock may be kept on less than one acre for educational purposes, such as 4H or FFA, though the maximum animal density shall not be exceeded.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
157
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.2 Residential Uses
(c) Horses that are regularly ridden and exercised off-site may exceed the standard animal unit density. One horse is allowed for every 14,500 square feet of contiguous set aside area. (5) Livestock as Legal nonconforming Uses (a) Legal nonconforming status shall be in accordance with Section 11-05-06, Nonconformities. (b) Legal nonconforming status shall be lost if the livestock are absent from the property for a continuous period of two years. K.
Manufactured Home A Manufactured Home shall comply with the following design, form, and installation standards: (1) Except in the R-1A zoning district, it shall be multi-sectional and enclose a space of not less than 1,000 square feet. (2) It shall be permanently affixed to the ground in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications with the running gear and towing hitch removed and set upon a foundation base having an anchoring system that is completely concealed under the structure. (3) It shall be placed on a foundation base with the finished floor area of the home not more than 12 inches above grade or 24 inches above grade if the home is over a basement. Graded earth shall not be closer than six inches to the siding of the home. (4) It shall have a foundation fascia that is similar in appearance and durability to the masonry foundation or other foundation systems on Single-Family Detached Dwellings in the nearby area. The foundation fascia shall surround the entire perimeter of the structure and completely enclose the space between the siding and the finished grade. (5) It shall have exterior siding and roofing that in material and appearance is similar to the exterior siding and roofing material commonly used on residential dwellings within the city or that is comparable to the predominant material used on surrounding dwellings. (6) It shall have a pitched roof with a minimum pitch of two inches of rise to 12 inches of run (2:12). (7) If the majority of other residential structures on the same block have eaves, the Manufactured Home shall have an eave that projects a minimum of six inches along any wall that faces a street. (8) Structures that are not manufactured or constructed in compliance with the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 are not Manufactured Homes are prohibited within the city.
L.
Manufactured Home Community (1) Improvement Requirements (a) If the development is to be subdivided, streets shall be public and built in conformance with ACHD construction standards.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
158
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.2 Residential Uses
(b) Utilities shall be installed underground. (c) Units within the Community shall be connected to a wet line sewer and a central water facility. (d) Public street lighting shall be designed, constructed, and dedicated to the City and shall comply with the requirements of the Public Works Department. (e) Provisions for drainage of the community and dwelling sites in the Manufactured Home Community shall comply with the requirements of the Stormwater Management Ordinance and be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. (f)
Subdivisions and conversions of land leased Manufactured Home Communities to subdivisions shall comply with the requirements of Section 11-04-04, Subdivision Standards.
(2) Dwelling Unit Design Features Each dwelling unit shall comply with the following standards: (a) It shall have a roof pitch of at least two inches of rise to 12 inches of run (2:12). (b) It shall have a foundation fascia that is similar in appearance and durability to the masonry foundation or other foundation systems on Single-Family Detached Dwellings in the nearby area. The foundation fascia shall surround the entire perimeter of the structure and completely enclose the space between the siding and the finished grade. (c) It shall have exterior siding and roofing that in material and appearance is similar to the exterior siding and roofing material commonly used on residential dwellings within the city or that is comparable to the predominant material used on surrounding dwellings. (3) Home Space and Lot Improvement Requirements (a) Dimensions Each individual space designated for a Manufactured Home shall be large enough to accommodate the dwelling, required parking, usable private open space, area for accessory storage units, perimeter building setbacks and building separation requirements. (b) Private Open Space A minimum of 400 square feet of usable private open space, with a minimum dimension of 15 feet in length and width, shall be provided within each lot or home space's side or rear yard area. This requirement may be reduced to no less than 200 square feet if the difference is placed in common facilities provided for the Community as a whole. (c) Parking Spaces Residential parking spaces shall not be located further than 600 feet from the dwelling unit.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
159
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.2 Residential Uses
(d) Perimeter Setback and Unit Spacing Requirements i.
Periphery Setbacks Front, side, and rear setbacks along the periphery of the development shall comply with those for the zoning district in which the development is located. Where development already exists at the periphery, the setbacks shall be matched. For example, side yards shall be provided adjacent to side yards, rear yards adjacent to rear yards, and front yards opposite front yards.
ii.
Internal Front and Street Side Yard Each Manufactured Home adjacent to a public or private street shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the street as measured from the back of sidewalk, or back of curb in cases where no sidewalks are planned. The front yard setbacks of adjacent units are required to vary by no less than three feet,
(e) Interior Side and Rear Yards In order to maximize yard area utility, side and rear yard setbacks may be zero feet, but adjacent Manufactured Homes shall be separated by a minimum of 10 feet. Detached accessory structures shall comply with the accessory structure setback standards in the zoning district where the property is located. (4) Assured Water Supply All projects containing five or more dwelling units shall comply with the standards in Section 11-04-010, Assured Water Supply. M. Assisted Living Facility, Continuing Care Retirement Facility, Convalescent or Nursing Home, Fraternity or Sorority House, and Recovery Residence In the zoning districts where these uses are listed as Allowed or Conditional Uses, these uses shall comply with those Use-Specific Standards, design standards, and other Code provisions applicable to other Group Living or Household Living uses in the type of dwelling unit structure (e.g., Single-family Detached, Single-family Attached, Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex, or Multiple-Family Dwellings) in the zoning district in which they are located. N.
Dwelling, Co-Housing (1) A shared private common space containing at least 10 percent of the project area shall be provided. (2) A shared facility for communal cooking, dining, and other activities containing no more than 2,000 square feet may be provided. (3) All projects containing five or more dwelling units, or containing five or more bedrooms in one or more dwelling units, shall comply with the standards in Section 11-04-010, Assured Water Supply.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
160
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.2 Residential Uses
O.
Home Occupation, Other (1) Eligibility (a) A Home Occupation that is not prohibited by this Code is allowed without submittal of an application or approval of a Zoning Certificate if it complies with all of the standards in Subsection (2) below. (b) A Home Occupation that does not comply with all of the criteria in Subsection (2) below requires filing of an application and approval of a Zoning Certificate pursuant to Subsection (3) below. (c) More than one Home Occupation may be approved for the same property address provided that the combined activities and uses of the Home Occupations do not exceed the approval criteria in this Code. For example, the aggregate total of floor space devoted to one or more Home Occupations at a given address shall not exceed 500 square feet. (2) Standards for Approval Without Issuance of Zoning Certificate (a) The use is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the lot or parcel for dwelling purposes. (b) The use is conducted entirely within a dwelling or permitted accessory structure and the aggregate of all space within any or all buildings devoted to one or more Home Occupations shall not exceed 500 square feet in floor area. (c) Outdoor storage of materials and supplies is prohibited. (d) The owner and operator of the Home Occupation shall reside on the premises and shall not employ others to work in the home. (e) Required off-street parking spaces for the residence shall be maintained. (f)
Deliveries and pickups shall be limited to two per day between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
(g) Instructional classes shall be limited to one student at a time with a maximum of eight per day. (h) Any materials used or any item produced or repaired on the premises shall not be displayed or stored so as to be visible from the exterior of the building. (i)
Only items produced on the premises or incidental to the service being offered may be offered for retail sale, and any such sales shall be incidental to the provision of the related service as the principal Home Occupation.
(j)
One non-illuminated wall sign not exceeding two square feet in area and mounted flat against the building is allowed.
(3) Standards for Approval Requiring Issuance of Zoning Certificate Home Occupations that do not comply with all of the standards in Subsection (2) above require the filing of an application and issuance of a Zoning Certificate based on a review by the Planning Director to ensure they will not be a detriment to the livability of the neighborhood. The Planning Director may approve the proposed Home Occupation if the Planning Director determines that all of the standards in Subsection (2) above have been met, except as modified by the standards below. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
161
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.2 Residential Uses
(a) The owner and operator of the Home Occupation shall reside on the premises and may not employ more than one other individual to work in the home. (b) One vehicle, in addition to that used by an employee, may be used with a Home Occupation subject to the following: i.
Commercial vehicles and trailers are prohibited.
ii.
One off-street parking space is required and may be provided on a driveway apron.
(c) Outdoor storage of materials and supplies is prohibited. (d) Instructional classes shall be limited to a maximum of five students per class, and limits on hours within which instruction may occur may be added. (e) Internal or external changes that would make the dwelling appear less residential are prohibited. Examples include construction of parking lots, paving of required setbacks, and adding commercial-like exterior lighting. (f)
If the Home Occupation meets the definition of Animal Daycare or Kennel, it shall require a noncommercial kennel license from the City Clerk.
(4) Prohibited Home Occupations The following Home Occupations are prohibited, regardless of whether they comply with the standards in Subsections (2) and/or (3) above: (a) Occupations that involve highly combustible materials or any hazardous material; (b) Occupations where the dimensions, power rating, or weight of equipment and tools used exceed that of normal household equipment and tools; (c) Occupations that cause abnormal automotive or pedestrian traffic or that are objectionable due to unsightliness, odor, dust, smoke, noise, glare, heat, vibration, or similar disturbances; (d) Retail stores; (e) Dispatch centers where employees meet at the dwelling unit and are sent to other locations; (f)
Occupations that would detract from the residential character of the neighborhood;
(g) Escort services; (h) Taxidermy; (i)
Heavy equipment repair;
(j)
Firearms sales;
(k) Any other use that is not listed as an allowed or conditional use in any zoning district in the city; and (l)
Any other use prohibited as a principal use of land by this Code.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
162
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.3 Public, Institutional and Civic Uses
3.
Public, Institutional and Civic Uses A.
Adult or Child Daycare Uses Adult or Child Daycare Facilities, Centers (Small and Large), Family Daycare Homes, and Group Daycare Facilities shall comply with the applicable standards below. (1) Standards for All Adult Daycare Uses Every Adult Daycare use shall: (a) Provide adequate access to the facility for people with disabilities. (b) Comply with the regulations where applicable by law or jurisdiction of the Fire Department and the health inspector. (c) Maintain any required licenses from the City and the State of Idaho in effect at all times. (2) Standards for All Child Daycare Uses Every Child Daycare use shall: (a) Provide a minimum outdoor play area of 100 square feet per child on site. This area requirement may be waived or modified if appropriate open space with connecting public sidewalks or paths are located near the facility and that open space can be used by the children as a play area; or the program of the facility is such that the size of a group of children using the play area at any one time conforms to the 100 square feet per child criteria. (b) Provide a minimum of 35 square feet of indoor gross floor area per child. (c) Maintain a valid child care license from the City and the State of Idaho in effect at all times. (d) Comply with the regulations where applicable by law or jurisdiction of the Fire Department and the health inspector. (e) Provide adequate lot size for parking, child pick-up area, play area, screening, and setbacks. In the case of a Family Daycare Home, the Planning Director shall determine needed improvements. (3) Additional Criteria for All Home Occupation Daycare Uses Every Family Daycare Home and Group Daycare Facility shall meet the following standards: (a) The use shall not change the structural character of the dwelling. (b) A maximum of one employee is allowed. (4) Additional Criteria for Adult and Child Care Uses by Type In addition to the applicable criteria above, an Adult or Child Daycare use shall be subject to additional standards as indicated in Table 11-03.2.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
163
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.3 Public, Institutional and Civic Uses
TABLE 11-03.2: ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR ADULT AND CHILD CARE USES BY TYPE PRINCIPAL USES
CRITERIA
NUMBER OF PERSONS ALLOWED
ADULT OR CHILD DAYCARE FACILITY
ADULT OR CHILD DAYCARE CENTER, SMALL
ADULT OR CHILD DAYCARE CENTER, LARGE
FAMILY DAYCARE HOME
7-12
13-25
≥ 26
≤6
The use shall provide for an on-site pick-up area designed to ease the flow of traffic and to prevent vehicles from backing onto the roadway (backing in an alley is permissible).
Applicable if located on a collector or arterial street
Allowable signage shall be non- illuminated and as indicated. The applicant's proposal for signage should be submitted and considered during the review process.
One 12 sq. ft. attached sign
Minimum parking to be provided shall be as indicated.
Facility location shall be as indicated.
B.
HOME OCCUPATION USES
Applicable
One 12 sq. ft. attached sign
As allowed by the applicable zoning district
1 off-street space per 10 persons, with a minimum 1 off-street of 2 spaces (except the space per MX-5 zoning district where employee off-street parking is not required) On a collector or arterial street; or if for school age On the edge of a children, neighborhood and not in within 300 the center. ft. of the school grounds; or in a public assembly structure.
GROUP DAYCARE FACILITY 7-12
Applicable if located on a collector or arterial street
One 12 sq. ft. attached sign
1 off-street space per employee
In the operator’s principal residence and shall be incidental to the principal use of the dwelling as a residence.
Cemetery, Mortuary or Mausoleum In any Residential zoning district, this use shall not channel a majority of the traffic generated by the use onto a local residential street.
C.
Jail or Detention Facility (1) This use shall be located with direct access onto a collector or arterial street. (2) Site design and security measures shall ensure that the peace and safety of the surrounding area shall not be disturbed or impaired.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
164
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.3 Public, Institutional and Civic Uses
D.
College or Other Institution of Higher Education All changes of use or development where the development site is within 300 feet of a Residential zoning district shall require a Conditional Use Permit.
E.
School This use shall comply with all requirements and recommendations of the Idaho Transportation Department and the Ada County Highway District including but not limited to compliance with: (1) All requirements and recommendations in any land use master plan, school bus plan, pedestrian plan, or crossing guard plan applicable to the property; and (2) All requirements and recommendations related to: (a) Access safety; (b) Barriers between streets and school; (c) Location of school zone; (d) Need for flashing beacon; (e) Need for traffic control signal; (f)
Anticipated future improvements;
(g) Speed on adjacent highways; (h) Vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic volumes on adjacent highways; (i)
Effect upon the highway's level of service;
(j)
Need for acceleration or deceleration lanes;
(k) Internal site circulation; (l)
Access control of adjacent streets;
(m) Required striping and signing modifications; (n) Existing and planned roadway improvements to accommodate development; (o) Proposed roadway projects in the vicinity; and (p) Any other issues related to the operation and potential impacts of the use on public health, safety, and the surrounding area. F.
Trade or Vocational School (1) When this use is incorporated within an office development, it shall comply with the standards in Section 11-03-03.4.M, Office. (2) When this use is a standalone facility, it shall require a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.C. (3) When located in the I-1, I-2, or A-1 zoning districts, this use shall only be allowed if the Planning Director determines that locating the use within the zoning district is necessary for the educational instruction of the school.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
165
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.4 Commercial Uses
4.
Commercial Uses A.
Animal Day Care or Kennel (1) Those parts of structures in which animals are boarded shall be fully enclosed, with solid core doors and no operable windows, and shall be sufficiently insulated to minimize the noise or odor that can be detected off the premises. (2) All boarded animals shall be kept within a totally enclosed part of a structure between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (3) Any outdoor animal areas shall be located at least 50 feet from each abutting property, except where the abutting property is owned or occupied by the operator of the use.
B.
Beekeeping, Accessory The purpose of these regulations is to ensure sound beekeeping practices and avoid problems that might be associated with the keeping of bees in an urban setting. (1) Standards All beekeeping shall comply with the following standards: (a) Noxious Insects Prohibited The keeping of wasps, hornets, Africanized bees (Apis mellifera scutellata) and other noxious insects is prohibited. (b) Density of Hives and Colonies There is no minimum parcel size for beekeeping, but the maximum density is three colonies per one-fourth acre. Higher densities may be permitted by Conditional Use Permit. (c) Nucleus Colonies For every two colonies authorized above, one additional nucleus colony is allowed. (d) Hives Colonies shall be kept in hives with removable frames. (e) Flyway Barriers For colonies located within 25 feet of a property boundary, a flyway barrier at least six feet in height consisting of a solid wall, fence, or dense hedge parallel to the property line and extending 10 feet beyond the apiary in each direction is required. (f)
Setbacks and Placement Hives shall be located at least 20 feet from front property lines and three feet from other property lines. The back of the hive shall be oriented to abutting properties.
(g) Water Source A constant supply of fresh water is required. It shall be readily accessible to the bees and to allow them to access water by landing on a hard surface. A water supply is not required during winter and other inactive months. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
166
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.4 Commercial Uses
(h) Maintenance Hives not being actively maintained shall be removed. Colonies shall be maintained so as to not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of surrounding properties. (i)
Queens Where a colony exhibits unusually aggressive characteristics the colony shall be destroyed or re-queened.
(j)
Compliance with State Statutes Beekeeping shall comply with all applicable state laws.
(k) Contact Information Contact information for a responsible party shall be posted at apiaries on vacant property. C.
Urban Farm (1) Setbacks There are no setback requirements for garden plantings. Accessory structures including greenhouses, fencing, and other miscellaneous improvements are subject to the dimensional standards of the zoning district. (2) Maintenance Dead plants, produce, and trash not to be used for composting or other garden functions shall be removed from the site on a weekly basis. Composting materials shall be covered or enclosed. (3) Equipment The use of mechanical equipment is generally limited to that typically associated with home gardening. Larger equipment may be used on a limited basis for seasonal activities such as soil preparation or clean-up in the fall. The use of mechanical equipment is limited to daylight hours. (4) Chemicals and Fertilizers Chemicals, fertilizers, or other toxic materials shall not drain onto adjacent properties, into waterways, or onto public rights-of-way. Chemicals and other flammable materials shall be disposed of in accordance with federal and state requirements. If stored on site, they shall be kept in a locked structure when unattended. (5) Contact Information A non-illuminated sign displaying the name and contact information for the individual or agency responsible for the urban farm shall be provided. This sign shall not exceed six feet in height or 32 square feet in background area. (6) Lighting No overhead lighting is allowed, unless the lighting fixtures are within an enclosed structure, including greenhouses. All lighting shall comply with the standards in Section 11-04-011, Exterior Lighting.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
167
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.4 Commercial Uses
(7) Historic Districts Urban Farms located in a designated Historic District require a Certificate of Appropriateness. (8) Produce Distribution The pick-up and delivery of produce for the purpose of distribution to gardeners or those who have purchased shares of locally grown produce is limited to the hours of 6:00 am to 10:00 pm. Such activities shall not be considered retail sales. (9) Retail Sales In Residential zoning districts, retail sales may be allowed at Urban Farms upon approval of a Zoning Certificate. In addition to the standards listed above, the following criteria apply: (a) Sales shall be limited primarily to produce grown on the premises. Other items that have been grown or raised within the City's Area of Impact may also be sold. These items shall not exceed 25 percent of total amount of products on display. (b) Display areas shall adhere to the setbacks of the zoning district and be located as close to the front property line as feasible. (c) The area used for the sale, display and storage of produce shall not exceed 500 square feet. (d) Sales are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (e) Installation of new, on-site parking to support retail sales is prohibited. D.
Wireless Communication Facilities This section establishes standards for the placement of wireless communication facilities (WCFs) to minimize aesthetic impacts by regulating the height, location, site characteristics, and design. It shall apply to the placement of all new WCFs and the expansion or alteration of existing WCFs. (1) General Requirements Facilities shall not: (a) Create adverse noise from generators or other accessory equipment. (b) Create access or grading problems. (c) Interfere with the safe operation of traffic control equipment. (d) Interfere with sight lines or clear zones for transportation or pedestrians. (e) Violate any applicable laws, codes, or regulations. (f)
The removal of private trees (limbs, branches, or the entire tree) is prohibited unless written approval is provided from the private property owner and submitted with an application. The removal of public trees (limbs, branches, or the entire tree) is prohibited unless written approval is provided by the City Forester. The removal, if approved, shall be completed by a tree service licensed by the City of Boise. WCFs that will disturb or impact existing landscaping or infrastructure maintained by the City within public rights-of-way shall comply with Section 7-7A-3. WCFs that disturb a tree shall also comply with Section 11-
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
168
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.4 Commercial Uses
04-09.3.F(3), Avoiding Interference with Utilities and 11-04-09.8, Tree Preservation and may be required to comply with any other applicable ordinance or manual. (g) Disturbance to private property landscaping, regardless of if it is located within a public easement, shall be repaired to its original state after installation of the facility is complete. (2) Application Not Required Subject to the design standards in Section 11-03-03.4.D(6), an application shall not be required for: (a) Routine maintenance; (b) The replacement of a facility or antenna with another facility or antenna of equal or lesser size or height; or (c) The installation, placement, maintenance, operation, or replacement of strandmounted micro wireless facilities between existing utility poles; or (d) The installation of an attached Wireless Communication Facility as defined in Section 11-03-03.4.D(6). (3) Use Allowances and Applications The WCF use allowances and application requirements are identified in Table 11-03.3, below.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
169
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.4 Commercial Uses
TABLE 11-03.3: WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES – ALLOWED, CONDITIONAL AND PROHIBITED USES BY ZONING DISTRICT A = ALLOWED
A*=ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
C= CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREESTANDING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY
ZONING CATEGORY
ATTACHED WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY
MONOPOLE/STRUCTURE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 35-FEET IN HEIGHT IN THE R-1A, R-1B, R1C, R-2, AND MX-1 DISTRICTS, LESS THAN 45-FEET IN HEIGHT IN THE R-3, MX-2, MX-3, MX-4, MX-5, MX-H, MX-U, A-1, AND A-2 DISTRICTS, AND LESS THAN 55-FEET IN HEIGHT IN THE I-1, I-2, AND I-3 ZONING DISTRICTS
MONOPOLE/STRUCTURE GREATER THAN 35-FEET IN HEIGHT IN THE R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, R-2, AND MX-1 DISTRICTS, GREATER THAN 45-FEET IN HEIGHT IN THE R-3, MX-2, MX-3, MX-4, MX5, MX-H, MX-U, A-1 AND A-2, DISTRICTS, AND GREATER THAN 55FEET IN HEIGHT IN THE I1, I-2, AND I-3 ZONING DISTRICTS R-1 and R-2 zoning districts: Prohibited
Residential Districts (R1A, R-1B, R-1C, R-2, and R-3)
A
Mixed-Use Districts (MX1, MX-2, MX-3, MX-4, MX-5, MX-H, and MX-U)
A
A*
C
Industrial Districts (I-1, I2, and I-3)
A
A*
C
Open Land Districts (A-1 and A-2)
A
A*
Prohibited
A*
R-3: C
(4) Site Development Standards for Freestanding Wireless Communication Facilities Greater than the General Base Maximum Height of Zoning District The following shall apply to freestanding WCFs greater than 35 feet in height in the MX-1 district, 45 feet in height in the R-3, MX-2, MX-3, MX-4, MX-5, MX-H, MX-U districts, and 55 feet in height in the I-1, I-2, and I-3 zoning districts. (a) Setbacks i.
Monopoles/structures/towers greater than 35 feet in height in the MX-1 district, 45 feet in height in the R-3, MX-2, MX-3, MX-4, MX-5, MX-H, MX-U districts, and 55 feet in height in the I-1, I-2 and I-3 districts shall be set back from all property lines as required by that zoning district or by one foot for every 10 feet of total tower height, whichever is greater.
ii.
For a WCF located within 300 feet of a Residential zoning district or use, the minimum distance from the tower base to the nearest existing residential structure or building setback line shall not be less than the height of the tower.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
170
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.4 Commercial Uses
(b) Separation No closer than 1,000 feet to another freestanding WCF. (c) Height Measurement The height measurement of a WCF shall include the height of the structure including antenna attachments. (d) Conditional Use Approval Required WCFs greater than 35 feet in height in the MX-1 district, 45 feet in height in the R-3, MX-2, MX-3, MX-4, MX-5, MX-H, MX-U districts, and 55 feet in height in the I-1, I-2, and I-3 districts require approval of a Conditional Use Permit as indicated in Table 11-03.3. (e) Equipment Facilities All equipment shelters, cabinets, or on-ground ancillary equipment shall meet setback requirements of the zoning district in which they are located and shall not be located within the right-of-way unless approved through a fully executed lease or license agreement and all design standards have been met. (f)
Screening and Landscaping Facilities shall include a landscape buffer. The buffer shall consist of a landscape strip at least four feet wide outside the perimeter of the compound. A minimum of 50 percent of the plant materials shall be of an evergreen variety. The Planning Director may reduce or waive landscaping requirements where the visual impact of the facility is minimal.
(g) Color and Placement To the maximum extent practicable, WCFs shall use materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that blend the facilities to the natural setting and the built environment (e.g., a monopine design or similar concealment). Any antennas and supporting equipment installed on a structure other than a tower shall use colors that are similar to the supporting structure and render the antennas and related equipment as unobtrusive as possible. (h) Lighting and Security Unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), WCFs shall not be lighted. Equipment shelters may use security lighting that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, confined to the boundaries of the site, and in compliance with Section 11-04-011, Exterior Lighting. Where a WCF is required to meet FAA paint or lighting regulations, the distance between the WCF and any residential zoning district or use or any historic district shall not be less than one-fourth of a mile. (i)
Advertising No advertising or display shall be located on any antenna or support structure.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
171
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.4 Commercial Uses
(j)
Discontinuation of Use Any WCF that is no longer in use shall be reported immediately by the property owner or service provider to the Planning Director. Discontinued facilities shall be removed within six months and the site restored to its pre-existing condition.
(k) Gateway Streets Lattice towers and WCF poles greater than 35 feet in height in the MX-1 district, 45 feet in height in the R-3, MX-2, MX-3, MX-4, MX-5, MX-H, MX-U districts, and 55 feet in height in the I-1, I-2, and I-3 zoning districts are prohibited within 100 feet of: i.
Capitol Boulevard.
ii.
Vista Avenue from I-84 to Capitol Boulevard.
iii.
Broadway Avenue from I-84 to Warm Springs Avenue.
iv.
State Street from the State Capitol to State Highway 55.
v.
Myrtle Street.
vi.
Front Street.
vii. Federal Way from Capitol Boulevard to Bergeson Street. viii. Warm Springs Avenue. ix.
Park Center Boulevard.
(5) Site Development Standards for Freestanding Wireless Communication Facility Less Than/or Equal to the General Base Maximum Height of the Zoning District The following shall apply to freestanding WCFs less than or equal to 35 feet in height in the R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, R-2, and MX-1 districts, 45 feet in height in the R-3, MX-2, MX-3, MX-4, MX-5, MX-H, MX-U, A-1 and A-2districts, and 55 feet in height in the I-1, I-2, and I-3 zoning districts. (a) Setbacks i.
Monopoles/structures less than or equal to 35 feet in height in the R-1A, R1B, R-1C, R-2, and MX-1 districts, 45 feet in height in the R-3, MX-2, MX-3, MX-4, MX-5, MX-H, MX-U, A-1, and A-2districts, and 55-feet in height in the I-1, I-2, and I-3 zoning districts must comply with setbacks, landscaping and screening requirements for the zoning district in which they are located.
ii.
For a WCF located within 300 feet of a Residential zoning district or use, the minimum distance from the tower base to the nearest existing residential structure or building setback line shall not be less than the height of the tower.
iii.
In Residential zoning districts, freestanding WCFs shall be no closer than 20 feet to a dwelling.
(b) Design Criteria The WCF shall comply with the WCF design standards in Section 11-0303.4.D(6)(a).
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
172
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.4 Commercial Uses
(c) Separation A freestanding WCF shall be no closer than 500 feet to another freestanding WCF. (d) Dual Purpose The pole shall allow for a Boise City Public Works approved street light or colocation of another WCF provider or utility service. (e) Ground Equipment All equipment not installed on or inside the pole shall be located underground, flush to the ground, within three feet of the utility pole and shall not be located within the right-of-way unless approved through a fully executed lease or license agreement and all design standards have been met. (f)
Placement The freestanding WCF shall not interfere with clear vision triangles or pedestrian access.
(g) Setback In residential zoning districts, freestanding WCFs shall be no closer than 20 feet to a dwelling. (h) Options to Co-locate The applicant shall demonstrate that all appropriate co-location options (including publicly owned utility poles, privately owned structures, poles, rooftops, and poles within easements) within a 500 foot radius are technically incompatible for co-location. (i)
Notification Notification of the adjacent property owners and occupants, including properties across streets and alleys, shall be submitted with the application, stating the adjacent owners and occupants have been notified of the applicant’s intent to install a freestanding wireless communication facility, that any disturbance to the site will be repaired to its original state, and the applicant’s contact information including name, telephone number, mailing address and email address. Certified mail is an acceptable means of notifying adjacent owners and occupants.
(6) Design Standards for Attached Wireless Communication Facilities The following shall apply to attached WCFs per Table 11-03.3: (a) General Criteria The total volume of antennas on one structure shall not exceed 15 cubic feet. i.
No antenna shall extend horizontally more than 20 inches past the outermost mounting point (where the mounting hardware connects to the antenna).
ii.
Antennas and associated equipment enclosures not fully concealed within a pole shall be camouflaged to appear as an integral part of the pole or be mounted as close to the pole as feasible and shall be reasonably related in size to the intended purpose of the facility and reasonable expansion for
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
173
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.4 Commercial Uses
future frequencies and/or technologies, not to exceed the volumetric requirements otherwise required in this ordinance. iii.
Antennas and antenna equipment shall not be illuminated except as required by municipal, federal, or state authority or as incidental to deployment on a street light.
iv.
In addition to complying with the design standards in this Subsection, when co-located on a pole owned by a different company or establishment, the co-located antenna shall also comply with the design standards of the pole owner applicable to its own antennas.
(b) Strand-Mounted Wireless Facilities Strand-mounted facilities shall comply with the following: i.
Each strand-mounted antenna shall not exceed three cubic feet in volume;
ii.
No more than two strand mounted antennas between any two existing poles;
iii.
Strand-mounted devices shall be placed as close as possible to the nearest pole and in no event more than five feet from the pole; and
iv.
No strand-mounted device will be located in or above the portion of the roadway open to vehicular traffic. Strand-mounted devices shall be installed with the minimum excess exterior cabling or wires to meet the technological needs of the facility.
(c) Replacement i.
The center point of the replacement pole shall be located no more than five feet away from the center point of the original pole.
ii.
Construction of the replacement pole entails no new ground disturbance within a five foot radius outside previously disturbed areas, including disturbance associated with temporary support of utility, communications, or related transmission lines.
iii.
The pole shall be less than or equal to 35 feet in height in the R-1A, R-1B, R1C, R-2, and MX-1 districts, less than 45 feet in height in the R-3, MX-2, MX3, MX-4, MX-5, MX-H, MX-U, A-1 and A-2 districts, and 55 feet in height in the I-1, I-2, and I-3 zoning districts, except as otherwise authorized under this Code; and
iv.
Has an appearance consistent with the quality and appearance of the original pole.
(d) Exceptions i.
The design standards shall not apply to the extent that the facilities comply with any of the following standards: A.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
Antennae located entirely within approved signage, including antennae placed within the sign face or attached to a support structure so long as the design is such that the antennae is effectively unnoticeable. Such antennae shall not be placed on a non-conforming sign. 174
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.4 Commercial Uses
ii.
B.
Flush mounted, color coordinated panels on existing buildings where equipment is not visible above the roof line. All equipment shelters, cabinets or other accessory structures shall be located within the building used for the antennae, or on the ground located outside of any required setbacks, required landscaping or parking spaces.
C.
Antennae built into architectural features or that appear to be architectural features added to existing structures (such as chimneys, cupolas, dormers, bell towers, steeples, water tanks, stadium lights, utility poles, and other similar features), provided that the height of such architectural feature is less than or equal to 35 feet in height in the R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, R-2, and MX-1 districts, less than 45 feet in height in the R-3, MX-2, MX-3, MX-4, MX-5, MX-H, MX-U, A-1 and A-2 zoning districts, and 55 feet in height in the I-1, I-2, and I-3 zoning districts.
D.
Co-location on existing facilities where the height of the existing structure or pole does not exceed 35 feet in height in the R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, R-2, and MX-1 districts, 45 feet in height in the R-3, MX-2, MX-3, MX-4, MX-5, MX-H, MX-U, A-1 and A-2 districts, and 55 feet in height in the I-1, I-2, and I-3 zoning districts, unless a Conditional Use Permit is approved.
E.
Installations which are located far from any prospective viewer and in such a way as to have a backdrop of terrain which obscures the antennae as to make it visibly unobtrusive and effectively unnoticeable; or
F.
Antennas that appear to be natural features indigenous to the site and which are located in proximity to the features they are imitating so that they blend in and do not stand out visually.
An applicant may seek Planning Director approval to deviate from applicable site and design standards to the extent that compliance with the standard: (i) is not technically feasible; (ii) impedes the effective operation of the WCF; (iii) conflicts with other applicable laws or requirements governing the WCF; or (v) otherwise materially inhibits or limits the provision of wireless service.
(7) Eligible Facilities Request Upon receipt of an Eligible Facilities Request, the Planning Director shall review such application to determine whether the application so qualifies. The Planning Director shall issue an approval if the application qualifies. E.
Brewpub, Micro-distillery, or Micro-winery (1) In the MX-1 zoning district, this use shall not exceed 5,000 square feet of gross floor area and shall maintain at least 20 percent of the gross floor area for public use as an area for consumption of products produced on the premises. (2) In other zoning districts where this use is allowed, except the I-1 and I-2 districts, Brewpubs, Distilleries, or Wineries shall not exceed 10,000 square feet of gross floor area and shall maintain at least 40 percent of the gross floor area of the facility for
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
175
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.4 Commercial Uses
public use as an area for consumption of products produced on the premises and food items. F.
Food Truck, Accessory All Food Trucks shall comply with the following standards in order to operate on private property, provided that: (1) Each Accessory Food Truck shall comply with all applicable city, state, and federal licensing requirements and shall be in good operating condition. (2) Each Accessory Food Truck and any associated tables, chairs, displays, umbrellas, and/or other equipment shall not physically occupy or obstruct access to any parking stalls necessary to meet the minimum parking requirements for any on-premises land uses, unless the Accessory Food Truck is operating outside of the business hours of on-premises uses. (3) Each Accessory Food Truck and any associated tables, chairs, displays, umbrellas, and other equipment shall not obstruct any designated pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle ingress or egress from the property, or any designated drive aisle. (4) Each Accessory Food Truck shall have written permission from the property owner for use of the site and allowed location on the site, a copy of which shall be kept in the Accessory Food Truck and made available for review by any City inspector at all times during operation of the Accessory Food Truck at the site. (5) The Accessory Food Truck operator shall provide trash receptacles sized to meet expected demand and shall remove them after the Accessory Food Truck completes serving food.
G.
Food Truck Court (1) General (a) Food Trucks operating within a Food Truck Court shall meet all applicable city, state, and federal licensing requirements and shall be in good operating condition. (b) Motorized vehicular drive-through service from individual food trucks is prohibited. (2) Location (a) Food Trucks and associated seating areas shall not be located in any required landscaping area, access easement, driveway, or fire lane(s). (b) All eating, drinking, service, and delivery activity shall occur outside of setbacks, landscaping, and the public right-of-way. (3) Site Design (a) There shall be at least three feet of clearance between each individual Food Truck and between each permanent or accessory structure and at least 10 feet of unobstructed clearance for Food Trucks parked side-by-side. (b) Seating for the consumption of food and drink shall be provided. (c) Accessible restroom facilities, including handwashing facilities, shall be provided.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
176
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.4 Commercial Uses
(d) Each Food Truck Court shall provide trash receptacles sized to meet expected demand and shall empty or remove them on a daily basis. The site shall include a trash collection facility, including but not limited to a designated dumpster location accessible by trash collection vehicles. (e) The Food Truck Court shall be designed to allow for continuous pedestrian ingress and egress to and from the site as well as accessible internal walkways or passageways between Food Trucks, restroom facilities, trash receptables, and seating areas. (4) Operations (a) When located adjacent to a residential zoning district, the hours of operation shall be limited between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. (b) Any amplified sound shall comply with Title 5, Chapter 7 of the Boise City Code regarding permissible levels of noise. H.
Neighborhood Café (1) A Neighborhood Café shall not exceed 2,000 square feet in gross floor area. (2) If alcoholic drinks are served, food shall be served as well. (3) Any outdoor seating area is limited to no more than 30 percent of the gross floor area of the Café. (4) In the R-1C zoning district, the location of this use is allowed on corner lots. If the use is proposed to be located on an interior lot, it shall require a Conditional Use Permit approval pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.C. (5) Drive-Through Facilities are prohibited. (6) The Café shall only operate between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
I.
Sidewalk Café, Accessory (1) The property owner shall provide insurance coverage to protect the City from all liability for injury, death, or property damage occurring within the Sidewalk Cafe area or due to the operations of the Sidewalk Cafe, in a form and substance acceptable to the City. (2) The Sidewalk Cafe shall be designed and located: (a) To avoid interference with any pedestrian access ramp from any abutting street onto the sidewalk, and to avoid all areas required for maneuvering of wheelchairs and other ambulatory devices at the top of any pedestrian access ramp; and (b) So that an area at least five feet in width remains unobstructed to allow pedestrians clear passage around the Sidewalk Cafe area. The clear passage area shall not be obstructed by tree grates, flower planters, bicycles parked in bicycle racks, street lights, street furnishings, fencing, or other encroachments into the surface area of the sidewalk. (3) If the Sidewalk Cafe area has a direct entrance from the sidewalk, that entrance shall be at least 44 inches in width and shall be located on the edge of the Sidewalk Cafe parallel to the abutting building façade (the “parallel edge”, as shown in Figure 3.4 below).
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
177
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.4 Commercial Uses
(4) If desired by the applicant, a secondary entrance may be provided on an edge of the Sidewalk Cafe area perpendicular to the abutting building façade (the “leading edge, as shown in Figure 3.4 below).
Figure 3.4. Sidewalk Cafe Area Layout
(5) If the Sidewalk Cafe serves alcohol, a decorative fence three feet in height shall be provided along all edges of the Sidewalk Cafe area and shall include a gate three feet in height across each primary and secondary entrance from the sidewalk. The fence shall be constructed of materials and with color similar to those used on the abutting building façade. (6) Within the Sidewalk Cafe area: (a) Circulation aisles at least three feet in width shall be provided to allow patrons to access all tables and chairs; and (b) All furniture and furnishings shall be durable and of the same visual appearance as the primary façade, as determined by the Planning Director. (7) Any plantings provided for the Sidewalk Cafe shall be located within the Sidewalk Cafe area.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
178
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.4 Commercial Uses
Figure 3-5. Sidewalk Cafe Area Design
J.
Bed and Breakfast (1) In the R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, R-2, R-3, and MX-1 districts: (a) This use is limited to existing or former Single-Family Detached Dwellings; and (b) Food service shall only be provided to residents and overnight guests. (2) Each guest stay shall be limited to a maximum of 30 consecutive days. (3) No food preparation or cooking shall be conducted within any bedroom made available for guests. (4) The exterior design of the structure and premises shall include an amount of façade articulation, and numbers and locations of windows and building entrances on the primary building façade that are similar to those in the surrounding area and neighborhood.
K.
Recreational Vehicle Park Any Recreational Vehicle Park shall be subject to the following standards: (1) Recreational vehicles shall not be visible from adjacent or surrounding arterial streets or highways. Screening shall comply with Section 11-04-09, Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening. (2) A site area for each recreational vehicle shall be designated and parking for the recreational vehicles, accessory vehicles, trailers and slide-outs, stairs, or similar items shall be contained within that individual vehicular site area. (3) No more than one recreational vehicle shall be permitted at any individual site area. (4) Recreational Vehicle Parks shall have a full-time manager on site at all times. (5) Services and amenities within the Recreational Vehicle Park shall be restricted to use by registered campers and their guests, and shall include at a minimum water, sewer, and electricity for each site, water and sewer facilities for common buildings, dump stations, common bathrooms and showers, laundry facilities, a management office, and an active recreational area that complies with Subsection (6) below.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
179
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.4 Commercial Uses
(6) An active recreational area shall be a minimum of four percent of the site, and may include a clubhouse, swimming pool, outdoor amphitheater, food and beverage service, catering facilities, and other such similar amenities. (7) Sale of retail items shall be limited to registered campers and their guests and shall not occupy more than 2,000 square feet of building area. (8) No blocking of recreational vehicles shall be permitted. (9) No outdoor storage by park guests shall be permitted. (10) The site shall be properly graded for drainage, and surfaced with concrete, asphalt or any other improved surface approved by the Planning Director based on durability, appearance, and dust control. (11) The site shall be maintained in good condition, free of weeds, trash, and debris. (12) Occupancy of an individual recreational vehicle on the park site shall be limited to a maximum of 30 consecutive days. L.
Financial Establishment, Medical or Dental Clinic, Personal and Business Services In the R-3 zoning districts, these uses may only be located on the ground floors of buildings containing primary Multiple-Family Dwelling uses or within an existing building.
M. Office (1) Within the R-3 zoning district, professional and executive offices may only be located on the ground floors of buildings containing primary Multiple-Family Dwelling uses or within an existing building. (2) In the I-1 and I-2 zoning districts, construction of new buildings for primary office uses, or the creation of accessory office uses that occupy more than 25 percent of the gross floor area of a primary structure require a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.C. The use of up to 25 percent of the gross floor area of a new or existing building for office uses accessory to Allowed or Conditional Uses in the building does not require a Conditional Use Permit. N.
Firing Range, Indoor (1) The City may require a nuisance abatement plan or restrict hours of operation as a condition of approval to minimize adverse impacts on adjacent properties. (2) The design and construction of the use shall completely confine all ammunition rounds within the building and in a controlled manner.
O.
Retail Sales, Neighborhood (1) In the R-1C zoning district, the location of this use is allowed on corner lots. If the use is proposed to be located on an interior lot, it shall require a Conditional Use Permit approval pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.C. (2) A neighborhood retail sales establishment shall only operate between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
180
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.4 Commercial Uses
P.
Retail Sales Small, Medium, or Large In all zoning districts, the pedestrian walkways and entrances into each business shall remain unencumbered by merchandise or storage and shall provide a minimum horizontal clearance of five feet to allow convenient pedestrian passage.
Q.
Sexually Oriented Business (1) Legislative Intent and Purpose (a) It is the intention of the City that the provisions of this Section be construed, enforced, and interpreted in such a manner as will cause the least possible interference with any affected rights of speech, due process, equal protection, or other federal or state constitutional right, as interpreted by the courts. This Code and each Section and provision thereof are hereby declared to be independent divisions and subdivisions and, not withstanding any other evidence of legislative intent, it is hereby declared to be the controlling legislative intent that if any provisions of this Section, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid, the remaining Sections or provisions and the application of such Sections or provisions to any person, business, or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and it is hereby declared that such Sections and provisions would have been passed independently of such Section or provision so known to be invalid. (b) The purpose of these regulations is to allow the reasonable location of a Sexually Oriented Business within the city in a manner that shall protect property values, neighborhoods, and residents from the potential adverse secondary effects of Sexually Oriented Businesses while providing to those who desire to patronize Sexually Oriented Businesses such opportunity in appropriate areas within the city. It is not the intent of this Code to suppress any speech activities protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, but to impose content-neutral regulations that address the adverse secondary effects a Sexually Oriented Business may have on abutting properties and the immediate neighborhood. (c) It has been determined and reflected in the land use studies of various US cities, that businesses that have as their primary purpose the selling, renting, or showing of sexually explicit materials have negative secondary impacts upon surrounding businesses and residences. The experience in other U.S. cities is that the location of a Sexually Oriented Business significantly increases the incidence of crimes, especially sex offenses, including rape, indecent exposure, lewd and lascivious behavior, and child molestation. (d) It has been determined and reflected in the land use studies of various US cities, that the operation of Sexually Oriented Businesses in business districts that are immediately adjacent to and that serve residential neighborhoods has a deleterious effect on both the business and the residential segments of the neighborhood, causing blight and down-grading property values. (e) It is the intent of these regulations to allow Sexually Oriented Businesses to exist within the city in various dispersed locations rather than to allow them to
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
181
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.4 Commercial Uses
concentrate in any one business area. It is further the purpose of these regulations to require separation requirements between Sexually Oriented Businesses and residential uses, churches, parks, and educational institutions in an effort to buffer these uses from the secondary impacts created by Sexually Oriented Business activity. (2) Applicability The standards in this Section shall apply in the following circumstances: (a) The opening or commencement of any Sexually Oriented Business as a new business; (b) The conversion of an existing business or any part of any existing business to any of the Sexually Oriented Businesses regulated herein; (c) The addition or expansion of any business to include any of the regulated Sexually Oriented Businesses; and (d) The voluntary relocation of any such business. (3) Criteria In lieu of the generally applicable Conditional Use Permit criteria, a Sexually Oriented Business shall be subject to the following standards: (a) If the establishment is located in a Mixed-Use zoning district, it: i.
Shall be limited to businesses licensed to serve beer, wine, alcohol, or spirituous liquor for consumption on the premises and that features live performers or servers wearing bikinis or swimsuits covering specified anatomical areas; and
ii.
Shall be located at least 300 feet from any residential use or zoning district.
(b) In any zoning district in which the establishment is located, it shall comply with the following standards: i.
It shall not be located within 1,000 feet of a public or parochial school or daycare as defined and licensed by the City; a public park or playground; a Bar or Tavern or other premises serving alcohol; religious institution; or any other Sexually Oriented Business;
ii.
It shall not be located on a lot or parcel that is within 500 feet of a residential use or zoning district (except as noted in Subsection (a)(i) above);
iii.
Distance shall be measured in a straight line from the property line closest to the property line of the nearest school, park, playground, religious institution, or other Sexually Oriented Business. These standards shall apply regardless of the political jurisdiction in which schools, parks, or churches or other adult businesses are located;
iv.
Lobby and entrance areas should be designed so as to minimize obstruction of sidewalks during operating hours and shall be oriented and consistent with other commercial activities in the area;
v.
All building openings, entries, windows, and the like, shall be located, covered, or screened in such a manner as to prevent a view into the interior,
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
182
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.4 Commercial Uses
so that personnel, instruments, devices, paraphernalia, and body parts thereof, that are associated in any manner with specified anatomical areas or specified sexual activities, cannot be viewed from streets, sidewalks, and adjacent private properties; vi.
No loudspeakers or sound equipment shall be used for such businesses that can be discerned by the public outside the building;
vii. The disposal of garbage and trash containing sexually explicit materials shall be disposed of in a manner that prevents minors from having access to the material; and viii. Hours of operation are from 4:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. One security staff person is required for each 20 required parking spaces or fraction thereof. The hours of operation shall be visibly posted on all entrances and exits. ix.
On-site security shall be present during all hours of operation.
x.
These provisions shall not be construed as permitting any use or act that is otherwise prohibited or made punishable by law.
xi.
No sexually oriented materials or performances shall be disseminated, performed for, by, or upon minors. Signs prohibiting minors upon premises shall be visibly posted on all entrances and exits.
xii. All areas of the use shall be illuminated at a minimum of 20 footcandles, normally maintained and evenly distributed at ground level. except that performance venues shall only be required to be illuminated at a minimum of five footcandles. xiii. The establishment shall limit the maximum number of image producing devices to the maximum occupancy load permitted in any room or partitioned portion of a room in which an image producing device is located. R.
Drive-Through Facility All Drive-Through Facilities shall comply with the following standards: (1) The location shall not cause an increase of commercial traffic in nearby residential neighborhoods, or cause significant adverse impacts in the vicinity, and traffic on nearby streets shall not be disrupted by increased vehicular congestion, blockage, or rerouting caused by the establishment; (2) Drive-through lanes and associated escape lanes shall each be a minimum of 10 feet in width. (3) Drive-through lane(s) shall be of sufficient length to accommodate average monthly peak volumes and shall comply with the table below, unless the Planning Director determines that additional spaces are required to avoid traffic congestion on abutting collector or arterial streets.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
183
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.4 Commercial Uses
TABLE 11-03.4: MINIMUM VEHICLE STACKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS USE
REQUIRED STACKING SPACES
Food and Beverage Service
5 per service lane
Other Uses
2 per service lane
(4) The number of drive-through lanes may be limited to allow for adequate on-site circulation of pedestrians and vehicles. (5) Drive-through windows and drive-through lanes shall be located to the rear of the building to the maximum extent practicable. (6) Drive-through lanes and related motor vehicle circulation shall not interfere with access to or reduce the number of motor vehicle parking spaces below the minimum required for all uses of the site, and shall not interfere with multi-modal access to, from, or through the site. (7) Drive-through lanes shall be separated from the sidewalk by a planting strip a minimum of five feet in width. (8) Exterior site lighting shall be designed and located to prevent glare and light trespass on abutting properties. (9) Landscaping shall minimize the visual impact of vehicular lights and on-site signs as viewed from the public street. (10) Drive-Through Facilities shall not create adverse noise, light, or other impacts on adjacent properties, and the hours of operation of a Drive-Through Facility may be limited to prevent or mitigate such impacts. (11) Drive-Through Facilities shall be designed to meet all applicable standards in Section 11-04-03.5, Neighborhood Transition Standards. (12) Where properties are located adjacent to a Residential district or residential use: (a) Sound from electronic devices such as loudspeakers, automobile service order devices, and similar sound sources related to the use shall not exceed 55 decibels as measured at the property line with any adjacent Residential district or residential use. (b) Drive-through lanes shall be set back at least 10 feet from each Residential zoning district or residential use; and (c) Landscape and sound abatement walls shall be required along each property boundary abutting a Residential zoning district or use. (13) In the MX-1, MX-3, MX-5, and MX-H zoning districts, Drive-Through Facilities may be allowed only if no drive-through service window or lane is located on a street-facing façade of the building. Service lanes and service windows must be completely covered by and enclosed on both sides by a portion of the primary structure and access to service lanes from any street must be through openings in the façade of the primary structure. Designs in which awnings, canopies, or other architectural features cover but do not enclose both sides the sides of the service lanes do not meet this standard.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
184
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.4 Commercial Uses
(14) In the MX-2 zoning district, Drive-Through Facilities may be allowed only if no drivethrough service window or lane is located on a street-facing façade of the building. S.
Electric Vehicle Charging Station All Electric Vehicle Charging Stations shall comply with the following standards: (1) In the Residential zoning districts, an Electric Vehicle Charging Station shall be accessory to an Allowed or approved Conditional Use and shall be limited to use by residents, occupants, and patrons of the facility to which the use is accessory. (2) Each charging station that is located in a parking lot shall comply with all applicable provisions of Section 11-04-08.6, Electric Vehicle (EV) Parking Spaces.
T.
Service Station (1) In the MX-1 zoning district, Service Stations shall be limited to a maximum of six fuel pumps. (2) All business and sales activities other than vehicle fueling shall be conducted within a completely enclosed building. (3) No outdoor storage of vehicle parts, discarded tires, or similar materials shall be permitted. (4) Fuel canopies shall be located to the side or rear of properties to minimize visual impact from public streets. (5) Where this use is located adjacent to a residential or mixed-use zoning district, the lot line/property lines adjacent to the Residential or Mixed-Use zoning district shall be screened pursuant to Section 11-04-09.5, Site Perimeter Buffers. (6) Service Station canopies shall comply with the canopy lighting standards in Section 11-04-011.4.G, Canopy Lighting.
U.
Vehicle Repair, Major and Minor (1) All major overhaul, body, and fender work, upholstering and welding, and spray painting shall be conducted within a completely enclosed building. (2) No outdoor storage of vehicle parts, discarded tires, or similar materials shall be permitted. (3) Outdoor storage of damaged, wrecked or temporarily inoperable vehicles awaiting repairs shall be limited to designated parking stalls and shall not be located in setbacks, landscaping areas, drive aisles, and pedestrian or bicycle networks. (4) Where this use is located adjacent to a Residential or Mixed-Use zoning district, the lot line/property lines adjacent to the Residential or Mixed-Use zoning district shall be screened pursuant to Section 11-04-09.5, Site Perimeter Buffers.
V.
Vehicle and Equipment Sales, Rental and Leasing, Light and Heavy (1) This use shall not be located within 300 feet of a Residential zoning district. (2) Vehicles shall not be displayed in required setbacks or areas designated for parking, vehicle and bicycle traffic circulation, drive aisles, fire lanes, or required landscaping.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
185
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.5 Industrial Uses
(3) Vehicles shall be displayed outside clear vision triangles at any intersection or driveway and shall not obstruct the sidewalk or entrance into the primary building or any other sidewalks that allow for pedestrian access to the site. (4) Where this use is located adjacent to a Mixed-Use zoning district, the lot line/property lines adjacent to the Mixed-Use zoning district shall be screened pursuant to Section 11-04-09.5, Site Perimeter Buffers. (5) No loading and unloading of vehicles or parking or sale of display vehicles in the public right-of-way is permitted.
5.
Industrial Uses A.
Artisan Industry (1) All activities shall be conducted within a completely enclosed building. (2) If located in the R-3 zoning district, this use shall not exceed 2,000 square feet of gross floor area and shall only operate between the hours of 6:00 am and 10:00 pm. (3) If located in a Mixed-Use zoning district, this use shall not exceed 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. (4) Retail sales of goods produced on the property are allowed.
B.
Light Industry and Heavy Industry (1) Any facility using hazardous materials or procedures subject to additional review, licensing, or approval by state or federal law, or emitting electromagnetic radiation or other radiation, shall comply with all state and federal requirements regarding the storage, handling, transfer, use, and safety of those materials, procedures, or radiation, and require approval pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.C, Conditional Use Permit - Initial Approval or Major Expansion. (2) In the I-1 zoning district, this use shall be screened from abutting properties in any zoning district other than the I-1 and I-2 districts, along Interstate I-84, from each abutting residential use, and from abutting streets, by a Type A buffer as described in Section 11-04-09, Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening. (3) In the I-2 zoning district, this use shall be screened from abutting properties in any zoning district other than the I-2 district, and from abutting public streets, by a Type A buffer as described in Section 11-04-09, Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening.
C.
Mining and Extraction (1) This use is prohibited within: (a) 600 feet of a Mixed-Use zoning district; (b) 600 feet of any lot occupied by a residential use other than Caretaker’s Residence; and (c) 600 feet of any lot containing a Religious Institution or School. (2) In all zoning districts where this use is permitted, the use shall be screened from abutting properties in any zoning district other than an I-2 district, and from abutting public streets by a Type A buffer as described in Section 11-04-09, Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
186
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.5 Industrial Uses
D.
Outdoor Storage (1) In the Mixed-Use zoning districts where this use is permitted, this use is only permitted as an accessory use to an Allowed or approved Conditional Use on the lot, and not as a principal use of the lot. (2) In the MX-1 district, outdoor storage of materials and display of merchandise related to nonresidential uses is prohibited. (3) In all zoning districts where this use is permitted, the use shall be screened from abutting properties in any zoning district other than an I-2 district, and from abutting public streets by a Type A buffer as described in Section 11-04-09, Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening. (4) Outdoor storage of corrosive, acid, alkali, flammable, or explosive materials is prohibited except as specifically indicated in this Code. (5) All outdoor storage shall be fully screened from adjacent properties and public rightsof-way with a solid or opaque fence or similar materials acceptable to the Planning Director.
E.
Self-Service Storage (1) All storage shall be kept within an enclosed building, except recreation or other oversized vehicles, which shall be stored only in exterior areas screened from view from any street frontage. (2) Only storage of goods and materials are allowed in self-storage rental spaces. The use of storage spaces to conduct or operate a business is prohibited. (3) The storage of hazardous materials is prohibited. (4) Loading docks shall not be located on a side of the facility abutting a Residential zoning district. (5) A permanent screen shall be required along all property boundaries and shall conform to landscaping and screening requirements in Section 11-04-09, Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening.
F.
Trucking Terminal (1) This use shall be screened from abutting properties in any zoning district other than an I-2 district, from any residential use regardless of zoning district, from Interstate 84, and from abutting streets by a Type A buffer as described in Section 11-04-09, Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening. (2) The use shall be located a minimum of 500 feet from any residential use, hospital, or school. (3) Sufficient off-street loading and maneuvering space to handle anticipated vehicles shall be provided, and the public right-of-way shall not be used for backing movements.
G.
Wholesale or Warehouse, Small and Large (1) The use shall not locate storage areas, truck loading bays, or vehicle circulation routes within a required setback or perimeter buffer.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
187
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.5 Industrial Uses
(2) The use shall locate outdoor storage areas to the rear of the primary structure and screen them in accordance with Section 11-04-09, Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening. (3) Sufficient off-street loading and maneuvering space to handle anticipated vehicles shall be provided, and the public right-of-way shall not be used for backing movements. (4) In the I-1 zoning district, any Large Wholesale or Warehouse facility adjacent to a Residential zoning district or a residential use shall require a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.C. H.
Renewable Energy Facility (1) Solar Collectors (a) Solar collectors shall only be located in rear or side yards or on rooftops. (b) If the solar collector is not flush with the roof the applicant shall minimize the visibility of the collector from a public street, park, open space, or golf course to the maximum extent practicable without prohibiting the installation. (c) Ground-mounted accessory solar collectors shall not exceed the height of the primary structure on the lot or parcel. (2) Wind Energy System (a) Any wind energy system shall be set back from the property line and the primary structure at least one and one-half times the height of the turbine. (b) In Mixed-Use, Industrial, or Open Land zoning districts, accessory wind energy systems shall only be located in rear or side yards. (c) In Mixed-Use zoning districts, an accessory wind energy system shall not exceed the maximum building height of the applicable zoning district. (d) In the Industrial districts, an accessory wind energy system may exceed the maximum building height of the applicable zoning district by 20 feet.
I.
Utility Facility, Minor (1) Public service poles, towers, or similar installations are of a height of 85 feet or less are allowed, including the replacement of existing facilities. (2) Public service poles, towers, or similar installations of a height of 85 feet or greater require approval pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.C, Conditional Use Permit - Initial Approval or Major Expansion, and in addition the pole, tower, or installation, locations and heights shall: (a) Not interfere with airport height restrictions; (b) Minimize disturbance to views from established residential areas; (c) Minimize disturbance to or interference with view of city, state, or federally registered historic structures; (d) Not obstruct clear vision triangles or otherwise threaten motorist or pedestrian safety; (e) Minimize conflict with existing uses;
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
188
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.5 Industrial Uses
(f)
Be within route corridors already established or used by rail, automobile traffic arterials, or electrical transmission; and
(g) Be within route corridors that provide for a satisfactory level of energy efficient transmission of the product (electrical energy or other signals); or (h) Be the best available alternative placements and heights, even though they do not comply perfectly with all the above findings. J.
Composting Facility This use shall comply with the following standards: (1) A minimum 50 foot setback shall be maintained from the property boundaries to any active processing area of the facility including any area used for active composting and curing; (2) A minimum 200 foot buffer zone between the active composting pile and any existing Residential zoning district shall be maintained; (3) No composting facility shall be allowed in a floodplain or floodway; (4) Adequate space shall be provided between the piles to allow access to vehicles, including firefighting equipment; (5) A sign shall be posted and maintained at the composting facility showing the nature of the project, facility name, address and telephone number of operator, operating hours, materials that may be received by the facility, and the phrase, "No Dumping of Garbage, Trash, Or Rubbish Allowed"; and (6) The use shall be screened from abutting properties in any zoning district and from abutting public streets by a Type A buffer as described in Section 11-04-09, Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening.
K.
Junkyard, Vehicle Salvage (1) This use shall be conducted within a building or within a yard enclosed on all sides by a wall or solid fence at least eight feet in height meeting the requirements of Section 11-04-09.10, Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening and kept in good repair at all times. (2) Openings equipped with a gate or door not exceeding 24 feet in width, or not exceeding the minimum width needed to allow access to railroad lines or spurs serving the property, are permitted to allow vehicle access into the site. (3) Openings for vehicle access shall be closed when the establishment is not open for business. (4) Uses shall not have vehicle access points from or channel a majority of the traffic generated by the use onto a local residential street. (5) The use shall be screened from abutting properties in any zoning district and from abutting public streets by a Type A buffer as described in Section 11-04-09, Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening.
L.
Recycling Collection Facility Drop-off Recycling Collection Facilities shall comply with the following standards:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
189
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.6 Accessory Uses and Structures
(1) A Zoning Certificate is required for each new recycling container site. (2) Containers shall be located so as to do not interfere with required access or parking. (3) Containers shall be kept in a state of good repair and emptied on a regular basis to prevent overflow. (4) All containers shall be clearly marked as to the materials to be deposited in them. (5) Non-compostable residues shall be disposed or processed at a permitted solid waste disposal facility in accordance with local, state, and federal laws, regulations, and standards. M. Solid Waste Transfer Facility (1) The use shall be entirely enclosed within a building or yard enclosed on all sides by a wall or solid fence at least eight feet in height meeting the requirements of Section 11-04-09.10, Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening and kept in good repair at all times. No waste or recyclable materials shall be stored or kept at a level higher than the surrounding wall or fence. (2) Exterior storage areas and idling or waiting trucks shall be screened from the view of streets or abutting properties. (3) Sufficient area on the site shall be provided for the staging of idling or waiting trucks, to ensure traffic is not impeded. (4) No overnight storage or any waste materials subject to rotting or odor creation shall be allowed. (5) The site shall be properly graded for drainage and surfaced with concrete, asphalt or any other improved surface approved by the Planning Director based on durability, appearance, and dust control. (6) The site shall be maintained in good condition, free of weeds, trash, and debris. (7) The site shall provide barriers of such type and located so that no part of parked vehicles shall extend beyond the yard space or into the setback space from a lot line/property line abutting a Residential zoning lot or separated there from a street. (8) The use shall be screened from abutting properties in any zoning district and from abutting public streets by a Type A buffer as described in Section 11-04-09, Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening.
6.
Accessory Uses and Structures A.
Unlisted Uses Accessory to an Allowed Use Accessory uses not listed in Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses may be approved if the Planning Director determines that it is secondary and subordinate to and commonly associated with the principal use to which it is accessory.
7.
Temporary Uses A.
General (1) Applicability (a) Types of temporary uses and structures that may be approved under the temporary use approval process include:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
190
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.7 Temporary Uses
i.
Temporary buildings;
ii.
Temporary display and sale of merchandise;
iii.
Model homes, trailers, activities, and/or uses incidental to the construction of a building or group of buildings on the same or adjacent premises;
iv.
Seasonal uses including but not limited to fireworks stands, Christmas tree lots, and produce stands; and
v.
Other uses that clearly are not associated with a holiday, the growing season, or a construction project may be considered for approval by the Planning Director.
(b) Uses that shall not be considered for temporary approval include: i.
Uses that require Planning and Zoning Commission approval if they were a principal or accessory use in that zoning district.
ii.
Structures or uses that are intended to be placed upon unimproved property, other than seasonal uses or uses incidental to construction.
(2) General Standards for Temporary Uses A temporary use may be approved provided that the use complies with the following standards: (a) Location The temporary use shall allow for placement of a temporary structure, vehicle, or sign outside of any clear vision triangle, required setback, required parking stall (except as permitted for temporary, outdoor display sale of merchandise), service drive area, designated trash dumpster location, sidewalk, or any other position on a lot that may interfere with vehicular or pedestrian circulation, or the normal functions of other uses on the property, or be potentially hazardous to the public. (b) Duration Depending on the nature of the use, and with the exception of produce stands, a Temporary Use Permit shall not exceed 180 consecutive days. (c) Removal After the termination of the temporary use, the site shall be restored to its prior condition by the removal of the any structures, debris or refuse associated with the temporary use. Guarantees for timely removal may be required if there is a material risk of negative impacts on nearby properties or the City if such removal does not occur. B.
Construction Office (1) This use shall not begin, and any structure for the use shall not be installed, more than 30 calendar days before site construction begins. (2) If work on the project has been dormant for a period of six or more months, the construction office shall be removed, unless an extension is granted by the Planning Director based on anticipated construction restart date. (3) The construction office shall not contain sleeping or cooking accommodations.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
191
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.7 Temporary Uses
(4) The structure shall be set back at least five feet from any lot line/property line and eight feet from the building or structure under construction. C.
Mobile Food Truck (1) This use shall not operate on any lot where the principal use is a Single-Family Detached Dwelling, Single-Family Attached Dwelling, Duplex, Triplex, or Fourplex Dwelling. (2) Each Mobile Food Truck shall comply with all applicable city, state, and federal requirements including those related to licensing and operating in the public right-ofway, and shall be in good operating condition. (3) Each Mobile Food Truck shall not occupy more than 10 percent of the required offstreet parking spaces for the principal use on the subject property, unless an approved Temporary Use Permit provides for a longer time period or occupancy of a larger portion of the property. (4) Each Mobile Food Truck operator shall provide trash receptacles sized to meet expected demand and shall remove them after the Mobile Food Truck completes serving food. (5) A Temporary Use Permit for a Food Truck shall be valid for a maximum of seven consecutive days. (6) Food Trucks shall require approval from the City Clerk's Office.
D.
Off-Site Construction Staging (1) All parking and materials shall be located outside of the required setbacks per the zone. Any job trailer shall be located outside of setbacks. (2) Any access driveway shall be defined to be no wider than 24-feet. Non-construction related activities, and access to the site by the general public during off-hours, is not allowed. (3) Approved surface materials are to be placed at all driveways to eliminate track-out of dirt onto the street. (4) Any street-loading activities shall be coordinated with the Ada County Highway District and the applicant will be required to obtain all necessary right-of-way permits to work in the right-of-way. (5) Use of the site shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for Saturday and Sunday. Hours may be temporarily altered for special circumstances as approved by the Planning Director. (6) The site shall be kept free of debris and in a nuisance-free and orderly manner. Temporary fencing with screening shall be placed around entire site. (7) The applicant shall coordinate with the Boise Fire Department to ensure access is not blocked to the trailer. (8) Contact information, including a phone number, for a person responsible for ensuring compliance with all regulations and available to answer calls during all hours of operation shall be clearly posted on the site and on file with the City.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
192
Chapter 11-03 Use Regulations Section 11-03-03. Use-Specific Standards 11-03-03.7 Temporary Uses
(9) The applicant is responsible for ensuring all site improvements are removed, placed back to its previous condition, and the site is inspected for compliance by planning staff. E.
Sales and Leasing Office (1) Sales and Leasing Offices are permitted in any zoning district on the site of the development for which the sales are taking place. (2) Sales and Leasing Offices are permitted to remain on the site of the development from 15 days before homes are offered for sale until 15 days after all homes or home sites within the development are sold.
F.
Seasonal Sales (1) Sales areas shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet from any public right-of-way. (2) Seasonal Sales require approval from the City Clerk's Office. (3) A Temporary Use Permit shall be valid for a maximum of 30 consecutive days. (4) Temporary Use Permits for produce stands shall be approved annually.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
193
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards 11-04-01.
Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter 11-04 is to provide standards for developing property or establishing new uses of property within the Boise City to ensure the protection of the health, welfare, safety, and quality of life for local citizens, visitors, and business owners. These provisions address the physical relationship between development and adjacent properties, public streets, neighborhoods, and the natural environment, in order to implement the vision and goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
11-04-02. 1.
Applicability
Generally The requirements of this Chapter 11-04 shall apply to all new development and redevelopment pursuant to Section 11-01-04, Applicability, unless otherwise provided in another Section of this Code.
2.
Activities That Require Compliance with Specific Standards A.
Construction of any new primary or accessory structure on a lot shall require compliance with all standards in this Chapter unless an exception is stated in the Code.
B.
Table 11-04.1 identifies the design and development standards contained within this Chapter 11-04, Development and Design Standards and the development review decision where compliance with these standards is required. However, nothing in these standards shall exempt development activity from complying with all applicable standards of this.
C.
Section 11-05-06, Nonconformities, identifies activities that trigger full and limited compliance for legal nonconforming site and structures with specific development standards contained within this Chapter 11-04, Development and Design Standards.
TABLE 11-04.1: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMPLIANCE THRESHOLDS ZONING CODE STANDARD
CODE SECTION
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
ZONING CERTIFICATE
Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions
11-04-03
X [1]
X
X
Subdivision Standards
11-04-04
X
Sensitive Lands
11-04-05
X
Building Design
11-04-06
X X
X X
Access and Connectivity
11-04-07
X
X
X
Parking and Loading
11-04-08
X
X
Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening
11-04-09
X
X
X
Exterior Lighting
11-04-011
Signs
11-04-012
X X
X X
X X
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
CHANGE OF USE
X
X X 194
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-03. Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions 11-04-02.3 Compliance with Design Standards Required
TABLE 11-04.1: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMPLIANCE THRESHOLDS ZONING CODE STANDARD
CODE SECTION
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
ZONING CERTIFICATE
CHANGE OF USE
Notes: [1] Review is for lot dimensions only.
3.
Compliance with Design Standards Required A.
In addition to the standards in this Section, all Residential Small Lot development, MultipleFamily, mixed-use, and nonresidential development shall comply with the standards and other mandatory content in the adopted Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines and the Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines. (1) The Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines shall apply to all Multiple-Family, mixed-use, and nonresidential development in the Downtown Planning Area. (2) The Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines shall apply to all Residential Small Lot development, Multiple-Family, mixed-use, and nonresidential development outside of the Downtown Planning Area.
B.
11-04-03. 1.
In the event of a conflict between the standards in this Chapter 11-04, Development and Design Standards and applicable standards in the Citywide or Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines, the provision requiring the higher level of visual building quality and interest, as determined by the Planning Director, shall apply.
Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions
General Lot and Form Standards A.
Access to Public Street No building shall be constructed or erected upon any parcel not abutting a public street or having a permanent access easement to a public street.
B.
Construction Over Platted Lot Line/Property Lines Construction over platted lot line/property lines of multiple whole lots in any zoning district is only allowed if: (1) Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant submits to the City a copy of a recorded Notice of Buildable Parcel and a map describing the entirety of the platted lots upon which construction is proposed to take place; and (2) Prior to construction, the applicant submits to the City a copy of a recorded Replat of any platted or recorded easements in the area of proposed construction or the written permission of the easement holder to complete such construction without vacating the easement.
2.
Dimensional Standards Summary Tables All development and redevelopment shall comply with the standards in this Section 11-04-03.2, Dimensional Standards Summary Tables unless another Section of this Code provides an alternative standard for a particular use, layout, or development type. Sections of this Code that may provide alternative standards include but are not limited to Section 11-03-03, Use-Specific Standards.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
195
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-03. Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions 11-04-03.2 Dimensional Standards Summary Tables
A.
Residential Districts (1) Dimensional Standards (a) All development in Residential zoning districts shall comply with the standards in Table 11-04.2 unless those standards are adjusted pursuant to a provision of this Section 11-04-03, Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions or another provision of this Code. (b) All structures that were legally constructed and that complied with applicable dimensional standards prior to the Effective Date, but that no longer comply with the dimensional standards in this Section 11-04-03.2.A due to inclusion in a consolidated zoning district with different dimensional standards shall be considered conforming structures under this Code.
TABLE 11-04.2: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS N/A = NOT APPLICABLE NO PRIMARY OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SHALL OBSTRUCT A CLEAR VISION TRIANGLE
ZONING DISTRICT
R-1A
R-1B
R-1C
R-2
R-3
Lot Standards [1]
Lot Area (minimum) [2]
20,000 sf.
9,000 sf.
3,500 sf.
2,500 sf.
Single-Family Detached or Attached: 1,500 sf. All Other Uses: 2,000 sf.
Lot Width (average)
75 ft.
50 ft.
25 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
Street Frontage (minimum)
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
Density (maximum, units/acre) [2]
2.1 [3]
4.8 [3]
12.4 [3]
N/A
N/A
Front Entry Parking/Garage
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
Remainder of Structure
15 ft.
15 ft.
15 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft. [4]
20 ft. [4]
15 ft.
15 ft.
15 ft.
Interior Side [5]
10 ft.
10 ft.
5 ft. or 10 ft. [6]
5 ft. or 10 ft. [6]
5 ft. or 10 ft. [6]
Rear
20 ft.
20 ft.
15 ft.
15 ft.[7]
15 ft. [7]
35 ft.
3 stories not to exceed 40 ft.
4 stories not to exceed 45 ft.
4 stories not to exceed 50 ft.
Setbacks (Minimum) Front
Street Side Side Street Entry Parking/Garage Remainder of Structure
Height (Maximum) Building Height (maximum)
35 ft.
Notes: [1] All Residential Small Lots shall meet the standards in Section 11-04-03.4, Residential Small Lots.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
196
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-03. Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions 11-04-03.2 Dimensional Standards Summary Tables
TABLE 11-04.2: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS N/A = NOT APPLICABLE NO PRIMARY OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SHALL OBSTRUCT A CLEAR VISION TRIANGLE
ZONING DISTRICT
R-1A
R-1B
R-1C
R-2
R-3
[2] Minimum lot area and maximum density requirements shall not apply to Accessory Dwelling Units or Duplex Dwellings. [3] Maximum density requirement shall not apply to properties using incentives earned pursuant to Section 11-04-03.7.D. [4] See Section 11-06-02.5.B(4). [5] No interior side setback is required between Single-Family Attached Dwellings. [6] For the third story of a building when abutting a single-story building. [7] Reduced to 5 ft. when alley present.
B.
Mixed-Use, Industrial, and Open Land Districts (1) All development in Mixed-Use, Industrial, or Open Land zoning districts shall comply with the standards in Table 11-04.3 unless those standards are adjusted pursuant to provision of this Section 11-04-03, Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions or another provision of this Code.
TABLE 11-04.3: MIXED-USE, INDUSTRIAL, AND OPEN LAND DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS N/A = NOT APPLICABLE NO PRIMARY OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SHALL OBSTRUCT A CLEAR VISION TRIANGLE
ZONING DISTRICT
MX-1
MX-2
MX-3
MX-4
MX-5
MX-U
MXH
I-1
I-2
I-3
A-1
A-2
Lot Area (minimum)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 acre
40 acres
Lot Width (average)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
50 ft.
100 ft.
Street Frontage (minimum)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
30 ft.
30 ft.
30 ft.
30 ft.
30 ft.
30 ft.
100 ft. 1 unit/ 40 acres
Lot Standards
Density (maximum)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 unit/ acre
Building Setbacks (Minimum/Maximum) Front
Min 5 ft. Max 20 ft.
Min 5 ft. Max 20 ft.
Min 5 ft. Max 20 ft.
Min 5 ft. Max 20 ft.
Min 5 ft. Max 20 ft.
Min 10 ft. [1]
Min 10 ft.
Min 20 ft.
Min 20 ft.
[3] [4]
Min 20 Min 40 ft. [6] ft. [6]
Street Side
Min 0 ft. Max 20 ft.
Min 0 ft. Max 20 ft.
Min 0 ft. Max 20 ft.
Min 0 ft. Max 20 ft.
Min 0 ft. Max 20 ft.
Min 10 ft. [1]
Min 10 ft.
Min 15 ft.
Min 15 ft.
[3] [4]
Min 20 Min 40 ft. [6] ft. [6]
Interior Side
Min 0 ft.
Min 0 ft.
Min 0 ft.
Min 0 ft.
Min 0 ft.
N/A
[3] [4]
Min 10 Min 20 ft. [6] ft. [6]
Min 10 ft.
Min 10 ft.
Min 10 ft.
Min 10 ft.
Min 0 ft.
Min 10 ft. [1]
Min 0 ft. [2] Min 0 ft. [2]
Min 0 ft. [2]
Rear
1&2 stories 5 ft. 3+ stories 15 ft.
Min 0 ft. [2]
[3] [4]
Min 30 Min 60 ft. [6] ft. [6]
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
197
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-03. Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions 11-04-03.3 Exceptions and Encroachments
TABLE 11-04.3: MIXED-USE, INDUSTRIAL, AND OPEN LAND DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS N/A = NOT APPLICABLE NO PRIMARY OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SHALL OBSTRUCT A CLEAR VISION TRIANGLE
ZONING DISTRICT
MX-1
MX-2
MX-3
MX-4
MX-5
MX-U
MXH
I-1
I-2
I-3
A-1
A-2 Min 20 ft. [6]
Parking Setbacks (Minimum) 20 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft. [1]
20 ft.
10 ft.
15 ft.
20 ft. [3]
20 ft. [6]
Street Side
20 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft. [1]
10 ft.
10 ft.
15 ft.
20 ft. [3]
20 ft. [6]
Interior Side
5 ft.
5 ft.
5 ft.
5 ft.
5 ft.
10 ft. [1]
10 ft.
0 ft. [2]
0 ft. [2]
15 ft. [3]
20 ft. [6]
Rear
5 ft.
5 ft.
5 ft.
5 ft.
5 ft.
10 ft. [1]
10 ft.
0 ft. [2]
0 ft. [2]
15 ft. [3]
30 ft. [6]
Min 20 ft. [6]
Any Yard Adjacent to Interstate (I84 & I-184)
10 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
10 ft.
N/A
10 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft.
20 ft. [3]
30 ft. [6]
Min 20 ft. [6]
55 ft.
150 ft. [5]
45 ft. or 35 ft. [6]
45 ft. or 35 ft. [6]
Front
Min 20 ft. [6] Min 20 ft. [6]
Building Height (Maximum) Building Height
45 ft.
45 ft.
70 ft.
70 ft.
N/A
[8]
78 ft.
55 ft.
Notes:
[1] Only applies from edge of the adopted Boise State University campus master plan boundaries. [2] When adjacent to a Residential zoning district or residential use, 30 ft. minimum for all development under three acres, 50 ft. minimum for all development between three acres and 10 acres, and 100 ft. minimum for all development of 10 or more acres. [3] If a development is part of an adopted Industrial Technology master plan, setbacks shall apply only to the perimeter of the campus. [4] 45 ft. + 1 ft. for every 1-foot increase in building height above 45 ft. OR 100 ft. when the property is adjacent to a Residential zoning district or residential use, regardless of whether the property is located on the perimeter of the campus. [5] Controlled by a 45 degree angle of bulk plan from all exterior property lines up to the maximum height of 150 feet. [6] Applies when the property abuts a Residential zoning district or a residential use. [8] Interior to the campus: Unlimited; Where the development site is located within 50 ft. of right-of-way on Beacon Street, Broadway Avenue, or Boise Avenue: 70 ft.; Where the development site is located within 50 ft. of a Residential zoning district (adjacent or across right-of-way(: 45 ft. or the maximum height of the Residential zoning district, whichever is greater.
3. Exceptions and Encroachments A.
Permitted Exceptions to Minimum Street Frontage To encourage creative building design, the Planning Director, following Interdepartmental Review, may reduce or waive the minimum street frontage requirement listed in Section 11-04-03.2, Dimensional Standards Summary Tables if the Planning Director determines
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
198
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-03. Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions 11-04-03.3 Exceptions and Encroachments
that the site plan does not create material negative impacts on vehicle access, emergency services, or solid waste collection. B.
Permitted Encroachments into Setbacks Certain building and site features listed in Table 11-04.4 below may extend into the required building setbacks limits listed in Section 11-04-03, Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions as shown in Table 11-04.4 below.
TABLE 11-04.4: PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS INTO REQUIRED SETBACKS STRUCTURE OR FEATURE
CONDITIONS OR LIMITS
Encroachments into Required Setbacks
Accessory Renewable Energy Facility
Permitted in side or rear setbacks in Residential and Mixed-Use districts, and in any setback in Industrial and Open Land districts, but not closer than two feet to any property line.
Balcony without roof
May extend up to four feet into any rear setback, provided the support structures are located outside of rear setback.
Chimneys no more than 8 feet in width
May extend up to two feet into any setback.
Covered front porches a minimum of 5 feet in depth for Single-Family Detached and Attached, Duplex, Triplex, or Fourplex Dwellings
May encroach into required front setback up to five feet. The encroachment shall not interfere with street trees, sidewalks, or required landscaping.
Detached accessory structures ≤500 square feet in area and < 14 feet in height [2]
In the R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, may have reduced interior side yard setbacks of 3 feet and rear yard setbacks of 9 feet. Allowed encroachments cannot conflict with any existing easements.
< 1,000 square feet in area and < 22 feet in height [2]
Exempt from rear and side yard setbacks abutting an alley.
Fencing in side or rear yards, landscaping, walkways, and accessible ramps
Little library book exchange boxes
Masonry ledges, windowsills, belt courses, fireplaces, cantilevers, architectural features, cornices, eaves, canopies, and roof overhangs that do not increase the volume of space enclosed by the building Open post patio/shade covers, pergolas, and similar structures under 250 feet in area and less than 15 feet in height and attached to a residential dwelling [3] Raised garden beds no more than three feet in height Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
Exempt from setback requirements, provided they do not interfere with any existing easements. Exempt from front and side yard setbacks in Residential and Mixed-Use zoning districts, provided the portion of the yard occupied by the box does not exceed two square feet. May extend up to two feet into any setback. May have rear yard setbacks of nine feet in any zoning district. For corner lots, a minimum 15 foot side yard street setback is required. Exempt from all setback requirements.
199
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-03. Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions 11-04-03.4 Residential Small Lots
TABLE 11-04.4: PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS INTO REQUIRED SETBACKS STRUCTURE OR FEATURE
CONDITIONS OR LIMITS
Encroachments into Required Setbacks Stair, railing, and landing without roof
May extend up to three feet into front or side setback or up to six feet into rear setback.
Window wells
May extend up to three feet into any front or rear setback.
Notes: [2] Applies to alley-loaded parking structures only. Height as measured from grade to the peak of the roof. [3] Structures that use the reduced setbacks shall not occupy more than 50 percent of the width of any rear yard.
C.
Permitted Exceptions Through Building Height Limits Certain building and site features listed in Table 11-04.5 below may exceed the maximum building height limits listed in Section 11-04-03.2, Dimensional Standards Summary Tables as shown in the Table below.
TABLE 11-04.5: EXCEPTIONS TO BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS
4.
STRUCTURE OR FEATURE
CONDITIONS OR LIMITS
Accessory rooftop solar collectors
May extend up to 18 inches above the height limit for primary or accessory structures.
Accessory wind energy system
Permitted height shall be 10 feet above the height limit for primary structures.
Chimneys, ventilators, skylights, water tanks, bulkheads, similar features, and necessary mechanical appurtenances frequently mounted above the roof level
Exempt from height limit.
Ham radio antenna or television antenna
Permitted height shall be 45 feet measured from finished grade, only permitted in rear yard, and shall comply with all required setbacks.
Structures built to support, shelter, or enclose emergency warning sirens, communication antennae, or other public safety devices operated by government agencies. Requirements for telecom facilities are included in Section 11-03-03.4.D
Exempt from height limit.
Towers, steeples, spires, belfries, cupolas, and domes on primary nonresidential structures provided they are not used for human occupancy
Exempt from height limits, provided their largest horizontal cross-section does not exceed 20% of the horizontal cross-section of the top floor ceiling plate of the building. See Section 11-06-02.4.A(2).
Residential Small Lots A.
Purpose The purpose of this Section is to ensure that new residential development on lots less than 3,500 square feet and Substandard Original Lots of Record are compatible in design and scale with established housing.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
200
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-03. Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions 11-04-03.4 Residential Small Lots
B.
Applicability (1) The standards in this Section 11-04-03.4 shall apply to new dwellings and additions to existing dwellings: (a) On lots less than 3,500 square feet created after the Effective Date in the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts; and (b) On Substandard Original Lots of Record existing on the Effective Date in the R1A, R-1B, R-1C, R-2, or R-3 zoning districts. (2) The Historic Preservation Commission may modify the regulations for Residential Small Lots in order to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness. (3) These standards do not apply to lots that are part of a Planned Unit Development and do not supersede any note recorded on a Subdivision Plat. (4) In the event of a conflict between this Section 11-04-03.4 and any other standard applied to new dwellings and remodels of existing dwellings by other Sections of this Code, the standards in this Section 11-04-03.4 shall apply.
C.
General Provisions (1) Design Review (a) A development containing four or fewer dwelling units on up to four contiguous Residential Small Lots shall be subject to Minor Design Review pursuant to Section 11-05-05.2.E. (b) A development of five or more contiguous Residential Small Lots shall be subject to Major Design Review pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.D and shall also comply with the standards and guidelines in this Section 11-04-03.4. (c) If a proposed development includes three or more structures, each of which contains four or fewer dwelling units, and the Planning Director determines that the potential impacts of the development on surrounding areas is similar to that of a project that would require Major Design Review, the Planning Director may require that the project be subject to Major Design Review pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.D.
D.
Development Standards (1) Setbacks (a) Front Front yard setbacks shall comply with the requirement of the applicable zoning district. (b) Side Interior side setbacks shall comply with the requirement for applicable the zoning district. The following building arrangements may also be permitted: i.
Common Lot Line/Property Line Attached Units When the building is located on a common lot line/property line, the remaining side yard setback shall comply with the requirement for the zoning district.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
201
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-03. Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions 11-04-03.4 Residential Small Lots
Figure 4.1. Common Lot Line/Property Line Attached Units
ii.
Detached Units On Contiguous Lots For contiguous Residential Small Lots developed simultaneously, the interior side yard setbacks may be reduced to three feet interior to the development, provided the setbacks exterior to the development comply with the setbacks required by the zoning district.
Figure 4.2. Reduced Interior Setback for Detached Units on Contiguous Lots
iii.
Attached Buildings of Two Stories or More Two-story attached buildings shall have a minimum side yard setback of five feet for the first story and a minimum of eight feet for the second story from
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
202
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-03. Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions 11-04-03.4 Residential Small Lots
the exterior side property line, with bay windows, pop-outs or other architectural appurtenances allowed at the five foot setback line. Alternative proposals meeting the intent of this requirement may be approved by the Planning Director.
Figure 4.3. Two-Story Attached Units on Continuous Lots
(c) Rear The rear yard setback shall be as required by the zoning district in which the Residential Small Lot is situated. (2) Building Height The maximum height permitted for buildings on Residential Small Lots shall comply with the requirement for applicable the zoning district, except if an existing, less than two-story residential dwelling in a Residential zoning district abuts either side of the subject lot, then the maximum height shall not exceed 35 feet and shall contain no more than two stories, excluding basements. (3) Building Size Residential floor area shall not exceed 70 percent of the effective lot area. Below grade floor area is not included. (4) Open Space Each unit shall have a minimum of 200 square feet of open space. This open space shall be usable and shall not include driveways or parking areas. A minimum of 25 percent of the required open space shall consist of permeable ground surface with landscaping. (5) Public Right-Of-Way Improvement (a) Development on Residential Small Lots that include construction of a new dwelling unit (excluding ADUs) shall provide curb, gutter, and detached sidewalk a minimum of five feet in width that is separated by a minimum of 8-feet. Waivers or variations to this requirement may be granted by the Planning Director based upon exceptional circumstances. (b) Where driveways access a public street, a paved driveway apron that extends to the edge of street pavement of the roadway or alley shall be provided unless a waiver or variation on some or all of this requirement is granted by the Planning Director based upon site-specific conditions such as documented drainage problems that might result from the improvement of the roadway. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
203
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-03. Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions 11-04-03.4 Residential Small Lots
(c) Dirt or gravel strips in the front yard or undeveloped public street right-of-way shall not be permitted. Irrigated landscaping shall be provided in these areas through license agreements with ACHD. Bonding for landscape improvements may be allowed based on weather related constraints. If ACHD denies the necessary license agreement, the requirement for landscaping shall be waived. (6) Parking Vehicular access and parking shall comply with the following standards: (a) If alley access is available, all access shall be taken from the alley. One standard parking space shall be provided with 22 feet of back up space. (b) If alley access is not available and an attached garage is provided, the garage design shall include varied rooflines, dormers within the roofline or other architectural treatments that will avoid the appearance of garage domination of the front or side building façade. The face of the garage shall be set back 20 feet from the property line or back of sidewalk. Street-facing garages and driveways shall not exceed 20 feet in width, or 50 percent of the width of the building façade on which the garage is located, whichever is less. (c) If alley access is not available and unenclosed or uncovered parking is provided, the driveway and parking area shall not exceed 20 feet in width, or 50 percent of the width of the building façade on which the parking is located, whichever is less. (d) Two detached residential structures may share a 12 foot wide driveway or wider, providing access to rear yard detached garages or attached garages with a common wall on the property line. (e) Where front yard driveways are permitted, the driveway may be designed with two concrete wheel strips or grass pavers separated by vegetation. (7) Alternative Building Arrangements (a) Zero Lot Line/Property Line Option If multiple Single-Family Detached Dwelling units and garages are constructed on contiguous lots, a zero lot line/property line development is permitted provided that the design maintains full required setbacks from adjacent non-project lots. The zero lot line/property line units remain subject to the general design guidelines in Subsection E, below, and are subject to Minor or Major Design Review pursuant to Sections 11-05-05.2.E or 11-05-05.3.D, depending on the size of the project. (b) Attached Units i.
In order to achieve similar length to a standard-width Single-Family Detached Dwelling, Single-Family Attached Dwelling units shall be organized in structures containing a maximum of five units. The attached units remain subject to the general design criteria in Subsection E, below.
ii.
The applicant or builder shall obtain City approval of easement agreement(s) for the use and maintenance of common facilities such as driveways, parking sites, and common party walls. The agreement shall be recorded in the
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
204
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-03. Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions 11-04-03.4 Residential Small Lots
official records of Ada County prior to submission of plans for a Building Permit. iii.
E.
Adjustments to lot line/property lines and reduction in the number of lots within the same parcel are subject to review and approval pursuant to all applicable standards in this Code. The applicant shall obtain approval from the City and record any lot line/property line adjustments or reduction in lots with the County Recorder prior to submission for a Building Permit.
Design Guidelines In addition to the development standards above, the general design guidelines below shall also apply to developments on Residential Small Lots. Design Review shall take into account the location and design of adjacent buildings, landscaping, and public right-of-way improvements, and shall comply with the following criteria to the maximum extent practicable: (1) Orientation All buildings shall be oriented towards a public street, except when buildings cannot be oriented toward a public street due to inadequate street frontage. In this case, buildings shall be oriented towards a private street or lane conforming to City standards. (2) Front Façade Design Requirements (a) All dwelling units shall have a front door that faces the street. When a unit is built on a corner lot, the main entrance shall have the door facing the dominant street. (b) For dwelling units with front-loaded garages, a garage door shall not count toward window/opening requirements. The garage door shall also have design elements such as panels, windows, trim features, cross members, or other features as determined appropriate by the applicable Design Review process. (c) Portions of the façade occupied by garage doors shall comply with Section 1104-03.4.D(6), Parking above. (d) Required façade elements shall, in addition to complying with design guidelines in (a) and (b), above, include a minimum of two of the following: multi-paned windows, varied roof lines, bay windows, wainscot, covered front door, or other elements as approved by the applicable Design Review process that create a unique façade. (e) Attached units shall provide modulation and architectural design features to prevent flat façade wall planes. (f)
Building design shall incorporate materials such as brick, stone, stucco, tile, and wood for 35 percent of the facade and second story elements. The presence of such materials on nearby homes shall be reviewed as a guide for appropriate materials to be used on the new dwelling.
(g) Rain gutters shall be provided on the side elevations of all structure to aid in site drainage. Gutters shall direct water to the front or rear of the lot.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
205
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-03. Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions 11-04-03.5 Neighborhood Transition Standards
5.
Neighborhood Transition Standards In order to facilitate a predictable transition from Multiple-Family, mixed-use, and nonresidential development on abutting lower-density residential zoning districts, all development listed in Subsection (A) below shall comply with all standards Subsections (B), (C), (D), and (E) below. In case of conflict between the standards in this Section 11-04-03.5 and any other standard in this Code, the standards in this Section 11-04-03.5 shall apply. A.
Applicability The standards in this Section 11-04-03.5 shall apply to all development or redevelopment after the Effective Date on lots located in the R-2 or R-3 zoning districts, or any Mixed Use, Industrial, or Open Land zoning district that have a side or rear lot line/property line abutting a lot in the R-1A, R-1B or R-1C zoning district.
B.
Building and Parking Area Setbacks (1) The primary building shall be set back from each side or rear property line abutting an R-1A, R-1B, or R-1C lot a distance at least equal to the minimum setback required in that abutting zoning district. (2) Any parking area, Drive-Through Facility, or vehicle circulation driveway shall be set back from each side or rear property line abutting an R-1A, R-1B, or R-1C lot by at least 10 feet or the minimum parking setback distance in the district where the primary building is located, whichever is greater; and
C.
Building Height Stepdown Each primary building constructed after the Effective Date with a height greater than 35 feet shall reduce the visual impact of the building when viewed from each abutting a R-1A, R-1B, or R-1C lot by limiting the maximum height of the building so that: (1) It does not exceed 35 feet at the minimum building setback line from the R-1A, R-1B, or R-1C lot; and (2) Any portion of the building with a height between 35 and 45 feet shall be set back an additional 20 feet from the required building setback as identified in Subsection B(1) above. (3) Any portion of the building with a height above 45 feet shall be set back an additional 10 feet from the setback identified in Subsection C(2) above.
Figure 4.4. Building Height Stepdown Requirements
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
206
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-03. Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions 11-04-03.6 Other Form Standards
D.
Lighting Height In addition to complying with all standards in Section 11-04-011, Exterior Lighting, no outdoor pole or wall mounted light fixture located within 50 feet of any side or rear lot line/property line abutting an R-1A, R-1B, or R-1C zoning district shall be mounted more than 20 feet above grade.
E.
Screening and Buffering In addition to complying with the standards in Section 11-04-09, Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening, when the standards of that Section require or allow the construction of an opaque wall or fence, the wall or fence shall be set back from the property line in order to allow the required landscaping to be installed on the side of the fence facing the R-1A, R-1B, or R-1C zoning district. The required landscaping shall be maintained by the property owner required to install the landscaping.
6.
7.
Other Form Standards A.
All development shall comply with all Form, Layout, and Design Standards applicable to the MX-1, MX-2, MX-3, MX-4, and MX-5 zoning districts in Sections 11-02-03.1, 11-02-03.2, 11-02-03.3, 11-02-03.4, and 11-02-03.5 respectively.
B.
All development shall comply with all standards related to building or development form in each overlay district listed in Section 11-02-07, Overlay Districts.
Incentives A.
Purpose The purpose of this Section 11-04-03.7 is to support an increased supply of diverse, affordable, and sustainable/resilient housing that will efficiently use the existing infrastructure.
B.
Approval Procedure The approval procedures for projects earning one or more of the incentives shall be those otherwise applicable under this Code unless this Section specifically modifies the procedure to allow an administrative approval. Any conditions attached to a project approval shall not reduce or modify the housing incentives for which the project qualifies under this Section.
C.
Nonconforming Uses and Structures The housing incentives created by this Section shall be available regardless of whether the existing use of the property is a conforming use and regardless of whether any existing structures on the property are conforming structures. All structures shall be required to meet the applicable building codes.
D.
Incentives Available (1) In the R-1A, R-1B, and R-1C Zoning Districts Except as described in Subsection (2) below, in the R-1A, R-1B, and R-1C zoning districts, a Triplex or Fourplex Dwelling or a Single-Family Attached Dwelling containing up to four dwelling units is not subject to the base zoning district density limit if it complies with all applicable Use-Specific Standards in Section 11-03-03 and also complies with all of the following standards for affordability and sustainability/resilience.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
207
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-03. Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions 11-04-03.7 Incentives
(a) Affordability At least one of the three permitted units in a Triplex Dwelling, or in a three-unit Single-Family Attached Dwelling, or at least two of the permitted four units in a Fourplex Dwelling, or in a four unit Single-Family Attached Dwelling, shall be income-restricted affordable for a period of at least 50 years to households earning not more than 80 percent of the Area Median Income for the Boise area if the dwelling unit(s) is a rental unit; or affordable to households earning no more than 120 percent of the Area Median Income if the dwelling unit(s) is a forsale property. (b) Sustainability/Resilience In addition to satisfying the criteria in Subsection (a) above, the project shall satisfy all of the following criteria for sustainable and resilient development: i.
Clean Energy The building shall use electricity or geothermal energy to meet all of its heating, hot water, and appliance energy needs for in all dwelling units;
ii.
Energy Conservation The building shall either:
iii.
A.
Consume at least 15 percent less electrical energy than would be consumed if the building met the adopted energy code, based on modeled building energy performance comparisons, individually documented energy savings measures, or receiving a comparable energy efficiency utility incentive (if applicable/available at time of construction); or
B.
Must meet the adopted City of Boise Green Building Code, whichever achieves the greater energy savings; and
Water Conservation The building shall consume at least 15 percent less water than would be consumed if the building met all water conservation standards applicable to similar development.
(2) In the R-1B and R-1C Districts In the R-1B and R-1C zoning districts, a project containing between three to 12 primary or Accessory Dwelling Units permitted by Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses is not subject to the base zoning district density limits if it complies with all applicable Use-Specific Standards in Section 11-03-03 and also complies with all of the following standards for applicability and affordability. Projects that contain five or more dwelling units shall also receive a 50 percent reduction in minimum required off-street parking. If a project meets the requirements of both this Subsection (2) and Subsection (1) above, the requirements and incentives in this Subsection (2) shall apply. (a) Standards The project shall satisfy all the following criteria:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
208
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-03. Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions 11-04-03.7 Incentives
i.
ii.
Location A.
The project site shall be located entirely within 300 feet of a collector or arterial roadway (as determined by the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map) or within one fourth of a mile of a property zoned MX-3 and MX-4; and
B.
Have a minimum of 55 feet of street frontage.
Lot Characteristics The project site shall be:
iii.
A.
A vacant lot;
B.
A lot where the improvement/structure value as assessed by the Ada County Tax Assessor for the most recent year is no greater than 25 percent of the total assessed value of the property; or
C.
A lot on which an existing structure will be incorporated into the project design.
No Recent Demolitions The project site shall not include any property for which the City approved a demolition permit for a primary structure within the previous three years.
iv.
Parking, Visibility and Access A.
Any new surface parking lot or garage shall be located to the rear of the structure(s).
B.
Any surface parking lot or parking garage shall be accessed from an alley if an alley is present or shall have only one access point if an alley is not present.
(b) Affordability Projects shall comply with all the following affordability standards, as applicable to the size of the project. i.
Projects with Three or Four Dwelling Units No affordability requirements.
ii.
Projects with Five to Eight Dwelling Units At least one of the units shall be income-restricted affordable for a period of at least 50 years to a household earning not more than 80 percent of the Area Median Income for the Boise area, if the dwelling unit is a rental unit; or affordable to a household earning no more than 120 percent of the Area Median Income if the dwelling unit is a for-sale property.
iii.
Projects with Nine to Twelve Dwelling Units At least two of the units shall be income-restricted affordable for a period of at least 50 years to households earning not more than 80 percent of the Area Median Income for the Boise area, if the dwelling units are rental units, or affordable to households earning no more than 120 percent of the Area
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
209
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-03. Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions 11-04-03.7 Incentives
Median Income, if the dwelling units are a for-sale property, for a period of at least 50 years. (3) In the R-2 and R-3 Districts In the R-2 and R-3 districts, a project containing five or more dwelling units permitted by Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses shall receive a 50 percent reduction in minimum required off-street parking if it complies with all applicable Use-Specific Standards in Section 11-03-03 and also complies with all of the following standards for applicability and affordability. (a) Location The project site shall be located entirely within one fourth of a mile of a property zoned MX-3, MX-4, or MX-5. (b) Affordability At least 25 percent of all permitted dwelling units shall be income-restricted for a period of at least 50 years to households earning not more than 60 percent of Area Median Income, and at least 25 percent of the income-restricted units must contain two or more bedrooms. (c) Sustainability/Resilience In addition to satisfying the criteria in Subsections (a) and (b) above, the project shall satisfy all of the following criteria for sustainable and resilient development: i.
Clean Energy The building shall use electricity or geothermal energy to meet all of its heating, hot water, and appliance energy needs for in all dwelling units;
ii.
Energy Conservation The building shall:
iii.
A.
Consume at least 15 percent less electrical energy than would be consumed if the building met the adopted energy code, based on modeled building energy performance comparisons, individually documented energy savings measures, or receiving a comparable energy efficiency utility incentive (if applicable/available at time of construction); or
B.
Must meet the adopted City of Boise Green Building Code, whichever achieves the greater energy savings; and
Water Conservation The building shall consume at least 15 percent less water than would be consumed if the building met all applicable water conservation standards applicable to similar development.
iv.
Landfill Waste Diversion The development shall dedicate an amount of on-site storage space for waste diversion techniques (such as comingled recycling, cardboard recycling, and/or organics recycling) that is equal or greater than the amount of on-site storage space provided for solid waste.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
210
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-03. Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions 11-04-03.7 Incentives
(4) In the MX-3 District In the MX-3 district, a Multiple-Family Dwelling shall receive a 50 percent reduction in minimum required off-street parking if it complies with the applicable Use-Specific Standards in Section 11-03-03 and also complies with all of the following standards for affordability and sustainability/resilience: (a) Affordability At least 25 percent of all permitted dwelling units shall be income-restricted affordable for a period of at least 50 years to households earning not more than 60 percent of Area Median Income, and at least 25 percent of the incomerestricted units must contain two or more bedrooms. (b) Sustainability/Resilience In addition to satisfying the criteria in Subsection (a) above, the project shall satisfy all of the following criteria for sustainable and resilient development: i.
Clean Energy The building shall use electricity or geothermal energy to meet all of its heating, hot water, and appliance energy needs for in all dwelling units;
ii.
Energy Conservation The building shall:
iii.
A.
Consume at least 15 percent less electrical energy than would be consumed if the building met the adopted energy code, based on modeled building energy performance comparisons, individually documented energy savings measures, or receiving a comparable energy efficiency utility incentive (if applicable/available at time of construction); or
B.
Must meet the adopted City of Boise Green Building Code, whichever achieves the greater energy savings; and
Water Conservation The building shall consume at least 15 percent less water than would be consumed if the building met all applicable water conservation standards applicable to similar development.
iv.
Landfill Waste Diversion The development shall dedicate an amount of on-site storage space for waste diversion techniques (such as comingled recycling, cardboard recycling, and/or organics recycling) that is equal or greater than the amount of on-site storage space provided for solid waste.
(5) In the MX-4 District In the MX-4 district, a Multiple-Family Dwelling may exceed the applicable height limit in the MX-4 district and is not subject to an off-street parking requirement if it complies with all applicable Use-Specific Standards in Section 11-03-03 and also complies with all of the following standards for affordability and sustainability/resilience: Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
211
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-03. Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions 11-04-03.7 Incentives
(a) Affordability At least 25 percent of all permitted dwellings shall be income-restricted affordable for a period of at least 50 years to households earning not more than 60 percent of Area Median Income, and at least 25 percent of the incomerestricted units must contain two or more bedrooms. (b) Sustainability/Resilience In addition to satisfying the criteria in Subsection (a) above, the project shall satisfy all of the following criteria for sustainable and resilient development: i.
Clean Energy The building shall use electricity or geothermal energy to meet all of its heating, hot water, and appliance energy needs for in all dwelling units;
ii.
Energy Conservation The building shall:
iii.
A.
Consume at least 15 percent less electrical energy than would be consumed if the building met the adopted energy code, based on modeled building energy performance comparisons, individually documented energy savings measures, or receiving a comparable energy efficiency utility incentive (if applicable/available at time of construction); or
B.
Must meet the adopted City of Boise Green Building Code, whichever achieves the greater energy savings.
Water Conservation The building shall consume at least 15 percent less water than would be consumed if the building met all applicable water conservation standards applicable to similar development.
iv.
Landfill Waste Diversion The development shall dedicate an amount of on-site storage space for waste diversion techniques (such as comingled recycling, cardboard recycling, and/or organics recycling) that is equal or greater than the amount of on-site storage space provided for solid waste.
(6) Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) In all zone districts where Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are permitted, an ADU is not subject to the owner-occupancy requirement of Section 11-03-03.2.B if: (a) It complies with all other applicable Use-Specific Standards in Section 11-03-03; and (b) Either the primary structure or the ADU shall be income-restricted affordable for a period of at least 50 years to households earning not more than 60 percent of the Area Median Income.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
212
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-04. Subdivision Standards 11-04-04.1 Purpose
(7) Adaptive Reuse This Subsection (7) shall apply to projects involving the adaptive reuse of existing structures that are not eligible for the other incentives applicable to the reuse of existing structures in Subsections (1), (2), (3), and (4) above. (a) The project shall involve the adaptive reuse of an existing primary structure in the R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, R-2, R-3, MX-1, MX-2, or MX-3 zoning districts; and shall comply with one of the following two standards: i.
The existing primary building being adaptively reused may be increased or reduced in size a maximum of 10 percent; or
ii.
If no changes are made to the size of the existing primary building being adaptively reused, the project shall be exempt from setback requirements unless the location of the building is in conflict with any existing easements or encroaches on a neighboring property line.
(b) If the project is located in the R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, R-2, or R-3 zoning district: i.
The project shall receive a 50 percent reduction in minimum required offstreet parking; and
ii.
The project shall not be subject to the dwelling unit per acre density limits in the zoning district where the property is located.
(c) If the project is located in the MX-1, MX-2, or MX-3 zoning district, it shall not be required to provide any off-street parking in addition to that already provided on-site, but any existing on-site parking shall not be reduced below the amount otherwise required by this Code for the proposed reuse.
11-04-04. 1.
Subdivision Standards
Purpose The purpose of this Section 11-04-04 is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of present and future residents by ensuring that the Subdivision of Land results in: A.
Patterns of lots, blocks, streets, open space, and sites for public facilities that are consistent with the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan;
B.
New developable lots having thorough and efficient networks of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular access and networks of utilities that are efficient and cost-effective to maintain;
C.
Systems of open space and stormwater drainage, and other natural areas that connect with and complement similar areas on adjacent lots where possible;
D.
Improved energy efficiency;
E.
Avoidance of development on lands such as water bodies, floodways, landslides and fault zones, steep slopes, unstable soils, and wildlife and habitat areas; and
F.
Prevention of noise-sensitive land uses or other uses that would conflict with operations of the airport.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
213
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-04. Subdivision Standards 11-04-04.2 Applicability
2.
Applicability A.
General This Section 11-04-04 applies to all land divisions within the City, unless another provision of this Code, including but not limited to Section11-05-05.4.F, Subdivision Plat - Preliminary provide a different standard or requirement.
B.
Exception for Five-Acre Parcel Division Approval of a Subdivision of Land pursuant to Subsection 4. below are not required for the division of land into parcels of five acres or more meeting the following standards: (1) The land is not zoned for or intended to be used for residential development purposes; (2) The dedication of public streets or construction of private streets is not required other than dedications for the widening of existing streets; and (3) The parcels front onto a street and meet the dimensional standards of the zoning district within which they are located unless a modification or waiver of those standards is granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
3.
Records of Survey The following changes of parcel boundaries shall require the review and approval of a Record of Survey prepared in accord with Idaho Code, 55-19, to establish that resulting parcels are conforming, buildable parcels. A.
Property Line Adjustment (1) Conforming Lots of Record The following standards apply to all Property Line Adjustments involving conforming lots of record that do not qualify as Residential Small Lots pursuant to Section 11-0403.4, Residential Small Lots. (a) The boundaries of a parcel within a Residential zoning district or that contains a residential use may be adjusted through the Property Line Adjustment process twice. Any additional boundary adjustments shall require a Subdivision. (b) The total number of buildable parcels must not be greater than the number of buildable parcels and/or lots existing prior to the Record of Survey. When Property Line Adjustments occur between section land and subdivided lots, no lot shall increase in area by more than 20 percent. (c) The resulting parcels must meet the minimum requirements for area, frontage, and width for the existing zoning district. (d) All existing buildings, driveways, and parking areas shall meet the setback requirements of the existing zoning district as measured from any parcel boundary being created by this process. Any setback that is legally nonconforming may remain as a legal nonconforming setback, provided the legal nonconforming setback is not altered by the Property Line Adjustment. If any building not meeting the required setback is to be partially or completely demolished, the demolition shall be completed prior to the approval of the Property Line Adjustment.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
214
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-04. Subdivision Standards 11-04-04.3 Records of Survey
(e) If existing residential buildings are to remain, the parcel containing such building(s) shall comply with the parking requirements in this Code. If any off-site parking is permitted by this Code, the amount of permitted off-site parking and the Section of this Code authorizing the off-site parking shall be documented on the Record of Survey. (f)
If the Property Line Adjustment results in the creation of a new buildable parcel that abuts a public right-of-way (without increasing the total number of buildable parcels on the site), a detached sidewalk that complies with all applicable standards on this Code, including but not limited to those standards in Section 11-04-07 Access and Connectivity and Section 11-04-09.4 Street Frontage Landscaping, shall be provided.
(g) All parcels that abut an alley shall be required to take parking access from the alley. (h) If the original parcel abuts an alley, each lot created by the Property Line Adjustment shall abut that alley. (i)
If the lot(s) has driveway access from the street rather than the alley, the area between the edge of the street pavement and the property line shall not be paved to a width any wider than the existing driveway. The applicant shall obtain a license agreement from the Ada County Highway District prior to landscaping and/or paving in the right-of-way.
(j)
When utilities cross land being divided, a utility easement to each proposed lot shall be provided and indicated on the Record of Survey. If an easement is located in a proposed area for a permanent structure to be construction, the easement shall be vacated prior to the approval of the Record of Survey.
(2) Residential Small Lots (a) If a Property Line Adjustment involves one or more Residential Small Lots, it shall not result in more buildable parcels than the total number of original substandard lots of record or the maximum number of Residential Small Lots permitted by Section 11-04-03.4, Residential Small Lots.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
215
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-04. Subdivision Standards 11-04-04.3 Records of Survey Figure 4.5. Substandard Original Lot of Record
(b) A Property Line Adjustment that includes a partial lot requires documentation that the split of the lot was recorded prior to October 30, 1965. If the partial lot was created by recorded deed prior to October 30, 1965, and does not qualify as a buildable parcel, it shall be combined with an original lot to count as one buildable parcel. (c) Adjusted side property lines shall be perpendicular to the public street. Exceptions can be made for lots where the original side lot line/property lines were not perpendicular to the street, such as pie shaped lots (See Figure 4.6).
Figure 4.6. Property Line Adjustment Not Allowed
(d) A Property Line Adjustment shall not result in buildable parcels that decrease the area, frontage, or width below that of the Residential Small Lot. (e) All parcels that abut an alley shall be required to take parking access from the alley. (f)
If the original parcel abuts an alley, each new lot created by the Property Line Adjustment shall abut that alley.
(g) All existing buildings, driveways, and parking areas must meet the setback requirements of the existing zoning district as measured from any parcel boundary being created by this process. Any setback that is legally nonconforming may remain as a legal nonconforming setback, provided the legal nonconforming setback is not altered by the Property Line Adjustment. If any building not meeting the required setback is to be partially or completely demolished, the demolition shall be completed prior to the Planning Director's approval of the Record of Survey. (h) If existing primary buildings are to remain, the parcel containing such building(s) shall comply with the parking requirements in this Code. If any off-site parking is permitted by this Code, the amount of permitted off-site parking and the Section
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
216
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-04. Subdivision Standards 11-04-04.3 Records of Survey
of this Code authorizing the off-site parking shall be documented on the Record of Survey. (i)
If the Property Line Adjustment results in the creation of a new buildable parcel that abuts a public right-of-way (without increasing the total number of buildable parcels on the site), a detached sidewalk that complies with all applicable standards on this Code, including but not limited to those standards in Section 11-04-07 Access and Connectivity and Section 11-04-09.4 Street Frontage Landscaping, shall be provided.
(j)
If the lot(s) has driveway access from the street rather than the alley, the area between the edge of the street pavement and the property line shall be paved to align with the driveway. The applicant shall obtain a license agreement from the Ada County Highway District prior to landscaping and/or paving in the public right-of-way.
(k) When utilities cross property lines being relocated, a utility easement to each proposed lot shall be provided and indicated on the Record of Survey. If an easement is located in a proposed area for a permanent structure to be construction, the easement shall be vacated prior to the approval of the Record of Survey. (l)
The boundaries of a parcel within a Residential zoning district or containing a residential use may be adjusted through the Property Line Adjustment process twice. Any additional boundary adjustments shall require a Subdivision Plat or a Record of Survey for a Minor Land Division.
(m) A Property Line Adjustment shall only occur between an original corner lot and an original interior lot if the original corner lot is a minimum of 35 feet or more in width, or the minimum width for a corner lot permitted by Section 11-04-03.4 Residential Small Lots, whichever is smaller, unless three or more lots are combined resulting in a reduction in density. Adjusted corner lots shall comply with the following standards:
Figure 4.7. Property Line Adjustments Not Allowed
i.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
If a lot at the corner of two streets is proposed to be adjusted, the resulting corner lot shall be at least the same square footage as the original corner lot.
217
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-04. Subdivision Standards 11-04-04.4 Subdivision of Land
Figure 4.8. Adjustments Demonstrated
ii.
If an existing dwelling is located on a corner lot, a 15 foot rear setback shall be provided from the existing dwelling to the new rear property line, regardless of the orientation or street address of the existing dwelling.
(n) If the lot(s) contains an existing dwelling, a minimum of 200 square feet of open space as required in Section 11-04-03.4, Residential Small Lots, located outside of the setbacks for each existing dwelling shall be designated as such on the Record of Survey. (3) Parcel Consolidation A Record of Survey is required to allow the consolidation of two or more existing contiguous parcels, with at least one parcel deemed as buildable, into one buildable parcel. (a) If an easement is located in a proposed area for a permanent structure to be construction, the easement shall be vacated prior to the approval of the Record of Survey.
4.
Subdivision of Land A.
Applicability All divisions of land into parcels of one or more lots or tracts for development shall be required to complete the Subdivision of Land process, except: (1) Divisions of land that are exempt from the Record of Survey and Subdivision of Land process pursuant to Section 11-04-04.2.B.
B.
General No Building Permit for the construction of any new structure upon property within a proposed Subdivision of Land shall be issued until the Subdivision Plat has been recorded.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
218
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-04. Subdivision Standards 11-04-04.4 Subdivision of Land
C.
Design Standards All Subdivisions of Land shall comply with the following standards unless Section 11-0505.4.F, Subdivision Plat - Preliminary or another provision of this Code provide a different standard or requirement. (1) Sensitive Lands All Subdivisions of Land shall comply with the standards in Section 11-04-05, Sensitive Lands applicable during the subdivision process. (2) Access and Connectivity (a) All Subdivisions of Land shall comply with the standards in Section 11-04-07.4, Access and Connectivity applicable during the subdivision process, including standards related to block layouts, maximum block dimensions, street and mobility networks, and perimeter access points. (b) Partial street dedications shall not be permitted unless the street forms the boundary of the property being subdivided, the adjacent property is not under common ownership, and the street is anticipated to be a through street upon development of adjacent properties. All partial street dedications shall require construction of partial street Sections that meet Ada County Highway District (ACHD) standards. (3) Common Drives Common driveways shall only be permitted in unique circumstances where the configuration benefits the design of the development, reduces the number of public street access points, can accommodate the collection of all applicable types of solid waste in an organized and efficient manner, and does not impede pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular travel within the public right-of-way. Common driveways may serve Single-Family Detached, Single-Family Attached, and Duplex Dwellings and shall: (a) Provide safe and effective movement of vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle travel; (b) Provide continuous, safe, and efficient pedestrian and bicycle facilities; (c) Not adversely affect access to adjacent properties or the public transportation network; (d) Not interfere or decrease public access to adjacent property or places of public interest; (e) Not connect one public street to another, unless specifically approved by the Planning Director; (f)
Not interrupt the continuity of public streets or the public street network;
(g) Be located within a common lot owned and maintained by the homeowner’s association. A perpetual recorded ingress/egress access easement and an agreement for maintenance for the common driveway, sidewalks, and any required landscaping shall be recorded prior to issuance of Building Permits. (h) Accommodate all driveway storm water runoff within a facility located in the common lot; and
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
219
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-04. Subdivision Standards 11-04-04.4 Subdivision of Land
(i)
Comply with the ACHD ISPWC (Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction) structural standards for streets, as shown on design and construction documents prepared and certified by a registered professional engineer.
(4) Design (a) Common driveways shall comply with the following standards: (b) Access may be allowed to no more than six lots. (c) The minimum pavement width, including required ribbon-curbing along each side, shall be 24 feet. The maximum length shall be 150 feet. (d) “No parking” signs shall be placed on the common driveway. Required off-street parking shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the edge of the common driveway. (e) Shall terminate in an appropriate turnaround as approved by the Fire Department. (f)
Lots that abut a common driveway shall take access from the common driveway and not the public right-of-way.
(g) All utility easements shall be within the common lot of the common driveway. (5) Block Numbering Block numbers shall be designated as required by Idaho Code. (6) Lot Layout (a) Dimensions All lot areas, dimensions, and minimum street frontages shall comply with the standards in Section 11-04-03, Lot and Building Forms and Dimensions for the zoning district in which the lot is located, unless otherwise provided in this Code. (b) Double Frontage Lots Double frontage lots are prohibited except where it is shown that unusual topography or other conditions make it impossible to meet this requirement. Lots with double frontage shall be limited to one street access on one frontage by a plat note. (c) Landlocked Parcels All parcels that do not have required frontage or access shall be labeled "nonbuildable" on the plat. Each such non-buildable parcel shall be required to have a pedestrian ingress and egress easement unless adequate street frontage exists for a pedestrian pathway. (d) Building Envelopes To address unique site conditions or constraints, the Planning Director may require that the plat indicate a building envelope within which primary structures may be constructed. D.
Utility and Pathway Easements (1) Easements shall be provided as required by the utilities, and other public services.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
220
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-04. Subdivision Standards 11-04-04.4 Subdivision of Land
(2) City Council may require applicants to reserve permanent public use easements for public access pathways, or for future improvement and maintenance by the City or landowner or association. Any easement required under this Section may be used in conjunction with or as an alternative to a public pedestrian access requirement under Section 11-04-07.4.I, Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity and Circulation. (3) Residential projects that may be included in a Subdivision of Land at a later date shall place utilities in a street or in easements parallel and next to the street unless the City approves an alternative location. E.
Subdivision Buffers Along an Arterial and Collector Street (1) Front Lot Line/Property lines (a) Frontage roads separated from a collector or arterial street (as adopted in the current Ada County Highways District Master Street Map) by a landscaped median at least 10 feet wide, are permitted with approval of ACHD. The median shall be planted with trees and shrubs that at maturity will form a solid screen at least six feet high and a continuous tree canopy. (b) The front lot line/property line of a parcel may directly abut a collector or arterial street provided that an ACHD-approved alley is provided at the rear of such lots to provide direct lot access. Direct lot access to the collector or arterial is prohibited. (2) Side and Rear Lot Line/Property Lines (a) Except as described in Subsection (d) below, a non-buildable lot to contain required landscaped buffer areas shall be provided where single-family residential lots are adjacent to collector or arterial streets. If the creation of a non-buildable lot is impracticable, the Planning Director may authorize the creation of an easement to contain the required landscaping. (b) The buffer shall be located outside of any planned future right-of-way and outside the side and rear lines of each lot. (c) The width of the buffer along arterial streets shall be a minimum of 30 feet. Along collector streets it shall be a minimum of 20 feet. (d) As an exception to Subsections (a) and (b) above, if the Planning Director determines that the creation of a non-buildable lot is impracticable due to site or terrain conditions or utility locations, the Planning Director may approve the location of the buffer within one or more of the platted lots if: i.
In cases where the rear lot line/property line runs along an arterial or collector street, the depth of the lot is a minimum of 130 feet; and
ii.
In cases where the side lot line/property line runs along an arterial or collector street, the width of the lot is a minimum of 80 feet.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
221
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-04. Subdivision Standards 11-04-04.5 Required Improvements
Figure 4.9. Buffer Easement within Buildable Lot
5.
Required Improvements All Subdivisions of Land shall be required to construct the following improvements and to comply with the requirements concerning those improvements, related land dedications, and other matters described in this Section 11-04-04.5. A.
Filing of Plans and Financial Surety (1) Plans for the required improvements shall be certified by a professional engineer registered in the State of Idaho, unless otherwise specifically approved by the applicable public agency. (2) At or prior to the time of filing certification of the Final Plat, the applicant shall file with the Planning Director a surety bond or other form of financial security to secure the completion of the construction of required improvements not yet completed. All bonds or other guarantees shall be in the amount of 110 percent of the estimated cost of the improvement. (3) The financial surety shall be valid for a period of at least one year in order to cover the expected period of construction. The City may allow an additional six month period for construction if the validity of the financial surety is extended to cover that six month extension and the applicant pays all fees and costs to extend the surety and increases the amount of the surety to cover revised construction costs. Extensions of bond surety and construction time beyond this initial six month extension may be approved by the City Council upon a showing of undue hardship and the payment of all required fees. (4) Improvement(s) installed by the applicant as a condition of platting shall require certification that the construction is in accordance with approved plans. (5) After the completion of required improvements, the applicable public agency shall certify the completion and acceptance of those improvements in writing and shall transmit a copy of the certification to the applicant. Upon receipt of the certification,
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
222
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-04. Subdivision Standards 11-04-04.5 Required Improvements
the City shall authorize release of the surety bond or other guarantee upon application. B.
Water (1) Water Lines and Hydrants (a) In all Subdivisions of Land, the applicant shall provide central water lines and fire hydrants that comply with all applicable City, state, and other governmental regulations, unless an alternative form of water supply has been approved by City Council. (b) Alternate provision for domestic water supply and fire protection may be approved by City Council if Council determines that the proposed alternative meets the standards of the City Fire Code, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, the Idaho Department of Water Resources, and the Idaho Department of Health, and subject to any conditions imposed by City Council to protect public health, safety, and welfare. (2) Written Assurance (a) Written assurance by the applicant that provisions have been made for ownership, operation, and maintenance of the water supply and distribution system is required in a form acceptable to the City Attorney before the Final Plat is signed by the City Engineer. The assurance shall include a letter from an existing entity capable of owning, operating, and maintaining the system assuming responsibility for such operation and maintenance. (b) If the system is to be owned, operated, and maintained by a Homeowners’ Association, the applicant shall create binding covenants, conditions, and restrictions, approved by the City Attorney, providing for control, use, maintenance, and operation of the system, and shall record the covenants in the office of the Ada County Recorder before the Final Plat is signed by the City Engineer.
C.
Sanitary Sewer In all Subdivisions of Land, the applicant shall provide sanitary sewers that comply with all applicable city, state, and other governmental and agency provider regulations. Plans and specifications shall be approved by the appropriate sewer entity prior to signing of the Final Plat by the City Engineer.
D.
Drainage In all Subdivisions of Land, the applicant shall provide storm drainage facilities that comply with all applicable City, state, and other governmental regulations, including without limitation ACHD design and review requirements related to storm drainage. (1) All natural drainage courses shall be left undisturbed or be improved in a manner that will improve the hydraulics and ease of maintenance of the channel. For purposes of this provision, the term "natural drainage course" shall not be deemed to apply to minor swales and depressions that are located entirely on the applicant’s property and that serve a relatively small area where runoff is infrequent.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
223
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-04. Subdivision Standards 11-04-04.5 Required Improvements
(2) Relocation of natural swales is only permitted if the applicant meets applicable standards and regulations related to drainage hydraulics and ease of maintenance. (3) The City Council may require the reservation of an easement along any stream or important surface drainage course located in a proposed Subdivision of Land for the purpose of widening, deepening, sloping, improving, or protecting the stream or drainage course. E.
Irrigation Conveyance (1) No ditch, pipe, or structure for delivery of irrigation water or for carrying irrigation wastewater shall be obstructed, rerouted, covered, or changed in any way unless it has been approved in writing by the authorized representative of the person(s) owning the water rights delivered or diverted by means of the ditch. The applicant shall be required to provide such written authorization to the City prior to approval of the Final Plat. (2) Any covering or fencing program involving the distribution system of any irrigation district shall have the prior approval of the affected district. (3) In the event the applicant cannot obtain a response for the modifications proposed from the authorized representative of the water entity, approval shall be assumed to be obtained if the following documents are submitted to the Planning Director: (a) Copy of certified letter to the authorized representative along with documentation of receipt of letter. The letter to authorized representative shall be accompanied by plans and shall request written approval forwarded to the Planning Director within 30 days of receipt. (b) Letter from a registered professional engineer stating that the improvements and/or modifications to the ditch, lateral, canal, or drain will meet the provisions of Titles 31 and 42 of the Idaho Code, relating to requirements of delivery of water to downstream users.
F.
Street Lighting All applicants subdividing within the City limits shall be required to install street lights that comply with Public Works specifications and standards.
G.
Access and Connectivity Improvements (1) The applicant shall construct those improvements required by Section 11-04-07, Access and Connectivity unless the City has approved in writing an alternative or adjustment of the requirement to construct such improvements. (2) All public right-of-way improvements, license agreements, and/or bonding shall be completed prior to issuance of any Residential Certificate of Occupancy in the development.
H.
Land Dedications (1) General (a) The applicant shall dedicate to the City, or to the entity responsible for providing the services listed in Sections 11-04-04.5.B through 11-04-04.5.G above, the land on which the facilities related to the provision of that service is located, unless the
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
224
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-05. Sensitive Lands 11-04-05.1 Airport Influence Area Standards
City or service provider entity requests that the applicant retain ownership of the land subject to a lease or other agreement allowing for the provision of the service. (b) The dedication shall be roughly proportional both in nature and extent to the anticipated impacts of the proposed development, as shown through an individualized determination of impacts. (2) Park or School Sites Whenever the applicant desires or proposes to reserve area for a school or public park, the area shall be shown on the Subdivision Plat, and the applicant shall provide documentation that the proposed site is acceptable to the school district and the City, as applicable. Written acceptance of the dedication of any proposed school site by the appropriate school entity, and written acceptance of any proposed park by the Boise Parks and Recreation Department, shall be received by the City Engineer prior to approval of the Final Plat. I.
Landscaping Required landscaped areas shall be comply with the standards in Section 11-04-09, Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening.
J.
Pressure Irrigation (1) Unless a Variance is obtained pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.L, a pressurized individual lot irrigation system is required for any residential subdivision. (2) Irrigation system maintenance and operation shall be provided by the irrigation district or canal company, a municipal irrigation district, a Homeowners’ Association, or another entity capable of operating and maintaining a pressurized irrigation system.
K.
Written Assurance (1) Written assurance that provisions have been made for ownership, operation, and maintenance of the system is required before the plat is signed by the City Engineer. Such assurance shall include a letter from an existing entity capable of owning, operating, and maintaining the system assuming responsibility for such operation and maintenance. (2) If the system is to be owned, operated, and maintained by a Homeowners’ Association, the applicant shall create binding covenants, conditions, and restrictions, approved by the City Attorney, providing for control, use, maintenance, and operation of the system.
L.
Proof of Compliance Prior to final approval of the Final Plat, the applicant shall provide proof of compliance with this Section and with Idaho Code, Section 31- 3805(1)(b).
11-04-05. 1.
Sensitive Lands
Airport Influence Area Standards All development within the Airport Influence Overlay district shall comply with the standards in Section 11-02-07.3.D, AI-O Airport Influence Area Overlay.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
225
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-05. Sensitive Lands 11-04-05.2 Boise River System Standards
2.
Boise River System Standards All development within the Boise River System Overlay district shall comply with the standards in Section 11-02-07.3.E, BR-O: Boise River System Overlay.
3.
Flood Hazard Standards All development within the Flood Protection Overlay district shall comply with the flood hazard standards in Section 11-02-07.3.F, FP-O Flood Protection Overlay.
4.
Hillside Development Standards All development within the Hillside Development Overlay district shall comply with the standards in Section 11-02-07.3.G, HS-O: Hillside Development Overlay.
5.
Wildland Urban Interface Standards All development within the Wildland Urban Interface Overlay district shall comply with the standards in Section 11-02-07.3.H, WUI-O: Wildland Urban Interface Overlay,
6.
Foothills Development Standards A.
Purpose The purpose of this Section 11-04-05.6 is to implement residential subdivision density and design elements of the Comprehensive Plan in the Foothills Planning Area. It is also designed to protect and promote preservation of contiguous areas of Foothills open space that contain important and significant natural and cultural resource values, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan and this Code.
B.
Applicability (1) This Section 11-04-05.6 shall apply to all proposed developments in the Foothills Planning Area at the time an Annexation is proposed and/or a Zoning Map Amendment is requested. (2) The standards of this Section 11-04-05.6 also apply to developments within the Hillside Development Overlay as described in Section 11-02-07.3.G, HS-O: Hillside Development Overlay.
C.
General Requirements (1) In addition to application materials otherwise required for an annexation or rezoning, applications for development in the Foothills Planning Area shall include materials required for a Hillside and Foothill Areas Development Permit, and where applicable, a Floodplain Permit. (2) Upon annexation the buildable areas shall be zoned as R-1A, and shall be required to comply with the provisions of this Section 11-04-05.6, unless City Council determines that some buildable areas not including steep slopes or sensitive lands shall be zoned R-1B in return for the zoning of other A-1 for preservation as open space. (3) Developments shall be required to connect to municipal water and sewer services and participate in other municipal service districts as applicable.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
226
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-05. Sensitive Lands 11-04-05.6 Foothills Development Standards
D.
Permitted Development Densities (1) Additional Dwelling Units Permitted (a) In return for the preservation of open space, applicants shall be permitted to develop additional dwelling units beyond those permitted in the existing base zoning district(s) pursuant to the formula in Table 11-04.6. (b) These provisions do not increase the area of the site that may be developed, but increase the number of units that may be developed within the same buildable area. Additional dwelling units may be added to the density base units without the requirement for additional open space preservation. (c) The number of additional dwelling units permitted is based upon the ratio of (i) buildable area to be preserved as open space to (ii) the buildable area to be developed. (d) Additional dwelling units are allowed based on the percentage of built area occupied and open space dedicated as shown in Table 11-04.6: Density Bonus Formula, provided that the formula is unchanged. If the numbers for the applicant’s built area fall in between the numbers provided in the left hand column, the density bonus will be calculated based on built area shown in the table that is closest to, but higher than, the applicant’s built area. For example, if the applicants project has a built area equal to 73 percent of the site area, the density bonus will be based on the factors shown for a project with a built area equal to 75 percent. (e)
The density formula may be adjusted to allow density transfers from noncontiguous parcels after a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) ordinance is in effect.
TABLE 11-04.6: DENSITY BONUS FORMULA OPEN SPACE DEDICATED (PERCENT)
DENSITY BONUS (UNITS/ACRE)
BUILDABLE AREA ON 100 ACRES AFTER OPEN SPACE SET – ASIDE (ACRES)
NUMBER OF BONUS UNITS
69
25 31
0.5 0.75
75.0 68.8
38 52
63
37
1.0
62.5
63
56 50
44
1.25
56.3
70
1.5 1.75
50.0 43.8
75
44
50 56
38
62
2.25
37.5
77 84
31
69
3.0
31.3
94
25
75
4.0
25.0
100
BUILT AREA (PERCENT) 75
(2) Eligible Preserved Open Space (a) Preserved open space eligible for a density bonus based on Table 11-04.6: Density Bonus Formula, shall comply with the following requirements: i.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
The open space shall be classified as priority open space in Subsection (4) below. 227
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-05. Sensitive Lands 11-04-05.6 Foothills Development Standards
ii.
The open space shall be at least one acre in size and shall have an average width of at least 30 feet.
iii.
The open space shall not have a slope greater than 25 percent.
(b) Public rights-of-way that connect development pockets and provide access to public open space may be included in the density calculation for open space. (c) Roads within a development pocket and other public rights-of way that have dwelling units fronting or siding onto them shall not be included in density calculations for open space. (3) Ineligible Preserved Open Space (a) The following shall not be considered as preserved open space in the density bonus calculation, except as may be provided in Subsection (4): i.
Urban development such as club houses, tennis courts, swimming pools, dirt bike tracks, golf driving ranges, and similar uses that dramatically alter land from its natural state; and
ii.
Commercial land uses.
(b) Park sites internal to a subdivision or development may only be included as eligible open space when they are retained in a primarily natural condition and include a significant opening from the subdivision or development into a larger designated open space outside the subdivision or development. (4) Priority Open Space (a) Some areas of the Foothills have a combination of characteristics that cause them to be considered worthy of special incentives for preservation, even if they do not meet those size, slope, or dimensional standards to qualify as open space eligible for a density bonus under Subsection (2) above. When these areas are identified on a property and proposed for preservation, the PZC may classify them as priority open space and allow all or a portion of them to qualify for the approval of additional dwelling units. (b) General Eligibility Criteria Priority open space shall include at least four of the following characteristics to be eligible for a density bonus: i.
Wetlands;
ii.
Riparian areas;
iii.
Rare plant communities;
iv.
Critical deer and elk winter range and migration corridors;
v.
Potential Public Preservation Sites as documented by the HPC;
vi.
Unique geologic or visual features;
vii. Archeological or other historic sites; viii. Designated trails and trailheads in the Ada County Ridge to Rivers Pathway Plan;
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
228
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-05. Sensitive Lands 11-04-05.6 Foothills Development Standards
ix.
Other public trails and trailheads as approved by the Parks and Recreation Board;
x.
Areas adjacent to publicly held open spaces or areas that have been identified for consideration as permanent public open space; or
xi.
Areas that have been dedicated to or acquired by a public agency through a discounted sale.
(c) Additional Criteria for Steeply Sloped or Fragmented Open Space i.
ii.
Preservation of priority open space in steeply sloped areas or in fragmented pieces shall only be eligible for approval of additional dwelling units if it meets the following criteria, as determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission after receiving input from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Parks and Recreation Board, and other public agencies with expertise in the issue at hand in determining the proper amount to be allowed to be set aside in return for a density bonus. A.
Public access is provided to the priority open space;
B.
The open space protects important vegetation, terrain, or scenic views and vistas that could be damaged or destroyed from an allowed use such as mining, logging, grazing, or construction of utilities or infrastructure;
C.
The open space links interspersed eligible areas into a more biologically complete and continuous wildlife corridor; or
D.
The open space is dedicated to or acquired by a public agency through a discounted sale.
Links type golf courses may be permitted in designated preserved open space, provided that the intervening spaces are maintained in a primarily natural condition. Golf courses shall use native plants and natural contours shall be left intact. Parking lots, club houses, driving ranges, maintenance facilities, and similar golf related uses shall not be counted as open space contributory to the density bonus. Designated trails and park sites shall be preserved in or around the golf course.
(5) Design Standards (a) General Standards i.
Residential uses shall be clustered in development pockets rather than scattered throughout the property.
ii.
Development pockets shall comply with design principles in the Comprehensive Plan concerning clustering, environmental protection, open space conservation, and scenic and aesthetic goals.
iii.
Gated entrances are prohibited due to the potential for such limited access to restrict or delay emergency response.
iv.
Designated open space shall be linked to the maximum extent practicable.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
229
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-05. Sensitive Lands 11-04-05.6 Foothills Development Standards
v.
Disturbance of the land shall be minimized and development shall be avoided in areas that would require excessive grading, cut, and fill.
vi.
Road and trail access to adjacent properties shall be provided to prevent landlocked parcels or breaks in the trail systems, and to provide the opportunity for future connectivity.
vii. Roads and infrastructure shall not cross designated open space, floodways, wetlands, and areas of high wildlife habitat value to the maximum extent practicable. (b) Standards for Trails Trails that comply with the following design standards shall be provided as part of the subdivision or development. i.
The Ada County Ridge-To-Rivers Pathway Plan shall guide trail locations.
ii.
Public access to trails within and contiguous to the development shall be provided, unless no contiguous or intersecting public trails exist or are proposed, in which case private trails may be established through the open space, provided that the design preserves the natural character and wildlife habitat value.
iii.
Trail design shall preserve the natural scenic and wildlife habitat values to the maximum extent practicable.
iv.
Public trails shall be secured through dedication, easement, or other such binding mechanism, and shall be shown on the Subdivision Plat.
(c) Standards for Preserved Open Space Priority open space shall be preserved and managed to comply with the following standards. i.
Contiguous areas of open space within the development and adjacent properties shall be preserved by aligning them along common corridors to the extent possible.
ii.
Indigenous plant species, except for noxious and invasive weeds, shall be maintained undisturbed to the extent possible.
iii.
Areas of highest wildlife habitat value and migration corridors in designated wildlife habitat identified in the Comprehensive Plan shall be preserved.
iv.
Unique geologic and historic features defined as heritage sites, and sites designated for historic preservation by city, state, and federal agencies shall be preserved.
v.
Landslide areas and areas with unstable soils shall not be developed.
vi.
Fencing shall not encroach into preserved open space.
vii. Agricultural or utility uses may be permitted in open spaces, including livestock grazing, community gardens, or irrigation ponds, and only including those buildings, structures, and necessary appurtenances required by those uses, such as dams and irrigation or drainage systems. These use exceptions shall comply with the policies of the Foothills Policy Plan, shall be Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
230
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-06. Building Design 11-04-06.1 Purpose
shown on the site plan, and shall not degrade the value of the permanent open space. viii. Fencing shall not encroach into preserved open space. (d) Grading and Building Disturbance Envelopes i.
Building envelopes may be required to be shown on the final site plan, and if required shall be recorded or referenced in the notes on the Final Plat.
ii.
Slopes greater than 25 percent shall be shown on the Conditional Use Permit site plan with a disturbance envelope that defines the area outside of which no grading will be allowed.
(6) Ownership and Maintenance of Open Space (a) Open space areas may be owned and maintained: i.
By and for the use of the Homeowners’ Association of the project of which it is a part;
ii.
By any neighboring Homeowners’ Association with abutting preserved open space;
iii.
By an organization managing adjacent lands held as permanent open space and jointly maintained under a Development Agreement with the City;
iv.
By the City, if the open space is dedicated or sold to the City after a recommendation of approval to accept such lands by the Board of Parks and Recreation, Planning and Zoning Commission, or other public agency, or a private land trust for open space uses, as noted in a Development Agreement approved by City Council; or
v.
Through other open space preservation strategies under sole or joint ownership, such as deed restrictions, or conservation easements, as executed when approved by the City.
(b) Where the goals and policies of adopted plans specify the need for public trails or open space, easements for public lands or trails may be required. Trails or open spaces may be held in private ownership subject to an easement, or may be purchased by the City, or dedicated by the landowner(s) to the City. (c) The City will accept no responsibility for the costs of maintenance of open space or recreational facilities unless the Board of Parks and Recreation, PZC, and the City Council specifically approve that responsibility in a written agreement.
11-04-06. 1.
Building Design
Purpose The purpose of this Section 11-04-06 is to: A.
Provide standards that will help to reinforce existing and desired development patterns and building features intended to implement the Comprehensive Plan;
B.
Design sites and orient buildings with an emphasis on character and creating a comfortable walking environment;
C.
Design buildings that respond to the unique context of the site;
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
231
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-06. Building Design 11-04-06.2 Applicability
2.
D.
Reduce impacts to wildlife;
E.
Promote original and distinctive building design; and
F.
Incorporate sustainable development practices.
Applicability The provisions of this Section 11-04-06 shall apply to all Multiple-Family, mixed-use, and nonresidential development listed in Section 11-04-02, Applicability, and as otherwise required in the Citywide and Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines.
3.
Compliance with Additional Form and Design Standards Required A.
In addition to complying with the standards in this Section 11-04-06: (1) All development shall comply with all other standards related to building and site form and design applicable to the zoning district in which the property is located, as listed in Sections 11-02-02 through 11-02-06; and (2) All new Multiple-Family, mixed-use, and nonresidential development, including but not limited to Parking Garages shall comply with all other standards and mandatory content related to building design in the Citywide and Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines, as applicable in the area where the property is located. (3) Residential uses with four or fewer units in a single structure are exempt from these standards.
B.
4.
In the event of a conflict between two or more standards in this Section 11-04-06, or between the standards in this Section 11-04-06 and applicable standards in the Citywide or Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines, the provision requiring the higher level of visual building quality and interest, as determined by the Planning Director, shall apply.
General Site and Building Design Form Standards A.
Buildings and Parking Placement In all zoning districts except the R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, A-1 and A-2 zoning districts, each primary building and each parking garage shall be located so that no surface parking lot is located closer to any abutting street than the façade of the building or parking garage fronting that street.
B.
Building Entrances (1) At least one pedestrian entry to each primary building shall be visible and directly accessible from at least one of the adjacent streets unless Subsection (3) below requires additional pedestrian entries or Subsection (4) below requires pedestrian entries in different locations. (2) At least one pedestrian entry to each primary building shall be visible and directly accessible from any pathway designated on the Boise Pathways Master Plan that is located on the same lot or on an abutting lot. (3) On each primary building frontage exceeding 100 feet in length that has a nonresidential ground floor use, at least one pedestrian entry to the building shall be visible and directly accessible from the street within each 50 horizontal feet of building length.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
232
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-06. Building Design 11-04-06.4 General Site and Building Design Form Standards
Figure 4.10. Building Entrance Requirements
(4) In districts with an established pattern of building entrances facing the street, new buildings shall be designed with entrances complying with the established pattern to the maximum extent practicable. (5) Regardless of whether the entry is required by Subsections (1) through (3) above, each outward opening pedestrian entry facing a street shall be designed so that it does not encroach on or interfere with pedestrian passage along any designated sidewalk. (6) Regardless of whether the entry is required by Subsections (1) through (3) above, each pedestrian entry that provides access to a primary building or parking lot, and that faces a street or a surface parking lot, shall incorporate a covered area providing weather protection to those entering or leaving the building. Each covered weather protection feature shall extend at least five horizontal feet outward from the façade of the building or be inset a minimum of five feet into the façade of the building. Weather protection may be accomplished by canopies, arcades, awnings, or other building features. Covered areas shall not drain onto sidewalks. C.
Façade Transparency (1) If the ground floor of the building is located within 10 feet of the sidewalk, at least 40 percent of the ground floor, street-facing façade between four and eight feet above the sidewalk, shall be transparent.
Figure 4.11. Street Frontage Transparency
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
233
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-06. Building Design 11-04-06.4 General Site and Building Design Form Standards
(2) If the ground floor of the building is located between 10 and 20 feet from the sidewalk, at least 25 percent of the ground floor, street-facing façade between four and eight feet above the sidewalk shall be transparent. (3) When the ground floor of the building is occupied by residential uses, at least 15 percent of the street-facing façade (all vertical surfaces generally facing the street) shall be transparent. (4) Window glazing on the bottom two floors on street-facing façades of each primary building that does not provide visibility into residential dwelling units shall achieve a visible transmittance ratio (VT) of at least 0.60. (5) At least 90 percent of the glazing of any building façade shall include features that enable birds to perceive the glass as a solid object using at least one of the following treatments: (a) Non-reflective glass or window film that is opaque or translucent; (b) External screens installed permanently over glass windows; (c) Paned glass with mullions on the exterior of the glass; (d) Glass covered with patterns (e.g., dots, stripes, images, abstract patterns. lettering), etched. fritted, stenciled, silkscreened, applied to the glass on films or decals, or another method of permanently incorporating the patterns into or onto the glass. Elements of the patterns shall be at least one-eighth (1/8) inch tall and separated no more than two inches vertically, at least one-quarter (1/4) inch wide and separated by no more than four inches horizontally; or (e) Other glazing treatments providing an equivalent level of bird safety and approved by the Planning Director. D.
Building Façade Articulation Each street-facing façade of a primary building shall be designed to avoid undifferentiated wall planes by dividing street-facing façade into a series of smaller horizontal and vertical components that comply with the following standards. (1) Each street-facing façade shall incorporate at least three of the following elements within each 50 horizontal feet of the building façade: (a) Use of vertical piers or columns; (b) Change in building material or siding style; (c) Providing vertical building modulation of at least 12 inches in depth; (d) Projections, recessions, or reveals that include but not limited to, columns, pilasters, cornices, and bays, and having a change of wall plane that is a minimum of 12 inches in depth; (e) A change in building material, siding style, or color; and/or (f)
Other methods as approved by the Planning Director.
(2) In the Industrial zoning districts, each street-facing façade shall follow what is required in the Citywide Design Review Standards and Guidelines.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
234
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-06. Building Design 11-04-06.5 Use-Specific Building Form Standards
5.
Use-Specific Building Form Standards A.
Applicability (1) All uses listed in Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses, as an Allowed Use shall comply with the following Use-Specific Form Standards (the Allowed Forms), as applicable to the zoning district in which the property is located. In the event of a conflict between these standards and applicable standards in Chapter 11-02, Zoning Districts or in Subsections 3 or 4 above, the standards in this Subsection 5 shall apply. (2) If an application for an allowed use does not comply with one or more of the Allowed Form standards in this Section 11-04-09.5, an Alternative Form for the building or development containing the use may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.A, Allowed Use with Alternative Form. (3) These standards shall apply to all new construction or site redevelopments that result in the expansion and alteration of the gross floor area of an existing primary building by 50 percent or more.
B.
Uses Located in the MX-1 District (1) The use shall be located in a building at least two stories in height; or (2) The use shall be located in a building or development containing at least two different uses listed in Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses;
C.
Uses Located in the MX-3 District (1) The use shall be located in a building at least four stories in height; and (2) The use shall not provide a greater number of vehicle parking spaces than the minimum required by Section 11-04-08.5 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Standards, as adjusted pursuant to Section 11-04-08.7, Parking Adjustments. (3) As an alternative to Subsection (2) above, a Multiple-Family Dwelling may meet the requirements of Section 11-04-03.7.D(4) regarding affordable housing and sustainable development and earn the related incentives.
D.
Uses Located in the MX-4 District (1) The use shall be located in a building at least four stories in height; (2) The use shall be located in a building or development that does not include a surface Parking Lot; (3) The use shall be located in a building or development that does not include a Parking Garage with a greater number of vehicle parking spaces than the minimum required by Section 11-04-08.5, Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Standards, as adjusted pursuant to Section 11-04-08.7, Parking Adjustments; and (4) The use shall be located in a building where at least 80 percent of the ground floor street frontage is occupied by uses that are in active use by occupants or users of the building or development, or by the general public. This requirement is not met by ground floor parking areas, storage areas, utility facilities, or stairwells that not accessible from the street frontage.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
235
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-07. Access and Connectivity 11-04-07.1 Purpose
(5) As an alternative to Subsections (2), (3), and (4) above a Multiple-Family Dwelling may meet the requirements of Section 11-04-03.7.D(5) regarding affordable housing and sustainable development and earn the related incentives. E.
Uses Located in the MX-5 District (1) The use shall be located in a building at least four stories in height; (2) The use or development shall not include a Surface Parking Lot outside of the building footprint; and (3) The use shall be located in a building where at least 80 percent of the ground floor street frontage is occupied by uses that are in active use by occupants or users of the building or development, or by the general public. This requirement is not met by ground floor parking areas, storage areas, utility facilities, or stairwells that not accessible from the street frontage.
11-04-07. 1.
Access and Connectivity
Purpose The purpose of this Section 11-04-07 is to support the City’s mobility and climate goals by providing comfortable walking, cycling, transit and other active modes of transportation in new development and the redevelopment of property.
2.
Applicability Unless otherwise stated in this Code, all development of vacant land, all construction of new structures, all modification of existing structures, and the Subdivision of Land, and developments on parcels shall comply with the standards of this Section 11-04-07.
3.
General A.
Compliance with Life Safety Regulations In addition to all other provisions of this Section 11-04-07, all developments shall comply with all applicable regulations and ordinances for fire protection, emergency vehicle access, and life safety adopted by the City, including those that may limit the number of residential dwelling units relying on a limited number of vehicle access points. If there is a conflict between the requirements of this Section and life safety standards, the Planning Director in consultation with the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) and the Idaho Transportation Department shall determine which standard shall apply.
B.
Americans with Disabilities Act (1) Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (”DA") and other federal and state accessibility laws is the sole responsibility of the property owner. Compliance with this Code does not assure compliance with the ADA or any other federal or state accessibility laws or any regulations or guidelines enacted or promulgated under or with respect to such laws. The city is not responsible for enforcement of the ADA or any other federal or state accessibility laws. (2) All development shall comply with accessibility requirements based on the most recent version of the International Building Code and the International Code Council, or any future update of that document adopted by the City of Boise.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
236
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-07. Access and Connectivity 11-04-07.4 Design Standards
(3) Where a project develops or redevelops property in the MX-5 district with street frontage adjacent to one or more of the City’s ADA accessible on-street existing or planned parking spaces, the applicant shall reconstruct the curb to include an ADA compliant pedestrian access ramp from the street level to the sidewalk along each such frontage. The design shall comply with the federal Public Right-of-Way Accessibility (PROWAG) Guidelines to the maximum extent practicable. The map of ADA accessible on-street parking spaces is available on the City’s website. C.
Compliance with Solid Waste Ordinance and Solid Waste Design Standards All developments shall comply with all applicable regulations, ordinances, and design standards for solid waste adopted by the City, including specifics around site design and solid waste service. All designs shall include measures to protect pedestrians and bicyclists to the maximum extent practicable. If there is a conflict between the requirements of this Section and solid waste design standards, the Planning Director in consultation with the Director of Public Works shall determine which standard shall apply.
4.
Design Standards A.
Purpose The intent of this Section 11-04-07.4 is to ensure that streets shall be designed to: (1) Provide safe and convenient access for bicyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles to and from perimeter streets, parks, schools, public transit facilities, public and private institutions to the maximum extent practicable. (2) Provide safe and convenient access for bicyclists and pedestrians to and from existing and proposed pathways and trails existing or designated on a Subdivision Plat, the Boise Pathways Master Plan, or other adopted City or ACHD plans. (3) Accommodate safe, convenient, and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle travel on streets, or on off-street pathways. In cases where the street network cannot be designed to accommodate pedestrian or bicycle travel due to soil, topography, easement, or other constraints. (4) Except for designated collector and arterial streets, allow individuals traveling within a development or subdivision, and to and from properties adjacent to that land, without accessing the collector or arterial street network. (5) Incorporate traffic calming strategies into street networks to the maximum extent practicable. Traffic calming devices that can significantly impede the response of or possibly damage emergency vehicles and equipment, such as speedbumps are not allowed.
B.
Public Streets (1) General Public streets shall be accepted, dedicated to, and owned by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD), Idaho Department of Transportation, or other governmental or quasigovernmental entity.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
237
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-07. Access and Connectivity 11-04-07.4 Design Standards
(2) Street Design (a) The design of all streets shall conform to requirements established by National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), ACHD, and the Idaho Transportation Department. Where there is a conflict in the standards, the City will require the design that achieves the highest level of safety and comfort. (b) Street intersections in residential areas shall create a 90 degree intersection to the maximum extent practicable. (3) Street Grades Street grades shall comply with applicable ACHD and adopted fire safety standards. (4) Dead-End Streets (a) Dead-end streets shall not be permitted, except streets temporarily terminating at the boundary of a subdivision may be allowed when ACHD or City Council determines the extension of the street is necessary for the proper development of the street pattern. An approved turnaround shall be required at the terminus of all temporary and permanent dead end streets. A sign indicating the street is planned to be extended in the future will be installed at the end of the street. (b) A paved hammerhead turnaround 15 feet wide and 50 feet long may be required in cases where lots are not accessible for solid waste collection vehicles to turn around completely. (5) Street Names Street names shall be approved by the Ada County Land Records Division. (6) Street Access (a) Each lot shall have direct access to a public street or alley that has been improved to applicable street standards and has been accepted, dedicated to, and accepted by the Ada County Highway District, or shall have access to a private street that has been improved to applicable City private street standards. (b) If alley access to individual lots is available, access points from that lot to an abutting street shall be prohibited unless the Planning Director determines the use of the alley access is impracticable due to the nature or operating characteristics of the proposed use on the lot. (c) Where alley access is not available or use of alley access is impracticable, street access points between abutting parcels shall be consolidated and shared to the maximum extent practicable. (d) Where alley access is not available and a lot has frontage on two or more streets, a single street access point shall be located on the street with the lowest traffic volume to the maximum extent practicable, unless the Planning Director determines that the access point on the street with the lowest traffic volume will adversely impact planned and existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
238
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-07. Access and Connectivity 11-04-07.4 Design Standards
(7) Gated Streets, Driveways, and/or Subdivisions (a) After the Effective Date, the use of access control gates that restricts access to new or existing developments in any Residential or Mixed-Use zoning district or any portion of a Planned Unit Development, is prohibited. (b)
Gates are permitted to be installed for security purposes in the Industrial or Open Lands zoning districts provided they are set back at least 30 feet from the right-of-way line.
(8) Insufficient Roadway Width When shorter segments of curb and gutter improvements are not feasible as determined by the Planning Director, a substitute physical demarcation or barrier shall be installed to provide a clear boundary between required landscaping and orderly, parallel, on-street parking, and to accommodate storm drainage. An approved barrier such as ribbon curbing with vertical landscaping, low fencing, or other approved means shall be installed to ensure the right-of-way does not become an area that is unmaintained and, if feasible, allows for on-street parking.
Figure 4.12. Insufficient Roadway Width Barrier Requirements
C.
Private Streets (1) General Private streets are strongly discouraged and shall only be permitted when approved by the Planning Director based on unique circumstances that make the construction and dedication of public streets impracticable. When approved by the Planning Director, private streets shall comply with standards in Subsection B above and, shall be located and designed to: (a) Provide safe, convenient, and comfortable movement of vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian travel;
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
239
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-07. Access and Connectivity 11-04-07.4 Design Standards
(b) Not adversely affect access to adjacent properties or the public transportation network; (c) Not interfere with or decrease public access to adjacent property or places of public interest; (d) Not connect one public street to another, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director; (e) Not interrupt the continuity of public streets or the public street network; and (f)
Comply with the ACHD structural standards for streets, as shown on design and construction documents prepared and certified by a registered professional engineer.
(2) Single-Family-Detached/Single-Family Attached/Duplex Residential (a) Private streets are permitted in Single-Family Detached, Single-Family Attached, and Duplex Dwelling developments, provided they comply with the general requirements in Subsection (1) above and: i.
The parcel shape or site topography will not allow the street design to meet ACHD width standards for public streets; or
ii.
Compliance with ACHD public street standards is in conflict with the intent of minimizing disruption to vegetation or other topographical elements required by Section 11-02-07.3.G, HS-O: Hillside Development Overlay.
(b) Private streets shall comply with the standards in Table 11-04.7. TABLE 11-04.7: PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL STREET STANDARDS: SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED, SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED, DUPLEX
NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL LOTS VS. STREET LENGTH
MINIMUM RIGHT-OFWAY WIDTH (FEET)
STREET WIDTH BACK OF CURB TO BACK OF CURB (FEET)
DETACHED SIDEWALK REQUIRED BOTH SIDES
DETACHED SIDEWALK EASEMENT ALLOWED
Up to 3 lots w/ length less than 200 feet
24
24
Yes
Yes [1]
Up to 3 lots w/ length greater than 200 feet
28 (24 for the final 200 feet)
28/24
Yes
Yes [1]
4 or more lots w/ length less than 200 feet
24
24
Yes
Yes [1]
4 or more lots w/ length greater than 200 feet
28 (24 for the final 200 feet)
28/24
Yes
Yes [1]
Notes: [1] Setback requirements shall be from the back of sidewalk.
D.
Alleys – Public and Private Alleys are subject to the following standards:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
240
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-07. Access and Connectivity 11-04-07.4 Design Standards
(1) The minimum alley width for a one-way alley shall be 12 feet. (2) The minimum alley width for a two-way alley shall be 20 feet. (3) Alley construction shall meet ACHD standards. E.
Cul-de-Sacs (1) Cul-de-sacs shall be avoided to the maximum extent practicable and shall only be permitted when unusual terrain or site conditions prevent a through street connection. (2) Where permitted, cul-de-sacs shall connect to the closest local, collector, or arterial street, to adjacent cul-de-sacs, or to any adjacent existing or proposed public open space, park, pathway, trail or school with a pedestrian easement or right-of-way at least 15 feet in width shown on the Subdivision Plat, unless deemed impracticable by the Planning Director.
Figure 4.13. Cul-de-Sac Design
F.
Block Size and Design Where a Subdivision Plat includes streets in a Residential or Mixed-Use zoning district, the dimensions of each new block created shall meet the following standards to the maximum extent practicable in light of topographic conditions. (1) The length of new blocks created shall not exceed 330 feet in width and 660 feet in length. (2) Each block shall be bordered by public or private streets meeting the requirements of this Section 11-04-07.4 and with all applicable Ada County Highway District technical requirements. (3) The Planning Director may adjust the standard in Subsection (1) above if the Planning Director determines that a larger perimeter is necessary because of constraints or unusual terrain or site conditions that make it impracticable to design blocks of this
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
241
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-07. Access and Connectivity 11-04-07.4 Design Standards
size, and that the reduced internal vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation caused by the larger block perimeter have been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. G.
Cross-Access between Adjacent Mixed-Use and Nonresidential Uses All development or redevelopment in Mixed-use or Nonresidential zone districts shall comply with the following standards. (1) To the maximum extent practicable, each lot layout shall be designed to allow for cross-access to adjacent properties to encourage shared parking and shared access points to a street. This may be established by one or more of the following: (a) Connecting streets and driveways; (b) Coordinating parking lot and parking structure entrances; (c) Common service/delivery areas; (d) Legally shared parking lots and parking structures; (e) Linkages between parking lots and parking structures; or (f)
Providing shared access for two adjacent lots from public rights-of-way to minimize driveways.
(2) When cross-access is deemed impractical by the Planning Director on the basis of topography, the presence of natural features, or vehicular, bicycle and/or pedestrian safety, this requirement may be waived provided that appropriate bicycle and pedestrian connections are provided between adjacent Multiple-Family, Mixed Use or Nonresidential developments or land uses. H.
Transit Stops (1) Where an adopted plan of the City or a transit agency recognized by the City identifies a future transit stop location, no permanent or temporary structure, or utilities that are not transit supportive shall be located in any portion of the site identified for that transit stop, or for access points or parking facilities required by this Code. Transit footings or structures shall be installed at the time of development of the site to the maximum extent practicable. (2) Use of those portions of the site shall be limited to a transit stop, required landscaping, buffering, and open space until arrangements for the dedication or acquisition of that portion of the site for transit stop purposes is finalized, or until the City or the transit agency that designated the location indicates in writing that it is no longer needed for transit stop purposes.
I.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity and Circulation All development and redevelopment shall comply with the following standards to the maximum extent practicable. In the event of a conflict between these standards and those in another provision of this Code, the standard requiring the greater level of connectivity shall apply. (1) Sidewalks and Pedestrian Facilities Unless otherwise required by specific standards applicable to the Residential and Mixed-Use zoning district, by the Boise Pathways Master Plan or other adopted plan, or standard adopted by the City:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
242
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-07. Access and Connectivity 11-04-07.4 Design Standards
(a) All sidewalks shall be a minimum of five feet wide. A minimum of 10 foot wide sidewalks shall be provided and constructed within a development if the Planning Director deems the access is beneficial to provide pedestrian and bicycle access to schools, playgrounds, shopping areas, transportation, or other community facilities. (b) Detached sidewalks shall be required on both sides of all arterial and collector streets identified within the current ACHD Master Street Map. Detached sidewalks shall be required on both sides of all local streets, including cul-de-sacs. The Planning Director may allow attached sidewalks on local streets when it has been determined detached sidewalks are unable to be constructed due to unusual terrain, site conditions, utility conditions, or other circumstances that make the provision of detached sidewalks impracticable. (c) When sidewalks are separated from the curb line, a minimum distance of eight to 10 feet or within an approved suspended pavement system is required to accommodate buffering and street trees required by Section 11-04-09.4, Street Frontage Landscaping shall be provided. (d) Sidewalks internal to developments shall be a minimum of five feet wide and shall be separated from vehicular areas (including but not limited to parking spaces, driveways, and drive aisles) by a vertical barrier such as curb, bollards or other means approved by the Planning Director. Any mailboxes, signs, utility equipment, vertical structures or other items located within or near any sidewalk shall be located in an area that preserves a five foot clear passageway for pedestrians at all points on the sidewalk. (2) Bikeways Designated bicycle lanes and/or multi-use pathways are required in the design of all arterial, collector, and local streets as shown in the network maps included in the ACHD Roadways to Bikeways Plan, Boise Pathways Master Plan, Ada County Ridge-toRivers Trails Plan, and other adopted City or ACHD plans. In the event of a conflict between one or more plans, the Planning Director shall determine which network map and design standard shall apply. (3) Multi-Use Pathways Multi-use pathways, separated from motor vehicle traffic, are required where indicated on the Boise Pathways Master Plan, Ada County Ridge-to-Rivers Trails Plan, or other plans adopted by the City. The land or public easement to accommodate such pathways shall be dedicated to the appropriate entity, such as the City, Idaho Transportation Department, ACHD, or in some unique cases the Homeowners Association (HOA). (4) Connection to Sidewalks, Bikeways, and Multi-Use Pathways Each extension or connection of a street or right-of-way to an abutting property, street, or right-of-way shall include the extension or connection of associated bikeways, sidewalks, multi-use pathways, or trails.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
243
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-07. Access and Connectivity 11-04-07.4 Design Standards
(5) Consent of Irrigation Easement Holder If one or more pedestrian walkway, pathway, or bicycle facility required by this Code is proposed to be located within or across an irrigation easement, the applicant shall coordinate with the irrigation company to determine if the facility can be built within the irrigation easement. If the irrigation company does not allow the facility to be built within the easement, it is the responsibility of the applicant to identify another location within the applicant’s control for the facility or crossing that will not prevent the facility from connecting to similar improvements on adjacent properties. (6) Design Standards The design of all sidewalks, bikeways, and multi-use paths shall comply with all requirements in the relevant adopted City plan, ACHD plan, or technical manual such as NACTO and must integrate with the design standards of the improvements on the adjacent development to ensure a safe, continuous, and comprehensive travel network. Where there is a conflict in the standards, the City will require the design that achieves the highest level of safety and comfort. J.
General Ingress and Egress (1) Driveways (a) Where lots/parcels are adjacent to an alley, all access to developments, parking areas, and parking garages shall be from the alley rather than from driveways leading to a street abutting the lot/parcel. (b) Except as stated in Subsection (a) above, driveways providing reasonable access to required private or public parking areas, including garages, may extend through the front or street side setback in a perpendicular manner provided they comply with Section 11-04-07.4.J(2), below. (c) Except as stated in Subsection (a) above, driveways that extend through the setback in other than a perpendicular manner may be approved due to physical limitations of the site or for safety purposes. The Planning Director may approve such driveways upon a determination that: i.
The driveway is required to enhance the natural elements of the site such as preserving existing trees; or
ii.
The driveway is required for safety reasons such as avoiding backing into a collector or arterial street or a street with limited motorist visibility.
(d) A driveway for a Single-Family Detached Dwelling or a Duplex Dwelling shall be a minimum of nine feet in width and shall not exceed 30 feet in width for each unit unless a different maximum width is permitted or required by another provision of this Code or an adopted City standard. (e) Circular driveways are prohibited unless specifically approved by the Planning Director based on considerations of safety. (f)
A paved hammerhead turnaround 15 feet wide and 50 feet long may be required in cases where lot(s) are not accessible for solid waste collection vehicles to turn around completely.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
244
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-07. Access and Connectivity 11-04-07.4 Design Standards
Figure 4.14. Driveway Width
(2) Service Drives (a) Applicability Service drives may be used to provide access to commercial or Multiple-Family parking lots and spaces, loading spaces, drive-up windows, or other areas that need a provision of access. (b) Standards i.
Service drives shall not intersect the street where they will impede an abutting property from having access to at least one street, or where compliance with applicable intersection and driveways would interrupt the continuity of public streets.
ii.
Service drives shall not encourage or promote pass through between public or private streets, unless specifically approved by the Planning Director, based on considerations of bicycle, pedestrian, or traffic safety.
iii.
Service drives shall intersect a street at a 90 degree angle, unless otherwise approved by the City and the Ada County Highway District.
iv.
Each service drive identified as a fire access drive shall comply with all applicable Fire Department standards.
v.
A paved hammerhead turnaround 15 feet wide and 50 feet long may be required in cases where lots/parcels are not accessible for solid waste collection vehicles to turn around completely.
(c) Widths i.
One-way service drives without parking on either side shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide. Two-way service drives without parking on either side shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
ii.
The width of a service drive at the point where it intersects a street shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width if the street is limited to one-way traffic, or a minimum of 20 feet in width if the street accommodates two-way traffic.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
245
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-07. Access and Connectivity 11-04-07.4 Design Standards
iii.
The width of a service drive at the point where it intersects a street shall not exceed a maximum of 36-feet for Multiple-Family, commercial or mixed-use developments and a maximum of 40-feet for industrial developments.
iv.
The width between building appurtenances such as carport overhangs shall be a minimum of 24 feet.
Figure 4.15. Service Drive Width
v.
Where a service drive provides perpendicular access to a parking space or a garage, the parking space or garage shall be set back from the service drive so that the combined distance of the service drive width and the garage or parking space is a minimum of 22 feet.
Figure 4.16. Garage Setback From Service Drive
(d) Grade Maximum grade for service drives shall be 10 percent unless a steeper grade is specifically approved by the Fire Code Official. A maximum grade of two percent, unless specifically approved by the ACHD, shall be required for the initial 80 feet from the intersecting curb to provide a landing at the junction of the service drive and the public right-of-way.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
246
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-07. Access and Connectivity 11-04-07.4 Design Standards
K.
Mixed-Use, Industrial, and Open Land Districts Vehicular Circulation In the Mixed-Use, Industrial, and Open Land zoning districts, access to lots located on arterial and collector streets as depicted on the ACHD Master Street Map shall meet the requirements below. (1) Access points shall be oriented at right angles to the street. (2) Access points shall be minimized and located a minimum of 50 feet from each other, or meet ACHD requirements, whichever is more restrictive. (3) Access points shall be located at least 50 feet from any intersecting street right-ofway. (4) Access points shall be located at least 10 feet from an adjacent property line, except where one, shared driveway can be established or is planned to serve both the subject property and the adjacent property. (5) Primary circulation and access points shall be oriented toward the abutting street with the lowest traffic volumes to the maximum extent practicable unless the Planning Director determines that the access point on the street with the lowest traffic volume will adversely impact planned and existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities. (6) Driveways or service drives that allow all turning movements shall be aligned with one another on arterial, collector and local streets to contribute to a safe and efficient circulation pattern.
L.
Pedestrian Access and Connectivity (1) Required Connections All parcels that contain a Multiple-Family and nonresidential use, shall provide the following pedestrian connections, as applicable: (a) A safe, convenient, and accessible pedestrian connection from the main entrance of a building to a public sidewalk and/or internal walkway that connects to a public sidewalk. (b) Connections between internal and perimeter sidewalks at a maximum interval of 1,320 feet along the perimeter street. (c) Sidewalks between the principal entrance of each building in a development containing more than one building. (d) Connections to any sidewalks on adjacent properties that extend to the boundaries of such properties. Multiple pedestrian connections between adjacent developments shall be provided to the maximum extent practicable. (e) Connections to community facilities on site, including, but not limited to, trash collection areas, mail collection facilities, bicycle parking and site amenities. (f)
Connections to any adjacent park, trail or transit stop.
(2) Standards for Pedestrian Connections (a) Each site shall include detached sidewalks at least five feet wide, on both sides of each abutting street, unless otherwise specified by district-specific requirements for the Mixed-Use zoning districts, or as otherwise required by the Boise Pathways Master Plan or other plan adopted by the City or ACHD. All sidewalks Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
247
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-07. Access and Connectivity 11-04-07.5 Compliance with Design Standards
shall be sited and illuminated appropriately to provide safe passage and observation of the pathway route. (b) Mixed-use development and Multiple-Family Dwellings within one-quarter mile radius of a transit stop shall include a direct, on-site pedestrian connection to the transit station to the maximum extent practicable. If that is not practicable, a direct pedestrian connection to a public sidewalk leading to the nearest transit station with signage directing pedestrians the station shall be provided on site. (c) At each point where a sidewalk must cross a parking lot, service drive, internal street, or driveway, it shall be clearly marked using a change in color, change in materials, change in texture, change in elevation, or some combination of those techniques, some of which are illustrated in Figure 4.17, below.
Figure 4.17. Options for Required Pedestrian Crossings
5.
Compliance with Design Standards A.
In addition to the standards required by this Section 11-04-07, all Multiple-Family Dwelling, mixed-use, and nonresidential development shall comply with the standards and other mandatory content in the Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines and the Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines, as applicable in the area where the property is located.
B.
In the event of a conflict between the standards in this Section 11-04-07 and applicable standards in the Citywide or Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines, the provision requiring the higher level of safety and visual building quality and interest, as determined by the Planning Director, shall apply.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
248
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-08. Parking and Loading 11-04-08.1 Purpose
11-04-08. 1.
Parking and Loading
Purpose The purpose of this Section 11-04-08 is to establish standards for vehicle and bicycle parking, on-site circulation, loading areas, and parking lot design to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare by:
2.
A.
Providing necessary access for service and emergency vehicles;
B.
Providing for safe, convenient, and comfortable interactions between motor vehicles, nonmotorized vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians;
C.
Encouraging active transportation options and enhanced pedestrian safety;
D.
Encouraging emission free vehicles;
E.
Providing flexibility to respond to the transportation, access, and loading impacts of various land uses in different areas of the city;
F.
Reducing stormwater runoff, reducing heat island effect from large expanses of pavement, improving water quality, and minimizing dust pollution;
G.
Mitigating traffic congestion; and
H.
Mitigating the visual impact of large expanses of exposed parking.
Applicability A.
Generally Unless otherwise stated in this Code, the standards in this Section 11-04-08 shall apply to all uses in all zoning districts.
B.
Exceptions (1) The MX-5 zoning district is exempt from the requirement to provide off-street parking spaces, but any parking spaces provided shall comply with all other standards in this Section 11-04-08. (2) Structured parking facilities shall be exempt from maximum parking limits.
3.
General Parking Standards A.
Use of Parking Areas (1) Required off-street parking facilities shall be used for vehicle parking only. Vehicle sales, rental and leasing, storage, repair, and other uses are prohibited, except for approved temporary and/or seasonal uses. (2) No property owner or operator may designate any on-street parking space for the use of a specific establishment, and no property owner or operator may limit the use of any on-street parking space by the general public by using the parking space for the operation of a valet parking service, without the prior written consent of the City.
B.
Parking and Loading Calculations (1) All square footage-based parking and loading requirements shall be computed based on the gross floor area of the subject use or structure, unless otherwise specified. (2) Parking spaces designed or designated exclusively for two-wheeled vehicles such as motorcycles and scooters shall not be included in the calculation of minimum or
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
249
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-08. Parking and Loading 11-04-08.4 Accessible Parking
maximum vehicle parking requirements. However, a reduction in the minimum number of parking spaces is allowed in accordance with Subsection 11-04-08.7.B when two-wheeled vehicle parking spaces are provided. (3) Lots containing more than one use shall provide parking and loading based on the shared parking calculations in Section 11-04-08.7.A, Shared Parking Facility Reduction. C.
Reductions of Existing Parking Off-street parking or loading spaces existing on the Effective Date shall not be permanently reduced in a way that would bring the property out of conformance with this Section 1104-08 or would increase the degree of existing nonconformity with the provisions of this Section 11-04-08.
D.
Parking for Unlisted Uses The Planning Director shall determine the required parking for uses not listed in Table 1104.9: Off-Street Parking Requirements, based on expected volume of activity on the site, the level of congestion on surrounding streets, proximity to Residential zoning districts, and the factors listed in Section 11-03-01.7, Classification of New and Unlisted Uses.
4.
Accessible Parking All development that provides on-site vehicle parking spaces shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the International Building Code (IBC), and the standards in this Section 11-04-08.3. If the standards in this Section 11-04-08.3 conflict with the requirements of the ADA or IBC, the requirements of the ADA or IBC shall apply. A.
Amount of Accessible Parking Required (1) All development shall provide at least the following number of accessible parking spaces, unless a different number is required by Subsection (2) below: TABLE 11-04.8: REQUIRED NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES TOTAL PARKING SPACES IN LOT OR GARAGE
MINIMUM NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE SPACES
1 - 25
1
26 - 50
2
51 - 75
3
76 - 100
4
101 - 150
5
151 - 200
6
201 - 300
7
301 - 400
8
401 - 500
9
501 - 1,000
2% of the spaces provided
1,001 and Over
20 plus 1 for each 100 over 1,000
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
250
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-08. Parking and Loading 11-04-08.4 Accessible Parking
(2) All outpatient and other facilities providing medical care and other services for persons with mobility impairments shall provide accessible spaces that are equal to 20 percent of the number of required parking. B.
Additional Requirements (1) Valet parking facilities shall provide a passenger loading zone located on an accessible route to the entrance of the facility. (2) Accessible parking spaces shall not contain slopes in excess of two percent and shall not require access involving steps to or from abutting pedestrian walkways. (3) Accessible spaces shall be located closest to the main entrance. (4) When there are multiple buildings or main entrances, accessible spaces shall be distributed equally. (5) Accessible spaces shall be clearly marked as spaces reserved for persons with disabilities. (6) When Section 11-04-08.6, Electric Vehicle (EV) Parking Spaces, requires the provision of any type of Electric Vehicle parking spaces, at least five percent, but not less than one, of the required EV parking spaces shall also be accessible parking spaces.
C.
Traditional Accessible Parking Stall Dimensions (1) Length All accessible spaces shall be a minimum of 20 feet in length.
Figure 4.18. Access Aisle at Passenger Loading Zone
(2) Width All accessible spaces shall be a minimum of eight feet in width plus a five foot wide adjacent access aisle, as shown in Figure 4.18. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
251
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-08. Parking and Loading 11-04-08.5 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Standards
(3) Van Accessible (a) One in every six accessible spaces, but not less than one, shall have an adjacent access aisle that is eight feet in width and shall be designated as "Van Accessible" as noted in Figure 4.19. (b) A single accessible parking space that is van accessible shall be located on the left side of the access aisle as noted in Figure 4.19 (4) Signage And Markings All access aisles shall install a sign similar to the signs depicted below and read “Access Aisle No Parking” and shall apply blue pavement markings reading “No Parking” with accompanying diagonal striping within the limits of the access aisle adjacent to the accessible space in addition to the signage for the accessible parking stall.
Figure 4.19. Signage for Accessible Parking Spaces
5.
Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Standards A.
All development not exempted by the provisions of Section 11-04-08.2.B shall provide vehicle parking spaces in the amounts required by Table 11-04.9, below, as those amounts may be modified by Section 11-04-08.6, Parking Adjustments below.
B.
No minimum parking requirements apply to developments within the MX-5 Mixed-Use Downtown Zoning District.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
252
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-08. Parking and Loading 11-04-08.5 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Standards
TABLE 11-04.9: OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS DU = DWELLING UNIT * = PLANNING DIRECTOR DETERMINATION BLANK CELL = NO MINIMUM/MAXIMUM REQUIREMENT GFA = GROSS FLOOR AREA 1BR, 2BR, 3+BR = NUMBER OF BEDROOMS
USE CATEGORY
MINIMUM REQUIRED
SF = SQUARE FEET
MAXIMUM ALLOWED
Residential Uses Household Living Accessory Dwelling Unit
See Section 11-03-03.2.B
Caretaker’s Residence
1 per DU
Dwelling, Single-Family Detached
1 per DU
Dwelling, Cottage Village
1 per DU
Dwelling, Single-Family Attached
1 per DU
Dwelling, Live/Work
2 per DU
Dwelling, Duplex Dwelling, Triplex or Fourplex
1-3 BR: 1 per DU 4+ BR: 0.75 per BR
Dwelling, Multiple-Family
Studio/Efficiency: 0.5 per DU 1BR: 1 per DU 2BR: 1.25 per DU 3+BR: 1.5 per DU Guest: 1 per 10 DU
Group Home, FHAA Small
1 per 4 persons design capacity
125% of required minimum
Livestock and Animals, Accessory Manufactured Home
1 per DU
Manufactured Home Community
1 per DU
Group Living Assisted Living Facility Boarding House
1 per 3 beds 1 per BR
Continuing Care Retirement Facility
0.5 per DU plus 1 per 4 beds
Convalescent or Nursing Home
0.25 per bed
Dwelling, Co-Housing Fraternity or Sorority House Recovery Residence
* 1 per bed 50% of parking otherwise required for residential use in that type of structure
Residential Home Occupations Home Occupation, Family Daycare Home Home Occupation, Group Daycare Facility Home Occupation, Other Public, Institutional and Civic Uses
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
253
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-08. Parking and Loading 11-04-08.5 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Standards
TABLE 11-04.9: OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS DU = DWELLING UNIT * = PLANNING DIRECTOR DETERMINATION BLANK CELL = NO MINIMUM/MAXIMUM REQUIREMENT GFA = GROSS FLOOR AREA 1BR, 2BR, 3+BR = NUMBER OF BEDROOMS
USE CATEGORY
MINIMUM REQUIRED
SF = SQUARE FEET
MAXIMUM ALLOWED
Adult or Child Day Care Adult or Child Day Care Facility
1 per 400 sf GFA
Adult or Child Day Care Center, Small
1 per 400 sf GFA
Adult or Child Day Care Center, Large
1 per 400 sf GFA
Community and Cultural Facilities Art Gallery, Museum, or Library
1 per 400 sf GFA
2 per 400 sf GFA
1 per 400 sf GFA
2 per 400 sf GFA
Cemetery Community Center Fire or Police Facility Food Kitchen Forest Reserve or Recreation Area Jail or Detention Facility
3 per 1,000 sf GFA
Mortuary or Mausoleum Park or Playground Religious Institution
1 per 400 sf GFA
Uses Related to and Operated by a Religious Institution
*
Shelter Home
*
Education and Health Hospital College or Other Institution of Higher Education School Trade or Vocational School
1 per bed design capacity * Elementary, Middle, Junior High: 1 per classroom High School: 4 per classroom
125% of required minimum
1 per 3 classroom seats
Transportation Aircraft Landing Field
Determined by airport management
Park and Ride Facility Transit Facility
*
Transit Terminal
*
Commercial Uses Agriculture and Animals Agricultural Uses or Stables
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
254
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-08. Parking and Loading 11-04-08.5 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Standards
TABLE 11-04.9: OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS DU = DWELLING UNIT * = PLANNING DIRECTOR DETERMINATION BLANK CELL = NO MINIMUM/MAXIMUM REQUIREMENT GFA = GROSS FLOOR AREA 1BR, 2BR, 3+BR = NUMBER OF BEDROOMS
USE CATEGORY
MINIMUM REQUIRED
Animal Daycare or Kennel
2.5 per 1,000 sf GFA
Animal Hospital or Clinic
2.5 per 1,000 sf GFA
SF = SQUARE FEET
MAXIMUM ALLOWED
Beekeeping, Accessory Commercial Feedlot Slaughterhouse, Rendering Plant Urban Farm Communication Facilities All Uses Food and Beverage Service Brewpub, Micro-distillery, or Microwinery
3 per 1,000 sf GFA
5 per 1,000 sf GFA
Neighborhood Café
1 per 1,000 sf GFA
4 per 2,000 sf GFA
Restaurant
5 per 1,000 sf GFA
7 per 1,000 sf GFA
5 per 1,000 sf GFA
7 per 1,000 sf GFA
Food Truck, Accessory Food Truck Court
Sidewalk Café, Accessory Tavern or Lounge Lodging Bed and Breakfast Hotel or Motel Recreation Vehicle Park
1 per guest bedroom plus 1 for manager 1 per guest bedroom
125% of required minimum
1 per RV spot
Office, Personal and Business Service Financial Institution
3 per 1,000 sf GFA
Medical or Dental Clinic
1 per 300 sf GFA
5 per 1,000 GFA
Office
1 per 400 sf GFA
4 per 1,000 sf GFA
Personal and Business Service
1 per 400 sf GFA
4 per 1,000 sf GFA
1 per 4 seats in main assembly area
125% of required minimum
Recreation and Entertainment Auditorium or Theater, Indoor Club, Lodge, or Social Hall
1 per 400 sf GFA
Conference or Event Center
3 per 1,000 sf GFA
Firing Range, Indoor Golf Course Recreation, Indoor
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
125% of required minimum
2 per 1,000 sf GFA 5 per 1,000 sf GFA of restaurant /bar area Bowling Alley: 2 per lane All other: 4 per 1,000 sf GFA
150% of required minimum
255
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-08. Parking and Loading 11-04-08.5 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Standards
TABLE 11-04.9: OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS DU = DWELLING UNIT * = PLANNING DIRECTOR DETERMINATION BLANK CELL = NO MINIMUM/MAXIMUM REQUIREMENT GFA = GROSS FLOOR AREA 1BR, 2BR, 3+BR = NUMBER OF BEDROOMS
USE CATEGORY Recreation, Outdoor
MINIMUM REQUIRED
SF = SQUARE FEET
MAXIMUM ALLOWED
*
Retail 1 per 500 sf GFA
125% of required minimum
Retail Sales, Neighborhood <2,000 SF
0.5 per 1,000 sf GFA
2 per 1,000 sf GFA
Retail Sales, Small <5,000 SF
3 per 1,000 sf GFA
Retail Sales, Medium 5,001 SF to 10,000 SF
2.5 per 1,000 sf GFA
Retail Sales, Large 10,001 SF to 60,000 SF
1 per 500 sf GFA
125% of required minimum
Retail Sales, Big Box >60,000 SF
2 per 1,000 sf GFA
125% of required minimum
3 per 1,000 sf GFA
125% of required minimum
Building Materials
Sexually Oriented Business Sexually Oriented Business Vehicles and Equipment Drive-Through Facility Electric Vehicle Charging Facility Parking Garage as Principal Use Parking Lot as Principal Use Service Station
3 per 1,000 sf GFA retail, office, waiting area
Vehicle Fleet Operations Center Vehicle Repair, Major
Vehicle Repair, Minor Vehicle Sales, Rental, and Leasing, Light Vehicle and Equipment Sales, Rental and Leasing, Heavy Vehicle Wash
3 per 1,000 sf GFA retail, office, waiting area plus 1 per service bay 3 per 1,000 sf GFA retail, office, waiting area plus 1 per service bay 3 per 1,000 sf GFA retail, office, waiting area plus 1 per service bay 2 per 1,000 sf GFA retail, office, waiting area
Industrial Uses Manufacturing and Processing Contractor Shop and Yard Industry, Artisan
2 per 1,000 sf GFA
Industry, Light
1 per 1,000 sf GFA
Industry, Heavy
1 per 1,000 sf GFA
Mining and Extraction Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
256
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-08. Parking and Loading 11-04-08.5 Minimum and Maximum Off-Street Parking Standards
TABLE 11-04.9: OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS DU = DWELLING UNIT * = PLANNING DIRECTOR DETERMINATION BLANK CELL = NO MINIMUM/MAXIMUM REQUIREMENT GFA = GROSS FLOOR AREA 1BR, 2BR, 3+BR = NUMBER OF BEDROOMS
USE CATEGORY
MINIMUM REQUIRED
SF = SQUARE FEET
MAXIMUM ALLOWED
Storage, Wholesale, and Warehousing Bulk Storage of Flammable or Dangerous Materials Fulfillment Center
1 per 2,000 sf GFA
Outdoor Storage Outdoor Storage, Accessory Self-Service Storage
3 per 1,000 sf GFA of indoor office area
Trucking Terminal Wholesale or Warehouse, Small or Large
1 per 2,000 sf GFA
Utilities Power Plant Renewable Energy Facility, Accessory Utility Facility, Minor Utility Facility, Major Waste and Salvage Composting Facility Junkyard, Vehicle Salvage Recycling Collection Facility Sanitary Landfill Solid Waste Transfer Facility Accessory Uses Unlisted Uses Accessory to an Allowed Use Temporary Uses Construction Office Mobile Food Truck Off-Site Construction Staging Safety Facility
*
Sales and Leasing Office Seasonal Sales
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
257
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-08. Parking and Loading 11-04-08.6 Electric Vehicle (EV) Parking Spaces
6.
Electric Vehicle (EV) Parking Spaces All Multiple-Family, mixed-use, and nonresidential development shall comply with the UseSpecific Standards in Section 11-03-03.4.S, Electric Vehicle Charging Station and the following standards. A.
Number of EV Parking Spaces Required (1) The development shall include at least the minimum number of EV parking spaces shown in the following table: TABLE 11-04.10: REQUIRED NUMBER OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING SPACES TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES
EV CAPABLE SPACES
EV READY SPACES
EV INSTALLED SPACES
Multiple-Family Dwelling Units <5
None
None
None
5-10
None
20% of total
≥ 11
None
20% of total
1 space 10% of total
Public, Civic, or Institutional, Commercial or Industrial Uses <5
None
None
≥5
20% of total
None
None None
(2) Each EV parking space provided shall be counted towards the minimum off-street parking requirements for the project, but shall not count against any limit on the maximum number of off-street parking spaces permitted. B.
Adjustment of EV Parking Requirements When the cost of installing EV parking spaces required by Subsection (1) above would exceed 10 percent of the total project cost, the applicant may submit to the Planning Director a cost estimate for the total project and for the EV installations required by this Section 11-04-08.6 and may request a reduction in the EV parking requirements, and the Planning Director may approve an adjustment in the required numbers or types of EV parking facilities to limit installation costs to no more than 10 percent of the total project costs.
C.
Dimensions and Design (1) All EV parking spaces shall meet the minimum dimensional standards of Section 1104-08. (2) EV charging equipment shall be designed and located so as to not impede pedestrian or vehicle travel or create hazards within the public right-of-way. (3) All sidewalks adjacent to all EV charging units shall be a minimum of seven feet wide. (4) Charging equipment shall be protected by wheel stops, bollards, or similar devices to prevent damage. (5) Charger cords shall be retractable or have a hanging or storage locations outside of pedestrian pathways. (6) Cords connecting chargers to vehicles shall not cross driveways, sidewalks, or loading areas.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
258
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-08. Parking and Loading 11-04-08.7 Parking Adjustments
(7) EV parking spaces with an installed Electric Vehicle Charging Station shall be signed to reserve the parking space for EV users. (8) All Electric Vehicle Charging Stations shall include an emergency power shutoff located in a location easily accessible by emergency responders.
7.
Parking Adjustments The minimum and maximum parking requirements in Table 11-04.11 may be adjusted as described in this Subsection 7, provided that no combination of reductions in Subsections A through F shall result in the reduction of the minimum number of parking spaces required in Table 11-04.11 by more than 50 percent. A.
Shared Parking Facility Reduction (1) Where two or more uses listed in Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses share a parking lot or garage, the total off-street parking requirement for those uses shown in Table 11-04.9: Off-Street Parking Requirements may be reduced by the factors shown in Table 11-04.11: Shared Parking Reduction.
TABLE 11-04.11: SHARED PARKING REDUCTION To calculate the shared parking reduction, add the requirements for each use category, then divide the sum by the factor indicated below.
PUBLIC, INSTITUTIONAL, OR CIVIC
FOOD, BEVERAGE, INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT, OR LODGING
USE
MULTIPLEFAMILY DWELLINGS
Multiple-Family Dwellings
1.0
Public, Institutional, or Civic
1.1
1.0
Food, Beverage, Indoor Entertainment, or Lodging
1.1
1.2
1.0
Retail
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.0
Other Commercial
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.2
RETAIL
OTHER COMMERCIAL
1.0
(2) To calculate the revised minimum parking requirement, calculate the minimum offstreet parking requirement individually for the two uses with the highest off-street parking requirement, and then divide that sum by the number shown in the cell for that combination of uses in Table 11-04.11. For Example: a development with 5,000 square feet of Small Retail space (3 per 1,000 square feet gross floor area) and 20, two-bedroom Multiple-Family Dwelling units (1.25 per dwelling unit) would take the total spaces required and divide by 1.2. (15) + (25+3) = 43. 43/1.2 = 35.833 The shared parking requirement is 36 spaces.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
259
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-08. Parking and Loading 11-04-08.7 Parking Adjustments
(3) If more than two uses share a parking lot or structure, the reduction factors in Table 11-04.11 are applied only to the two uses with the highest parking requirements. The minimum parking required for the third and additional uses sharing the parking lot or facility are then added to the adjustment calculated in Subsection (2) above without further adjustment. B.
Two Wheeled Parking Reduction For every four motorcycle, scooter, or similar two-wheeled vehicle spaces (excluding bicycle parking) provided, the number of standard vehicle spaces required may be reduced by one, provided that each two wheeled parking space is at least four feet wide and at least 10 feet long and is clearly posted or marked as a motorcycle/scooter parking space.
C.
Tree Preservation The Planning Director may allow up to a 10 percent reduction of the required parking spaces to save healthy desirable trees.
D.
Affordable and Sustainable/Resilient Housing Reduction Affordable housing projects meeting the affordability and/or sustainability/resiliency requirements of Section 11-04-03.7, Incentives, shall be eligible for the parking reductions as set forth in that Section.
E.
Adaptive Reuse Reduction Adaptive reuse projects meeting the requirements of Section 11-04-03.7.D(7) shall be eligible for the parking reductions as set forth in that Section.
F.
Transportation Demand Management Reduction The Planning Director may allow a reduction in required parking for employers that enter into a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Agreement with the City that specifies how on-site parking will be reduced through property owner or operator programs or initiatives that reduce the amount of parking demand on-site. If a reduction in parking is granted through a TDM Agreement, the employer will be required to remain in good standing with the TDM Agreement and shall submit an annual report documenting the terms of the Agreement are being met. Any TDM Agreement, whether used independently or in combination with other allowed parking reductions, is subject to the 50 percent limitation on overall parking reduction. Such programs may include the following: (1) Compressed work week schedules; (2) Flexible arrival and departure times; (3) Telework opportunities; (4) Incentives for employees to use alternative modes of transportation to the workplace; (5) End of commute amenities such as a locker room, changing room or shower; (6) Implement/support ridesharing program (i.e., vanpool, carpool); (7) Designate a Commute Coordinator (Employee Transportation Coordinator) to facilitate employee/property commute program; (8) Display transportation information in a prominent location including transit routes and schedules; carpooling and vanpooling information; bike routes; and commute subsidy information;
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
260
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-08. Parking and Loading 11-04-08.8 Vehicle Parking Location and Design
(9) Provide information for new tenants and employees on transportation options (e.g., flyers, posters, brochures, onboarding information, and emails on commute alternatives); host/participate in transportation fairs, local commute events such as May in Motion or Boise Bike Week; (10) Provide employee subsidies for alternative transportation; (11) Provide preferred parking for carpool/vanpool; (12) Provide pre-tax benefits for transit/vanpool costs; (13) Allocated space for bike share station/kiosk; (14) Provide ongoing funding / sponsorship of bike share program/station; (15) Provide transit, scooter, and bike share passes; or (16) Provide website links to local transportation/commute programs that may include but are not limited to: Commuteride, City Go, alternative transportation programs on developer, property management, or employer websites. G.
Adjustments to Exceed Parking Maximums Up to 10 percent of the parking maximum may be exceeded by the Planning Director through an administrative approval if the Planning Director determines that: (1) The additional parking spaces are required to reduce adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood; and/or (2) The additional parking is required due to unique characteristics of the use not generally shared by other uses in the same use category shown in Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses.
8.
Vehicle Parking Location and Design A.
Location (1) Off-Site Locations Permitted Parking required by Table 11-04.11 shall be provided on the same lot or combination of contiguous lots for which it provides required parking, except that in the R-3, Mixed-Use, Industrial, or Open Land zoning districts, parking may be located up to 600 feet from the lot containing the principal uses for which it provides parking. The Planning Director may require written evidence from the owner of the off-site location confirming the continued availability of the site to meet such parking requirements. (2) On-Site Location (a) Prohibited Location Perpendicular vehicle parking is prohibited within the public-right-of-way, and all vehicle parking is prohibited on undeveloped or unimproved public right-of-way. (b) Required Setbacks i.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
In the Residential zoning districts, except for working vehicles in daily use parked on driveways, in front of homes, parking areas and parking spaces shall not be permitted: A.
In required setbacks;
B.
Unimproved parking areas; or 261
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-08. Parking and Loading 11-04-08.8 Vehicle Parking Location and Design
C.
Other areas not designed for vehicle parking.
ii.
Trailers, camp trailers, boats, boat trailers, recreational vehicles, and all other vehicles not in daily use may use gravel surfacing but are prohibited from parking in the required setbacks.
iii.
Open air public or private parking areas and service drives in a Residential zoning district shall be permitted in side yards that do not abut a street, provided that a minimum five foot wide landscaping and screening area be constructed and maintained along the abutting property line as provided for in Section 11-04-09.10.D(2), Parking and Storage Areas.
iv.
In the Mixed-Use, Industrial, or Open Land zoning districts, parking areas and parking spaces shall not be permitted in any required setback, except as follows: A.
Rear setback areas shall not be used for off-street parking or loading areas unless the rear setback abuts an alley providing access to the parking spaces.
B.
Side yards that do not abut a street may be used for unenclosed offstreet parking provided that a minimum five foot wide landscape area is constructed and maintained along the abutting side property line.
(c) Time Limit No commercial vehicle or trailer shall be parked, stored, or otherwise left unattended at any place in a Residential zoning district whether on public or private property for over two hours except while engaged in construction or any other permitted activity. (d) Site Layout The following standards shall apply in the R-2, R-3, and Mixed-Use zoning districts, unless otherwise required by the Citywide or Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines, including but not limited to any Building Type Frontage Standards applicable to specific street segments.
B.
i.
Surface parking areas shall be located to the side or rear of buildings.
ii.
For multi-building developments, no more than 50 percent of the primary street frontage shall be occupied by parking and vehicular access driveways.
iii.
Garage entries, carports, and parking structures shall be internalized in building groupings or oriented away from street frontage to the maximum extent practicable.
Dimensional Standards (1) Surface Parking Lots and Areas Dimensions of all parking or maneuvering areas in surface parking lots shall be designed as required by Table 11-04.12 below, except that accessible parking spaces shall be designed as required by Section 11-04-08.3.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
262
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-08. Parking and Loading 11-04-08.8 Vehicle Parking Location and Design
Figure 4.20. Minimum Parking Lot Design Standards
TABLE 11-04.12: MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR PARKING LOT DESIGN PARKING ANGLE [A]
STALL WIDTH [B]
CURB LENGTH PER CAR
STALL DEPTH [D]
[C]
For Standard Vehicles 9 ft.- 0 in. 0° 9 ft.- 0 in. 30°
23 ft.- 0 in. 18 ft.- 0 in.
45°
9 ft.- 0 in.
60° 90°
9 ft.- 0 in.
DRIVE AISLE WIDTH [E]
9 ft.- 0 in. 17 ft.- 8 in.
12 ft.- 0 in. 12 ft.- 0 in.
12 ft.- 9 in.
20 ft.- 5 in.
13 ft.- 0 in.
10 ft.- 5 in.
21 ft.- 10 in.
16 ft.- 0 in.
9 ft.- 0 in.
9 ft.- 0 in.
20 ft.- 0 in.
22 ft.- 0 in.
For Compact Vehicles 7 ft.- 6 in. 0°
18 ft.- 0 in.
7 ft.- 6 in.
12 ft.- 0 in.
30°
7 ft.- 6 in.
15 ft.- 0 in.
14 ft.- 0 in.
12 ft.- 0 in.
45° 60°
7 ft.- 6 in. 7 ft.- 6 in.
10 ft.- 7 in. 8 ft.- 8 in.
15 ft.- 11 in. 16 ft.- 9 in.
13 ft.- 0 in. 16 ft.- 0 in.
90°
7 ft.- 6 in.
7 ft.- 6 in.
15 ft.- 0 in.
22 ft.- 0 in.
(2) Compact Spaces (a) A maximum of 40 percent of the total spaces required may be designed, designated, and used for compact size vehicles. The dimensional standards for compact vehicle spaces and driveways are indicated in Table 11-04.12 above. (b) Compact spaces shall be clearly marked for use by compact vehicles on the pavement or curb. (3) Bumper Overhang Standard parking stall lengths may be reduced from 20 feet to 18 feet when the adjacent sidewalk or landscaping is increased by two feet above the minimum requirement. The minimum width for a sidewalk or landscape strip adjacent to a bumper overhang is seven feet.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
263
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-08. Parking and Loading 11-04-08.8 Vehicle Parking Location and Design
(4) Parking Structure Space Dimensions (a) Spaces within parking structures shall be a minimum of eight and one-half feet wide and 18 feet long. (b) Compact parking stalls shall not be provided within parking structures. C.
Tandem Parking Unless otherwise prohibited elsewhere in this Code, tandem parking for Single-Family Detached, Single-Family Attached Dwellings, and Manufactured Home Communities is allowed.
D.
Driveways (1) All driveways shall extend into the site perpendicular to the street from which they provide access, unless the Planning Director approves an alternative based on a determination that the driveway: (a) is required to enhance the natural elements of the site such as preserving existing trees; or (b) Is required for safety reasons such as avoiding backing into a collector or arterial street with limited motorist visibility. (2) All parking areas, driveways, and other vehicular access for Single-Family Detached, Duplex, Triplex, or Fourplex dwellings may consist of wheel strips, pavers, or other hard surface material approved by the Planning Director. Other residential uses are subject to standards in accordance with Subsection F, below. (3) Driveways for Single-Family Attached, Single-Family Detached or Duplex Dwellings shall be a minimum of nine feet in width. Driveways or service drives for other residential uses are subject to Section 11-04-07.4.J(2), Service Drives. (4) Driveways are permitted in the front and street side setbacks in accordance with Section 11-04-07.4.J(2), Service Drives. (5) For Single-Family Attached, Single-Family Detached Dwellings, individual driveways in the front or street side setback shall not exceed a width of 30 feet within the setback, unless another provision of this Code requires a narrower width. (6) Parking on Residential Small Lots is regulated by Section 11-04-03.4, Residential Small Lots.
E.
Surfacing Driveways, parking areas and vehicle storage areas shall be built with a non-permeable material such as concrete or asphalt, except that: (1) A gravel surface area may be used within the I-1 or I-2 zoning districts for enclosed material storage yards or grounds maintenance areas only and shall not be used in areas where vehicles are stored or driven. The storage and maintenance areas shall be located behind the building and be enclosed by a six foot high sight obscuring fence. (2) The Planning Director may approve an alternative surface based on considerations of durability, permeability, and visual interest and quality:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
264
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-08. Parking and Loading 11-04-08.9 Required Bicycle Parking
F.
Residential Garages (1) Street access is prohibited when alley access is available. (2) Residential garages that provide a single space shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide and 20 feet long. (3) Residential garages shall provide 22 feet of back up space.
G.
Parking Area Landscaping All development shall comply with Section 11-04-09, Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening.
H.
Parking Area Lighting All development shall comply with Section 11-04-011, Exterior Lighting.
9.
Required Bicycle Parking A.
Amount Required (1) The development shall include at least the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces shown in the following table based on the category of the use or individual use as shown in Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses:
TABLE 11-04.13: MINIMUM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS DU = DWELLING UNIT SF = SQUARE FEET
* = PLANNING DIRECTOR DETERMINATION GFA = GROSS FLOOR AREA
USE
LONG TERM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED
SHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED
Multiple-Family Dwellings
1 space per DU
1 space per 10 DU
Assisted Living Facility or Continuing Care Retirement Facility
2 spaces or 1 space for every 10 employees, whichever is greater
1 space per 20 beds
Retail Uses and Personal and Business Services
2 spaces plus 1 additional space for every 2,000 sf. GFA
2 spaces plus 1 additional space for every 1,000 sf. GFA
Food and Beverage Uses (excluding Food Truck uses)
2 spaces plus 1 additional space for every 2,000 sf. GFA
2 spaces plus 1 additional space for every 1,000 sf. GFA
Office
2 spaces plus 1 additional space for every 2,000 sf. GFA
2 spaces plus 1 additional space for every 2,000 sf. GFA
Auditorium or Theater, Indoor and Conference or Event Center
*
*
Forest Reserve or Recreation Area, Park or Playground, and Outdoor Recreation
*
*
Industrial Uses
2 spaces plus 1 additional space for every 4,000 sf. GFA
2 spaces plus 1 additional space for every 10,000 sf. GFA
School
1 space for every 10 employees plus 1 space for every classroom
3 spaces for every 10 students
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
265
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-08. Parking and Loading 11-04-08.9 Required Bicycle Parking
TABLE 11-04.13: MINIMUM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS DU = DWELLING UNIT SF = SQUARE FEET
* = PLANNING DIRECTOR DETERMINATION GFA = GROSS FLOOR AREA
USE College or Other Institution of Higher Education Religious Institution
LONG TERM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED
SHORT TERM BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED
*
*
1 space plus 1 additional for every 4,000 sf. GFA
2 spaces plus 1 additional for every 4,000 sf. GFA
(2) If more than 10 bicycle parking spaces are required, a minimum of 10 percent of the required bicycle parking spaces shall be designed to accommodate cargo bicycles or bicycles with trailers. B.
Location (1) Short-term bicycle spaces designed to meet the needs of visitors to the development shall be located within 50 feet from the main entrance of the building. (2) Short-term bicycle racks shall be located so that they: (a) Are easily accessed from the street and protected from motor vehicles; (b) Are visible to passers‐by to promote usage and enhance security; (c) Do not impede or interfere with pedestrian traffic or routine maintenance activities; and (d) Do not block access to buildings, bus boarding or freight loading. (3) Long-term bicycle spaces shall be designed to meet the needs of employees, residents, public transit users, and others with similar needs. (4) Long-term bicycle parking shall be enclosed, covered and secured, or attended. Covered bicycle parking includes but is not limited to a secure and accessible room in a building, a secure and accessible enclosure within a parking structure, or a cluster of bicycle lockers. All bicycle parking lockers and structures shall be located outside of the required setbacks. (5) Required long-term bicycle parking for residential uses shall not be located within dwelling units or within deck or patio areas accessory to dwelling units. (6) Not less than 50 percent of required long-term spaces shall be accessible and not require the use of stairs or an elevator. (7) Long-term spaces that are accessed using stairs shall require a bike runnel.
C.
Design Standards (1) No more than 25 percent of the required bicycle parking spaces may require the bicycle to be hung or parked vertically, rather than being parked with both tires on the ground. (2) Standard bicycle parking spaces shall be a minimum of six feet long and two and onehalf feet wide.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
266
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-08. Parking and Loading 11-04-08.10 Off-Street Loading Facilities
(3) Cargo bicycle and bicycle trailer parking spaces shall be a minimum of 10 feet long and three feet wide. (4) A four foot wide aisle is required between rows of bicycle parking spaces or between a row of bicycle parking spaces and any wall or potential obstructions. (5) Three and one-half feet of clearance shall be provided between bicycle parking spaces and vehicle parking spaces or travel lanes for the opening of passenger-side doors. (6) All bicycle parking spaces and associated racks shall not impede pedestrian walkways. (7) All covered spaces shall have an overhead clearance of seven feet. (8) Bicycle racks shall be located on improved non-permeable surfaces and shall be anchored to the ground. (9) Bicycle racks shall be installed to the manufacturer's recommended specifications and adhere to any further design criteria or codes established by the City. Accommodation of varied bicycle sizes and styles, including electric bicycles and cargo bicycles, is encouraged through provision of racks installed with greater clearance from obstructions, walkways, and other bicycle parking spaces. (10) Designated bicycle parking areas shall include adequate lighting. (11) Bicycle racks shall provide two points of contact with the bicycle frame such as an inverted “U” or a post and ring and shall allow locking of frame and at least one wheel with a U-lock. Wave, schoolyard, wheel well, bollard and spiral racks are prohibited.
Figure 4.21. Examples of Allowed Bicycle Racks
Figure 4.22. Examples of Prohibited Bicycle Racks
10. Off-Street Loading Facilities All primary commercial and industrial uses shall comply with the standards in this Section 1104-08.10 regarding the provision of vehicle loading spaces.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
267
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-08. Parking and Loading 11-04-08.11 Modifications
A.
Quantity and Size The quantity and size of loading spaces required shall be as indicated in Table 11-04.14, below.
TABLE 11-04.14: REQUIRED OFF-STREET LOADING SPACES GROSS FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FEET)
NUMBER OF LOADING SPACES REQUIRED
MINIMUM SIZE OF EACH REQUIRED LOADING SPACE
Less than 20,000
None
20,000-49,999
1
N/A 10 feet x 25 feet
50,000-99,999
2
One 10 feet x 25 feet and One 12 feet x 50 feet
100,000 and more
2, plus 1 additional space for every 100,000 square feet beyond the first 100,000
14 feet x 50 feet and 13 feet high
B.
Standards (1) Loading areas shall comply with setback and landscaping requirements. (2) Loading areas shall not be oriented toward Residential zoning districts and shall not be permitted between the primary façade of a building and the front lot line/property line. (3) Loading areas shall be clearly posted or marked. (4) For buildings greater than 20,000 square feet in the MX-5 zoning district, applicants may request approval of alleys for loading activities as an alternative to on-site loading area. (5) Loading spaces and access routes to loading spaces shall not interfere with parking lot or parking garage maneuvering areas or with designated on-site patron drop-off/pick up locations.
11. Modifications The Planning Director may modify the requirements of this Section 11-04-08 if the Planning Director determines that the site cannot accommodate these requirements and that alternative loading methods or facilities can be provided in a manner compatible with surrounding uses.
12. Compliance with Design Standards A.
In addition to the standards required by this Section 11-04-08, all Multiple-Family, mixeduse, and nonresidential development, including but not limited to Parking Garages shall comply with the standards and other mandatory content in the Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines and the Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines, as applicable in the area where the property is located.
B.
In the event of a conflict between the standards in this Section 11-04-08 and applicable standards in the Citywide or Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines, the provision requiring the higher level of visual building quality and interest, as determined by the Planning Director, shall apply.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
268
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.1 Purpose
11-04-09. 1.
Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening
Purpose The purpose of this Section 11-04-09 is to establish requirements for the design, installation, and maintenance of landscapes that:
2.
A.
Conserve, protect and promote the City's natural environment and high quality of life;
B.
Contribute ecologically and aesthetically to the prosperity of the City;
C.
Achieve healthy, attractive, and safe environments based on recognized design and urban forestry principles;
D.
Expand the tree canopy to reduce the heat island impact and mitigate climate impacts;
E.
Improve pedestrian comfort;
F.
Conserve water;
G.
Integrate stormwater management and minimize polluted water;
H.
Screen the visibility of less desirable uses and functions;
I.
Preserve native vegetation and the appropriate use of native landscape materials; and
J.
Reduce adverse impacts to wildlife.
Applicability All applications for development or property use listed below shall comply with the provisions of this Section 11-04-09. A.
Development (1) All new development involving the construction of new multi-family, mixed-use and nonresidential buildings. Residential uses with four or fewer units in a single structure are exempt from these standards. (2) The expansion and alteration of the gross floor area of an existing Multiple-Family, mixed-use or nonresidential building by 50 percent or more.
B.
Compliance With Existing Approvals Required If an application under this Code does not otherwise require a change to the existing landscaping, fencing, walls, or screening on the lot or parcel, but the existing development is not in compliance with the landscaping, fencing, walls, or screening required by a previous permit or approval for that development, the City may require compliance with the terms of those prior approvals as a condition on the approval of the current application.
C.
Existing Parking Lots (1) When existing parking lots are re-striped or a new coat is applied to the surfacing, the applicant shall replace and repair the existing landscaping to the standards that applied at the time the related building was constructed or the related use began operations. (2) When the area of an existing parking lot is replaced or is expanded up to 25 percent, the applicant shall replace and repair the existing landscaping to the standards that applied at the time the related building was constructed or the related use began
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
269
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.3 General Landscaping Standards
operations and shall install parking lot perimeter landscaping that complies with Section 11-04-09.5.B(3). (3) When the area of an existing parking lot is expanded by 26 percent or more, the applicant shall comply with all standards in this Section 11-04-09 regarding parking lot landscaping.
3.
General Landscaping Standards A.
Landscape Plan Required A landscape plan is required for all activities subject to this Section 11-04-09, regardless of whether the application is for a Zoning Certificate, Certificate of Appropriateness, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or Minor or Major Design Review.
B.
Adopted Streetscape Plans Where the City has adopted streetscape standards for any street bordering a project site, and there is a conflict between the adopted streetscape standards and the standards of this Section 11-04-09, the adopted streetscape standards shall apply.
C.
Site Area Landscaping (1) Any part of a site not used for buildings, parking, driveways, walkways, utilities, or approved storage areas shall be retained or reclaimed to its natural state such that it is free of dust and noxious weeds or landscaped pursuant to the standards in this Section 11-04-09. (2) Plants, walls, fences, buffering, and screening, located on adjacent properties do not satisfy landscape requirements for the subject property. All required landscaping shall be located on the property required to provide it pursuant to this Section 11-04-09. (3) An approved protective curbing shall be required adjacent to all planting areas that border driveways, parking lots or vehicle use areas. (4) If the location of any utility facility, utility easement, or service area required by adopted City or utility provider standards prevents the location of trees, shrubs, or other landscaping in locations required by this Section 11-04-09, the applicant shall be required to install an equivalent numbers of trees, shrubs, or landscaping in other landscaped areas of the site. If the required number of trees cannot be accommodated on the remaining available site area, the applicant shall satisfy the mitigation requirements under Section 11-04-09.8, Tree Preservation.
D.
Landscape Material Standards (1) Approved Plant Materials (a) The latest edition of the Treasure Valley Tree Selection Guide, or any successor publication as determined by the Director of Parks and Recreation, is hereby adopted as the list of approved and recommended trees for on-site planting. (b) Plant selection, establishment, and maintenance for storm water facilities shall comply with the Public Works Department Stormwater Plant Materials Resource Guide to the maximum extent practicable. (c) New plant varieties are being produced every year and other species not listed in the above publications or species that are more disease resistant, pest resistant,
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
270
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.3 General Landscaping Standards
or drought tolerant may also be approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation. (2) Prohibited Plant Materials The plants listed as Trees Not Permitted for Rights-of-Way Property Planting in the Treasure Valley Tree Selection Guide are prohibited from being planted along any street or within any parking lot subject to this Section 11-04-09. (3) Minimum Plant Sizes TABLE 11-04.15: MINIMUM PLANT SIZES TYPE OF PLANT
SIZE
Shade/Ornamental Trees
1.5 inch caliper
Evergreen Trees
6 foot height
Shrubs
3 gallon
Perennials
1 gallon
(4) Plant Species Diversity (a) Trees When five or more trees are to be planted to meet the requirements of any portion of this Section, a mix of species shall be provided as shown in Table 1104.16 below: TABLE 11-04.16: TREE SPECIES MIX REQUIRED NUMBER OF TREES
MINIMUM NUMBER OF SPECIES
5 - 10 11 - 30
2 3
31 - 50
4
50+
5
When the total number of trees is greater than 10, one species cannot amount to more than 30% of the total.
(b) Other Plant Materials i.
To improve pollinator habitat, at least 25 percent of planted areas shall include native flowering and nectar producing plant species.
ii.
Where shrubs are required to be planted, up to 25 percent of the total number of required shrubs may be substituted with flowering perennials, grasses, or ferns.
(5) Non-Vegetative Materials (a) Non-vegetative materials, such as decorative rock, artificial grass, bark, and perma-bark, shall not count toward the minimum landscape requirement. (b) The use of bark or other loose material shall be designed and located to prevent being displaced or washed out of the planting area. (c) Non-vegetative material, including but not limited to rock mulch and decorative rock, may only be used to augment the landscape or around the base of trees
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
271
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.3 General Landscaping Standards
and shrub groupings or flower beds, and shall not constitute the only ground cover in more than 20 percent of any area required to be landscaped. (d) Planting areas using rock mulch or decorative rock shall have 50 percent of the ground surface covered by vegetation at plant maturity. (e) Natural colors shall be used. (6) Mulch (a) Organic mulch such as bark or soil aid shall be applied and maintained in all planting areas at a minimum two-inch depth, except that decorative rock mulch may be permitted as part of the approved landscape plan. (b) Use of mulch as the only ground cover in required planting areas is prohibited. (c) Impermeable plastic weed barrier under the mulch is prohibited. E.
Water Conservation and Xeriscaping Standards The landscape plan shall reduce water consumption through site design, plant selection, irrigation practices, and improved soil water holding capacity through amendment with compost, complying with the following conservation principles and standards.”: (1) Xeriscaping In addition to those standards in Subsections (2) through (5), below, the following principles shall apply to all required landscaped areas: (a) Design required landscaping to address the physical site characteristics of the property, the needs of those using the property and the best water-conserving methods. (b) Use mulches and water retaining soils to reduce evaporation, discourage weed growth and keep the soil cool. (2) Soil Amendment Prior to the installation of lawn or other plant materials in areas that have been disturbed or compacted by construction activity, soils shall be amended to increase soil water holding capacity. Proper soil amendment includes thoroughly loosening soils to a depth of six inches, adding compost as a soil amendment at a rate of four cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of total area to be planted, and thoroughly incorporating compost to a depth of at least two inches. Areas with existing native vegetation that remain undisturbed shall be exempt from soil amendment; provided that native soil and vegetation in such area is protected from disturbance and compaction during the construction process. (3) Lawn Areas (a) Lawn areas shall be a drought-tolerant and/or adaptive sod or seed mix that is appropriate to the natural conditions found at the site, except that lawn species that require regular mowing or maintenance, such as Kentucky Bluegrass: i.
Shall not exceed 33 percent of the landscaped area on a site; and
ii.
Shall not be used in median strips, parking strips, or difficult-to-maintain areas less than six feet in width.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
272
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.3 General Landscaping Standards
(b) Lawn areas larger than 15,000 square feet shall have soil moisture sensors that are properly installed and adjusted. (c) In all zoning districts, any area that does not provide recreational value or is used solely for decorative purposes is prohibited from using lawn that requires regular maintenance for landscape purposes. This prohibition includes but is not limited to the installation of Kentucky Bluegrass turf in roadway medians, traffic circles and roundabouts, street frontage areas located between detached sidewalks and curbs, and within parking lot landscaped islands or stormwater swales. Low ground cover alternatives shall be used to the maximum extent practicable. (4) Plant Selection and Location (a) Plants shall be placed based on adaptability to regional and micro climatic conditions, including shade, sun, and wind. (b) Plants having similar water needs shall be grouped together in distinct hydrozones and spaced to minimize watering needs while maximizing growth and spread of plants. (c) Native and other low-water-use plants shall be installed to the maximum extent practicable. (d) Invasive, destructive, and exotic plants shall not be installed. (5) Water Features Water features such as fountains, waterfalls and ponds are discouraged, but if used shall comply with the following standards: (a) The water used shall be recycled through the feature; (b) The feature shall be designed to prevent leakage; (c) Provisions for continued maintenance of the feature shall be identified in a narrative that accompanies the landscape plan; and (d) Evidence of the right to use the water for this purpose is required when the water will be obtained from an irrigation ditch or a well. F.
Placement and Installation of Trees (1) Location and Spacing All trees planted pursuant to this Section 11-04-09 shall comply with the following standards. Class I, II, and III trees are identified in the Treasure Valley Tree Selection Guide. (a) For every 60 feet of perimeter landscape, one Class III tree shall be planted. (b) Class III trees shall be spaced 40 to 50 feet apart, depending on mature crown spread. (c) Class II trees may be used and spaced 25 to 45 feet apart, depending on mature crown spread. (d) Class I trees shall be used where overhead power lines prohibit use of taller trees and may be used to mark entry points into a subdivision or to mark a special feature.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
273
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.3 General Landscaping Standards
(e) Class I trees shall be spaced 15 to 30 feet apart, depending on mature crown spread. (f)
For design flexibility, trees may be grouped together or spaced evenly as desired. Unless Community Forestry approves an alternative spacing, trees shall be spaced no closer than 80 percent of the average mature width of the trees as demonstrated in the following examples:
Figure 4.23. Tree Spacing Calculation Example
(2) Curbing to Protect Trees All planting areas that border driveways, parking lots and other vehicle use areas shall be protected by curbing, wheel stops, or other protective devices located a minimum of 30 inches from all tree trunks. (3) Avoiding Interference with Utilities The following standards apply to the planting of trees near existing utilities and to trenching for new utilities near existing trees: (a) Overhead Utilities Class I may only be planted under or within 10 lateral feet of any overhead utility wires if approved by Community Forestry. (b) Underground Utilities i.
All trees shall be planted outside of any utility easement, unless written approval is obtained from the applicable agency.
ii.
All trees shall be planted outside of any easement that contains a City sewer main, unless written approval is obtained from the City Engineer.
iii.
If any utility easement precludes trees required by this Section, the width of the required buffer shall be increased to accommodate the required trees.
(c) Trenching New underground utilities shall be located outside of the critical root zone of existing trees if trenched or be tunneled a minimum of three feet below existing Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
274
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.3 General Landscaping Standards
grade within the tree's critical root zone. If trenching is to be done within the critical root zone, an air spade or hand trenching is required. No root two inches or larger shall be cut. This requirement is for placement of new utilities and does not affect the City's or the utility's ability to access existing utilities for repair, replacement, and maintenance. (4) Avoidance of Irrigation and/or Drainage Easements (a) Any tree planted within any irrigation or drainage easement must have written approval obtained from the agency holding the easement or managing facilities in the easement. (b) If any irrigation or drainage easement precludes installation of any trees required by this Section 11-04-09, the width of the required buffer shall be increased to accommodate the required trees or, if the site cannot accommodate the additional buffer, the applicant shall meet all tree mitigation requirements in Section, Tree Preservation. G.
Berms (1) Berm slopes shall not exceed three to one (3:1, horizontal: vertical). (2) Slopes shall not exceed four to one (4:1) on areas that require mowing.
H.
Clear Areas (1) Trees, shrubs, and other landscaping shall not encroach into the minimum required clear height and width of primary or emergency vehicle access. (2) Trees, shrubs, and other landscaping shall not encroach into any pedestrian walkway, including but not limited to sidewalks and multi-use pathways. (3) Landscaping shall not block the clear vision triangle at street intersections as determined by the ACHD. (4) The clear vision triangle shall be kept free of visual barriers including vegetation, except deciduous trees pruned at least eight feet in height above the sidewalk and 14 feet above the roadway, and walls, signs, vehicles, solid fences, or other sight obstructions exceeding three feet in height.
I.
Irrigation (1) Irrigation Required All landscape areas requiring irrigation shall be served with an automatic underground irrigation system. Areas of landscaping that will not require supplemental watering after initial establishment are not required to have permanent irrigation. (2) Irrigation Water Source (a) To the maximum extent practicable, all requirements for landscape irrigation for all forms of development and redevelopment shall be met through the use of non-potable surface water as defined by Idaho Code 67-6537. (b) If non-potable surface water supply is available prior to an annexation of land or City approval of a change of use for the property pursuant to this Code, the use of such water shall be retained for landscaping irrigation purposes following such City approvals.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
275
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.4 Street Frontage Landscaping
J.
Installation (1) Certificate of Completion Before issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy, a licensed landscaping professional shall submit to the city certification that the landscaping has been installed in compliance with the approved plans. Certification shall demonstrate that a certified arborist has been consulted. (2) Installation Schedule All required landscaping, irrigation systems and site features shall be installed according to the approved landscape plan prior to issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy. (3) Extension of Time for Installation Upon recommendation of the Planning Director, a temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued for a specified time period, not to exceed 180 days when: (a) Due to weather or other circumstances, the landscaping or other required site amenities cannot be completed; and (b) The applicant has provided surety to the City for the required improvements.
4.
Street Frontage Landscaping A.
Applicability Street frontage landscaping shall be required to be installed between the curb and inside of sidewalk and between the sidewalk and each street-facing façade or parking lot, as applicable, of a primary Multiple-Family, mixed-use, and nonresidential building. Street frontage landscaping between the sidewalk and street-facing facades shall not be required in the MX-1, MX-2, MX-3, MX-4, and MX-5 zoning districts where a landscape buffer would prevent the placement of a proposed building at the allowed front or street side setbacks.
B.
Size and Location (1) Street frontage landscaping shall be installed along the full width of the required front setback. (2) All required landscaping shall be located outside any public street right-of-way to the maximum extent practicable. (3) The required planting area between the sidewalk and façade or parking lot shall be measured from the property line (after dedication of any right-of-way) or from the back of the sidewalk, whichever is greater. (4) Landscape buffer widths shall be a minimum of eight feet for Class II and III trees and ten feet for Class I trees, as measured from the inside of the sidewalk to the inside of the curb. (5) Irrigated landscaping, by agreement with the Ada County Highway District (ACHD), is required in unpaved areas within the undeveloped public street right-of-way.
C.
Street Trees The following standards shall apply to all areas located between a detached sidewalk and a public street right-of-way. If an attached sidewalk is present, the following standards shall
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
276
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.5 Site Perimeter Buffers
apply to the area located between the attached sidewalk and the closest primary building on the property. (1) All required street frontage landscaping shall be planted with trees and shrubs, or other vegetative groundcover, not including turf that requires regular maintenance, with a minimum density of one tree per 40 lineal feet. (2) The largest possible class of tree shall be planted in street frontage landscaping to the maximum extent practicable. (3) Coniferous and evergreen trees are only allowed to be installed in planting areas between sidewalks and streets greater than 20 feet in width in width. (4) Tree grates shall be a minimum of 36 square feet in size. (5) Trees located in the public right-of-way shall be comply with Title 7, Chapter 3 of the Boise City Code.
Figure 4.24. Street Frontage Landscaping
5.
Site Perimeter Buffers A.
Arterial and Collector Street Buffering (1) Applicability Where lots containing Single-Family Detached or Attached, Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex, Co-Housing, Cottage Village Dwellings or Manufactured Home Communities are adjacent to collector or arterial streets as shown on the current Ada County Highway District Master Street Map, the following landscape buffer standards apply. (2) Frontage Road (a) Frontage roads, as permitted by the Ada County Highway District and separated from a collector or arterial street by a 10 foot wide landscape buffer, may be permitted. (b) The landscape buffer shall be planted with trees and shrubs that at maturity will form a solid screen at least six feet high and a continuous tree canopy.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
277
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.5 Site Perimeter Buffers
(3) Side and Rear Perimeters (a) If a non-buildable lot abutting an arterial or collector street is created pursuant to Section 11-04-04.4.E(2), Side and Rear Lot Line/Property Lines, it shall be landscaped pursuant to Subsection B below. (b) If the buffer required by Section 11-04-04.4.E(2), Side and Rear Lot Line/Property Lines, is located within one or more platted lots, only the required side and/or rear setbacks on those lots (not the entire depth of the buffer shall be landscaped pursuant to Subsection B below. (c) Fences and walls shall not be placed within the following areas:
B.
i.
The internal boundary of the required landscape buffer;
ii.
A minimum of five feet from the back of attached sidewalks;
iii.
At the back of sidewalks separated from the curb by landscaping (unless the fence is not higher than four feet tall); or
iv.
15 feet from back of curb.
Other Side and Rear Perimeter Buffers (1) Applicability Side and rear landscape buffers shall be required for all boundaries of Multiple-Family, mixed-use, and nonresidential developments that are not adjacent to collector or arterial streets as shown on the current Ada County Highway District Master Street Map. (2) Size and Location Landscape buffer widths shall be based on the required setbacks of the underlying zoning district or the minimum width to accommodate the required plantings at full maturity, whichever is greater. All required side and rear buffers shall be located within the property and shall be maintained by the property owner. Where a utility easement is present, buffers shall be located adjacent to but not interfere with the easement. (3) Parking Lot/Vehicular Use Area Buffers (a) If an interior side or rear lot line/property line is adjacent to a parking lot or other vehicular use area including but not limited to vehicle sales areas, truck and bus parking areas and driveways the perimeter landscape strip shall be planted with one tree per 40 lineal feet. (b) Species shall be selected from the Treasure Valley Tree Selection Guide or an alternative approved by Community Forestry. (c) Clustering of trees is allowed, but clustered trees shall be spaced no closer than 80 percent of the average mature width of the trees, except as otherwise allowed by Community Forestry. (d) In the event of a conflict between the standards in Subsection (a) above and the standards in Section 11-04-09.5.B(4), Lot Buffers Between Different Land Uses below, the standard requiring the more intense visual screen, as determined by the Planning Director, shall apply.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
278
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.5 Site Perimeter Buffers
(4) Lot Buffers Between Different Land Uses (a) Applicability Lot buffers shall be required along the entire contiguous property lines between Residential uses and mixed-use or nonresidential uses. (b) Required Landscaping Required buffering shall be of one of the following four different types of landscaping, each of which has a defined purpose, but all of which shall be required to provide visual buffering to a height of eight feet above grade at maturity. i.
Type A – Screened Separation Type A landscaping is intended to function as a full screen and visual barrier.
Figure 4.25. Type A Landscaping
ii.
Type B – Filtered Screen Type B landscaping is intended to function as a visual separator.
Figure 4.26. Type B Landscaping
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
279
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.5 Site Perimeter Buffers
iii.
Type C – Visual Enhancement Type C landscaping is intended to function as a partial visual separator that softens the appearance of parking areas and building elevations.
Figure 4.27. Type C Landscaping
iv.
Type D – Other Type D landscaping is all other landscaped areas that do not quality as Type A, B, or C landscaping.
(c) Standard Buffer Types i.
Each required standard buffer shall comply with the buffer widths and planting requirements in Table 11-04.17 below.
TABLE 11-04.17: STANDARD BUFFER TYPES STANDARD
TYPE A
TYPE B
TYPE C
TYPE D
PRIMARY PLANT MATERIALS [1]
A mix of primarily evergreen trees and shrubs
A mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs
Primarily deciduous trees
Native and low maintenance trees and shrubs, flower and perennial beds, and limited lawn areas
PLANT SPACING
The selected plant materials and configuration shall provide full horizontal screening of the site feature or adjacent property within six years of installation.
Trees provided at the rate of one tree per 40 linear feet of landscape strip
Trees provided at the rate of one tree per 40 linear feet of landscape strip
N/A
ADDITIONAL PLANTING MATERIALS
Groundcover
Groundcover
Shrubs and groundcover
N/A
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
280
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.5 Site Perimeter Buffers
TABLE 11-04.17: STANDARD BUFFER TYPES STANDARD
ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPING
TYPE A
TYPE B
TYPE C
TYPE D
N/A
Alternative tree spacing will be considered provided the plant materials and configuration meet the intent of the standards within three years of planting.
Alternative tree spacing will be considered provided the plant materials and configuration meet the intent of the standards within three years of planting.
N/A
Notes: [1] All buffer areas shall be comprised of, but not limited to, a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative groundcover. Fences, walls, and berms may also be incorporated into the buffer area.
(d) Standard Buffer Types i.
Standard buffer types A, B, C, and D shall be required in the adjacent use situations shown in Table 11-04.18 below.
TABLE 11-04.18: REQUIRED LANDSCAPE SEPARATORS AND BUFFERS ADJACENT USES AND ZONING
PROPOSED NEW DEVELOPMENT
SINGLEFAMILY ATTACHED & MULTIPLEFAMILY
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL IN NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT
WITH FENCE [1]
WITHOUT FENCE [1]
WITH FENCE [1]
WITHOUT FENCE [1]
B or C
A
B or C
A
NONRESIDENTIAL USE OR VACANT LOT IN NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT
A, B, C, or D B or C
A
B or C
A
OFFICE, COMMERCIAL, AND MIXED-
B or C
A
B or C
A
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
PUBLIC TRAIL OR OPEN SPACE
A, B, C, or D
(UP TO 3 STORIES) OFFICE, COMMERCIAL, AND MIXEDUSE (UP TO 3 STORIES)
STREET RIGHT-OF WAY [2]
A, B, C, or D (storefront building frontages are exempt)
A, B, C, or D (storefront building frontages are exempt)
281
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.5 Site Perimeter Buffers
TABLE 11-04.18: REQUIRED LANDSCAPE SEPARATORS AND BUFFERS ADJACENT USES AND ZONING
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL IN NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT
WITH FENCE [1]
WITHOUT FENCE [1]
WITH FENCE [1]
WITHOUT FENCE [1]
INDUSTRIAL
B or C
A
B or C
A
PARKING AREA
A or B
N/A
B or C
A
PROPOSED NEW DEVELOPMENT
NONRESIDENTIAL USE OR VACANT LOT IN NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT
STREET RIGHT-OF WAY [2]
PUBLIC TRAIL OR OPEN SPACE
USE (> 3 STORIES)
SERVICE, LOADING, OR WASTE MANAGEMENT AREA
A
N/A
A or B
A, B, C, or D C
C
A, B, C, or D
A or B except where designed as a shared service areas with adjacent property
A
A or B
Notes: [1] Fence refers to a privacy fence placed at or near the property line and behind the landscaping. Fences shall have a maximum height of six feet in residential areas and eight feet in commercial/industrial areas. [2] Buffer width shall follow the minimum setback of the underlying zoning district or the minimum width to accommodate the required plantings at full maturity, whichever is greater.
(5) Additional Standards (a) Where existing or proposed adjacent land uses cannot be adequately buffered with plant material(s), the City may require inclusion of a wall, fence, or other type of screen that mitigates noise and/or unsightly uses. If a wall or fence at least six feet tall is provided, the planting requirement may be reduced to at least one tree per 40 lineal feet, plus shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative groundcover, in lieu of the requirements of Subsections (2) and (3). Clustering of trees is allowed, but trees shall be spaced no closer than 80 percent of the average mature width of the trees, except as otherwise allowed by Community Forestry. (b) Chain-link fencing does not qualify as a screening material. If a chain link fence shall be installed for security or other reasons, the buffer must still be landscaped as described in Subsections (2), (3), and (4). (c) Landscaping and screens shall not eliminate required pedestrian access between Residential zoning districts and other districts or land uses. (d) Landscaping and screens shall not conflict with utility easements.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
282
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.6 Parking Lot Interior Landscaping
6.
Parking Lot Interior Landscaping A.
Applicability Interior parking lot landscaping shall be required in any parking lot with 10 spaces or more, including vehicle sales lots, as listed in Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses.
B.
Planter Design and Size (1) Landscaping shall be installed in planter islands or stormwater infiltration swales designed to allow infiltration and passive treatment of stormwater, as shown in Figure 4.28.
Figure 4.28. Landscaping Swale
(2) Planter islands or swales shall be a minimum of eight feet in width for Class II or III trees and 10 feet for Class I trees and shall be at least equal in length to the adjacent parking spaces. Dimensions are measured inside curbs. C.
Landscaping Locations (1) No linear grouping of parking spaces shall exceed 10 in a row, without an interior planter island or swale. (2) Interior planter islands or swales shall be used to guide major traffic movement within the parking area. (3) Terminal planter islands or swales shall be provided at the ends of rows of parking to protect parked vehicles and confine moving traffic to aisles and driveways. (4) Interior planter islands or swales shall be distributed as evenly as practicable to reduce the visual impact of long rows of parked cars. (5) Internal parking lot walkways shall include shade trees planted along at least one side of the walkway and spaced at a minimum of one tree per 30 linear feet.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
283
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.6 Parking Lot Interior Landscaping
Figure 4.29. Internal Parking Lot Planting Standards
D.
Trees Required (1) Each interior or terminal planter island or swale that serves a single row of parking spaces shall be landscaped in compliance with Type C landscaping as described in Section 11-04-09.5.B(4)(b)iii and at least one Class III tree. (2) Each interior or terminal planter island or swale that serves a double row of parking spaces shall have at least two Class II trees and shall be covered with low shrubs or other vegetative groundcover. (3) Class I trees shall only be allowed where a larger class of tree would create conflicts with overhead utility lines. (4) Deciduous shade trees shall be pruned to a minimum height of eight feet above the adjacent parking areas. Evergreen trees are prohibited in interior planters.
Figure 4.30. Parking Lot Interior Landscaping
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
284
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.7 Building Foundation Planting
E.
Lights Prohibited Light poles and fixtures shall be located outside of landscape planter islands, landscape buffers or swales that contain required trees.
7.
Building Foundation Planting All street-facing building elevations, except for those in the MX-5 zoning district and those located within 20 feet of the front lot line/property line in the MX-1, MX-2, MX-3, and MX-4 zoning districts, shall have landscaping along any exposed foundation except those portions of the buildings that provide access for pedestrians or buildings to the building. Foundation landscaping shall comply with the following standards:
8.
A.
The landscaped area shall be at least three feet wide and shall not impede on the passage of pedestrians on the adjacent sidewalk;
B.
There shall be at least one three-gallon shrub for every three feet of linear foundation; and
C.
Ground cover plants shall fully cover the remainder of the landscaped area.
Tree Preservation All development shall comply with the following standards. A.
Credit Towards Required Landscaping Existing trees that are retained or relocated on site may count toward the required landscaping.
B.
Parking Reduction Healthy desirable trees may be preserved in exchange for a parking reduction as set forth in Section 11-04-08.7.C, Tree Preservation.
C.
Mitigation Trees (1) Each healthy desirable tree with four inch caliper or greater that is removed shall be replaced with one or more trees with a combined caliper equal to the caliper of the tree that was removed. (2) Each required replacement tree shall be of one-and-one-half inch caliper or greater. (3) Required replacement trees shall be located either on-site or off-site based on the recommendation of the City Forester.
D.
Protection During Construction (1) Applicants shall coordinate with Community Forestry during construction to ensure adequate tree protection. Trees within a construction area shall be evaluated by a certified arborist, and a tree inventory of the site should be used to develop a tree protection plan that includes tree descriptions, protection fences, protection of root zones, and other information identified by the City Forester. (2) Existing trees that are retained shall be protected from damage to bark, branches, and roots during construction. Protection barriers around existing trees are required for the duration of construction. Protection barriers shall be an immovable metal fence with no door or access within the tree protection zone and a minimum height of six feet, and shall be installed prior to construction with adequate signage.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
285
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.9 Stormwater Integration
(3) Irrigation shall be provided within the tree protection zone throughout the duration of construction and shall be removed, when appropriate, in conjunction with the installation of permanent irrigation. Acceptable irrigation delivery methods include but are not limited to drip irrigation, above ground sprinklers, soaker hoses, or tanks. (4) Construction within the tree protection zone of existing trees shall be avoided to the maximum extent practicable, but where construction activities must occur, they shall comply with the following standards: (a) Between six and 12 inches of mulch/wood chips or four inches of mulch with ground protection mats on top shall be used to reduce soil compaction. (b) Trunk protection shall be installed to the maximum extent practicable for trees that are near impervious surfaces, or where vehicles or pedestrians performing work within the tree protection zone may cause damage. (c) Impervious surfaces may be allowed at a distance from the trunk of a retained tree not less than the diameter at breast height plus five feet. (d) If excavation is required within the critical root zone, air spading, hand digging, and/or boring methods shall be used, and if root pruning within the critical root zone is required, pruning shall be performed by hand, to the maximum extent practicable. (e) Grade changes within the critical root zone of existing trees shall be avoided to the maximum extent practicable and are only permitted following a recommendation by the City Forester or a certified Arborist. (f)
Tree pruning for clearance shall be performed by a certified Arborist prior to construction.
(g) New underground utilities to be placed within the critical root zone of existing trees shall be installed as pursuant to Section 11-04-09.3.F(3)(c), Trenching.
9.
Stormwater Integration A.
Purpose The purpose of this Section 11-04-09.9 is to encourage the incorporation of vegetated, well-designed stormwater filtration swales into landscape areas where topography and hydrologic features allow. Such integrated site designs improve water quality and provide a natural, effective form of flood and water pollution control. Landscape areas which incorporate stormwater swales shall generally be in addition to the landscaping required by this Section.
B.
Design Standards New Multiple-Family, mixed-use, and nonresidential development shall comply with the following standards to the maximum extent practicable, after initial consultation with Planning and Development Services and Public Works Departments regarding the appropriateness of the site and initial designs. Additional information regarding stormwater system design is provided in the Boise Stormwater Design Manual and Stormwater Plant Materials Resource Guide, that are available from the Public Works Department.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
286
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.9 Stormwater Integration
(1) Street Swales Except for Industrial Uses, as listed in Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses, swales shall not be located in required landscape buffers along streets. Swales located along streets within required landscape buffers may be approved through the Alternative Compliance process in Section 11-04-09.11. Swales located within street buffers shall meet the following standards: (a) Swales shall not exceed twelve inches in storage depth; (b) The beginning of the swale slope hall be separated from the edge of the sidewalk by a minimum of two feet; (c) Street trees shall be provided as required by this Section; (d) Rapid sand infiltration windows shall be integrated for timely drainage of stormwater; and (e) No infiltration basins are allowed. (2) Perimeter Buffers Swales located within required buffers in side and rear yards shall meet the following standards: (a) Swales shall not exceed 18 inches in storage depth; (b) Trees shall be provided as required by this Section; and (c) Rapid sand infiltration windows shall be integrated for timely drainage of stormwater. (3) Materials and Design (a) Gravel, rock, or cobble on the surface of swales shall not exceed 20 percent of the surface area of the bottom of the swale. Cobble may be incorporated into required landscape areas if designed as a dry creek bed or other design feature. (b) Stormwater swales shall be vegetated with appropriate plant materials. Plant materials shall be a species that are able to withstand the anticipated changes in soil wetness and moisture levels. Examples of appropriate plants materials include, but are not limited to: i.
Trees River Birch (Betula nigra), American Hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Cottonwood (populus trichocarpa), Willow (salix spp), Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and Mountain Alder (Alnus tenuifolia).
ii.
Shrubs Red Osier Dogwood (Cornus sericea), Serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), Rhododendrons (Rhododendron sp.), American Cranberry Bush (Viburnum trilobum), Golden Currant (Ribes aureum) and Drummond Willow (Salix drummondiana).
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
287
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.10 Fences, Walls, and Screening
iii.
Groundcovers Sedges (Carex sp.), Spike Rush (Eleocharus acicularis), Maiden Grass (Miscanthus sp.), and Fountain Grass (Pennisetum sp.).
iv.
Comprehensive List A comprehensive and updated list of appropriate plant materials can be found on the City website and should be consulted.
(c) Organic mulch shall not be used adjacent to the flow path. Plant material shall be installed adjacent to the flow path and infiltration area to aid in capturing sediment and reducing clogging. (d) Open water ponds and holding areas with a permanent water level are not permitted in required landscape or buffer areas, except along Interstate-84. However, ponds that are aesthetically designed with special grading and vegetative features may be approved as provided for through Alternative Compliance. (e) Slopes shall not exceed three to one (3:1, horizontal: vertical).
10. Fences, Walls, and Screening A.
Permitted Fencing and Screening Materials (1) In Historic Districts, a Certificate of Appropriateness is required for fences made with any material other than wood or wrought iron. (2) Electric fences are prohibited. (3) Barbed wire is permitted only in the I-1 and I-2 zoning districts unless the Planning Director determines that it is necessary for public safety and security related to a specific use, and only as the top section of a security fence. Barbed wire shall be located at least 72 inches above grade. (4) Walls, lattices, and screens shall be considered to be fences. (5) Boxes, sheet metal scraps, old or decayed wood, broken masonry blocks, or other unsightly materials are prohibited. (6) Chain-link fencing shall not qualify as a screening material.
B.
Permitted Fences (1) In Residential and Mixed-Use zoning districts, maximum fence heights are as follows: (a) Solid fences to a height of 36 inches or open-vision fences to height of 48 inches may be built within the front yard setback. Open-vision may include slatted fences where the gap width is at least 50 percent of the slat width. (b) Fences to a height of 72 inches may be built within the setbacks along the rear and side property lines. The Planning Director may authorize a greater height if the Planning Director determines the additional height is necessary for public safety and security related to a specific use. (c) Fences between the front setback and the front of the building may be built to a height of forty-eight inches, except that the Planning Director may approve a
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
288
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.10 Fences, Walls, and Screening
greater height to appropriately screen windows from headlights or other disruptive lighting impacts from the street. (d) One ornamental gate or entryway in a front or street side setback may be allowed to exceed the fence height limits, provided the gate or entryway does not exceed eight feet in height by six feet in width, and is not located within a clear vision triangle.
Figure 4.31. Ornamental Gate or Entryway Dimensions
(2) Standards Applicable to All Fences (a) The property owner installing the fence shall locate the fence entirely on their property or within an easement unless agreements are made with the abutting property owners. (b) If a fence is to be erected upon and within public right-of-way, approval must also be obtained from the ACHD. (c) In Mixed-Use zoning districts, concrete and masonry walls of any height and fences over seven feet tall shall be approved by the Building Department. (d) Fences, walls, or plantings on or within the clear vision triangle shall be limited to 36 inches in height. (e) Multiple fences, railings, and/or privacy screens within setbacks shall be separated by a minimum distance of five feet in order to be considered separate.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
289
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.10 Fences, Walls, and Screening
Figure 4.32. Fence Separation in Setbacks
(f) C.
All fences shall be maintained in accordance with Section 11-04-013.1, Landscaping, Buffering, and Screening Maintenance.
Retaining Walls The following shall apply to retaining walls located within setbacks: (1) Individual retaining walls shall not exceed 36 inches in height when located within a front setback or clear vision triangle. (2) Individual retaining walls shall not exceed 72 inches in height when located within any other setback. (3) Walls shall be separated by a minimum distance of five feet in order to be considered as separate walls.
Figure 4.33. Distance for Separation
(4) If the wall is located in the HS-O district, multiple walls with a combined height that exceeds the height allowed in the setback may be approved through the Category 2 Hillside Development Permit process if the design complies with the following conditions:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
290
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.10 Fences, Walls, and Screening
(a) The additional height is necessary and appropriate because of the size, configuration, topography, or other unique characteristics of the property; (b) The Planning Director and City Engineer have jointly determined that the height, location, and grading for the walls are the minimum necessary for reasonable development of the property; (c) The additional height will not have any substantial detrimental effect on adjacent or nearby properties; (d) Terraces between the walls are of sufficient width and depth to accommodate landscaping or other techniques designed to reduce the visual impact. Conditions requiring such techniques shall be incorporated into the permit; and (e) Clear vision triangles are free of obstructions that exceed 36 inches in height. D.
Screening (1) Applicability This Section 11-04-09.10.D shall apply to all Multiple-Family, mixed-use and nonresidential development in all districts, except the I-2 zoning district when not adjacent to residential uses. (2) Parking and Storage Areas All parking and storage areas including vehicle sales areas, truck parking areas, bus parking areas, and service drives shall comply with the following standards: (a) A solid Type B screen at least five feet deep, with a height not less than eight feet shall be provided when a parking lot is adjacent to the side and/or rear yard of a residential land use. (3) Service Areas (a) All developments shall comply with all applicable regulations, ordinances, and design standards for solid waste adopted by the City, including specifics around site design and solid waste service. If there is a conflict between the requirements of this Section and solid waste design standards, the Planning Director in consultation with the Director of Public Works shall determine which standard shall apply. (b) Service areas visible from the street, pathway, public space, or parking area shall be enclosed and screened around their perimeter by a durable wall or fence at least six feet high. (c) Developments shall use materials and detailing consistent with primary structures on-site. Acceptable materials include brick, concrete block, or stone. (d) The sides and rear of the enclosure shall be screened with Type A, B, or C as described in Section 11-04-09.5.B(4)(b), at least five feet deep in locations visible from the street, dwelling units, customer parking areas, or pathways to soften the views of the screening element and add visual interest. (e) Collection points shall be located and configured so that the enclosure gate swing does not obstruct pedestrian or vehicle traffic or does not require that a hauling truck project into any public right-of-way.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
291
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.10 Fences, Walls, and Screening
Figure 4.34. Service Area Enclosure and Landscaping Requirements
(4) Mechanical and Utility Equipment (a) Roof-Mounted i.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be integrated into the building’s overall design so as not to be visible from five feet above ground on any lot line/property line, and from any adjacent public rights-of-way or open spaces to the maximum extent practicable.
ii.
Where integration to avoid visibility is not practicable, roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from five feet above ground on any lot line/property line, and from any adjacent public rights-ofway or open spaces using parapet walls or an enclosure using one of the primary building façade colors to surround the equipment.
Figure 4.35. Roof-Mounted Screening
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
292
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.10 Fences, Walls, and Screening
(b) Ground-Mounted Ground-mounted mechanical equipment located within view of customer entrances and public rights-of-way or open spaces shall be integrated into the overall site design, the architectural design of the building, and screened from public view using one or a combination of the following: i.
A decorative wall, fence or enclosure that is constructed of one of the primary materials and colors used on the adjacent façade of the building, and of a height that is not less than the height of the equipment to be screened; or
Figure 4.36. Ground-Mounted Equipment Wall Enclosure
ii.
Landscaping that is of sufficient height at maturity and of opacity to effectively soften and screen views of the equipment, and that is integrated into the overall landscape plan.
Figure 4.37. Ground Mounted Equipment Landscaping
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
293
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-09. Landscaping, Fencing, Walls, and Screening 11-04-09.11 Alternative Compliance
11. Alternative Compliance A.
Purpose The purpose of this Section 11-04-09.11 is to provide for alternative means to meet the intended purposes of the landscaping requirements in this Section 11-04-09 when explicit compliance is not practicable or the alternative means are superior to what is required.
B.
Process (1) General The applicant shall request Alternative Compliance in conjunction with the submittal of a Zoning Certificate, Conditional Use Permit, or Design Review application, or upon the determination that the development does not comply with the specific provisions of this Section 11-04-09, at the applicant’s option. The request will be considered by the same approval body as the base application. The request shall specify: (a) The specific requirements that are proposed to be modified; (b) The reasons for the modification; and (c) A demonstration of how the alternative means for compliance meets the requirements' intended purpose. (2) Stormwater Swales Stormwater swales within front setbacks can be approved administratively provided that the landscape plans approved by the applicable approval body are not changed substantially and comply with Section 11-04-09.9. A landscape plan with swale construction details that incorporates the landscape design shall be submitted for the staff level review.
C.
Standard The proposed alternative means for compliance with the specific requirements shall demonstrate that the alternative provides an equal or superior means of meeting the intent and purpose of the regulation.
D.
Required Findings An application for Alternative Compliance may be approved if the Planning Director determines that: (1) Strict adherence or application of the requirements is not practicable because one of the following conditions exist: (a) Topography, soil, vegetation, or other site conditions are such that full compliance is impossible or impractical; (b) The site involves space limitations or an unusually shaped lot; (c) Safety considerations; (d) Other regulatory agencies or departments having jurisdiction are requiring design standards that conflict with the requirements of this Section; (e) The proposed design includes innovative design features based on "new urbanism," "neotraditional design," or other site designs that promote walkable and mixed use neighborhoods; or
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
294
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-010. Assured Water Supply 11-04-09.12 Compliance with Design Standards
(f)
Environmental quality benefits.
(2) The Alternative Compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and (3) The alternative means will not be detrimental to the public welfare or adversely affect the uses and character of surrounding properties.
12. Compliance with Design Standards A.
In addition to the standards required by this Section 11-04-09, all Multiple-Family, mixeduse, and nonresidential development shall comply with the standards and other mandatory content in the Citywide or Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines, as applicable in the area where the property is located.
B.
In the event of a conflict between the standards in this Section 11-04-09 and applicable standards in the Citywide or Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines, the provision requiring the higher level of visual building quality and interest, as determined by the Planning Director, shall apply.
11-04-010. 1.
Assured Water Supply
Applicability Unless otherwise exempt pursuant to 11-04-010.2 below, and regardless of whether or not the development requires a Subdivision of Land, on and after July 1, 2024 the following development shall demonstrate that it has an Assured Water Supply by providing an analysis, meeting the requirements of 11-04-010.4 as part of the development application process:
2.
A.
All proposed development on previously undeveloped land;
B.
All proposed development or redevelopment that includes the creation of five or more total dwelling units; and
C.
All proposed development or redevelopment in a Groundwater Management District (GMD) defined by Idaho Statute 42-5224; Critical Groundwater Area (CGA) or Groundwater Management Area (GMA) defined by Idaho Statute 42-233A and 233B, respectively; or an Aquifer Recharge District (ARD) defined by Idaho Statute 42-4201.
Exemption The Planning Director may exempt a project from the requirements of this Section if the applicant has submitted information demonstrating that, upon completion of the project and issuance of all required use and occupancy permits, the development or redevelopment will not increase total consumptive water use when compared to the use of the property at the time of application.
3.
Designated Water Provider Every municipal provider of water as a public utility, with a service area within the City limits or the City Area of Impact and that intends to serve any proposed redevelopment or new development subject to the provisions of this Section, is required to be certified as a Designated Water Provider by demonstrating it has an Assured Water Supply, as defined in Subsection 4. as approved by the Planning Director or designee.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
295
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-010. Assured Water Supply 11-04-010.4 Elements of Demonstrating Assured Water Supply
4.
Elements of Demonstrating Assured Water Supply To demonstrate a water supply is assured, information provided must meet the following criteria. A Designated Water Provider shall base its analysis of the criteria upon reasonable population projections within the existing certificated service area. An individual applicant shall base its analysis on the maximum permitted occupancy of the proposed development or redevelopment: A.
Physical and Legal Water Availability (1) An individual applicant shall demonstrate that it has sufficient physical and legal water availability by providing a copy of a water right permit issued by the Idaho Department of Water Resources with a permitted quantity in an amount sufficient to supply water to the maximum occupancy of the development. If the applicant does not have a water right permit at the time of application, the applicant may submit, in the alternative, a hydrologic analysis demonstrating the physical availability of water supply for the demand of the development or redevelopment. (2) A Designated Water Provider shall demonstrate that it has sufficient physical and legal water availability by providing: (a) A copy of the water right permit(s) or license(s) issued by the Idaho Department of Water Resources; and (b) A hydrological analysis demonstrating the physical water supply is sufficient to meet the total forecasted demand at full build out within the existing certificated service area.
B.
Adequate Delivery Demonstrate that adequate water delivery, storage, and treatment works will be available to or be constructed for the project or existing certificated service area for a period of at least 50 years.
C.
Financial Capability Demonstrate the financial capability to construct the water delivery infrastructure and any required storage and/or treatment facilities to meet: (1) Additional demand of the project for an individual applicant; or (2) The forecasted total demand at full build out within the existing certificated service area for a Designated Water Provider
D.
Continuous Water Availability Demonstrate the redundancy in supply and delivery of water for the 50-year period such that service to: (1) The proposed development for an individual applicant; or (2) The forecasted total demand at full buildout within the existing certificated service area for a Designated Water Provider will be uninterrupted under any reasonably foreseeable circumstance.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
296
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-010. Assured Water Supply 11-04-010.5 Proof of Assured Water Supply Required
E.
Water Quality Demonstrate current compliance or the future ability to comply with the Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems and/or the Recycled Water Rules for the intended beneficial use at the time of the application.
F.
Compliance with GMD, CGA, GMA, ARD Standards If the property is located in a Groundwater Management District (GMD), Critical Groundwater Area (CGA) Groundwater Management Area (GMA), or Aquifer Recharge District (ARD), demonstrate that the applicable standards and requirements are met.
5.
Proof of Assured Water Supply Required Each applicant subject to these provisions shall provide an Assured Water Supply analysis, as defined in Section 11-04-010.4.D above, as part of the development application process. Proof may be provided by: A.
A letter from a Designated Water Provider committing all or a portion of its Assured Water Supply to meet the anticipated water demands of Project Completion; or
B.
The applicant may submit to the City an independent Assured Water Supply analysis, prepared at the applicant’s expense, subject to approval by Planning Director or designee confirming that the application has an Assured Water Supply for Project Completion.
Applicant shall comply with all licensure requirements of Idaho state code, to the extent submission of information within such analysis is subject thereto.
6.
Representations The proof of Assured Water Supply shall be submitted to the Planning Director or his designee on a form acceptable to the City Attorney and include a written representation by the Designated Water Provider or the applicant, that:
7.
A.
The information is true and complete to the best of their knowledge;
B.
The representations are binding upon the signing party and its successors in interest; and
C.
The individual executing the letter has any and all required authorization to submit the materials.
Certification and Required Recertification Upon review and acceptance of the proof by the Planning Director, the application is certified to have met the requirements of this Section, provided that the applicant or Designated Water Provider, as applicable, must recertify proof of its Assured Water Supply if any of the follow occur: A.
By the Designated Water Provider (1) More than 10 years have passed since obtaining approval by the Planning Director or designee of its Assured Water Supply; (2) The Designated Water Provider applies to enlarge its certificated service area; or (3) The City has experienced extreme or exceptional drought, according to the United States Drought Monitor, for a majority of months within each calendar year for a period of three consecutive years.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
297
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-011. Exterior Lighting 11-04-011.1 Purpose
B.
By the Applicant (1) More than 10 years have passed since obtaining approval by the Planning Director or designee; (2) The project, subject to the application, has changed in scope such that there is a change in the type or intensity of water demand; or (3) The City has experienced extreme or exceptional drought, according to the United States Drought Monitor, for a majority of months within each calendar year for a period of three consecutive years.
11-04-011. 1.
Exterior Lighting
Purpose The purpose of this Section 11-04-011 is to provide for exterior lighting to enhance safety, minimize light trespass from developed areas, reduce sky-glow, improve nighttime visibility through glare reduction, encourage lighting techniques and systems that conserve energy, reduce the adverse effects light can have to wildlife behavior and reproduction, and reduce development impact on nighttime environments.
2.
Applicability A.
All outdoor lighting in all zoning districts shall comply with the standards in this Section 11-04-011 unless exempted by Subsection B below or by another provision of this Code.
B.
The following are exempt from this Section 11-04-011: (1) Luminaires with lamps of 100 watts or less in Residential zoning districts; (2) Emergency lighting used by police, fire fighting, or medical personnel, or at their direction; (3) Traffic control devices and luminaires on these devices installed by the City or other governmental entity; (4) Navigational lighting systems at airports and other lighting necessary for aircraft safety; (5) Holiday lighting and seasonal decorations using typical unshielded low-intensity incandescent lamps; and (6) Lighting for temporary festival, carnivals, or other amusements lasting less than 14 consecutive days, provided the lighting is turned off within 30 minutes after the last event of each day.
3.
Prohibited Lighting The following types of exterior lighting are prohibited: A.
Any lighting that could interfere with the safe movement of motor vehicles, bicycles, or pedestrians on public or private streets;
B.
Searchlights and rotating beacons;
C.
Laser, strobe, and or flashing light sources or any similar high intensity light for outdoor advertising or entertainment;
D.
Mercury vapor and low-pressure sodium lighting; and
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
298
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-011. Exterior Lighting 11-04-011.4 General Standards
E.
4.
Tower lighting, unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
General Standards All exterior lighting for all uses, other than the I-2 zoning district, shall comply with the following standards. A.
Lighting Types and Efficiency (1) Light sources shall be color-correct types such as Halogen, LED, or metal halide. (2) All lighting shall have a nominal correlated color temperature (CCT) of no greater than 3,500 degrees Kelvin. (3) All exterior light fixtures shall generate at least 80 lumens per watt of energy consumed, as shown on the manufacturers’ specifications for the fixture.
B.
Shielding (1) All lighting fixtures, except motion detector-activated lighting, shall be fully shielded so that the lighting element is not visible to an observer at any property line. (2) Unless otherwise specified, all lighting fixtures shall be full cutoff type as installed.
Figure 4.38. Examples of Full-Cutoff Light Fixtures
Figure 4.39. Example of Required Light Cutoff
(3) A lighting fixture may beam light upward only if all upward light is reflected back down by a canopy, roof, or other such structure. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
299
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-011. Exterior Lighting 11-04-011.4 General Standards
C.
Light Trespass All lighting shall be designed so that the lighting level at each property line that does not front on a public or private street shall not exceed 1.0 footcandle.
Figure 4.40. Light Trespass
D.
Reduced Lighting During Evening Hours All outdoor light fixtures within Residential, Mixed-Use, Industrial, and Open Land districts shall remain off between 11:00 p.m. and sunrise except for security purposes or to illuminate walkways, driveways, equipment yards, and parking lots.
E.
Maintenance All outdoor light fixtures shall be maintained in accordance with Section 11-04-013.2, Exterior Lighting.
F.
Parking Lots or Areas (1) Average luminance values in surface parking areas shall be a maximum of four footcandles. (2) Parking lot poles shall not exceed 20 feet in height. (3) Pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths in parking areas shall be lit with pedestrianscale lighting as described in Subsection H, below.
G.
Canopy Lighting Light fixtures installed in canopies, pavilions, drive-through bays, or similar structures shall be flush-mounted or recessed above the lower edge of the canopy and shall be equipped with flat lenses that do not project below the canopy ceiling. The canopy fascia shall not be internally illuminated.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
300
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-011. Exterior Lighting 11-04-011.5 Alternative Compliance
Figure 4.41. Example of Canopy Lighting
H.
Pedestrian-Scaled Lighting All on-site pedestrian walkways shall be lit with bollard lamps with shatterproof lamp coverings that direct light downwards, mounted no higher than four feet above grade.
I.
Lighting Within Planter Islands and Landscape Buffers Lighting fixtures and poles shall not be located in planter islands or landscape buffers or in any location that will in the future interfere with the natural growth of required trees.
5.
Alternative Compliance A.
Purpose The purpose of this Section to provide for alternative means to meet the intended purposes of the exterior lighting requirements in this Section 11-04-011 when explicit compliance is not practicable or the alternative means are superior to what is required.
B.
Process The applicant shall request Alternative Compliance in conjunction with the submittal of a Zoning Certificate, Conditional Use Permit, or Design Review application, or upon the determination that the development does not comply with the specific provisions of this Section 11-04-011, at the applicant’s option. The request will be considered by the same approval body as the base application. The request shall specify: (1) The specific requirements that are proposed to be modified; (2) The reasons for the modification; and (3) A demonstration of how the alternative means for compliance meets the requirements' intended purpose.
C.
Required Findings An application for Alternative Compliance related to alternative lighting designs, materials, or methods of installation or operation not specifically prescribed by this Code may be approved if the Planning Director determines that:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
301
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-011. Exterior Lighting 11-04-011.6 Historic Street Lights
(1) The Alternative Compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements of this Section 11-04-011; and (2) The alternative means will not be detrimental to the public welfare or adversely affect the uses and character of surrounding properties.
6.
Historic Street Lights A.
Applicability The applicant shall install historic street lights in the following areas: (1) Historic Districts; (2) The Downtown Planning Area; (3) Any other areas with historic character; and (4) The shaded areas in the Downtown Historic Street Light Area shown in Figure 4.42;
Figure 4.42. Map of Downtown Historic Street Light Area
(5) The shaded street frontages on the Harrison Boulevard and Hyde Park Historic Street Light Areas shown in Figure 4.43 and 4.45.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
302
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-011. Exterior Lighting 11-04-011.6 Historic Street Lights
Figure 4.43. Map of Harrison Boulevard Historic Street Light Area
Figure 4.44. Map of Hyde Park Historic Street Light Area
(6) The shaded street frontages on the Vista Historic Street Light Area shown on Figure 4.45, below.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
303
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-011. Exterior Lighting 11-04-011.6 Historic Street Lights
Figure 4.45. Map of Vista Historic Street Light Area
(7) The shaded street frontages on the Warm Springs Historic Street Light Area shown on Figure 4.46.
Figure 4.46. Map of Warm Springs Historic Street Light Area
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
304
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-011. Exterior Lighting 11-04-011.6 Historic Street Lights
B.
General Standards Where required, historic street lights shall comply with the lighting and spacing requirements in this Subsection B, unless an exception to these standards in Subsection C applies. (1) General (a) These standards establish general location requirements only; exact locations will be determined in consultation with the Director of Public Works. (b) Historic street lights shall be located to match the street light on the opposite side of the street. (c) When replacement is required, historic street lights shall be replaced in the same location. (2) By Sub-District (a) Downtown District As required by the latest approved Capital City Development Corporation design standards, except that the Grove Plaza, 30th Street Area, and Broad Street shall instead comply with the standards in Subsection C below. (b) Vista Avenue District Three lights per block evenly spaced along both sides of the street. (c) Harrison Boulevard District Lights shall be located at either end of the street and in each center island. (d) Hyde Park District 65 to 75 feet spacing, on both sides of the street. (e) Warm Springs District: Three lights per block evenly spaced along both sides of the street.
C.
Exceptions to General Standards (1) The Grove Plaza Street lights in the Grove Plaza shown in Figure 4.47 shall be the Landscape Forms FGP 12 foot light, using model numbers and light requirements obtained from the Public Works Department, and with locations of light fixtures to be determined by the Public Works Department.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
305
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-011. Exterior Lighting 11-04-011.6 Historic Street Lights
Figure 4.47. The Grove Plaza
(2) 30th Street Area Streetlights on Main Street south to I-184 and within the district boundary east and west, as shown on Figure 4.48, shall comply with the following standards: (a) The light fixture for this area is the EPAX Eurotique Aluminum Pole Series 12 foot light, using model numbers and light requirements obtained from the Public Works Department. (b) On east-west streets, four lights per block shall be installed and shall be evenly spaced. (c) On north-south streets a light shall be installed at each alley. (d) Locations of light fixtures shall be determined by the Public Works Department.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
306
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-011. Exterior Lighting 11-04-011.6 Historic Street Lights
Figure 4.48. 30th Street Area
(3) Broad Street Street lights on Broad Street from Capitol Boulevard to Second Street, as shown on Figure 4.49, shall comply with the following standards. (a) The light fixture for this area is the EPAX Eurotique Aluminum Pole Series 12 foot, Eurotique Arms and Antique Street Lamps Munich Pendant, using model numbers and light requirements obtained from the Public Works Department. (b) Light locations are to be determined by the Public Works Department.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
307
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-012. Signs 11-04-012.1 Purpose
Figure 4.49. Broad Street Area
D.
Installation (1) All historic street lights shall be installed and paid for by the developer of the project, shall meet current Public Works standards and be approved and inspected by the Public Works Department. (2) If the installation is not associated with a specific development, the applicant shall contract the work with technical assistance provided by the Public Works Department. (3) Upon completion and successful inspection, the Public Works Department will accept ownership of the lights and assume responsibility for operation and maintenance costs.
11-04-012. 1.
Signs
Purpose The purpose of this Section 11-04-012 is to: A.
Protect the health, safety, property, and welfare of the public;
B.
Provide for the neat, clean, orderly, and attractive appearance of the community;
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
308
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-012. Signs 11-04-012.2 Applicability
2.
3.
C.
Improve the effectiveness of signs;
D.
Provide for safe construction, location, erection, and maintenance of signs;
E.
Minimize adverse visual safety factors to the traveling public; and
F.
Comply with all applicable provisions of state and federal law regarding freedom of speech and sign content neutrality.
Applicability A.
All signs and advertising devices within the City boundaries shall be established, altered, changed, erected, constructed, reconstructed, moved, divided, enlarged, demolished, or maintained in compliance with this Section 11-04-012.
B.
This Section shall be interpreted and enforced so as to avoid violation or inconsistency with applicable state or federal law.
Prohibited Signs The following signs are prohibited in all zoning districts, unless specifically permitted by another provision of this Section 11-04-012, this Code, or other City, state, or federal law. A.
Signs or posters that are visible from a public way and are affixed to walls, buildings, trees, poles, fences, bridges, or other structures;
B.
Signs placed on any street right-of-way, sidewalk, pole, bridge, or tree; such signs may be deemed nuisances and removed by the City without prior notice;
C.
Banners, pennants, strings of lights, ribbons, streamers, balloons, mechanically aided, or similar devices that call attention rather than contribute to the establishment décor;
D.
Portable signs except those allowed as temporary signs and those allowed in the MX-5 district.
E.
Signs whose lighting, location or appearance would cause such signs to have the appearance of traffic safety signs and lights, or municipal vehicle warnings;
F.
Any sign attached to or placed on a vehicle or trailer that is parked on public or private property or driven on public streets, except for signs that comply with the following standards: (1) The primary purpose of such a vehicle or trailer is not the display of signs; and (2) The signs are magnetic, decals or painted upon an integral part of the vehicle or equipment; and (3) The vehicle or trailer is in operating condition, currently registered and licensed to operate on public streets, and actively used or available for use in the daily function of the establishment to which such signs relate;
G.
Roof signs;
H.
Animated signs;
I.
Strobe lights and flashing lights;
J.
Any sort of sign used to advertise or display any visually communicated message by letter or by picture, of any kind, on any seating bench, or in direct connection with any bench
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
309
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-012. Signs 11-04-012.4 Signs Not Requiring a Permit
unless authorized by the regional public transportation system authority as permitted from the Planning Director; and K.
4.
Abandoned signs, including but not limited to any on-premises sign that relates to an establishment that no longer occupies or operates on the property where the sign is located.
Signs Not Requiring a Permit The following shall be exempt from requirement to obtain a Sign Permit under Section 11-0505.1.C or shall be required to comply with other applicable provisions of this Section 11-04-012, unless an exception or deviation from those standards is authorized by another provisions of this Code or other City, state, or federal law. A.
General Signs (1) Official notices authorized by a court, public body, or public safety official. (2) Directional, warning or information signs authorized by a government. (3) Memorial plaques, establishment identification signs and building cornerstones when cut or carved into a masonry surface or when made an integral part of the building or structure. (4) The flag of government or noncommercial institution, such as a school. (5) Religious symbols and seasonal decorations. (6) Works of art containing no form of advertising. (7) Street address signs and combination nameplate and street address signs that contain no advertising copy and which do not exceed 6 square feet in area. (8) Signs oriented only to the property on which they are located and which are not visible from the public right-of-way, such as restaurant menu boards. (9) Signs in the display windows of an establishment that are incorporated in a display of merchandise. (10) "No Trespassing," "No Dumping" or similar signs not to exceed one and one-half square feet in area and not exceeding four per parcel. (11) Window signs that maintain 25 percent or less aggregate area of the window area. (12) Political signs that are not placed in any public right-of-way and do not obstruct traffic visibility. (13) Neighborhood identification, and wayfinding signage approved as a community program.
B.
Temporary Signs (1) Non-illuminated real estate signs that comply with the following standards: (a) One per residential parcel. (b) One per frontage for nonresidential. (c) Six square feet for a single residential lot. (d) 32 square feet in Residential and Open Land zoning districts. (e) 64 square feet in Mixed-Use and Industrial zoning districts.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
310
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-012. Signs 11-04-012.5 Signs Requiring a Permit
(2) Non-illuminated signs temporarily erected during construction to inform the public of the nature of the project that comply with the following standards: (a) One per residential parcel. (b) One per frontage for nonresidential parcel. (c) Six square feet for a single residential lot. (d) 64 square feet in Residential and Open Land zoning districts. (e) 96 square feet in Mixed-Use and Industrial zoning districts. (f)
Eight feet maximum height.
(3) Such signs shall not be displayed until after the issuance of construction permits and shall be removed not later than 24 hours following issuance of an occupancy permit for any portion of the project. (4) Signs and posters advertising a special community event, including in or over public rights-of-way, subject to approval by the Planning Director as to the size, location, and method of erection based on considerations of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety and impacts on surrounding areas. Signs that might impair safety or obstruct traffic visibility shall not be approved. (5) Pennants, flags, banner, balloons, and promotional sandwich boards during and for community events in the Grove that comply with the following standards: (a) Signs shall not remain in place overnight. (b) Sandwich boards shall not exceed a maximum height of four feet or a width of three feet.
5.
Signs Requiring a Permit Unless specifically exempted by Subsection 4 above or other provision of this Code or other City, state, or federal law, each erection or installation of a sign in the City shall require the approval of a Sign Permit pursuant to Sections11-05-05.1.D, Sign Permit for On-Premise Sign 1105-05.1.E, Temporary Sign Permit, as applicable. Sign Permits are not required for change of copy, repainting, or other normal maintenance and repair, provided there is no expansion of the sign structure or face.
6.
General Sign Standards A.
Sign Measurement (1) Sign Height The distance from the adjacent ground elevation supporting the sign to the highest point of the sign. A landscape berm or other structure erected to support the sign shall be measured as part of the height. If the street to which the sign is oriented is higher than the grade at the base of the sign, then the street elevation shall be used as the ground elevation for purposes of calculating the permitted height of the sign. (2) Sign Area (a) Sign area is calculated as the area within a continuous perimeter with up to eight straight sides that encloses the limits of text and graphics of a sign. Additionally, this area includes any frame or other material or color forming an integral part of
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
311
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-012. Signs 11-04-012.6 General Sign Standards
the display or used to differentiate the sign’s message from the background against which it is placed. The area excludes the structure upon which the sign is placed (unless the structure is an integral part of the display), but includes any open space contained within the outer limits of the display face of a sign, or between any component, panel, strip, or figure of any kind composing the display face, whether this open space is enclosed by a frame or border or not. (b) When computing the sign area, only the face or faces that can be seen from one direction at one time, shall be considered.
Figure 4.50. Sign Area Measurement
B.
Design (1) Pole support structures shall be covered with an enclosure. (2) Signs shall complement the architectural style of the building.
C.
Traffic Visibility (1) Signs shall not be permitted in the clear vision triangle as defined in this Code and ACHD. (2) Signs shall not be erected at any intersection or driveway entrance location that will obstruct the view of traffic, as determined by the Planning Director, ACHD, or the Idaho Transportation Department.
D.
Adjacent to Residential Zones Signs in Mixed-Use, Industrial, or Open Land zoning districts shall not be located within 50 feet of a Residential zoning district boundary. Where a zoning district boundary is the centerline of the street, the distance shall be measured to the opposite street side.
E.
Street Trees Trees shall not be topped or removed to facilitate better view of signs.
F.
Maintenance and Repair Signs shall be maintained in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-04-013, Operations and Maintenance.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
312
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-012. Signs 11-04-012.7 On-Premise Signs
7.
On-Premise Signs A.
Accessory On-Premise Signs (1) Awning Sign (a) Applicability Awning signs are prohibited in the Residential zoning districts (excluding the R-3 zoning district), and in the A-1 and A-2 zoning districts. (b) Standards The copy area of awning signs shall not exceed an area equal to 25 percent of the background area of the awning to which the signs is affixed, or the permitted area for wall or fascia signs, whichever is less. Background colors, striping, patterns, or valances shall not be included in the computation of the sign area. (2) Canopy and Marquee Signs (a) Applicability Canopy and marquee signs are prohibited in the Residential zoning districts, excluding the R-3 zoning district, and in the A-1 and A-2zoning districts. (b) Standards for Under Canopy or Marquee Signs (Hanging Signs) i.
There shall be no more than one under canopy or under marquee sign per public entrance to any tenant or user space, and shall not exceed 16 square feet;
ii.
Each sign shall maintain a clear vertical distance above any sidewalk or pedestrian way a minimum of eight feet; and
iii.
Each sign shall be mounted perpendicular to the building wall.
(c) Standards for Above Canopy and Above Marquee Signs i.
The maximum sign width shall be no more than 33 percent of the canopy background width;
ii.
The minimum space between the bottom edge of the letter and the top of the canopy background shall be 1.5 inches; and
iii.
The maximum height of each letter shall be no more than three times the canopy background height, with a maximum of 30 inches, whichever is less.
(d) Standards for Signs on Marquees i.
No more than one sign shall be permitted on each side of a marquee, and any such sign shall be in lieu of a wall, canopy, or projecting sign;
ii.
The sign area of each side shall not exceed two square feet of total area per lineal foot of building frontage or 200 square feet, whichever is smaller;
iii.
The vertical dimension of the sign shall not exceed six feet; and
iv.
The bottom of the sign shall have a minimum vertical clearance of twelve feet above the sidewalk or pedestrian way.
(3) Freestanding Signs Freestanding accessory signs shall comply with the standards set forth in Table 1104.19 and the following standards. Freestanding signs: Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
313
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-012. Signs 11-04-012.7 On-Premise Signs
(a) Shall be located within a landscaped area no smaller than the background area of the sign; new landscaped areas shall be reviewed as part of the sign application. Decorative rock may be a component of the landscaping area counted to calculate its area for this purpose; (b) Shall include the street address in letters at least three and one-half inches tall; (c) Shall be oriented perpendicular to the street providing frontage to the establishment and be located toward the front of the parcel and as close to the main vehicle entrance as possible. Orientation to interstate highways or the I-184 Connector is prohibited; (d) Shall be set back at least five feet from the front property line in Residential and Mixed-Use zoning districts, and one foot in Industrial and Open Land zoning districts. The entirety of the sign must be located outside of the setbacks. (e) Shall be set back at least five feet from side property lines in all zoning districts; (f)
Shall not exceed one per street frontage, except that: i.
Where two signs are allowed for a single establishment on a street corner or a collection of buildings within an integrated commercial center, each sign shall be designed and located so as to be viewed only from the street on which it is located; and
ii.
In lieu of two signs, one corner sign designed to be viewed from both streets is allowed, provided it complies with other provisions of this Code;
(g) May have architectural appurtenances with no text extend up to two feet over the allowed height. TABLE 11-04.19: FREESTANDING SIGN, MAXIMUM BACKGROUND AREA AND HEIGHT ZONING DISTRICT
MAXIMUM BACKGROUND AREA (SQUARE FEET)
MAXIMUM HEIGHT (FEET)
GATEWAY (FEET) [1]
R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, R-2, R-3, A-1, A-2
1 per 3 lineal ft. of street frontage up to 50
6
6
MX-1
1 per 3 lineal ft. of street frontage up to 50
8
8
MX-3, MX-4, MX-5, MX-U, I-1, I-2
70
15
12
MX-2
80
20
12
Notes: [1] Applies to freestanding signs oriented toward the following streets: Capitol Boulevard; Vista Avenue from 1-84 north; Broadway Avenue from I-84 north; State Street from State Capitol to Highway 55; Myrtle Street; Front Street; Federal Way from Capitol Boulevard. to Bergeson Street; Warm Springs Avenue; Park Center Boulevard.
(4) Directional Signs (a) Up to two directional signs shall be permitted at the street entrance to any parcel. The maximum area is four square feet and the maximum height is four feet.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
314
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-012. Signs 11-04-012.7 On-Premise Signs
(b) Non-accessory directional or wayfinding signs may be erected by governments giving direction to places of general interest such as colleges, parks, hospitals, or Neighborhood Associations. Such signs shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director as to the size, location, and method of erection. (5) Electronic Message Displays (EMD) (a) Applicability i.
EMDs are permitted for all uses located in the Mixed-Use, Industrial, and Open Land zoning districts.
ii.
EMDs are only permitted for nonresidential uses located on collector or arterial roadways in the Residential zoning districts and in the A-1, and A2zoning districts.
(b) Standards All electronic message displays shall comply with the following standards: i.
Only one EMD is permitted per establishment. For establishments located in a center, only one EMD is permitted for the center.
ii.
No EMD may be installed on a non-conforming sign.
iii.
EMDs shall contain static messages only, and shall not have movement, or the appearance or optical illusion of movement, of any part of the sign structure, design, or pictorial segment of the sign, including the movement or appearance of movement of any illumination or the flashing, scintillating, or varying of light intensity.
iv.
Each message or frame shall be displayed for a minimum of 20 seconds.
v.
The area used for an EMD shall not occupy more than 50 percent of the total sign area.
vi.
The brightness or intensity of the EMD shall be factory set not to exceed 5,000 nits on clear days and 500 nits from dawn to dusk. The EMD shall also not exceed 50 percent of its maximum brightness on clear days and 10 percent of maximum brightness from dawn to dusk. Each display shall have a light sensing meter that will adjust the display brightness as the ambient light changes.
vii. Text-only single-color message displays with letters no higher than 12 inches may scroll or travel without the static message limitation. Maximum area for such displays is eight square feet. (6) Portable Signs (a) Applicability Portable signs are only permitted in the MX-5 district and shall comply with the following standards. (b) Standards i.
Number A.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
Each ground floor establishment with street frontage is allowed one per street frontage. 315
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-012. Signs 11-04-012.7 On-Premise Signs
B. ii.
One sign per building frontage may be permitted for upper levels and one for below ground uses.
Maximum Sign Area Maximum sign area is seven square feet.
iii.
iv.
Location A.
Signs shall be located outside vision triangles in the furnishing zone or close to the curb in front of the establishment and shall not obstruct pedestrian traffic or violate ADA guidelines.
B.
If adequate space does not exist in a furnishing zone or near the curb, a sign may be placed in a vestibule or alcove near a building entrance, so long as a five foot clear pedestrian zone is maintained. Signs shall not be placed within five feet of the curb abutting an on-street accessible parking stall.
Materials Signs shall be made of stable and durable materials and complimentary in design to the immediate area.
(7) Projecting Sign (a) Applicability Projecting signs are prohibited in the Residential zoning districts, excluding the R-3 zoning district, and in the A-1 and A-2 zoning districts. (b) Standards i.
Maximum Background Area The maximum background area shall be:
ii.
iii.
A.
The lesser of five percent of the wall area facing a street or 50 square feet in the MX-1 district.
B.
The lesser of 10 percent of the wall area facing a street or 75 square feet in all other districts where allowed.
C.
When both projecting and wall signs are used, the maximum area for both signs is reduced by 50 percent.
Number Allowed A.
One per street level establishment for each street frontage.
B.
Where there is more than 150 feet of frontage for one establishment, a second sign is permitted.
Projection Above Building Height No sign shall extend vertically above the highest point of the building façade upon which it is mounted by more than two feet.
iv.
Projection from Wall The projection from the wall shall be no more than 10 feet, or to within two feet of the face of the curb, whichever is less.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
316
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-012. Signs 11-04-012.7 On-Premise Signs
v.
Clearance Clearance over public property shall be a minimum of 12 feet.
vi.
Maximum Height No portion of any projecting sign shall extend more than 30 feet above the ground.
(8) Wall Signs (a) Wall Signs Oriented to Interstate Highways i.
Applicability In the Mixed-Use, Industrial, and Open Land zoning districts, properties that abut I-84 or I-184 southwest of 15th Street may have one wall sign per establishment oriented to the highway, provided the sign complies with the following standards:
ii.
Standards A.
Area One square foot in sign area for each lineal foot of wall up to 32 square feet.
B.
Height Shall not exceed the height of the wall or 30 feet.
iii.
Prohibited Signs EMDs and other forms of signage using light emitting diode (LED) technology are prohibited.
(b) All Other Wall Signs Wall signs shall comply with the standards in Table 11-04.20 and the following standards: i.
Wall signs shall not project above the wall to which they are attached.
ii.
Wall signs shall face the street or streets that the building faces, except that a sign on a building wall in a Mixed-Use, Industrial, or Open Land zoning district that does not face a street may be permitted if it complies with the following standards:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
A.
The sign area may be borrowed from that allowed on the building wall facing the street; and
B.
The sign area shall not exceed 10 percent of the building wall; where multiple tenants or users are located in a single building, and allowable sign area is allocated between some or all of those tenants or users, the calculation of the 10 percent maximum sign area shall be allocated among each tenant or user based on the square footage of the ground floor wall space of the building frontage occupied by that individual tenant or user, rather than the wall area of the building as a whole.
C.
For commercial centers with multiple tenants, allowed signage for each tenant is based on the percentage allowed for the zone and calculated 317
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-012. Signs 11-04-012.8 Alternative Sign Plan
based on the square footage of the ground floor wall space of that individual tenant; and D. iii.
The sign faces an abutting property zoned Mixed-Use, Industrial, or Open Land.
In Mixed-Use, Industrial, or Open Land zoning districts, the sign area allowed may be divided among multiple signs according to Table 11-04.20 below.
TABLE 11-04.20: WALL SIGNS ZONING DISTRICT
B.
MAXIMUM SIGN AREA
R (Multiple-Family and nonresidential signs), A-1, and A-2
One square foot per three lineal feet of building wall facing the street. Maximum 50 square feet.
MX-1
One square foot per two lineal feet of building wall facing the street. Maximum 75 square feet.
MX-3, MX-4
15% of building wall facing the street.
MX-2, MX-5, MX-U, I-1, I-2
20% of building wall facing the street.
Temporary Signs (1) Special Promotions, Event and Grand Opening Signs Any lawful location for a nonresidential use, except a Home Occupation, may have one temporary, portable sign that complies with the following standards, after obtaining a Sign Permit pursuant to Section 11-05-05.1.E Temporary Sign Permit: (a) Within any calendar year, each establishment shall be limited to the display of one temporary sign for a maximum of three 30 consecutive day periods. Each 30 day period shall be separated by at least 30 days. (b) Maximum sign area is 32 square feet. (c) Maximum sign height for freestanding signs is eight feet.
8.
Alternative Sign Plan A.
Multi-tenant nonresidential developments that are planned and developed as an integrated center or a single, multi-tenant building shall obtain approval of an Alternative Sign Plan pursuant to Section 11-05-05.2.A before constructing or installing any sign on the property. This includes but is not limited to: (1) Hospital complexes on sites of two acres or larger; (2) Office centers with multiple building on sites of two acres or larger; (3) Industrial parks with multiple buildings on sites of five acres or larger; and (4) Single, multi-tenant buildings on sites of two acres or larger.
B.
The Alternative Sign Plan shall establish standards and criteria for all signs that require Sign Permits and shall address location, materials, design, and quantity.
C.
One freestanding center sign is permitted on each street frontage, with a maximum of two, according to the provisions of the following Table 11-04.21. Where there is more than 1,000 feet of frontage on a street, a second sign is allowed. Center signs on Gateway Streets shall not exceed the Gateway Street height standards.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
318
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-012. Signs 11-04-012.9 Off-Premise Signs
D.
Freestanding signs shall be located as near to the primary access driveway to the maximum extent practicable.
E.
Freestanding signs in Mixed-Use, Industrial, and Open Land zoning districts shall not be closer than 150 feet from any Residential district.
F.
Separate building pads within centers and parks are allowed one monument style sign with a maximum height of six feet and a maximum background sign area of 32 square feet, but shall not exceed the standards in Table 11-04.19.
G.
Wall signs are permitted in any number, location, or orientation, provided they do not face a Residential district, and provided the total square footage does not exceed 18 percent of the ground floor tenant wall face upon which the signs are placed.
H.
Sign height and placement shall be consistent throughout the development.
I.
Signs shall incorporate materials, colors and design motifs that are compatible with buildings in the development. TABLE 11-04.21: CENTER SIGN MAXIMUM BACKGROUND AREA AND HEIGHT MAXIMUM BACKGROUND AREA (SQUARE FEET)
MAXIMUM HEIGHT (FEET)
MX-1
80
8
MX-3, MX-4, MX-5, MXU, I-1, I-2
100
25
MX-2
150
30
ZONING DISTRICT
9.
Off-Premise Signs A.
Off-Site Identification When off-site identification is needed because of excessive distance from a public street, lack of street frontage, unusual topography or other special circumstances, an off-premise sign may be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. The standard conditional use approval criteria and the special circumstances noted above shall be used to evaluate the request. The base zoning district standards for sign size and location shall apply.
B.
Poster Panel and Bulletin Panel Off-Premise Signs (Billboards) Each application for a billboard shall be accompanied by a demolition permit for an existing billboard. The number of billboard signs in the City shall not be increased except through annexation. Off-premise poster panels and bulletin panels are only permitted in the MX-2, MX-3, I-1, and I-2 zoning districts, and only after approval of a Conditional Use Permit, provided that no signs may be located on Capitol Boulevard or on Federal Way between Capitol Boulevard and Bergeson Street. (1) Approval Criteria The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make the following findings: (a) That the sign will not negatively impact the visual quality of a public open space.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
319
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-012. Signs 11-04-012.10 Special Sign Districts
(b) That the sign will not block the view of a structure of historical or architectural significance. (c) That sign height is compatible with buildings within a 300 foot radius. Where view of the sign would be blocked by buildings, or where view of buildings would be blocked by the sign, the sign height shall not exceed the building height by more than 12 feet. Where there are no buildings within 300 feet, sign height shall not exceed 22 feet. (d) That sign lighting will not trespass onto adjacent properties. (2) Design and Location New signs shall comply with the following standards: (a) Sign area height shall not exceed 10.5 feet. (b) Sign area shall not exceed 248 square feet for poster panels and 378 square feet for bulletin panels. (c) Sign height shall not exceed 40 feet, but may be limited to less by 11-04012.9.B(1)(c) above. (d) No sign may be located within 1,000 feet of another billboard on the same side of the street. However, if a sign is larger than 312 square feet, the distance to another such sign shall be at least 2,000 feet. (e) A sign on one side of the street may be no closer than 150 feet from a sign on the opposite side of the street, as measured along the line of travel. (f)
At any street intersection, there may be no more than 496 combined square feet of billboard sign area within 250 feet measured from the street corner curbs.
(g) Back-bracing is prohibited. (h) View of the sign should be unobstructed for 250 feet along the line of travel. (i)
Electronic message displays are allowed with static frame effects that change with no transition - no more frequently than every 20 seconds. Brightness levels shall comply with Section 11-04-012.7.A(5)(b)vi. A change from non-EMD to EMD requires the approval of a sign permit.
(j)
Setbacks shall be at least five feet from any property line. When adjacent to a Residential zoning district, the setback of that residential zoning district shall be met.
10. Special Sign Districts A.
Capitol Boulevard Sign Standards In addition to the generally applicable sign regulations of this Section 11-04-012, these special standards apply in the Capital Boulevard Special Design District. (1) Review (a) Signs require Design Review approval as an overall sign plan for the site. (b) The Design Review Commission shall provide recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission on requests for Variances and Conditional Use Permits.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
320
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-013. Operations and Maintenance 11-04-013.1 Landscaping, Buffering, and Screening Maintenance
(2) General Standards (a) One wall sign, or one projecting sign, or one canopy sign, or one freestanding sign per building is permitted for each street frontage in accordance with the following standards. i.
Wall signs shall not exceed 15 percent of the wall area or 65 square feet in size, whichever is less.
ii.
Projecting signs shall not exceed 25 square feet in area and shall not exceed the building height or 20 feet, whichever is less.
iii.
Freestanding signs are allowed as per the size and height regulations for Gateway Streets in Table 11-04.19.
(b) One wall sign per street frontage may exceed the maximum size allowed in Subsection (a) if it is reviewed and approved by the Design Review Commission. The Design Review Commission shall take into account the scale and height of the building, the visibility and orientation of the proposed sign, and impacts on the Capitol Boulevard view corridor when evaluating these requests. (c) In addition to the signs in Subsection (a), each building with more than one tenant or occupant is allowed either: one 20 square foot wall sign or one 12 square foot projecting sign per tenant or occupant located on the ground floor of the building. (d) Colors, materials, and lighting shall be restrained and harmonious with the building and site. (e) Use of neon is encouraged for illumination. (f)
11-04-013. 1.
Electronic message displays are permitted only with a Conditional Use Permit. Manual readerboards require approval by the Design Review Commission.
Operations and Maintenance
Landscaping, Buffering, and Screening Maintenance All landscaping, buffering, and screening required by this Code shall be maintained by the property owner in compliance with the following standards. A.
No required street tree shall be topped without the written permission of the City. For street trees not located within a public right-of-way, alternative pruning techniques to achieve specific horticultural or aesthetic effects may be used if approved by the Parks and Recreation Department. Examples include pleached allee, pleached bosque, espalier, and pollarded canopy.
B.
Tree grates shall be widened to accommodate the growing tree trunk and prevent girdling of any trees planted in tree wells within sidewalks or other public right-of-way.
C.
Plant materials that exhibit evidence of insect pests, disease, and/or damage shall be appropriately treated to correct the problem. Dead plant materials shall be replaced.
D.
All required landscaping shall be subject to periodic inspections by City Officials to determine compliance.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
321
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-013. Operations and Maintenance 11-04-013.2 Exterior Lighting
2.
E.
Required landscaped areas in residential subdivisions that are not located in individual lots shall be placed under the control and maintenance of a Homeowners’ Association, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the landscaping will be maintained in an attractive condition by another entity including but not limited to individual property owners or the ACHD.
F.
All fences and walls shall be maintained and kept structurally sound.
Exterior Lighting All exterior lighting required to comply with Section 11-04-011, Exterior Lighting shall be maintained by the property owner in compliance with the following standards.
3.
4.
A.
All lighting fixtures that are required to be shielded shall be installed and maintained so that they maintain compliance with all standards for shielded fixtures as specified in Section 11-04-011, Exterior Lighting and other applicable regulations as adopted by the City.
B.
Exterior lighting fixtures shall comply with the Building Code, the energy efficiency standards, and other applicable regulations adopted by the City.
C.
Exterior lighting shall be maintained in good structural condition at all times.
Signs A.
Signs shall be maintained by the property owner in a state of good appearance, safety, and repair.
B.
Any on-premise sign associated with a building or establishment that has been vacant and unoccupied for more than six months, or any sign no longer associated with the use on the property shall be deemed abandoned and shall be removed by the property owner.
Noise All activities shall comply with Title 5, Chapter 7 of the Boise City Code regarding permissible levels of noise and shall be conducted so as to avoid the creation of any noise that would create a public nuisance interfering with the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties.
5.
Glare, Heat, Smoke, Fumes, Radiation, and Odors Every use shall be operated so that it does not exceed an objectionable or dangerous degree of glare, heat, fumes, electromagnetic radiation, nuclear radiation, or odors beyond any property line of the site on which the use is located.
6.
Vibration Every use shall be operated so that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible, without instruments, at any property line of the site on which the use is located.
7.
Hazardous Materials All uses and activities shall comply with all state and federal laws and regulations regarding the use, storage, handling, and transportation of flammable liquids, liquefied petroleum, gases, explosives, hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, toxic materials, and solid wastes, as those terms are defined by applicable statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
322
Chapter 11-04 Development and Design Standards Section 11-04-013. Operations and Maintenance 11-04-013.8 Waste Materials
8.
Waste Materials A.
No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a property in any form or manner that would permit natural causes or forces to transfer them off the site.
B.
All materials or wastes that may cause fumes or dust, or that constitute a fire hazard, or that may be edible by or otherwise attractive to rodents or insects shall only be stored outdoors in closed solid waste containers that are screened from adjacent property.
C.
All biomedical wastes that are processed through ozonation treatment shall either be beneficially reused, recycled, or rendered safe for disposal in a municipal solid waste landfill or other approved disposal facility, or as otherwise permitted by state and federal law.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
323
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures 11-05-01.
Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter 11-05 is to identify the roles and responsibilities of appointed and elected boards and City Officials, departments, and staff in the administration of this Code and describes the review and decision-making procedures of applications for development.
11-05-02.
Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures
1.
Table 11-05.1: Summary of Review and Decision-Making Procedures identifies the development procedures authorized by this Code and establishes whether public notice and pre-submittal activities are required, the role of the City review and decision-making bodies, and whether public hearings are required during each process.
2.
The Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures lists applications that have unique processes but generally fall within one of four types. Refer to the Specific Procedures to identify unique requirements of each application.
3.
If a specific procedure is not listed in Table 11-05.1, the application shall be subject to a Zoning Compliance Review or the approval of a Zoning Certificate, as determined by the Planning Director.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
324
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-02. Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures 11-04-013.8 Waste Materials
TABLE 11-05.1: SUMMARY OF REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES < > = PUBLIC HEARING
Home Occupation Permit for Family Daycare Home
Type 1 11-05-05.1.B
D
<A>
Record of Survey
Type 1 11-05-05.1.C
D
<A>
Sign Permit for OnPremise Sign
Type 1 11-05-05.1.D
D
<A>
Temporary Sign Permit
Type 1 11-05-05.1.E
D
<A>
Temporary Use Permit
Type 1 11-05-05.1.F
D
<A>
Zoning Compliance Review
Type 1 11-05-05.1.G
D
<A>
D
<A> <A>
Type 1 Ministerial Decisions
Type 2 Planning Director Decisions Allowed Use with Allowed Form
Type 2 11-05-05.2.A
X
Alternative Sign Plan
Type 2 11-05-05.2.B
X
D
Certificate of Appropriateness Minor
Type 2 11-05-05.2.C
X
D
Conditional Use Minor Expansion
Type 2 11-05-05.2.D
X
D
Design Review – Minor
Type 2 11-05-05.2.E
X
Floodplain Permit
Type 2 11-05-05.2.F
X
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
X
X
<A> <A>
D D
<A> <A>
325
City Council
<A>
Planning & Zoning Commission
Hearing Examiner
D
Neighborhood Meeting
Type 1 11-05-05.1
Posted
Hillside Development Permit – Category 2
Application
Type of Procedure and Code Reference
Mailed
Planning Director
REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING BODIES Historic Preservation Commission
PRE-SUBMITTAL ACTIVITIES Interdepartmental Review
PUBLIC NOTICE
X = Required
Design Review Commission
A = APPEAL
Concept Review
D = DECISION
Published
R = RECOMMENDATION
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-02. Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures 11-04-013.8 Waste Materials
TABLE 11-05.1: SUMMARY OF REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES < > = PUBLIC HEARING
<A>
PUD Modification Minor
Type 2 11-05-05.2.H
X
D
<A>
Reasonable Accommodation for Accessibility
Type 2 11-05-05.2.I
X
D
<A>
Residential Small Lot Approval - Minor
Type 2 11-05-05.2.J
X
D
<A>
River System Permit - Minor
Type 2 11-05-05.2.K
X
D
<A>
Zoning Certificate
Type 2 11-05-05.2.L
X
D
<A>
City Council
D
Planning & Zoning Commission
Hearing Examiner
X
Neighborhood Meeting
Type 2 11-05-05.2.G
Posted
Legal Nonconformity Confirmation, Change, or Minor Expansion
Mailed
Application
Type of Procedure and Code Reference
Planning Director
REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING BODIES Historic Preservation Commission
PRE-SUBMITTAL ACTIVITIES Interdepartmental Review
PUBLIC NOTICE
X = Required
Design Review Commission
A = APPEAL
Concept Review
D = DECISION
Published
R = RECOMMENDATION
<D>
<A>
Type 3 Appointed Body Decisions Allowed Use with Alternative Form
Type 3 11-05-05.3.A
X
X
X
X
X
R
Certificate of Appropriateness Major
Type 3 11-05-05.3.B
X
X
X
X
X
R
Conditional Use Permit - Initial Approval or Major Expansion
Type 3 11-05-05.3.C
X
X
X
X
X
R
Design Review Major
Type 3 11-05-05.3.D
X
X
X
X
X
R
Floodplain Variance
Type 3 11-05-05.3.E
X
X
X
X
X
R
Hillside Development Permit - Category 3
Type 3 11-05-05.3.F
X
X
X
X
X
R
<D>
<A>
Legal Nonconformity Major Expansion
Type 3 11-05-05.3.G
X
X
X
X
X
R
<D>
<A>
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
X
<A>
<D>
<D>
<A>
<A>
<D> <D>
326
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-02. Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures 11-04-013.8 Waste Materials
TABLE 11-05.1: SUMMARY OF REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES < > = PUBLIC HEARING
X
R
X
X
X
R
X
X
X
X
R
X
X
X
X
X
R
X
X
X
X
X
R
X
X
R
X
Reclassification of Historic Resource
Type 3 11-05-05.3.I
X
Residential Small Lot Approval - Major
Type 3 11-05-05.3.J
X
River System Permit - Major
Type 3 11-05-05.3.K
Variance
Type 3 11-05-05.3.L
City Council
X
Type 3 11-05-05.3.H
Planning & Zoning Commission
Planning Director
X
PUD Modification Major
Historic Preservation Commission
Interdepartmental Review
X
Application
Type of Procedure and Code Reference
Mailed
Neighborhood Meeting
REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING BODIES
Concept Review
PRE-SUBMITTAL ACTIVITIES
Posted
PUBLIC NOTICE
X = Required
Design Review Commission
A = APPEAL
Hearing Examiner
D = DECISION
Published
R = RECOMMENDATION
<D>
<A> <A>
<D>
<A>
<D> <D>
<A>
<R>
<D>
<R>
<D>
<D>
Type 4 City Council Decisions Annexation of Land and Related Zoning Map Amendment
Type 4 11-05-05.4.A
X
X
X
X
Code Adoption or Amendment
Type 4 11-05-05.4.B
D
X
X
X
X
R
Comprehensive Plan Adoption or Amendment
Type 4 11-05-05.4.C
X
X
X
X
X
R
<R>
<D>
Development Agreement or Modification
Type 4 11-05-05.4.D
X
X
X
X
X
R
<R> [3]
<D>
Major Historic Preservation Actions
Type 4 11-05-05.4.E
X
X [4]
X [4]
X
X
R
<R> [5]
<D> [6]
Subdivision Plat Preliminary
Type 4 11-05-05.4.F
X [7]
X [7]
X [7]
X [8]
X [8]
R
<R>
<D>
Subdivision Plat Final
Type 4 11-05-05.4.G
X [8]
R
D
Subdivision Plat – Replat
Type 4 11-05-05.4.H
<D>
Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning, including Planned Unit Development)
Type 4 11-05-05.4.I
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
X [9]
X
X
X
X
X [9]
X [9]
X [9]
R
X
X
X
R
R [1]
R [2]
<R>
R [1]
R [2]
<R>
327
<D>
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-03. Review and Decision-Making Bodies 11-05-03.1 Purpose
TABLE 11-05.1: SUMMARY OF REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES X = Required
Notes: [1] Only required if application is to establish a Design Review Overlay district other than an HD-O district. [2] Only required if application is to establish an HD-O district. [3] If requested by City Council. [4] Notice varies depending on specific action being requested. [5] Only required if application is to establish or remove an HD-O district. [6] Council action only required if HPC recommends approval for some actions. [7] Required for applications for proposed subdivision that include more than five acres. [8] Required for applications for proposed subdivisions that include 40 or more lots or dwelling units. [9] Varies by type of Replat.
11-05-03. 1.
Review and Decision-Making Bodies
Purpose This purpose of this Section 11-05-03 is to describe the organization, powers, and duties of the offices and governing bodies responsible for the administration of this Code.
2.
City Council A.
Duties, Jurisdiction, and Authority The Boise City Council ("the Council") is the final legislative authority on zoning and land use decisions. The Planning Director and all commissions and committees indicated in this Code function at the direction of the City Council. Specific duties and authority of the City Council related to this Code include but are not limited to the following: (1) Confirm the Mayor's appointments to the memberships of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Design Review Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the position of Hearing Examiner; (2) After receiving a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, Design Review Commission, or Historic Preservation Commission, hear and decide all legislative matters including but not limited to Comprehensive Plan Adoption or Amendments, including amendments to the Future Land Use Map, Code Text Amendments, Annexation of Land, Zoning Map Amendments, Area of Impact provisions, emergency ordinances and moratoriums.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
328
City Council
Planning & Zoning Commission
Historic Preservation Commission
Design Review Commission
Hearing Examiner
REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING BODIES Planning Director
Interdepartmental Review
Neighborhood Meeting
PRE-SUBMITTAL ACTIVITIES
Posted
Application
< > = PUBLIC HEARING
PUBLIC NOTICE
Mailed
Type of Procedure and Code Reference
A = APPEAL
Concept Review
D = DECISION
Published
R = RECOMMENDATION
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-03. Review and Decision-Making Bodies 11-05-03.2 City Council
(3) Hear and decide applications as indicated in Table 11-05.1: Summary of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and in Sections 11-05-04, Common Procedures, 11-05-05, Specific Procedures, and 11-05-06, Nonconformities; and (4) Hear and decide appeals of decisions of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Design Review Commission, and the Historic Preservation Commission. B.
Membership The membership of the City Council shall be as set forth in Election of Council Members by Designated Seat in Title 1, Chapter 9 of the Boise City Code.
C.
Procedures (1) General Rules of procedure for the City Council are set forth in Title 1, Chapter 6 of the Boise City Code. (2) Emergency Ordinances (a) If the City Council finds that an imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare requires adoption of ordinances, or adoption of a moratorium upon the issuance of certain classes of permits, or both, it shall issue a written statement containing the reasons for the adoption. The City Council may then proceed to a hearing without recommendation of a commission and upon any abbreviated notice of hearing that it finds practical to adopt the ordinance or moratorium. (b) An emergency ordinance or moratorium may remain in effect for no more than 182 days. Restrictions established by an emergency ordinance shall not be imposed for consecutive periods. Further, an intervening period of not less than one year shall exist between an emergency ordinance or moratorium and reinstatement of the same emergency ordinance or moratorium. To sustain restrictions established by an emergency ordinance beyond the 182 day period, the City Council must adopt an interim or regular ordinance, following the notice and hearing procedures in Section 11-05-04.5, Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing. (3) Interim Ordinances (a) If the City Council finds that a plan, plan component, or amendment to a City plan is being prepared, it may adopt interim ordinances following the notice and hearing procedures provided in Section 11-05-04.5, Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing. The City Council may also adopt an interim moratorium upon the issuance of certain classes of permits if, in addition to the foregoing, the City Council finds that an imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare requires the adoption of an interim moratorium. (b) An interim ordinance shall state a definite period of time, not to exceed one calendar year, during which it shall be in effect. To sustain restrictions established by an interim ordinance, the City Council must adopt a regular ordinance, following the notice and hearing procedures provided in Section 11-05-04.5, Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
329
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-03. Review and Decision-Making Bodies 11-05-03.3 Planning and Zoning Commission
3.
Planning and Zoning Commission A.
Duties, Jurisdiction, and Authority For enabling legislation for the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) generally, see Title 2 of the Boise City Code. Duties, jurisdiction, and authority of the PZC related to this Code include but are not limited to the following: (1) Prepare and recommend approval of a Comprehensive Plan and periodically review the provisions of the plan and report its findings and recommendations to the City Council; (2) Review and decide applications as indicated in Table 11-05.1: Summary of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and in Sections 11-05-04, Common Procedures and 1105-05, Specific Procedures; (3) As indicated in Table 11-05.1: Summary of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and in Sections 11-05-04, Common Procedures and 11-05-05, Specific Procedures, submit to the City Council, following a public hearing, a report of findings and a recommendation to approve, approve with conditions, or deny each application; (4) Initiate, from time to time, a review of the provisions of this Code, report its findings and recommendations to the City Council; (5) Petition the City Council requesting an amendment of this Code or the Comprehensive Plan, provided that it shall first have held public hearings following the procedures provided in Section 11-05-04.5, Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing; and (6) Perform other functions related to the administration of this Code or related regulations authorized by City Council.
B.
Membership (1) Composition (a) The PZC shall consist of not less than seven nor more than eleven voting members. (b) Members of the PZC shall be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. Members may reside outside of the city limits and within the Area of Impact. The Mayor, in the same manner, shall appoint a member to fill an unexpired term in case of a vacancy. (2) Term of Office Appointment to such office shall be for the period of four years. No person shall serve more than two full consecutive terms without specific concurrence by two-thirds of the City Council adopted by motion and recorded in minutes. If a vacancy shall occur during any unexpired term, the Mayor, with the confirmation of the City Council, shall appoint a member for the balance of the term. (3) Chair The PZC shall appoint one of its members as Chair of the PZC, who shall hold office as Chair for such term as the PZC shall so designate, and the PZC may elect a Vice-Chair who shall act as Chair in the absence of the Chair of the PZC.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
330
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-03. Review and Decision-Making Bodies 11-05-03.4 Design Review Commission
C.
Procedures The rules of procedure for the PZC are as set forth in Title 2, Chapter 4 of the Boise City Code and the by-laws adopted by the PZC. (1) Compensation The members of the PZC shall serve and act without compensation, except that their actual and necessary expenses shall be allowed by the City Council and the City shall provide the necessary and suitable equipment and supplies to enable the PZC to properly transact and perform its business. (2) Quorum A majority defined as half plus one of the active appointed members of the PZC shall be necessary to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. (3) Meetings and Attendance (a) The PZC shall meet in regular hearing once per 30 days on the first Monday of the month for at least nine months of the year. The PZC may hold additional hearings following the regular monthly hearing if required by the volume of applications received, and at such other times as may be called by the Chair or by the Mayor. (b) The members of the PZC are expected to attend scheduled meetings. Members may be excused from attendance due to personal illness, family emergency, or out of town business trips. PZC members whose attendance at scheduled meetings falls below 60 percent without cause within any given year may be removed from the PZC by the Mayor with the approval of Council. (4) Conflict Of Interest Prohibited Members of the PZC shall honor the Code of Ethics within Title 1, Chapter 8 of the Boise City Code and shall not participate in any proceeding or action when the member or their employer, business partner, business associate, or any person related to the member by affinity or consanguinity within the second degree has an economic interest in the procedure or action. Any actual or potential interest in any proceeding shall be disclosed at or before any meeting at which the action is being heard or considered.
4.
Design Review Commission A.
Duties, Jurisdiction, and Authority The duties, jurisdiction, and authority of the Design Review Commission related to this Code include, but are not limited to the following: (1) Maintain and enhance valued environmental features of the City, and ensure that the general appearance of buildings and structures does not impair or preclude the orderly and harmonious development of the community; (2) Review all development proposals within the Design Review Overlay Districts or subject to the adopted Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines and the Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines, and as indicated in Table 11-05.1: Summary of
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
331
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-03. Review and Decision-Making Bodies 11-05-03.4 Design Review Commission
Review and Decision-Making Procedures, Sections 11-05-04, Common Procedures and 11-05-05, Specific Procedures. (3) Develop and recommend to the PZC for Council adoption, special design criteria districts including additional requirements relating to bulk and design or design standards for specific uses, types of uses, parking standards, streetscapes, or other similar items. Where a special district has been adopted, it shall be designated on the zoning map; and (4) Perform other functions related to the administration of this Code or related regulations authorized by City Council. B.
Limitations The DRC is specifically prohibited from requiring reduction in density, reduction in floor area ratio, or other regulations set forth in Table 11-04.2: Residential District Dimensional Standards and Table 11-04.3: Mixed-Use, Industrial, and Open Land District Dimensional Standards that cannot be shown to be required by reason of public safety, health, or destruction or diminution of property values, except as allowed per Section 11-04-03.4, Residential Small Lots.
C.
Membership (1) Composition The DRC shall consist of not less than five nor more than nine voting members. Members of the DRC shall be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council with due regard to the proper representation of such fields as architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, planning (environmental, urban, and town), and the visual arts. Only one member may reside outside of the city limits and within the Area of Impact. The Mayor, in the same manner, shall appoint a member to fill an unexpired term in case of a vacancy. (2) Term Of Office Members shall each serve for a four year term. If a vacancy occurs, the Mayor, with the consent of the City Council, shall appoint a member to fill an unexpired term or may be appointed for a full term. (3) Chair The DRC shall appoint one of its members as Chair who shall hold office for a term of office designated by the DRC. The DRC shall elect a Co-Chair to act as the Chair in the absence of the Chair.
D.
Procedures (1) Compensation The members of the DRC shall serve without pay but shall be reimbursed by the City for necessary expenses incurred in connection with their duties. (2) Quorum A majority defined as half plus one of the active appointed members of the DRC shall be necessary to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
332
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-03. Review and Decision-Making Bodies 11-05-03.5 Historic Preservation Commission
(3) Meetings The DRC shall meet in regular hearing once per 30 days on the second Wednesday of each month. The DRC may hold additional hearings following the regular monthly hearing if required by the volume of applications received, and at such other times as may be called by the Chair or by the Mayor.
5.
Historic Preservation Commission A.
Duties, Jurisdiction, and Authority The duties, jurisdiction, and authority of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) are as follows: (1) Conduct a survey of local historic properties and landmarks; (2) Recommend contracting with the state or federal governments in the pursuit of the objectives of historic preservation; (3) Cooperate with the federal, state, and local governments in the pursuit of the objectives of historic preservation; (4) Participate in the conduct of land use, urban renewal, and other planning processes undertaken by the City, the County, or any other governmental entity; (5) Recommend ordinances and otherwise provide information for the purposes of historic preservation within the City; (6) After having received prior consent of the owner, occupant, or person in charge, and solely in performance of official duties and only at reasonable times, enter upon private lands for the examination or survey such lands; and (7) Review all development proposals within the HD-O district and as indicated in Table 11-05.1: Summary of Review and Decision-Making Procedures, Sections 11-05-04, Common Procedures, and 11-05-05, Specific Procedures.
B.
Membership (1) Composition The HPC shall consist of not less than five nor more than nine voting members. Members of the HPC shall be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council with due regard to the proper representation of such fields as history, architecture, urban planning, archeology, and law. Only one member may reside outside of the city limits and within the Area of Impact. The Mayor, in the same manner, shall appoint a member to fill an unexpired term in case of a vacancy. (2) Term of Office All appointments shall be for a term of three years. If a vacancy occurs, the Mayor, with the consent of the City Council, shall appoint a member to fill an unexpired term or may be appointed for a full term. (3) Chair The HPC shall appoint one of its members as Chair of the HPC who shall hold office as Chair for a consecutive period not to exceed two years. The HPC may also appoint a Co-chairman who shall act as the Chair in the absence of the HPC Chair.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
333
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-03. Review and Decision-Making Bodies 11-05-03.6 Hearing Examiner
C.
Procedures (1) Compensation The members of the HPC shall serve without pay but shall be reimbursed by the City for necessary expenses incurred in connection with their duties. (2) Quorum A majority defined as half plus one of the active appointed members of the HPC shall be necessary to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. (3) Meetings The HPC shall meet in regular hearing once per 30 days. The HPC may hold additional hearings following the regular monthly hearing if required by the volume of applications received, and at such other times as may be called by the Chair or by the Mayor.
6.
Hearing Examiner A.
Duties, Jurisdiction, and Authority (1) This Section authorizes the PZC to use the services of a Hearing Examiner pursuant to the authority granted in Idaho Code §67-6520 ("the Local Land Use Planning Act"). (2) The Hearing Examiner may conduct hearings on behalf of the PZC on matters as indicated in Table 11-05.1: Summary of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and in Sections 11-05-04, Common Procedures, and 11-05-05, Specific Procedures.
B.
Qualifications A person filling the position of Hearing Examiner shall be professionally trained or licensed planner, and/or have land use law legal training and/or experience. The Hearing Examiner shall be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. The Hearing Examiner shall serve at the pleasure of the Mayor.
C.
Procedures (1) Meetings The Hearing Examiner shall meet in regular hearing once per 30 days. The Hearing Examiner may hold additional hearings following the regular monthly hearing if required by the volume of applications received, and at such other times as may be called by the Chair or by the Mayor. (2) The Hearing Examiner shall review all information supplied by the Planning Director prior to any hearing the Hearing Examiner is authorized to conduct. (3) The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with Section 11-05-04.5, Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing and applicable state law. (4) At the completion of each hearing, the Hearing Examiner shall render a decision supported by a summary of testimony, findings of fact, and conclusions of law. The decision and supporting materials shall be filed with the Planning Director and shall be available to the applicant and the public no later than 30 days after the close of each hearing.
7.
Planning Director
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
334
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-03. Review and Decision-Making Bodies 11-05-03.7 Planning Director
A.
Duties, Jurisdiction, and Authority (1) It shall be the duty of the Planning Director to provide for the administration of this Code and the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Director shall serve as the technical staff on planning and zoning issues. (2) Duties and responsibilities of the Planning Director may be formally delegated to City Officials in subordinate positions to the Planning Director. (3) The specific duties and responsibilities of the Planning Director related to this Code shall include, but not be limited to the following: (a) Provide and maintain a continuing program of public information on zoning matters and provide planning and zoning assistance to the public as requested; (b) Submit a written report evaluating applications, to the appropriate bodies; (c) Review all development proposals and make those recommendations or decisions indicated in Table 11-05.1: Summary of Review and Decision-Making Procedures, Sections 11-05-04, Common Procedures, and 11-05-05, Specific Procedures; (d) Review Building Permit applications for zoning compliance; (e) Provide public notice of hearings; (f)
Maintain records and files of all zoning applications;
(g) Initiate revisions and amendments of this Code and the Comprehensive Plan; (h) Prepare special studies and plans; (i)
(j)
Ensure the proper administration of this Code and the Comprehensive Plan including: i.
Interpretation of the meaning and application of the Code in specific instances;
ii.
Determine the application of the Code where there is no specific guidance as in the classification of uses not specifically identified in this Code;
iii.
Determine the required procedures for applications including minor modification of procedures;
iv.
Resolve conflicts in adopted code provisions; and
v.
Approve alternative means for compliance with adopted code requirements.
Coordinate applications with the appropriate City departments and other public or quasi-public agencies;
(k) Serve as Floodplain Administrator; and (l) B.
Perform other functions related to the administration of this Code or related regulations as directed or authorized by City Council.
Qualifications The person filling the position of Planning Director shall be professionally trained or licensed planner and/or have land use law legal training and/or experience. The Planning Director shall be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. The Planning Director shall serve at the pleasure of the Mayor.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
335
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-03. Review and Decision-Making Bodies 11-05-03.8 Floodplain Administrator
8.
Floodplain Administrator A.
Duties, Jurisdiction, and Authority (1) Designation The Planning Director shall serve as the Floodplain Administrator and shall administer and implement Sections 11-02-07.3.F, FP-O Flood Protection Overlay and 11-04-05.3, Flood Hazard Standards. (2) Duties The duties, jurisdiction, and authority of the Floodplain Administrator are as follows: (a) Review Applications Review all applications for Zoning Map Amendments, Subdivision Plats, and Conditional Use Permits to determine: i.
If the development is within an Area of Special Flood Hazard;
ii.
That all necessary permits have been obtained from those federal, state, or local governmental agencies from which prior approval is required; and
iii.
Compliance with the provisions of Sections 11-02-07.3.F, FP-O Flood Protection Overlay and 11-04-05.3, Flood Hazard Standards and disclose to the PZC and Council whether the application is, or is not, in compliance with the provisions of those Sections.
(b) Interpretations i.
Make interpretations of the location of the boundaries of the Floodway and the Floodway Fringe.
ii.
When uncertainty exists as to whether a new development is within an Area of Special Flood Hazard, determine whether development is within the Floodway or Floodway Fringe.
(c) Zoning Certificates Issues Zoning Certificates for those structures that are to be constructed or modified in compliance with the provisions of Sections 11-02-07.3.F, FP-O Flood Protection Overlay and 11-04-05.3, Flood Hazard Standards. (d) Available Data Obtain, review, and reasonably use any base flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal, state, or other source when such data has not been provided in the Flood Insurance Study. (e) Record Keeping Compile and maintain in perpetuity for public inspection all records pertaining to the provisions of Sections 11-02-07.3.F, FP-O Flood Protection Overlay and 11-0405.3, Flood Hazard Standards, including records of all appeal actions and Variances, records of first floor elevations, flood-proofing certificates, letters of map amendment, and all other records required by those sections or by federal regulations.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
336
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-03. Review and Decision-Making Bodies 11-05-03.8 Floodplain Administrator
(f)
Notification Notify adjacent jurisdictions and the Idaho Department of Water Resources prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, submit evidence of such notification to the Federal Insurance Administrator, and require that the floodcarrying capacity of the altered or relocated portion of that watercourse is maintained. i.
Base Flood Elevations may increase or decrease resulting from physical changes affecting flooding conditions. As soon as practicable, but not later than six months after the date such information becomes available, the Floodplain Administrator shall notify the Federal Insurance Administrator of the changes by submitting technical or scientific data in accordance with Volume 44 Code of Federal Regulations Section 65.3. Such a submission is necessary so that upon confirmation of those physical changes affecting flooding conditions, risk premium rates and floodplain management requirements will be based upon current data.
ii.
Notify the Federal Insurance Administrator in writing of acquisition by means of annexation, incorporation or otherwise, of additional areas of jurisdiction.
(g) Engineer Certification i.
Require that for all new or substantially improved structures in an Area of Special Flood Hazard along the Boise River or in the gulches, a licensed professional engineer or registered land surveyor certify the actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest floor (including basement) of the structure and record the certified elevation, whether or not the structure contains a basement.
ii.
Require that for all new or substantially improved structures in an Area of Shallow Flooding in an Area of Special Flood Hazard, a licensed professional engineer or registered land surveyor shall certify the actual height in feet, as measured from the building edges at the lowest floor height to the highest ground which surrounds the building and record the certified height, whether or not the structure contains a basement.
iii.
Require that for all new or substantially improved flood-proofed nonresidential structures, a licensed professional engineer or registered land surveyor certify that the actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which the structure is flood-proofed, and maintain copies of the floodproofing certificates as required in Sections 11-02-07.3.F, FP-O Flood Protection Overlay and 11-04-05.3, Flood Hazard Standards.
(h) Permit Issuance Issue Building or Grading Permits for new construction, new development, and substantial improvement to structures that are in compliance with the provisions of Sections 11-02-07.3.F, FP-O Flood Protection Overlay and 11-04-05.3, Flood Hazard Standards.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
337
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-03.9 City Engineer
(i)
Corrective Procedures When the Floodplain Administrator finds violations of applicable state and local laws, it shall be their duty to notify the owner or occupant of the building of the violation. The owner or occupant shall immediately remedy each of the violations of law cited in such notification.
9.
City Engineer A.
Duties, Jurisdiction, and Authority (1) Designation (a) The City Engineer shall be that person designated by the Director of Public Works to administer and implement the duties of that office. The City Engineer shall perform all duties referenced in this Code related to the development or redevelopment of property, either jointly or in consultation with the Planning Director and other City Officials, as applicable. (b) Upon request from the Planning Director, the City Engineer shall provide technical assistance and information including, but not limited to, verifying field surveys and technical information submitted by any applicant for new development.
11-05-04. 1.
2.
Common Procedures
General A.
The common review procedures in this Section 11-05-04 provide the foundation for specific review and approval procedures identified in Section 11-05-05, Specific Procedures.
B.
Not all common review procedures apply to every development application type. Section 11-05-05, Specific Procedures identifies how these common review procedures are applied to specific development application types and identifies additional procedures and requirements beyond the general review procedures.
C.
If an application under this Code is proposed to be developed as a condominium under Idaho law, the proposed or approved condominium documents required by Idaho law shall be submitted to the City along with other required application materials. This requirement applies to all condominium developments, regardless of whether they involve the division of airspace or the division of surface land into separate areas for individual or shared occupancy, ownership, or development. The City may review the submitted condominium documents in connection with applications for the related development under this Code to evaluate their consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan or this Code.
Four Paths for Review and Approval The City uses four different types of procedures for reviewing and making decisions on applications under this Code. A.
Type 1 - Ministerial Decisions (1) Purpose The purpose of Type 1 procedures is to process simple applications where planning requirements may be reviewed at the time a Building Permit or other ministerial approval is issued.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
338
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.3 Pre-Submittal Activities
(2) General Procedure Unless modified by another provision of this Code, Type 1 applications are reviewed and decisions made by the Planning Director or a City Official, as described in more detail in Section 11-05-05.1. B.
Type 2 - Planning Director Decisions (1) Purpose The purpose of Type 2 procedures is to process applications for allowed uses, with or without Use-Specific Standards (or Use-Specific Form Standards), and other types of applications where some interdepartmental or interagency collaboration is required, but no review by an appointed body is necessary. (2) General Procedure Unless modified by another provision of this Code, Type 2 applications are reviewed and decisions made by the Planning Director or a City Official after Interdepartmental Review, as described in more detail in Section 11-05-05.2.
C.
Type 3 - Appointed Body Decisions (1) Purpose The purpose of Type 3 procedures is to process applications for conditional uses, allowed uses with alternative forms, and other complex applications that require interpretation and the exercise of discretion in making a decision by an appointed body. (2) General Procedure Unless modified by another provision of this Code, Type 3 applications are reviewed and decisions made by an appointed City Official or Commission and require public notice and hearing as described in more detail in Section 11-05-05.3
D.
Type 4 - City Council Decisions (1) Purpose The purpose of Type 4 procedures is to process the most complex development applications, changes to the procedures or standards in this Code or the zoning map, and legislative actions that require public notice and hearing, recommendation by an appointed body and action by City Council. (2) General Procedure Unless modified by another provision of this Code, Type 4 applications are reviewed and decisions made by City Council, as shown in more detail in Section 11-05-05.4.
3.
Pre-Submittal Activities Pre-submittal activities include the Concept Review, Neighborhood Meeting, and Interdepartmental Review, if any, required for each type of application as shown in Table 1105.1: Summary of Review and Decision-Making Procedures.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
339
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.3 Pre-Submittal Activities
A.
Concept Review (1) Purpose The purpose of a Concept Review is to discuss the concept of the proposed development with Planning and Development Services staff on an informal basis to identify the potential alignment of the project with this Code and the Comprehensive Plan, as applicable. (2) Applicability This procedure applies to all Type 2, 3, and 4 applications under this Code. (3) Procedure (a) When required by Subsection (2) above, the applicant shall request a Concept Review by request to the Planning Director or through the City’s website. (b) The applicant shall bring to the Concept Review all information listed as required on the City’s website. (c) At the time of Concept Review, the Planning Director may require an Interdepartmental Review for any Type 2 application if the Planning Director determines the project as proposed will present concerns related to safety and connectivity, solid waste collection, life safety service, or any other service or facility provided or maintained by the City. (4) Effect Any information or discussions held at the Concept Review meeting shall not be binding on the City or the applicant. Discussions of potential conditions or commitments to mitigate impacts do not reflect actions by the decision-making body until and unless a decision-making body takes formal action to attach that condition or commitment to an approval. (5) Noticing No public notice of a Concept Review meeting is required.
B.
Neighborhood Meeting (1) Purpose A Neighborhood Meeting is intended to allow residents, property owners, businesses, and organizations in the area surrounding a proposed development an early opportunity to learn about the project details and to provide feedback to the applicant before significant resources have been expended on project design and engineering. (2) Applicability A Neighborhood Meeting shall be required as indicated in Table 11-05.1: Summary of Review and Decision-Making Procedures, that includes most Type 3 and Type 4 applications. The Planning Director may waive this step for projects that the Planning Director determines have little potential to create significant material impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
340
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.3 Pre-Submittal Activities
(3) Procedure (a) When required by Subsection (2) above, the applicant shall hold a meeting allowing the public to review the proposed project only after any required Concept Review meeting with the City has been held. (b) A Neighborhood Meeting shall be held no more than six months prior to submission of the application, in a finished, climate-controlled structure near the project site in a venue that is accessible to persons experiencing mobility impairments (e.g., those using wheelchairs or walkers) and vision impairments, Monday through Thursday, excluding holidays, and shall start between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Hybrid meetings that include both in-person and virtual attendance options may be allowed. (c) The mailed invitation to the neighborhood meeting shall include the specifics of the planned meeting in addition to the description of the project, general site plan of the proposed development, and the contact information of the applicant including email and telephone number. (d) A second Neighborhood Meeting may be required by the Planning Director because of the size and complexity of the project, the potential to create significant impacts, or if the application has substantially changed since the initial Neighborhood Meeting. (e) The Planning Director may, but is not required to, assign a City staff member to attend the Neighborhood Meeting, based on the Planning Director’s determination of the size, complexity, and potential impacts of the development on the surrounding neighborhood. (f)
The applicant shall bring to the Neighborhood Meeting a general site plan for the proposed development, that does not need to include precise dimensions, but that shall indicate the height and general location of primary and accessory structures on the property, proposed vehicle parking and service areas, and proposed points of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular access to the property. The applicant is not required to provide any level of engineering detail for the site or architectural elevations of proposed primary or accessory structures.
(g) After the Neighborhood Meeting, the applicant shall complete and submit to the City a detailed summary of the Neighborhood Meeting presentation and discussion, using a template available on the City’s website. (4) Effect The City will not schedule an Interdepartmental Review pursuant to Section 11-0504.3.C until the detailed summary of the Neighborhood Meeting has been received. (5) Noticing Notice shall be mailed following the standard notification procedures for mailed noticed in Section 11-05-04.5A(2), Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing, as well as residents of the project site known to the owner, at least 10 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Meeting. Hand deliveries shall not be used as a substitute for mailed notice. Notice does not convey a property right. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
341
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.3 Pre-Submittal Activities
C.
Interdepartmental Review (1) Purpose The purpose of an Interdepartmental Review is to allow staff from the Planning and Development Services Department, other City departments and agencies, and other public and quasi-public groups an opportunity to review draft application materials and neighborhood feedback received through the Neighborhood Meeting (if required) to identify potential issues related to their respective services before the applicant has prepared required application materials at a 100 percent level of detail. The review also enables reviewing departments, agencies, and groups the ability to specify the detailed information required to address the issues of their concern necessary for the application to be completed. (2) Applicability An Interdepartmental Review is required as indicated in Table 11-05.1: Summary of Review and Decision-Making Procedures. The Planning Director may waive this step for projects that the Planning Director determines do not have potential material impacts on the services or facilities of other City departments or agencies or other public or quasi-public agencies. The Planning Director may require an Interdepartmental Review for any Type 2 application if the Planning Director determines that the application may create significant impacts on surrounding areas. (3) Procedure (a) When required by Subsection (2) above, the applicant shall request an Interdepartmental Review by a written request to the Planning Director. The Planning Director shall determine which departments and agencies’ facilities and services are potentially affected by the proposed application and shall schedule the meeting in consultation with those departments and agencies. (b) The applicant shall bring to the review all draft application materials with at least 50 percent of the detailed information required for a complete application, as determined by the Planning Director. (c) The representatives of departments and agencies included in the meeting may make recommendations to the applicant as to changes to the application materials or the design of the project needed to comply with their respective standards or requirements or the additional necessary for them to complete their review when a full application is submitted. (d) The Planning Director shall document any recommendations made at the Interdepartmental Review and that document may, at the Planning Director’s discretion, be included with the full application materials for referral and consideration by the review and decision-making bodies if and when a full and complete application is submitted to the City. (4) Effect Following any required Interdepartmental Review, the applicant may proceed to file a complete application for the proposed project pursuant to Section 11-05-04.4, Application Submittal and Processing, below.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
342
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.4 Application Submittal and Processing
(5) Noticing No public notice of an Interdepartmental Review meeting is required.
4.
Application Submittal and Processing A.
Application Submittal and Fees (1) Application Requirements (a) Applications shall be submitted on prescribed forms available on the City's website and shall be accompanied by all required supporting documents, as shown on the City’s website. (b) Additional submittal requirements necessary to evaluate the application may be required, as determined by the Planning Director, based on the size, complexity, or potential impacts of the project on the surrounding neighborhood or the City’s transportation system, utility, or other public services or systems. (c) The Planning Director may waive application submittal requirements if the Planning Director determines that those materials or level of detail are not required to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed development or compliance with the requirements of this Code. (2) Application Fees The Planning Director shall maintain a list of fees as established by the City Council and shown on the City’s website, and the applicant shall pay all required application fees to the City in full before an application will be reviewed by the Planning Director or scheduled for a public hearing. No portion of required application fees shall be refunded if an application is abandoned, withdrawn, or denied following. (3) Application Resubmittal Except as indicated in Section 11-05-05, Specific Procedures, no application that has been denied shall be resubmitted in substantially the same form, as determined by the Planning Director, in less than one year unless the reviewing body issuing the denial allowed for a resubmittal within that time.
B.
Application Processing (1) Incomplete Application (a) The Planning Director shall notify the applicant of any deficiencies in the application. No application will be verified as complete until the applicant has corrected the deficiencies and resubmitted the application for a determination of completeness. (b) If the applicant fails to resubmit an application with any additional or corrected materials necessary to make the application complete within 90 calendar days after being notified of submittal deficiencies, the application shall be considered abandoned and no further steps to review the application will be taken by the City. (c) No application shall be reviewed for compliance with this Code or scheduled for a public hearing by any review or decision-making body until it is determined to be complete.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
343
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.4 Application Submittal and Processing
(2) Complete Application Upon receiving an application, the Planning Director shall determine whether the application is complete. A complete application is one that: (a) Contains all information and materials required by Subsection A. above; (b) Is in the form required by the City’s website for submittal of that type of application; and (c) Is accompanied by the fee established for the type of application being submitted. Upon determining that an application is complete, the Planning Director shall accept the application for review in accordance with the procedures and standards of this Code. (3) Withdrawal of Application An application shall be deemed withdrawn and the review terminated if: (a) The applicant requests that the application be withdrawn; or (b) The applicant fails to respond or submit revised plans, reports, or correspondence to the Planning Director for more than 90 days following a request from the Planning Director. The Planning Director may extend the response period for good cause shown by the applicant. (4) Application Referrals Applications requiring public hearings shall be referred to all interested or affected city departments, Registered Neighborhood Associations in good standing, and all political subdivisions providing services to the site, as determined by the Planning Director, for review and comment. Application referrals to the Registered Neighborhood Association shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, mailed public hearing notice. C.
Concurrent Permit Processing When a proposed development or activity requires more than one permit or approval under this Code, the applicant may request, or the Planning Director may require that all of the applications shall be reviewed and a decision on the related decisions be made by the highest level review body authorized to make a decision on any of the required applications. In that case: (1) A project or activity that requires both a Type 1 and Type 2 approval shall be processed as a Type 2 approval. (2) A project or activity that requires a Type 1 and/or Type 2 approval as well as a Type 3 approval shall be decided by the Type 3 review body (HPC, DRC, or PZC). (3) A project or activity that requires a Type 1, Type 2 and/or Type 3 approval as well as a Type 4 approval shall be decided by the Type 4 review body (City Council).
D.
Mediation (1) Applicability When a difference arises between or among persons affected by a proposed development that will require an approval by an appointed body or City Council under
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
344
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.4 Application Submittal and Processing
this Code, the City Council, the PZC, the applicant, or any person affected by the proposed development may request mediation pursuant to Section 67-6510 of the Idaho Code. (2) Timing of Mediation Request Mediation may occur at any point during the decision-making process or after a final decision has been made. If a mediated resolution is agreed to by the participating parties after a final decision has been made, the revisions resulting from such resolution shall be the subject of a new public hearing before the decision-making body that made the initial decision. (3) Written Request Required Mediation may be requested by submission of a written request to the Planning Director. An affected person is one having an interest in real property or residing in or doing business in real property that may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of a permit or approval. The request shall include a statement of concerns and issues and the desired outcome of the mediation. (4) Notification of Willingness to Participate The Planning Director shall forward the request to the applicant or affected persons on the other side of the issue, as determined by the Planning Director. The notice shall state that these parties have seven days to notify the City as to whether or not they will participate in mediation. (5) Tolling of Time Limits Upon notice of a request for mediation all time limits related to hearings and appeals are tolled until: (a) All parties on one side of an issue decline further participation in the mediation process; or (b) No mediation session is scheduled for a period of 28 days from the date the request for mediation is received. (6) Participation The parties shall participate in at least one mediation session if requested by the PZC or Council. If the applicant or affected person declines to participate in mediation and the City Council declines to direct mediation, the mediation process and the tolling of time limits are ended. (7) Expenses of Mediation The City Council shall select and pay the expenses of the Mediator for the first session. Any additional sessions shall be paid for by participating parties. (8) Mediation Not Part of the Application Record The mediation process shall not be part of the official application or project record and shall not be disclosed or used in any subsequent City hearings on the application or appeal of a decision on such application.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
345
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.5 Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing
5.
Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing A.
Notice (1) Published Notice Where Table 11-05.1: Summary of Review and Decision-Making Procedures indicates that published notice is required, notice of the time and place and a description of the proposal shall be published in the official newspaper of Boise City at least 15 days prior to any required public hearing. Based on the size, complexity, or potential impacts of a proposed application, the Planning Director may require that notice shall be provided to other newspapers, radio, City website, social media and television stations servicing the city for use as a public service announcement. (2) Mailed Notice Where Table 11-05.1: Summary of Review and Decision-Making Procedures indicates that mailed notice is required, notice shall be mailed to the applicant and to property owners, tenant addresses known to the City, and Registered Neighborhood Associations whose boundaries include the subject property, at least 15 days prior to any required public hearing: (a) Within the subject property; (b) Within 300 feet from the external boundaries of the subject property, unless otherwise noted below: i.
For River System Permits, 500 feet upstream and 1,000 feet downstream from the project site;
ii.
For Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Zoning Map Amendments, Subdivision Plats five acres or greater, and Conditional Use Permits or development in a PUD zoning district involving properties larger than one acre or on a gateway street, 500 feet;
iii.
For Certificates of Appropriateness and Reclassifications of Historic Resources, to adjacent property owners and residents (including tenants); and
iv.
For Variances, to adjacent properties (including those across a roadway, street, alley, canal, or other public right of way), except that a Variance to increase maximum building height by over 100 feet shall require notice to a distance from the property equal to three times the height of the proposed structure.
(c) The Planning Director may require that mailed notice also be sent to additional area(s) if the public interest would be better served by expanding the notification area. (3) Posted Notice (a) General i.
Where Table 11-05.1: Summary of Review and Decision-Making Procedures indicates that posted notice is required, and when an appeal of a decision is filed, sign(s) regarding the application shall be posted in a conspicuous
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
346
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.5 Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing
place on the premises at least 15 days prior to any required public hearing. The applicant shall be responsible for the timely posting of all sites and for the documentation of such postings. ii.
The Planning Director may require larger sized sign(s) or additional sign(s) if the Planning Director determines that the public interest would be better served by expanding the size or number of required signs.
(b) Placement and Quantity i.
The notice(s) shall be posted along each street frontage, excluding Interstate 84, adjacent to the subject property boundaries, and shall be oriented perpendicularly to the lot line/property line.
ii.
The base of the notice shall be at least three feet above the ground.
iii.
If the property has street frontage of 1,000 feet or more, a notice shall be placed at each end of that street frontage.
iv.
If the notice(s) cannot be placed on the property and still be clearly visible, the notice(s) may be placed within the public right-of-way with the written consent of the owner of the right-of-way.
(c) Proof of Posting 10 days prior to the public hearing, the applicant shall submit to the City a notarized statement and photograph of the posting stating where and when the notice(s) were posted. If the required statement is not received by that date, the hearing will be deferred. (d) Removal The posted notice(s) shall be removed no later than three days after the public hearing for which the notice(s) was posted. (4) Alternate Forms of Notice (a) When mailed notice is required for 200 or more property owners or tenant addresses known to the City, an alternative form of notice may be provided as follows: i.
In lieu of mailed notices, two additional newspaper notices as described in Subsection (1), above; and
ii.
The general area that is the subject of the application may be posted with notice in lieu of posting a separate notice on each lot or parcel included in the application.
(b) If the Planning Director determines that it is in the public interest to do so, due to the size, complexity, or potential impacts of specific applications or types of applications under this Code, the City may send, or cause to be sent, electronic notices to those property owners or tenant addresses known to the City in the area surrounding the site that is the subject of the application.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
347
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.5 Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing
(5) Notice of Continued Hearing At any public hearing, the review body may order the hearing to be continued by publicly announcing the time and place of continuance. No further notice shall be required. (6) Adequacy of Notice (a) The City Clerk's and Planning Director's proof of publication, mailing, and posting shall constitute proof of notice. (b) If the applicant provides evidence that the required notices were timely provided, then the failure of an intended person or organization to receive actual notice due to changes of address since the latest update to the City real estate records, or due to changes of e-mail addresses since those were last provided to the City, or due to s in postal delivery or newspaper publishing, or for other reasons beyond the control of applicant or City, shall not be grounds for a delay of application review or public hearings, and shall not be grounds for appeal of the resulting decision. B.
Public Hearing Procedure and Conduct (1) Types of Public Hearings (a) Legislative Legislative hearings include hearings on amendments to, or enactments of, any ordinance. They also include revisions or amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, to the text of this Code or Zoning Map, or applications to establish a new zoning or overlay district. In legislative hearings, the record is not limited to the record developed by the review body. Any and all new evidence may be received by Council during a legislative hearing regardless of whether the evidence was introduced in prior procedural steps. (b) Quasi-Judicial Quasi-judicial hearings are hearings in which the review bodies are making decisions on the development of a specific property. (2) Timing of Public Hearings (a) The date for hearings before any appointed body shall be established by the Planning Director based upon hearing dates as follows: i.
The application shall be scheduled at the next available hearing.
ii.
The Planning Director may extend the review time for applications based on their size, complexity, or potential impacts of the project on the surrounding neighborhood, or the City’s transportation system or utility systems.
iii.
Deferrals due to lack of quorum, lateness of the hour, or a request by the applicant shall extend any required time during which the hearing shall be held, pursuant to Section 11-05-04.5.B(3)(c) Review Body Deferral Procedure, below.
(b) Council hearing dates shall be established at a Council meeting.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
348
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.5 Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing
(3) Conduct of Public Hearings Before Review Bodies The following provisions govern the conduct of public hearings before the Hearing Examiner, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC), the Design Review Commission (DRC), and the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), unless another provision of this Code states an exception to these provisions. (a) Requirements i.
Sign-In Roster A sign-in roster shall be kept at the entrance to the hearing room for all persons who wish to testify at the hearing on a particular application or issue.
ii.
Allotted Time for Testimony In order to accommodate all participants, the Chair may determine the time allotted to each speaker within the following parameters:
iii.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
A.
The applicant and staff shall be provided up to 30 minutes for a presentation.
B.
The Registered Neighborhood Association shall be provided a minimum of five minutes for their presentation or testimony. Only the representative of the Registered Neighborhood Association who has been authorized by the association's established procedures to represent the association in the matter before the review body shall be allowed the amount of time identified above. Any other member of such association shall be limited to three minutes.
C.
The general public shall be provided three minutes for their presentation or testimony.
Submission of Written Documents and Evidence to a Review Body A.
Every document referred to by any person during testimony (including charts, maps, photographic evidence, or any other physical evidence) shall be identified and entered into the record of the proceeding. Such exhibits shall be incorporated into the public record in the Planning and Development Services Department. In most cases, a decision will be made at the end of the hearing; therefore, it is strongly encouraged that documents be given to the Planning and Development Services Staff as early as possible before the hearing so that all evidence will be adequately reviewed by staff and the review body.
B.
A review body cannot review written documents handed to them during the hearing while listening to verbal testimony. Further, the submission of such documents does not allow other parties time to address the material. Therefore, the submission of written information to a review body may be accepted to the extent that it is a copy of the testifying party's oral testimony presented to the review body. All other written testimony and documents must be submitted to the Planning Director by 5:00 pm. on the Thursday preceding the review body 349
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.5 Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing
hearing in order to be included in the record presented to the review body. iv.
Recording All proceedings shall be recorded and all material presented shall be maintained by the City. The record shall be made and maintained in a manner such that the hearing record may be transcribed.
v.
Disclosure and Inquiry Review body members shall disclose any comments received or observations they have made, or discussions they have had regarding the application prior to and outside of the public hearing proceedings. Disclosure shall be on the record prior to the time for testimony to allow parties of record to address them. Disclosure shall include from whom the comments were received, with whom the person making the comments is affiliated and the nature of the comments, as well as any related documents.
(b) Review Body Consent Agenda i.
Criteria for Consent Agenda Routine, uncontested applications may be placed on a consent agenda in accordance with the procedures in this Subsection (b). Based upon a recommendation from the Planning Director, the Chair shall identify all items proposed for the consent agenda at the beginning of the public hearing. Only applications that meet the following criteria shall be considered for the consent agenda:
ii.
A.
There has not been any written or oral opposition to the application.
B.
The Planning Director and the applicant are in agreement on the findings and conclusions and recommended conditions of approval.
C.
The application complies with the Comprehensive Plan and this Code as proposed or as it will be modified by conditions of approval.
D.
Members of the review body has no concerns with the application.
Opposition to Consent Agenda A.
If there is any opposition from any party or member of the public regarding an application, or if no one is present to testify, but written testimony was provided, that item shall not be placed on the consent agenda.
B.
Once the consent agenda is established, the review body may approve all items on the consent agenda with one motion.
(c) Review Body Deferral Procedure i.
Deferral Allowed Applications that have been placed on the review body public hearing agenda may be deferred for no more than 60 days unless the applicant agrees to a longer period.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
350
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.5 Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing
ii.
iii.
Lack of Quorum or Lateness of Hour A.
If the review body makes a specific finding at the public hearing that a limited delay is necessary due to the lack of a quorum or the lateness of the hour, then a delay can be granted to the next scheduled meeting of the review body.
B.
A request for deferral may be initiated by a member of the review body, the applicant, or the Planning Director.
C.
Scheduled agenda items shall only be deferred by the review body and only during the public hearing.
Criteria for Deferral Requests for deferral submitted prior to or at the start of the public hearing shall be ruled upon by the review body subject to the following standards:
iv.
A.
The review body shall act on requests for deferral only after soliciting input from the applicant, the Planning Director, and the public attending the hearing.
B.
If the applicant and the Planning Director are in agreement on the deferral, including the requested length of deferral, and there is no public opposition, the review body shall be deferred to a specific date whenever possible to avoid the need to repeat required public notice.
C.
If a deferral is granted, any member of the public who cannot or will not return for a deferral hearing shall be provided an opportunity to testify.
Deferral Process A.
Indefinite Deferral Process When action on an application has been deferred indefinitely at the applicant's request, the applicant shall pay an additional fee to cover the cost of re-advertising before the application is scheduled for a public hearing. Such fee shall be determined by the Planning Director.
B.
Deferrals for Specific Applications Unless the applicant agrees to a deferral, applications for Sexually Oriented Businesses, Religious Institutions, and other forms of expression and activity protected by the First Amendment or similar Idaho state law shall be decided within 45 days following the public hearing. Failure of the Commission to decide such application within 45 days following the hearing shall result in its approval.
(d) Inclusion on Agenda An application shall be considered as being on the agenda upon the mailing of radius notices to impacted property owners or tenant addresses known to the City. Prior to the placement of an application on the public hearing agenda, the applicant may submit a request for rescheduling to the Planning Director. The Planning Director may reschedule the hearing to an appropriate date if the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
351
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.6 Decision
applicant has requested rescheduling or if there are procedural or logistical reasons that justify rescheduling.
6.
Decision A.
Decision The decision-making body shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application based upon the applicable standards and criteria in this Code. The decision shall be deemed to have been made on the date that the appointed or elected body adopts a reasoned statement or on the date that an administrative decision was mailed to the applicant. A decision is final unless appealed. (1) Timing of Decision (a) Director or City Official Approval Where Table 11-05.1: Summary of Review and Decision-Making Procedures indicates that the Planning Director or a City Official is authorized to make a decision, the Planning Director or official shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application and shall notify the applicant, in writing, of the decision and the reasons for modification or denial. (b) Appointed Body Approval Where Table 11-05.1: Summary of Review and Decision-Making Procedures indicates that an appointed body is authorized to make a decisions, the appointed body shall take action within 60 days from the date of the initial public hearing unless the applicant agrees to a deferral for a longer period of time, or unless otherwise provided in this Code. The decision of an appeal body is considered to have been made when that body has issued the written reason statement of its decision. (c) Optional Referral of Review and Decision to PZC, DRC or HPC If Table 11-05.1: Summary of Review and Decision-Making Procedures authorizes the Planning Director to make a decision, and the Planning Director determines that the application is unusually large or complex or raises potentially unique or serious impacts on the City or the surrounding neighborhoods, the Planning Director: i.
May refer a decision for which the PZC is the appeal body directly to the PZC for an initial decision, in which case a public hearing pursuant to Section 1105-04.5, Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing shall apply, and the PZC shall make a decision on the application using the criteria that would apply if the Planning Director had made the decision.
ii.
May refer a decision for which the DRC is the appeal body directly to the DRC for an initial decision, in which case a public hearing pursuant to Section 11-05-04.5, Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing shall apply, and the DRC shall make a decision on the application using the criteria that would apply if the Planning Director had made the decision.
iii.
May refer a decision for which the HPC is the appeal body directly to the HPC for an initial decision, in which case a public hearing pursuant to
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
352
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.6 Decision
Section 11-05-04.5, Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing shall apply, and the HPC shall make a decision on the application using the criteria that would apply if the Planning Director had made the decision. (d) Extended Review The Planning Director may extend the review and processing period for large Zoning Map Amendment applications for rezoning to PUD. This extended review period is to allow for adequate staff research and analysis, agency review and comment, coordination with other city departments, and coordination with the applicant. (2) Reason Statement The approval or denial of an application shall be in writing and accompanied by a statement that explains the applicable criteria and standards, states the relevant facts relied upon, and explains the rationale for the decision based on the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and this Code, relevant and statutory provisions, pertinent constitutional principles, and factual information contained in the record. (3) General Decision Criteria (a) Decision by Planning Director, City Official, or Hearing Examiner i.
ii.
Where Table 11-05.1: Summary of Review and Decision-Making Procedures indicates that the Planning Director, City Official, or Hearing Examiner shall make the decision on an application, the Planning Director, City Official, or Hearing Examiner shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the following criteria. The decision shall be based on the evidence submitted with the application, comments from referral agencies, information on file with the Planning and Development Services Department, and any required approvals from other bodies. A.
The application complies with all applicable provisions of this Code and other City regulations, as modified by any previously approved Minor Modifications, Major Modifications, or Variances;
B.
The property is not subject to a pending notice of violation or legal action as a result of a violation of any federal, state, county, or city land use law or administrative rule; and
C.
The property is not subject to a Development Agreement containing any provision that was required to be performed before the date of the subject application and that has not been satisfied.
Notwithstanding Subsection (i) above, if specific findings for approval of that type of application are listed in Section 11-05-05, Specific Procedures or another section of this Code, the specific criteria listed in Section 11-05-05 or the other section of this Code shall apply.
(b) Decision by Appointed Body or City Council i.
When Table 11-05.1: Summary of Review and Decision-Making Procedures or another provision of this Code indicates that an appointed body or City Council under this Code shall make the decision on an application, the
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
353
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.6 Decision
appointed body or City Council shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the following criteria:
ii.
A.
The application complies with all applicable provisions of this Code and other adopted City regulations, as modified by any previously approved Minor Modification, Major Modification, or Variance;
B.
The application is consistent with any previous development approvals related to the property including but not limited to any Conditional Use Permit;
C.
The application will not create any material negative impacts on adjacent properties; or any material negative impacts have been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable and the public benefits of the application outweigh any material negative impacts that cannot be mitigated; and
D.
The application will promote the efficient use of land, resource, and existing infrastructure.
E.
The application will not create any material negative impacts on the provision of public services, including schools.
F.
The approval is not in conflict with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan;
Notwithstanding Subsection (i) above, if specific findings for approval of that type of application are listed in Section 11-05-05, Specific Procedures or another section of this Code, the specific criteria listed in Section 11-05-05 or the other section of this Code shall apply.
(4) Conditions (a) A decision-making body authorized to act under this Code may impose conditions as needed to ensure that the approval is consistent with the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and the general purpose of this Code stated in Section 11-01-03. (b) All conditions of approval shall be reasonably related and proportionate to the anticipated impacts of the proposed use or development or shall be based upon standards duly adopted by the City prior to the review of an application. Such conditions may include those necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and this Code. (c) During its consideration, the decision-making body may consider alternative potential conditions, and no discussion of potential conditions shall be deemed an attempt or intent to impose any condition that would violate the federal or state constitutions, statutes, or regulations. Discussions of potential conditions to mitigate impacts do not reflect actions by the decision-making body unless and until the decision-making body takes formal action to attach that condition to a development approval. (d) Any conditions that require an applicant to dedicate land or pay money to a public entity in an amount that is not calculated according to a formula Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
354
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.6 Decision
applicable to a broad class of applicants shall include an individualized determination and shall be roughly proportional both in nature and extent to the anticipated impacts of the proposed development, as shown through an individualized determination of impacts. (5) Effective Date of Approval (a) An approval under this Code documented in any form other than an ordinance shall become final upon the issuance of a written reason statement and after 10 days have elapsed from the date following the written decision, provided however, that such effective date shall be stayed by the filing of an appeal under Section 11-05-04.7.A, Appeals. (b) Ordinances shall be effective upon publication. (6) Notice of Public Appointed Body and City Council Decisions (a) The Planning Director shall mail notice to the applicant, Registered Neighborhood Associations within which the property is located, and any appellant, within three business days following a decision under this Code. The notice shall indicate: (b) The decision, and any conditions attached to any approval; (c) Where a reason statement for the decision can be reviewed; (d) Whether the decision can be appealed, and if so to what body, and the deadline for filing that appeal; and (e) That the property owner can request a taking analysis pursuant to Section 11-0504.6.C, Regulatory Takings Analysis. (7) Reconsiderations of Review Body Decisions (a) Purpose The purpose of this Section is to minimize the number of appeals, prevent new information related to the application from being presented for the first time on appeals, and resolve disputes at the lowest possible level. The decision-making body may reconsider a decision according to the procedure below and applicable provisions of Idaho law. (b) Applicability i.
This Section applies to any applicant or affected person who intends to seek judicial review of a decision made under this Code. The decision is not considered final, and no application for judicial review of the decision may be filed, until reconsideration of the decision pursuant to this Section has been requested and the provisions below have been completed.
ii.
The 28 day timeframe for filing an application for judicial review is tolled until a written decision upon reconsideration has been made, or until 60 days after the request for reconsideration is filed, whichever occurs first. If a decision upon reconsideration is not made within 60 days after the request for reconsideration is filed, the request for reconsideration is deemed denied.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
355
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.6 Decision
(c) Procedure
B.
i.
A request for reconsideration shall be filed within 14 days after the decision was made and shall state specific ways in which the decision does not comply with this Code or with applicable provisions of state or federal law.
ii.
The public hearing process for reconsideration shall be the same as that which applied to the initial decision, except that no additional public notice shall be required.
iii.
If the applicant has modified the application, the review body shall determine if the revised application shall be reconsidered or if a new application is required.
iv.
Upon reconsideration, the decision may be affirmed, reversed, or modified to comply with the provisions of this Code or with applicable provisions of state and federal law.
v.
A decision on a reconsideration is not appealable.
Period of Validity (1) Approvals Run with the Land Unless otherwise stated for a specific type of permit, application, or decision under this Code, or unless otherwise stated on the permit or approval document, permits, approvals, and approvals with conditions under this Code run with the land and are not affected by changes in ownership, tenancy, or the form of ownership or tenancy of the property. Subsequent owners and tenants of the property have the same rights and obligations with respect to the permit, approval, or decision as the initial applicant. (2) Period of Validity Unless otherwise indicated in Section 11-05-05, Specific Procedures, the term of an approval shall be as shown in Table 11-05.2 below, unless the property owner or permit holder has taken action to initiate construction of the improvements (including the installation of utilities), initiate the allowed use or activity, modify the property, or take other actions to use the authority granted in that permit or development approval within the period of validity.
TABLE 11-05.2: PERMIT AND APPROVAL VALIDITY TYPE OF APPROVAL
PERIOD OF VALIDITY
Type 1 Ministerial Review Hillside Development Permit – Category 2
Three years form the date of approval
Home Occupation Permit for Family Daycare Home
Two years from the date of approval
Record of Survey Sign Permit for On-Premise Sign
Two years from the date of approval
Temporary Sign Permit Temporary Use Permit
As stated in the Temporary Sign Permit As stated in the Temporary Use Permit
Zoning Compliance Review
Two years from the date of approval
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
One year from the date of approval
356
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.6 Decision
TABLE 11-05.2: PERMIT AND APPROVAL VALIDITY TYPE OF APPROVAL
PERIOD OF VALIDITY
Type 2 Administrative Decision Allowed Use with Allowed Form
Two years from the date of approval
Alternative Sign Plan
Two years from the date of approval
Certificate of Appropriateness - Minor Conditional Use – Minor Expansion
Two years from the date of approval
Design Review – Minor
Two years from the date of approval Two years from the date of approval
Floodplain Permit
Two years from the date of approval
Legal Nonconformity - Confirmation, Change, or Minor Expansion
See Section 11-05-06, Nonconformities
PUD Modification – Minor
Two years from the date of approval
Residential Small Lot Approval – Minor
Does not expire as long as the rationale for approval of the Reasonable Accommodation remains valid Two years from the date of approval
River System Permit - Minor
Two years from the date of approval
Zoning Certificate
Two years from the date of approval
Reasonable Accommodation for Accessibility
Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body Allowed Use with Alternative Form
Two years from the date of approval
Certificate of Appropriateness – Major Conditional Use Permit - Initial Approval or Major Expansion
Two years from the date of approval
Design Review – Major
Two years from the date of approval Two years from the date of approval
Floodplain Variance
Two years from the date of approval
Hillside Development Permit – Category 3
Three years form the date of approval
Legal Nonconformity - Major Expansion
Two years from the date of approval
PUD Modification – Major Reclassification of Historic Resources
Two years from the date of approval Two years from the date of approval
Residential Small Lot Approval - Major
Two years from the date of approval
River System Permit - Major
Two years from the date of approval, unless otherwise conditioned
Variance
Two years from the date of approval
Type 4 Decisions by City Council Annexation of Land and Related Zoning Map Amendment Code Adoption or Amendment
Do not expire
Comprehensive Plan Adoption or Amendment
Do not expire
Development Agreement or Modification
See Section 11-05-05.4.D
Major Historic Preservation Actions Subdivision Plat – Preliminary, Final, and Replat
Do not expire
Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning, including Planned Development)
Do not expire
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
Do not expire
See Sections 11-05-05.4.F, 11-05-05.4.G, and 1105-05.4.H
357
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.6 Decision
(3) Extension of Approval Term (a) The property owner or holder of a permit or approval subject to lapsing pursuant to this Section may file with the Planning Director a written request for an extension of the period of validity, provided that the request is received before the expiration of the permit and shows good cause why the permit or approval should be extended. If a request for extension is timely received, the approval expiration time limit shall be suspended between the time of filing and decision for an extension request. (b) Provided that each written request is timely received, the Planning Director may approve up to two extensions of a permit or approval, neither of which may exceed one-half of the period of validity of the initial permit or approval, if the Planning Director determines that there is good cause for the extension. Good cause generally requires that the inability to initiate or complete the project for which the permit or approval was given was due to circumstances beyond the control of the property owner or the holder of the permit or approval. (c) As an alternative to Subsection (b), the Planning Director may direct that the PZC hold a public hearing to determine whether the permit or approval shall be extended if the Planning Director determines that: i.
There have been significant amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or Code that will affect the permit or approval;
ii.
There have been significant land use changes in the area surrounding the property that would adversely impact the project or be adversely impacted by the project; or
iii.
There are hazardous situations that have developed or have been discovered in the area.
(d) If a public hearing on the extension is required, notice shall be provided per Section 11-05-04.5, Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing. (e) A new application and fee are required and shall be reviewed for compliance with current plans and ordinances. C.
Regulatory Takings Analysis (1) Applicability (a) Following a final decision on an application, the property owner may request in writing that the City conduct an analysis to determine if the approval, approval with conditions, or denial constitutes a regulatory “taking” of private property in violation of state or federal law. (b) The decision is not considered final, and no application for judicial review of the decision may be filed, until reconsideration of the decision pursuant to this Section has been requested and the provisions below have been completed. (2) Procedure (a) A request for a regulatory taking analysis shall be submitted to the Planning Director within 28 days from the date of the final decision.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
358
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.7 Post-Decision Actions and Limitations
(b) Upon request, the City shall prepare a written taking analysis of any decision or condition(s) of approval on any site specific development application pursuant to the criteria in Subsection (3) below. The regulatory taking analysis shall become a part of the record related to the application. (c) A requested regulatory takings analysis shall be provided to the real property owner within 42 days of the request. During the preparation of a taking analysis, any time limitations related to the application or action shall be tolled. (d) If the analysis concludes that the decision created a regulatory taking of private property in violation of state or federal law, the decision shall be referred to City Council for corrective action to avoid the violation. (e) If a regulatory taking analysis is requested by the property owner and is not prepared by the City, the decision for which the analysis was requested is voidable, and the property owner may seek judicial determination of the validity of the governmental action by initiating a declaratory judgment action or other appropriate legal procedure. A suit seeking to invalidate a City action for noncompliance with paragraph (b) of this Subsection shall be filed in a District Court in the county in which the private real property affected by the decision is located. (3) Criteria The City shall use the most current regulatory taking guidelines of the Idaho Attorney General to prepare the takings analysis. The following guidelines are current as of the Effective Date: (a) Does the regulation or action result in a permanent or temporary physical occupation of private property? (b) Does the regulation or action condition the receipt of a government benefit on a property owner dedicating a portion of property, granting an easement, or expending funds for items unrelated to the impacts of the proposed action? (c) Does the regulation deprive the owner of all economically viable uses of the property? (d) Does the regulation have a significant impact on the landowner's economic interest? (e) Does the regulation deny a fundamental attribute of ownership?
7.
Post-Decision Actions and Limitations A.
Appeals (1) Appeal of Administrative Decisions (a) General i.
Except as noted in Subsection (ii), an affected person may file an appeal for review of an interpretation of this Code made by the Planning Director, or a decision of the Planning Director to abate violations or enforce the provisions of this Code pursuant to Section 11-05-07, Violations, Enforcement, and Penalties, or a decision for which Table 11-05.1: Summary
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
359
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.7 Post-Decision Actions and Limitations
of Review and Decision-Making Procedures identifies the Planning Director, a City Official, the Hearing Examiner, Design Review Commission, or Historic Preservation Commission as the decision-maker. ii.
Appeals of decisions for which Table 11-05.1: Summary of Review and Decision-Making Procedures requires public notice and a public hearing, including any appeal to City Council, may only be filed by a Party of Record or by someone entitled to receive mailed notice for that type of application pursuant to Section 11-05-04.5.A(2), Mailed Notice.
iii.
The decision shall be heard by body the listed in Table 11-05.1.
iv.
These provisions shall apply to appeals of administrative decisions in Specific Plan Districts unless an alternative appeal process is established in the Specific Plan District.
(b) Grounds for Appeal i.
ii.
For an appeal of an administrative decision, the appeal shall list one or more of the following grounds for appeal: A.
Prevention of an allowed land use;
B.
Prohibited or unwarranted restriction of building type, material, or method;
C.
Misapplication or misinterpretation of the criteria in review of the application;
D.
Conditions not authorized by Section 11-05-04.6.A(4), Conditions.
For appeals of administrative decisions, the appeal shall list the section of this Code or applicable state or federal law that has been incorrectly applied or violated and a written description of how they have been incorrectly applied or violated. If the appeal alleges an error in applying floodplain regulations, it shall be supported by technical or scientific evidence.
(c) Procedure i.
The appeal shall be submitted to the Planning Director within 10 days of the decision. The timely filing of an appeal stays further action based on the decision being appealed unless the Planning Director determines that a stay would cause imminent peril to life or property.
ii.
The appeal shall be accompanied by the appeal fee established by City Council and available on the City’s website. If the appeal is successful and the decision is reversed or modified, the appeal fee shall be refunded.
iii.
Upon receipt of a timely appeal, the Planning Director shall:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
A.
Schedule the hearing before the appropriate appeal body shown in Table 11-05.1.for the next available public hearing date;
B.
Provide notice pursuant to Section 11-05-04.5.A(2), Mailed Notice to the appellant, the applicant for the permit, approval, or decision being appealed; and
360
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.7 Post-Decision Actions and Limitations
C.
Transmit the record of the decision, including application materials submitted with the application, to the appeal body shown in Table 1105.1.
iv.
If more than one appeal is received related to the same interpretation, permit, approval, or decision, the Planning Director shall consolidate them into a single appeal and shall schedule a single public hearing on all appeals.
v.
The appeal shall be conducted pursuant to the Section 11-05-04.5.B, Public Hearing Procedure and Conduct.
vi.
The appeal shall be conducted on the record and the appellant shall bear the burden of demonstrating that the decision was in error. Testimony and evidence presented may include materials not included in the application, but shall be limited to matters relevant to those items of 11-05-05.3.D and sections of this Code and applicable state and federal listed in the appeal filing. Testimony based on special administrative or technical expertise shall be weighted accordingly.
vii. The appeal body may uphold, modify, attach conditions to, or reverse the decision being appealed in order to bring the decision into conformance with this Code or applicable provisions of state or federal law. viii. The Planning Director shall mail notice of the appeal body decision to those individuals and organizations entitled to receive notice of the appeal pursuant to Subsection (e) above, and to Parties of Record at the public hearing on the appeal. ix.
A decision appealed to the PZC or HPC, as listed in Table 11-05.1 shall not be further appealed to City Council but may be subject to review the District Court pursuant to Idaho law.
(2) Appeals of Planning and Zoning Commission Decisions (a) Applicability A Party of Record on decision of the PZC on an application for which Table 1105.1: Summary of Review and Decision-Making Procedures shows the PZC as the decision-maker may file an appeal to City Council. i.
PZC decisions on appeals from decision of the Planning Director, or another City Official shall not be appealed to City Council.
ii.
PZC recommendations to Council shall not be appealed since Council will consider the application and will consider the PZC recommendation at that time.
iii.
These provisions shall apply to appeals of PZC decisions in Specific Plan Districts unless an alternative appeal process is established in the Specific Plan District.
(b) Procedure i.
The appeal shall be submitted to the Planning Director within 10 days of the PZC decision. The timely filing of an appeal stays further action based on the
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
361
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.7 Post-Decision Actions and Limitations
decision being appealed unless the Planning Director determines that a stay would cause imminent peril to life or property. ii.
An appeal of a PZC decision to City Council may only be filed by a Party of Record or a person entitled to receive mailed notice for that type of application pursuant to Section 11-05-04.5.A(2), Mailed Notice.
iii.
The appeal shall list the section of this Code or applicable state or federal law that has been incorrectly applied or violated and a written description of how they have been incorrectly applied or violated.
iv.
Upon receipt of a timely appeal, the Planning Director or the City Clerk shall: A.
Notify the City Clerk and City Council of the appeal;
B.
Schedule a public hearing before City Council on the first available date, as determined by Council.
C.
Provide notice pursuant to Section 11-05-04.5.A(2), Mailed Notice to the Parties of Record.
D.
Transmit to City Council the record relating to the decision being appealed and shall make the record available to the public.
v.
If a Party of Record or a person entitled to receive mailed notice of the PZC public hearing believes that information has been omitted from the administrative record, they shall bring it to the attention of the Planning Director no later than 10 days prior to the date for the appeal hearing. If information has been omitted from the record, the Planning Director shall determine if the information was presented to the review body and, if so, shall include it in the record provided to the City Council.
vi.
If more than one appeal is received related to the same interpretation, permit, approval, or decision, the Planning Director shall consolidate them into a single appeal and a single public hearing shall be held to consider all appeals.
vii. Supplemental documents may be submitted subject to the following: A.
The parties to the appeal and the Planning Director may file written arguments (memoranda) regarding the appeal within 14 days after the appeal deadline. For purposes of this Subsection (vii), staff reports to the City Council regarding the appeal are not considered memoranda.
B.
Replies to memoranda shall be filed within 21 days of the appeal deadline.
C.
The Council may modify the schedule if the hearing date on the appeal is deferred.
viii. Memoranda, responses, and testimony and evidence presented shall not contain new facts or evidence or discuss matters outside the record but shall be limited to matters relevant to those items of error and sections of this Code and applicable state and federal law listed in the appeal filing.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
362
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.7 Post-Decision Actions and Limitations
Memoranda, responses, and testimony based on special administrative or technical expertise shall be weighted accordingly. ix.
The appeal shall be conducted pursuant to the Section 11-05-04.5.B, Public Hearing Procedure and Conduct.
x.
Except as noted in Subsection xi. below, the appeal shall be conducted on the record and the appellant shall bear the burden of demonstrating that the decision was in error.
xi.
Where an appeal of a decision by the PZC is combined with or related to a decision for which Table 11-05.1 shows City Council as the decision-maker, the City Council may hear the appeal of the lower body’s decision de novo.
xii. After conducting the public hearing on the appeal, City Council may uphold, modify, attach conditions to, or reverse the decision being appealed in order to bring the decision into conformance with this Code or applicable provisions of state or federal law. If the City Council determines that the procedural steps required by this Code were not followed, the City Council may remand the decision to PZC with instructions to comply with required procedures. The City Council shall adopt a written reason statement in support of its decision, based on the grounds for appeal listed in the appeal filing. xiii. A City Council decision to modify, attach conditions to, or reverse a PZC decision shall be based on one or more of the following criteria: A.
The decision violates state or federal law.
B.
The decision exceeds the statutory or delegated authority of PZC.
C.
The decision was made through procedures that are unlawful or are inconsistent with this Code.
D.
The decision is not supported by substantial evidence.
E.
The decision is arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion in that it was made without rational basis, or in disregard of the facts and circumstances presented. Even if the record, memoranda, responses, and testimony would support two different interpretations of what this Code and applicable state and federal law requires, the action is not arbitrary and capricious if exercised honestly and after due consideration.
xiv. The Planning Director shall mail notice of the City Council decision and the reason statement to those individuals and organizations entitled to receive notice of the appeal pursuant to Subsection iv above, and to Parties of Record at the public hearing on the appeal. B.
Modifications of Approvals This Section describes the procedures for modification of existing approvals under this Code.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
363
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.7 Post-Decision Actions and Limitations
(1) Minor Modifications (a) Procedure i.
After City approval or approval with conditions of an application under this Code, a property owner or holder of a permit or approval under this Code may apply for a Minor Modification of the permit or approval.
ii.
No Minor Modification may be approved if it would have the effect of reversing a decision on appeal of the initial approval or is inconsistent with a condition attached to the initial approval.
iii.
The Planning Director is authorized to approve, approve with conditions, or deny Minor Modifications and to require the applicant to file and/or record those materials necessary to document the Minor Modification in the City or Ada County records, as applicable.
(b) Permitted Minor Modifications i.
Conditional Use Permits A.
The Planning Director may approve the following types of Minor Modifications: (i)
A reduction in the density that does not exceed 25 percent of total units;
(ii) A relocation of dwelling units or building pads for some practical reason such as road alignment, topography, access, solar access, or stability in hillside areas; (iii) A change in the phasing plan; (iv) A modification to the recreation area or open space design that does not significantly reduce or eliminate the recreation or opens space area; (v) An increase or decrease in the proposed setback as long as Code requirements are met; and (vi) Similar changes as determined by the Planning Director. B.
ii.
Applications for minor expansions of approved conditional uses shall be processed pursuant to Section 11-05-05.2.D, Conditional Use - Minor Expansion.
Design Review Approvals The Planning Director may approve the following types of Minor Modifications to Design Review approvals:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
A.
Modifications to previous Minor Design Review that are consistent with Code standards;
B.
Relocation of building pads or dwelling units provided that the modification does not significantly alter the site in terms of parking layouts, vehicular circulation, or landscaping;
364
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-04. Common Procedures 11-05-04.7 Post-Decision Actions and Limitations
iii.
C.
Increase or decrease in a setback as long as Code requirements are met;
D.
Change in materials, colors, window and door locations, and mechanical units, provided building design remains essentially the same and the changes comply with Code requirements.
E.
Modification to a recreation area or open space design that does not eliminate or significantly reduce the size of any area shown on the initial approval; and
F.
A change in landscape design or plant types, minor parking lot revisions, or minor site revisions that are consistent with Code requirements.
Planned Unit Developments Minor Modifications to approved Planned Units or related Development Plans shall be processed pursuant to Section 11-05-05.2.H.
iv.
Other Approvals Under this Code Those modifications that the Planning Director determines are not inconsistent with any standard or requirement in this Code or any condition attached to a prior permit or development for the property, and that are not included in those types of applications for which a Floodplain Variance pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.E or a Variance pursuant to Section 11-0505.3.L are required.
(c) Findings for Approval i.
The Planning Director may approve a Minor Modification, or approve it with conditions, if the Planning Director determines that the modification is not inconsistent with any standard or requirement in this Code or any condition attached to a prior permit or development for the property and will not create a material negative impact on surrounding properties.
ii.
In the event the Planning Director is unclear as to whether a requested Minor Modification is consistent with this Section, the Planning Director may refer the application to the appointed body that granted the initial approval for treatment as a Major Modification.
iii.
The Planning Director’s decision as to what qualifies as a Minor Modification, and the Planning Director’s decision to refer the application to an appointed body, are not appealable.
(2) Major Modifications (a) After City approval or approval with conditions of an application under this Code, a property owner or holder of a permit or approval under this Code may apply for a Major Modification of the permit or approval. (b) A Major Modification is one that does not meet the definition of a Minor Modification under Subsection (1)(b) above.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
365
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.1 Type 1 Ministerial Decisions
(c) Unless otherwise provided in this Code, an applicant for a Major Modification shall be required to file a new application and follow the same procedure applicable to the initial application that was approved or approved with conditions, and the approval of the change shall be subject to the same criteria applicable to the initial application as applied to the requested modification. (d) Major expansions of approved conditional uses are processed pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.C, Conditional Use Permit - Initial Approval or Major Expansion. (e) Major modifications to Planned Unit Developments are processed pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.H. (f)
11-05-05. 1.
The Planning Director is authorized to waive any application submittal materials that are not required for the decision-making body listed in Table 11-05.1: Summary of Review and Decision-Making Procedures to evaluate the impacts of the proposed modification.
Specific Procedures
Type 1 Ministerial Decisions A.
Hillside Development Permit - Category 2 (1) Applicability (a) A Hillside Development Permit is required for any development proposal for properties when any topographical slope exceeds 15 percent or where adverse conditions associated with slope stability, expansion soils, high water table and springs, erosion or sedimentation are present as determined by the Planning Director in consultation with the City Engineer. (b) A Category 2 Hillside Development Permit is required for those projects defined in Section 11-02-07.3.G(3)(b). (2) Procedure Hillside Development Permit - Category 2 Application Review Director Decision Appeal to Hearing Examiner
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 1 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 1105-05.1. (b) A Category 2 Hillside Development Permit shall be processed together with the development application to which it relates.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
366
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.1 Type 1 Ministerial Decisions
(3) Findings for Approval The Planning Director shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the following criteria: (a) The proposed development complies with the geo-technical and engineering requirements of Sections 11-02-07.3.G, HS-O: Hillside Development Overlay and 11-04-05.6, Foothills Development Standards if applicable including those related to grading, drainage, hazardous areas, revegetation, preservation of outstanding and unique features; and (b) If located in the FP-O district, the proposed development complies with all requirements of Section 11-02-07.3.F, FP-O Flood Protection Overlay. B.
Home Occupation Permit for Family Daycare Home (1) Applicability This procedure applies to all applications to establish a Home Occupation Family Day Care Home. (2) Procedure Home Occupation Permit for Family Daycare Home Application Review City Clerk Decision Appeal to Hearing Examiner
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for Type 1 applications apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 11-05-05.1 (b) A Home Occupation Permit for Family Daycare Home shall be processed through the City Clerk’s licensing process and reviewed by the Planning Director to confirm compliance with all applicable standards in this Code. (3) Findings for Approval The Planning Director shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the criteria in Section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(a), Decision by Planning Director, City Official, or Hearing Examiner, including, but not limited to compliance with the standards in Section 11-03-03.1.B, Additional Standards for Accessory Uses and those in Section 11-03-03.3.A, Adult or Child Daycare Uses. C.
Record of Survey (1) Applicability A Record of Survey is required for the following:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
367
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.1 Type 1 Ministerial Decisions
(a) A Property Line Adjustment that establishes or modifies the boundaries of buildable parcels with boundaries that differ from existing buildable parcels and/or buildable lot boundaries; and (b) A Parcel Consolidation that combines two or more existing, contiguous buildable parcels into one buildable parcel. (2) Procedure Record of Survey Application Review Director Decision Appeal to Hearing Examiner
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 1 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 1105-05.1.C. (b) Evidence of recordation of a notice of buildable parcel with the City Clerk and Ada County Recorder is required before a Building Permit may be issued. (3)
Findings for Approval The Planning Director shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the criteria in Section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(a), Decision by Planning Director, City Official, or Hearing Examiner, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards set forth in Section 11-04-04.3, Records of Survey.
D.
Sign Permit for On-Premise Sign (1) Applicability (a) Except as otherwise exempted by Section 11-04-012.4, Signs Not Requiring a Permit, it shall be unlawful to erect, construct, enlarge, move, or convert any sign without first obtaining a Sign Permit. (b) A Sign Permit shall not be required for a change of copy on a sign, nor for the repainting, cleaning, or other normal maintenance or repair for which a permit has previously been issued provided that the sign or sign structure is not altered in any way.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
368
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.1 Type 1 Ministerial Decisions
(2) Procedure Sign Permit for On-Premise Sign Application Review Director Decision Appeal to Hearing Examiner
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and DecisionMaking Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for Type 1 applications apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 11-05-05.1.D. (3) Findings for Approval (a) The Planning Director shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the criteria in Section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(a), Decision by Planning Director, City Official, or Hearing Examiner, including, but not limited to compliance with the standards in Section 11-04-012, Signs. (b) No condition attached to the approval of any Sign Permit shall include any form of content regulation prohibited by state or federal law. E.
Temporary Sign Permit (1) Applicability Except as otherwise exempted by Section 11-04-012.4, Signs Not Requiring a Permit, it shall be unlawful to erect, construct, enlarge, move, or convert any temporary sign without first obtaining a Temporary Sign Permit. (2) Procedure Temporary Sign Permit Application Review Director Decision Appeal to Hearing Examiner
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
All applicable provisions of Section 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and DecisionMaking Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 1 application shall apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 11-05-05.1.E. (3) Findings for Approval The Planning Director shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the criteria in Section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(a), Decision by Planning Director, City Official, or Hearing Examiner, including but not limited to compliance with the standards in Section 11-04-012.7.B, Temporary Signs. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
369
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.1 Type 1 Ministerial Decisions
F.
Temporary Use Permit (1) Applicability A Temporary Use Permit is required for each use listed as a Temporary Use in Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses or any use with a planned duration of 180 days or less. (2) Procedure Temporary Use Permit Application Review Director Decision Appeal to Hearing Examiner
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
All applicable provisions of Section 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and DecisionMaking Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 1 application shall apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 11-05-05.1.F. (3) Findings for Approval The Planning Director shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the criteria in Section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(a), Decision by Planning Director, City Official, or Hearing Examiner, including but not limited to compliance with the standards in Section 11-03-03.7, Temporary Uses. G.
Zoning Compliance Review (1) Applicability A Zoning Compliance Review through the Building Permit review is required to approve a Type 1 applications that are not listed separately in this Code, including but not limited to the following: (a) Category 1 Hillside Development Permits for those projects defined in Section 11-02-07.3.G(3)(a); (b) Minor exterior commercial building or Multiple-Family Dwelling changes including but not limited to: i.
Addition or removal of a window that complies with Code standards;
ii.
Change of exterior building material that complies with applicable design standards; and
iii.
Change in awning type, such as fabric to metal or aluminum, that complies with applicable design standards;
(c) Accessory structures over 1,000 square feet in area or over 22 feet in height; and (d) Commercial fences.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
370
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.2 Type 2 Administrative Decisions
(2) Procedure Zoning Compliance Review Application Review Director Decision Appeal to Hearing Examiner
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
All applicable provisions of Section 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and DecisionMaking Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 1 application shall apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 11-05-05.1.G. (3) Findings for Approval The Planning Director shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the criteria in Section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(a), Decision by Planning Director, City Official, or Hearing Examiner.
2.
Type 2 Administrative Decisions A.
Allowed Use With Allowed Form (1) Applicability This procedure applies to all applications for an Allowed Use, as shown in Table 1103.1: Table of Allowed Uses that meets all applicable Use-Specific Form Standards and therefore has an Allowed Form applicable to the Allowed Use. (2) Procedure Allowed Use with Allowed Form Concept Review Interdepartmental Review Application Review Director Decision Appeal to Hearing Examiner
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and DecisionMaking Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 2 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 11-05-05.2.A. (3) Findings for Approval The Planning Director shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the criteria in Section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(a), Decision by Planning Director, Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
371
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.2 Type 2 Administrative Decisions
City Official, or Hearing Examiner including but not limited to the applicable UseSpecific Standards for that use, and specifically including those Use-Specific Form Standards (the Allowed Form) applicable to the Allowed Use in the zoning district in which it is located. B.
Alternative Sign Plan (1) Applicability This procedure applies to all applications for approval of an Alternative Sign Plan pursuant to Section 11-04-012.8. (2) Procedure Alternative Sign Plan Concept Review Interdepartmental Review* Application Review Director Decision Appeal to Hearing Examiner *If required by Section 11-05-04.3.A(3)(c)
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and DecisionMaking Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 2 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 11-05-05.2.B. (3) Findings for Approval The Planning Director shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if: (a) It complies with the criteria in Section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(a), Decision by Planning Director, City Official, or Hearing Examiner, including but not limited to compliance with the standards in Section 11-04-012.8, Alternative Sign Plan; (b) It will not create material distractions or confusion that could materially impact traffic safety; and (c) It will not materially increase visual clutter when viewed from adjacent streets, parks, open spaces, and Residential zoning districts, or any material impact to visual clutter have been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. C.
Certificate of Appropriateness - Minor (1) Applicability (a) General Within any HD-O district, the following provisions shall apply unless an exception to these provisions is shown in Subsection (b) below; i.
No building, site, structure, or exterior feature of any building, site, structure, or object (including, but not limited to, walls, pavement, or other
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
372
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.2 Type 2 Administrative Decisions
appurtenant features), above ground utility structure, trees removed or substantially modified, or any type of sign shall be erected, altered, restored, moved, or demolished within such district until after an application for a Minor Certificate of Appropriateness has been approved by the Planning Director or the HPC. ii.
A Minor Certificate of Appropriateness shall be required whether or not a Building Permit is required, and before any other application under this Code may be approved for the property in question.
iii.
The Minor Certificate of Appropriateness process shall apply to each activity identified in Subsection i. above that is identified as eligible for review and decision by the Planning Director in the Certificate of Appropriateness Matrix of major and minor historic preservation actions adopted by resolution by the City Council on recommendation from the HPC and on file in the Planning and Development Services Department and available on the City’s website.
(b) Exceptions i.
ii.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
No Certificate of Appropriateness is required for the following items: A.
Interior arrangement of any building or structure;
B.
Installation of temporary structures and features that do not remain in existence for more than 45 days in any consecutive 12 month period.
C.
A site or building improvement that does not require a Certificate in the Certificate of Appropriateness Matrix as adopted by resolution by the City Council and on file in the Planning and Development Services Department and available on the City's website.
If an application that is eligible for review as a Minor Certificate of Appropriateness will also require a Variance, it shall be reviewed as a Major Certificate of Appropriateness.
373
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.2 Type 2 Administrative Decisions
(2) Procedure Certificate of Appropriateness - Minor Concept Review Interdepartmental Review* Application Review Director Decision Appeal to HPC *If required by Section 11-05-04.3.A(3)(c)
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and DecisionMaking Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 2 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 11-05-05.2.C. (3) Findings for Approval The Planning Director shall approve, or approve with conditions, the application if the Planning Director, after consideration of the factors listed in Section 11-05-05.3.B(3), Findings for Approval, as applicable, determines that the proposed activity will not create a material negative impact on the historic character of the HD-O district in which the property is located, and that any minor impacts have been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. D.
Conditional Use - Minor Expansion (1) Applicability This procedure applies to all applications for approval to: (a) Expand an approved conditional use by less than 20 percent of the approved gross floor area or site area; (b) Reduce the project density by up to 25 percent of the total units; (c) Relocate dwelling units or building pads for some practical reason such as road alignment, topography, access, solar access, or stability in hillside areas; (d) Modify the phasing Plan; (e) Modify the recreation area or open space design that will not eliminate or significantly reduce these areas; (f) Increase or decrease in the proposed setbacks that comply with Code standards; and (g) Modify building elevations.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
374
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.2 Type 2 Administrative Decisions
(2) Procedure Conditional Use – Minor Expansion Concept Review Interdepartmental Review* Application Review Director Decision Appeal to Hearing Examiner *If required by Section 11-05-04.3.A(3)(c)
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures, 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 2 application, and Section 11-05-04.7.B, Modifications of Approvals apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 11-05-05.2.D. (b) In addition to the Interdepartmental Review that may be required by the Planning Director pursuant to Section 11-05-04.3.C prior to submittal of an application, the Planning Director may require an Interdepartmental Review of the application after the completeness of an application has been confirmed pursuant to Section 11-05-04.4. (3) Findings for Approval The Planning Director shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the criteria in Section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(a), Decision by Planning Director, City Official, or Hearing Examiner and with the following criteria: (a) The location and design of the proposed use is compatible to other uses in the surrounding area; and (b) The proposed expansion will not create any material negative impacts to uses in the surrounding area, or any material negative impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. E.
Design Review - Minor (1) Applicability (a) General This procedure applies to all applications for Minor Design Review approval unless exempted pursuant to Subsection (b) below: i.
A commercial or mixed-us building not exceeding 5,000 square feet gross floor area that is not on a lot abutting a Residential zoning district or residential use.
ii.
An industrial building not exceeding 10,000 square feet gross floor area that is not on a lot or parcel abutting a residential zoning district or a residential use.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
375
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.2 Type 2 Administrative Decisions
iii.
A residential development of less than 50 dwelling units.
iv.
Surface parking lots.
v.
Signs.
vi.
Demolition of structures (excluding uninhabited accessory structures).
vii. A Modification meeting the standards set forth in Section 11-0504.7.B(1)(b)ii. (b) Exceptions i.
Single-Family Detached, Single-Family Attached, Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex Dwellings are exempted from the requirements of this Section, unless they are required to comply pursuant to Section 11-04-03.4, Residential Small Lots.
ii.
Installation of the following: A.
Building additions or accessory buildings less than 200 square feet;
B.
Roof and fascia changes;
C.
Minor parking lot revisions;
D.
Minor repairs that do not result in discernable changes; and/or
E.
Repainting of approved parking stalls.
(c) Applications that are not required to complete Minor Design Review are still required to comply with applicable design standards in Section 11-04-06, Building Design. (2) Procedure Design Review - Minor Concept Review Interdepartmental Review Application Review Director Decision Appeal to DRC
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures, 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 2 application, and Section 11-05-04.7.B, Modifications of Approvals apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 11-05-05.2.E. (b) The Planning Director shall determine whether the application is categorized as requiring Minor or Major Design Review. (c) For those applications that require Minor Design Review pursuant to Section 1105-05.2.E, a separate application for a Zoning Certificate shall not be required and Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
376
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.2 Type 2 Administrative Decisions
compliance with the applicable use standards shall be reviewed as a part of the Minor Design Review approval. (3) Findings for Approval (a) The Planning Director shall approve, or approve with conditions, the application if it complies with the criteria listed in Section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(a), Decision by Planning Director, City Official, or Hearing Examiner. (b) The Planning Director may determine whether an approval or approval with conditions may be attached to a required Zoning Certificate rather than a separate approval document. F.
Floodplain Permit (1) Applicability (a) A Floodplain Permit is required for all development within the Flood Protection Overlay district (FD-O) as described in Section 11-02-07.3.F(1)(c), Applicability. (b) Compliance with the standards in this Code shall not relieve any person of the independent obligation to comply with all applicable standards and practices established in federal and state law and all other applicable rules, regulations, standards, and specifications of the City regarding development within a floodplain. (2) Procedure Floodplain Permit Concept Review Interdepartmental Review* Application Review Director Decision Appeal to Hearing Examiner *If required by Section 11-05-04.3.A(3)(c)
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 2 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 1105-05.2.F. (b) The application shall be processed concurrently with other related development applications for the same project. (3) Findings for Approval The Planning Director shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, after consultation with the Floodplain Administrator, if it complies with the criteria in Section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(a), Decision by Planning Director, City Official, or Hearing
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
377
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.2 Type 2 Administrative Decisions
Examiner, including but not limited to compliance with the standards in Section 1102-07.3.F, FP-O Flood Protection Overlay. G.
Legal Nonconformity - Confirmation, Change, or Minor Expansion (1) Applicability (a) This Section applies to: i.
All applications by a property owner to confirm the legal nonconforming status of an existing parcel, use, or building;
ii.
All applications by a property owner to expand a legal nonconforming use or building by less than 20 percent of the gross floor areas at the time the use became nonconforming;
iii.
All applications by a property owner to change a legal nonconforming use to a different legal nonconforming use; and
iv.
All requests by the Planning Director to have a property owner provide evidence of the legal nonconforming status and existing use.
(b) Applications for an expansion of a legal nonconforming use or building by 20 percent or more shall be subject to the standards set forth in Section 11-0505.3.G, Legal Nonconformity - Major Expansion. (2) Procedure Legal Nonconformity – Confirmation, Change, or Minor Expansion Concept Review Interdepartmental Review* Application Review Director Decision Appeal to Hearing Examiner *If required by Section 11-05-04.3.A(3)(c)
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04 Common Procedures for a Type 2 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 1105-05.2.G. (b) Regardless of whether the property owner or the Planning Director has requested confirmation of the legal nonconforming status of a property, the property owner shall be required to provide evidence of the date on which the parcel, structure, use, sign, or site feature was first created or established. Evidence may include but is not limited to utility records, photographs, assessor's records, rental receipts, phone directories, notarized statements, and Polk Directories.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
378
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.2 Type 2 Administrative Decisions
(c) If the Planning Director determines that the legal nonconforming status has been demonstrated by the property owner, the Planning Director shall issue a Zoning Certificate documenting the legal nonconforming status. (d) If the property owner does not provide evidence or the Planning Director determines that the evidence presented does not demonstrate legal nonconforming status of the parcel, structure, use, sign, or site feature, the Planning Director shall mail the property owner a notice that the property does not have legal nonconforming status. The notice may also identify what portions or aspects of the property may be violations of this Code and what is required to bring the property into compliance with this Code. (3) Findings for Approval (a) The Planning Director shall approve or approve with conditions the application for confirmation of a legal nonconforming use or building if the Planning Director determines that the use or building that is the subject of the application was legal when the use was begun or the building was constructed, and has become nonconforming since that time due to the actions of a government agency, including but not limited to an amendment to this Code or another government regulation, and not due to the actions of the current or prior owner of the property. (b) The Planning Director shall approve or approve with conditions a change of a legal nonconforming use to different legal nonconforming use if the new use: i.
Will not unduly burden transportation or service facilities in the vicinity and does not adversely impact the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services;
ii.
Will not result in material negative impacts to surrounding properties; or that any deviation from those criteria has been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable;
iii.
Will be no greater in intensity, impacts, and demand for services than the existing legal nonconforming use; and
iv.
Will not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan;
(c) The Planning Director shall approve or approve with conditions an expansion of a legal nonconforming use or building by up to 20 percent beyond the area of the building or parcel occupied by the legal nonconforming use or the building on the date it became legally nonconforming, if: i.
The expansion will not unduly burden transportation or service facilities in the vicinity and does not adversely impact the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services;
ii.
The expansion will not result in material negative impacts to surrounding properties or that any deviation from those criteria has been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable;
iii.
Any expansion of a legal nonconforming building will conform to the applicable sections of this Code and will not increase the degree of
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
379
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.2 Type 2 Administrative Decisions
nonconformity of that part of the building that does not meet the provisions of this Code; and iv. H.
The expansion will not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
Planned Unit Development Modification - Minor (1) Applicability (a) This Section applies to applications for modifications to Planned Unit Developments approved after the Effective Date that are similar to a Minor Design Review application pursuant to Section11-05-05.2.E or a Zoning Certificate pursuant to Section 11-05-05.2.L. (b) For Planned Unit Developments approved prior to the Effective Date, modifications shall be reviewed through the Conditional Use Minor Expansion process pursuant to Section 11-05-05.2.D. (2) Procedure Planned Unit Development Modification - Minor Concept Review Interdepartmental Review* Application Review Director Decision Appeal to Hearing Examiner *If required by Section 11-05-04.3.A(3)(c)
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and DecisionMaking Procedures, 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 2 application, and Section 11-05-04.7.B, Modifications of Approvals apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 11-05-05.2.H. (3) Findings for Approval The Planning Director shall approve, or approve with conditions, the application if it complies with the required Findings for Approval for a Minor Design Review in Section 11-05-05.2.E(3) or for a Zoning Certificate in Section 11-05-05.2.L(3), as applicable to the proposed modification. I.
Reasonable Accommodation for Accessibility (1) Applicability This procedure shall apply to each request to deviate from the standards in this Code to provide Reasonable Accommodation for a person experiencing disabilities as defined in the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act, as amended and interpreted by the courts.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
380
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.2 Type 2 Administrative Decisions
(2) Procedure Reasonable Accommodation for Accessibility Concept Review Interdepartmental Review* Application Review Director Decision Appeal to Hearing Examiner *If required by Section 11-05-04.3.A(3)(c)
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) Any ADA accommodation that is medically necessary and cannot satisfy the zoning code requirements may request additional review and approval prior to a zoning approval being issued. (b) Any ADA accommodation that is not medically necessary and cannot satisfy the zoning code requirements shall be treated as a variance and shall file a variance application. (c) All applicable provisions of Section 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 2 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 1105-05.2.I. (3) Findings for Approval (a) No such accommodation shall encroach or be located within a public right-ofway. (b) Such ADA accommodation for residential use shall refer to the adopted Building Code for construction guidance to ensure safe assembly, heights, distances, entry access and slope. (c) The Planning Director shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, after consultation with the City Attorney and other applicable parties, determines that approval of the Fair Housing Reasonable Accommodation is required to comply with the provisions of the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act. J.
Residential Small Lot Approval - Minor (1) Applicability This procedure applies to all applications subject to the Residential Small Lot standards in Section 11-04-03.4 that contain four or fewer dwelling units on up to four contiguous Residential Small Lots.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
381
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.2 Type 2 Administrative Decisions
(2) Procedure Residential Small Lot Approval - Minor Concept Review Interdepartmental Review* Application Review Director Decision Appeal to Hearing Examiner *If required by Section 11-05-04.3.A(3)(c)
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and DecisionMaking Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 2 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 11-05-05.2.I. (3) Findings for Approval The Planning Director shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the criteria in Section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(a), Decision by Planning Director, City Official, or Hearing Examiner, including but not limited to the applicable standards set forth in Section 11-04-03.4, Residential Small Lots. K.
River System Permit - Minor (1) Applicability A Minor River System Permit is required for all lands and waters and all aquatic, wetland, riparian, and upland environments within the jurisdiction of Boise City that lie: (a) Within the 100 year Floodplain boundaries adjacent to the Boise River; or (b) Within the Setback Lands and Waters as described in Section 11-02-07.3.E(6), Setbacks; or (c) Within Class A, Class B and Class C areas as described in Section 11-02-07.3.E(5), A, B, And C Lands and Waters Classifications; and that (d) Do not affect more than 100 lineal feet of river bottom or bank, nor more than one-half acre of Class A or B lands; (e) Do not materially alter, fully restores, or enhances the existing surface and groundwater hydrology, soils, plant and animal communities and habitats present within or adjacent to the project; and (f)
Provide for the maintenance of storm water detention/sedimentation basins and stabilization structures.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
382
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.2 Type 2 Administrative Decisions
(2) Procedure River System Permit - Minor Concept Review Interdepartmental Review* Application Review Director Decision Appeal to Hearing Examiner *If required by Section 11-05-04.3.A(3)(c)
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 2 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 1105-05.2.K. (b) In addition to that Interdepartmental Review that may be required by the Planning Director pursuant to Section 11-05-04.3.C prior to submittal of an application, the Planning Director may require an Interdepartmental Review of the application after the completeness of an application has been confirmed pursuant to Section 11-05-04.4. (c) The application shall be reviewed concurrently with all other applications required for approval of the specific development proposed for the property. (3) Findings for Approval The Planning Director shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the criteria in Section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(a), Decision by Planning Director, City Official, or Hearing Examiner and with the following criteria: (a) The proposed development complies with the applicable standards for Uses in Class A, B or C lands and waters in Section 11-02-07.3.E(5), A, B, And C Lands and Waters Classifications. (b) The proposed development complies with all standards in Section 11-02-07.3.F, FP-O Flood Protection Overlay applicable to the property, (c) The proposed development is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and complies with all the policies and standards of the Boise River Plan. (d) The proposed development includes measures designed to ensure that natural resources functions and values are preserved or enhanced and maintained. (e) The proposed development complies with all local, state, and federal laws and regulations.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
383
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.2 Type 2 Administrative Decisions
L.
Zoning Certificate (1) Applicability (a) A Zoning Certificate is required for any use that: i.
Does not require a Conditional Use Permit or Design Review approval;
ii.
Is not listed separately as a Type 2 application; and
iii.
Only requires review by the Planning Director to confirm compliance with the applicable standards of this Code. This category includes but is not limited to applications for approval of a mural, Sidewalk Café, Accessory Dwelling Unit, a Duplex, Triplex, or Fourplex Dwelling, or an Adult or Child Day Care Facility.
(b) A Zoning Certificate is also required prior to demolition of the following: i.
Any primary structure containing a primary Multiple-Family Dwelling or a Public, Institutional, and Civic, Commercial, or Industrial use as described in Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses.
ii.
Any non-accessory residential structure completed more than 50 years ago.
iii.
Any demolition for a structure within the NC-O Overlay District.
(c) Any request for demolition addressed in Subsection (b) above that is not accompanied by an application for a replacement structure shall be reviewed for compliance with the applicable Sections of Chapter 11-04, Development and Design Standards. (2) Procedure Zoning Certificate Concept Review Interdepartmental Review* Application Review Director Decision Appeal to Hearing Examiner *If required by Section 11-05-04.3.A(3)(c)
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 2 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 1105-05.2.L. (b) For those applications that require Minor Design Review pursuant to Section 1105-05.2.E, a separate application for a Zoning Certificate shall not be required and compliance with the applicable Design Review standards shall be reviewed as a part of the Minor Design Review.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
384
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.3 Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body
(3) Findings for Approval The Planning Director shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the criteria in Section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(a), Decision by Planning Director, City Official, or Hearing Examiner and that all applicable Minor Design Review criteria set forth in Section 11-05-05.2.E(3) have been met.
3.
Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body A.
Allowed Use with Alternative Form (1) Applicability This procedure applies to all applications for an Allowed Use, as shown in Table 1103.1: Table of Allowed Uses that comply with all Use-Specific Standards for the use, except that they do not meet one or more of Use-Specific Form Standards applicable to the Allowed Use in the zoning district that they are located in and therefore are proposing an Alternative Form for approval. (2) Procedure Allowed Use with Alternative Form Concept Review Neighborhood Meeting
Project Review and Questions
Interdepartmental Review Application Review PZC Decision
Public Hearing
Appeal to City Council
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 3 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 1105-05.3.A. (b) The review of the PZC shall be limited to consideration of the proposed Alternative Form of the proposed development and shall not consider or attach conditions to the use, operation, or activities within the proposed development. (3) Findings for Approval The PZC shall approve the Alternative Form for the Allowed Use, or approve it with conditions, if it determines that at least one of the following criteria have been met: (a) The Alternative Form will promote the urban design goals of the Comprehensive Plan and other approved plans applicable to the property as well or better than compliance with all Use-Specific Form Standards applicable to the Allowed Use;
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
385
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.3 Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body
(b) The Alternative Form is needed because the use and design of adjacent developed properties makes it impracticable to comply with the one or more of the Use-Specific Form Standards; or (c) If the Alternative Form includes a reduction in the required minimum height of the building:
B.
i.
The reduced height of the building will still provide an adequate sense of street enclosure and an adequate level of residential or nonresidential activity from the building to promote the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable plans for the property; or
ii.
The reduced height of the building, and any resulting reduction in the size of the building will not result in the underdevelopment of the site or the inefficient use of City facilities and infrastructure.
Certificate of Appropriateness - Major (1) Applicability (a) General Within any HD-O district, the following provisions shall apply, unless an exception to these provisions is shown in Subsection (b) below. i.
No building, site, structure, or exterior feature of any building, site, structure or object (including, but not limited to, walls, pavement or other appurtenant features), above ground utility structure, trees removed or substantially modified, or any type of sign shall be erected, altered, restored, moved or demolished within such district until after an application for a Minor or Major Certificate of Appropriateness has been approved by the Planning Director or the HPC.
ii.
A Major Certificate of Appropriateness shall be required whether or not a Building Permit is required, and before any other application under this Code may be approved for the property in question.
(b) Exceptions i.
ii.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
No Certificate of Appropriateness is required for the following items: A.
Interior arrangement of any building or structure; and
B.
Installation of temporary structures and features that do not remain in existence for more than 45 days in any consecutive 12 month period;
C.
A site or building improvement that does not require a Certificate in the Certificate of Appropriateness Matrix as adopted by resolution by the HPC and on file in the Planning and Development Services Department.
An application for a Major Certificate of Appropriateness may include a request for a Variance pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.L(1), Applicability.
386
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.3 Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body
(2) Procedure Certificate of Appropriateness - Major Concept Review Neighborhood Meeting
Project Review and Questions
Interdepartmental Review Application Review HPC Decision
Public Hearing
Appeal to City Council
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 3 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 1105-05.3.B. (b) If an alteration, demolition, or relocation that requires a Certificate of Appropriateness occurs prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for that action, the Planning Director shall, within 180 days, prepare a premature alterations report. The report shall identify any violations of Section 11-05-05.3.A and recommends rehabilitative measures, if any. The Planning Director shall provide the premature alterations report to the applicant and the relevant Registered Neighborhood Association and applicant. Upon issuance of the report, the Planning Director shall negotiate with the applicant, relevant Registered Neighborhood Association, and other affected parties in an effort to find a means of restoring the property to its original condition. Thereafter, but in no event to exceed 180 days from the issuance of the premature alterations report, the Planning Director shall provide to the Historic Preservation Commission a final report incorporating findings, recommendations, comments, and any other information. Pursuant to its grant of power under Idaho Code Section 67-4604 and Section 11-05-03.5.A, Duties, Jurisdiction, and Authority, the Commission may adopt, adopt with modifications, or deny the findings and recommendations of the final premature alterations report. i.
The premature alterations procedure, including the preparation of the report and negotiations, may be waived at the discretion of the Planning Director at any time.
ii.
During a review of a premature alteration, all work at the subject property, including further alterations, demolitions, relocations, construction, or modifications of any kind, shall cease until the final premature alterations report is adopted, or adopted with modifications. If denied by the
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
387
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.3 Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body
Commission work on the property shall remain stopped until resolved either by further action of the Commission or appeal to the City Council. (c) The HPC shall schedule a public hearing and 15 calendar days prior to the hearing, notice shall be mailed to the applicant, adjacent property owners and residents (including tenants), and to the Registered Neighborhood Association. (d) If the HPC determines that the findings for approval in Subsection (3) have not been met, it shall place upon its records the reason for such determination and shall notify the applicant in writing of its reasons and recommendations, if any, as to what actions could be taken in order to obtain a certificate. (e) The decision is deemed to have been made on the date that the HPC adopts written findings of fact and conclusions of law. (3) Findings for Approval The HPC shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if the following criteria have been met (a) General Findings i.
Plans and Guidelines The design of the project is consistent with the following plans and guidelines as applicable to the property:
ii.
A.
1993 Downtown Boise Plan;
B.
Urban Renewal Plans;
C.
Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts;
D.
Boise City Historic Preservation Plan (dated July 1979);
E.
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (The Secretary of the Interior's Standards);
F.
A Field Guide to American Houses by Virginia and Lee McAlester;
G.
American Vernacular Design 1870-1940 An Illustrated Glossary by Herbert Gottfried and Jan Jennings; and
H.
Design Guidelines for Commercial Historic Districts with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation August 2009.
Site Design The application shall be reviewed by the HPC, with input from other agencies, to evaluate the site design, and to determine compatibility and impact both on and adjacent to the site as it relates to access, parking lot design, landscaping, grading and storm drainage, and other development of the site. The HPC’s decision with regards to site design shall be based upon the following findings as they relate to historic preservation:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
388
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.3 Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body
A.
Traffic Impact, Pedestrian and Bicyclist Provisions That the site provides a safe, convenient, and efficient network that minimizes conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicular traffic by creating a network that includes sidewalks, pathways, landscaping that promotes and supports active transportation and does not adversely impact the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services.
B.
Landscaping That the proposed landscaping enhances the Historic District and neighborhood with attributes that include but are not limited to protection of desirable existing trees, provision of street trees, and adequate screening methods where needed to buffer adjacent uses and unsightly areas or features.
C.
On-Site Grading and Drainage That on-site grading and drainage have been designed so as to minimize off-site impact and provide for erosion control as required by the Public Works Department, Ada County Highway District and/or other jurisdictional agencies.
D.
Utility Service Systems That utility service systems and equipment do not detract from the building design or adjacent buildings, and the size and location of all service systems are appropriate and maintainable.
iii.
Structure Design The design of all proposed buildings shall be reviewed in accordance with the Design Guidelines for Commercial Historic Districts Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts, on file in the Planning and Development Services Department and available ’on the City's website, as well as the following findings: A.
Building Mass That the mass of the building is reviewed for its relationship and consistency to other buildings within the historic district and area, and with the use proposed by the applicant.
B.
Proportion of Building Façades That the height to width relationship shall be compatible and consistent with the predominant architectural character of the Historic District.
C.
Shadow Relief/Design Interest That the exterior of the building provides shadow relief and design interest compatible with the architectural character of the area.
D.
Relationship of Exterior Materials That the appropriateness of materials and colors (paint colors are only reviewed in commercial historic districts) shall be reviewed as they
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
389
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.3 Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body
relate to building mass, shadow relief and compatibility with other buildings within the Historic District and area. E.
Multiple-Family Buildings That any Multiple-Family building is designed to include features that add to the visual and aesthetic appearance of the structure and help prevent a sterile, box-like appearance. Such features may include the use of brick or stone, roof or façade modulation, planter boxes, bay windows, balconies, or porches. Specific design features have been added to enhance the physical appearance of such Multiple-Family residential structures.
F.
Commercial/Industrial Buildings Adjacent to Residential Uses That the building is designed to minimize impacts on adjacent residential uses and/or Residential zoning districts.
(b) Findings for Alterations In addition to the general findings in Subsection (a). above, an application for the alteration of an existing building shall only be approved or approved with conditions if the HPC finds that the application: i.
Is consistent with the Design Guidelines for Commercial Historic Districts or Residential Historic Districts and that based on the Guidelines, the request will not be incongruous with the historical, architectural, archeological, educational, or cultural aspects of the district;
ii.
Is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, or other standards as applicable (preservation, restoration, or reconstruction);
iii.
Complies with the dimensional standards and other applicable requirements of this Code including, but not limited to, setbacks, height restrictions and parking requirements unless the HPC finds that modifying those standards is necessary to protect the overall characteristics of the district and to comply with the adopted Design Guidelines; and
iv.
Will not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan
(c) Findings for Signs In addition to the general findings in Subsection (a) above, an application for a sign shall only be approved if the HPC finds that the sign will be congruous with the building in design, materials, size, and location. (d) Findings for Demolitions or Relocations i.
If the application involves the demolition or relocation of a structure, in addition to the general findings in Subsection (a) above, the HPC must find that at least three out of the five following criteria have been met: A.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
The building, site, structure, or object is not classified as contributing within the district as stated on the survey form on file in the Planning and Development Services Department; 390
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.3 Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body
ii.
B.
The building, site, structure, or object cannot reasonably meet national, state, or local criteria for designation as an historic property;
C.
Demolition of the building, site, structure, or object would not have an adverse impact on the character of the district and/or the adjacent properties;
D.
The owner has reasonably demonstrated that rehabilitation of the building, site, structure, or object would not be economically practical, realistic, or viable based on review of the information required in the application provided by the applicant at the time the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness is submitted; and
E.
Plans have been submitted to redevelop the property if the demolition proceeds and such plans will have a positive effect on the district and/or adjacent properties. The size, scale, use, materials, and/or overall design of the project may be considered as qualities for producing a positive effect.
If the HPC has approved a partial demolition and approved the replacement structure and the plans for the replacement structure remain the same, and the Building Official later determines in writing that a full demolition is necessary for life safety and there are no other cost-effective alternatives, the Planning Director may approve the full demolition.
(e) Findings for Change in Use If the application requests a change of use, in addition to the general findings in Subsection (a) above, the HPC must find that the following criteria have been met:
(f)
i.
That the request will not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and supports the goals, objectives, and policies of the applicable neighborhood plans; and
ii.
That the request will be congruous with the historical, architectural, archeological, educational, or cultural significance of the district.
Findings if a Request for Variance is Included An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness may be combined with an application for a Variance pursuant to Section11-05-05.3.L, and both applications may be reviewed and a decision made by the HPC after a single public hearing, provided that the decision on the Variance application shall be based on the findings for approval in Section 11-05-05.3.L(3).
C.
Conditional Use Permit - Initial Approval or Major Expansion (1) Applicability (a) A Conditional Use Permit is required for any use that is classified as a Conditional Use in Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses and for a Major Expansion of an approved conditional use permit. A Major Expansion of an approved conditional use permit includes but is not limited to:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
391
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.3 Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body
i.
An increase in density;
ii.
A density decrease exceeding 25 percent of the total units that has been approved through a Conditional Use Permit;
iii.
Any change that will impact the neighborhood, such as a significant change in traffic generation or flow;
iv.
A change that was the subject of an appeal during the public hearing;
v.
A change that would affect some other condition such as a condition regarding pathways, streets, schools, floodplain, or foothills;
vi.
A request for a greater than 20 percent increase in building square footage;
vii. A request to change the nature of the approved use; viii. A request to change or delete a condition of approval; and ix.
A request that would increase or cause impacts to a foothill or river area, or an increase in soil erosion.
(b) No conditional use shall be conducted except in compliance with all applicable provisions of this Code and with any conditions upon such Conditional Use Permit approval. (2) Procedure Conditional Use Permit - Initial Approval or Major Expansion Concept Review Neighborhood Meeting
Project Review and Questions
Interdepartmental Review Application Review PZC Decision
Public Hearing
Appeal to City Council
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 3 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 1105-05.3.C. (b) An application for a Conditional Use Permit may be combined with an application for a Variance pursuant to Section11-05-05.3.L, and both applications may be reviewed and a decision made by the PZC after a single public hearing, provided that the decision on the Variance application shall be based on the findings for approval in Section 11-05-05.3.L(3).
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
392
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.3 Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body
(c) The PZC may extend the review and processing period for Conditional Use Permit applications. This extended review period is to allow for adequate staff research and analysis, agency review and comment, coordination with other City departments, and coordination with the applicant. (d) In addition to those types of conditions listed in Section 11-05-04.6.A(4), Conditions, the PZC may attach additional conditions to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, including but not limited to the following types of conditions: i.
Requiring more restrictive standards than those generally required in an ordinance;
ii.
Conformity to approved plans and specifications;
iii.
Provision of open spaces, pathways, buffer strips, walls, fences, landscaping, and lighting;
iv.
Maximum volume of traffic generated, requirements for off-street parking, service drive design, construction standards, vehicular and pedestrian movements within the site, and points of ingress and egress;
v.
Performance characteristics related to noise, vibration, and other potentially dangerous or objectionable elements;
vi.
Limits on hours of operation;
vii. The period of time for which a permit is issued; viii. The sequence and timing of the development; ix.
Guarantees as to compliance with the terms of the permit;
x.
Number, location, color, size, height, lighting, use of outdoor areas, and landscaping of outdoor signs and structures;
xi.
Requiring the provision for on-site or off-site public facilities or services, including the installation of street lights in accordance with the requirements of the Public Works Department;
xii. Requiring irrigation or drainage facilities to be covered or fenced for public safety. (e) Conditions applied by the PZC shall not restrict or specify the exterior detail or design, color, or materials, except if such detail is of such magnitude as to affect the general appearance and compatibility of the development with its surroundings. (3) Findings for Approval (a) General Unless Subsection (b) below applies, the PZC shall approve the application or approve it with conditions if it complies with the criteria in Section 11-0504.6.A(3)(b), Decision by Appointed Body or City Council and the following criteria:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
393
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.3 Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body
D.
i.
The proposed location is uniquely suited to accommodate the proposed use or is a location for the proposed use supported by the Comprehensive plan or other adopted plan of the City;
ii.
The proposed use will not create any material negative impacts to uses in the surrounding area, or any material negative impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, or the public benefits of the proposed use outweigh any material negative impacts of the proposed use that cannot be mitigated;
iii.
The site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open spaces, pathways, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and other such features as are required by this Code;
iv.
The site provides a safe, convenient, and efficient network that minimizes conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicular traffic by creating a network that includes sidewalks, pathways, landscaping that promotes and supports active transportation and does not adversely impact the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services;
v.
The proposed use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan; and
vi.
If the application is combined with an application for a Variance, the findings for approval of the requested Variance in Section 11-05-05.3.L have been met.
Design Review - Major (1) Applicability (a) Compliance Required A Major Design Review application is required for each of the following, unless listed as an action that can be approved as a Minor Design Review application under Section 11-05-05.2.E or exempted by Subsection (b) below: i.
Any visible exterior improvement or alteration to a site, building, or structure, including demolitions;
ii.
Any development in the CD-O district that meets the criteria set forth in Section 11-02-07.2.D(4), Design Review Permit; and
iii.
Any development in the HD-O district that is also subject to the Citywide or Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines, on file in the Planning and Development Services Department and available on the City's website. If the Citywide or Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines conflict with the Historic Preservation Guidelines, the Historic Preservation Guidelines shall prevail.
(b) Exceptions i.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
Single-Family Detached, Single-Family Attached, Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex Dwellings are exempted from the requirements of this Section, unless they are required to comply pursuant to Sections 11-03-03.2G, Duplex, Triplex, or Fourplex Dwelling or 11-04-03.4, Residential Small Lots. 394
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.3 Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body
ii.
iii.
Installation or modification of the following: A.
Building additions or accessory buildings less than 200 square feet;
B.
Replacement of approved roof and fascia;
C.
Minor parking lot revisions;
D.
Minor repairs that do not result in discernable changes; and
E.
Repainting of approved parking stalls.
Applications that are not required to complete Minor Design Review or Major Design Review are still required to comply with applicable design standards in Section 11-04-06, Building Design.
(2) Procedure Design Review - Major Concept Review Neighborhood Meeting
Project Review and Questions
Interdepartmental Review Application Review DRC Decision
Public Hearing
Appeal to City Council
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 3 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 1105-05.3.D. (b) The Planning Director shall determine whether the application is categorized as requiring Minor or Major Design Review. (c) Applications that are for new buildings or building additions greater than 200 square feet shall be prepared by, or under the direct supervision of, a duly licensed architect who shall be clearly identified on such designs, unless exempted under Idaho Code, Section 54-306. (d) If a Design Review application requires associated approvals by the PZC or City Council, such as a Conditional Use Permit or Planned Unit Development, those approvals shall be obtained before an application for Design Review approval may be processed. (e) The Planning Director may extend the review/processing period for Major Design Review applications. This extended review period is to allow for adequate staff
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
395
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.3 Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body
research and analysis, agency review and comment, coordination with other City departments, and coordination with the applicant. (f)
Except for development on Residential Small Lots, the DRC shall not require reductions in height, density, floor area ratio, or other regulations included in Table 11-04.2: Residential District Dimensional Standards and Table 11-04.3: Mixed-Use, Industrial, and Open Land District Dimensional Standards, unless required for reasons public safety, reasonable accommodation, or health.
(3) Findings for Approval The DRC shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the following criteria. (a) Site Design i.
The site provides a safe, convenient, and efficient network that minimizes conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicular traffic by creating a network that includes sidewalks, pathways, landscaping that promotes and supports active transportation.
ii.
The landscaping promotes well-conceived and attractive landscaping that will retain and protect existing vegetation where possible, enhance environmental conditions of the Treasure Valley, reduce potential impacts between adjacent and neighboring uses, and screen and conceal utilities, mechanical units, and services areas.
iii.
The on-site grading and drainage are designed to minimize off- site impact and provide for erosion control.
iv.
Signs minimize visual clutter.
v.
Utility systems do not detract from building design and their size and location are appropriate and maintainable.
(b) Structure Design i.
The building mass is appropriately designed to address the street and create a pedestrian-friendly environment.
ii.
The design employs façade articulation techniques that add visual interest to the pedestrian realm and reduce the perceived scale of large buildings.
iii.
Openings in the building façade provide visual interest to the pedestrian and mitigate impacts of monotonous flat walls planes, blank wall areas and provide shadow relief.
iv.
Exterior materials are high-quality materials that minimize maintenance cost and provide visual interest to the street. Locally sourced and sustainable materials are strongly encouraged.
v.
The building design shall minimize impacts on adjacent Residential zoning districts and residential uses.
(c) Adopted Plans and Design Guidelines The application complies with all adopted plans and design guidelines, including the Citywide and Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines, unless modified Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
396
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.3 Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body
by conditions attached by the DRC to satisfy the required findings in Subsections (a) and (b) above. E.
Floodplain Variance (1) Applicability (a) A Floodplain Variance is required for all requests to vary the requirements of Section 11-02-07.3.F, FP-O Flood Protection Overlay. (b) Floodplain Variances may generally be issued for new construction and substantial improvements to be erected on a lot of one-half acre or less in size that is contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the Base Flood Elevation. (2) Procedure Variance Concept Review Neighborhood Meeting
Project Review and Questions
Interdepartmental Review Application Review Hearing Examiner Decision
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 3 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 1105-05.3.E. (b) In reaching a decision, the Hearing Examiner shall review: i.
The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others;
ii.
The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage;
iii.
The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner;
iv.
The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community; the necessity to the facility of a waterfront location where applicable;
v.
The availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not subject to flooding or erosion damage;
vi.
The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development;
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
397
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.3 Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body
vii. The relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan and floodplain management program for that area; viii. The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles; ix.
The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters, if applicable, expected at the site; and
x.
The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities including but not limited to sewer, gas, electrical, water systems, and streets and bridges.
(c) Any applicant to whom a Floodplain Variance is issued shall be given written notice that the cost of flood insurance may be commensurate with any increased flood risk. (d) The Floodplain Administrator shall maintain a record of all Floodplain Variance actions, including justification for their approval. (3) Findings for Approval (a) General The Hearing Examiner shall approve a Floodplain Variance request, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the criteria in Section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(a), Decision by Planning Director, City Official, or Hearing Examiner and the following criteria: i.
Floodplain Variances shall not be issued within any designated floodway if any increase in flood levels during the Base Flood discharge would result.
ii.
A Floodplain Variance shall only be issued upon determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief.
iii.
A Floodplain Variance shall only be issued upon a showing of good and sufficient cause, a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; and a determination that the granting of a variance shall not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, the creation of nuisances, degradation of or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances.
iv.
The Floodplain Variance is consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program adoption of the general zoning law principles that:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
A.
They pertain to a physical piece of property;
B.
They are not personal in nature;
C.
They do not pertain to the uniqueness of the structure, its inhabitants, economic or financial circumstances;
D.
They primarily address smaller lots in densely populated residential neighborhoods; and 398
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.3 Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body
E. v.
F.
They should be approved quite rarely.
Floodplain Variances for nonresidential buildings may be approved in very limited circumstances to allow a lesser degree of flood-proofing than watertight or dry-flood-proofing, where it can be determined that such action will have low damage potential, and otherwise complies with the standards in Sections 11-02-07.3.F(3)(b)i, Uses and 11-02-07.3.F(3)(b)ii, Utilities.
Hillside Development Permit - Category 3 (1) Applicability (a) A Hillside Development Permit is required for any development proposal for properties when any topographical slope exceeds 15 percent or where adverse conditions associated with slope stability, expansion soils, high water table and springs, erosion or sedimentation are present as determined by the Planning Director or City Engineer. (b) A Category 3 Hillside Development Permit is required for those projects defined in Section 11-02-07.3.G(3)(c). (2) Procedure Hillside Development Permit Category 3 Concept Review Neighborhood Meeting
Project Review and Questions
Interdepartmental Review Application Review Public Works Department Meeting PZC Decision
Public Hearing
Appeal to City Council
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 3 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 1105-05.3.F. (b) A meeting with the Public Works Department shall be held after acceptance of the application. (c) An application for a Category 3 Hillside Development Permit may be combined with an application for a Subdivision Plat or Planned Unit Development and both
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
399
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.3 Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body
applications may be reviewed, and a recommendation made by the PZC to the City Council. (3) Findings for Approval The PZC shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the criteria in Section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(b), Decision by Appointed Body or City Council and the following criteria: (a) The proposed development complies with the technical requirements of Sections 11-02-07.3.G, HS-O: Hillside Development Overlay and 11-04-05.6, Foothills Development Standards if applicable including those related to grading, drainage, hazardous areas, revegetation, preservation of outstanding and unique features; (b) If located in the FP-O district, the proposed development complies with all requirements of Section 11-02-07.3.F, FP-O Flood Protection Overlay. (c) The land itself is capable of the volume and type of development proposed as determined by geological, hydrological and soils engineering analysis; and (d) The project does not create a potential hazard of flooding, soil instability, fire, and erosion. G.
Legal Nonconformity - Major Expansion (1) Applicability This procedure applies to all applications to expand a legal nonconforming use or building by 20 percent or more of the areas occupied at the time the use became legally nonconforming. (2) Procedure Legal Nonconformity - Major Expansion Concept Review Neighborhood Meeting
Project Review and Questions
Interdepartmental Review Application Review PZC Decision
Public Hearing
Appeal to City Council
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and DecisionMaking Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 3 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 11-05-05.3.G.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
400
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.3 Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body
(3) Findings for Approval The PZC shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the criteria in Section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(b), Decision by Appointed Body or City Council and the following criteria: (a) The expansion will not unduly burden transportation or service facilities in the vicinity and does not adversely impact the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services; (b) Will not result in material negative impacts to surrounding properties; or that any deviation from those criteria has been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable and the public benefits of the proposed expansion outweighs any material negative impacts of the proposed expansion that cannot be mitigated; (c) Any expansion of a legal nonconforming building will not increase the degree of nonconformity of that part of the building that does not meet the provisions of this Code; and (d) The expansion will not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. H.
Planned Unit Development Modification - Major (1) Applicability (a) This Section applies to applications for modifications to Planned Unit Developments approved after the Effective Date that the Planning Director determines are not eligible for approval as a Planned Unit Development Minor Modification pursuant to Section 11-05-05.2.H. (b) For Planned Unit Developments approved prior to the Effective Date, modifications shall be reviewed through the Conditional Use Major Expansion process pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.C. (2) Procedure Planned Unit Development Modification - Major Concept Review Neighborhood Meeting
Project Review and Questions
Interdepartmental Review Application Review PZC Decision
Public Hearing
Appeal to City Council
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and DecisionMaking Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 3 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 11-05-05.3.H. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
401
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.3 Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body
(3) Findings for Approval The PZC shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the required findings for approval for a Zoning Map Amendment pursuant to Section 11-05-05.4.I(2)(a)ii as applicable to a Planned Unit Development. I.
Reclassification of Historic Resource (1) Applicability This procedure applies to any application to change the classification of any building, site, structure, or object located within a designated Historic District from a noncontributing to a contributing property, or from a contributing to a non-contributing property, which action may occur on or after the 50th anniversary of its original construction. (2) Procedure Reclassification of Historic Resource Concept Review Neighborhood Meeting
Project Review and Questions
Interdepartmental Review Application Review HPC Decision
Public Hearing
Appeal to City Council
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 3 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 1105-05.3.I. (b) The application shall be filed pursuant to a motion of the Historic Preservation Commission or at the request of the Planning Director, property owner, or an applicant with the written consent of the property owner, (c) The HPC may reclassify a building, site, structure, or object within a designated HD-O district from non-contributing to contributing or from contributing to noncontributing. (3) Findings for Approval The HPC shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the criteria in Section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(b), Decision by Appointed Body or City Council and the following criteria:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
402
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.3 Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body
(a) A building, site, structure, or object may be reclassified from non-contributing to contributing or from contributing to non-contributing if the HPC determines that an error was made on the original survey. (b) A building, site, structure, or object may be reclassified from contributing to noncontributing or from non-contributing to contributing if alterations, additions or restorations have been made so that the classification prior to the change no longer reflects the proper classification after the change. (c) If the HPC determines that a reclassification is justified pursuant to Subsections (a) or (b) above, the HPC shall also make the following findings in writing.
J.
i.
Whether or not the building, site, structure, or object is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
ii.
Whether or not the building, site, structure, or object contributes to the HDO district in which it is located.
Residential Small Lot Approval - Major (1) Applicability This procedure applies to all applications subject to the Residential Small Lot standards in Section 11-04-03.4 that contain five or more dwelling units on five or more contiguous Residential Small Lots. (2) Procedure Residential Small Lot Approval - Major Concept Review Neighborhood Meeting
Project Review and Questions
Interdepartmental Review Application Review DRC Decision
Public Hearing
Appeal to City Council
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and DecisionMaking Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 3 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 11-05-05.3.J. (3) Findings for Approval The DRC shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the criteria in Section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(b), Decision by Appointed Body or City Council, including but not limited to the applicable standards set forth in Section 1104-03.4, Residential Small Lots.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
403
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.3 Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body
K.
River System Permit - Major (1) Applicability A Major River System Permit is required for all lands and waters and all aquatic, wetland, riparian, and upland environments within the jurisdiction of Boise City that lie: (a) Within the 100 year Floodplain boundaries adjacent to the Boise River; (b) Within the Setback Lands and Waters as described in Section 11-02-07.3.E(6), Setbacks; or (c) Within Class A, Class B and Class C areas as described in Section 11-02-07.3.E(5), A, B, And C Lands and Waters Classifications and that are not eligible for review as a Minor River System Permit pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.A. (2) Procedure River System Permit - Major Concept Review Neighborhood Meeting
Project Review and Questions
Interdepartmental Review Application Review PZC Decision
Public Hearing
Appeal to City Council
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 3 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 1105-05.3.K. (b) In addition to that Interdepartmental Review that may be required by the Planning Director pursuant to Section 11-05-04.3.C prior to submittal of an application, the Planning Director may require an Interdepartmental Review of the application after the completeness of an application has been confirmed pursuant to Section 11-05-04.4. (c) Review by the Parks Board is required when the property to which the application relates is adjacent to or includes the Greenbelt setback lands and waters. (d) The application shall be reviewed concurrently with all other applications required for approval of the specific development proposed for the property.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
404
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.3 Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body
(3) Findings for Approval The PZC shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the criteria in Section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(b), Decision by Appointed Body or City Council and the following criteria: (a) The proposed development is in compliance with the applicable standards for uses in Class A, B or C lands and waters. (b) The proposed development will not be in conflict with Comprehensive Plan and complies with all the policies and standards of the Boise River Plan, Section 1102-07.3.F, FP-O Flood Protection Overlay, and Section 11-02-07.3.E, BR-O: Boise River System Overlay. (c) The proposed development includes measures designed to ensure that natural resources functions and values are preserved or enhanced and maintained. (d) The proposed development complies with or shall comply with all local, state, and federal laws and regulations. L.
Variance (1) Applicability (a) This procedure applies to all applications by a property owner to deviate from the standards of this Code applicable to a proposed action or development, and that is not eligible for review and decision pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.E, Floodplain Variance. (b) An application for a Variance shall not include a request to permit a use that is not shown as an allowed, conditional, temporary, or accessory use for that zoning district in Section 11-03-02, Table of Allowed Uses and shall not be used to modify Use-Specific Standards applicable to an allowed, conditional, temporary, or accessory use in Section 11-03-03, Use-Specific Standards. (2) Procedure Variance Concept Review Neighborhood Meeting
Project Review and Questions
Interdepartmental Review Application Review Hearing Examiner Decision
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 3
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
405
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.3 Type 3 Decisions by an Appointed Body
application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 1105-05.3.L. (b) A Neighborhood Meeting shall be held in accordance with Section 11-05-04.3.B, Neighborhood Meeting, except that only the property owners and residents (including tenants) adjacent to the project and the Registered Neighborhood Association need to be notified. (c) A public hearing before the Hearing Examiner is required pursuant to Section 1105-04.5, Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing, except that mailed notice for a Variance is required only to the applicant and to each property owner or tenant addresses known to the City within the subject property and adjacent to the subject property (including those properties across a street, alley, canal, or other public right-of-way). (d) If the application is combined with an application for a Conditional Use Permit, the Hearing Examiner shall defer a decision on the application to the PZC, which shall decide the request for Variance pursuant to the findings for approval in Subsection (3) below. (e) As a part of a Variance approval, the Hearing Examiner may require a modification of the Code standards for lot size, lot coverage, width, depth, setbacks, parking spaces, height of buildings, or other Code provisions affecting the size or shape of a structure or the placement of the structure upon parcels in order to mitigate the impacts of the approved Variance. (3) Findings for Approval The Hearing Examiner shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the criteria in Section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(a), Decision by Planning Director, City Official, or Hearing Examiner and the following criteria: (a) A Variance may be granted to an applicant only upon a showing of undue hardship because of characteristics of the site; (b) Granting of the Variance will not be in conflict with the public interest; (c) Granting the Variance will not provide a right or special privilege to the property that is not available to other properties within the same zoning district; and (d) Granting of the Variance will not create material negative impacts to the public health, safety, or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements of other property owners, or the quiet enjoyment of the property, or any negative impacts have been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. (e) If the requested Variance is to the standards in Section 11-04-04, Subdivision Standards: i.
The tract to be subdivided is of unusual size or shape or has unusual conditions such that the strict application of these regulations would result in substantial hardship or inequity;
ii.
The requested Variance is necessary so that the property may be developed in a reasonable manner; and
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
406
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
iii. (f)
4.
The quality of the development is not diminished.
If the requested Variance is to the standards in Section 11-04-012, Signs: i.
It shall not have the effect of permitting any type of sign that is prohibited in that zoning district; and
ii.
The existence of legal nonconforming signs in the vicinity surrounding the property site shall not be cited as a hardship or used as justification for a special circumstance supporting the application.
Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council A.
Annexation of Land and Related Zoning Map Amendment (1) Applicability (a) An Annexation is required to expand the corporate boundary of the City. (b) The City shall limit its annexation to those lands within its Area of City Impact. If Boise City wishes to annex lands outside of its Area of City Impact, it shall first renegotiate its Area of City Impact Boundary with Ada County in accord with Idaho Code 67-6526(d) unless renegotiation is not required pursuant to Idaho Code 50-222, Annexation by Cities, Category A. (c) The Planning Director shall determine into which of the three following categories an application request falls: i.
Category A annexations are those in which: A.
All private landowners raise no objection to annexations; or
B.
Residential enclaved lands of less than 100 privately owned parcels, irrespective of surface area, that are surrounded on all sides by: (i)
Lands within the City;
(ii) Lands within the City's limits and by lands for which owner approval shall be given pursuant to Section 11-05-05.4.A(3)(b)i; or (iii) Lands within the City and by the boundary of the city's Area of City Impact. ii.
Category B annexations are those in which: (i)
The subject lands contain less than 100 separate private ownerships and platted lots of record and where not all such landowners have consented to annexation;
(ii) The subject lands contain more than 100 separate private ownerships and platted lots of record and where landowners owning more than 50 percent of the area have evidenced their consent to annexation at the outset of the annexation process; or (iii) The lands are the subject of a development moratorium or a water or sewer connection restriction imposed by state or local health or environmental agencies; provided such lands shall not be counted for purposes of determining the number of separate private
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
407
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
ownerships and platted lots of record aggregated to determine the appropriate category. iii.
Category C annexations are those in which the subject lands contain more than 100 separate private ownerships and platted lots of record and where landowners owning more than 50 percent of the area of the subject private lands have not evidenced their consent to Annexation at the outset of the Annexation process.
(2) Procedure Annexation of Land and Related Zoning Map Amendment Concept Review Neighborhood Meeting
Project Review and Questions
Interdepartmental Review Application Review PZC Recommendation
Public Hearing
City Council Decision
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 4 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 1105-05.4.A. (b) A request for the Annexation of property into the City may be initiated by the City Council, the PZC, or by property owners or holders of valid purchase interest. When the Annexation request is initiated by the property owner, the PZC may expand or modify the Annexation request. (c) A request for Annexation shall include evidence of consent to Annexation. Prior consent to annex shall be deemed given when consent is evidenced by written authorization or approval executed by the owner or the owner's authorized agent. (d) For Category A Annexations, the City may initiate the planning and zoning procedures set forth in Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code, to establish the Comprehensive Planning policies, where necessary, and zoning classification of the lands to be annexed. (e) In Category B Annexations, valid consent to annex is implied for the area of lands connected to a water or waste water collection system operated by the City if the connection was requested in writing by the owner, or the owner's authorized agent, or completed before July 1, 2008. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
408
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
(f)
In Category C Annexations: i.
Valid consent to annex is implied for the area of lands connected to a water or wastewater collection system operated by the City if the connection was requested in writing by the owner, or the owner's authorized agent, or completed before July 1, 2008.
ii.
Following completion of all procedures required for consideration of a Category B Annexation, but prior to enactment of an annexation ordinance and upon an affirmative action by the City Council, the city shall mail notice to all private landowners owning lands within the area to be annexed, exclusive of the owners of lands that receive water or sewer service and owners of lands that are subject to a recorded consent to annex. Such notice shall invite property owners to either give written consent or express written opposition to the Annexation, include a description of how that consent or opposition can be made and where it can be filed, and inform the landowner where the entire record of the subject Annexation may be examined. Such mailed notice shall also include a legal description of the lands proposed for Annexation and a simple map depicting the location of the subject lands.
iii.
Each landowner desiring to consent to or oppose the proposed Annexation shall submit the consent or opposition, in writing, to the City Clerk by a date specified in the notice, which shall not be sooner than 21 days after the date of the mailing of such notice.
iv.
After the date specified in the notice for receipt of written consent or opposition, the City Clerk shall compile and present to the Council a report setting forth the total physical area sought to be annexed and the total physical area of the lands, as expressed in acres or square feet, whose owners have consented in writing to the Annexation, plus the area of all lands receiving water or sewer service from the city and the area of all lands subject to a recorded consent to annex.
v.
Objections to the proposed Annexation shall be considered, except that:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
A.
Objections received after the conclusion of the 21-day period shall not be considered unless the late objection is due to the City's failure to follow the procedures provided in this Subsection (f).
B.
Objections received from owners of lands subject to a recorded consent to annex, or from owners receiving water or sewer service from the City, shall not be considered objections for purposes of this Subsection (f).
C.
Upon receiving the City Clerk's report, the City Council shall review the report and may thereafter confirm whether consent was received from the owners of a majority of the land areas and those providing written consent, in addition to all lands subject to the implied consent provisions set forth herein and those subject to consent of record in the office of the Ada County Recorder. The results of the report shall be reflected in the minutes of the City Council. 409
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
D.
If the report, as accepted by the City Council, confirms that owners of more land area have consented to Annexation than oppose such Annexation, the City Council may enact an ordinance of Annexation, that shall be published and become effective according to the terms of the ordinance.
E.
If the report confirms that owners of more land area oppose Annexation than consent to such Annexation, the Category C Annexation shall not be authorized.
(g) Written consent to annex lands, if recorded in the Ada County Recorder's Office, shall be binding upon subsequent purchasers, heirs, or assigns of lands addressed in the consent. Lands need not be contiguous or adjacent to the city limits at the time the landowner consents to annexation for the property to be subject to a valid consent to annex; provided however, no annexation of lands shall occur, irrespective of consent, until such land becomes contiguous or adjacent to Boise City. (h) For all categories of Annexation, compliance with the notice and hearing procedures governing a zoning district boundary change as set forth in Section 67-6511, Idaho Code, on the question of whether the property should be annexed and, if annexed, the zoning designation to be applied to the property; provided however, the initial notice of public hearing concerning the question of Annexation and zoning shall be published in the official newspaper of the City and mailed by first class mail to every property owner with lands included in such Annexation proposal not less than 28 days prior to the initial public hearing. (i)
All public hearing notices shall establish a time and procedure by which comments concerning the proposed Annexation may be received in writing and heard and, additionally, public hearing notices delivered by mail shall include a one page summary of the contents of the City's proposed Annexation plan and shall provide information regarding where the Annexation plan may be obtained without charge by any property owner whose property would be subject to the Annexation proposal.
(j)
After considering the written and oral comments of property owners whose lands would be annexed and other affected persons, the City Council may proceed with the enactment of an ordinance of Annexation and zoning.
(k) The decision to annex shall conclude with the passage of an ordinance of Annexation. (l)
In accordance with Idaho Code 67-6526(d), a renegotiation may be initiated by the City Council or the Board of Ada County Commissioners.
(3) Findings for Approval (a) The PZC shall recommend approval of the Annexation and zoning, or approval with conditions, if it determines that the Annexation will: i.
Incorporate the Boise sewer planning area;
ii.
Honor negotiated area of impact agreements;
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
410
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
iii.
Allow the efficient and economically viable provision of tax-supported and fee-supported municipal services; and
iv.
Promote other goals of population balance, contiguous development, protection of sensitive lands or environmental resources necessary for the delivery of municipal resources, and prevention of costs due to noncontiguous development.
(b) The City Council shall approve the Annexation and zoning, or approve it with conditions, if it determines that the Annexation is for the public convenience or necessity or for the general welfare and that the following criteria are met: i.
For a Category B Annexation: A.
The lands are contiguous or adjacent to the city limits and lie within the Area of City Impact.
B.
Land division of parcels to be annexed meets the following criteria: (i)
The land is laid off into lots or blocks containing not more than five acres of land each, whether the same shall have been or shall be laid off, subdivided, or platted in accordance with any statute of the State of Idaho or otherwise, or whenever the owner or proprietor or any such person by or with their authority has sold or begun to sell off such contiguous or adjacent lands by metes and bounds in tracts not exceeding five acres, or whenever the land is surrounded by the city.
(ii) Splits of ownership that occurred prior to January 1, 1975, and that were the result of placement of public utilities, public roads or highways, or railroad lines through the property shall not be considered as evidence of an intent to develop such land and shall not be sufficient evidence that the land has been laid off or subdivided in lots or blocks. (iii) A single sale after January 1, 1975, of five acres or less to a family member of the owner for the purpose of constructing a residence shall not constitute a sale within the means of this Section. For purposes of this Section, "family member" means a natural person or the spouse of a natural person who is related to the owner by blood, adoption, or marriage within the first degree of consanguinity. C.
A written Annexation Plan has been prepared and published that is appropriate to the scale of the Annexation contemplated and includes, at a minimum, the following elements: (i)
The manner of providing tax-supported municipal services to the lands proposed to be annexed;
(ii) The changes in taxation and other costs, using examples, that would result if the subject lands were to be annexed;
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
411
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
(iii) The means of providing fee-supported municipal services, if any, to the lands proposed to be annexed; (iv) A brief analysis of the potential effects of annexation upon other units of local government that currently provide tax-supported or fee- supported services to the lands proposed to be annexed; and (v) The proposed future land use plan and zoning designations, subject to public hearing, for the lands proposed to be annexed. D.
In addition to the criteria set forth elsewhere in this Section, Annexation of the following lands must meet the following requirements: (i)
Property owned by Ada County or any entity within the County, that is used as a fairgrounds area under the provisions of chapter 8, Title 31, Idaho Code, or chapter 2, Title 22, Idaho Code, shall have the consent of a majority of the Board of County Commissioners of Ada County; and
(ii) Property owned by a nongovernmental entity that is used to provide outdoor recreational activities to the public and that has been designated as a planned unit development of fifty acres or more and does not require or use any city services shall have the express written permission of the nongovernmental entity owner. ii.
iii.
B.
If the City Council finds that the criteria in Subsection i above are met, the City Council shall find and place in the minutes of the City Council meeting at which the Annexation is approved that: A.
The land to be annexed meets the applicable requirements of this Section and does not fall within the exceptions or conditional exceptions contained in this Section 11-05-05.4.A.
B.
The Annexation would be consistent with the public purposes addressed in the Annexation Plan prepared by the City.
C.
The Annexation is reasonably necessary for the orderly development of the City.
D.
If railroad rights-of-way property are included in the Annexation, property within the city limits adjoins or will adjoin both sides of the railroad rights-of-way.
For a Category C Annexation: A.
The findings for approval of a Category B Annexation have been met; and
B.
Consent to the Annexation as required by Section 11-05-05.4.A(2)(f)i has been obtained.
Code Adoption or Amendment (1) Applicability This procedure applies to all applications to adopt a replacement for this Code or an amendment to this Code. A Code Adoption or Amendment is required when Council
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
412
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
proposes the adoption of a Code or amendments to this Code to reflect trends in development or regulatory practices; expand, modify, or add requirements for development in general or to address specific development issues; or to clarify or modify procedures for processing development. (2) Procedure Code Adoption or Amendment Concept Review Interdepartmental Review Application Review Review by DRC for Design Overlay other than HD-O
Public Hearing
Review by HPC for HD-O
Public Hearing
PZC Recommendation
Public Hearing
City Council Decision
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 4 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 1105-05.4.B. (b) An application for a Code Adoption or Code Amendment may only be filed by a member of City Council or the Planning Director. (c) In the case of a Code Amendment to establish a Character or Design Review Overlay District, the City may require the HPC, DRC, or other board or commission, to review the application and make a recommendation. (d) If a Code Adoption or Code Amendment will result in a change to any zoning district or the creation of a new zoning district, the applicant will also be required to complete an application and follow all applicable procedures for 11-05-05.4.I, Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning, including Planned Unit Development). These applications may be run concurrently. (3) Findings for Approval The PZC shall recommend approval or approval with conditions, and the City Council shall approve the application or approve it with conditions, if the proposed Code Adoption or Code amendment: (a) Is required for public convenience or general welfare; and (b) Will not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
413
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
C.
Comprehensive Plan Adoption or Amendment (1) Applicability This Section applies to all applications proposing to adopt a new Comprehensive Plan or make an amendment to the existing Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to applications to adopt or amend the Future Land Use Map component of the Comprehensive Plan for the City. (2) Procedure Comprehensive Plan Adoption or Amendment Concept Review Interdepartmental Review Application Review PZC Recommendation
Public Hearing
City Council Decision
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 4 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 1105-05.4.C. (b) Any person may file an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment at any time, unless City Council has established by resolution a minimum interval between consideration of requests to amend, which interval shall not exceed six months. (c) The Planning Director shall prepare a report to be included with the staff report and findings indicating: i.
The predicted effect of the proposed development on the future growth of the city and the existing goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan;
ii.
Listing any revisions to this Code that would be needed to implement the proposed amendment; and
iii.
Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
(d) A Comprehensive Plan Adoption or Amendment shall become effective when enacted by resolution by the City Council.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
414
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
(3) Findings for Approval The PZC shall recommend approval or approval with conditions, and the City Council shall approve the application or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the following criteria: (a) Comprehensive Plan Adoption The Comprehensive Plan promotes the long term economic, social, and environmental health of the City and protects the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Boise City. (b) Comprehensive Plan Amendment The amendment:
D.
i.
Is required for the public convenience or necessity, or for the general welfare of the community;
ii.
Is necessary to address changes in conditions within the community that have occurred since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted or is necessary to correct one or more goal, objective, or policy that exist in the plan;
iii.
Is consistent with and will further the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, unless it explicitly modifies those goals, objectives, and policies;
iv.
Will not modify the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan in a way that creates inconsistencies between different chapters of the Plan, or that impairs the City’s ability to balance the goals, policies, and objective within or between different chapters of the Plan.
v.
Promotes a safe, convenient, and efficient network that minimizes conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicular traffic by creating a network that includes sidewalks, pathways, landscaping that promotes and supports active transportation, and does not adversely impact the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services; and
vi.
If the amendment is to the Future Land Use Map, the amendment is consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, or the other components of the plan are changed to create internal consistency.
Development Agreement or Modification (1) Applicability (a) This procedure applies to all applications to approve a Development Agreement, or to modify an existing Development Agreement, related to this Code. (b) A Development Agreement may be submitted by the applicant or may be required by PZC or City Council in connection with a Zoning Map Amendment pursuant to Section 11-05-05.4.I after a determination has been made that a Zoning Map Amendment application does not meet required findings without additional restrictions to those imposed by the proposed zoning district.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
415
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
(c) An application to modify an Existing Development agreement may be submitted by the applicant or may be required by the PZC or City Council in connection with an application under this UDO if the PZC or City Council determines that the application does not meet required findings without a change to an existing Development Agreement related to the property. (d) Restrictions contained in a Development Agreement are in addition to all the requirements of this Code. (e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as relieving the property that is subject to Development Agreement restrictions from further compliance with all other permit and Code requirements applicable because of the zoning designation of the property. (2) Procedure Development Agreement Concept Review Interdepartmental Review Application Review PZC Recommendation
Public Hearing
City Council Decision
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 4 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 1105-05.4.D. (b) A request to enter into a Development Agreement may be: i.
Submitted by a Zoning Map Amendment applicant;
ii.
Required by Council at a Zoning Map Amendment hearing; or
iii.
Required by Council upon recommendation from the PZC.
(c) A request to modify a Development Agreement may be: i.
Submitted by the applicant, property owner, or other person obligated by the terms of an existing Development Agreement;
ii.
Required by Council at a hearing on an application required by this Code; or
iii.
Required by Council upon recommendation from the PZC in connection with an application for a permit or approval under this Code.
(d) If Subsections (b)ii, (b)iii, (c)ii, or (c)iii above apply, time limits may be stayed if so directed by the City Council or PZC.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
416
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
(e) When requested by an applicant, the PZC shall conduct a hearing and forward a recommendation to the City Council. (f)
The Development Agreement shall expire as indicated within the agreement or as described below, unless it is not recorded within one year of the date of approval, in which case the agreement shall automatically expire and Council may initiate a Zoning Map Amendment to return the property to the prior zoning district or in the case of an initial zoning district at Annexation, to a zoning district deemed appropriate in light of the purposes of this Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
(g) A Development Agreement may be amended or terminated by the City Council, after public hearing, for failure to comply. Upon termination, the City Council may rezone the property to the prior zoning district or in the case of an initial zoning district at Annexation, to a zoning district deemed appropriate and not inconsistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. (h) In the case of a requested modification of a Development Agreement, the Planning Director may waive or adjust any pre-submittal requirement or common procedure related to the initial approval of a Development Agreement that the Planning Director determines is not necessary for the PZC, if applicable, or City Council to understand the impacts of the proposed modification of the Development. (3) Findings for Approval (a) The PZC shall recommend and Council shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if the Development Agreement does not grant a land use or property right or privilege to the applicant and is necessary to:
E.
i.
Provide infrastructure needed to support or service the proposed development;
ii.
Mitigate potential impacts of development under the proposed Zoning Map Amendment on the surrounding neighborhoods; or
iii.
Bring the Zoning Map Amendment application into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan or this Code.
Major Historic Preservation Actions This section consolidates several procedures related to historic resources in the City, each of which requires action by the HPC and each of which may require further action by City Council. (1) Demolition or Change in Use of an Historic Landmark (a) Applicability A Demolition or Change in Use of an Historic Landmark is required when an Historic Landmark designated by ordinance that is not part of an Historic District, is proposed to be demolished, materially altered, remodeled, relocated, or put to a different use.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
417
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
(b) Procedure Demolition or Change in the Use of an Historic Landmark Concept Review Neighborhood Meeting
Project Review and Questions
Interdepartmental Review Application Review HPC Recommendation
Public Hearing
City Council Decision
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
i.
All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 4 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 11-05-05.4.E(1).
ii.
A request to demolish or change the use of an Historic Landmark shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC).
iii.
After 180 days written notice of the owner's proposed action has been given to the HPC, the HPC may negotiate with the owner and with any other parties to try to find a means of preserving the property. The HPC may enter into negotiations with the owner for the acquisition by gift, purchase, or exchange of the property or any interest in the property during this 180 day period or any such action as is reasonably necessary or appropriate for the continued preservation of the property.
iv.
The HPC may reduce the waiting period required by this Subsection in any case where the owner would suffer extreme hardship unless a reduction in the required period were allowed. The HPC shall have the discretionary authority to waive all or any portion of the required waiting period, provided that the alteration, remodeling, relocation or change of use is undertaken subject to conditions agreed to by the HPC insuring the continued maintenance of the historical, architectural, archeological, or cultural integrity and character of the property.
v.
The HPC shall notify, in writing, property owners within a 300 foot radius of the Historic Landmark and the Registered Neighborhood Association of the request to demolish, alter, remodel, relocate or change the use of the Historic Landmark and may allow such owners and the Registered Neighborhood Association to provide input within the 180 day waiting period.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
418
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
(c) Findings for Approval The PZC shall recommend approval or approval with conditions, and the City Council shall approve the application or approve it with conditions if it finds that the demolition or change of use will not materially compromise the historical integrity or value of the HD-O district in which it is located, or if it determines that continuation of the current structure and use would result in unreasonable economic harm to the property owner. (2) Designation of Historic Districts (a) Applicability i.
A Designation of Historic Districts review is required in order to establish an Historic District.
ii.
The HPC, either on its own initiative or upon the request of the City Council, or upon the request of one or more owners of property in the area of a proposed Historic District, may recommend the designation of one or more Historic Districts.
(b) Procedure Designation of an Historic District Concept Review Neighborhood Meeting
Project Review and Questions
Interdepartmental Review Application Review HPC Recommendation
Public Hearing
PZC Recommendation
Public Hearing
City Council Decision
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
i.
All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 4 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 11-05-05.4.E(2).
ii.
Prior to recommending designation the HPC shall conduct studies, research and investigations based on the relevant criteria given in Section 11-0207.2.E(3), Criteria for Designation, regarding buildings, sites, structures and objects of such proposed Historic District or Districts.
iii.
The HPC shall prepare a report containing recommendations concerning the area or areas to be included in the proposed Historic District or Districts.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
419
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
iv.
Copies of the report shall be transmitted for review and recommendation to the PZC.
v.
Notice of the time, place and purpose of such hearing shall be given at least 15 calendar days prior to the hearing by one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city.
vi.
Notice of the hearing shall be given to the owners of all properties to be included in the District or Districts and to the Registered Neighborhood Association at least 15 calendar days prior to the hearing.
vii. After conducting the public hearing, the HPC may vote to proceed with the District, and shall submit a final report with its recommendations and a draft ordinance to the City Council. viii. If the HPC recommends approval or approval with conditions, a public hearing before City Council is required pursuant to Section 11-05-04.5, Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing. ix.
An application for the Designation of Historic Districts shall be accompanied by an application for a Zoning Map Amendment. Upon approval by the City Council of the ordinance establishing the Historic District, the zoning maps shall be changed to reflect the addition of the "HD-O" Historic Design Overlay zoning district.
x.
Upon passage of the ordinance, the owners of each property within the designated Historic District, and the Registered Neighborhood Association shall be given written notification of the City Council’s action.
xi.
The HPC shall notify City departments and other agencies as required under Section 11-02-07.2.E(10).
xii. One copy of the ordinance creating the District shall be filed in the office of the Ada County Recorder. xiii. The HPC shall maintain a register of Historic Districts as required under Section 11-02-07.2.E(11). xiv. Following designation, and physical changes in the District that are approved by a Minor or Major Certificate of Appropriateness pursuant to Sections 11-05-05.2.C or 11-05-05.3.A shall be added to the report/survey prepared to support the designation process. Updates are not considered amendments to the Historic District. (c) Findings for Approval The HPC shall recommend approval or approval with conditions and the City Council shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if the proposed Designation of an Historic District complies with the criteria set forth in Section 11-02-07.2.E(3), Criteria for Designation.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
420
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
(3) Designation of Historic Landmarks (a) Applicability i.
A Designation of Historic Landmarks review is required to officially designate an Historic Landmark.
ii.
The HPC, either on its own initiative or upon the request of the City Council, or upon the request of the owner of the property proposed to be designated, may recommend the designation of an Historic Landmark.
(b) Procedure Designation of an Historic Landmark Concept Review Neighborhood Meeting
Project Review and Questions
Interdepartmental Review Application Review HPC Recommendation
Public Hearing
City Council Decision
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
i.
All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 4 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 11-05-05.4.E(3).
ii.
Prior to recommending designation the HPC shall conduct studies, research and investigations based on the relevant criteria given in Section 11-0207.2.E(3), Criteria for Designation.
iii.
The HPC shall prepare a report containing recommendations concerning the Historic Landmark proposed to be designated and a draft of the designating ordinance to the City Council. The report shall include:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
A.
Comments regarding the suitability of the Historic Landmark for preservation or restoration.
B.
A statement regarding the appropriateness of an adaptive or alternative use of the Historic Landmark.
C.
A statement regarding the administrative and financial responsibility of the person or organization proposing to undertake all or a portion of the cost of acquisition, restoration, maintenance, operation or repair, or the cost of adaptive or alternative use of the property to the extent that
421
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
any, such considerations apply to the property proposed for designation. D.
A statement regarding the appraised value of the property if the owner of the property proposed for designation has not consented to such designation.
iv.
If the HPC recommends approval or approval with conditions, a public hearing before City Council is required pursuant to Section 11-05-04.5, Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing.
v.
For each designated Historic Landmark, the designating ordinance shall require the waiting period prescribed by Section s to be observed prior to its demolition, material alteration, remodeling, or removal. The designating ordinance shall also provide guidelines for a suitable sign or marker on or near the Historic Landmark indicating that the property has been so designated.
vi.
For properties designated as an Historic Landmarks and located within a local Historic District, the portions of this ordinance pertaining to the Districts takes precedence over the 180 day waiting period for demolition of the structure.
vii. For state or federal properties that are designated as Historic Landmarks, the designation is an honorary effort and the City acknowledges that the repair, maintenance, demolition or remodel of the structure is not within its jurisdiction. viii. Upon passage of the designating ordinance, the City shall provide the owners and occupants of each designated Historic Landmark written notification of the City Council’s action, and one copy of the designating ordinance shall be filed in the office of the Ada County Recorder. ix.
The HPC shall give notice of such designation to the Ada County Tax Assessor.
(c) Findings for Approval The HPC shall recommend approval or approval with conditions and the City Council shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if the proposed Designation of an Historic Landmark complies with the following: i.
The building, site, structure or object proposed for designation shall meet one or more of the criteria required in Section 11-02-07.2.E(3), Criteria for Designation; and
ii.
The building, site, structure or object proposed for designation meets the criteria established for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, as such criteria are applied to historic properties in the State by the Idaho Historic Sites Review Board.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
422
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
(4) Removal of Historic Designation (a) Applicability A Removal of Historic Designation review is required to rescind the designation by ordinance of all or part of a HD-O district or a property within an HD-O district. (b) Procedure Removal of Historic Designation Concept Review Neighborhood Meeting
Project Review and Questions
Interdepartmental Review Application Review HPC Recommendation
Public Hearing
PZC Recommendation
Public Hearing
City Council Decision
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
i.
All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 4 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 11-05-05.4.E(4).
ii.
The property owner or owner's representative, or the HPC, shall submit an application for removal of designation that includes a detailed explanation as to why the property (or properties) does not meet the criteria under which the district was adopted as outlined under Section 11-02-07.2.E(3), Criteria for Designation.
iii.
Prior to approval or denial of the application for removal of designation, the HPC shall schedule a public hearing on the request and notify, in writing, each property owner within the affected District if for removal of the entire Historic District or 300 foot radius from the property boundaries for an individual property removal within the district and the Registered Neighborhood Association at least 15 calendar days prior to the hearing. Notice of the time, date, place and purpose of such hearing shall also be published at least 15 calendar days prior to such hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the city.
iv.
If the HPC determines the proposed removal of designation is appropriate, it shall approve such application and shall prepare a report containing such
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
423
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
recommendation of removal of designation and a draft of a proposed ordinance removing such designation to the City Council. v.
If the HPC approves the application, a public hearing before City Council is required pursuant to Section 11-05-04.5, Scheduling and Notice of Public Hearing.
vi.
If the HPC determines that the application for removal of designation should not be recommended, it shall place upon its records the reason for such determination and shall notify the applicant of such determination and a copy of its reasons and its recommendations, if any, as appearing in the records of the HPC.
vii. If the Removal of Historic Designation will result in a change in zoning, the application for the Removal of Historic Designation must be accompanied by an application for a Zoning Map Amendment. Upon approval by the City Council of the ordinance, the zoning map shall be changed to reflect the removal of all or part of the HD-O district. viii. Upon approval of the ordinance, the City shall provide the owners and occupants of the HD-O district or property within the district for which designation was removed written notification of Council’s action. ix.
One copy of the ordinance shall be filed in the office of the Ada County Recorder.
x.
The HPC shall give notice of such removal of designation to the Ada County Tax Assessor and to the Boise office of the Internal Revenue Service.
(c) Findings for Approval The HPC shall recommend approval or approval with conditions and the City Council shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if the proposed Removal of Historic Designation complies with the following: i.
ii.
For removal of the designation of a building, site, structure, or object included within a designated Historic District, or designated as an Historic Landmark: A.
The building, site, structure, or object has ceased to comply with the criteria for designation in Section 11-02-07.2.E(3); or
B.
The building, site, structure, or object no longer exhibits the characteristics that qualified the property for inclusion within an Historic District.
For removal of HD-O designation, the district has ceased to comply with the criteria for designation in Section 11-02-07.2.E(3).
(5) Creation, Expansion, or Reduction of Historic Street Lighting District (a) Applicability This procedure applies to all requests to create a new Historic Street Lighting district, or to expand or reduce the area of an existing Historic Street Lighting district. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
424
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
(b) Procedure Creation, Expansion or Reduction of Historic Street Lighting District Concept Review Neighborhood Meeting
Project Review and Questions
Interdepartmental Review Application Review DRC Recommendation
Public Hearing
City Council Decision
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
i.
All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 4 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 11-05-05.4.E(5).
ii.
Applications for inclusion in an Historic Street Light District shall be made in writing to the Planning Director and the Director of Public Works. The request will be forwarded to the Public Works Commission and the DRC for their recommendation to City Council.
iii.
No public hearing before the HPC or PZC is required.
iv.
City Council shall make a decision on the application following a public hearing.
(c) Findings for Approval The Planning Director and Director of Public Works shall recommend approval or approval with conditions, and City Council shall approve the application or approve it with conditions, based on consideration of the following factors:
F.
i.
Historic characteristics of the proposed location;
ii.
Source and availability of funding of initial installation (both city and outside funding sources); and
iii.
Source and availability of funding for continued maintenance.
Subdivision Plat - Preliminary (1) Applicability A Preliminary Plat is required for all actions resulting in the division of land into smaller parcels for development, or the revision of existing platted land into different lots for development, except those actions exempt from these regulations by this Code or by state or federal law.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
425
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
(2) Procedure Subdivision Plat - Preliminary Concept Review* Interdepartmental Review* Application Review PZC Recommendation
Public Hearing
City Council Decision
Public Hearing
*For applications for a proposed subdivision that includes 40 or more lots or dwelling units
= Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 4 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 1105-05.4.F. (b) Concept Review and Interdepartmental Review shall be held in accordance with Section 11-05-04.2 when a proposed subdivision includes 40 or more lots or dwelling units. (c) A Neighborhood Meeting shall be held in accordance with Section 11-05-04.3.B, Neighborhood Meeting when a proposed subdivision includes 40 or more lots or dwelling units. (d) A Preliminary Plat application may be submitted with or without a Final Plat, as determined by the Planning Director. (e) Preliminary Plat approval shall expire if the applicant does not comply with the following:
(f)
i.
Within two years of approval, the applicant shall obtain the City Engineer's signature on one or more Final Plats covering portions of the Preliminary Plat areas as evidence of conformance with this Code and the City Council's conditions of approval.
ii.
Where a Preliminary Plat is approved subject to a Conditional Use Permit and the Conditional Use Permit expires, the plat shall also expire.
Preliminary Plats may be phased and do not need time extensions provided that at least one phase of the plat is approved annually. For phased developments, City Council may modify or add conditions for phases submitted after two years following Preliminary Plat approval.
(g) The City Council may grant an extension of a Preliminary Plat for up to one year in each request, provided an application for extension is filed at least 20 days prior to the expiration of either the first two year period or a previous extension.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
426
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
(3) Findings for Approval The PZC shall recommend approval or approval with conditions and the City Council shall approve the application, or approve it with conditions, if it complies with the criteria in Section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(b), Decision by Appointed Body or City Council including but not limited to those standard in Section 11-04-04, Subdivision Standards. G.
Subdivision Plat - Final (1) Applicability (a) This procedure is required to finalize a Preliminary Plat approved pursuant to Section 11-05-05.4.F. (b) No approved Preliminary Plat conveys to the property owner the right to install infrastructure or to sell or convey interests in lots, parcels, or tract based on descriptions of those lots, parcels, or tracts in the Preliminary Plat, until a Final Plat has been approved and recorded pursuant to this Section. (2) Procedure
Subdivision Plat - Final Interdepartmental Review* Application Review City Council Decision *For applications for a proposed subdivision that includes 40 or more lots or dwelling units
(a) All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 11-05-05.4.G. (b) A Final Plat shall be prepared in accordance with Title 50, Chapter 13 of the Idaho Code and with this Code and shall be submitted within two years of approval of a Preliminary Plat. (c) The City Engineer shall review and sign the Final Plat if it conforms to the approved Preliminary Plat and any conditions imposed by City Council. (d) If approved by City Council, the applicant shall record the Final Plat with the Ada County Recorder within one year from date of the City Engineer's signature. If the applicant fails to record the Final Plat within that time period, as that period may be extended by Council in the case of phased projects, the approved Preliminary Plat shall lapse and shall no longer be valid. (e) No public hearing before the PZC is necessary before City Council approval of a Final Plat. (f)
The City Council may grant an extension of a Final Plat for up to one year in each request, provided an application for extension is filed at least 20 days prior to the expiration of either the first two year period or a previous extension. In granting a
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
427
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
time extension, the City Council may modify or add conditions to the Final Plat to conform with adopted policies or Code changes since initial approval. (3) Findings for Approval The City Council shall approve the Final Plat if it conforms to the approved Preliminary Plat and any conditions imposed by City Council and has been signed by the City Engineer, a professional licensed surveyor, and all other City or governmental officials required to sign the Final Plat. H.
Subdivision Plat – Replat (1) Applicability (a) This procedure shall apply to all applications to remove from a recorded Final Plat: i.
A utility, drainage, or slope easement;
ii.
A public street or right-of-way owned by the City; or
iii.
A plat note.
(b) When a public street or public rights-of-way is located within the Ada County Highway District (ACHD, the ACHD shall have the authority to vacate the public street or public rights-of-way as provided in section 40-203, Idaho Code. (2) Procedure Subdivision Plat – Replat to Vacate Utility, Drainage, or Slope Easement Concept Review* Neighborhood Meeting*
Project Review and Questions
Interdepartmental Review* Application Review City Council Decision *If required by Planning Director.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
= Input Opportunities
428
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
Subdivision Plat – Replat to Vacate Plat Note or City-Owned Street or Right-of-Way Concept Review Neighborhood Meeting
Project Review and Questions
Interdepartmental Review Application Review City Council Decision
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
(a) All applicable provisions of Section 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 11-05-05.4.H. (b) Some or all of the provisions of Section 11-05-04, Common Procedures do not apply to specific types of Replats. (c) A Replat showing the portion(s) of the recorded Final Plat shall be prepared in accordance with Title 50, Chapter 13 of the Idaho Code and with this Code, and shall indicate which lots, tracts, parcels, public streets and rights-of-way, and lands dedicated to the City or to another governmental or quasi-governmental agency, if any, are to be vacated. (d) The approval of a Replat shall not, by itself, result in the transfer of any lands dedicated to the City any governmental or quasi-governmental agency, to any other party. Transfer of any such lands to an owner other than the City shall require the adoption of an ordinance by City Council transferring such property or a separate action by the governing body of the governmental or quasigovernmental agency to which the Final Plat dedicated such lands. (e) If approved by City Council, the applicant shall record any Replat with the Ada County Recorder within one year from date of the City Council action. If the applicant fails to record the Replat within that time period, as that period may be extended by Council, the approved Replat shall lapse and shall no longer be valid. (3) Findings for Approval The City Council shall approve the application if it complies with the criteria in Section 11-05-04.6.A(3)(b), Decision by Appointed Body or City Council, and the following criteria: (a) Approval of the Replat involving removal of all or part of a public street will not deprive any property owner within or abutting the streets or rights-of-way of convenient access to their property, unless alternative access has been provided; (b) Approval of the Replat will not result in fragmenting open spaces, drainage facilities, essential public services (such as trash pickup), bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or trails that the Comprehensive Plan or other adopted plans of the City Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
429
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
recommend for connection or contiguity, unless an alternative way of providing the connection or connection has been provided; and (c) Approval of the Replat will not materially increase the costs to the City or other political subdivisions of providing services to lands remaining in the Final Plat or surrounding areas. I.
Zoning Map Amendment (Rezoning, including Planned Unit Development) (1) Applicability (a) A Zoning Map Amendment is required to change zoning district boundaries, establish or eliminate zoning districts, change the zoning designation of a parcel, or to amend a Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development zoning district. (b) Any application for a Zoning Map Amendment to establish, amend, or remove a Character or Design Overlay District (excluding an Historic Overlay), or a Sensitive Lands Overlay District must also submit an application for a text amendment pursuant toSection11-05-05.4.B, Code Adoption or Amendment. (c) Any application for a Zoning Map Amendment to establish, amend, or remove an Historic Overlay must also submit an application pursuant to Section 11-0505.4.E, Major Historic Preservation Actions. (d) If a Development Agreement is required pursuant to Section 11-05-05.4.D, Development Agreement or Modification, final action on the Zoning Map Amendment shall not occur before the Development Agreement has been approved by Council. (2) Procedure Zoning Map Amendment Concept Review Neighborhood Meeting
Project Review and Questions
Interdepartmental Review Application Review Review by DRC for Design Overlay other than HD-O Review by HPC for HD-O PZC Recommendation
Public Hearing
City Council Decision
Public Hearing = Input Opportunities
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
430
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
(a) Standard Base and Overlay Zoning Districts i.
All applicable provisions of Sections 11-05-02, Summary Table of Review and Decision-Making Procedures and 11-05-04, Common Procedures for a Type 4 application apply unless specifically modified by the provisions of this Section 11-05-05.4.I.
ii.
A Zoning Map Amendment, including the establishment of a new overlay district, shall become effective on the date stated in the ordinance amending the zoning classification adopted by the City Council.
iii.
Following the approval of each Zoning Map Amendment, all development permitted in the new zoning designation shall be required to obtain all other permits and approval required for that type of development in this Code before applying for a Building Permit, unless the ordinance documenting Council’s action waives one or more of those requirements.
(b) Planned Unit Development Districts (PUDs) i.
All property included in the proposed PUD shall be under common ownership or control or shall be the subject of an application filed jointly by the property owners of all the property to be included.
ii.
An application for a Zoning Map Amendment to a PUD zoning district will only be accepted if the proposed PUD could not be developed using a combination of the base and overlay zoning districts listed in Chapter 11-02, Zoning Districts.
iii.
An application for a Zoning Map Amendment to a Planned Unit Development zoning district shall include a Development Plan. The Development Plan shall identify one of the base zoning districts listed in Chapter 11-02, Zoning Districts as the reference base district for each portion of the PUD and shall list the standards, variations, and requirements for the development that may diverge from the standards of this Code for that reference base district, as permitted by Section 11-02-06, PUD: Planned Unit Development.
iv.
Following approval of a Zoning Map Amendment for a Planned Unit Development district that includes design standards requirements that differ from those otherwise applicable under this Code, the new design requirements will be reviewed through Minor Design Review unless Council’s action requires a different review process.
(c) Specific Plan Districts i.
The PZC shall consider an application for a Zoning Map Amendment to a Specific Plan District and shall at the same time consider the proposed Specific Plan accompanying the application in accordance with Section 1102-08, Specific Plan Districts.
ii.
A Specific Plan District shall be noted on the zoning map by the designation "SP," followed by the number of the Specific Plan District based on order of adoption. The Specific Plan District may be either appended to the base
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
431
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-05. Specific Procedures 11-05-05.4 Type 4 Major Decisions by City Council
zoning district as an overlay or may be the primary zoning with no other base zoning district. iii.
A Specific Plan adopted by ordinance of the City Council shall be administered as prescribed by the City Council and as established by the provisions of the Specific Plan for review, approval, and amendment. Adopted Specific Plans shall be listed by name and number in Chapter 1107, Adopted Specific Plans and shall be maintained on file with the Planning Director.
(3) Findings for Approval (a) General If the application is for a Zoning Map Amendment to a district other than a PUD district or a Specific Plan District, the PZC shall recommend approval or approval with conditions and the City Council shall approve the application or approve it with conditions if the application complies with the criteria in Section 11-0504.6.A(3)(b), Decision by Appointed Body or City Council and the following criteria: i.
One of the following criteria is met: A.
The Amendment is needed to correct a technical error in the current map (a change in the character of surrounding areas does not constitute an error in the map); or
B.
The Amendment is needed because of changed conditions or circumstances in the surrounding area;
ii.
The proposed Amendment is in the best interests of the public convenience and general welfare, with particular consideration given to the effects of the proposed Amendment upon the ability of the political subdivisions providing public services to the property to deliver those services effectively and efficiently;
iii.
The size, scale, height, density, and mobility network of the proposed initial zoning or rezoning are compatible with surrounding development or has been made compatible with surrounding development through a Development Agreement or conditions on the approval; and
iv.
The proposed Amendment is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
(b) Rezoning to an Overlay District In addition to the criteria in Subsection (a) above, an application for a Zoning Map Amendment for an overlay district shall meet the following additional criteria: i.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
The area proposed for rezoning meets the criteria in Section 11-02-07.1, Character Overlay Districts, Section 11-02-07.2, Design Review Overlay Districts, or Section 11-02-07.3, Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts, as applicable to the type of overlay district proposed;
432
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-06. Nonconformities 11-05-06.1 Legal Nonconforming Uses, Parcels, and Structures
(c) Rezoning to a PUD District In addition to the criteria in Subsection (a) above, an application for a Zoning Map Amendment for a Planned Unit Development district shall meet the following additional criteria: i.
The proposed development meets the standards in Section 11-02-06, PUD: Planned Unit Development.
(d) Rezoning to a Specific Plan District In addition to the criteria in Subsection (a) above, an application for a Zoning Map Amendments for a Zoning Map Amendments to a Specific Plan District shall comply with the following criteria:
11-05-06. 1.
i.
The Specific Plan is compatible with surrounding development and properly integrates land uses and infrastructure with adjacent properties;
ii.
The Specific Plan includes adequate provisions for utilities, services, roadway networks and emergency vehicle access; and public service demands will not exceed the capacity of existing and planned systems;
iii.
The Specific Plan will enhance the potential for superior urban design and land use in comparison with development under the base zoning district provisions that would apply if the Specific Plan were not approved; and
iv.
The Specific Plan will not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
Nonconformities
Legal Nonconforming Uses, Parcels, and Structures A legal nonconforming parcel, structure, use, sign, or site feature is one that was legally established but that is not in compliance with this Code due to a subsequent ordinance amendment, annexation, change of zoning, eminent domain, or similar action, and not due to the actions of the property owner.
2.
Determination of Legal Nonconforming Status An application by a property owner to confirm the legal nonconforming status of a property shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 11-05-05.2.G, Legal Nonconformity - Confirmation, Change, or Minor Expansion.
3.
Legal Nonconforming Parcels Notwithstanding the minimum requirements for parcel size within the various zoning districts, structures may be built, expanded, reconstructed, occupied, or used on a legal nonconforming parcel that existed prior to the enactment of this Code provided that such structures and uses meet all other applicable requirements of this Code including but not limited to the provisions of Section 11-04-03.4, Residential Small Lots.
4.
Legal Nonconforming Structures A.
A legal nonconforming structure occupied by a conforming use may be maintained and repaired and may be expanded provided the expansion does not increase the degree of nonconformity. For example, a building that is legally nonconforming due to an inadequate front setback may be extended towards the side or rear provided they do not encroach
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
433
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-06. Nonconformities 11-05-06.5 Legal Nonconforming Uses
into required side or rear setbacks, because such expansions do not increase the degree of nonconformity of the front setback.
5.
B.
A legal nonconforming structure occupied by a legal nonconforming use may be maintained and repaired but may only be expanded as needed to occupy any expansion of the legal nonconforming use permitted pursuant to Subsection 5 below.
C.
A legal nonconforming structure shall not be replaced except in compliance with this Code, but may be maintained, repaired, or internally altered provided that there is no increase in the degree of noncompliance with this Code.
D.
When a structure housing a legal nonconforming use is illegally modified or expanded, the legal nonconforming status of the use shall be lost.
Legal Nonconforming Uses A legal nonconforming use of a conforming or legal nonconforming structure or parcel may continue, and may be sold, leased, or otherwise conveyed to a new owner, tenant, or user, without loss of legal nonconforming status, provided the continued use of the property complies with the following provisions:
6.
A.
The area of the parcel or building occupied by a legal nonconforming use may be expanded as provided in Table 11-05.1: Summary of Review and Decision-Making Procedures.
B.
An expansion of less than 20 percent beyond the area of the building or parcel occupied by the legal nonconforming use on the Effective Date may be approved pursuant to Section 11-05-05.2.G, Legal Nonconformity - Confirmation, Change, or Minor Expansion.
C.
An expansion of 20 percent or more beyond the area of the building or parcel occupied by the legal nonconforming use on the Effective Date may be approved pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.G, Legal Nonconformity - Major Expansion.
D.
Legal nonconforming uses may be converted to another legal nonconforming use pursuant to Section 11-05-05.2.G, Legal Nonconformity - Confirmation, Change, or Minor Expansion.
E.
If a legal nonconforming use is expanded in violation of this Code, the legal nonconforming status shall be lost.
F.
These regulations shall not be used to deprive the use of improvements on private property based solely on nonuse of the improvements for their designed purposes for a period of 10 years or less.
Legal Nonconforming Signs Any non-temporary sign legally existing on the Effective Date that does not conform in use, location, height, or size to the requirements of this Code shall be considered a legal nonconforming sign. A legal nonconforming sign may remain in use subject to the following provisions: A.
Legal nonconforming signs may be maintained and repaired and copy changes and sign face changes that use similar materials are permitted.
B.
Legal nonconforming signs shall not be structurally altered, moved, or replaced without being brought into conformance with the provisions of this Code.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
434
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-07. Violations, Enforcement, and Penalties 11-05-06.7 Legal Nonconforming Site Features
7.
C.
If the sign is abandoned, the sign shall lose its legal nonconforming status and shall be removed or brought into compliance with this Code.
D.
Any use or modification of the sign in violation of Subsections B or C above shall result in the sign losing its legal nonconforming status.
Legal Nonconforming Site Features Nonconforming site features include any aspect of a property other than its use, structures, or signs, including but not limited to amounts, types, and locations of parking, landscaping, buffering, or lighting, that were legally created but that no longer comply with this Code. Legal nonconforming site features may continue in use subject to the following provisions:
8.
A.
The site features may remain in use until one of the primary structures on the site is redeveloped or replaced.
B.
If one or more of the primary structures on the site is expanded by more than 50 percent, and the expansion disturbs any of the legal nonconforming site features, the Planning Director may require that the legal nonconforming site feature be brought into compliance with this Code to the maximum extent practicable.
Discontinuance of Use, Building, or Sign Except as stated in Subsection B below, a nonconforming use, building, or sign that is discontinued for a period of one year shall be deemed to have been purposely discontinued, and the parcel and use, building, or sign shall thereafter be required to comply with all applicable provisions of this Code.
9.
Destruction by Calamity A.
Except as stated in Subsection B below, the legal nonconforming status of a structure, use, sign, or lot feature shall be lost when it is destroyed by fire or other calamity to the extent that the cost of restoration is 50 percent or more of the assessed value.
B.
Upon application by the property owner, the PZC shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 11-05-05.3.A allowing the reconstruction or reestablishment of the structure, use, sign, or site feature. Any approval by the PZC may include conditions designed to bring the property closer to conformity to this Code or to mitigate any negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood caused by the reconstruction or reestablishment of the nonconformity.
11-05-07. 1.
Violations, Enforcement, and Penalties
Authority A.
The Planning Director and their designees, including Code Compliance Officers, are designated enforcement officials with full authority to investigate, issue notices of violation, and secure remedies, including but not limited to injunctive relief, for any violation of this Code.
B.
All departments, officials, and public employees of the City that are vested with the duty or authority to review and/or issue permits, certificates, approvals, or licenses shall conform to the provisions of this Code and shall issue no permit, certificate, approval, or license for any use, building, activity or purpose that would conflict with the provisions of this Code.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
435
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-07. Violations, Enforcement, and Penalties 11-05-07.2 Violation
2.
Violation A.
General (1) Any violation of the provisions of this Code or any conditions of approval required under an issued permit, certificate, approval, or license or any work in excess of the authority granted by the issuance of a permit, certificate, approval, or license, shall constitute a misdemeanor pursuant to Section 1-4-1 of the Boise City Code. A separate offense occurs for each day or portion of a day during which a violation is committed, continued, or permitted. (2) Violations of this Code include but are not limited to: (a) Engaging in the division of land for sale or development in any way that does not comply with the standards, criteria, and procedures for approval of a Subdivision Plat, as applicable, under this Code; (b) Transferring title to land by reference to a lot, tract, or parcel of land shown on a map or plat before the Record of Survey or Subdivision Plat creating those lots, tracts, or parcels has been approved by the City and recorded with the Ada County Recorder; (c) Submitting for recording with Ada County Recorder any Record of Survey or Subdivision Plat that has not been approved under this Code; (d) Obtaining a permit or approval under this Code through submittal of inaccurate or misleading information, or through making inaccurate or misleading statements at a public hearing, regarding the proposed development, the conditions of the land on which the proposed development is located, or conditions on adjacent parcels; (e) Obstructing or removing any public notice required to be posted or otherwise given under this Code; (f)
Failing to operate and maintain property or to properly secure sites where construction has been abandoned, as required by Section 11-04-013, Operations and Maintenance;
(g) Creating or maintaining a public nuisance, as defined in this Code; and/or (h) Failing to meet all requirements of the development approval. B.
Affordability Incentives The following shall apply to all development earning one or more of the affordability incentives set forth in Section 11-04-03.7, Incentives: (1) Projects that earn affordability incentives under Section 11-04-03.7, and are approved for construction or reuse by the City, but that are not constructed, operated, or managed to maintain the affordability levels required by Section 11-04-03.7, shall be in violation of this Code and shall be subject to all enforcement actions and penalties applicable to other violations of this Code. (2) The owner of each rental dwelling unit for which an affordability incentive has been approved pursuant to Section 11-04-03.7, that are rented above the required levels of affordability shall be in violation of this Code.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
436
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-07. Violations, Enforcement, and Penalties 11-05-07.3 Inspection And Enforcement
(3) The seller of an owner-occupied dwelling unit for which an affordability incentive has been approved pursuant to Section 11-04-03.7, that are sold at prices above the required levels of affordability shall be in violation of this Code.
3.
Inspection And Enforcement A.
General (1) The Planning Director shall maintain a program to enforce all aspects of the Code for which the Building Official does not have enforcement authority pursuant to Subsection (2), to abate public nuisances as defined in this Code, and to provide assistance in the prosecution of violations. (2) When the Planning Director determines that a violation of this Code has occurred, the Planning Director may select one or more of the powers listed in Section 11-05-07, individually or in combination, and in any order, that the Planning Director determines is best suited to bring the property into compliance with this Code within a reasonable period of time. (3) The Building Official and their designees, including Code Compliance Officers, shall enforce the provisions of this Code pertaining to the erection, construction, reconstruction, moving, conversion, alteration, addition, location, or razing of a building or structure.
B.
Inspections Upon presentation of proper credentials, including a warrant, an authorized employee or agent of the City may enter at reasonable times any building, structure, or premises in the City to perform inspections of potential violations of this Code.
C.
Withholding of Permits and Approvals (1) No Building Permit or final Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued for any building or structure that does not fully comply with the provisions of this Code. Nothing in this Code shall be waived or superseded by the wrongful or erroneous issuance of a Building Permit, business license, or Certificate of Occupancy. (2) If the City has issued some permits or approvals for a development or subdivision, but additional permits or approvals are needed for completion of the project, and the City determines that there have been violations of this Code related to those permits or approvals already granted, the City may withhold later permits or approvals for the development until the violations have been corrected. (3) As an alternative to withholding of permits or approvals, the City may issue later permits or approvals subject to conditions that the existing violations be cured within a stated period of time.
D.
Abatement (1) Following a determination by the Planning Director that a public nuisance as defined in this Code is being maintained, notice shall be given to the owner or owner's representative either in person, by property posting, or by regular or certified mail to abate the nuisance or violation within a time specified in the notice.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
437
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-07. Violations, Enforcement, and Penalties 11-05-07.4 Remedies And Penalties
(2) If the owner or owner's representative fails to comply with the requirements of the notice within the period specified, the Planning Director may take action including abatement or cleanup. (3) The City may recover the cost of abatement as allowed under Idaho State Code 501008 as a lien upon the property or as a City tax for costs incurred in the abatement or cleanup. (4) Proceeding under this Code will not preclude the City from proceeding under other sections of the Boise City Code or under any other applicable provisions of state or federal statutes.
4.
Remedies And Penalties A.
General Penalties (1) A permit, certificate, or approval issued in conflict with the provisions of this Code shall be null and void. (2) Any violation or noncompliance with the provisions of this Code shall be subject to all remedies, penalties, and enforcement available under Title 1, Chapter 4, of the Boise City Code and Title 67, Chapter 65, of the Idaho Code, including but not limited to criminal misdemeanor and civil injunction action. (3) Any person who violates any provision of this Code shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00. (4) Any person who files an application who willfully makes any false statement in such application, or who, upon demand, willfully furnishes false information, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00.
B.
Affordability Incentive Penalties The following shall apply to all development earning one or more of the affordability incentives set forth in Section 11-04-03.7, Incentives. (1) The owner of each rental dwelling unit for which an affordability incentive has been approved pursuant to Section 11-04-03.7, that is not rented in compliance with the required levels of affordability shall be subject to an additional penalty equal to 125 percent of the difference between the maximum rent required by Section 11-04-03.7 and the rent actually charged to the renter, calculated cumulatively for each day of violation. (2) The seller of an owner-occupied dwelling unit for which an affordability incentive has been approved pursuant to Section 11-04-03.7, that is not sold in compliance with the required levels of affordability shall in addition be subject to an additional penalty equal to 125 percent of the difference between the maximum sales price required by Section 11-04-03.7, and the sales price at which the unit was sold.
C.
Revocation of Permits and Certificates The Planning Director or a review body shall have the authority to revoke any permit, certificate, or approval that has been granted under this Code when it has been determined that the structure or use authorized by the permit, certificate, approval, or license has been constructed or is being maintained in violation of this Code or of the conditions and
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
438
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-07. Violations, Enforcement, and Penalties 11-05-07.5 Required Property Maintenance
limitations of an issued permit, certificate, or approval. In order to revoke the permit, certificate, or approval, the Planning Director shall follow the following procedures: (1) A notice of intent to revoke a permit, certificate, or approval shall be sent to the holder of the permit, or to one of their representatives, or, if this is not possible, the notice shall be posted in a conspicuous position at the entrance to the premises and by the certified mailing of another copy of the notice to the last known address of the permit, certificate, or approval holder. (2) The permit, certificate, or approval shall be revoked within 15 days of the posting of the notice of intent to revoke unless the cause of the violation has been removed and evidence of the same has been present to the Planning Director within that period. (3) Any action of permit, certificate, approval, or license revocation may be appealed pursuant to Section 11-05-04.7.A, Appeals.
5.
Required Property Maintenance A.
Purpose This Section is intended to help prevent urban blight by establishing minimal property maintenance standards.
B.
General Damaged, dilapidated, or unfinished buildings shall be removed, restored, or finished to eliminate detrimental visual impacts. A property owner shall take steps to restore or finish the building per approved plans. No building or premise shall detrimentally impact the surrounding neighborhood due to dilapidation, deterioration, decay, abandonment, or unfinished construction.
C.
Restoration of a Damaged or Dilapidated Building or Completion of an Unfinished Building Restoration of a damaged or dilapidated building or work toward completion of an unfinished building shall begin within six months of the building becoming damaged or dilapidated or being deemed unfinished. The City shall require that such buildings that are also unoccupied be secured (fenced or boarded up) during the six month period. This deadline may be extended by the Planning Director upon submission of documentation of insurance settlement delays or similar complications beyond the owner’s control. Restoration of a damaged or dilapidated building or work on an unfinished building shall be completed within one year from commencement.
D.
Due Process Hearing If the City determines that either of the two events in Subsections (1) or (2) below have occurred, the City shall advertise and the Hearing Examiner shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to Section 11-05-04.7.A(1)(a)i as to why the building has not been restored or completed as required. (1) It has not been maintained at a minimal property maintenance standard as required by applicable City, state, or federal regulations, or as necessary to protect public health and safety for six months, or as necessary to avoid the creation of a private or public nuisance; or
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
439
Chapter 11-05 Administration and Procedures Section 11-05-07. Violations, Enforcement, and Penalties 11-05-07.5 Required Property Maintenance
(2) Efforts to restore or finish the building have not been completed within one year after restoration or construction work has begun. E.
Notice At least 15 days prior to the date of the public hearing, notice shall be sent via certified mail to the property owner and by first class mail to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the property, and a public notice of the hearing shall be advertised in the official newspaper of the City.
F.
Required Findings (1) Removal or restoration of the building shall be ordered if the following findings are made: (a) The building meets the definition of a damaged, dilapidated, or unfinished building; (b) The building has existed in a damaged, dilapidated, or unfinished state for a period of at least six months or has not been maintained at the minimal property standards for a period of six months; and (c) The property owner has previously received written notice as required in paragraph E, above. (2) If removal or restoration is ordered, the City shall obtain bids to restore the building or clear the site of the offending building. (3) The fact that a building is not a danger or attractive visual nuisance shall not be a defense for failing to restore or finish it.
G.
Restoration and Demolition (1) Fund The City shall establish a revolving fund to be designated for building restoration and demolition pursuant to this Code. Payments shall be made out of this fund upon the demand of the Planning Director to defray the costs and expenses associated with restoration or demolition. (2) Recovery of Cost of Restoration or Demolition The property owner shall be billed for the costs of restoration or demolition. If the property owner does not respond within 60 days, the City may recover costs of the abatement in a civil action or by filing an assessment with the Ada County Recorder on or before the first day of August of the year. Assessments remaining unpaid after 30 days from the date of recording on the assessment roll shall become delinquent and shall bear interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum, or the current interest rate if higher, from and after the date. All money recovered from the sale of the property at a foreclosure sale shall be returned to the restoration and demolition fund.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
440
Chapter 11-06 Definitions 11-06-01.
Meanings of Words Generally
As used in this Code, each of the terms defined shall have the meaning given in this Section unless a different meaning is clearly required by the context.
1.
General Rules The following rules shall apply for construing or interpreting the terms and provisions of this Code. A.
Meanings and Intent All provisions, terms, phrases, and expressions contained in this Code shall be construed according to the general purposes set forth in this Section and the specific purpose statements set forth throughout this Code.
B.
Headings, Illustrations, And Text In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between the text of this Code and any heading, caption, figure, illustration, table, or map, the text shall control.
C.
Lists and Examples Unless otherwise specifically indicated, lists of items or examples that use terms such as "for example," "including," and "such as," or similar language are intended to provide examples and are not exhaustive lists of all possibilities.
D.
Computation of Time The time in which an act is to be done shall be computed by excluding the first day and including the last day. If a deadline or required date of action falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday observed by the City, the deadline or required date of action shall be the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or holiday observed by the City. References to days are calendar days unless otherwise stated.
E.
References to Other Regulations/Publications Whenever reference is made to a resolution, ordinance, statute, regulation, or document, it shall be construed as a reference to the most recent edition of such regulation, resolution, ordinance, statute, or document, unless otherwise specifically stated.
F.
Delegation of Authority Any act authorized by this Code to be carried out by a specific official of the City may be carried out by a designee of such official.
G.
Technical and Non-Technical Terms Words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language, but technical words and phrases that may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in law shall be construed and understood according to such meaning.
H.
Public Officials and Agencies All public officials, bodies, and agencies to which references are made are those of Boise City unless otherwise indicated.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
441
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-02. Rules of Measurement
I.
Mandatory and Discretionary Terms The words "shall," "must," and "will" are mandatory in nature, establishing an obligation or duty to comply with the particular provision. The words "may" and "should" are permissive in nature.
J.
Conjunctions Unless the context clearly suggests the contrary, conjunctions shall be interpreted as follows: "And" indicates that all connected items, conditions, provisions, or events apply; and "Or" indicates that one or more of the connected items, conditions, provisions, or events apply.
K.
Tenses and Plurals Words used in the present tense include the future tense. Words used in the singular number include the plural number and the plural number includes the singular number, unless the context of the usage clearly indicates otherwise.
2.
Interpretations The Planning Director has final authority to determine the interpretation or usage of terms used in this Code.
11-06-02. 1.
Rules of Measurement
Density Density shall be calculated as the number of dwelling units per acre.
2.
Fractions A.
Off-Street Parking, Loading, or Vehicle Stacking Any fractional requirement of a parking space shall be rounded up to require one additional parking space.
B.
Landscaping Where a calculation of a landscaping requirement results in a fractional number, the requirement shall be considered the next greatest whole number.
3.
Lot and Building Standards A.
Buildable Area (1) For the purpose of Section 11-04-05.6, Foothills Planned Development Standards, the space within the setback lines that remains on a lot after compliance with the minimum open space requirements of this Code. Lands with a slope of 25 percent or less are buildable, if outside of floodways or geologic hazards. Buildable areas shall be designated in the conditional use site plan as either development pockets or permanent open space in the ratio chosen under the density bonus formula. Buildable area is determined by natural topography, not by post-construction graded contours. (2) For all other purposes, the buildable area of the lot excluding the required building setbacks.
B.
Effective Lot Area The gross horizontal area of a lot minus any portion of the lot encumbered by a recorded driveway or road easement.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
442
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-02. Rules of Measurement
C.
Floor Area, Gross The sum of the square footage of all floors, including lofts and basements, and the exterior walls of a building or portion of a building.
D.
Floor Area, Net Leasable The entire square foot area of floor space of a building that is enclosed and subject to heating or air conditioning, less any of the following: (1) Any space used and occupied by central mechanical or electrical equipment, elevators, escalators, conveyors, dumbwaiters, lifts, chutes, trash disposal units, and fuel storage spaces; and (2) Public rights-of-way and other similar enclosed spaces open to the public, such as public washrooms, corridors, stairwells, or elevator lobbies.
E.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) The gross floor area divided by the lot area.
F.
Grade The elevation of the finished surface of the ground adjacent to the exterior wall of a building or structure. If a berm has been created adjacent to the structure, or if the structure is built on top of a berm or retaining wall, grade will be considered the lowest point of the berm or wall.
G.
Grade, Established The curb line grade at the lot line/property lines established by the City Engineer or otherwise established by law.
H.
Lot Area The square footage within the boundary of a lot or parcel. Lot area shall be determined exclusive of land that is used for public or private streets, highways, alleys, roads, and rights-of-way. The flagpole or stem portion of a flag lot shall not be considered as part of the lot area.
I.
Lot Coverage The area of a lot occupied by the primary building(s) and any accessory building(s).
J.
Lot Depth The distance between front and rear lot line/property lines measured in the mean direction of the side lot line/property lines.
K.
Lot Width (Average) The distance between the side lot line/property lines, measured in one of the following manners, whichever is applicable as determined by the Planning Director: (1) In the case of a regular-shaped lot, the width shall be measured along the front lot line/property line; (2) In the case of an irregular-shaped lot, the width shall be the average distance between the side lot line/property lines, with the average distance to be measured at 10 foot intervals for the first 100 feet of the lot depth beginning at the front lot line/property line;
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
443
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-02. Rules of Measurement
Figure 6.1. Irregular-Shaped Lot Width Measurement
(3) In the case of a regular-shaped flag lot, the width shall be measured at a distance of 20 feet from the inside end of the flag pole; or
Figure 6.2. Regular-Shaped Flag Lot Measurement
(4) In the case of an irregular-shaped flag lot, the width shall be the average distance between the side lot line/property lines, with the average distance to be measured at 10 foot intervals for the first 100 feet of the lot depth beginning at the front lot line/property line. (5) The dimension of a lot at its front setback line shall not be less than the minimum average lot width required for the zoning district in question. L.
Non-buildable Area Lands with a slope greater than 25 percent are non-buildable areas and do not qualify as a development pocket, nor are they eligible to be calculated as open space for establishing a density bonus, unless classified as priority open space.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
444
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-02. Rules of Measurement
M. Open Space When this Code requires that a percentage of open space be provided on a lot or within a development, that requirement is in addition to any required front or side building setbacks and/or street or property edge buffers otherwise required by this Code. Unobstructed at grade rear yard areas provided on site, whether or not required by this Code, shall count towards required open space. N.
Percent Slope The vertical rise divided by the horizontal distance within which the vertical rise takes place.
O.
Story That portion of a building included between the upper surface of a floor and the upper surface of the floor or roof next above. A story is measured as the vertical distance from top to top of two successive tiers of beams or finished floor surfaces and, for the topmost story, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters.
P.
Story Above Grade Plane Any story having its finished floor surface entirely above grade plane, or in which the finished surface of the floor next above is: (1) More than 6 feet (1829 mm) above grade plane; or (2) More than 12 feet (3658 mm) above the finished ground level at any point.
4.
Height A.
Building Height (1) The vertical distance from the grade to the highest point of the roof or structure that is not listed as an exception to the maximum building height limits in Section 11-0403.3.C. (2) Towers, steeples, spires, belfries, cupolas, and domes on primary nonresidential structures, provided they are not used for human occupancy, are exempt from building height limits if their largest horizontal cross-section does not exceed 20 percent of the horizontal cross-section of the top floor ceiling plate of the building.
B.
Fence Height The height of fences shall be measured from the finished grade adjacent to the lowest section of the fence, and attached lattice, privacy screens, and similar features shall also be included in the total height.
C.
Retaining Wall Height The height of retaining walls shall be measured from wall footings, and attached fences, retaining walls, railings, and privacy screens shall also be included in the total height.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
445
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-02. Rules of Measurement
Figure 6.3. and Dimensions for Retaining Walls
5.
Setbacks A.
Definitions (1) Setback The space on a lot or parcel that is required to be left open and unoccupied by buildings or structures, either by the requirements of this Code or by delineation on a recorded subdivision map. (2) Yard, Front An area that extends across the full width of the lot adjacent to the front street line. Building design shall match respective yard types. For corner lots, either street may be designated as the front. For flag lots, the front yard shall be that facing the primary street frontage or the “pole”, as determined by the Planning Director. Once chosen, the front yard designation and associated rear and side yards shall be identified on the plat and not be changed. (3) Yard, Interior Side A side yard that does not abut a street. (4) Yard, Rear An area that extends across the full width of the lot between the rear line of the lot and the nearest line of the primary building. (5) Yard, Side An area between the wall of the principal and accessory buildings, and side lot line/property line, and between the front and rear lot line/property line. (6) Yard, Street Side On a corner lot, a side yard that abuts a street.
B.
Measurement (1) Front setbacks are measured from the property line, or the back of sidewalk, or the location of the future sidewalk, whichever is greater, unless otherwise indicated in a
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
446
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-02. Rules of Measurement
specific zoning district. If there is an existing attached sidewalk, the setbacks shall be measured from the location of a future detached sidewalk as determined by the City. When the Planning Director allows attached sidewalks on local streets due to unusual terrain, site conditions, utility conditions, or other extenuating circumstances, the setback shall be measured from the back of the existing sidewalk.
Figure 6.4. Setback from Future Sidewalk
Figure 6.5. Setback from Back of Detached Sidewalk
(2) When side or rear setbacks are required by building story, the setback is measured to each individual story wall.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
447
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Figure 6.6. Building Story Setback
(3) When a building setback line is indicated on any plat, the setback indicated on the plat shall apply. (4) Front and street side setbacks for living space and side entry garages may be reduced to 15 feet provided that the distance along the inside edge of the driveway is no less than 20 feet.
Figure 6.7. Side Entry Garage Setbacks
11-06-03.
Definitions
A Abate Means to repair, replace, remove, destroy, or otherwise remedy a condition by such means and in such manner and to such an extent as the Planning Director shall determine is necessary in the interest of the general health, safety, and welfare of the community.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
448
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Abutting Bordering or touching, such as sharing a common lot line/property line. Lots or parcels that are separated by a street, right-of-way, or platted alley are not abutting. Access The location or means by which pedestrians, bicycles, or vehicles shall have safe, adequate, and usable ingress and egress to a property, use, or parking space. Access, Emergency An additional route of access to a development for emergency vehicles. Use of emergency access is restricted to emergency vehicles by means of bollards, gates, or some other device to prohibit general use by the public. Emergency access must meet the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City. Accessible Describes a site, building, facility, or a portion of a site, building, or facility, that can be approached, entered, and used by people with disabilities. Accessory Dwelling Unit Except as may be further restricted, an Accessory Dwelling Unit is a dwelling unit that contains a kitchen, a full bathroom (including a shower or tub), and living and sleeping areas (which may be combined), that is incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the premises, that is located on the same lot or parcel as a principal dwelling unit, and that does not alter the essential characteristic of the principal use of the property. Accessory Structure A structure greater than 12 inches in height as measured from grade, detached from a primary structure located on the same lot or parcel, and customarily incidental and subordinate to the primary structure, or principal use. Accessory Use A use incidental to and customarily associated with a specific principal use, located on the same lot or parcel. ACHD Ada County Highway District. Active Use A land use that tends to have or encourage interaction between the use and pedestrians on a street, including entering and exiting the use, and viewing activity and/or merchandise inside the use from a street. This does not include ground floor parking areas, storage areas, utility facilities, or stairwells that are not accessible from the street. Adaptive Reuse The modification of an existing building for new use(s), while maintaining the architectural integrity of the original structure.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
449
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Adjacent The condition where two lots, parcels, structures, or uses touch or share one or more common property line, or where two lots, parcels, structures, or uses are separated only by an alley, easement, roadway, street, canal, or other public right of way. Adult or Child Day Care A facility, by whatever name known, that is maintained for the whole or part of a day for the care of children or for elderly and/or functionally impaired adults, and that is not located in a dwelling unit occupied by any of the operators of the facility. The facility shall be operated with or without compensation for such care and with or without stated educational purposes and shall hold a valid state license for the operating of an adult or child day care center that provides day care services, including monitoring of clients, social and recreational services, food and nourishment, and health support services. This use does not include “Home Occupation, Adult or Child Day Care.” Adult or Child Day Care Center, Large An Adult or Child Day Care providing for 26 or more persons. Adult or Child Day Care Center, Small An Adult or Child Day Care providing for 13 to 25 persons. Adult or Child Day Care Facility An Adult or Child Day Care providing for seven to 12 persons. Affected Person A person having a bona fide interest in real property that may be adversely affected by the approval, denial, or failure to act upon an application required or authorized under this Code. Affordable Housing A residential dwelling for which the household pays no more than 30 percent of their gross income for housing costs (including utilities) and where the annual household income does not exceed 80 percent of the Area Median Income. Agricultural Uses or Stables Tilling of soil, aquaculture, raising crops, livestock, farming, dairying, and animal husbandry including all customarily accessory and incidental uses, but excluding hogs, slaughterhouses, fertilizer works, bone yards, and commercial feed lots; or a building or structure used or designed for the boarding or care of riding horses. Agricultural Parcel A parcel of land at least five acres in size that is in agricultural use and that may include the owner's residence, if the required street frontage is provided. Aircraft Landing Field Any area of land or water that is used or intended for use by aircraft and including the necessary appurtenant structures or facilities located thereon.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
450
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Alley A minor way that provides access at the back or side of a property or a secondary means of access to abutting property and that is not intended as a traffic thoroughfare. Allowed Use, Allowed/Alternative Form Allowed Form An allowed use where the site and building design significantly impacts the future anticipated build out of the City, and proposed development complies with the additional conditions on the form of the building in which the use is located. Alternative Form An allowed use where the site and building design significantly impacts the future anticipated build out of the City, and the proposed development does not meet the additional conditions on the form of the building in which the use is located. Alterations, Structural Any change, other than incidental repairs, to the supporting members of a building or structure, such as bearing walls, columns, beams, and girders. Animal, Large Animals including horses, mules, donkeys, llamas, sheep, and goats. Other animals that are not listed but are of a similar size, as determined by the Planning Director, are subject to all regulations in this Code for large animals. Animals, Small Animals such as rabbits, poultry, geese, domestic birds, and game birds, excluding such birds as are caged and housed inside the dwelling, and other animals deemed as such by the Planning Director and not raised for commercial purposes. Commercial purposes or uses do not include FFA, 4-H, or other student projects. Animal Daycare or Kennel Any place or premise used in whole or in part to provide care and service for pet animals, including grooming, training, day care, and any use that meets the definition of Kennel. Animal Hospital or Clinic An establishment where animals or pets are given medical or surgical treatment and are cared for during the time of such treatment. This use does not include a “Kennel,” and overnight boarding of animals shall only be permitted when incidental to such medical treatment and limited to short periods of time. Animal Unit A unit of measure for determining livestock densities. A. Each mature horse, mule, donkey, llama, or cow shall represent one animal unit. B.
Four mature sheep, swine, or goats shall represent one animal unit.
C. Six mature geese, turkeys, or game birds shall represent one animal unit. D. 10 mature rabbits shall represent one animal unit. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
451
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
E.
12 mature chickens or ducks shall represent one animal unit.
F.
The animal unit equivalency for miniature versions of pigs and other animals shall be determined by the Planning Director based on their size and potential impact on surrounding areas.
Annexation The process by which the City's corporate boundary is expanded to incorporate additional property pursuant to Idaho Code 2.C50-222. Apiary A place where bee colonies are kept. Appeal A request for a review of any decision or interpretation of any provision of this Code. Appellant A party of record or other person who is entitled by law to appeal and who initiates an appeal. Applicant An individual, corporation, firm, or group who submits an application under this Code, or who represents an applicant under this Code. If the applicant is not the property owner, the property owner's written permission to submit the application shall be included with submittal materials. Approved Topography The natural topography of a parcel or the topographic conditions of a parcel approved by the City prior to the Effective Date of this Code, or as approved by a Subdivision, Conditional Use Permit, Hillside, and Foothill Development Permit, Grading Permit, or Building Permit. Architect An individual holding a valid architect's license from the State of Idaho that renders or offers services in connection with the design, construction, enlargement, or alteration of a building or a group of buildings. The services covered within this definition include architectural planning, advice, and consultation; providing preliminary studies; architectural design, drawings, and specifications; technical submissions; and administration of construction contracts. Area of Impact An area mutually agreed upon, including plans and codes, between a city and county as provided for by Idaho Code §67-6526 and §50- 1306. Area, Buildable An area with a natural (pre-grading) slope of 25 percent or less, mapped to a minimum resolution of 6,000 square feet in area. Area, Non-Buildable An area with a natural (pre-grading) slope greater than 25 percent, mapped to a minimum resolution of 6,000 square feet in area.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
452
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Art Gallery, Museum, or Library A facility or area that is open to the public and is intended for the display, appraisal, purchase, sale, loan, of books, paintings, sculptures, or other works of original art; or a building that has significance for its architecture or former use or occupancy or that serves as a repository for a collection of natural, scientific, literary, artistic, or objects of interests; or a place that contains print or non-print materials, manuscripts, books, periodicals, computers, recordings and other material for viewing, listening, study or reference. Accessory uses can include meeting rooms, classrooms, gift shops or cafes. Assisted Living Facility A facility combining housing, supportive services, personalized assistance, and health care, designed to respond to the individual needs of those who need help with activities of daily living, such as dressing, grooming, and bathing, diet, financial management, evacuation of a residence in the event of an emergency, or medication prescribed for self-administration, but do not require hospitalization. This use does not contain equipment for surgical care or for treatment of disease or injury and does not include any use meeting the definition of a "convalescent or nursing home." Attached Anything physically connected to a building or structure so as to become an integral part of the building or structure. The term includes components of a structure joined together by a common wall, floor, or ceiling or a fully enclosed hallway. Auditorium or Theater, Indoor An establishment devoted to showing motion pictures or dramatic, dance, musical, or other live performances. Awning A projecting cover extending over a door, window, or wall section with supports attached to the building and used as cover, protection, or as decoration.
B Back-of-Sidewalk The side of a sidewalk furthest from the street to which that sidewalk is roughly parallel. Backup Area An area, generally located between a parking garage or parking space and a street or alley, that is designed to allow and large enough to allow a motor vehicle backing out of the parking garage or parking space to reorient itself so that it is able to avoid backing into the street or alley right-of-way and can instead enter the street or alley right-of-way moving forward. Balcony A platform enclosed by a parapet or a railing that projects from an exterior wall of a building. Balconies do not include stairs for exterior exiting.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
453
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Basement The story or level of a building that is partially or totally below ground level. If the finished floor level directly above a basement or cellar is more than six feet above grade, such basement or cellar shall be considered a story. Base Zoning District The zoning district classification that is in effect on any given land for which standards are included in this Code. Bed and Breakfast A lodging establishment, generally in a Single-Family Detached Dwelling or detached guesthouses, primarily engaged in providing overnight or otherwise temporary lodging for the general public, accompanied by food service. The bed and breakfast establishment is the owner’s personal residence and is occupied by the owner or employee at the time of the guests’ stay. Bee Any stage of the life cycle of the common domestic honey bee. Beekeeping, Accessory The management and maintenance of beehives, colonies, combs, and other associated appliances as an accessory use to an allowed or conditional principal use. Best-in-Class Transit Route A transit route that runs every 30 minutes throughout the day, runs every 15 minutes during high usage hours, has increased hours of operation Monday through Friday (5:30 am to 9:30 pm) and Saturday (8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.) and may include amenities such as a shelter structure and real-time route and tracking information. Bicyclist For the purpose of this Code, the term “bicyclist” includes, but is not limited to users of bicycles and other non-motorized modes of transportation (such as skates, skateboards, push scooters, hand carts, or wheelchairs) as well as electric power-assisted bicycles and scooters as defined and regulated by Title 6, Chapter 13 of the Boise City Code. Block A space along one side of a street that is the lesser of that between the two nearest intersecting streets, or that between an intersecting street and a right-of-way, waterway, or other similar barrier. Boarding House An establishment within a residential structure that is the operator’s personal primary residence (not including a Hotel or Motel) where lodging is provided for a minimum occupancy term of 28 days or longer, and where meals may be provided, for compensation, to six to 12 guests who are not members of the householder’s family.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
454
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Boise River System-Related Definitions Buildable Site For the purpose of Section 11-02-07.3.E, BR-O: Boise River System Overlay, a residential, commercial, industrial, or office construction site that does not require dikes or rip-rap for protection against flooding. C.F.S. (or c.f.s.) When used in the context of administration of the Boise River System Overlay district regulations, the abbreviation c.f.s. indicates cubic feet (of water) per second. Class A, B, and C Lands and Waters As used in Section 11-02-07.3.E, BR-O: Boise River System Overlay, lands and waters that provide habitats for fish, birds, and other wildlife. Compensation As used in Section 11-02-07.3.E, BR-O: Boise River System Overlay, restoration of degraded, appropriate enhancement of existing, or creation of new natural resource functions and values. Compensation, In-Kind As used in Section 11-02-07.3.E, BR-O: Boise River System Overlay, restoration of degraded, appropriate enhancement of existing, or creation of new natural resource functions and values that are the same as those natural resource functions and values that are impacted by a proposed action. Compensation, Out-of-Kind As used in Section 11-02-07.3.E, BR-O: Boise River System Overlay, restoration of degraded, appropriate enhancement of existing, or creation of new natural resource functions and values that differ from those impacted by a proposed action. Enhancement As used in Section 11-02-07.3.E, BR-O: Boise River System Overlay, improvement of natural resource functions and values beyond the minimum required for mitigation and compensation. Greenbelt, Boise River Land within 70 feet of the 6500 c.f.s flow line of the Boise River that may be owned by the City or over which the City may have a right of possession or use and that: A. Is designated by the City Council to be retained in perpetuity for public use for purposes compatible with the aesthetic, wildlife, educational, and recreational values of the Boise River; B.
Will provide unrestricted access to the river; and
C. Will be developed and used to minimize water pollution, provide continuity of the public parks system, and create a buffer where necessary between conflicting land uses. Mitigation As used in Section 11-02-07.3.E, BR-O: Boise River System Overlay, measures to avoid impacts, minimize impacts, restore impacted areas, and compensate for impacts to a natural resource attributable to a proposed action. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
455
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Mitigation Sequence As used in Section 11-02-07.3.E, BR-O: Boise River System Overlay, a prescribed procedure for planning mitigation that requires negative impacts to a natural resource attributable to a proposed action to be mitigated. Natural Resources As used in Section 11-02-07.3.E, BR-O: Boise River System Overlay, all of the plants, animals, and environmental and ecological processes that occur in aquatic, wetland, riparian, and upland environments associated with the Boise River. Natural Resource Functions and Values As used in Section 11-02-07.3.E, BR-O: Boise River System Overlay, environmental, ecological, recreational, historic, and cultural benefits attributable to natural resources that occur in aquatic, wetland, riparian, and upland environments associated with the Boise River. They are further described in the Federal Highway Administration publication titled A Method for Wetland Functional Assessment and the US Army Corps of Engineers publication titled Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) II. No Net Loss As used in Section 11-02-07.3.E, BR-O: Boise River System Overlay, a measure of the success of mitigation that requires avoidance, minimization, restoration, and compensation of all functions, and values of a natural resource impacted by a proposed action Paths, Bicycle and Pedestrian As used in Section 11-02-07.3.E, BR-O: Boise River System Overlay, paved bicycle paths or unpaved pedestrian paths built within the Boise River System. Paved bicycle paths shall meet the requirements of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (and other appropriate and relative design manuals). Side Channel A stream or watercourse, either natural or manmade, that generally flows from or into the Boise River. This includes waterways developed as amenities in residential or commercial developments. Tributary A stream or watercourse, excluding manmade waterways exclusively used for irrigation, that flows into the Boise River that flows for all or a portion of the year. Wetland An area that is inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances, supports a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include saturated swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetland, Emergent Characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses, and lichens. This vegetation is present for most of the growing season in most years. These wetlands are usually dominated by perennial plants. Other common names are "marsh" and "slough." Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
456
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Wetland, Forested Wetland areas characterized by wood vegetation over 20 feet tall and possessing an overstory of trees, an understory of young trees or shrubs, and an herbaceous layer. Wetland, Riparian Functions and Values As used in Section 11-02-07.3.E, BR-O: Boise River System Overlay, includes water quality protection and improvement, habitat for fisheries and wildlife, nutrient retention and removal, channel stability, food chain support, flood storage, desynchronization, groundwater recharge and discharge, active, and passive recreation, aesthetics, and cultural resources. See also, Natural Resource Functions and Values. Wetland, Scrub-Shrub Wetland areas that are dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall. The species include true shrubs, young trees, trees, and shrubs that are stunted because of environmental conditions. Includes types such as alder, willows, dogwood, and red maple. Bottling and Distribution Plant A facility where soft drinks, juice, water, milk, alcoholic drinks, or other liquids are placed in bottles or cans for shipment. This use may include the combination of liquids or syrups to produce new liquids for placement in bottles or cans, the shipping and receiving of cans and bottles related to the operation, and incidental sales of bottled or canned liquids to the public but shall not include the fabrication of bottles or cans. Brewpub, Micro-distillery, or Micro-winery A commercial use that brews ales, beers, meads, distilled drinks, wines, and/or similar beverages on site and serves those beverages on site. Off-site sales are permitted as an accessory use. Building A. For purposes of historic preservation regulations, a resource created principally to shelter any form of human activity. B.
For all other purposes, any structure with substantial walls and roof securely affixed to the land and entirely separated on all sides from any other structure by space or by walls in which there are no communicating doors, windows, or openings, and that is designed or intended for the shelter, enclosure, or protection of persons, animals, or personal property of any kind.
Building, Accessory A building that is subordinate and incidental to the primary building or use on the same lot, but not including any building containing a dwelling unit. Building, Completely Enclosed A building enclosed by a permanent roof and by exterior walls pierced only by windows and normal entrance or exit doors.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
457
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Building Envelope The designated area on a lot within which a building or other structure (including footings) shall be contained, as defined by the setbacks of the underlying zoning district, the Subdivision Plat, or an development approval document issued pursuant to this Code. Building, Existing Any building erected prior to the Effective Date of this Code or one for which a legal Building Permit has been issued. Building, Nonconforming Any building that does not conform to the requirements of this Code. Building, Principal A building in which the principal use of the lot is conducted. Building Materials When used to describe a form of retail use, an establishment that sells large, bulky, or heavy goods generally used in constructing buildings or structures including but not limited to materials such as brick, stone, lumber, decking materials, plumbing supplies, electrical and other wiring, and/or agricultural goods, such as hay, grain, bulk garden supplies, tools, and equipment. Building Official The official or other designated authority charged with the administration and enforcement of adopted building, electrical, mechanical, or plumbing codes, or any combination of these codes. Bulk The size and mutual relationships of buildings and other structures as to size, height, coverage, shape, and location of exterior walls in relation to lot line/property lines, to the center lines of the streets, to other walls of the same building, to other buildings or structures, and to all open spaces relating to the building or structure. This term is also referred to as “massing.” Bulk Storage of Flammable or Dangerous Materials Any operation that stores, uses, or produces materials on-site in sufficient enough quantities to create an immediate risk of impacts beyond the boundaries of the facility. These risks of impacts include those resulting from explosion, fire, migration to waterways, toxic gas release or release of radioactive gases. Bus Stop An area abutting the curbside where passengers board or exit transit. Business The purchase, sale, exchange, or other transaction involving the handling or disposition of any article, substance, or commodity for profit or livelihood; the ownership or management of office buildings, offices, recreation, or amusement enterprises; or the maintenance and use for offices; or professions and trades rendering services.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
458
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
C Car Wash A facility for the cleaning of automobiles, providing either self-serve facilities, automated machines, or employees to perform washing operations. Caretaker’s Residence A dwelling on a nonresidential property occupied by a person, and the immediate family of the person, who oversees or guards the operation. Carport A structure open on at least two sides used to house or protect motor vehicles that are owned or operated by the occupants of the primary building. Cellar A storage room(s) located under the main floor or floors of a building and partly or totally below ground level. Channel The bed and banks of a river, stream, tributary, or waterways. Cemetery Land used or designated for the interment of human or animal remains and associated maintenance facilities when operated in conjunction with, and within the boundaries of, such cemetery. Circular Driveway
A driveway with two points of access to a street which may serve a structure, a garage or other approved parking surfaces. City Council The City Council of the City of Boise, Idaho, including the term “Council” as referenced in this Code. City Official A duly appointed member of a Board or Commission of the City of Boise or an employee of the City of Boise charged with carrying out specific duties related to this Code.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
459
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Clear Vision Triangle A. At a street intersection or street and railroad intersection, a clear vision triangle shall be formed horizontally by measuring 40 feet along the roadway edges or roadway and railroad track edges from the intersection of the roadway edges or roadway edge and railroad track and connecting those points, and vertically by measuring between three feet and 10 feet above grade, unless a different dimension or design is required by ACHD.
B.
Where a driveway or alley enters the street right-of-way, a clear vision triangle shall be formed horizontally, by measuring 10 feet into the lot as measured from the sidewalk edge that is closest to the property line (or from the property line if no sidewalk exists), and 20 feet along the sidewalk edge (or property line if no sidewalk exists) parallel to the street, and vertically by measuring between three feet and 10 feet above grade.
Club, Lodge, or Social Hall A building that contains the nonresidential organization of persons for special purposes or for the promulgation of sports, arts, literature, politics, or other common goals, interests, or activities, characterized by membership qualifications, dues, or regular meetings. College or Other Institution of Higher Education An institution that provides full-time or part-time education beyond high school and does not meet the definition of a Trade or Vocational School. This use includes Boise State University. Colony As used in Section 11-03-03.4.B, Beekeeping, Accessory, bees in any hive including queens, workers, and drones.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
460
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Commercial Any activity conducted with the intent of realizing a profit from the sale of goods or services. Commercial Feedlot A lot or parcel on which hogs or cattle are raised, bred, and slaughtered, or where livestock are fed intensively in order to fatten for market, or where livestock are held on a short-term basis prior to slaughter. It does not include short-term holding pens for auction facilities. Common Area/Space Land within a subdivision or development that is designed and intended for the common use or enjoyment of the residents of the development and their guests and is not individually owned. It may include complementary structures and improvements such as a recreation area, parking, or landscaping. Common Party Wall A wall common to but dividing contiguous buildings; such a wall contains no openings and extends from its footing below the finished ground grade to the height of the exterior surface of the roof. Compatible (With Surrounding Development) Characteristics of uses, activities, designs, or facilities that allow them to be located near each other without creating significant negative visual, functional, or operational impacts on each other. Compatibility is determined based on comparing the height, scale, and bulk of structures; levels of activity discernible outside a structure; levels of pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicle traffic; levels of site circulation, site access, or parking activity; levels of landscaping, lighting, noise, odor, architectural features, and building materials for the proposed development with those on existing adjacent developed parcels. Compatibility does not require that two uses, activities, or designs be identical or substantially the same. Community Center A building, together with accessory structures and uses, used for recreational, social, educational, or cultural activities by and for the benefit of community groups and individuals, that is accessible to the general public or to members of the residential development in which it is located, and that is not operated for profit. Compost A humus-like material, produced from composting, that has been stabilized to a degree that is potentially beneficial to plant growth and that is usable as a soil conditioner, top soil, growing medium amendment, or other similar uses to buffer the soil Ph, improve soil aggregation and tilth, reduce erosion, enhance water infiltration and retention, increase soil porosity and aeration, slow the rate of temperature change in soil, provide food for soil microorganisms, or enhance availability of micronutrients in soils. Composting Facility A facility where organic matter that is derived primarily from off-site is processed by composting and/or is processed for commercial purposes. Activities of a composting facility may include management, collection, transportation, staging, composting, and curing. Comprehensive Plan The most current Comprehensive Plan officially adopted for the City and as subsequently amended.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
461
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Concentrated Feeding Area That part of a site in which animals are raised or kept in a confined area at some location within the parcel or reserve area. A concentrated feeding area may include any feeding or holding operation where animals are concentrated in an area that is: A. Not normally used for pasture or growing crops and in which animal waste may accumulate, or B.
Any trough or similar feeding apparatus.
Conditional Use A use that, because of special requirements or characteristics, may be allowed in a particular zoning district only after review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and granting of a Conditional Use Permit imposing such conditions as necessary to make the use compatible with other uses permitted in the same zoning district or vicinity. Conditional uses are issued for uses of land and are transferable from one owner of the land to another. Conference or Event Center A facility designed to accommodate and support meetings or conferences. The facility may be either freestanding or incorporated into a hotel or office facility and may include eating and drinking facilities. Construction, New A structure designed, intended, constructed, erected, or moved for the first user. “First user” means the person, firm, or corporation who initially installs factory-built or otherwise newly constructed structures within the City. A person who subsequently purchases a structure that is wholly or partially factory-built or otherwise newly constructed is not a first user within the meaning of this definition. Construction Office A moveable or modular structure or trailer used for the storage of construction materials and/or the offices or work spaces for construction managers or workers during the time a principal or accessory building is being constructed. Continuing Care Retirement Facility An establishment for care of the elderly that has common facilities and provides licensed intermediate and skilled nursing facilities for its residents, as well as other supportive services. This use generally incudes a variety of housing types and provides a variety of levels of assistance and care so that its residents may obtain higher levels of care and service as they age without having to move to another residential care facility. Contractor Shop and Yard A building and related outdoor areas used to store and maintain construction equipment and other materials and facilities customarily required in the building trade by a construction contractor. This use may include showrooms and shops for the display and sale of electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, sheet metal, and other material in connection with contracting services. Convalescent or Nursing Home An extended or intermediate care establishment licensed by the State of Idaho, that maintains and operates continuous day and night facilities providing room and board, personal services, and skilled Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
462
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
nursing care to individuals who, by reason of advanced age, chronic illness, or infirmity, are unable to care for themselves. Such home does not contain equipment for surgical care or for the treatment of injury. Critical Root Zone The area of soil around a tree where the minimum amount of roots considered critical to the structural stability or health of the tree are located. The critical root zone radius is ¼ of one foot per caliper inch measured diameter at breast height of the tree. For example, a tree with a 20 inch diameter will have a critical root zone radius of five feet. Cul-de-sac A dead-end street with turnaround space at its terminus. Cut To grade into a hillside in order to create a flat area or to steepen a bank. The mechanical removal of earth material. Cut and Fill The excavating of earth material in one place and depositing of it as fill in a different place.
D Damaged or Dilapidated Building A primary or accessory building or structure that by reason of inadequate maintenance, damage by fire, flood, vandalism, obsolescence, or abandonment, is unsafe, unsanitary, constitutes a fire hazard, or that no longer complies with the applicable Building Code requirements for a building of its type, or is otherwise dangerous to human life. Dedication The setting apart of land or interests in land for use by the public. Land becomes dedicated when accepted by the applicable governmental body as a public dedication, either by Code or resolution. Design Review Commission (DRC) The City of Boise Design Review Commission that reviews all development proposals within the Design Review Overlay Districts or subject to the adopted Citywide Design Standards and Guidelines and the Downtown Design Standards and Guidelines, and as indicated in Table 11-05.1: Summary of Review and Decision-Making Procedures, Sections 11-05-04, Common Procedures and 11-05-05, Specific Procedures. Design Standards and Guidelines, Citywide The adopted document containing the building location and orientation, internal circulation, site design elements, building design, and landscaping standards for Multiple-Family and nonresidential development outside of the Boise Downtown Planning Area. Design Standards and Guidelines, Downtown The adopted document containing the building location and orientation, internal circulation, site design elements, and building design standards for Multiple-Family and nonresidential development in the Boise Downtown Planning Area, as amended.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
463
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Designated Water Provider A municipal water provider that has prepared the requisite Assured Water Supply Examination of its water supply resources and obtained approval from the designated water resource official for a specific amount of assured water supply for future development. Development, New Any development for which a planning application has been filed on or after the Effective Date of this Code or approval of which has been extended on or after the Effective Date of this Code. Diameter at Breast Height The measure of tree trunk diameter measured at 54 inches above the ground. Director, Planning The person appointed by the Mayor to be generally responsible for planning and zoning activities in the City and for the administration of this Code, also referred to as the “Planning Director.” Display, Outdoor Placement of items out-of-doors (i.e., not within a building) for show and sale to the general public. Examples include garden supplies or outdoor furniture placed in commercial parking lots in spring and summer time. This use does not include any use meeting the definition of “Outdoor Storage” or “Junkyard, Vehicle Salvage”. District, Zoning A geographically defined area of land within the City of Boise, as set forth in Chapter 11-02, Zoning Districts. District, Overlay A zoning district that adds a requirement(s) to the standards of the underlying zoning district(s). Downtown Planning Area The distinct planning area identified in the Comprehensive Plan bounded on its southwest side by the Boise River, the Boise Bench and Beacon Avenue, and generally by Broadway/Avenue A on the southeast, Fort Street on the northeast, and 16th, 19th Street and Idaho Streets on the northwest.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
464
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Figure 6.8. Downtown Planning Area Boundary Map
Drive, Service A privately owned and maintained drive that provides access to commercial, industrial or Multiple-Family Dwelling parking lots and spaces, loading spaces, drive-up windows, or other areas that need a provision of access. This term is also referred toas “drive aisle.” Drive-Through Facility A facility, building feature, or equipment at which an occupant of a vehicle may make use of the service or business without leaving their vehicle. Driveway A private access connecting a building such as a house or garage, with a street. Driveway, Common A shared access that provides public or private street frontage and serves for ingress and egress for multiple residential parcels or lots. Driveway, Shared A shared access that provides for ingress and egress and serves multiple residential parcels or lots, each having individual public or private street frontage. Dwelling A building or portion of a building containing one or more dwelling units. The term "dwelling" does not include any recreational vehicle, motel, hotel, guest house, or boarding house as defined in this Code. Dwelling, Co-Housing A residential building that contains four or more individual bedrooms where each bedroom is designed for occupancy by one or two individuals, and in which residents are required to sign individual occupancy Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
465
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
agreements or leases for a period of at least 28 consecutive days. Each bedroom may, but need not, contain food preparation, sanitary facilities, or both. The building may contain some combination of shared bath or toilet facilities and/or shared cooking or eating facilities for occupants. This use includes but is not limited to single-room occupancy facilities, student housing, and both non-profit and for-profit housing cooperatives, but does not include any facility meeting the definition of an FHAA Group Home, Recovery Residence, or Boarding House use. Dwelling, Cottage Village A residential development that combines a group of small individual single-family dwelling units, oriented around an open space for communal use of the residents of the development. This definition shall not include any use meeting the definition of a Manufactured Home Park. Dwelling, Duplex A single building containing two dwellings on a single lot where each dwelling includes a separate bathroom and kitchen. The two units shall be able to function as dwelling units independently of each other, but may be located side-by-side, in front and behind, or above and below each other. Dwelling, Fourplex A single building on a single lot containing four dwelling units under one roof, each of which is designed for use and occupancy by one household. Dwelling, Live/Work A dwelling unit containing an integrated living and working space, and in which the living area is located above or behind the working space. Dwelling, Manufactured Home A. For purposes of flood protection regulations, a structure, transportable in one or more sections, that is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. The term "Manufactured Home" does not include a "recreational vehicle." B.
For all other purposes, a factory-built structure that is manufactured or constructed in compliance with the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, that became effective July 15, 1976, and is to be used as a place for human habitation, but that is not constructed or equipped with a permanent hitch or other device allowing it to be moved other than for the purpose of moving to a permanent site, and that does not have permanently attached to its body or frame any wheels or axles. Structures that are not manufactured or constructed a in compliance with the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 are not Manufactured Homes and are prohibited within the city.
Dwelling, Multiple-Family One or more buildings or portion of buildings on a single lot that contains five or more individual dwelling units, where each unit is occupied by one household regardless of whether the dwelling units are owned or rented or condominium units. This definition includes Permanent Supportive Housing and shall not include "Dwelling, Single-family Attached," Dwelling, Duplex,” “Dwelling, Triplex,” “Dwelling, Fourplex,” or " Accessory Dwelling Unit.” Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
466
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Dwelling, Single-Family Attached Two or more attached single-family dwelling units attached side by side under one roof, or in a townhouse or row house layout in which each unit: A. Shares one or two interior common vertical side or rear walls reaching from the building foundation to the roof structure; B.
Has an entrance facing and giving direct entrance from the dwelling unit to at least one public or private street fronting the lot on which the unit is located; and
C. Is designed for use and occupancy for one household. Dwelling, Single-Family Detached A residential building designed for use and occupancy by no more than one household or by any group residence in which eight or fewer unrelated persons with disabilities or elderly persons reside and who are supervised at the group residence in connection with their disability or age related infirmity (including but not limited to FHAA Group Home Small) and not attached at any point to a primary building intended for occupancy by another household (except an approved Accessory Dwelling Unit) or for any other principal use. Dwelling, Tiny House A residence that is 400 square feet or less that is located on a permanent foundation and has allowances for lower ceiling heights, lofts, use of alternate stairways, ladders, alternating tread devices, ships ladders. and egress roof access windows as noted in Appendix Q adopted in the International Residential Code. Dwelling, Triplex A single building on a single lot containing three dwelling units under one roof, each of which is designed for use and occupancy by one household. Dwelling Unit A building designed for or used as a residence for not more than one household, constituting a separate and independent housekeeping unit, with a single kitchen permanently installed. A dwelling unit may be occupied by a household by up to five unrelated individuals, or by persons with a disability or elderly persons living in a group home as defined in this Code. The term does not imply or include types of occupancy such as lodging or boarding house, club, sorority, fraternity, or hotel.
E Easement A grant by the landowner of the right to use the owner's land for specific purposes. Electric Vehicle (EV) A vehicle that is either powered fully or partially by electric power. Electric Vehicle (EV) Capable The installation of electrical and wiring infrastructure to support electric vehicle charging infrastructure to include electrical panel capacity with a dedicated branch circuit(s) and continuous raceway to parking spaces where future electric vehicle charging will be located.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
467
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Electric Vehicle Charging Facility A facility or area at which electric vehicles can obtain electrical current to recharge batteries. Electric Vehicle Charging Facility, Level 2 An electric vehicle charging equipment that supplies electrical power for charging an electric vehicle using a 240 volt power source. Electric Vehicle Charging Facility, DC Fast Charger Electric vehicle charging equipment, also referred to as a Level 3 charging facility, that supplies electrical power for charging an electrical vehicle using a 480 volt power source. Electric Vehicle (EV) Installed A parking space that includes the requirements of Electric Vehicle Capable and Electric Vehicle Ready with the addition of an operable electric vehicle charger. Electric Vehicle (EV) Ready A parking space that includes the requirements of Electric Vehicle Capable with the addition of conduit with wiring terminating in a junction box or 240 volt charging outlet at parking spaces where future electric vehicle charging will be located. Erosion The process by which the soil and rock components of the earth's crust are worn away and removed from one place to another by natural forces such as wind and water.
F Façade The outer wall of a building, regardless of whether it faces a street, alley, public area, natural feature, or other developed or undeveloped property. Façade Modulation Stepping back or extending forward a portion of a building façade. Family A group of individuals functioning as a single and independent housekeeping unit or persons occupying a home as defined in this Code, including but not limited to any group of persons whose right to live together or without undue restrictions are protected by the provisions of the federal Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988, as defined in that Act and interpreted by the courts, or by any similar legislation of the State of Idaho. Also referred to as Household. Fill A deposit of earth material placed by mechanical means. Financial Institution An establishment that provides banking services, lending, or similar financial services to individuals and businesses. This definition includes those institutions engaged in the on-site circulation of cash money and check-cashing facilities, but shall not include bail bond brokers.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
468
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Fire, Police, or Public Safety Facility A center operated by a government agency, for the protection of citizens and property from, and for providing public responses to, crime, fire, injury, or other emergencies. This use may include administrative offices, storage of equipment, temporary detention facilities, and the open or enclosed parking of patrol vehicles. Firing Range, Indoor A controlled area of activity inside an enclosed building specifically designed for the discharging of firearms at targets. Flood Protection-Related Definitions Accessory or Appurtenant Use or Structure A use or structure which is subordinate to the principal use structure on the same parcel and which serves a purpose customarily incidental to the principal use or structure. The accessory use or structure shall not include a dwelling unit or be used for human habitation. Area of Shallow Flooding (ASF) An area shown on the flood insurance rate map as an AO zone with base flood depths from one to three feet where a clearly defined channel does not exist, where the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate, and where velocity flow may be evident. These areas are also referred to as the alluvial fans if velocity data is provided on the FIRM and are characterized as sheet flow. Area of Special Flood Hazard (ASFH) The land in a floodplain within Boise City which are subject to flooding from the base flood (or 100 year flood). These areas are also referred to as the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Designation on maps always include the letters A or V. Base Flood The flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year and is synonymous with "one-percent flood" and "100 year flood." Base Flood Elevation (BFE) A determination by the Federal Insurance Administrator of the water surface elevations of the base flood, that is, the flood level that has a one percent or greater chance of occurrence in any given year. When the BFE has not been provided in a Special Flood Hazard Area, it may be obtained from engineering studies available from a federal, state, or other source using FEMA-approved engineering methodologies. This elevation, when combined with the Freeboard, establishes the Flood Protection Elevation. Base Flood Height in Areas of Shallow Flooding The height expressed in feet above adjacent grade to which flood waters can be expected to rise during a base flood. This height is determined by the Federal Insurance Administrator and is shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Adjacent grade is the highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction next to the proposed walls of a structure.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
469
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Basement Any area of the building with its floor sub-grade (below ground level) on all sides. Check Dam A structure erected in a floodway which does not exceed 10 feet in height or impound more than fifty acre feet of water. For the purposes of Section 11-02-07.3.F, energy dissipating devices shall be considered to be check dams. Crawl Space The area of a house or structure between the lowest finish floor and the bottom of the foundation excavation enclosed by continuous foundation walls. Critical Facility A facility for which even a slight chance of flooding might be too great. Critical faculties include, but are not limited, to schools, nursing homes, hospitals, police, fire and emergency response installations, installations which produce, use, or store hazardous materials or hazardous waste. Development Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, but not limited to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations, or storage of equipment or material. Elevated Building For insurance purposes, a non-basement building which has its lowest elevated floor raised above ground level by foundation walls, slabs, shear walls, post, piers, pilings, or columns. Elevation Certificate The Elevation Certificate is an administrative tool of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). It is used to determine the proper flood insurance premium rate; it is used to document elevation information; and it may be used to support a request for a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) or Letter of Map Revision based on fill (LOMR-F). Existing Manufactured Home Park or Subdivision A Manufactured Home community or subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the Manufactured Homes are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed before the Effective Date of the adopted floodplain management regulations. Expansions to an Existing Manufactured Home Community or Subdivision The preparation of additional sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the Manufactured Homes are to be affixed (including the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads). Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) The agency with the overall responsibility of administering the national flood insurance program (NFIP). Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
470
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Flood or Flooding A. A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from:
B.
1.
The overflow of inland or tidal waters.
2.
The unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source.
3.
Mudslides (i.e., mudflows) which are proximately caused by flooding as defined in paragraph 2.a. of this definition and are akin to a river of liquid and flowing mud on the surfaces of normally dry land areas, as when earth is carried by a current of water and deposited along the path of the current.
The collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or other body of water as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels or suddenly caused by an unusually high water level in a natural body of water, accompanied by a severe storm, or by an unanticipated force of nature, such as flash flood or an abnormal tidal surge, or by some similarly unusual and unforeseeable event which results in flooding as defined in paragraph 1.a. of this definition.
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) An official map of a community, on which the Federal Insurance Administrator has shown both the special flood hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. A FIRM that has been made available digitally is called a Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM). Flood Insurance Study (FIS) An examination, evaluation, and determination of flood hazards and, if appropriate, corresponding water surface elevations; or an examination, evaluation, and determination of mudslide (i.e., mudflow) and/or flood-related erosion hazards. Also known as a Flood Elevation Study. Floodplain or Flood-Prone Area Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source (see definition of "flooding"). Floodplain Management The operation of an overall program of corrective and preventive measures for reducing flood damage, including, but not limited to, emergency preparedness plans, flood control works, and floodplain management regulations. Floodplain Management Regulations Zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes, health regulations, special purpose ordinances (such as a floodplain ordinance, grading ordinance, and erosion control ordinance), and other applications of police power. The term describes such state or local regulations, in any combination thereof, which provide standards for the purpose of flood damage prevention and reduction. Flood-Proofing Any combination of structural and non-structural additions, changes, or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate potential flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures, and their contents. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
471
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Flood Protection Elevation (FPE) The Base Flood Elevation plus the Freeboard. A. In "Special Flood Hazard Areas" where Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) have been determined, this elevation shall be the BFE plus two feet of freeboard; and B.
In "Special Flood Hazard Areas where no BFE has been established, this elevation shall be at least two feet above the highest adjacent grade.
Floodway (FW) The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that shall be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. Floodway Fringe (FF) The area between the floodway boundary and the outer limits of the 100 Year Flood. These lands within Boise City are subject to flooding from the Base Flood (a.k.a. the 100 year Flood) and are also referred to as part of the floodplain or the Area of Special Flood Hazard located outside of the floodway. Freeboard A factor of safety usually expressed in feet above a flood level for the purposes of floodplain management. Freeboard tends to compensate for the many unknown factors that could contribute to flood heights greater than the height calculated for a selected size flood and floodway conditions, such as wave action, obstructed bridge openings, debris and ice jams, and the hydrologic effects of urbanization in a watershed. The Base Flood Elevation (BFE) plus the freeboard establishes the Flood Protection Elevation (FPE). Freeboard shall be a minimum of two feet. Gulches, Foothills Regulated gulches located in the foothills surrounding the City that are subject to flash flooding, where the Federal Emergency Management Agency or the Public Works Department have determined Floodway and Floodway Fringe zones. Foothill gulches include, but are not limited to: A. Seaman's Gulch; B.
Stuart Gulch;
C. Pierce Park Gulch; D. Polecat Gulch; E.
Crane Creek;
F.
Hulls Gulch;
G. Cottonwood Gulch; and H. Warms Springs Gulch. Gulch floodplains and associated alluvial fans (AO zones) are regulated under the floodplain regulations of this Code when specific flood studies or determinations have been approved by the City.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
472
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) An official amendment by letter, to an effective National Flood Insurance (NFIP) map. A LOMA establishes a property's or structure's location in relation to the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). LOMAs are usually issued because a property or structure has been inadvertently mapped as being in the floodplain but is actually on natural high ground above the base flood elevation. Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) FEMA's modification to an effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or a Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) or both. LOMRs are generally based on the implementation of physical measures that affect the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of a flooding source and thus result in the modification of the existing regulatory floodway, the effective Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), or the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The LOMR officially revises the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM), and sometimes the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report, and when appropriate, includes a description of the modifications. The LOMR is generally accompanied by an annotated copy of the affected portions of the FIRM, FBFM, or FIS report. Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-F) FEMA's modification of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) based on the placement of fill outside the existing regulatory floodway. The LOMR-F does not change the FIRM, FBFM, or FIS report. Letter of Map Revision Conditional (CLOMR) A formal review and comment as to whether a proposed flood protection project or other project complies with the minimum NFIP requirements for such projects with respect to delineation of special flood hazard areas. A CLOMR does not revise the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or Flood Insurance Study (FIS). Upon submission and approval of certified as-built documentation, a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) may be issued by FEMA to revise the effective FIRM. Building Permits and/or Flood Development Permits cannot be issued based on a CLOMR, because a CLOMR does not change the NFIP map. Levee A levee is a continuous dike or ridge, constructed of earth or other materials that confines flood waters (excluding landfill). Lowest Floor The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage, in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building's lowest floor, provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirements of Section 11-02-07.3.F. Manufactured Home Community or Subdivision A parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided into two or more Manufactured Home lots for rent or sale.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
473
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Mobile Home A transportable, factory-built home designed to be used as a year-round residential dwelling and built prior to enactment of the National Housing include and Safety Standards Act of 1974, which became effective July 15, 1976. Mobile Homes are not permitted within the City. Mobile Home Park or Subdivision Any area, tract, plot, or parcel of land, developed and designed primarily for placement of mobile homes located and maintained for dwelling purposes on a permanent or semi-permanent basis. New Construction For floodplain management purposes, a structure for which the start of construction commenced on or after the Effective Date of a floodplain management regulation adopted by a community and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. Any construction started after April 17, 1984, and before the effective start date of this floodplain management ordinance is subject to the ordinance in effect at the time the permit was issued, provided the start of construction was within 180 days of permit issuance. New Development Any development for which final approval entitling the applicant to proceed with the development was issued on or after the Effective Date of Section 11-02-07.3.F. New Manufactured Home Community or Subdivision A Manufactured Home Community or Subdivision for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the Manufactured Homes are to be affixed (including at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed on or after the Effective Date of adopted floodplain management regulations. Nonresidential Structure A building other than a residential structure. The term includes but is not limited to: buildings used for places of assembly, education, child care, business, maintenance, storage, manufacturing, government, hospitals, sanitariums, and nursing homes. One-Hundred Year Flood The flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year and is synonymous with “Base Flood.” Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) The line which the water impresses on the soil by covering it for sufficient periods to deprive the soil of its vegetation and destroy its value for agricultural purposes. Recreational Vehicle For floodplain management purposes, a recreational vehicle is a vehicle which is: (a) built on a single chassis, and (b) 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projections, and (c) designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck, and (d) designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
474
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Regulatory Floodway (See Floodway) The channel of a river or other watercourse and adjacent land areas that shall be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. Residential Structure A building used as a dwelling for one or more persons. The term includes, but is not limited to houses, mobile homes, apartment buildings, lodging homes, dormitories, (and the guest or patient rooms of), hotels, and motels. The term also includes accessory use areas used in conjunction with and forming an integral part of a residential structure. Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Land in the floodplain within a community subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. For purposes of these regulations, the term "special flood hazard area" is synonymous in meaning with the phrase "Area of Special Flood Hazard". Start of Construction A. Includes substantial improvement, and means the date the Building Permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition placement, or other improvement was within 180 days of the permit date. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a Manufactured Home on a foundation. B.
Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading, and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement, the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structure part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building.
Structure For the purpose of floodplain regulations, a structure is a walled and roofed building, including a gas or liquid storage tank that is principally above ground, as well as a Manufactured Home. Substantial Damage Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before-damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of its assessed value before the damage occurred. See definition of "substantial improvement". Substantial damage also means flood-related damage sustained by a structure on two separate occasions during a 10 year period for which the cost of repairs at the time of each such flood event, on the average, equals or exceeds 25 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
475
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Substantial Improvement Any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the assessed value of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred "substantial damage", regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either: A. Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions; or B.
Any alteration of a "historic structure", provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure's continued designation as a "historic structure" and the alteration is approved by variance issued pursuant to this ordinance.
Unnumbered "A Zone" An area shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as an "A Zone" in which base flood depths and a clearly defined channel are not shown. Violation The failure of a structure or other development to be fully compliant with the community's floodplain management regulations. A structure or other development without the Finished Construction Elevation Certificate, other certifications, or other evidence of compliance required in 44 CFR Parts 60.3(b)(5), (c)(4), (c)(10), (d)(3), (e)(2), (e)(4), or (e)(5) is presumed to be in violation until such time as that documentation is provided. Food Kitchen A facility providing food at mealtimes to people with limited financial resources, including people who are homeless. Food Truck, Mobile A motor vehicle or trailer with a current vehicle registration designed and equipped for the preparation and sale of food and/or beverages. Food Truck Court An area of land on which one or more Food Trucks sell food and/or beverages to the public, and on which the public may consume food and/or beverages. Foothills Planning Area The planning area within the City of Boise’s Area of City Impact characterized by critical wildlife and plant habitat, watershed and riparian environments, agricultural uses, and abundant recreational opportunities.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
476
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Figure 6.9. Foothills Planning Area Map
Forest Reserve or Recreation Area An area that preserves or protects forests, associated endangered species, critical environmental features, view sheds, or other natural elements and may include associated recreational uses such as hiking and nature observation. Fraternity or Sorority House A building or portion of a building used for sleeping accommodations, with or without accessory common rooms and cooking and eating facilities, for groups of students where the students living in the building are enrolled at the same college or university, are active members of the same fraternity or sorority, and the fraternity or sorority has been officially recognized by and maintains active affiliation with the college or university. This use shall also include a building or portion of a building in which individual rooms or apartments are leased to individuals, regardless of the ownership of the building, provided that the students living in the building are enrolled at the same college or university, are active members of the same fraternity or sorority, and the fraternity or sorority has been officially recognized by and maintains active affiliation with the college or university. Fulfilment Center A facility that is used for the receipt of bulk products and the storage, separation, and distribution of those products on an individual basis to individual end-user consumers. A fulfilment center’s primary
function is moving a shipment from one mode of transport to vehicles with rated capacities less than 10,000 pounds, for delivery directly to consumers or end-users. This includes e-commerce activities.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
477
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
G Golf Course A tract of land typically laid out for at least nine holes for playing the game of golf that may include a clubhouse, dining and snack bars, pro shop, and practice facilities. Group Home, FHAA Large A residential dwelling or facility where nine or more persons are living together with staff providing care, supervision, and treatment for the exclusive use of citizens whose rights to live together or without undue restrictions are protected by the provisions of the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, as defined in that Act and interpreted by the courts, or by any similar legislation of the State of Idaho, including but not limited to facilities providing housing for people with disabilities or with mental illnesses. Group Home, FHAA Small A residential dwelling or facility where eight or fewer persons are living together with staff, as a single housekeeping unit providing care, supervision, and treatment for the exclusive use of citizens whose rights to live together or without undue restrictions are protected by the provisions of the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, as defined in that Act and interpreted by the courts, or by any similar legislation of the State of Idaho, including but not limited to facilities providing housing for people with disabilities or with mental illnesses.
H Hazardous Materials Hazardous or toxic material or substance, as set forth in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 116.4, 261.30 et seq., 302.4 and/or 355. Hearing Examiner A City employee, or a person or firm on contract with the City, who reviews specific types of applications under authority delegated by a City decision-making body and/or makes decisions on some or all of those types of decisions pursuant to criteria established by City Council. Helipad/Heliport A level area or pad, either at ground level or on a roof-top, where helicopters land and take off. Hillside and Foothill Areas Areas with topographical slopes of 15 percent or greater, or where adverse slope stability, erosion, or sedimentation are likely to cause damage. Historic Design Overlay Definitions For the purposes of this Code, the following terms, phrases, and words shall have the meanings shown below. Additional definitions may be found in the Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts available in the Boise City Planning and Development Services Department. In the event of a conflict, the definitions in this Section shall apply.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
478
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Acquisition The act or process of acquiring fee title or interest other than fee title of real property (including acquisition of development rights or remainder interest). Addition Any construction that increases the size of a building or structure in terms of site coverage, height, length, width, or gross floor area. Alterations Any act or process that changes one or more exterior features of a building or site. Construction, replacement, or erection of new buildings, structures, objects, or improvements. Certificate of Appropriateness The document issued by the Historic Preservation Commission or staff for any and all alterations (not including ordinary repairs per Sections 11-05-05.2.C and 11-05-05.3.B within a designated historic district. Change in Zoning Classification A change of zoning classification refers to any application for property located within a designated historic district for a rezoning. Character Defining Façade Any elevation that contains features that helps to define a structure's significance. Comprehensive Historic Preservation Planning The organization into a logical sequence of preservation information pertaining to identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment of historic properties, and setting priorities for accomplishing preservation activities. Contributing A contributing building, site, structure, or object adds to the historic architectural qualities, historic associations, or archeological values for which a property is significant because (a) it was present during the period of significance and possesses historic integrity reflecting its character at that time or is capable of yielding important information about the period, or (b) it individually meets the National Register eligibility criteria. Demolition Any act or process that permanently, substantially destroys or razes any building, site, structure, or object in whole or in part. Demolition by Neglect Any act or omission that destroys or contributes to the destruction of a building. Exterior Features The architecture, color, size, location, type, style, kind, texture, design, general arrangement, and material of a building, site, structure, or object, including but not limited to, windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, appurtenant fixtures, streets, streetscapes, sidewalks, and landscaping. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
479
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Historic Design District (Referred to as "HD-O" Overlay) Any area designated as such by ordinance that includes or encompasses such historic buildings, sites, structures, or objects as the Commission may determine to be appropriate for historic preservation. Such designated district or districts need not be a single enclosed area nor do the areas or sites have to be contiguous to constitute a district. A district may include contributing, non-contributing, or undeveloped properties. Historic districts may be residential, non-residential (commercial), or a combination of the two. The type of building within a combined district will determine if the commercial or residential guidelines apply. Historic Easement Any easement, restriction, covenant, or condition running with the land designed and designated to preserve, maintain, and enhance all or part of the existing state of places of historical, architectural, archeological, educational, or cultural significance. Historic Institutional Use Any school (public or private), church, or other place of religious worship, commercial service use, or office use within a Character Overlay District that is significant to the history, architecture, or culture of the district. Historic Landmark A district, site, building, structure, or object that possesses exceptional significance in history, architecture, engineering, archeology, or culture at the national, state, or local level and has been designated as an historic landmark through the public hearing process. Historic Preservation The research, protection, restoration, and rehabilitation of buildings, sites, structures, objects, or districts significant in the history, architecture, archeology, or culture of the state, its communities, or the nation. Historic Structure Any structure that is: A. Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the Department of the Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register. B.
Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district.
C. Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic preservation programs which have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior; or individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with historic preservation programs that have been certified either: 1.
By an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior or
2.
Directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states without approved programs.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
480
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Improvement A valuable addition made to property (usually real estate) or an amelioration in its condition, amounting to more than mere repairs or replacement, costing labor or capital, and intended to enhance its value, beauty, or utility or to adapt it for new or further purposes. Generally, buildings, but may also include any permanent structure or other development, such as a street, sidewalks, sewers, or utilities. Integrity The ability of a property to convey its significance; includes the concepts of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Inventory A list of historic properties determined to meet specified criteria of significance. National Register The National Register of Historic Places. A list established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) and codified in 36CFR60 (as amended) of buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts having local, state, or national historical, architectural, or cultural significance and considered worthy of preservation. National Register Criteria The established criteria for evaluating the eligibility of properties for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. For further information on the criteria refer to the National Park Service website, National Register of Historic Places. New Construction Construction of an entire structure. Noncontributing A noncontributing building, site, structure, or object may possess characteristics that make it important to the overall historic character of the district such as, but not limited to, mass, scale, streetscape features, setbacks, or proximity to contributing structures. A building, site, structure, or object within a district may be noncontributing because (a) it was not present during the period of significance, (b) due to alterations, disturbances, additions, or other changes, it no longer possesses historic integrity reflecting its character at that time or is incapable of yielding important information about the period, or (c) it does not individually meet the National Register eligibility criteria. A noncontributing building, site, structure, or object that is within an historic district remains subject to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. This classification has been designated through a survey and a formal hearing process. Object (For Purposes of Historic Designation) A construction primarily artistic in nature or relatively small in scale and simply constructed, such as a statue or milepost. Period of Significance The length of time when a property was associated with important events, activities, or persons, or attained the characteristics which qualify it for National Register listing. Period of significance usually Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
481
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
begins with the date when significant activities or events began giving the property its historic significance; this is often a date of construction. The period of significance for each historic district is described in each district's Statement of Significance, which is available for review at the Boise City Planning and Development Services Department. Person in Charge The person or persons possessed of the freehold, or a mortgagee or vendee in possession, assignee of rents, receiver, executor, trustee, lessee, agent, or any person directly or indirectly in control of an historic property. Preservation The act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project. Primary Façade The elevation that most characterizes a structure's significance; usually the front elevation. Property Land and that which is erected or affixed to the land. Real property extends to rights issuing out of, annexed to, and exercisable within or about land. Reconstruction The act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving building, site, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. Reconstruction shall be based only on documentation that clearly coveys the appearance. Rehabilitation The act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which that convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. Restoration The act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation Standards that were written pursuant to federal law to ensure that work on historic buildings is done in such a manner that preserves the historical integrity of the building. For further information, refer Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
482
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
to the Secretary of the Interior's standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings and the Boise Residential and Commercial Design Guidelines. Site (For Purposes of Historic Designation) Location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archeological value regardless of the value of any existing structures. Site Improvements A modification to the grounds of a property not including the buildings or other significant structures, such as garages. Such improvements may include, but are not limited to fences, walls, greenhouses, storage sheds, light fixtures, hot tubs, swimming pools, fountains, barbeques, outdoor fireplaces, playground equipment, steps, or pavement. Structure (For Purposes of Designation) A functional construction made for purposes other than creating shelter, such as, but not limited to, a bridge, canal, or dam. Structure (For All Other Historic Preservation Purposes) Anything constructed or erected which that requires permanent location on the ground or is attached to something having location on the ground. Structures may include, but are not limited to, buildings, platforms, framework, antennas, and prefabricated metal sheds. Survey Form A form that catalogues the age, style, contributing or noncontributing classification, address, location, photograph, date of inventory, name of surveyor, building permit history, and other relevant information as may be required by the Planning Director or Historic Preservation Commission for a building, site, structure, or object. Temporary Features Items that are erected or displayed for a limited amount of time, not to exceed 180 days at any one time unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director, which may include, but are not limited to: sidewalk cafe tables, chairs, fences, planters, umbrellas, and bicycle racks. Temporary Structures A structure with or without a foundation that is erected for a limited amount of time, not to exceed 180 days at any one time unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director, which may include, but are not limited to, playhouses and play equipment. Hive A structure intended for the housing of a bee colony. Home Occupation, Family Daycare Home A residential dwelling unit used as the primary residence of the day care provider where six or fewer adults or children, including children of the provider under age 13, receive care from a provider for a period of less than 24 hours per day. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
483
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Home Occupation, Group Daycare Facility A residential dwelling unit used as the primary residence of the day care provider where seven to 12 adults or children receive care from the provider while unattended by a parent, legal guardian, or custodian for a period of less than 24 hours per day. Home Occupation, Other An activity or occupation carried on within a dwelling by members of the household occupying the dwelling and where the use of the home as an occupation shall be incidental and subordinate to the use of the home as a dwelling, that is not listed as a separate use in this Code. Hospital An institution devoted primarily to the maintenance and operation of facilities for the medical or surgical care of patients 24 hours a day, including specialized and surgical hospitals. The term does not include Medical Clinics, Convalescent or Nursing Homes, Boarding Homes, or any institution operating solely for the treatment of people with mental illnesses, people with substance abuse disorders, or other types of cases necessitating forcible confinement of patients. Hotel or Motel An establishment in which lodging is provided and offered to the public for compensation for periods of time not exceeding thirty days and that is commonly known as a hotel or motel in the community in which it is located. This use customarily provides services such as maid service, the furnishing and laundering of linen, telephone and secretarial or desk service, and the use and upkeep of furniture. This use may provide ancillary uses such as conference and meeting rooms, restaurants, bars, gift shops, and recreational facilities. The term "Hotel or Motel" does not include " Boarding House," "Bed and Breakfast," “Shelter Home,” except where separately permitted. Household A group of individuals functioning as a single and independent housekeeping unit or persons occupying a home as defined in this Code, including but not limited to any group of persons whose right to live together or without undue restrictions are protected by the provisions of the federal Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988, as defined in that Act and interpreted by the courts, or by any similar legislation of the State of Idaho, Also referred to as Family.
I Impervious Surface A surface that has been compacted or covered with a layer of material so that it is highly resistant to infiltration or absorption by water. Surfaces may include, but are not limited to, compacted sand or clay as well as most conventionally surfaced streets, roofs, sidewalks, and parking lots. Industry, Artisan An establishment or business where an artist, artisan, or craftsperson teaches, makes, or fabricates crafts or products by hand or with minimal automation and may include direct sales to consumers. This definition includes uses such as small-scale fabrication but is not limited to manufacturing and other industrial uses and processes such as welding and sculpting.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
484
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Industry, Heavy The assembly, fabrication, or processing of goods and materials using processes that ordinarily have greater than minimal impacts on the environment, or that ordinarily have significant impacts on the use and enjoyment of adjacent property in terms of truck traffic, railroad activities, noise, smoke, fumes, visual impact, odors, glare, or health and safety hazards, or that otherwise do not meet the definition of "Light Industry." This use may include outdoor activities, outdoor storage, and indoor storage of flammable liquids or gases necessary to the processes on the premises. Heavy manufacturing also generally includes processing and fabrication of products made from extracted or raw materials or products involving flammable, hazardous, or explosive materials and processes, uses involving the fabrication, use, or repair of heavy special purpose equipment. Examples of this use include atmospheric gas production plant, lumbermill or sawmill, tannery, asphalt, and concrete batch plant, bottling and distribution plants, and construction materials manufacturing unless performed on a scale that meets the definition of “Artisan Industry.” Industry, Light The assembly, fabrication, or processing of goods and materials using processes that ordinarily do not involve significant truck traffic or railroad operations and do not create material amounts of noise, smoke, fumes, odors, glare, or health or safety hazards outside of the building or lot where such assembly, fabrication, or processing takes place, and where such processes are housed entirely within an enclosed building, except as may be authorized in this Code. Light manufacturing also generally includes processing and fabrication of finished products predominantly from previously prepared materials and includes processes not involving flammable or explosive materials. Examples of activities include, but are not limited to, brewing and distillation of liquor and spirits, commercial laundries, food products and wholesale bakeries, newspaper and printing establishments, hair products and barbering supplies, signs and other metal workings, architectural and artist supplies, ceramics and miscellaneous clothing or accessories, small medical or specialty equipment, or musical instruments; and assembly of small appliances or equipment. Interstate One of a system of highways connecting the major cities of the 48 contiguous United States. No direct access to a property is provided.
J Jail or Detention Facility A facility established by a law enforcement agency for the long-term detention of adult or juvenile persons while being processed for arrest or detention, awaiting trial, or for punishment and/or counseling as a result of sentencing by a court of jurisdiction for criminal or antisocial behavior. Junkyard, Vehicle Salvage An outdoor space where junk, waste, or discarded or salvaged materials are stored or handled, including automobile wrecking yards, and yards for used or salvaged building and structural steel materials and equipment. Does not include yards or establishments for the sale, purchase, or storage of used cars or machinery in operable conditions, and the processing of used, discarded, or salvaged materials as a part of a permitted manufacturing operation on the same premises.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
485
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
K Kennel Any lot or premises, or portion of a lot or premises, on which five or more dogs, cats, and other household domestic animals are maintained, harbored, possessed, boarded, bred, or cared for in return for compensation or are offered for sale. Kitchen That portion of a dwelling unit devoted to the preparation or cooking of food for the purpose of consumption by residents of the dwelling unit. Any food preparation area with cooking facilities (i.e., stove, oven, hot plate, and/or microwave oven, refrigerator, or sink) or with a natural gas stub or supply or a 220 volt electrical outlet/wiring is a kitchen for purposes of this Code.
L Landscaping Any combination of living plants such as trees, shrubs, plants, vegetative ground cover, or turf grasses, and may include structural features such as walkways, fences, benches, works of art, reflective pools, fountains, or the like. Landscaping shall also include irrigation systems, mulches, topsoil use, soil preparation, revegetation, or the preservation, protection, and replacement of existing trees. Legal Nonconforming Parcel, Structure, Use, Sign, or Site Feature A nonconforming parcel, structure, use, sign, or site feature is one that was legally established but that is not in compliance with this Code due to a subsequent ordinance amendment, annexation, change of zoning, eminent domain, or similar action, and not due to the actions of the property owner. Lighting-Related Definitions When used in the context of lighting regulations, the following terms shall have the following definitions. Fixture The assembly that houses the lamp(s) and can include all or some of the following parts: a housing, a mounting bracket or pole socket, a ballast, a lamp, a reflector, or mirror and/or a refractor lens. Floodlight or Spotlight A light fixture or lamp that incorporates a reflector to concentrate the light output into a directed beam in a particular direction. Footcandle A unit of light or density when the foot is the unit of measure. One footcandle (fc) equals one lumen per square foot of area. When metric units are used, lux is the unit of light quantity. One lux equals one lumen per square meter of area. One footcandle equals 10 and seventy-six hundredths (10.76) lux. For the purpose of establishing consistent measurements, both footcandles and lux are measured at finished grade and at property lines when applicable. Full-cutoff or Fully-shielded A luminaire that allows no light emission above a horizontal plane through its lower light-emitting part.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
486
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Glare Light emitted without a lens or through a clear lens from a luminaire with an intensity great enough to reduce a person's ability to see, and in extreme cases, to cause momentary blindness. Kelvin Designating or of a scale of thermodynamic temperature measured from absolute zero. Lamp A generic term for a source of optical radiation (i.e., “light”), often called a “bulb” or “tube”. Examples include incandescent, fluorescent, high intensity discharge (HID) lamps, halide, and halogen, as well as light-emitting diode (LED) modules and arrays. Light Trespass The shining of more than one footcandle of light produced by a luminaire that shines beyond the boundaries of the property on which the fixture is located. Lumen A unit of luminous flux. One footcandle is one lumen per square foot. Luminaire The complete lighting system, that includes the lamp(s) and fixtures. Nit The amount of light output equal to one candela per square meter. Livable Space The area of any building used for living including but not limited to bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens, living rooms, dining rooms, stairs, porches, breezeways, and recreation rooms. Enclosed storage, utility, and parking areas are not considered livable space. Livestock Livestock are animals kept outside the home in enclosures such as pens, barns, or corrals. The term includes cattle, llamas, mules, swine, sheep, goats, rabbits, poultry, domestic birds, and any other grazing or foraging animal except those defined as pets. Livestock and Animals Uses related to the keeping and care of livestock and pets. Lot A tract or land that has been platted as a portion of a recorded subdivision and is intended as a unit for transfer of ownership or for development. Lot Buffer The portion of a given lot, not covered by buildings, pavement, parking, access and service areas, or established as landscaped space for the purposes of screening and separating properties.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
487
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Figure 6.10. Lot Types
Lot, Corner A lot that is bounded on two or more sides by streets; where the angle of intersection of the streets does not exceed 135 degrees. Lot, Double Fronted A lot having frontage on two nonintersecting streets, as distinguished from a corner lot. Lot, Flag A lot that has access to a public right-of-way by means of a narrow strip of land. Lot, Frontage That portion of a lot that abuts a public right-of-way or other access. Lot, Interior A lot other than a corner lot or reversed corner lot. Lot Line/Property Line The boundary property line encompassing a lot. Lot, Nonconforming A lot of record that does not meet the dimensional requirements of this Code. Lot, Reversed Corner A corner lot, the rear of which abuts upon the side of another lot, whether across an alley or not.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
488
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Figure 6.11. Reversed Corner Lot
Lot Line/Property Line, Front The front lot line/property line for a regular-shaped interior lot is the property boundary that abuts a public or private street; the front lot line/property line for an undeveloped corner lot is either one of the property boundaries that abuts a public or private street, as selected by the property owner; the front lot line/property line for a flag lot may be either: A. The closest line, parallel or most nearly parallel to the public or private street at the end of the flagpole, or B.
A line perpendicular or nearly perpendicular to the public or private street at the end of the flagpole, depending upon which orientation provides for the closest matching of like yards of abutting properties.
Lot Line/Property Line, Rear The boundary line of a lot that is opposite and most distant from the front lot line/property line. For the purpose of establishing the rear lot line/property line, the following shall apply: A. In the case of a lot with a rear boundary formed by a single line that is parallel or nearly parallel to the front lot line/property line, such rear boundary is the rear lot line/property line. B.
In the case of a lot with a rear boundary formed by two or more lines, the rear lot line/property line shall be a line at least 10 feet in length within the lot that is furthest removed from and most parallel to the front lot line/property line.
Lot Line/Property Line, Side Any property line that is not a front or rear lot line/property line.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
489
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
M Manufactured Home Community Any site, lot, tract, plot, or parcel of land, designed for the placement of 10 or more Manufactured Homes or Tiny Houses, located and maintained for dwelling purposes on a permanent basis on individual lots, pads, or spaces; whether those lots, pads, or spaces be individually owned, leased, or rented. Maps, Zoning The map or maps designating zoning districts. Maximum Extent Practicable The applicant has taken all possible steps to comply with the standards or regulations and to minimize potential harmful or adverse impacts, and no other feasible or prudent alternative exists, given the conditions of the site and pre-existing constraints. The economic costs of further efforts to comply may be taken into account in determining whether additional efforts to comply are feasible or prudent, but shall not be the overriding factor. Constraints to full compliance that are self-created by the owner or previous owner of the land, such as those created by prior platting, development, or design decisions, shall not be considered sufficient justification for a determination that no feasible or prudent alternative exists. The applicant’s failure to request or receive comments from other governmental agencies or from other owners of interests in or under the property, or an applicant’s unwillingness to address or resolve issues raised in comments from such parties, or the applicant’s desire to obtain approvals more than would be required to address or resolve comments received from such parties, shall not be considered sufficient justification for a determination that no feasible or prudent alternative exists. Medical or Dental Clinic A facility for a group of one or more physicians for the examination and treatment of human patients, primarily engaged in providing, on an outpatient basis, chiropractic, dental, medical, surgical, medical imaging, or other services to individuals. Patients are not kept overnight except under emergency conditions. Ancillary laboratory facilities may be included. Mining and Extraction Mining and extractive uses include the extraction of minerals, sand, gravel, and ores, and distribution of extracted materials, including but not limited to the excavation, processing, and distribution of clay, gravel, stone, and soils. Mobile Home, Rehabilitated Any mobile home constructed prior to July 15, 1976 (the Effective Date of the National Manufactured Housing and Safety Standards Act of 1974), that is currently sited within Idaho or that may be brought into the state after July 1, 1998, that have been upgraded to comply with Chapter 25, Title 44, Idaho Code and received a "Certificate of Compliance" from the Division of Building Safety of the State of Idaho. Mortuary or Mausoleum A facility in which deceased bodies are kept and prepared for burial or cremation or containing niches or other designated places intended to be a final resting place for human or pet animal remains as an alternative to land burial.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
490
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Motor Vehicle, Junked/Abandoned Any automobile, truck, or other vehicle that is inoperable or in some obvious state of disrepair or abandonment. The following factors, among others, shall be considered individually in determining whether or not a vehicle is inoperable, junked, or abandoned: A. The vehicle is currently inoperable. This shall include, but is not limited to, the vehicle not having body parts to be in working condition; such as missing engine, transmission, tires, windshield, mirror, taillight, head light, or battery; B.
The vehicle has been parked for at least 30 days on property not owned or rented by the vehicle owner;
C. The vehicle has not been licensed or registered for at least 30 days; and D. The vehicle has been parked for 30 days on property where the premises have been vacated. Multiple-Family Any household living use that contains more than four dwelling units.
N National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) An association formed to exchange transportation ideas, insights, and practices and cooperatively approach national transportation issues. Neighborhood Cafe An establishment that serves a limited menu of food items and does not contain more than 2,000 square feet of gross floor area. Accessory uses to the service of food may include retail sales and the sale of nonalcoholic or alcoholic beverages. Neighborhood Associations, Registered Groups formed by residents and property owners within a specific geographic location who meet regularly. Registration is achieved by providing the City with organizational and contact information and complying with the policy standards specified in the City of Boise Policy Statement on Registered Neighborhood Associations. Nonresidential Structure A building other than a residential structure. The term includes, but is not limited to, buildings used for places of assembly, education, child care, commercial, industry, maintenance, storage, manufacturing, government, hospitals, sanitariums, nursing homes, hotels, and motels. Nucleus Colony A smaller colony of bees used for educational purposes, queen maintenance and rearing, or for use in the capture and future integration of a swarm into a viable colony. A nucleus colony is comprised of significantly fewer bees than a conventional colony and is contained in a structure that is approximately one-half the size of a normal hive. Nuisance, Public The following shall be defined as a public nuisance.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
491
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
A. Abandoned, dismantled, wrecked, inoperable, unlicensed, and discarded objects, equipment, or appliances such as, but not limited to, vehicles, boats, water heaters, refrigerators, furniture not designed for outdoor use, household fixtures, machinery, equipment, cans, or containers standing or stored on property, sidewalks, alleys, and streets that can be viewed from a public street, walkway, alley, or other public property and are readily accessible from such places, or are stored on private property in violation of any other law or Code; B.
Discarded putrescibles, garbage, rubbish, refuse, or recyclable items that have not been recycled within 15 days of being deposited on the property;
C. Oil, grease, paint, other petroleum products, hazardous materials, volatile chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, or waste (solid, liquid, or gaseous) that could constitute a fire or environmental hazard, or to be detrimental to human life, health, or safety; D. Lumber (excluding lumber for the construction project on the property with any required Building Permits), salvage materials, including but not limited to auto parts, scrap metals, tires, other materials stored on premises in excess of 30 days and visible from a public street, walkway, alley, or other public property; E.
Receptacles for trash, discarded materials, and recyclables that are left in the front yard or on public rights-of-way on any day except the day of the regularly scheduled refuse pick-up for the property;
F.
Swimming pool, pond, spa, other body of water, or excavation that is abandoned, unattended, unsanitary, empty, that is not securely fenced, or that poses a threat to be detrimental to human life, health, or safety;
G. Weeds, grasses, or other vegetation which (1) cover 50 percent or more of any lot or yard; (2) average 12 inches or more in height; and (3) could become a fire hazard; and H. Trees, shrubs, or other vegetation blocking public rights-of-way or clear vision triangles lower than a height of 8 feet above the rights-of-way or clear vision triangle.
O Office An establishment primarily used for conducting the affairs of a business, profession, service, or industry, or like activity, that may include ancillary uses such as restaurants, coffee shop, and limited retail sales. This use includes radio or television stations and may include trade and vocational schools that are incorporated within an office development. One and One-Half Story Structure A structure that does not exceed 18 feet in height to the midline of the roof. The structure also provides the second story within a basement that is sunk into the ground a minimum of four feet or is located within a pitched roofline located within a front gable, the exterior second floor wall height shall not exceed two feet six inches in height and contains a maximum of one dormer on each side of the structure that does not exceed eight feet in width.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
492
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Figure 6.12. Example of Second Story Within A Basement
Figure 6.13. Example of Second Story Within Pitched Roofline
Occupancy Permit The approval to occupy a building that is granted after zoning and building requirements and conditions of approval, if any, have been met or bonded for. Open Space Natural areas, including, but not limited to, large areas consisting mostly of vegetative landscaping, or outdoor recreation, community gardens, or public squares. Lands tend to have few structures. Accessory uses may include clubhouses, playgrounds, maintenance facilities, concessions, caretaker's quarters, and parking. Specific use types include, but are not limited to forest reserves, recreation areas, golf courses, parks, playgrounds, and public plazas. Open Space, Private or Common An Open Space development amenity designed for passive or active recreation developed, designated, and protected for the benefit and private use of the employees or residents within a development.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
493
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Open Space, Public An Open Space development amenity designed for passive or active recreation dedicated to the City or an entity approved by the City for the benefit and use of the public, which may include but is not limited to parks or trails required to be dedicated by this Code or otherwise offered to and accepted by the City for these purposes. Other Communications Towers Any tower used for electronic communications or transmission of energy that does not meet the definition of a Wireless Communication Facility or that is not subject to the Federal Communications, including without limitation: A. A self-supporting, multiple sided, open steel frame structure used to support telecommunications equipment. B.
A structure in a fixed location used as an antenna or to support antennas for the primary purpose of transmitting and/or receiving electronic signals. This definition includes nonresidential broadcast, communication, transmission, and similar towers, either freestanding or attached to an adjacent broadcasting or transmitting facility.
Outdoor Storage Storage of materials, merchandise, stock, supplies, machines, equipment, vehicles (but not wrecked or inoperable vehicles), manufacturing materials, or personal property of any nature that are not kept in an enclosed structure regardless of how long such materials are kept on the premises. Owner The fee owner of the real property subject to this regulation. The owner may assign, in writing, application submittal authority to an applicant who is not the owner. To the extent an owner is applying for subdivision of property in its own name, such owner shall be the "applicant" for purposes of this Code.
P Parcel A lot or tract of land. Parcels are generally described by a metes and bounds legal description or references to quadrangular survey measurements using Sections, Townships and Ranges, or government lots. Park A parcel of land available to the public for passive and/or active recreation. Accessory uses can include community centers, museums, meeting rooms, classrooms, gift shops or cafes. Park and Ride Facility A parking lot or structure designed to encourage transfer from private automobile to mass transit or to encourage carpooling for purposes of commuting, or for access to recreation areas. Parking Garage A building or portion of a building consisting of one or more levels at, below, or above grade, designed to be used for the parking of automobiles and commercial vehicles that is available to the public, whether for compensation, free, or as an accommodation to clients or customers.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
494
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Parking Lot An open, graded, and surfaced area, other than a street or public right-of-way, to be used for the storage, for limited periods of time, of operable passenger automobiles and commercial vehicles, and available to the public, whether for compensation, free, or as an accommodation to clients or customers. Also referred to as surface parking. Parking Lot, Temporary A temporary parking lot for non-required parking such as where new building construction is planned. Parking, Covered A carport that provides full overhead protection from the elements with ordinary roof coverings. Parking, Off-site Any required parking space that is located on a different parcel as the principal use that the parking is intended to serve. Parking, On-site Any required parking space that is located on the same parcel as the principal use that the parking is intended to serve. Also referred to as parking off-street. Parking Space A usable space for the storage of one passenger automobile or commercial vehicle, exclusive of access drives, aisles, or ramps, within a public or private parking area or a building. Parking Space, Tandem A parking space designed to accommodate two vehicles parked in tandem (one behind the other). Partial Two-Story Structure A structure that limits the second story floor plate to reduce the height, bulk, and massing of the structure. This can be achieved by increasing the second story setbacks by a minimum of three feet beyond the minimum front, side, and rear setbacks required by the zoning district. It may also contain the second story within a pitched roofline located within a front gable and a maximum building height of 18 feet to the midline of the roof that has an exterior second floor wall height no greater than two feet, six inches in height and up to two dormers with a maximum width of 8 feet located on each side of the structure. It may also contain the second story within a pitched roofline within a side gable and a maximum building height of 25 feet to the peak of the roof and 18 feet to the midline of the roof with any dormers on the front or rear of the structure no greater than 10 feet in width.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
495
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Figure 6.14. Example of a Second Story Contained Within a Pitched Roofline with Two Side Dormers
Figure 6.15. Example of Setbacks Increased by a Minimum of Three Feet
Figure 6.16. Example of a Second Story Contained Within a Pitched Roofline with Front and/or Rear Dormers
Party of Record The applicant for a permit, approval, or decision under this Code, or an individual appearing on their own behalf, or an individual with written authority to speak on behalf of an organization, whose name appears
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
496
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
in the list of persons attending a public hearing or who filed written comments or testimony that was entered into the record of a public hearing. Pathway Any sidewalk, multiuse path, route, lane, path, corridor, open space, or trail designated to move people by non-vehicular means for transportation or recreation, including micro-pathways. Person A. For purposes of historic preservation regulations, an individual, firm, corporation, association, municipal corporation, or any other governmental or quasi-governmental agency, or group or combination thereof acting as a unit, except that nothing in Section 11-02-07.2.E shall be construed to allow the designation, regulation, conditioning, restriction, or acquisition of historic buildings, structures, sites or areas, or other properties or facilities owned by the state or any of its political subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities. B.
For all other purposes, a natural person, heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, including a firm, partnership, or corporation, and its or their successors or assigns, or the agent of any of those listed.
Personal or Business Service A facility that provides individualized services generally related to personal or business needs. Personal services include but are not limited to laundry, including cleaning and pressing service, beauty shops, barbershops, shoe repair, personal copying/shipping services, health spas, photographic studios, tailor/sewing shop, indoor equipment/party/event rental, tanning salon, bicycle and sports equipment repair, small appliance repair, tattoo parlors and similar uses. Business services include but are not limited to architects, landscape architects and other design services; graphic designers; consultants; lawyers; media advisors; photography studios; and general offices. Pet Pets generally are animals that may be kept indoors, though pets may also be kept outdoors. Pets are dogs, cats, up to two goats, up to six chickens (excluding roosters), four ducks, six rabbits or other small animals or poultry as determined by the Planning Director. Planned Unit Development (PUD) A use or a combination of uses planned for a tract of land to be developed as a unit under single ownership or control. Planning Director The person appointed by the Mayor to be generally responsible for planning and zoning activities in the City and for the administration of this Code. Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) The City of Boise Planning and Zoning Commission.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
497
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Plat, Condominium A drawing or set of drawings showing the division of land and/or airspace in a building or that divides land into individual, common, or other forms of ownership and responsibility, as required by applicable Idaho law. Plat, Subdivision Final The plat map of a subdivision, cemetery, condominium, or a replatting of such, prepared by a State of Idaho licensed land surveyor for filing and recording by the County Recorder and containing those elements required by this Code and the State of Idaho, including certification, descriptions, and final approvals. A Final Plat, upon its being filed and recorded by the County Recorder, shall be known as an authorized plat. Plat, Subdivision Preliminary A preliminary plan of a proposed subdivision or a proposed condominium project that contains all elements required by this Code and provides sufficient information to allow for public review and evaluation. Plat, Subdivision Replat A plat document that serves to modify all or part of an existing Final Plat, including, without limitation, changes to recorded streets, rights-of-way, easements, non-buildable parcels, and/or plat notes. Power Plant Any plant facilities and equipment for the purposes of producing, generating, transmitting, delivering, or furnishing electricity for the production of power. Principal Dwelling The primary building designed and used for human habitation on a property. Principal Use: The main use of land or buildings, as distinguished from a subordinate or accessory use. Project Engineer Professional engineer registered in the State of Idaho. Property Line Adjustment A property line adjustment that establishes buildable parcels with boundaries that differ from existing buildable parcel and/or buildable lot boundaries. Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) Federally-approved accessibility guidelines for the design, construction, and alteration of pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way.
Q Quorum A majority of the authorized members of a commission.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
498
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
R Recovery Residence A dwelling where persons are living, together with staff, as a single housekeeping unit providing care, supervision, and treatment for the exclusive use of persons requiring medical, correctional, or other mandated supervision or a protective environment to avoid past or likely future violence, whose right to live together is not protected by the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act, as amended and as interpreted by the courts, and that does not meet the definition of another use in this Code. Recreation, Indoor Facilities for entertainment, sports, and recreational activities such as bowling, billiards, arcades, skating, swimming, tennis, teen clubs, escape rooms, archery and axe-throwing, trampolines, and similar indoor activities taking place inside an enclosed building. Indoor recreation includes establishments for weddings, birthdays, dances, celebrations, and other similar special events. Recreation, Outdoor Commercial entertainment, recreation, or games of skill where any portion of the activity takes place outside of a building. Such activities include, but are not limited to ball parks (baseball, football, soccer, tennis), water park, batting cages, miniature golf, go-cart tracks, amusement parks, golf driving ranges, swimming pools, and other similar uses. Outdoor recreation includes establishments for weddings, birthdays, dances, celebrations, and other similar special events. Recreational Vehicle (RV) A portable vehicle or structure used primarily for recreation, hobbies, vacations, extended travel, camping, sports, and aquatic use. An RV may be self-propelled, towed, or transported by trailer. RVs include but are not limited to motor homes, converted buses, campers, travel trailers, light-duty trailers and transporters, horse and cattle trailers, boats, rafts and their trailers, and off-street vehicles such as snowmobiles, dune buggies, all-terrain vehicles, and any type of three or four-wheeled sport racing or drag vehicle. RVs are for the sole purpose of recreational use and shall not be used as a dwelling or temporary or permanent residential use. Recreational Vehicle Park Any area, tract, plot, or site of land whereupon two or more recreational vehicles or travel trailers are placed, located, and maintained for recreational stay. Recycling Collection Facility A facility in which recoverable resources such as newspapers, glassware, plastics, and metal cans are recycled, reprocessed, and treated to return such products to a condition in which they can again be used for production. Redevelopment The replacement, rehabilitation, or repurposing of existing improvements on an already developed site. Religious Institution A building or property that is used primarily for religious worship and related social, service, care, or educational activities.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
499
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Religious Institution, Uses Related to and Operated by A use, including but not limited to a thrift store, homeless shelter, rectory, or similar use, that is operated by a religious institution and located on the same parcel or an adjacent parcel to the religious institution. Renewable Energy Facility, Accessory The use of land for: A. Solar collectors or other devices or structural designs that rely upon sunshine as an energy source and are capable of collecting, distributing, or storing the sun's radiant energy for a beneficial use; B.
Land area and equipment for the conversion of natural geothermal energy into energy for a beneficial use; or
C. Wind energy systems that convert energy into a beneficial use. Repair The reconstruction or renewal of any part of an existing building for the purpose of its maintenance. The word "repair" or "repairs" shall not apply to any other change in a structure such as would be required by additions to or remodeling of such structure. Residential Structure A building used as a dwelling for one or more persons. The term also includes accessory use areas that are used in conjunction with and form an integral part of a residential structure. Restaurant An establishment primarily engaged in the preparation and retails sale of food. This definition does not include a Neighborhood Café, Tavern or Lounge or a Brewpub, Micro-distillery, or Micro-Winery. Retail Sales Establishments engaged in selling goods or merchandise to the general public for personal or household consumption and rendering services incidental to the sale of such goods. This use does not include any form of retail sales or other use listed separately in Table 11-03.1: Table of Allowed Uses. Retail Sales, Neighborhood A facility or establishment with up to 2,000 square feet of gross floor area. Retail Sales, Small A facility or establishment with up to 5,000 square feet of gross floor area. Retail Sales, Medium A facility or establishment with between 5,001 and 10,000 square feet of gross floor area Retail Sales, Large A facility or establishment with between 10,001 and 60,000 square feet of gross floor area. Retail Sales, Big Box A facility or establishment with more than 60,000 square feet of gross floor area.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
500
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Riparian Area Relating to or living or located on the bank of a natural water course of a stream or river; or the stream corridor consisting of riparian vegetation, stream carved topography, and features that define a continuous corridor on either side of a stream or pond; or all lands within and adjacent to areas of groundwater discharge, or standing and flowing surface waters where the vegetation community is significantly affected by the temporary, seasonal, or permanent presence of water. Examples include springs, seeps, creeks, streams, rivers, ponds, and lakes and their margins. Riparian Community All plant and animal species within a given riparian area. Riparian Habitat A riparian area where a plant or animal lives; the sum total of environmental conditions in the area. It may also refer to the place occupied by an entire community of plants or animals. Roof The outside top covering of a building or structure. Runnel A straight and usually grooved guide next to a stairway that allows individuals to use the without having to lift and carry their bicycle.
S Safety Facility, Temporary A facility that is designed to protect public safety on a temporary basis following the annexation of land, or in times of natural disaster or emergency circumstances, which may include but is not limited to a temporary station for fire protection and police protection, or a temporary facility to provide relief or assistance services to the public or to a facility to provide services related to the administration or management of such relief or assistance services. Sales and Leasing Office A moveable or modular structure or trailer temporarily used for the sale or leasing of real estate. Sanitary Landfill A planned and approved method or system of waste disposal in which the waste is disposed or buried in layers, compacted by earth or other approved methods, or a facility where solid waste is burned prior to disposal. School An institution of learning, whether public or private, that offers instruction to a group of children in those courses of study required by the Idaho Department of Education. This definition includes nursery school, preschool, kindergarten, elementary school, junior high school, senior high school, or any special institution of learning under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Department of Education, but it does not include a vocational or professional school or any institution of higher education, including a college or university.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
501
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Seasonal Sales Any business or use that may include but not be limited to retail sales of garden supplies and equipment; roadside stands for the sale of fruits and vegetables, plants, flowers, Christmas trees, pumpkins, fireworks; and other similar businesses or uses on a season basis. Self-Service Storage An outdoor area or a building(s) designed or used exclusively for storage of excess property of an individual, family, or business. Buildings are divided into individually accessed units and are not used for used for the day-to-day operations of any kind of businesses. Service Station A facility limited to retail sales to the public of gasoline, biodiesel, electricity, ethanol fuel blends, hydrogen, natural gas, or other fuels for motor vehicles, as well as motor oil, lubricants, travel aides, and minor automobile accessories. Accessory use may include restaurants, and convenience food and beverage sales. Setback The space on a lot or parcel that is required to be left open and unoccupied by buildings or structures, either by the requirements of this Code or by delineation on a recorded subdivision map. Sexually Oriented Business Any establishment where employees engage in specified sexual activities or display specified anatomical areas. Sexually Oriented Business Employee Any person who performs any service on the premises of a Sexually Oriented Business, on a full time, part time, or contract basis, whether or not the person is denominated as an employee, independent contractor, agent, or otherwise. Employee does not include a person exclusively on the premises for repair or maintenance of the premises or for the delivery of goods to the premises. Shared Reserve Areas Areas on a given lot on which the animals on neighboring lots are allowed, on a weekly or more frequent basis, to occupy for grazing or other activities. Shelter Home A facility providing basic services that may include food, personal hygiene support, information and referrals, employment, mail, and telephone services; including overnight sleeping accommodations to people with limited financial resources, including people who are experiencing homelessness. Sidewalk Café An area of the public right-of-way that is designed as a public sidewalk and on which the City permits private dining activities to occur, subject to limitations on design, facilities, and operations designed to protect public safety on remaining portions of the sidewalk area.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
502
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Sign-Related Definitions Animated Sign Any sign that uses movement or change of lighting to depict action or to create a special effect, scene, or the illusion of movement. A sign utilizing static message displays as allowed in Section 1104-012.7.A(5) shall not be considered animated. Awning Sign The copy areas or separate background area attached to any shelter or decorative dimensional shape extending from the exterior surface of a building constructed of a supporting framework and covered with fabric or other non-rigid materials that may be raised or retracted to a flat position against the building, and that does not meet the definition of a Canopy Sign or Marquee Sign.
Banner A flexible substrate on which copy or graphics may be displayed.
Billboard A sign, generally known as outdoor advertising, mounted on a permanent or semi-permanent structure and depicting information not directly related to the property on which it is placed. Except where a specific distinction is drawn, the term “billboard” includes “poster panel” and “bulletin panel.”
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
503
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Canopy Sign The copy areas or separate background area attached to a permanent structure made of plastic, metal, or other substance and providing a roof-like shelter over a public or quasi-public right-of-way, and that does not meet the definition of an Awning Sign or Marquee Sign.
Center Sign A freestanding sign on the site of a property with multiple tenants or occupants, and which is sized or designed to reflect the number of tenants or occupants on the property.
Construction Sign Any sign that warns of construction or demolition, or that describes a construction project and indicates the builder, architect, or others involved.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
504
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Directional Sign A sign that is designed and erected for the purpose of providing direction for pedestrian or vehicular traffic and that does not contain advertising.
Electronic Message Display A sign or portion thereof capable of displaying words, symbols, figures, or images that can be electronically or mechanically changed by remote or automatic means.
Freestanding Sign A sign supported by a column, pole, foundation, pedestal, or other structure in or upon the ground.
Frame A complete, static display screen on an electronic message display.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
505
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Frame Effect A visual effect on an electronic message display applied to a single frame. Height of Sign The distance from the ground supporting the sign to the highest point of the sign. A landscape berm or other structure erected to support the sign shall be measured as part of the height. If the street to which the sign is oriented is higher than the grade at the base of the sign, then the street elevation shall be used in determining the permitted height. Mansard A sloped roof-like projection that is attached to an exterior building wall or façade.
Marquee Sign The copy areas or separate background area attached to a structure over an entrance to a theater and similar entertainment use, that provides changeable copy that relates to the principal use in the building, and that does not meet the definition of an Awning Sign or Canopy Sign. Monument Sign A freestanding sign in which the sign face is supported by a continuous and solid base which extends the full length of the sign face or is supported by posts not more than six inches above the ground on which the sign face is mounted.
Nit A luminance unit equal to one candela (one candle) per square meter measured perpendicular to the rays from the source.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
506
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Projecting Sign A sign other than a wall sign, which projects from and is supported by a wall of building or other structure.
Roof Sign A sign erected on the roof of a building. Signs mounted on mansard façades, eaves, and architectural projections such as canopies or marquees shall not be considered to be roof signs.
Sign Any device visible from a public right-of-way that displays either commercial or noncommercial messages by means of graphic presentation of alphabetic or pictorial symbols or representations. Noncommercial flags or any flags displayed from flagpoles or staffs will not be considered signs. Sign Area The area comprising the message portion of a sign, not including the supporting structure or background. When computing sign area, only the face or faces, which may be seen from one direction at one time, shall be considered. It is computed by measuring the area enclosed by straight lines drawn around the extremities of the text or graphics. Sign Background The surface located within the sign frame perimeters, and behind the main object(s) of the messaging, to which the sign area portion is affixed. In instances of awning or canopy signs, the background is the framed flat portion of the structure facing the street.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
507
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Sign Structure Any structure that supports a sign, including any decorative cover. Temporary Sign A sign that is used only temporarily and is not permanently mounted or embedded in the ground. Wall Sign A sign that is affixed to or painted on an exterior wall of a building or structure.
Window Sign A sign affixed to the surface of a window that is intended to be viewed from the public right-of-way or from adjacent property.
Site Plan A "to scale" drawing of a lot or lots showing the actual measurements, the size and location of any existing building(s) and new buildings to be erected, the location of the lot in relation to abutting streets, use and development of the land, and other such information. Slaughterhouse, Rendering Plant A facility for the slaughtering and processing of animals and refining of animal byproducts. Small Lot or Residential Small Lot For the purpose of Section 11-04-03.4, Residential Small Lots, a newly created lot of 3,500 square feet or less in the Residential zoning districts or a Substandard Original Lot of Record in the Residential zoning districts. Solid Waste Transfer Facility A facility at which non-hazardous refuse awaiting transportation to a disposal site is transferred from one type of collection vehicle to another. Refuse may be sorted and repackaged at a transfer station.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
508
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Specified Anatomical Areas Any of the following parts of the human body with less than full opaque coverings: the human genitals, anus, cleft of the buttocks, or the female breast. Specified Sexual Activities Any of the following whether actual or simulated: A. The fondling or other erotic touching of any specified anatomical areas; B.
Masochism, erotic, or sexually oriented torture, beating, or the infliction of pain;
C. Sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, oral copulation, coitus, ejaculation; D. Excretory functions as part of or in connection with any of the activities set forth in (A) through (C) above; E.
Erotic or lewd touching, fondling, or other contact with an animal by a human;
F.
The exposure of display of human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation, arousal, or tumescence; or
G. Erotic dancing or rhythmic movements with a device, instrument, object, or pole. H. The issuance of Conditional Use Permit shall not be considered an affirmative defense or consent by the City of Boise for any activity that is prohibited by federal or state law, or any other prohibition not a part of this Section of the Code. Street The public right-of-way or private property and related improvements that provides individuals utilizing vehicles, non-motorized vehicles, and pedestrian walkways to adjacent properties. The term "street" also includes the terms highway, thoroughfare, thruway, road, roadway, and other such terms. Street, Arterial Any street as designated by the ACHD, the Idaho Transportation Department and/or Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), whether existing or proposed, with a primary purpose of carrying individuals using vehicles, non-motorized vehicles and pedestrian walkways through an area and designed with limited access to abutting property. Street, Collector Any street, as designated by the ACHD, existing or proposed, with a primary purpose and design to intercept individuals using vehicles, non-motorized vehicles, and pedestrian walkways to travel from the local street system and carry it to the nearest arterial street, while provided limited access to abutting property. Street Frontage Distance measured along the property line that fronts upon a street or alley. To constitute frontage, the subject street or alley must provide access to abutting property. Street, Gateway Streets within the city as listed below: A. Broadway Avenue, from I-84 to Warm Springs Avenue, B.
Capitol Boulevard,
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
509
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
C. Federal Way, from Capitol Boulevard to Bergeson Street, D. Front Street, E.
Myrtle Street,
F.
Parkcenter Boulevard,
G. State Street, from the State Capitol to State Highway 55, H. Vista Avenue, from I-84 to Capitol Boulevard, and I.
Warm Springs Avenue.
Street, Local Any public street, other than a collector or arterial street (as determined by the current Ada County Highway District Master Street Map), designed to provide access to abutting property and principally serves local people traveling from one place to another using vehicles, non-motorized vehicles, and pedestrian walkways. Street, Private A street approved by the City Council in conformance with the subdivision regulations of this Code that provides individuals using vehicles, non-motorized vehicles and pedestrian walkways for access and street frontage for individual lots. Private streets are owned and maintained by private individual(s) or entities. Governmental entities do not own nor maintain private streets. Street, Public A right-of-way that provides individuals using vehicles, non-motorized vehicles and pedestrian walkways to adjacent properties, the dedication of which has been officially accepted by the Ada County Highway District. Structure For purposes of applying the regulations in this Code, excluding those related to floodplain, wireless communication facilities, and historic preservation, anything constructed or erected, that requires location on the ground or is attached to something having location on the ground including, but not limited to buildings, platforms, framework, antennas, portable carport or cover, prefabricated metal, or plastic sheds, tents and fences and walls requiring a building permit. Subdivision The division of a lot, tract, or parcel of land into two or more lots for the purpose of transfer of ownership or for the construction of improvements thereon, whether immediate or future, including dedication of streets. Substandard Original Lot of Record Any single recorded platted lot held in one ownership that was of record and a legal buildable lot or parcel before August 16, 1966, or at annexation, whichever occurred first, and that has not had subsequent boundary changes but that does not meet a minimum width and minimum area permitted by this Code.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
510
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
T Tavern or Lounge An establishment primarily engaged in the preparation and retail sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises and that may or may not serve food. Townhouse An attached single-family dwelling unit located on a platted lot and for which the individual owner may acquire title to the unit and lot. A townhouse may have an undivided common interest in the common areas including but not limited to sidewalks, open spaces, recreational facilities, and private drives. Tract A generic term for an area of land that does not denote a specific condition. Used when speaking of both platted lots and unplatted parcels. Trade or Vocational School An institution or facility conducting instruction in the technical or trade skills including, but not limited to, business, secretarial training, medical-dental technician training, beauticians, barbers, electronics, and automotive technician training. Trailer, Travel A vehicular portable structure designed as temporary living quarters for travel, recreational, and vacation uses. Transit Facility The property, equipment, and improvements to provide mass transportation for passengers or to provide for the movement of people, including Park and Ride Facility stations, transfer stations, parking lots, and skyways. Transit Terminal A passenger terminal or loading facility for a privately or publicly owned transit system, including a private shuttle service. Tree, Class I Small trees which do not generally reach over 25 to 30 feet in height and width. Class I trees are suitable for under power lines or smaller planting areas. Refer to the Treasure Valley Tree Selection Guide for more information. Tree, Class II Trees usually considered medium sized that do not generally reach over 30 to 40 feet in height and width. Class II trees are planted for their shade and used in site landscape and landscape buffer plantings. Refer to the Treasure Valley Tree Selection Guide for more information. Tree, Class IIII Trees that are long lived and attain a large height and trunk diameter of up to 70 or more feet in height and width. Refer to the Treasure Valley Tree Selection Guide for more information.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
511
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Tree Protection Zone An area within which certain activities are prohibited or restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees. The tree protection zone shall be a minimum of one foot per caliper inch measured of diameter at breast height. For example, a tree with a 20 inch diameter will have a tree protection zone radius of 20 feet. Trucking Terminal An area or building where cargo is stored and where trucks, including tractors and trailer units, load and unload cargo on a regular basis. The use may include facilities for the temporary storage of loads prior to shipment. The use shall also include truck stops serving or selling food or convenience items and fueling stations where primarily diesel fuel is sold.
U Urban Farm Land used to grow plants and harvest food or ornamental crops for educational purposes, donation, and use by those cultivating the land, or for sale locally. This use includes accessory beekeeping, but does not include gardens that are accessory to a home. Utilities Water, sewage, gas, telephone, cable television, pressure irrigation, electricity, and similar facilities normally providing individual customer service to a building site. Utility Facility, Major A large facility required for the operation of a utility controlled by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission including electrical substations, major water storage reservoirs, principal use renewable energy facilities, and similar uses that are larger than those facilities needed for distribution or collection of water, sewer, electrical power, or communications from main lines or substations to individual homes or neighborhoods of the City. Utility Facility, Minor A small facility required for the operation of a utility controlled by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission including minor wells, pump houses, principal use renewable energy facilities, and similar facilities primarily used to distribute or collect water, sewer, electrical power, or communications from mail lines or substations to individual homes or neighborhoods of the City. Utility, Public Any person, company, or municipal department that is duly authorized to furnish to the public under public regulations electricity, gas, steam, telephone, transportation, sewage/wastewater disposal, or water. Use The purpose for which land or a building thereon is designed, arranged, or intended, or for which it is occupied, maintained, or leased.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
512
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
V Variances A modification of the requirements of this Code as to lot size, lot coverage, lot width, street frontage, setback requirements, parking requirements, loading requirements, or other code provisions affecting the size or shape of a structure, or the placement of the structure upon lots, or the size of lots. Vehicle, Commercial A vehicle or trailer with a gross vehicle weight of over 8,000 pounds and designed for commercial use, construction equipment, any standard type of vehicle with commercial or industrial attachments or modifications, including but not limited to lifts, tanks, spray equipment, cranes, and extension platforms used for commercial use or constructive equipment. Vehicle Fleet Operations Center A central facility for the dispatch, distribution, storage, staging, and loading of vehicles that are owned, leased, or operated for a common purpose, with or without associated offices. Typical uses include, but are not limited to, ambulance service, taxi dispatch, meals-on-wheels dispatch, staging areas for shared vehicle services, and other operations that require frequent arrival and departure of cars or vans such as courier, delivery, and express services, cleaning services, key and lock services, security services, and taxi services. This use does not include a “Transit Terminal.” Vehicle Repair, Major An establishment primarily engaged in vehicle repair, rebuilding, reconditioning, or mechanical servicing of motor vehicle engines, transmissions, frames, auto body repairs, framework, welding, and major painting. Vehicle Repair, Minor An establishment primarily engaged in providing minor motor vehicle repair services such as lubrication, oil and tire changes, engine tune-ups, brake repair, tire replacement, interior and exterior cleaning and polishing, installation of after-market accessories such as tinting, auto alarms, spoilers, sunroofs, headlight covers, and similar items. This definition does not include engine degreasing or major repairs such as vehicle bodywork, painting, or repair of engines or transmissions or “Service Station.” Vehicle and Equipment Sales, Rental, and Leasing, Heavy An establishment that specializes in the sale, display, lease, rental, or storage of heavy equipment including, but not limited to, tractors, trucks with a gross vehicle weight of over 8,000 pounds, semi-trucks and/or trailers, boats, recreational vehicles, and other large equipment. Vehicle Sales, Rental, and Leasing, Light An establishment that specializes in the sale, display, lease, rental, or indoor storage of light motor vehicles, including automobiles, vans, light trucks, and light trailers. Accessory uses may include sales of parts for, washing, and servicing of light vehicles.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
513
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
W Wholesale or Warehouse, Small A facility 100,000 square feet or smaller in building and/or use area that is used for the selling of merchandise to retailers, to industrial, commercial, institutional, or professional business users, or to other wholesalers; or acting as agents or brokers and buying merchandise for, or selling merchandise to such individuals or companies; or the storage of merchandise, stock, vehicles, furnishings, supplies, and other trade or business material. Wholesale or Warehouse, Large A facility greater than 100,000 square feet in building and/or use area that is used for the selling of merchandise to retailers, to industrial, commercial, institutional, or professional business users, or to other wholesalers; or acting as agents or brokers and buying merchandise for, or selling merchandise to such individuals or companies; or the storage of merchandise, stock, vehicles, furnishings, supplies, and other trade or business material. Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI-O)-Related Definitions Defensible Space A natural or manmade area, where material capable of allowing a fire to spread unchecked has been treated, cleared, or modified to slow the rate and intensity of an advancing wildfire and to create an area for fire suppression operations to occur. Fire-Resistant Vegetation Vegetation that is resistant to the spread of fire, which generally includes but is not limited to, plants with a high-water content and supple, moist leaves, and plants with water-like sap such as birch and spruce trees. This definition generally does not include resinous plants such as spruce, pine, juniper, and fir; plants with leaves and wood containing waxes, terpenes, or oils; plants with stiff and leathery leaves, and plants with fine lacy leaves. Flame Spread Index A comparative measure, expressed as a dimensionless number, derived from visual measurements of the spread of flame versus time for a material tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723. Flame spread index ratings and ranges are: A. Class A - (0 - 25); B.
Class B - (26 - 75); and
C. Class C - (76 - 200). Ignition-Resistant Building Material A building material that resists ignition or sustained flaming combustion sufficiently so as to reduce losses from wildland-urban interface conflagrations under worst-case weather and fuel conditions with wildfire exposure of burning embers and small flames. Non-Combustible Building Material A building material, other than a surface building material, that in the form in which it is used, is either: material of which no part will ignite and burn when subjected to fire, including but not limited Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
514
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
to any material conforming to ASTM E 136; or a material having a structural base of non-combustible material with a surfacing material not over 1/8 inch thick, and with a flame spread index of 50 or less. Wind Energy System Wind energy turbines, wind chargers, windmills, and related accessory equipment such as utility lines and battery banks, in a configuration necessary to convert the power of wind into mechanical or electrical energy. Wireless Communication Facility-Related Definitions Antenna An apparatus designed for the purpose of emitting radiofrequency (RF) signals, to be operated or operating from a fixed location for the provision of personal wireless service and any commingled information services. For purposes of this definition, the term antenna does not include an unintentional radiator, mobile station, or device authorized under 47 C.F.R. Part 15. Antenna Equipment The equipment, switches, wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters, or cabinets associated with an antenna, located at the same fixed location as the antenna, and, when co-located on a structure, is added to a structure at the same time as such antenna. Broadcasting or Recording Studio A building or portion of a building used as a place for radio or television broadcasting or recording but without a transmission tower. Eligible Facilities Request An application for modification of an existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station pursuant to Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, as interpreted by the Federal Communications Commission. Lattice Tower A self-supporting, multiple sided, open steel frame structure used to support telecommunications equipment. Microcell Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) A small wireless communications facility consisting of an antenna that is either: A. Four feet in height and with an area of not more than 580 square inches; or B.
If a tubular antenna, no more than four inches in diameter and no more than six feet in length.
Monopole A support structure that consists of a single pole sunk into the ground and/or attached to a foundation.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
515
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Structure For purposes of Section 11-03-03.4.D, Wireless Communication Facilities, a pole, tower, base station, or structure, whether or not it has an existing antenna facility, that is used or to be used for the provision of personal wireless services (whether on its own or comingled with other types of service). Strand-Mounted Facility An attached wireless communication facility installed upon a cable strand in coordination with a utility provider. Transmission Tower A structure in a fixed location used as an antenna or to support antennas for the primary purpose of transmitting and/or receiving electronic signals. This definition includes nonresidential broadcast, communication, transmission, and similar towers, either freestanding or attached to an adjacent broadcasting or transmitting facility. Wireless Communications Facility (WCF) An unstaffed facility for the transmission and reception of radio or microwave signals used for commercial communications or providing personal wireless services as defined in the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 that includes Federal Communications Commission licensed commercial wireless telecommunications services including cellular, personal communications services (PCS), specialized mobile radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR), paging, and similar services that currently exist or that may in the future be developed. A WCF is composed of two or more of the following components: A. Antenna; B.
Support structure;
C. Equipment enclosure; D. Security barrier. Wireless Communication Facility, Attached (Attached WCF) An antenna array attached to an existing or replaced structure without exceeding the base height of the zoning district. Such structures shall include but are not limited to utility poles, signs, steeples, cupolas, water towers, and antennas attached to the exterior façade of a building. Wireless Communication Facility, Freestanding (Freestanding WCF) A WCF that includes a new support structure or otherwise is not an Attached WCF as defined above.
X Xeriscaping Xeriscaping incorporates water-conserving designs that take into account soil and drainage factors, microclimates, grouping of plants with similar water requirements, efficient irrigation systems, native vegetation, paving permeability, and low-water-using and drought tolerant vegetation. Xeriscape landscaping is not boulders, rocks, gravel, or any artificial plants nor shall “xeri” be interpreted to mean zero.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
516
Chapter 11-06 Definitions Section 11-06-03. Definitions
Y Yard An open space on the same lot with a primary building or group of buildings, that is unoccupied and unobstructed from its lowest level upward, except as otherwise permitted in this Code, and that extends along a lot line/property line and at right angles to the lot line/property line to the nearest building façade of a primary or accessory building regardless of whether the distance between the lot line/property line and building façade is larger than the required setback.
Z Zero Lot Line Development Single-Family Dwellings arranged on individual lots as either detached structures with one or more side walls on a side property line or attached sidewalls on a property line. Zoning Certificate An administrative review for Type 2 Planning and Zoning application, that is issued separately by the City, certifying that the building, structure, use, or occupancy specified is in compliance with this Code and prior development approvals. Zoning Code The latest version of that ordinance adopted by City Council including a consolidated set of zoning and subdivision controls for the city, as amended from time to time by City Council, also referred to as “this Code.” Zoning Compliance Review An administrative review for Type 1 Planning and Zoning applications that certifies that the building, structure, use, or occupancy specified is in compliance with this Code and prior development approvals.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
517
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans 11-07-01. 1.
Harris Ranch
Interpretation of District A.
Specific Plan District Established The area of the city commonly known as Harris Ranch is identified as the Harris Ranch Specific Plan District, as shown on the map hereinafter included by reference. The legal description of the Harris Ranch Specific Plan District is attached to Boise Ordinance No. 6626, adopted December 11, 2007 (the "Effective Date"), and hereinafter included by reference.
B.
Boundary of Specific Plan District Established The location and boundaries of the Specific Plan District established for Harris Ranch is shown on the map entitled "Specific Plan District - Harris Ranch, Boise City, Idaho," which is hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Section by reference. The original copy of the Harris Ranch Specific Plan Map shall be filed with the City Clerk and the Planning and Development Services Department. The Harris Ranch Specific Plan Map, together with all notations, references and other information shown thereon, and all amendments thereto, are a part of this Chapter and shall have the same force and effect as if the Harris Ranch Specific Plan Map were fully set forth herein.
C.
Interpretation of District Boundaries Wherever uncertainty exists as to the boundary of any portion of Harris Ranch, the following rules shall apply: (1) Where any such boundary line is indicated as following a street, alley, or public way, it shall be construed as following the center line thereof. Where a boundary line is indicated as approximately following a lot line, such lot line shall be construed to be such boundary line. (2) Where a boundary line divides a lot or crosses unsubdivided property, the location of such boundary shall be as indicated upon the Harris Ranch Specific Plan Map. (3) Where a boundary line divides a lot or crosses unsubdivided property, the location of such boundary shall be as indicated upon the Harris Ranch Specific Plan Map.
2.
Purpose The purpose of this Chapter is to define general procedures for review of land use proposals within the Harris Ranch Specific Plan District. All proposed uses and development within the District will require review for compliance of the use or development with the Harris Ranch Specific Plan, to be known as a "Notice of Specific Plan Compliance."
3.
Conformity Required Except as otherwise provided herein, land, buildings, structures and uses in the Harris Ranch Specific Plan District shall hereafter be used and developed in accordance with the Harris Ranch Specific Plan 2007, Volumes I and II (the "Harris Ranch Specific Plan"), the regulations herein established for the Harris Ranch Specific Plan District known as the Harris Ranch Specific Plan Code (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Code") and, as applicable, Section 11-04-05.4, Hillside Development Standards, and Section 11-02-07.3.G, HS-O: Hillside Development Overlay,
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Module 3 | Staff Draft March 2022
13
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.4 Administration
in force and effect on the effective date of the Harris Ranch Specific Plan Amendment 7, as may be amended by applicable state and/or federal laws or regulations (collectively, the "Ancillary Ordinances"), which Ancillary Ordinances are reprinted in their entirety below. The Harris Ranch Specific Plan and the Ancillary Ordinances are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Chapter by reference. The Ancillary Ordinances, as the same shall apply to Harris Ranch, shall not be amended, except as may be required by applicable state or federal laws or regulations, for a period of eighteen years from the Effective Date.
4.
Administration A.
Harris Ranch Review Board (1) The Harris Ranch Review Board (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Board") is comprised of members and/or representatives of Harris Family Limited Partnership and private owners within the Harris Ranch Specific Plan District. Restrictive use covenants and design guidelines will be prepared by Harris Family Limited Partnership, its successors and/or assigns, to control, without limitation, architecture, landscape, walls, parking, signage, and lighting. The restrictive use covenants and design guidelines meet at least the minimum standards for, without limitation, architecture, landscape, walls, parking, signage, and lighting contained in the Code. The Board administers and enforces the restrictive use covenants and design guidelines. (2) All proposed development within the Harris Ranch Specific Plan District shall be subject to review by the Harris Ranch Review Board prior to an applicant's submission for City approval. The Board shall provide City with a synopsis of that review and a recommendation. A list of the information required by the Board prior to the Board's review is contained in the Board's restrictive use covenants and design guidelines, a copy of which can be obtained from the Board, or the Board's designee.
B.
Planning Director The Planning Director, or designee, shall perform the duties and functions as provided in the Code. These duties and functions include the day-to-day and long-range administration of the Code, the acceptance and processing of all permit applications, and confirmation of compliance with the Harris Ranch Specific Plan and Code.
C.
Design Review Commission The Design Review Commission is authorized to review and hear appeals of decisions made by the Planning Director in connection with design review within the Harris Ranch Specific Plan District. The Design Review Commission shall review information provided by the Planning Director and other available sources.
D.
Planning and Zoning Commission The Planning and Zoning Commission is authorized to hear appeals of decisions made by the Planning Director or the Design Review Commission, as applicable, in connection with the Harris Ranch Specific Plan District. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review information provided by the Planning Director and other available sources.
E.
City Council The City Council is authorized to hear appeals of decisions made by the Planning and Zoning Commission in connection with the Harris Ranch Specific Plan District. The City
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
519
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.5 Administrative Review - Use
Council shall review information provided by the Planning Director and other available sources. F.
Annual Review The Applicant is required to attend and document meetings with Planning Director on a yearly basis to analyze: 1) administration of plan; 2) trip generation and traffic service levels on surrounding roads; 3) the relative mix of land uses; and 4) infrastructure related improvements. Specific issues to be addressed are the Boise School District elementary school site and agreement; development and installation of the Greenbelt and other public trails included in the Harris Ranch Specific Plan; and the implementation and performance of the Transit Management Plan. The meeting will require other commenting agency involvement as needed. If amendments to the Specific Plan are deemed necessary through this periodic review, then the Harris Ranch Applicant or the City of Boise may request revisions to the Specific Plan through an amendment process. (1) Phasing Plan Modifications The phasing plan described in Section (A)(2)(d)(vi) of Volume I of the Harris Ranch Specific Plan (2010) (the "Phasing Plan") is the current best estimate of the expected orderly progression of development and infrastructure improvements throughout the life of the project. Because infrastructure availability may impact public-service facilities, substantial consistency with the Phasing Plan is an element of the findings for ongoing permit approval. Future on-the-ground conditions and considerations may dictate modifications to the Phasing Plan. The Planning Director may make stafflevel allowances to the Phasing Plan upon application by the Harris Ranch Applicant, contingent upon the following findings: (a) That all affected public service providers have been notified of the proposed Phasing Plan modification and the proposed Phasing Plan modification will not adversely affect public service providers. Additional affected property owners may be noticed at the Planning Director's discretion; (b) That an alternative schedule has been presented to the Planning Director for when the infrastructure will be provided; and (c) That the proposed modification complies with and supports the goals and objectives of the Harris Ranch Specific Plan.
5.
Administrative Review - Use A.
Uses Specified Within the Harris Ranch Specific Plan (1) The City Council, having reviewed and approved the Harris Ranch Specific Plan, has delegated to the Planning Director the authority to administratively review every application for a Notice of Specific Plan Compliance or modification to a Notice of Specific Plan Compliance. Every application seeking confirmation of conformity with the Code and/or a permit affecting the use of land or of a structure and/or a request for a variance shall be deemed to be also an application for a Notice of Specific Plan Compliance. The Planning Director shall ensure that the proposed use complies with the Harris Ranch Specific Plan and the standards described in the Code. The
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
520
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.5 Administrative Review - Use
determination of the Planning Director shall be a final decision. The findings to be made by the Planning Director are as follows: (a) The land use is consistent with the land use matrix, prototypical block plans and special use standards. (b) The land use, supporting infrastructure and other elements are consistent with the improvements and timelines identified within the phasing plan. (c) The land use and related transportation improvements are consistent with the circulation plan and Ada County Highway District (ACHD) recommendations. (d) The land use includes all public facilities required in the Community Services Plan. (e) Harris Ranch has maintained an annual monitoring review as required by Section 11-07-01.4.F, Annual Review. (2) Upon such determination that the proposed use is in compliance with the Harris Ranch Specific Plan, the Planning Director shall issue a Notice of Specific Plan Compliance. B.
Uses Not Specified Within the Harris Ranch Specific Plan (1) Uses not specified in the Harris Ranch Allowed Uses, pages 51 to 62 of the Harris Ranch Specific Plan, are prohibited unless determined by the Planning Director to be similar in nature to those specified as allowed uses herein. The Planning Director shall give due consideration and deference to the decision of the Harris Ranch Review Board, for the purpose of determining whether a use complies with the Harris Ranch Specific Plan. Upon such determination the Planning Director shall issue a Notice of Specific Plan Compliance. Approval may be made contingent upon such conditions as are reasonably necessary to secure the public welfare. The determination of the Planning Director shall be final unless an appeal is made as provided in the Code. The findings to be made by the Planning Director in determining compliance of such proposed uses with the Harris Ranch Specific Plan are as follows: (a) That the location of the proposed use is compatible to other uses in the general neighborhood. (b) That the proposed use will not place an undue burden on transportation and other public facilities in the vicinity. (c) That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open spaces, pathways, walls and fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and such other features as are required by the Harris Ranch Specific Plan and Harris Ranch Specific Plan Code. (d) That the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. (e) That the proposed use is in compliance with and supports the goals and objectives of the Harris Ranch Specific Plan. (2) Whenever there is doubt as to the classification of a use not specifically referenced in the Harris Ranch Allowed Uses, the determination shall be made by the Planning Director. Such determination shall be based upon a recommendation by the Harris Ranch Review Board, a detailed description of the proposed use and such other
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
521
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.5 Administrative Review - Use
information as may be required by the Planning Director. The Planning Director shall make such investigations as are necessary to compare the nature and characteristics of the proposed use with those of listed uses in the Harris Ranch Specific Plan District, and shall determine whether the use is, in all essentials, pertinent to the objectives of the Code and of the same character as a use listed as allowed in the Harris Ranch Specific Plan District. Upon such determination and the findings provided above, the Planning Director shall issue a Notice of Specific Plan Compliance. The determination of the Planning Director shall be final unless an appeal is made as provided in the Code.
Figure 7.1: Harris Ranch Specific Plan Code Process
C.
Application The Planning Director is authorized to review an application against all required approval standards and/or criteria for allowed uses and designs, and issue final approval or withhold final approval. Every person seeking a Notice of Specific Plan Compliance as herein defined shall submit an application to the Planning Director on a prescribed form, accompanied by the appropriate filing fee as approved by the City Council. Application forms shall be accompanied by supporting information as defined by the application form and as required by the Code and will include the recommendation of the Harris Ranch Review Board.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
522
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.6 Administrative Review-Design
D.
Fees The Planning Director shall maintain a current list of fees for all applications. The fees for zoning applications may be revised only by the City Council. Current fee schedules may be obtained from the Planning Director.
E.
Review Period The Planning Director must approve or deny any application requested within 30 calendar days of receipt and acceptance of a complete application and shall submit the findings, conclusions, and any required conditions in writing to the applicant. The Planning Director's decision shall be based upon the findings required within the applicable Sections of the Code. For good cause, such as, for example, receipt of review from other applicable governmental entities, the Planning Director may extend the time period for review to 45 days.
F.
Term Unless otherwise stated, the term of a Notice of Specific Plan Compliance shall not exceed 18 months, unless, upon request of the holder, the Planning Director grants successive extensions or renewals for such term or period not to exceed one year for each such extension or renewal. The Planning Director may also fix the time or period within which the permit shall be exercised or perfected, otherwise the approval shall lapse. A maximum of three such extensions may be granted by the Planning Director. Within this period, the holder of the permit must: (1) Acquire construction permits and commence placement of permanent footings and structures on or in the ground. The definition of structures in this context shall include sewer lines, water lines, streets, or building foundations; or (2) Commence the use permitted by the administrative approval in accordance with the conditions of approval.
G.
Revocation Upon violation of the Notice of Specific Plan Compliance issued pursuant to Section 11-0701.5.A of the Code, the Planning Director may cause the certificate to be revoked. Upon violation of any of the conditions or terms of the Notice of Specific Plan Compliance issued pursuant to Section 11-07-01.5.A of the Code, the Planning Director may cause the certificate to be revoked.
6.
Administrative Review-Design A.
All structural and open space improvements except single family detached homes will be subject to design review approval. The Planning Director, while giving due consideration and deference to the decision of the Harris Ranch Review Board, shall make such investigations as are necessary to compare the nature and characteristics of the proposed design with the design guidelines of the Harris Ranch Specific Plan and Code, and shall determine whether the design is, in all essentials, pertinent to the objectives of the Plan and Code for the Harris Ranch Specific Plan District. The Planning Director may allow up to a twenty percent variation from the design guidelines if it has been approved by the Harris Ranch Review Board and if the Planning Director Agrees. Upon such determination the Planning Director shall issue a Notice of Specific Plan Design Review Compliance. The
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
523
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.6 Administrative Review-Design
determination of the Planning Director shall be final unless an appeal is made as provided in the Code. The findings, as applicable, to be made by the Planning Director in this regard are as follows: B.
That the site plan minimizes impact of traffic on adjacent streets and that the pedestrian and bicyclist have been provided for by requiring sidewalks, paths, micro-pathways, landscape, and safe parking lot design as appropriate.
C.
That the proposed site's landscape screens are adequate to protect adjacent uses, provide sound and sight buffers and can be adequately maintained; slope and soil stabilization have been provided for; and, that unsightly areas are reasonably concealed or screened.
D.
That on-site grading and drainage have been designed to minimize off-site impact and provide for erosion control.
E.
That signage for any proposed project provides for business identification and minimizes clutter and confusion on and off the site and is in compliance with Harris Ranch Specific Plan Code.
F.
That utility service systems do not detract from building design and that size and location of all service systems are appropriate and maintainable.
G.
The mass of the building(s) or structure(s) is consistent with existing development in the immediate surrounding area and with the allowed use proposed by the applicant.
H.
The height to width relationship of new structures is compatible and consistent with the architectural character of the area and the proposed use.
I.
Openings in the façade are consistent with the architectural character of the area (for example, balconies, bays, and porches are encouraged with a minimum of monotonous flat planes), to provide shadow relief.
J.
Exterior materials are appropriate as they relate to building mass, shadow relief and existing area development; color is used to provide natural blending of materials with the surrounding area, shadow relief and building use; there is functional appropriateness of the proposed building design as it relates to the proposed use.
K.
Multi-family building(s) are designed to include features which add to the visual and aesthetic appearance of the structure and prevent a sterile, box- like appearance; specific design features have been added to enhance the physical appearance of such multifamily residential buildings.
L.
Commercial buildings adjacent to residential uses are designed to minimize impacts on adjacent (including across a street or alley)properties.
M. Design is compatible with design guidelines of the Harris Ranch Specific Plan.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
524
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.7 Hearing Process
Figure 7.2: Design Review Process
7.
Hearing Process A.
Procedure Before the Review Body For purposes of this Section, the Design Review Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council, as applicable, are referred to as the "Review Body." The Planning Director shall provide the Review Body with information and technical assistance. The Review Body shall prepare and conduct public hearings as required by the terms of the Code according to a schedule determined and approved by the Planning Director. The timing of all hearings and the public notice in connection with such hearings shall be in conformity with the Boise City Code and with the Local Land Use Planning Act.
8.
General and Specific Use Standards A.
Purpose These standards are designed to ensure that development within the Harris Ranch Specific Plan District will produce an environment of stable, desirable character which is harmonious with existing and future development and is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Harris Ranch Specific Plan and Harris Ranch Specific Plan Code. Provided that the Planning
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
525
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.8 General and Specific Use Standards
Director may allow up to a twenty percent variation from General Standards if it has been previously approved by the Harris Ranch Review Board and the Planning Director agrees. B.
General Standards (1) Minimum setbacks are outlined in the summary found on each Block Prototype (see pages 65 - 107 of the Harris Ranch Specific Plan). More restrictive setbacks may be established through the Harris Ranch Design Guidelines prepared by Harris Family Limited Partnership, its successors and/or assigns, and enforced by the Harris Ranch Review Board. (2) Setbacks shall be measured from the exterior wall of a building or garage face to the setback line. The front and corner setback lines shall be the back of sidewalk or back of curb if no sidewalk exists, or edge of pavement if no curb exists. (3) Residential front loading driveway length shall be 20 feet minimum beyond the sidewalk line to allow vehicles to park completely outside the vehicle corridor or pedestrian streetscape. Alley loaded driveway length from garage door to the alley shall be 6 feet or greater than 20 feet for side-loaded garages, 20 feet of full-width driveway shall be provided behind the sidewalk. (a) Bay windows, architectural appendages, fireplaces, cabinets designed to screen utility meters and similar architectural features may encroach no more than two feet into the applicable yard, provided they remain at least three feet from the side lot lines and do not increase the living space within a dwelling unit. The maximum width of such structures shall not exceed 6 feet. (b) Roof overhangs, cornices and similar architectural features may encroach no more than two feet into the applicable yard. (c) Balconies must maintain the setback required for the structure to which the balconies are attached and may not extend into the required yard. (d) Detached accessory structures including those such as pool houses, gazebos and storage structures may be located in the side or rear yard. Such accessory structures must be located at least 5 feet from the lot line. (e) Attached patio covers, awnings, trellises and similar structures may encroach no more than three feet into the front yard and may encroach into the side and rear yard provided they remain at least three feet from the applicable lot line. Such structures must remain open without the use of siding, screens, or other enclosures. Enclosed structures must conform to the setback standards for the principal dwelling unit. (f)
In-ground swimming pools which are 1 feet or less in height, as measured from the property's finished grade, may occupy any rear or interior side yard, provided a minimum 15 feet setback is maintained from the pool apron or splash guard. Decks and other features that are more than 2 feet above grade shall be located outside of yards (within the building envelope). Above ground pools are not allowed in single-family townhouse, or 4 - 8 unit buildings.
(g) Courtyard walls up to 36 in. in height may exist within the front and corner side yard setbacks so long as they remain a minimum of three feet from the lot line. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
526
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.8 General and Specific Use Standards
(h) Height exceptions to allow form elements that are uninhabited such as turrets and towers. Habitable roof gardens are accepted from height limitations including accessory elements of such roof gardens. Accessory elements include, without limitation, open-sided pergolas, pavilions, and trellises, along with enclosed garden equipment spaces measuring a maximum of 100 square feet Such accessory elements shall not exceed 16 feet above the height limit and be comparable in color and materials to the primary building. Mechanical and elevator-related equipment shall be screened as provided further herein. (i)
Common Driveways The Planning Director shall approve common driveways that meet all of the following requirements: i.
The common driveway provides access to no less than 2 lots or parcels, and no more than 6 lots that are each occupied with a single-family or a townhouse dwelling unit.
ii.
The length of the common driveway shall not exceed 80 feet and shall not be less than 10 feet wide for the entire length of the common driveway.
iii.
Unless limited by geographical features, all lots or parcels that abut a common driveway shall take access from the common driveway, and all individual private driveways shall originate from the common driveway and not from the public right-of-way.
iv.
A perpetual ingress/egress access easement shall be provided which shall include a requirement for a concrete or asphalt paved surface and provisions for maintenance of the common driveway including any required landscape. The required easement shall be placed of record prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any lot utilizing the common driveway. If a Final Plat or Record of Survey is associated with the creation of a common driveway, the easement area shall also be clearly depicted on the plat or survey.
v.
Required off-street parking shall be set back a minimum of three feet from the edge of the common driveway, zero feet for parallel parking and 13 feet for perpendicular parking.
vi.
The use of the common driveway benefits the design of the driveway and reduces the number of accesses onto the public street.
(4) Transportation Standards (a) A traffic impact study may be required if there is a significant change in the current land use plan; (b) A turn lane warrant analysis may be required on a case-by-case basis depending on the proposed land use. Contact ACHD to determine if a turn lane analysis is required prior to submitting a development application; (c) When parcels abutting Warm Springs Avenue are preliminary platted, provide current roadway segment traffic counts and intersection counts (raw data) for the segment of Warm Springs Avenue abutting the site and the nearest Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
527
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.8 General and Specific Use Standards
intersection(s) (Wise Way/Warm Springs, Old Hickory Way/Warm Springs, or Millbrook Way/Warm Springs). ACHD will analyze the data to determine if roadway or intersection improvements are needed to mitigate the development; (d) The developer shall ensure that adequate real property is dedicated for the future installation of four lanes at E. Warm Springs Ave., commonly referred to as the Warm Springs Bypass, in the event traffic conditions warrant such widening; (e) With regard to roundabouts on E. Warm Springs Ave., when warranted the developer shall construct an interim single-lane roundabout similar to that shown on attachment 4 to ACHD's March 6, 2019 action, which can be widened to a dual lane roundabout if traffic conditions warrant such a widening. C.
Specific Use Standards In addition to the other requirements of the Code, the following standards apply to the uses listed in this Section. Where applicable, the Planning Director shall obtain a review and recommendation from ACHD. The Planning Director will review and make a determination of approval or denial within 15 calendar days of receipt of a complete application. A notice will be sent informing owners within 300 feet of the property of the decision of the Planning Director and of such other property owners' right to appeal the Planning Director's decision as provided by the Code. (1) Accessory Building or Structure (a) The location of accessory buildings or structures shall be restricted as follows: i.
Accessory buildings or structures shall not be located in any required setback or on any publicly dedicated easements.
ii.
Accessory buildings or structures shall not block the view of the main entrance to the primary building.
(b) The size of accessory structures shall be restricted as follows: i.
Accessory structures such as sheds, barns, and workshops shall not exceed 1000 square feet.
ii.
Accessory dwelling units shall not exceed 1000 square feet.
(c) The height of an accessory structure shall not exceed 24 feet. (d) In a residential block, accessory buildings or structures may be located in the front yard or within a side yard if any portion of the structure lies between the front property line and a distance of 15 feet behind the front wall of the principal dwelling and shall not exceed the height of the principal dwelling. (e) All accessory buildings or structures shall meet all of the following design standards: i.
The roof and finish materials shall be similar in color to the primary building;
ii.
The roof shall have a similar pitch to that of the primary building;
iii.
The accessory building or structure shall portray the architectural character of the primary building.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
528
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.8 General and Specific Use Standards
(2) Amusement or Recreation Facility, Outdoor (a) General Standards i.
All structures or outdoor recreation areas shall maintain a minimum setback of 50 feet from all abutting predominantly residential blocks.
ii.
Any outdoor speaker system associated with the amusement or recreation facility shall not exceed a noise measurement of 65 decibels at the lot or parcel line of any adjoining lot or parcel.
iii.
All outdoor activities and events shall be scheduled to complete all activity before or as near to 9:30 P.M. as practical. Illumination of the outdoor amusement or recreation facility shall not be permitted after 10:00 P.M. except to conclude a scheduled event that was in progress before 10:00 P.M. and circumstances prevent concluding before 10:00 P.M. All illumination shall be terminated no later than 1 hour after conclusion of the event.
(b) Golf Driving Range Accessory sales and rental of golf equipment shall be allowed. The golf driving range shall be designed to protect abutting property and roadways from golf balls. (c) Swimming Pool Any outdoor swimming pool shall be completely enclosed within a 6 foot barrier that meets the requirements of the Boise City Building Code. (3) Automobile Repair and Service, Minor Minor automobile repair and service facilities shall comply with the following standards and limitations: (a) The use shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from any predominantly singlefamily residential block and a minimum of 100 feet from any predominantly multifamily residential block. (b) The operating hours shall be limited to between 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. (c) All repair and service work shall be done within a completely enclosed building. (d) No used or discarded automotive parts or equipment may be located in any open area outside of an enclosed building. (e) All disabled vehicles shall be stored in an area that is screened from view from the surrounding lots and/or parcels and adjacent streets. Such vehicles shall not be stored on-site longer than 5 days. (f)
Permitted minor automobile repair and service facilities shall be limited to the following kinds of activities: electronic tune ups; brake repairs (including drum turning); air conditioning repairs; generator and starter repairs; tire installation and repairs; front end alignments; battery recharging; lubrications; selling/installing minor parts and accessories; repairing and installing other minor elements of an automobile such as windshield wipers, hoses and windows, but excluding engine, transmission and differential repair or installation.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
529
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.8 General and Specific Use Standards
(4) Bar, Brew Pub, Or Nightclub (a) The facility shall comply with all applicable governmental regulations, including regulations regarding the sale, manufacturing, or distribution of alcoholic beverages. (b) For properties abutting a predominantly residential block, no outside activity or event shall be allowed on the site, except as provided for a "Temporary Use." (5) Bed and Breakfast Inn (a) Any such facility shall be an owner-occupied dwelling. For the purposes of this Subsection, an "owner" shall be defined as a person with a 50 percent or greater interest in the bed and breakfast inn. (b) The exterior appearance of the building shall be that of a single-family dwelling. Fire escapes and other features may be added to protect public safety; however, structural alterations may not be made that would prevent future use of the structure as a single-family dwelling. (c) No more than 20 occupants (including, without limitation, the owner, the owner's family, and any resident or nonresident employees) shall be permitted to occupy the facility at any one time (daytime, evening, or night). (d) The maximum stay shall be 2 weeks for any guest. (e) Breakfast may be served on the premises only for guests and employees of the facility. No other meals shall be provided on the premises. Guestrooms shall not be equipped with cooking facilities. (f)
Only business signs referring to the principal use as a bed and breakfast inn are permitted.
(6) Car Wash (a) A 100 foot separation shall be maintained between any car wash facility and any predominantly residential block. (b) Any outdoor speaker system associated with the car wash shall not exceed a noise measurement of 65 decibels at the lot or parcel line of any adjoining lot or parcel. (c) Vehicle stacking lanes shall be available on the property but outside the car wash facility entrance. Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of the public right of way by patrons. Such stacking lanes shall be separate from areas required for access and parking. The stacking lanes shall not be located within 10 feet of any predominantly residential block. (7) Club/Lodge (a) All structures which contain this use shall meet Block Prototype setback requirements in which this use is allowed. (b) Any food service shall be licensed by all applicable governmental agencies. (8) Convenience Stores All structures which contain this use shall meet Block Prototype setback requirements in which this use is allowed. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
530
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.8 General and Specific Use Standards
(9) Daycare Facility or Residence (a) General Standards for Childcare and Adult Care Facilities i.
The applicant shall secure and maintain a license from all applicable governmental agencies and shall provide the Planning Director with proof that such licenses have been granted.
ii.
There shall be a minimum of 35 square feet of net floor area indoors per client. This space shall be measured wall to wall in rooms that are regularly used by the clients, exclusive of halls, bathrooms, and kitchen.
iii.
Off-street parking shall be provided as per this Code.
iv.
There shall be an off-street client pick up area in addition to the required off-street parking. On arterial or collector streets, a circular driveway, or an off-street turnaround (which does not involve any space from a required offstreet parking space) shall be provided for the client pick-up area.
v.
Hours of client pick up and/or drop off shall be between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M.
vi.
No portion of the facilities used by clients may be within 300 feet of explosive or hazardous material storage including, without limitation, the following uses: flammable substance storage or gasoline or diesel fuel station.
(b) Additional Standards for Child Daycare Facility i.
The applicant shall provide a minimum outdoor play area of 100 square feet per child. The minimum play area requirement may be waived if: A.
There is greater or equal area of a park that abuts the facility or residence that can be used by the children; or
B.
The program is designed such that the number of children using the play area at any one time conforms to the 100 square feet per child criteria.
ii.
All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum 6 feet barriers to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties.
iii.
Outdoor play equipment over 6 feet high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard.
(10) Drive-Through Retail Certain types of drive-through window establishments may be reviewed and allowed by the Planning Director subject to the following approval criteria: (a) The use shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from any predominantly singlefamily residential block and a minimum of 100 feet from any predominantly multifamily residential block within the SP01 plan. (b) That the number of drive-through lanes is limited to allow for adequate on-site circulation of pedestrians and vehicles, and that the internal circulation on the
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
531
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.8 General and Specific Use Standards
site provides for pedestrians to walk from parking lots to the lobby entrance(s) without traversing the waiting lane(s) for the drive-through window. (c) That the waiting lane(s) be of sufficient length to provide for anticipated average monthly peak volumes. (d) That design, signage or operational characteristics of the establishment prevent or discourage vehicles from waiting for service on public sidewalks or streets. (e) That drive-through waiting lanes be designed so that curbs, gates, or other devices do not prevent a vehicle from leaving a waiting lane. (f)
That all lights and other illuminated materials shall be designed, positioned, shielded, directed, and located to minimize glare and light trespass from falling on adjoining lots or parcels.
(g) Landscape shall be used to minimize the visual impact of vehicle lights and signs. (h) That all communication systems shall not exceed a noise measurement of 65 decibels at the lot line. (11) Drug and Alcohol Treatment Facility The owner of the facility shall secure and maintain licenses from all applicable governmental agencies and shall provide the Planning Director with proof that such licenses have been granted. (12) Dwelling, Accessory The applicant must submit, with the application, a list of signatures of residents of adjacent lots and/or parcels, including lots and/or parcels across streets and alleys, indicating that such residents have been notified of the applicant's intention to construct an accessory dwelling at a specified location. The applicant shall reference which neighbors were unwilling or unable to sign. The Planning Director must make the following findings to approve an accessory dwelling: (a) That the footprint of the accessory dwelling is not larger than 10 percent of the lot area or 750 square feet, whichever is less, and that the accessory dwelling has not more than 1 bedroom. Where practical, the 10 percent or 750 square feet standard may be altered to accommodate logical expansions or internal conversions. Examples of this include, without limitation, the addition of a second floor to a detached garage or the separation of a basement as an accessory dwelling. (b) That an accessory dwelling is created through: i.
Internal conversion of an existing living area, basement, or attic;
ii.
An addition to the principal dwelling;
iii.
The conversion of an existing detached accessory structure such as a detached garage or shop;
iv.
An addition to an existing accessory structure such as a detached garage or shop;
v.
Construction of a new single-family detached house on a vacant lot or parcel with an internal or detached accessory dwelling; or
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
532
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.8 General and Specific Use Standards
vi.
The construction of a detached accessory dwelling.
(c) That the accessory dwelling meets all the development standards of the Harris Ranch Specific Plan and all applicable life-safety codes. (d) That the design of the accessory dwelling is compatible with the existing neighborhood by considering height, bulk, and site location, and incorporating materials, colors and a design motif that is compatible with and complements the architectural theme and style of the principal dwelling. The principal and the accessory dwellings shall be designed to portray the character of a single-family dwelling. Only 1 entrance into the principal dwelling shall be located on the front building elevation of the principal dwelling unless multiple entrances are already in existence. (e) That 1 parking space is provided for the accessory dwelling in addition to the existing minimum parking requirement for the principal dwelling. The driveway apron may be used for this requirement. (f)
Conversion of a garage is not permitted unless required parking can be sited legally elsewhere on the lot or parcel. However, a waiver to the parking requirements may be granted by the Planning Director upon a determination that unusual circumstances of the occupancy will result in a reduced need for parking and will not negatively impact the neighborhood. The waiver and the circumstances allowing for the waiver will be documented in a deed restriction referenced immediately below.
(g) That on-going owner-occupancy of either the principal or the accessory dwelling is required and shall be enforced through recordation of a deed restriction to that effect with the Ada County Recorder. A temporary waiver of this requirement may be granted by the Planning Director in the case of a documented need for the owner-occupant to leave the premises for up to one year due to employment, illness, or other circumstances. (h) That the accessory dwelling also meets the applicable specific standards for accessory buildings and structures. (13) Foundry All structures or outdoor activity areas shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from any property line. The use shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from any predominantly single-family residential block. (14) Gasoline Station (a) The use shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from any predominantly singlefamily residential block and a minimum of 100 feet from any predominantly multifamily residential block. The distance shall be measured from lot line to lot line in a straight line. (b) The use shall be located on a block(s) developed predominantly as commercial development. (c) Installation and operation of underground fuel tanks shall require compliance with all applicable governmental agencies. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
533
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.8 General and Specific Use Standards
(d) Structures and pump station canopies on corner lots or parcels shall observe a minimum setback of 35 feet from any public street. (e) The total height of any overhead canopy or weather protection device shall not exceed 20 feet. (f)
(Vehicle stacking lanes shall be available on-site but outside the fueling areas. Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of the public right of way by patrons. Such stacking lanes shall be separate from areas required for access and parking.
(g) All trash and waste materials shall be stored within a separate enclosure behind the primary structure of the gasoline station. (15) Greenhouse/Nursery (a) Outdoor mechanical equipment (including, without limitation, heaters, and fans) shall not be located within 50 feet of a lot or parcel line. To reduce noise, permanently mounted mechanical equipment shall be enclosed to the maximum extent possible. (b) Outdoor storage areas for materials shall comply with Section 11-07-01.8.C(22) of this Code. The following nursery materials shall be exempt from this requirement: i.
Growing plants in ground or in containers; and
ii.
Wood chips, bark, rock, gravel, or similar ground cover material where such storage piles do not exceed 6 feet in height.
(c) Any outdoor speaker system associated with the nursery shall not exceed a noise measurement of 65 decibels at the lot or parcel line of any adjoining lot or parcel. (d) The application of fertilizer or process wastewater at agronomic rates shall be deemed a component of the nursery use. (e) Additional standards for wholesale and/or retail nursery within a predominantly residential block or adjoining a predominantly residential block:
(f)
i.
All proposed lighting shall be downward cast to minimize impact and limit light trespass on adjacent property.
ii.
No aerial spraying of the property shall be allowed.
Retail nurseries shall also comply with the following: i.
The total amount of enclosed retail space shall not exceed 5,000 square feet Greenhouses shall not be considered retail space.
ii.
The property shall have frontage on an arterial or collector street.
(16) Group Home (a) The applicant shall secure and maintain a license from all applicable governmental agencies and shall provide the Planning Director with proof that such licenses have been granted. (b) Off-street parking shall be provided as per this Code. (c) (The applicant shall provide a minimum outdoor play area of 100 square feet per child. The minimum play area requirement may be waived if: Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
534
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.8 General and Specific Use Standards
i.
There is greater or equal area of a park that abuts the facility or residence that can be used by the children; or
ii.
The program is designed such that the number of children using the play area at any one time conforms to the 100 square feet per child criteria.
iii.
All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum 6 feet. barriers to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties.
iv.
Outdoor play equipment over 6 feet high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard.
(d) No portion of the facilities used by clients may be within 300 feet of explosive or hazardous material storage including, without limitation, the following uses: flammable substance storage or gasoline or diesel fuel station. (17) Home Occupation (a) Any gainful occupation within a dwelling or accessory building or structure must receive administrative approval from the Planning Director. Applicants must submit, with their application, a list of signatures of residents of adjacent lots and/or parcels, including lots and/or parcels across streets and alleys, indicating they have been notified of the applicant's intention to conduct a home occupation at a specified location. The applicant shall reference which neighbors were unwilling or unable to sign. More than one home occupation may be approved for the same property address provided that the combined activities and uses of the home occupations do not exceed the approval criteria as set forth herein. For example, the aggregate total of floor space devoted to one or more occupations at a given address may not exceed 750 square feet. (b) Home occupations may not be approved for uses that are prohibited by the Code or would violate the intent of the Harris Ranch Specific Plan as determined by the Planning Director. Home occupations may be approved provided they meet all of the following criteria: i.
The use is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the lot or parcel for dwelling purposes.
ii.
The use is conducted entirely within a dwelling or accessory structure and the aggregate of all space within any or all buildings devoted to one or more home occupations shall not exceed 750 square feet.
iii.
No activities shall be allowed which involve the use, storage, repair, milling or manufacture of highly combustible materials or internal combustion engines.
iv.
Dimensions, power rating or weight of equipment and tools used in the conduct of the home occupation shall not exceed that of normal household equipment and tools.
v.
Any home occupation that causes abnormal automotive or pedestrian traffic or which is objectionable due to unsightliness or emission of odor, dust,
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
535
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.8 General and Specific Use Standards
smoke, noise, glare, heat, vibration, or similar disturbances to the outside of any building containing such home occupation shall be prohibited. vi.
The dwelling shall at all times be maintained as residential in appearance, cleanliness, and quietness.
vii. Any materials used or any item produced or repaired in the dwelling or accessory structure shall not be displayed or stored so as to be visible from the exterior of the dwelling or accessory structure. viii. Articles may be offered for sale and sold in the dwelling provided that the occupant produces the product or that the sale of an article is not the essential nature of, but is instead incidental to, the home occupation. For example, sales of shampoo and other beauty supplies at a home beauty salon may be considered incidental to the home occupation. Furthermore, the home occupation shall not constitute a retail store, in terms of traffic, appearance and other impacts. ix.
Instruction in music, crafts and dance studios shall be limited to no more than three students at one time. Home beauty salons or barbershops shall be limited to one chair and/or nail table, which are commonly referred to as stations.
x.
One employee, in addition to the occupant, may be allowed if an off-street parking space meeting the standards of the Code is provided. Required offstreet parking spaces for the residence may not be displaced by the home occupation.
xi.
Limitations placed on home occupations in this Section shall not be construed as prohibiting home occupations which make use of computers, modems, telephones, faxes, or other similar devices.
xii. There shall be no signs identifying the home occupation. xiii. One vehicle, in addition to that used by an employee, may be used in conjunction with the home occupation provided the vehicle is within the parameters of a normal vehicle, which parameters include and describe cars, pickup trucks, and vans unless outfitted with excessive amounts of tools, equipment and supplies. Large commercial vehicles, trailers, construction equipment, and regular vehicles with commercial and/or industrial attachments are not allowed. Generally, any vehicle exceeding one ton in weight shall be regarded as outside the allowed parameters. (18) Hotel (a) Accessory retail uses including, without limitation, restaurants, retail shops, food or beverage service, and personal service shops, may be allowed if such facilities are completely within the hotel structure. A bar, brew pub or nightclub must meet separate specific standards. (b) No outdoor recreation area associated with the hotel shall be within 100 feet of a predominantly residential block. An outdoor swimming pool shall be enclosed with a 6 foot barrier that meets the requirements of the Boise City Building Code. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
536
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.8 General and Specific Use Standards
(19) Kennels, Animal Boarding Animal boarding kennels and pet shops shall conform to the following standards: (a) The use shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from any predominantly singlefamily residential block and a minimum of 100 feet from any predominantly multifamily residential block. The distance shall be measured from lot line to lot line in a straight line. (b) All animals shall be confined within an enclosed area or on a leash at all times. (c) The facility shall be designed to provide reasonable sound barriers and odor protection for adjacent lots or parcels. (20) Laundry Self Service If abutting a predominantly residential block, the hours of operation shall be 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. (21) Live/Work Units This Subsection provides standards for the development of live/work units. Live/work units are intended to be occupied by business operators who live in the same building that contains the commercial or light industry activity. A live/work unit is intended to function predominantly as residential accommodations with incidental workspace. (a) Permitted uses in a live/work dwelling include: i.
Child Care (Small; 6 or fewer children);
ii.
Professional Office;
iii.
Medical Office;
iv.
Personal Service (hair salon, massage, etc.);
v.
Photo Studio;
vi.
Specialty Retail (fly shop, bike tuning, woodworking, etc.);
vii. Restaurant (bakery, etc.); viii. Education (tutoring, music, etc.). (b) Any other use may be allowed if such use is determined, in writing, by the Planning Director to be of the same general character as those uses listed above, compatible, and not objectionable or detrimental to surrounding properties and the neighborhood. To determine compatibility, the following characteristics, without limitation, of the uses shall be reviewed relative to other potentially affected uses, dwellings, or structures: location, orientation, operation, vibration, odor, electrical interference, fire hazard, visual privacy, and sound privacy. (c) Live/work dwellings must receive an administrative permit issued by the Planning Director. Restrictions on such use shall include, without limitation: i.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
At least 1 person working in the live/work dwelling shall also reside in the live/work dwelling; no portion of the live/work dwelling shall be leased as a workspace to any person not living in the live/work dwelling or as a residential space for any person not working in the live/work dwelling.
537
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.8 General and Specific Use Standards
ii.
The first floor of any live/work dwelling shall not be converted to an additional dwelling unit without Planning Director approval.
iii.
Each live/work dwelling is limited to 1 employee. Resident(s) of the live/work dwelling are not considered to be an employee.
iv.
The owner of the live/work dwelling or the employee shall be responsible for the work activity performed.
v.
The work/business component of the live/work dwelling shall be conducted entirely within the live/work dwelling, including the front porch of the live/work dwelling.
vi.
The work/business component of the live/work dwelling shall not be located in the garage of the live/work dwelling.
vii. No activities shall be allowed in the live/work dwelling or the lot or parcel of such live/work dwelling that involves the use, storage, repair, milling or manufacture of highly combustible materials, paint, or internal combustion engines. viii. Vehicle-oriented businesses requiring multiple vehicles are prohibited. As an example, without limitation, limousine services, taxis, towing companies, and cleaning companies would be prohibited. ix.
If a sign is desired in connection with the work/business component of the live/work dwelling, such sign shall be limited to 1 in number and limited to a size of 2 square feet and shall be attached flat on the live/work dwelling or on an awning below the eave of the live/work dwelling.
x.
Any work/business that creates excessive emissions of odor, dust, smoke, noise, glare, heat, vibration, or similar disturbances shall be prohibited.
xi.
Hours of operation for any work/business shall begin no earlier than 7:00 A.M. and end no later than 10:00 P.M.
xii. Any work/business shall obtain all applicable governmental licenses, permits and tax identification numbers and shall comply with any and all applicable employment laws. xiii. Each live/work dwelling shall conform to all life-safety codes and regulations and disabled persons access requirements. xiv. Outdoor storage is not permitted. xv. The volume of deliveries of truck or other vehicular traffic shall not be in excess of what is normally associated with residential use. (22) Outdoor Storage (a) Screening Outdoor storage areas shall be screened. Outdoor storage of chemicals and/or fertilizers shall be prohibited.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
538
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.8 General and Specific Use Standards
(b) Prohibited Locations Materials shall not be stored within the required yards. Stored items shall not block sidewalks or parking areas and may not impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic. (c) Use of Site Use of the site shall not constitute a "pit, mine, or quarry" or "contractor's shop." (d) Prohibited Uses The site shall not be used as a "junkyard," "automobile wrecking yard," or vehicle impound yard. (e) Additional Standards for Outdoor Storage as an Accessory Use Accessory outdoor storage shall be allowed for approved uses subject to the following standards: i.
The location of the outdoor storage area shall be noted on the master site plan and reviewed as part of that application.
ii.
Storage areas shall not be rented, leased, let, or otherwise used as a commercial business.
iii.
Outdoor storage for commercial or industrial uses shall be limited to those items owned or used by the business.
iv.
Outdoor storage for a multifamily development shall be only for recreational vehicles or personal recreation items of the tenants.
(23) Package and Letter Delivery Service (a) No structure, facility, drive lane, parking area, nor loading area shall be located within 20 feet of a predominantly residential block. (b) If abutting a predominantly residential block, the facility hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. (c) No outdoor storage shall be allowed. (24) Recycling Center (a) Outdoor storage areas shall comply with Section 11-07-01.8.C(22) of this Code. No storage, excluding truck trailers, shall be visible above the required screening material. (b) Except for after-hours donation containers, no unsorted material shall be stored outdoors. (c) Any container provided for after-hours donation of recyclable materials shall be a minimum of 50 feet from a predominantly residential block, shall be of sturdy, rustproof construction, and shall have sufficient capacity to accommodate materials collected. (d) Power driven processing (including, without limitation, aluminum foil and can compacting, baling, plastic shredding, or other light processing activities necessary for efficient temporary storage and shipment of materials) may be allowed when located within an enclosed structure. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
539
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.8 General and Specific Use Standards
(e) All recycling center grounds and facilities shall be maintained in an orderly manner so as not to create a public nuisance. (25) Sawmill or Planning Mill (a) The use shall be conducted within an enclosed structure. (b) There shall be a 1,000 foot separation from the mill structure and any predominantly residential block. (c) Outdoor storage areas shall comply with Section 11-07-01.8.C(22) of this Code. (26) Schools (a) Off-street parking shall be provided as per this Code. (b) There shall be an off-street client pick up area in addition to the required offstreet parking. On arterial or collector streets, a circular driveway, or an off-street turnaround (which does not involve any space from a required off-street parking space) shall be provided for the client pick-up area. (c) Reserved. (d) In instances where a restaurant or retail store seeks to sell, serve, or dispense alcoholic beverages at a business premises located within three hundred feet (300') of any school site, notwithstanding Boise City Code or any other law or ordinance of similar import, the Boise City Clerk's office shall be authorized to review and approve a waiver of the foregoing City requirements in accordance with standards and procedures as may be adopted by the Boise City Clerk's office. The waiver procedure identified herein shall not apply to bars or establishments catering to or including adult uses, as defined in Boise City Code. (27) Special Events Special events such as musical and dance performances, arts and craft shows, artifact displays, carnivals, special holiday events, and charitable events shall comply with the following standards: (a) No such use shall be located closer than 100 feet from a predominately residential block, except at the Neighborhood Greens with homeowners’ Association approval. (b) The special event shall not operate for longer than 1 week. (c) Parking shall be provided as required by City Event Permit. (d) Incidental sales of hand-crafted items and goods which are reasonably related to the special event program may be permitted. (e) A temporary use permit is required from the Planning Director. (28) Temporary Uses (a) Any temporary use must be administratively approved by the Planning Director. A temporary use permit shall be required for temporary buildings, temporary display and sale of merchandise, model homes, trailers, activities, and/or uses incidental to the construction of a building or group of buildings on the same or adjacent lot(s) or parcel(s). A temporary use permit shall also be required for seasonal uses (such as, for example, fireworks stands, Christmas tree lots, fruit Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
540
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.9 Parking Standards - General
and vegetable stands marketing locally grown produce). Other uses which clearly are not associated with a holiday, the growing season, or a construction project may be considered for approval by the Planning Director, such as a home sales office in a residential structure. Temporary uses may be approved upon compliance with the following criteria: i.
Are operating for a set time period as requested by the applicant and agreed to by the Planning Director. For most uses, such time period shall not exceed 180 calendar days. Temporary home sales offices may request longer time periods as approved by the Planning Director.
ii.
The proposed temporary use shall not allow for placement of, for example, any structure, vehicle or sign, within a clear vision triangle, required setback, required parking space (except as permitted for temporary, outdoor display sale of merchandise), service drive, dedicated trash dumpster location, sidewalk, or any other position on a lot or parcel that may interfere with vehicle or pedestrian circulation or the normal functions of other uses on the property, or otherwise be potentially hazardous to the public.
iii.
The proposed use must be in conformance with the other applicable requirements of the Code, and applicable state and federal regulations.
iv.
No temporary use permit, except in the case of seasonal uses or uses incidental to construction, shall be issued for structures or uses that are intended to be placed upon an unimproved lot or parcel.
v.
The Planning Director shall require guarantees to assure removal of temporary uses and of any debris or refuse resultant there from, to restore the premises to its prior condition and shall establish the date of such removal.
(b) The applicant shall obtain from the lot or parcel owner a signed and notarized affidavit acknowledging that the property owner shall be accountable for any debris or refuse left on the lot or parcel more than three days after the applicant vacates such lot or parcel and shall be responsible for any additional cleanup costs incurred by the City. A cash bond or cash deposit in the amount of not less than $125, or such other security as may be reasonably acceptable to the Planning Director, shall be placed by the applicant with the City Clerk. Such deposit or security shall be returned to the applicant only in the event the applicant ensures such debris or refuse has been removed from the applicable lot or parcel to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Moreover, an applicant who fails to clean such debris or refuse from the applicable lot or parcel shall be guilty of a misdemeanor which is punishable by a fine not to exceed $300 and/or 6 months confinement in jail.
9.
Parking Standards - General A.
Purpose This Section is intended to: provide accessible, attractive, secure, properly lighted, wellmaintained, and screened off-street parking facilities; reduce traffic congestion and
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
541
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.9 Parking Standards - General
hazards; protect neighborhoods from the effects of vehicular noise and traffic generated by adjacent non- residential land uses; assure the maneuverability of emergency vehicles; and provide appropriately designed parking facilities in proportion to the needs generated by varying types of land use. B.
Use (1) Parking garages and/or parking lots shall be used for vehicle parking only. (2) The use allowed in the building and the corresponding parking spaces required and fixed shall be noted on the Notice of Specific Plan Compliance or Notice of Specific Plan Design Review Compliance, hereinafter referred to individually and/or collectively as "Notice of Compliance", received by the applicant. Any enlargement or addition to a building, or any change in use of a building, or an enlargement or increase in intensity of use of a building, shall require an amendment to the Notice of Compliance or Notice of Specific Plan Design Review Compliance stating the nature of the enlargement of the building or use, or the change in use of the building, and the number of parking spaces required and established as a result of such change.
C.
Fractional Requirements Any fractional requirement of a parking space shall be rounded up to require one additional parking space.
TABLE 11-07.1: OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS USE CATEGORY
NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES
Residential: Single Family Detached, town homes, and multifamily (including live/work and work/live units)
2 per d.u. >950 sf; 1 per d.u. <950 sf
Lodging
1 per room or suite (no additional parking is required for accessory uses such as restaurants or meeting rooms)
Office
1 per 500 sq. ft. of gross floor area
Retail
1 per 500 sq. ft. of gross floor area
Elementary School:
1 per 6 students
Junior, Middle, and Senior High School
1 per 4 students
College
1 per full time student
Industrial
1/2 per employee
Civic/Cultural
1 per 500 sq. ft. of gross floor area
Civil Support
1 per 500 sq. ft. of gross floor area
D.
Reduction of Parking Requirements (Single Use) (1) Parking requirements for a single use as established by Table 11-07.1 may be reduced upon determination by the Planning Director based on a specific showing by the applicant that the intensity of the particular use will need fewer parking spaces. Onstreet parking along the frontage line of the lot or parcel may be counted toward fulfilling the parking requirements. In the event a determination is made that the parking requirements shall be reduced; the reduced off-street parking spaces
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
542
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.9 Parking Standards - General
requirements shall be noted on the Notice of Compliance or Notice of Specific Plan Design Review Compliance. The Planning Director shall have the authority to reduce the parking requirement by up to 10 percent if one or more of the following circumstances exist: (a) Expected automobile ownership or use patterns of employees, tenants, or other users vary from what is typical in the community or typical for the use. (b) The parking demand varies throughout the day in relation to parking supply. (c) The nature of operational aspects of the use warrants unique parking arrangements. (d) Actual parking practice in the community demonstrates that the parking standard may be too high or too low. (e) The development contains a pedestrian walkway and/or bicycle lane that connects to existing, adjacent, or future walkways and/or bicycle lane(s), including pedestrian and bicycle connections to residential subdivisions. (2) The Planning Director may also consider the reduction of off-street parking requirements to: (1) avoid the visual intrusion and heat build-up that results from large, paved areas; (2) ensure the efficient use of land; and/or (3) create an incentive to provide pedestrian-oriented development. E.
Distance for Private Off-Street Parking When Off-Site Required off-street parking shall be located on the same lot or parcel as the use being served by the parking, wherever practical. No off-site parking is allowed for single-family detached residential. Parking may be located off-site not more than the following distances measured along the sidewalk or a walkway available for public use from the primary entrance or elevator bank of the premises to the nearest entrance of the parking garage or parking lot: (1) For retail or commercial customer or office client: 600 feet. (2) For employee parking on a daily basis where the car is used occasionally regardless of the nature of the employment: 1,500 feet. (3) When off-site parking is provided, a directional sign shall be erected on-site advising the public of the distance and direction to additional parking. (a) Required parking spaces that are off-site shall be committed by a recordable lease or other agreement acceptable to the City Attorney. The parties to such recordable document shall include the owner(s) or lessee(s), if applicable, of the off-site parking area, and the owner(s) and lessee(s), if applicable, of the lot or parcel being served by the off-site parking, with covenants reflecting the conditions of approval for off-site parking. (b) The parties to the recordable document referenced above shall immediately notify the Planning Director of any change of ownership or use of the lot or parcel for which the off-site parking is required and notify the Planning Director of any termination or default of the agreement between the parties. Upon notification that the required off-site parking spaces are or will be reduced in
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
543
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.9 Parking Standards - General
number, the Planning Director shall determine a reasonable time in which one of the following shall occur: substitute parking is provided that is acceptable to the Planning Director; or the size or capacity of the use served by the off-site parking is reduced in proportion to the parking spaces lost. F.
Restricted Parking Off-street parking space requirements are based on each parking space being available on a first come, first-use basis. If a parking space is to be restricted by assignment of one or more parking spaces to a particular individual or user, such parking spaces shall be so designated and such restriction shall be noted on the Notice of Compliance. Off-street parking requirements shall be increased by 20 percent of the number of such restricted parking spaces.
G.
Compact Spaces A maximum of 35 percent of the total parking spaces provided may be designed, designated, and used for compact-size vehicles. Parking areas immediately adjacent to or within close proximity to building entrances shall be designated for compact parking spaces. Full-size vehicle parking spaces shall be located along the perimeter of the parking lot or in those areas most distant from the building being served. Compact parking spaces shall be clearly marked as such on the pavement or curb. The percentage of compact parking spaces may be increased by the Planning Director following a showing by the applicant that the routine use of the parking lot or parking garage will exceed the 35 percent standard.
H.
Tandem Parking Tandem parking outside all required yards may be used on detached single-family residential lots. The Planning Director may allow tandem parking for duplexes, town homes, and multifamily lots upon determination that all the following are true: (1) The tandem parking does not have a negative impact on adjacent properties; (2) Tandem parking is required because of physical limitations of the site; (3) The standard parking design(s) would have a negative impact on the functional and/or aesthetic value of the site; and (4) The tandem parking will accommodate no more than 2 vehicles per row within the parking envelope.
I.
Drive-Through Facilities Stacking lanes shall have a minimum width of 10 feet.
J.
Access to Parking Parking, including parking garages, shall be accessed from an alley or secondary frontage when possible. The opening of a parking lot or parking garage on a frontage shall not exceed 2 lanes in width. Pedestrian entrances to all parking lots and parking garages shall be directly from a frontage line. Only underground parking garages may be entered directly from a building. Applicants are encouraged to provide off- street vehicle access to parking areas on adjacent properties to provide for convenience, safety, and efficient circulation. Shared pedestrian access between adjacent lots or parcels is also strongly encouraged.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
544
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.9 Parking Standards - General
K.
Bicycle Parking One bicycle parking space within a bicycle rack shall be required for every 30 required automobile parking spaces for non- residential developments. Multi-family residential developments shall provide one bicycle rack space per each 2 dwelling units.
L.
Parking Garage Screening On the ground floor, a parking garage shall be located to the rear of the lot or parcel wherever practical and masked by a liner building.
M. Accessible Parking Spaces This Section applies to the quantity, dimensional standards, and location of accessible parking spaces. This Section does not supersede and is not a substitute for the International Building Code (IBC), but rather provides for zoning-related standards consistent with the purpose of the IBC. The more restrictive of the two - the IBC and this Section - shall prevail in the event of any discrepancies. All other provisions not addressed in this Section that are related to accessible parking spaces shall be governed by the IBC. Note also that this Section does not take the place of the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 requirements, as amended (ADA). Variances and interpretations can only be reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (1) Quantity TABLE 11-07.2: REQUIRED NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IN LOT
REQUIRED MINIMUM NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE SPACES
1 - 25
1
26 - 50
2
51 - 75
3
76 - 100
4
101 - 150
5
151 - 200
6
201 - 300
7
301 - 400
8
401 - 500
9
501 - 1,000
2% of Total
1,001 and Over
20 plus 1 for each 100 Parking Spaces over 1,000
N.
Exceptions (1) At facilities providing medical care and other services for persons with mobility impairments, parking spaces must be provided and must comply with Table 11-07.2 except as follows: (a) Outpatient units and facilities: 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces provided shall be accessible parking spaces to serve each such outpatient unit facility.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
545
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.9 Parking Standards - General
(b) Units and facilities that specialize in treatment or services for persons with mobility impairments: 20 percent of the total number of parking spaces provided shall be accessible parking spaces to serve each such unit or facility. (2) Valet parking facilities shall provide a passenger loading zone located on an accessible route to the entrance of the facility being served with valet parking. Paragraphs (a) and (b), above do not apply to valet parking facilities. O.
Dimensions (1) All accessible parking spaces shall be a minimum of eight feet in width plus a five foot wide adjacent access aisle to provide clearance appropriate for use by physically disabled people. No access aisle is required if all required parking spaces are designed with 11 foot wide parking space with an adjacent five foot wide access aisle. (2) One in every eight accessible parking spaces, but not less than one parking space, shall have an adjacent access aisle eight feet in width and shall be designated as "van accessible." (3) All accessible parking spaces shall be a minimum of 20 feet in length.
P.
Design (1) Access aisles shall not be restricted by planters, curbs, or wheel stops. (2) Access aisles shall be level with the parking spaces. (3) Accessible parking spaces may use the same adjacent access aisle. (4) Accessible parking spaces shall be designated as reserved for the disabled by a sign showing the symbol of accessibility. Such sign shall not be obscured by a vehicle parking in the parking space.
Q.
Location (1) Access aisles shall be connected to an accessible route to the accessible entrance of a building. The parking access aisle must either blend with the accessible route or have a curb ramp. Such ramp opening must be located within the access aisle boundaries and not within the parking spaces boundaries. (2) Parking spaces for disabled people and accessible passenger loading zones that serve a particular building shall be the parking spaces or loading zones located closest to the nearest entrance on an accessible route. (3) At least 1/2 of the accessible parking spaces are encouraged to be located adjacent to the building so that disabled persons will not have to cross traffic aisles.
R.
Common Facilities for Joint and Mixed Uses (1) Mixed Uses In those instances where there are clearly identified accessory or multiple uses within a building or multiple buildings, the minimum standards shall apply to each use or building, resulting in a total parking requirement when summed, except as provided in Section 11-07-01.9.R(2), below. (2) Reduction in Parking (Multiple Uses) Parking spaces required under the provisions of this Subsection may be provided cooperatively for 2 or more uses, subject to arrangements that will assure the
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
546
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.9 Parking Standards - General
permanent availability of such parking spaces. The Planning Director may reduce the number of parking spaces required where the Planning Director finds that the cooperating uses have different hours of normal activity. The applicant shall provide adequate information by which the proposal can be reviewed, including, without limitation: types of uses; number of employees; building design capacity; square feet of sales area and service area; parking spaces proposed on-site; parking spaces proposed to be provided off-site; and hours of operation. The Planning Director may reduce the amount of required parking in accordance with the following methodology: (1) determine the minimum parking requirements in accordance with Table 11-07.3 for each land use as if it were a separate use; (2) multiply each amount by the corresponding percentages for each of the 5 time periods set forth in columns (B) through (F) of Table 11-07.3; calculate the total for each time period; and (4) select the highest total as the required minimum number of parking spaces. TABLE 11-07.3: MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS OVER 24-HOUR PERIOD WEEKDAY
(A) LAND USE
WEEKEND
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
DAYTIME
EVENING
DAYTIME
EVENING
NIGHTTIME
(9 A.M. – 4 P.M.)
(6 P.M. MIDNIGHT)
(9 A.M. - 4 P.M.)
(6 P.M. MIDNIGHT)
(MIDNIGHT 6 A.M.)
Office/Industrial
100%
10%
10%
5%
5%
Retail
60%
90%
100%
70%
5%
Restaurant
50%
100%
100%
100%
10%
Entertainment/ Commercial
40%
100%
80%
100%
10%
(3) Determination The Planning Director will review the application relative to the approval criteria and make a determination of approval or denial within 10 calendar days of receipt of an application and will submit the findings and conclusions in writing to the applicant. S.
Public and Private Parking Areas (1) Ingress and Egress Access driveways providing reasonable access to parking areas, including parking garages, may extend through the front or street-side set back in a perpendicular manner provided the Planning Director finds that such access driveways comply with this Subsection. Driveways that extend through the setback in other than a perpendicular manner may be approved if due to physical limitations of the site or for aesthetic or safety purposes, and upon a determination that the following are true: (a) The driveway is clearly for access to a parking garage or parking lot; and (b) The proposed driveway does not have a negative impact on adjacent properties; and (c) The driveway is required because of physical limitations of the site; or
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
547
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.9 Parking Standards - General
(d) The driveway is required to enhance the aesthetics of the site such as preserving existing trees; or (e) The driveway is required for safety reasons such as avoiding backing into a busy street or a street with limited motorist visibility. (2) Residential Parking in Yards Parking shall not be permitted in any required yard of any residential land use district, except as follows: (a) Trailers, camp trailers, boats, boat trailers, recreational vehicles, and all other vehicles not in daily use are restricted from parking in the front and street-side setbacks of alley loaded garage lots; these vehicles are restricted from parking in the front and street-side setbacks of front-loaded garage lots or any adjacent street for more than 24 hours. (b) Open air public or private parking areas and service drives, that are used in conjunction with any building or use permitted in a predominantly residential block shall be permitted in side yards that do not abut a street provided that a minimum 5 foot wide landscape and screening area is constructed and maintained adjacent to the adjoining property line. No vehicle or the parking thereof shall be permitted in such minimum 5 foot wide landscape and screening area. (c) No commercial vehicle or trailer shall be parked, stored, or otherwise left unattended at any place in a predominantly residential block whether on a lot or on the public right-of-way for over 2 hours except while actively engaged in pickup or delivery activities, or during the course of actual construction, alteration or repair of buildings and structures or any other permitted use in the immediate vicinity. (d) All parking areas, driveways, and other vehicular access for single-family or twofamily residential uses shall be paved with asphalt, concrete or other hard surface material that shall be approved by the Planning Director. (e) Driveways for single-family or two-family residential uses shall be a minimum of 9 feet wide and a maximum of 12 feet of width from curb to back of sidewalk, then tapering to the allowed width. (f)
The minimum unobstructed interior width of a two-car private residential garage shall be 20 feet, 10 feet if tandem. The minimum unobstructed depth of the stalls must be 20 feet for the first stall and may be 16 feet for the second stall. These dimensions must be kept clear of any permanent obstructions, including, without limitation, mechanical units.
(g) For single-family residential uses, individual driveways in the front setback shall not exceed a width of 33 feet within the setback with a maximum of 12 feet of width from curb to back of sidewalk, then tapering to the full allowed width. Individual driveways are to be separated from any other vehicular accessway by a minimum of 5 feet of landscape or similar material not designed to accommodate vehicles. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
548
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.9 Parking Standards - General
(h) The Planning Director may permit up to 1/2 of the parking required for a singlefamily or two-family residential use to conform to compact parking stall dimensional standards on lots having topographic or other physical constraints. However, interior garage dimensions must comply with the requirements of Section 11-07-01.9.S(2). (3) Service Drives (a) Service drives may not adversely affect access or good public transportation planning to adjacent property and to the area travel networks. Service drives may not landlock adjacent property due to topographic or parcel layout and may not interfere with the continuity of public streets. When public streets are feasible and necessary for the proper development of the public street system as determined by ACHD, then public streets, as opposed to service drives, shall be required. (b) Service drives shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic, provide maximum safety for traffic ingress and egress, and provide maximum safety for pedestrian and vehicular traffic on-site. (c) Service drives must not encourage or promote the use of the service drive as a "pass-through" between public streets. (d) Maximum grade for service drives shall be 10 percent unless specifically approved by the City Engineer and the Boise Fire Chief. A maximum grade of two percent shall be allowed for the initial 80 feet from the intersecting curb to provide a landing at the junction of the service drive and the public right-of-way, unless specifically approved otherwise by ACHD and the City Engineer. (e) Where determined by the City Engineer to be necessary for drainage control, vertical curbing is required. (f)
Except single-family or two-family dwellings on a single lot or parcel, parking spaces in groups of three or more shall be served by a service drive designed to prevent backing onto a street.
(g) Service drives shall comply with the requirements of the City's fire department. To the extent that any City requirement conflicts with this Section, fire department requirements will control. (h) Service drives shall be designed to intersect the public right-of-way at a 90° angle or as near to that angle as possible. Discrepancies shall require review and approval by both the City Engineer and ACHD. (i)
A service drive that provides access from a local street shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from an intersection of streets. Under unusual circumstances, the Planning Director may waive this requirement.
(j)
Service Drive Widths i.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
Drive-through lanes and associated escape lanes shall each be a minimum of 10 feet wide.
549
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.9 Parking Standards - General
ii.
One-way service drives without parking on either side shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide. Two-way service drives without parking on either side shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide.
iii.
Garages shall be set back from service drives such that 22 feet of back up distance is provided to the far side of the service drive.
iv.
Except at the intersection of a service drive and public road, the service drive shall be narrowed to 20 feet where if crosses a crosswalk.
v.
24 feet of clear width shall be maintained between building appurtenances, such as carport overhangs, that border service drives.
vi.
Service drives and parking lots shall allow public access to places of public use and/or interest.
(k) Service drives that serve more than 40 dwelling units will be designed based upon the standards of this Section and by an on-site traffic circulation plan for the interior roadway and parking system and submitted to and approved by the Planning Director and the Public Works Department. T.
Parking Lot and Service Drive Improvements (1) All public or private parking lots shall be designed and laid out to conform to the minimum standards required by this Section including the minimum standards for parking lot design set forth in Table 11-07.4 and Table 11-07.5. Vehicle backup areas shall be provided, which backup area may include the width of a service drive or alley.
TABLE 11-07.4: MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR PARKING LOT DESIGN – STANDARD VEHICLES PARKING ANGLE SEE FIGURE 7.3
PARKING ANGLE SEE FIGURE 7.3
PARKING ANGLE SEE FIGURE 7.3
PARKING ANGLE SEE FIGURE 7.3
PARKING ANGLE SEE FIGURE 7.3
A
B
C
D
E
0°
9'- 0"
23'- 0"
9'- 0"
12'- 0"
20°
9'- 0"
26'- 4"
15'- 3"
11'- 0"
30°
9'- 0"
18'- 0"
17'- 8"
11'- 0"
40°
9'- 0"
14'- 0"
19'- 6"
12'- 0"
45°
9'- 0"
12'- 9"
20'- 5"
13'- 0"
50°
9'- 0"
11'- 9"
21'- 0"
14'- 0"
60°
9'- 0"
10'- 5"
21'- 10"
16'- 0"
70°
9'- 0"
9'- 8"
21'- 10"
18'- 0"
80°
9'- 0"
9'- 2"
21'- 4"
20'- 0"
90°
9'- 0"
9'- 0"
20'- 0"
22'- 0"
TABLE 11-07.5: MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR PARKING LOT DESIGN – STANDARD VEHICLES PARKING ANGLE SEE FIGURE 7.3
PARKING ANGLE SEE FIGURE 7.3
PARKING ANGLE SEE FIGURE 7.3
PARKING ANGLE SEE FIGURE 7.3
PARKING ANGLE SEE FIGURE 7.3
A
B
C
D
E
45°
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
7'- 6"
10'- 6"
16'- 0"
11'- 0"
550
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.9 Parking Standards - General
TABLE 11-07.5: MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR PARKING LOT DESIGN – STANDARD VEHICLES PARKING ANGLE SEE FIGURE 7.3
PARKING ANGLE SEE FIGURE 7.3
PARKING ANGLE SEE FIGURE 7.3
PARKING ANGLE SEE FIGURE 7.3
PARKING ANGLE SEE FIGURE 7.3
A
B
C
D
E
60°
7'- 6"
8'- 9"
16'- 9"
14'- 0"
75°
7'- 6"
7'- 10"
16'- 4"
17'- 5"
90°
7'- 6"
7'- 6"
15'- 0"
20'- 0"
Figure 7.3: Minimum Standards for Parking Lot Design
(2) Surfacing All parking lots, service drives, vehicle storage areas, and vehicle sales lots shall be paved and constructed to meet ACHD and Boise City Fire Code standards, whichever is more restrictive, for base course and asphalt or concrete mat thickness; and curbs and gutters where applicable. The design shall be prepared by a licensed, professional engineer. (3) Grading Parking lots shall be graded to prevent storm water runoff from crossing any sidewalk or from running onto adjacent properties or rights- of-way. (4) Bumper All parking areas shall be provided with a substantial wheel restraint that will prevent cars from encroaching upon abutting private and public property or overhanging beyond the designated parking stall dimensions. The requirements of this Subsection may be waived by the Planning Director for proper cause.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
551
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.9 Parking Standards - General
(5) Bumper Overhang When the Planning Director approves parking stall dimensions that allow bumper overhang onto a sidewalk or landscape strip, the parking stall dimension may be reduced 2 feet in length if 2 feet in width is added to the required sidewalk or landscape strip. Bumper overhang shall not damage landscape. (6) Screening All parking lots, including vehicle sales areas, truck parking areas and bus parking areas, shall be masked by a street wall and/or landscape from public right of way and/or adjacent property. The parking lot and service drives shall meet the following standards: (a) Along all streets there must be a continuous landscaped area in accordance with the Landscape Design Guidelines A.3)b, and the following standards: i.
Street trees with a minimum size of 2-in. caliper. Tree type to be in accordance with "Boise City Street Tree Planting and Selection Guide."
ii.
Shrubs, lawn, or other ground cover shall be installed in all landscape areas. Landscape plants shall not include plastic or other artificial materials.
iii.
All landscaped areas shall contain an underground irrigation system.
(b) A minimum 5 or 6 foot high solid screen shall be provided when a parking lot is adjacent to residential land uses. This screen may include fencing, walls and/or landscape combinations that will provide a dense barrier. (c) The Planning Director may approve a transfer of all or part of the required interior landscape to other areas of the site. (d) Existing healthy trees should be retained as approved by the City Forester and the Planning Director and be considered in the design and grading of the property. The Planning Director may grant up to a 10 percent reduction in the required number of parking spaces to preserve an existing tree(s). (7) Clear Vision Triangle A clear vision triangle shall be maintained with regard to all visual barriers, including, without limitation, all vegetation (except deciduous trees pruned to at least 8 feet in height above the sidewalk and 14 feet above the roadway), walls, signs, vehicles, solid fences, or other sight obstructions exceeding three feet in height. (8) Lighting Parking lot lighting shall comply with the following requirements: (a) Outdoor light fixtures shall be limited to a maximum height of 15 feet or the height of the nearest building, whichever is less. (b) Lighting shall be energy-efficient and shielded or recessed so that: the light source (that is, the bulb) is not visible from off-site; and glare and reflections are confined to the maximum extent feasible within boundaries of the parking lot. Each light fixture shall be directed downward and away from adjoining properties and rights-of-way.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
552
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.9 Parking Standards - General
(c) No lighting shall produce an illumination level greater than one footcandle on adjacent residential lots or parcels. No permanently installed lighting shall blink, flash or be of unusually high intensity or brightness, as determined by the Planning Director. (9) Marking Parking spaces shall provide understandable markings to indicate where drivers should park. Subtle markings, such as contrasting colors/paving stones, are encouraged. The restriping of any parking space or parking lot shall require the approval of a restriping plan by the Planning Director. (10) Ingress and Egress Ingress and egress of parking garages shall be designed with due regard for visibility and safety. (11) Pedestrian Access Sidewalks and crosswalks must completely link transit stations, parking areas, buildings, open spaces, and adjacent paths. Sidewalks shall be at least four feet wide, sited and illuminated to provide safe passage and observation of the path route. Sidewalk crossings of service drives shall be provided and clearly distinguished from the service drive. U.
Short Term Parking Upon the determination of the Planning Director that the particular building use has a substantial demand for short-term parking immediately adjacent to the business, and upon the conditions that short-term parking will be restricted to a period of not more than 20 minutes and that the limit will be enforced by the business, the amount of parking spaces required may be reduced up to 20 percent to correspond to the number of parking spaces assigned to short-term parking. Any such reduction shall be noted on the Notice of Compliance.
V.
Loading Requirements Where loading and unloading of commercial vehicles cannot be accommodated from a public street within 20-minutes time, there shall be provided on the same lot with each commercial or industrial building or structure adequate space for off-street loading, unloading and the maneuvering of commercial vehicles. Off-street maneuvering space shall be provided so that no backing onto or from a public street is required. All loading and maneuvering areas shall: (1) Be provided with an asphalt or cement surface or any other surface with comparable durability and strength. (2) Be properly drained. (3) Be designed with regard to pedestrian safety. (4) Have direct access to public streets or alleys. (5) Be screened from adjacent single family residentially zoned property. (6) No delivery, loading, trash removal or compaction, or other such operations shall be permitted between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. when adjacent to an area
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
553
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.9 Parking Standards - General
that is predominantly residential, unless sound barriers are used and such barriers effectively reduce noise emissions to a level of 65 decibels, as measured at the lot or parcel line of any adjoining lot or parcel. (7) All loading spaces and related access areas shall be graded, improved, and maintained in a manner permitting safe and convenient use under normal weather conditions, to avoid adverse effects on neighboring property. (8) Loading spaces shall be marked as such and reserved for loading purposes and shall not be used for general off-street parking nor computed as part of required off-street parking. (9) No loading docks, service bays, or service windows shall face any street. (10) Loading Facilities Loading spaces as hereinafter defined and set forth shall be provided. (a) Definitions and Standards i.
Type A Space: Not less than 65 feet in length.
ii.
Type B Space: Not less than 35 feet in length.
iii.
All spaces shall be not less than 12 feet wide and have a minimum clear height of 15 feet.
(b) Quantity and type of loading space as determined by the gross floor area of any commercial or industrial building are found in Table 11-07.6 below. The Planning Director may modify the requirements of Table 11-07.6 if it is demonstrated that alternative loading methods/facilities will be adequate for the business(es) being served. TABLE 11-07.6: QUANTITY AND TYPE OF LOADING SPACES BASED ON GROSS FLOOR AREA GROSS FLOOR AREA (SQ. FT)
NUMBER OF LOADING SPACES
TYPE OF LOADING SPACE
14,000 - 36,000
1
B
36,001 - 60,000
2
B
60,001 - 100,000
2
B
For each additional 75,000 sq. ft., or fraction thereof, an additional Type A space shall be required.
1
A
W. Temporary Parking Lots (1) Temporary parking lots for non-required parking may be permitted where new building construction is planned. Temporary parking lots may be permitted for up to 2 years if the following criteria are met: (2) The parking lot shall be located within 600 feet of the building or use the parking lot serves. (3) The parking lot shall include adequate land to accommodate parking spaces, drives, and a general circulation pattern that complies with the standards of this Section in connection with permanent parking lots. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
554
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.10 Sign Standards
(4) A minimum 20 foot width of direct access to the parking lot from a public road rightof-way shall be provided. (5) Existing mature landscape shall not be displaced by the parking lot unless prior written approval is received from the Planning Director. (6) A detailed grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for review and approval by ACHD and the City's Public Works Department.
10. Sign Standards A.
Purpose This Section of the Harris Ranch Specific Plan Code creates the framework for sign regulation that is intended to create an identifiable theme for Harris Ranch and to facilitate communication between people and businesses recognizing the need for both a wellmaintained and attractive community and the need for adequate business identification, advertising, and communication. The purpose of this Section is: (1) To provide reasonable and enforceable provisions for the location, design, and construction of signs; (2) To safeguard and enhance property values and to protect public and private investment in buildings and open spaces; (3) To promote those qualities in the visual environment that bring economic value to the community; (4) To encourage the design of signs that are in harmony with the principal activities and structures that the signs serve and that are compatible with the overall street setting and neighborhood character; (5) To ensure that the maintenance of a sign continues throughout the life of the sign; and (6) To promote the public safety, welfare, convenience and enjoyment of travel and the free flow of traffic within the City and Harris Ranch.
B.
General Provisions and Requirement (1) Signs shall incorporate design and materials that complement the architectural theme of the building with which the sign is identified. Pole support structures, if any, shall be covered. (2) The type, materials, colors, and shapes of signs should be architecturally compatible with the buildings and the surrounding area of the sign's location. (3) The sign shall not be the dominant feature of the sign's location. (4) A uniform sign plan shall be required for all office and/or retail complexes and multifamily buildings. The sign plan shall denote maximum total sign area permitted for the development. All tenants shall comply with the uniform sign plan. (5) The Planning Director shall review and approve all sign designs and uniform sign plans. (6) These standards are to provide general guidance. The Harris Ranch Review Board must approve all signs and sign design plans and may reduce sizes if deemed appropriate.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
555
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.10 Sign Standards
C.
Sign Orientation All freestanding signs shall be oriented to the street(s) on which the building the sign is identifying has frontage. Freestanding signs shall be located on the front half of the lot or parcel or in front of all buildings on the property that the sign is intended to identify.
D.
Sign Area The sign area shall be the area of smallest geometric figure that encompasses the facing of the sign including the copy, insignia, logo, symbol, photograph, background, and borders. In the case of signs mounted back-to-back, only one side of the sign is to be used for computation of the sign area. Otherwise, the surface area of each sign is to be separately computed. In the case of cylindrical signs, signs in the shape of cubes, or other signs that are substantially three-dimensional with respect to their display surfaces, the entire display surface or surfaces is included in computations of sign area. If a sign is attached to an entrance wall or fence, only that portion of that wall or fence onto which the sign face or letters are placed shall be calculated in the sign area. Entrance wall or fence area outside of the sign area width shall not be considered a part of the sign. The entrance wall or fence outside of the sign area width shall not exceed three feet in height.
E.
Street Address All freestanding signs shall include the street address(es) of the lot or parcel of the building that the sign is identifying. The placement of the street address on the sign shall be in addition to any address required to be placed on the building. Numbering shall be a minimum of 31/2 in. tall and be of a contrasting color. Street addresses shall not be included in the calculation for sign background area, except for those portions that exceed 5 square feet.
F.
Blanketing of Signs No sign shall be erected in the same horizontal plane with other signs unless spaced at least 25 feet apart.
G.
Signs Adjacent to Predominantly Residential Areas No sign shall be designed or located such that more than 1/2 foot-candle of light fall occurs at ground level at the property line of a lot or parcel within a predominantly residential block.
H.
Signs in Areas Where a Use Exception Has Been Approved Where a use exception has been approved pursuant to the Code, such uses that are office in nature shall be subject to the sign standards of Tier II blocks (see Table 4-1, Tier II), and uses that are commercial/retail in nature shall be subject to the sign standards of Tier III blocks (see Table 4-1, Tier III).
I.
Gateway Streets As provided in this Section, a sign oriented to Warm Springs Avenue and/or Park Center Boulevard may be regulated differently than a sign oriented to any other street in Harris Ranch.
J.
Special Sign District Properties occupying 60 percent or more of the street frontage on both sides of a street in any defined area, with prior approval from the Harris Ranch Review Board, may petition for
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
556
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.10 Sign Standards
the formation of a special sign district. A special sign district might be created to evoke, for example, an area with a particular atmosphere, to simulate an historic period, identify a theater or entertainment area, or other similar purpose. The petition shall be filed with the Planning Director and shall be accompanied by a designated filing fee and sufficient evidence that the petition and the particulars of the proposed sign district have been approved by the Harris Ranch Review Board. The petition shall specify the reasons for the creation of the special sign district and shall contain the signatures and addresses of not less than 60 percent of the owners of all properties proposed for inclusion in the special sign district. The petition shall be accompanied by a map of the proposed district and a complete description of the recommended criteria for signs in the district. A complete list of all property owners and persons in possession of such properties to be included in the district shall be submitted along with the petition and all such parties shall be sent notices of the Planning Director's decision to create the special sign district. K.
Sign Maintenance and Repair All signs shall be maintained in a state of good appearance, security, safety, and repair throughout the life of the signs. Maintenance shall be such that a sign continues to conform to the conditions imposed by the sign permit. Nothing in the Code shall relieve the owner or user of any sign, or the owner of property on which a sign is located from maintaining a sign in a safe condition and in a state of good repair. Maintenance requirements include, without limitation: any metal pole covers and sign cabinets shall be kept free of rust and rust stains; and any sign that has been damaged to such extent that the sign may pose a hazard to passersby shall be repaired or removed immediately.
L.
Abandoned Signs Except as otherwise provided in the Code, any on-site sign located on property that has been vacant and unoccupied for at least 6 months, or any sign that pertains to a time, event or purpose that no longer applies, shall be deemed to have been abandoned and the sign permit shall become void. An abandoned sign is prohibited and shall be removed by either the owner of the abandoned sign or the owner of the property on which the abandoned sign is located.
M. Clear Vision Triangles Signs shall not be permitted in the clear vision triangle except at a height of less than three feet or at a height greater than 8 feet to the bottom of the sign display surface area.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
1 per Lot
CLEARANCE (FROM ABOVE) ROW
None
PROJECTION
NUMBER ALLOWED
Tier I Blocks: NW4-16; NW18-24; NW26-30; NE1-7; NE9-12; SE14 5 ft. from 4 ft. Rent; Lease; Sale 4 sq. ft. back of
ILLUMINATION
LOCATION
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
SIGN TYPE
MAXIMUM BACKGROUND AREA
TABLE 11-07.7: SUMMARY OF SIZE AND LOCATION OF SIGNS PERMITTED IN HARRIS RANCH
557
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.10 Sign Standards
All Other Signs
PROJECTION
Indirect
1 per Lot
None
Indirect
1 per street frontage
CLEARANCE (FROM ABOVE) ROW
NUMBER ALLOWED
Tier I Blocks: NW4-16; NW18-24; NW26-30; NE1-7; NE9-12; SE14 sidewalk (minimum) Not higher than eave Attached line for flat on Home Occupation; projecting Building, or 2 sq. ft. Live-Work roof and on an parapet awning line for Flat Roof 5 ft. from Apartment, back of Condominium 3 ft. 4 sq. ft. sidewalk Complex Identification (minimum)
ILLUMINATION
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
MAXIMUM BACKGROUND AREA
SIGN TYPE
LOCATION
TABLE 11-07.7: SUMMARY OF SIZE AND LOCATION OF SIGNS PERMITTED IN HARRIS RANCH
PROHIBITED
Tier II Blocks: SW2-5; SW7; SW9-10; NW31; TC8-9; SE1-5 Rent; Lease; Sale
4 sq. ft.
4 ft.
Home Occupation; Live-Work; Work-live
2 sq. ft.
Not higher than eave line
Apartment, Condominium Complex Identification
4 sq. ft.
4 ft.
Business Identification Signs (attached; 50% maximum background area for awning sign)
1 sq. ft. per 3 lineal ft. of Building wall facing a Street; maximum 50 sq. ft.
Not higher than eave line
20 sq. ft. (maximu m(
On-site Signs: Wall or Canopy or Marquee
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
Not to exceed height of wall
5 ft. from back of sidewalk (minimum) Attached flat on Building 5 ft. from back of sidewalk (minimum)
None
1 per Lot
Indirect
1 per Lot
Indirect
1 at each entrance point
On wall face facing Street
Indirect
1 per Lot
Indirect
1 or more not to exceed total sq. ft. allowed
On wall face facing Street
None
3 ft. from wall; may not project above Building
558
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.10 Sign Standards
CLEARANCE (FROM ABOVE) ROW
PROJECTION
NUMBER ALLOWED
ILLUMINATION
LOCATION
MAXIMUM BACKGROUND AREA
SIGN TYPE
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
TABLE 11-07.7: SUMMARY OF SIZE AND LOCATION OF SIGNS PERMITTED IN HARRIS RANCH
Tier I Blocks: NW4-16; NW18-24; NW26-30; NE1-7; NE9-12; SE14 All Other Signs
PROHIBITED Tier III Blocks: SW11-13; TC1-2, 4-7; SE7-12; SE14; SE16-17; SE18A; SE18B; NE14 16 sq. ft.
10 ft.
On wall face
20 sq. ft. (maximu m)**
Not to exceed height of wall
On wall face facing Street
Rent; Lease; Sale
On-premises Wall or Company or Marquee*
Marquee/Canopy/ Awning
50% (None for Alley or Parking Lot)
Under Marquee/Canopy
Length not to exceed 75% of marquee width
15 ft.
None
Indirect
1 per Street Frontage 1 or more; not to exceed total sq. ft. allowed 1 per Alley
Indirect
1 per business
Indirect
1 per business
3 ft. from wall if a project -ing sign
12 ft.
10 ft. with less than 2/3 projection from property line to curb; 12 ft. with more than 2/3 projection from property line to curb 3 ft. if project -ing sign
10 ft.
* When combination of wall and freestanding signs are used, total area for signs must be reduced by 50%. ** A sign on a building wall that does not face a street may be permitted when: (1) The sign background area is a maximum of 10% of the building wall; and (2) The adjoining block is predominantly commercial.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
559
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.10 Sign Standards
Figure 7.5: Types of Attached Signs
Figure 7.4: Types of Ground Signs
N.
Further Regulation of Particular Sign Types (1) Permitted by Planning Director Balloons and other inflated devices, and other temporary signs which exceed the freestanding sign height allowances in this Section may be permitted by the Planning
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
560
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.10 Sign Standards
Director provided that: (1) no more than 1 such sign is allowed per year; and (2) the sign is securely fastened. (2) Projecting Signs Projecting signs are prohibited except for those blocks listed in Subsections (b) and (c), below. (a) Maximum background area: (b) 5 percent of building face facing a street in Blocks SW2-3; SW5; SW7; SW9-10; NW31; TC8; SE1-6; SE14C-14F; (c) 15 percent in Blocks SW11; SW12-14; TC1-7; SE7-14B; SE14G; SE16-17. (d) For the purpose of calculating background area, the lesser of the height of the lower level including parapet walls, or 20 feet. (e) Projection above building height: Prohibited. (f)
Clearance over public property must be a minimum of 10 feet. Evidence of permission obtained from the governmental entity with authority over such public property must be provided to the Planning Director.
(g) Lighting can be direct or indirect. (h) Number allowed: 1 for each use located at grade level. (i)
Projection from wall: the lesser of 10 feet or to within 3 feet of the face of the curb.
(j)
Location: attached to the building facing a street.
(3) Accessory Signs for Public Parking Lots (a) In blocks that are predominantly residential or office or a mixture of the two uses, 1 identification sign for each street frontage of a parking lot is permitted. Each sign shall not exceed 9 square feet in area or 6 feet in height and shall be located not closer than 5 feet to any property line unless attached to a building. All signs shall be stationary, and if lighted, may be indirectly illuminated only. (b) In blocks that are predominantly commercial, the immediately above provisions shall apply, except that the background area of each sign may be a maximum of 16 square feet in area. (4) Temporary Signs (a) Unless otherwise specified by this Section, 1 temporary sign may be displayed on a lot or parcel for a maximum of 30 consecutive days in a calendar year. (b) A permit application, together with appropriate fee, is required for temporary signs. (c) The maximum height for a temporary sign is 6 feet; the maximum background area is 9 square feet. (d) Temporary signs shall not be permitted either in clear vision triangles or over any public rights-of-way. Temporary signs shall not be located in any manner so as to cause a danger or threat to the public.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
561
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.10 Sign Standards
(e) No street banner stretched over public property that pertains to civic affairs shall be allowed over such public property for longer than 14 days. A substantial rope at least 1 in. in diameter (not wire cable or other metallic rope or wire) shall be used as the main support for banners, and 21/2 in. ropes shall be used for securing each lower corner. The banner shall have sufficient wind holes. (f)
Searchlights will be permitted when: (1) they are used by a business or enterprise once yearly for a maximum period of 7 consecutive days, or for purposes of a grand opening of a new enterprise or an enterprise under new management for a maximum period of 7 consecutive days; and (2) the beam of the searchlight shall not flash against any building or sweep an arc greater than 45° from vertical.
(5) Off-Site Signs A business may request an off-site advertising sign because of excessive distance from a public street, special access or street frontage issues, unusual topography, or other special circumstances. Upon a determination that such circumstances exist, and after receiving written permission from the property owner of the property on which the sign would be located, the Planning Director may issue a permit for a sign. The dimensional and square feet allowances for the block within which the sign will be located shall apply. Such sign shall be in lieu of, and not in addition to, on-site freestanding signs. Off-premises signs are prohibited in Blocks: NW4-16; NW18-24; NW26-30; NE1-7; NE9-10, SE14C-14F; SW12; SW15-16; TC1; TC8; NE8; NE11. O.
Signs for Which a Permit Is Not Required (1) Construction Signs Construction signs, provided that such signs are erected no more than 30 days prior to the beginning of construction for which a valid building permit has been issued, are confined to the site of construction, and must be removed 5 days after completion of construction and prior to occupancy. Each sign shall not exceed 9 square feet in area or 6 feet in height and shall be located not closer than 5 feet to any property line unless attached to a building. (2) Real Estate Signs One real estate sign may be allowed on any lot or parcel, provided the real estate sign is removed within 7 days after the sale, rental or lease has been consummated. (3) Political or Campaign Signs (a) There is permitted 1 or more temporary, unlighted, on a lot or parcel on behalf of candidates for public office or measure on the ballot, or announcing a campaign, drive, or event of a civic, philanthropic, educational, or religious organization or nature, provided that the property owner grants permission for the erection of the sign. (b) Political or campaign signs shall be erected not earlier than 60 days prior to the applicable election, campaign or event and shall be removed within 10 days after such election, campaign, or event. (c) Political or campaign signs shall not exceed:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
562
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.10 Sign Standards
i.
6 feet in height or a total of 10 square feet in area for Blocks NW4-16; NW18-24; NW26-30; NE1-7; NE9-10; SE14C-14F.
ii.
10 feet in height or a total of 16 square feet in area in Blocks SW2-3; SW5; SW7; SW9-10; NW31; TC8; SE1-6; SW11; SW12-14; TC1-7; SE7-14B; SE14G; SE16-17.
iii.
If attached to a building, campaign signs shall not exceed the height of the eave line of the building.
(d) No political or campaign sign shall be located closer than 5 feet to any property line unless attached to a building that is closer than 5 feet from the property line. (4) Window Signs Temporary or permanent commercial window signs for on-site commercial activity provided that the signs shall not exceed 25 percent of the total window area and the combined total copy area of temporary and/or permanent window signs shall not exceed 50 percent of the total window area. (5) Hand-held Signs (6) Public Notices Public notices posted by public officials in the performance of their duties. (7) Residential Yard/Garage/Estate Sale Signs Display is not to exceed 3 days prior to the date of the sale with removal within 24 hours following the last day of the sale. Such signs may be of any number and type provided that each sign does not exceed 9 square feet in area. (8) Directional Signs Directional or public service information signs shall be no greater than four square feet in area and no more than four feet in height. If business identification is included, the information shall be secondary in all aspects to the primary use of these signs for directional purposes. (9) Flags Conventional flags, emblems, or insignia of any national or political subdivision or corporation. (10) Government Signs Governmental signs for the control of traffic or other regulatory purposes or authorized public signs of public service companies indicating danger. (11) House Numbers House numbers and name plates. (12) Interior Signs Interior signs located within the interior of any buildings or structures that are not visible from the public right-of-way. (13) No Trespassing "No Trespassing" or similar signs not to exceed 11/2 square feet in area per sign and not exceeding 4 in number per lot or parcel. Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
563
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.10 Sign Standards
(14) Memorial Signs Memorial signs or tablets, names or buildings and date of erection when cut into any masonry surface or inlaid to be part of the building. (15) Plaques Plaques or nameplate signs of not more than 21/2 square feet in area which are fastened directly to a building. (16) Display Windows Signs in the display windows of a business that are incorporated in a display of merchandise. (17) Symbols or Insignia Religious symbols, commemorative plaques of recognized historical agencies, or identification emblems of religious orders or historical agencies, provided that no such symbol, plaque or identification emblem shall exceed 4 square feet in area, and provided further that all such symbols, plaques and identification emblems shall be placed flat against a building. (18) Warning Signs Signs warning the public of the existence of danger, but containing no advertising material, of a size as may be necessary, to be removed upon subsidence of danger. (19) Orientation from Street Any sign which is oriented only to the property on which it is located and is not visible from the public right-of-way. (20) Change in Sign Copy A permit shall not be required for a change of copy on any sign, nor for the repainting, cleaning or other normal maintenance or repair of a sign or sign structure for which a permit has previously been issued in accordance with this Harris Ranch Specific Plan Code, provided that the sign or sign structure is not substantially altered in any way. (21) Portable Signs In blocks that are predominantly commercial or mixed use, an A-frame, T frame and similar "sandwich" signs placed on public sidewalks for promotion of businesses and products are to be considered portable signs. Portable signs shall be placed to allow for unobstructed pedestrian traffic, to prevent pedestrian-vehicular conflicts and tripping hazards. At a minimum, signs shall be placed to provide a 5 foot clear zone for pedestrians on the sidewalk between the building and curb and, if possible, portable signs shall be located outside the pedestrian zone. Portable signs are allowed without a permit from City. However, evidence of permission from the governmental entity with authority over the public sidewalks must be provided to the Planning Director. P.
Nonconforming Signs (1) Legal Nonconforming Signs A legal nonconforming sign is any sign that does not conform to the requirements of the Code, but which was legally erected in any of the following circumstances:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
564
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-01. Harris Ranch 11-07-01.10 Sign Standards
(a) A valid permit was issued for the sign prior to the adoption of the Code; (b) The sign needed no permit but was a legal sign prior to the adoption of the Code; or (c) The sign was lawfully occupying a building or land at the effective date of the Code. (2) No temporary or prohibited signs shall be eligible for "legal nonconforming" status. A legal nonconforming sign shall lose its legal non- conforming status if: (a) The sign is altered in any way in structure or copy (except for copy changes and normal maintenance) which violates provisions of the Code other than those violated before the alterations; or (b) The sign is moved to a position that violates the Code; or (c) The sign is replaced; or (d) The use of the property on which the sign is located is changed. (3) If a nonconforming sign loses its legal status, the sign owner shall remove the sign or bring the sign into compliance with the Code within 60 days. (4) The Planning Director may require the removal of nonconforming signs as a condition for granting a new sign. Factors to consider include the degree of non-compliance, the relation of the proposed sign to the nonconforming sign(s), the number of nonconforming signs, and any other factors that the Planning Director deems reasonably significant. Q.
Prohibited Signs (1) Miscellaneous Signs and Posters No signs or posters that are visible from a public right-of-way and are tacked, pasted, or otherwise affixed to or upon, without limitation, the walls of buildings or upon trees, poles (including, but not limited to power poles), posts, fences, bridges, or other structures shall be allowed. (2) Public Area Signs Except as permitted by the governmental entity with authority over such public property, no signs placed on, without limitation, any street right-of-way, curb, sidewalk, post, pole, hydrant, bridge, or tree, except official public notices posted by an authorized public officer shall be allowed. (3) Banners No banners, pennants, portable signs, strings of lights, ribbons, streamers, spinners, twirlers or propellers, balloons, bubble machines and similar devices of a carnival nature shall be allowed. (4) Confusion with Other Signs No signs which, by reason of their size, location, movement, content, coloring, or manner of illumination may be confused with or construed as a traffic control sign, signal or device, or the light of an emergency or road equipment vehicle or that obstructs the visibility of any traffic or street sign or signal device shall be allowed. This shall include strobe lights and animated signs.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
565
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-02. Barber Valley 11-07-02.1 Applicability of Ordinance
(5) Roof Sign Roof signs are not allowed.
11-07-02. 1.
Barber Valley
Applicability of Ordinance This Barber Valley Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance applies to all property designated on the Barber Valley Specific Plan Zoning Map (Figure 7.6 below) and the Barber Valley Specific Plan Land Use Sub-Districts Map (Figure 7.7 below) in lieu of Chapter 11-02, Zoning Districts, except where noted herein. All remaining Chapters of this Code still apply, except where noted herein. If any provision of this Section conflicts with any provision of the Code, the provisions of this Section shall control.
2.
Interpretation of Districts A.
Sub-Districts Established (1) Low-density Residential (SP02-LR). (2) Medium-density Residential (SP02-MR). (3) High-density Residential (SP02-HR). (4) Mixed Use: Office and Medium-density Residential (SP02-OMR). (5) Mixed Use: Office and Commercial (SP02-OC). (6) City Park (SP02-P).
B.
District Boundaries The location and boundaries of the Barber Valley Specific Plan (SP02) District are shown on the Barber Valley Specific Plan Zoning Map (Figure 7.6 below). The location and boundaries of the Barber Valley Specific Plan Sub-Districts established herein are shown on the Barber Valley Specific Plan Land Use Sub-Districts Map (Figure 7.7 below). Where any uncertainty exists as to the boundary of any such district, the following rules shall apply: (1) Where any such boundary line is indicated as following a street, alley, or public way, it shall be construed as following the centerline thereof. (2) Where a boundary line is indicated as approximately following a lot line, such lot line shall be construed to be such boundary line. (3) Where a boundary line divides a lot or crosses unsubdivided property, the location of such boundary shall be as indicated upon the Barber Valley Zoning Map.
3.
Conformity Required A.
General Except as otherwise provided herein, all land, buildings and premises in any district established herein shall be used only in accordance with the regulations established herein for that district. Additionally, no property shall be allowed to maintain an attractive or public nuisance as defined by this Code and/or state code at any time.
B.
Purpose of SP02-LR Sub-District The purpose of the SP02-LR Sub-District is to provide for the development of diverse urban housing products at a net density of approximately 2 to 6 units per acre. This area may
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
566
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-02. Barber Valley 11-07-02.3 Conformity Required
include a variety of lot sizes, with lots as small as 3500 square feet allowed, but overall gross density cannot exceed 6 units per acre. Attached units are allowed within the overall density limitations. Accessory dwelling units and uses are also allowed, along with community uses such as parks, community centers and recreational facilities. C.
Purpose of SP02-MR Sub-District The purpose of the SP02-MR Sub-District is to (a) accommodate medium density residential uses at a net density of approximately 6 to 18 units per acre; (b) provide an orderly transition from more intensive, higher density uses to less intensive, lower density uses; and (c) allow limited cottages and quasi-residential uses, including senior housing and care facilities. The SP02-MR Sub-District includes significant flexibility in lot sizes and restrictions and anticipates residential uses ranging from row houses and townhouses to condominiums and multi-story apartments. A range of civic and recreational facilities is allowed, along with office, medical and personal service commercial uses that are ancillary to senior housing and care facilities.
D.
Purpose of SP02-HR Sub-District The purpose of the SP02-HR Sub-District is to (a) accommodate higher density residential uses at a net density of approximately 18 to 40 units per acre; and (b) encourage residential uses that are convenient to shopping, recreation, cultural and other concentrated community facilities. The range of uses is similar to the SP02-MR Sub-District, with the addition of hotels, restaurants, cafes, coffee shops and theaters as allowed uses.
E.
Purpose of SP02-OMR Sub-District The purpose of the SP02-OMR Sub-District is to accommodate medium density residential uses, business and professional office uses, and complementary commercial uses such as hotels, restaurants, and theaters, together with necessary off-street parking facilities. The SP02-OMR Sub-District will emphasize high quality design, pedestrian orientation, and flexible development standards.
F.
Purpose of SP02-OC Sub-District The purpose of the SP02-OC Sub-District is to provide a significant commercial and office component in Barber Station, together with necessary off-street parking facilities. The SP02-OC Sub-District will emphasize high quality design, pedestrian orientation, and flexible development standards. Large office buildings are allowed in this area, along with retail, shopping, service, lodging, and civic uses.
G.
Purpose of SP02-P Sub-District The purpose of the SP02-P Sub-District is to accommodate City park uses, including indoor and outdoor recreational facilities and any necessary parking. The SP02-P SubDistrict may also include dedicated open spaces, protected environmental sites such as wetlands and riparian areas, and hazardous areas such as floodways and steep slopes.
H.
Design Review (1) Creation of BVD Design Review Overlay District This Section creates an overlay district within portions of Barber Valley called the Barber Valley Design District ("BVD District"). The BVD District overlays the SP02-MR, SP02-HR, SP02-OMR, and SP02-OC Sub-Districts.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
567
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-02. Barber Valley 11-07-02.3 Conformity Required
(2) Applicability Any visible exterior improvements to a site, building or structure (including new facilities, remodeling, rehabilitation projects and expansion projects) within the BVD District shall require submittal of a Design Review application and fee in accordance with Section 11-05-05.3.D and 11-05-05.2.E except where expressly modified herein. (3) BVDR Board Review Development applications within the BVD District must be submitted to the Barber Valley Design Review Board ("BVDR Board") prior to submission to the City for design review approval. The BVDR Board shall forward their decisions on to the City for their consideration for all projects. (4) Application Content Any BVD District application to the City shall be accompanied by the information required by Section 11-05-05.3.D and 11-05-05.2E, and by the findings, conclusions and any conditions of approval issued by the BVDR Board. (5) Level of Review The Planning Director shall determine whether an application shall be processed at the administrative level or Design Review Commission ("Commission") level; provided, however, (i) all applications for projects that have less than 5,000 square feet of gross building area and less than 20,000 square feet of site improvements shall be administratively reviewed by the Planning Director and (ii) all applications for a Continuing Care Retirement Community shall be reviewed at the Commission level. (6) Procedures With due consideration to the decision of the BVDR Board, the Planning Director or Commission, as appropriate, shall review the application to determine whether the proposed application complies with the design review objectives, considerations and guidelines set forth in Section 11-05-05.3.D and 11-05-05.2E, Chapter 11-04, and the design criteria for the BVD District as set forth in the Barber Valley Specific Plan. Upon making such determination, the Planning Director or Commission shall issue its findings of fact, conclusions of law and conditions of approval. Any action of the Planning Director or the Commission may be appealed pursuant to the appeal provisions of this Code. I.
Allowed Uses Table 11-07.8 sets forth the allowed uses in each Sub-District established herein. Allowed uses are designated with a "•". Uses listed but not designated as allowed in Table 11-07.8 are prohibited. Uses not listed in Table 11-07.8 are allowed only upon a determination by the Planning Director that such uses are similar or compatible in nature to the allowed uses in Table 11-07.8. Any affected person may appeal such a determination of the Planning Director to the Planning and Zoning Commission within 10 calendar days following the date the decision is mailed in accordance with Chapter 11-05, Administration and Procedures.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
568
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-02. Barber Valley 11-07-02.3 Conformity Required
TABLE 11-07.8: USES ALLOWED IN SUB-DISTRICTS SP02-LR
SP02-MR
SP02-HR
SP02OMR
•
•
•
SP02-OC
SP02-P
RESIDENTIAL Apartment or Multiple Family Dwelling* Row House (Townhouse)
•
•
•
•
Duplex House
•
•
•
•
Single Family Residence or Cottage
•
•
•
•
Condominiums
•
•
•
•
Continuing Care Retirement Community*
•
•
•
•
Assisted Living Apartment*
•
•
•
•
Skilled Nursing Care Facility*
•
•
•
•
Memory Care Facility*
•
•
•
•
Home Occupation
Accessory Dwelling Unit
•
•
Accessory Use
•
•
•
•
Common Areas to Support Allowed Uses
•
•
•
•
•
Hotel (no room limit)
•
•
•
Hotel (up to 12 rooms)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
LODGING
Inn (up to 5 rooms)
•
Motel OFFICE/RETAIL Office - Business, Professional, Medical Retail Store (convenience, clothing, video rental, sundries, pharmacy, etc.) Personal Service Store (dry cleaning, Laundromat, barber shop, etc.)
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
•
•
•
•
569
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-02. Barber Valley 11-07-02.3 Conformity Required
TABLE 11-07.8: USES ALLOWED IN SUB-DISTRICTS SP02-LR
SP02-MR
SP02-HR
SP02OMR
SP02-OC
Service Station
•
Automobile Service
•
SP02-P
Lot, Automobile Sales •
Drive-Up Window Billboard Shopping Center, Convenience Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial or Community Commercial
•
Shopping Center, Regional Commercial Car Wash
•
Grocery (up to 60,000 square feet)
•
Bank
•
Building Materials Supply
•
Wholesale Business
•
Restaurant, Cafe, Coffee Shop
•
•
•
Tavern
•
Liquor Store
•
Sexually Oriented Business Temporary Sales Offices
•
•
•
•
•
Model Homes or Units
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Health Club Facility Spa/Resort Nursery (retail or greenhouse)*
•
•
CIVIC (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE)
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
570
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-02. Barber Valley 11-07-02.3 Conformity Required
TABLE 11-07.8: USES ALLOWED IN SUB-DISTRICTS SP02-LR
SP02-MR
SP02-HR
Bus Shelter
•
•
•
•
•
Fountain or Public Art
•
•
•
•
•
Library
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Theater
SP02OMR
•
Outdoor Auditorium
SP02-OC
SP02-P
•
•
•
Park
•
•
•
•
•
•
Playground
•
•
•
•
•
•
Parking Lot
•
•
•
•
•
Parking Structure
•
•
•
•
•
• •
Conference Center Community Center
•
•
•
•
Religious Institution
•
•
•
•
Clubs, Lodges, Social Halls
•
•
•
•
•
Private Open Space
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Recreation Center Outdoor Recreation Facility
•
•
•
•
•
•
Swimming Pool
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Golf Course Golf Driving Range CIVIL SUPPORT Fire Station Police Station Cemetery Funeral Home
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
571
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-02. Barber Valley 11-07-02.3 Conformity Required
TABLE 11-07.8: USES ALLOWED IN SUB-DISTRICTS SP02-LR
SP02-MR
SP02-HR
SP02OMR
SP02-OC
•
•
•
•
Rehabilitation Clinic
•
•
Hospital. Large Animal or Small Animal
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hospital Medical Clinic (accessory use only in MR and HR)*
•
•
SP02-P
EDUCATION School (public, private, or parochial)
•
•
School, Trade or Vocational Family Child Care Home (1 - 6 children) Group Child Care (7 - 12 children)
•
Intermediate or Large Child Care Center (13+ children) INDUSTRIAL Heavy Industrial Facility Light Industrial Facility Agriculture Livestock Laboratory Public Utility Facility - Minor
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Public Utility Facility - Major Wireless Communication Facility, Micro-Cell or Visually Unobtrusive/Attached Other Wireless Communication Facility Mini-Storage Warehouse
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
572
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-02. Barber Valley 11-07-02.3 Conformity Required
TABLE 11-07.8: USES ALLOWED IN SUB-DISTRICTS SP02-LR
SP02-MR
SP02-HR
SP02OMR
SP02-OC
SP02-P
Manufacturing Facility Power Production Facility Broadcasting Facility (e.g., TV, radio), Micro-Cell or Visually Unobtrusive/Attached
•
•
Other Broadcasting Facility (e.g., TV, radio) * This use is not allowed in the 8-acre parcel in the SP02 MR Sub-District.
J.
Lot and Structure Dimensions Table 11-07.9 sets forth the lot, yard, density, and structure height requirements for uses within each Sub-District established herein.
TABLE 11-07.9: LOT AND STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS IN SUB-DISTRICTS SP02-LR a. MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
SP02-MR [1]
18 [2]
6
SP02HR
SP02OMR
SP02OC
SP02P
40
18
0
--
Attached
Detached
Attached
Detached
Interior Lot
3500
4000
2000
2500
0
0
0
--
Corner Lot
4000
4500
2500
3000
0
0
0
--
Interior Lot
35
40
20
25
0
0
0
--
Corner Lot
40
45
25
30
0
0
0
--
10/20 [3]
10/20 [3]
0
0
0
0
0
--
Front Yard & Side Yard Abutting Public St. [4]
10 [5]
10 [5]
5 [5]
5 [5]
0
0
0
--
Abutting public park
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
--
15 [6]
15 [6]
5
5
0
0
0
--
0
5
0
4
0
0
0
--
b. MIN. LOT AREA (square ft.)
c. MIN. AVG. LOT WIDTH (lineal ft.)
d. MIN. STREET FRONTAGE (flag lot) e. MIN. BUILDING SETBACKS (lineal ft.)
Rear Yard Side Yard - Interior Notes:
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
573
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-02. Barber Valley 11-07-02.3 Conformity Required
TABLE 11-07.9: LOT AND STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS IN SUB-DISTRICTS SP02-LR
SP02-MR [1]
SP02HR
SP02OMR
SP02OC
SP02P
[1] Skilled nursing and memory care facility beds are each counted as 1/3 of a dwelling unit. [2] The following standards shall apply to the 8-acre parcel in the SP02 MR Sub-District only: (i) the maximum density shall be 12 units per acre; (ii) on perimeter lots adjacent to existing residential alleys, structures shall be no more than 2 stories and rear yard setbacks shall be 6 feet; (iii) alley access shall 22 feet of backup area; and (iv) the maximum building height shall be 35 feet. [3] 10' allowed with shared access easement agreement. [4] Measured from back of sidewalk. [5] 20' setback required for garages accessed from public streets. [6] 5' setback allowed on corner lots with garages accessed from the side yard street (see Figure 7.8); 30' setback required on lots abutting the existing Riverland Terrace Subdivision.
K.
Property Development Standards Except as follows, the Property Development Standards for the Sub-Districts established herein shall be the same as those set forth in the Section 11-02-02 for residential uses and Sections 11-02-03 for office and commercial uses. (1) For attached single-family units, the minimum frontage requirement in Section 11-002 is reduced to 18 feet. (2) For lots with zero feet frontage on a public right-of-way, drive aisles will provide access to the public street with perpetual ingress/egress or cross access easements recorded against the property. A homeowners’ association or other agreed upon arrangement among the affected property owners will maintain the drive aisles in accordance with a recorded declaration. The easements and declaration must be reviewed by the Boise City Attorney's office at the time of preliminary plat approval to ensure the access and maintenance obligations of this paragraph are addressed. The Ada County Highway District must approve installation of any required street signs. Buildings will be addressed to the public street from which the drive aisles extend. Addresses will be clearly delineated with appropriate monuments or signs. (3) Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-07-02.4, below. (4) The maximum number of residential units allowed within the Barber Valley Specific Plan District is 1025. The maximum combined office and commercial square footage allowed within the Barber Valley Specific Plan District is 541,500. To exceed either of these limits, the Barber Valley Specific Plan Applicant must follow the rezone procedures of the Boise City Code to amend the Barber Valley Zoning Ordinance. In so doing, the Applicant need not amend the entire Barber Valley Specific Plan so long as the City finds that the revised limits are generally in accordance with the Barber Valley Specific Plan. (5) Civic uses are limited to no more than 20 percent of the developed area in the SP02LR Sub-District. (6) A private management company must be responsible for maintenance of sprinkler systems within mixed use buildings.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
574
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-02. Barber Valley 11-07-02.4 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements
4.
Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements In the SP02-LR, SP02-MR and SP02-HR Sub-Districts, off-street parking and loading facilities shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-04-08, except as noted herein. In the SP02OMR and SP02-OC Sub-Districts, off-street parking and loading facilities shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-04-06, except as noted herein. In lieu of the off-street parking ratio requirements in Sections 11-04-08, nonresidential uses in the SP02-MR, SP02- HR, SP02-OMR and SP02-OC Sub-Districts must meet an overall parking density of three and one-half per 1000 square feet. Assisted living apartments, independent living residences within the Continuing Care Retirement Community, and similar uses shall be subject to the off-street parking requirements for "Housing for Elderly" uses listed in Section 11-04-08. Memory care facilities, skilled nursing care facilities, and similar uses shall be subject to the off- street parking requirements for "Nursing Home" uses listed in Section 11-04-08.
5.
Administrative Provisions A.
Plat Approval Criteria Development within the Barber Valley Specific Plan District shall be subject to the subdivision and other related provisions of the Boise City Code. Additionally, the City Council must find that each preliminary plat proposed and/or amended within the Barber Valley Specific Plan District substantially conforms to the adopted Barber Valley Specific Plan and complies with all applicable provisions of the Barber Valley Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance. Plats must still proceed through the normal hearing process with review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
B.
Annexation into SP02 District Any property owner or authorized representative may seek to reclassify their property for inclusion within the Barber Valley Specific Plan District pursuant to 11-02-08, Specific Plan Districts.
C.
Amendments Any property owner within the Barber Valley Specific Plan District may seek to amend the Barber Valley Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance or the Barber Valley Specific Plan pursuant to the Boise City Code provisions for zoning amendments.
D.
Exceptions (1) The Planning Director may grant exceptions to any setback, frontage, parking, or height restriction up to 20 percent of the applicable limit and may grant exceptions to any use restrictions on a case-by-case basis. (2) The Planning and Zoning Commission may grant exceptions to any setback, frontage, parking, or height restriction greater than 20 percent of the applicable limit. (3) Any approval pursuant to this Section shall be supported by each of the following findings: (a) The exception is consistent with the Barber Valley Specific Plan; and (b) The exception is justified based on unique circumstances of the proposed use or exceptional design features or the shape of the land. (c) The exception would not cause undue adverse impacts on any other property.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
575
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-02. Barber Valley 11-07-02.6 Definitions
(d) For any approval pursuant to subparagraph b, the exception meets the general conditional use criteria in the Boise City Zoning Ordinance. (4) Applications pursuant to this Section shall include such information as the Planning Director determines is necessary to make the applicable findings in subparagraph c. (5) The decision on any requested exception may be appealed pursuant to the appeal provisions of the Boise City Code. E.
Periodic Review The Planning Director may perform a review of the implementation of the Barber Valley Specific Plan not more frequently than every one year after approval of first Final Plat. The review may address any matters the Planning Director deems appropriate regarding the progress of the development, including but not limited to (a) the Transportation Management Association; (b) the Barber Valley Wildlife Mitigation Plan; and (c) traffic impacts until 2016. Any modification of the Barber Valley Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance may only occur after review by the Barber Valley Specific Plan Applicant and the Planning Director and in compliance with the applicable Boise City Code Sections for zoning amendments and Idaho Code Section 67-6511(d).
6.
Definitions The following definitions apply to this Section. If any conflict exists with definitions in other parts of the Code, the following definitions control. A.
Assisted Living Apartment A residential apartment or apartment complex that provides personal care services to senior citizens for daily living needs. Assisted living services are a coordinated array of supportive personal and health services available 24 hours a day to residents who have been assessed to need these services, including residents who require long term care. Assisted living services promote resident self-direction and participation in decisions that emphasize independence, individuality, privacy, and dignity in a home-like surrounding.
B.
Barber Valley Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance Section 11-07-02 of this Code, specifically setting forth zoning regulations for the Barber Valley Specific Plan District.
C.
Barber Valley Specific Plan The Specific Plan adopted for the Barber Valley Specific Plan District by the City of Boise on March 18, 2008, as maintained in the official records of the City, including subsequent modifications.
D.
Barber Valley Specific Plan Applicant Brighton Corporation or successor entities.
E.
Barber Valley Specific Plan District The area designated as the SP02 zone or successor designation on the City of Boise's zoning map and as shown on the Barber Valley Specific Plan Zoning Map (attached as Figure 7.6).
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
576
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-02. Barber Valley 11-07-02.6 Definitions
F.
Continuing Care Retirement Community A campus-style facility (multiple buildings on a single lot) that provides housing, personal services, and health care, including nursing home care to people of retirement age. The community must provide a continuum of care to meet the needs of the individual residents, from independent living to assisted living to skilled nursing care and, possibly, memory care support. Meals, housekeeping, linens, 24-hour security and recreational services usually are provided. Each individual resident enters into a contract with the retirement community that defines the type of housing and services to be provided and the fees that will be charged.
G.
Memory Care Facility Same as Skilled Nursing Facility except the residents also receive care for some form of memory impairment.
H.
Skilled Nursing Facility A residential facility that provides 24-hour supervision by licensed nurses. The care usually is prescribed by a physician. Emphasis is on medical care, supplemented by physical, occupational, speech and other types of therapies. Personal care services, such as help with meals, bathing, dressing, and grooming are also provided along with social services, religious services, and recreational activities. A nursing facility offers care for individuals suffering from chronic diseases or conditions that do not require the constant attention of physicians. Services are provided that address the individuals' personal care and socialemotional needs.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
577
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-02. Barber Valley 11-07-02.6 Definitions
Figure 7.6: Barber Valley Zoning Map
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
578
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-02. Barber Valley 11-07-02.6 Definitions
Figure 7.7: Barber Valley Land Use Sub-Districts
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
579
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-02. Barber Valley 11-07-02.6 Definitions
Figure 7.8: Barber Valley Site Plan
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
580
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-03. Syringa Valley 11-07-03.1 Applicability of Ordinance
11-07-03. 1.
Syringa Valley
Applicability of Ordinance This Syringa Valley Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance applies to all property designated on the Syringa Valley Specific Plan Overall Sub-Zoning Map (Figure 7.9 below) in lieu of Chapter 11-02, Zoning Districts, except where noted herein. All remaining Chapters of this Code still apply, except where noted herein. If any provision of this Section conflicts with any provision of the Code, the provisions of this Section shall control.
2.
Interpretation of Districts: A.
Sub-Districts Established (1) Low-Density Residential (LR); (2) Medium-Density Residential (MR); (3) Village Center (VC); (4) Commercial/Business Campus (CB); (5) Industrial (IND).
B.
District Boundaries The location and boundaries of the Syringa Valley Specific Plan (SP-03) District are shown on the Syringa Valley Specific Plan Overall Sub-Zoning Map (Figure 7.9 below). The location and boundaries of the Syringa Valley Specific Plan Sub-Districts established herein are shown on the Syringa Valley Specific Plan Overall Sub-Zoning Map (Figure 7.9 below). Where any uncertainty exists as to the boundary of any such district, the following rules shall apply: (1) Where any such boundary line is indicated as following a street, alley, or public way, it shall be construed as following the centerline thereof. (2) Where a boundary line is indicated as approximately following a lot line, such lot line shall be construed to be such boundary line. (3) Where a boundary line divides a lot or crosses unsubdivided property, the location of such boundary shall be as indicated upon the Syringa Valley Zoning Map.
3.
Conformity Required A.
General Except as otherwise provided herein, all land, buildings and premises in any Sub-District established herein shall be used only in accordance with the regulations established herein for that district. Additionally, no property shall be allowed to maintain an unattractive appearance or public nuisance as defined by this Code and/or state code at any time.
B.
Purpose of the Low-Density Residential (LR) Sub-District The purpose of the LR Sub-District is to provide for the development of diverse urban housing products at a density ranging from 2 to 6 units per gross acre. The LR Sub-District north of W. Lake Hazel Rd. will have a maximum density of 4.5 units per gross acre, and south of W. Lake Hazel Rd. the overall density cannot exceed 6 units per gross acre. This Sub-District may include a variety of lot sizes. A variety of housing types may be included
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
581
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-03. Syringa Valley 11-07-03.3 Conformity Required
within a development, including attached units (townhouses, duplexes), detached units (patio homes single-family) and multifamily units, regardless of the district classification of the site, provided that the overall gross density is not exceeded as outlined above. Accessory dwelling units and uses are also allowed, along with community uses such as parks, community centers and recreational facilities. C.
Purpose of the Medium-Density (MR) Sub-District The purpose of the MR Sub-District is to (a) accommodate medium-density residential uses at a density of 10-20 units per gross acre; (b) provide an orderly transition from more intensive, higher density uses to less intensive, lower density uses; and (c) allow limited cottages and quasi-residential uses, including senior housing and care facilities. The MR Sub-District includes flexibility in lot sizes and restrictions and anticipates residential uses ranging from row houses and townhouses to condominiums and multi-story apartments. A range of civic and recreational facilities is allowed, along with office, medical and personal service commercial uses that are ancillary to senior housing and care facilities.
D.
Purpose of the Village Center (VC) Sub-District The purpose of the VC Sub-District is to provide a location for mixed-use, pedestrianoriented development featuring retail, offices, and restaurants in conjunction with residential uses. Residential uses will include a mix of housing types with densities up to 18 units per acre on a net parcel basis.
E.
Purpose of the Commercial/Business Campus (CB) Sub-District The purpose of the CB Sub-District is to accommodate business and professional office uses, and neighborhood and regional serving commercial uses such as large and small retailers, hotels, restaurants, and theaters together with necessary off-street parking facilities. Large office buildings are allowed in this area, along with service, lodging, and civic uses. The CB Sub- District will emphasize high quality design, pedestrian orientation, and flexible development standards.
F.
Purpose of the Industrial (IND) Sub-District The purpose of the IND Sub-District is to provide for a convenient employment center for manufacturing, research and development, warehousing, and distributing. The IND SubDistrict is intended to encourage the development of industrial uses that are clean, quiet, and free of hazardous or objectionable elements and that are operated, entirely, or almost entirely, within enclosed structures.
G.
Residential District Standards The following standards apply to the LR Sub-District and the MR Sub-District: (1) Minimum Property Size (a) Each property shall be of sufficient size to meet the minimum setbacks as established in this Section. (b) Minimum property size shall be determined exclusive of land that is used for the conveyance of irrigation water and drainage, unless (a) the water is conveyed through pipe or tile; and (b) included as part of a utility easement that generally runs along the property lines.
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
582
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-03. Syringa Valley 11-07-03.3 Conformity Required
(2) Minimum Street Frontage (a) Properties with street frontages on a curve or at approximately a 90 degree angle shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide measured as a chord measurement. (b) Street frontage for 2 properties sharing a common drive shall be a minimum of 15 feet for each property. (c) Street frontage for flag properties that do not share a common drive shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide. H.
Allowed Uses Table 11-07.10 sets forth the allowed uses in each Sub-District established herein. Uses allowed by right are designated with an "A", uses allowed by right, subject to administrative review are designated with an "A*", and uses allowed with design review approval are designated with a "D". Uses listed but not designated as allowed in Table 11-07.10 are prohibited. Uses not listed in Table 11-07.10 are allowed only upon a determination by the Planning Director that such uses are similar or compatible in nature to the allowed uses in Table 11-07.10. Any affected person may appeal such a determination of the Planning Director to the Planning and Zoning Commission within 10 calendar days following the date the decision is mailed in accordance with Chapter 11-05, Administration and Procedures.
TABLE 11-07.10: USES ALLOWED IN SUB-DISTRICTS SP02-LR
SP02-MR
SP02-HR
Apartment or multiple family dwelling
D
D
D
Row house (townhouse)
A
A
A
Duplex house
A
A
A
Single family residence or cottage
A
A
A
Condominiums
D
D
D
Home occupation
A*
A*
A*
SP02OMR
SP02-OC
RESIDENTIAL
Continuing career retirement community
D
Assisted living apartment
D
Skilled nursing care facility
D
D
Memory care facility
D
D
D
Accessory dwelling unit
A*
A*
A*
Accessory use
A*
A*
A*
LODGING Hotel (no room limit)
D
Hotel (up to 12 rooms)
D
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
583
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-03. Syringa Valley 11-07-03.3 Conformity Required
TABLE 11-07.10: USES ALLOWED IN SUB-DISTRICTS SP02-LR
SP02-MR
Inn (up to 5 rooms)
SP02-HR
SP02OMR
D
D
SP02-OC
D
Motel OFFICE/RETAIL Office - business, professional, medical
D
D
D
Retail store (convenience, clothing, video rental, sundries, pharmacy, etc.)
D
D
D
D
D
D
Personal service store (dry cleaning, laundromat, barber shop, etc.)
D
Service station
D
Automobile service
D
Lot, automobile sales
D
Drive-up window
D
Billboard Shopping center, neighborhood, or community or regional commercial
D
Car wash
D
Grocery (up to 60,000 square feet)
D
Bank
D
Building materials supply
D
Wholesale business
D
Restaurant, cafe, coffee shop
D
D
Tavern, lounge Liquor store Temporary sales offices
A*
A*
Model homes or units
A
A
D
D
D
D
D
D
A*
A*
A D
Health club facility Spa/resort
D
Nursery (retail or greenhouse)
D
D D
D
CIVIC (PUBLIC AND PRIVATE) Bus shelter
A
A
A
A
A
Fountain or public art
A*
A*
A*
A*
A*
D
D
D
Library Theater Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
D
584
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-03. Syringa Valley 11-07-03.3 Conformity Required
TABLE 11-07.10: USES ALLOWED IN SUB-DISTRICTS SP02-LR
SP02-MR
SP02-HR
Outdoor auditorium
SP02OMR D
Park
A
A
A
A
Playground
A
A
A
A
Parking lot - paid D
D
Conference center Religious institution
A
D
Parking structure Community center
SP02-OC
D
D
D D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Clubs, lodges, social halls Private open space
A
A
A
A
Recreation center
D
D
D
D
Outdoor recreation facility
A
Swimming pool
A
Golf course
D
D
Golf driving range
D
D
A
D A
A
CIVIL SUPPORT Fire station
D
D
D
D
Police station
D
D
D
D
Cemetery
D
D
Funeral home
D
Hospital
D
Medical clinic (accessory use only in MR and CB)
D
D
Rehabilitation clinic
D
Hospital, large animal, or small animal
D
EDUCATION School (public, private, or parochial)
D
D
D
D
School, trade or vocational
D
D
D
D
Family child care home (1 6 children)
A
A
A
Group child care (7 - 12 children)
A*
A*
A*
A*
D
D
D
Intermediate or large child care center (13+ children) INDUSTRIAL Heavy industrial facility
D
Light industrial facility
D
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
585
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-03. Syringa Valley 11-07-03.3 Conformity Required
TABLE 11-07.10: USES ALLOWED IN SUB-DISTRICTS SP02-LR Agriculture
SP02-MR
SP02-HR
SP02OMR
SP02-OC A
A*
D
Laboratory Public utility facility - minor
D
D
D
Public utility facility - major Wireless communication facility or micro-cell
A*
A*
A*
Mini-storage
D
D
D
D
A*
A*
D
D
Warehouse
D
Manufacturing facility
D
Power production facility
D
Broadcasting facility (e.g., TV, radio) or micro-cell
I.
D
D
Lot and Structure Dimensions Table 11-07.11 sets forth the lot, yard, density, and structure height requirements for uses within each sub-district established herein.
TABLE 11-07.11: LOT AND STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS IN SUB-DISTRICTS SP-03-LR
a. MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
SP-03-MR [1]
SP03VC
SP03CB
SP03IND
20
18
0
0
6 Attached
Detached
Attached
Detached
Interior Lot
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Corner Lot
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Interior Lot
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Corner Lot
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10/20 [2]
10/20 [2]
0
0
0
0
0
Front Yard & Side Yard Abutting Public St. [3]
10 [4]
10 [4]
10 [4]
10 [4]
10 [4]
10 [4]
10 [4]
Abutting public park
5
5
5
5
5
30
30
b. MIN. LOT AREA (square ft.)
c. MIN. AVG. LOT WIDTH (lineal ft.)
d. MIN. STREET FRONTAGE (flag lot) e. MIN. BUILDING SETBACKS (lineal ft.)
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
586
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-03. Syringa Valley 11-07-03.3 Conformity Required
TABLE 11-07.11: LOT AND STRUCTURE DIMENSIONS IN SUB-DISTRICTS SP-03-LR
Rear Yard
SP-03-MR [1]
SP03VC
SP03CB
SP03IND
15 [5]
15 [5]
15 [5]
15 [5]
0/15 [1]
0
0
0
5
0
4
0
0
0
Side Yard - Interior f. Minimum parking lot/service drive setbacks Front yard & side yard - adj. to street
15
10
10
10
10
Rear yard & side yard - interior
5
5
5
5
5
J.
Property Development Standards Except as follows, the Property Development Standards for the Sub-Districts established herein shall be the same as those set forth in the Section 11-02-02 for residential uses and Sections 11-02-03 for office and commercial uses: (1) For attached single-family units, the minimum frontage requirement in Section 11-0202 is reduced to 18 feet. (2) For lots with zero feet frontage on a public right-of-way, drive aisles will provide access to the public street with perpetual ingress/egress or cross access easements recorded against the property. A homeowners’ association or other agreed upon arrangement among the affected property owners will maintain the drive aisles in accordance with a recorded declaration or other agreements. The easements and declaration must be reviewed by the Boise City Attorney's office at the time of preliminary plat approval to ensure the access and maintenance obligations of this paragraph are addressed. The Ada County Highway District must approve installation of any required street signs. Buildings will be addressed to the public street from which the drive aisles extend. Addresses will be clearly delineated with appropriate monuments or signs. (3) Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be provided in accordance with Section 4 below. (4) The maximum number of residential units allowed within the Syringa Valley Specific Plan District is 2,500. To exceed this limit, the Syringa Valley Specific Plan Applicant must follow the rezone procedures of the Boise City Code to amend the Syringa Valley Zoning Ordinance. In so doing, the Applicant need not amend the entire Syringa Valley Specific Plan so long as the City finds that the revised limits are generally in accordance with the Syringa Valley Specific Plan.
K.
Design Review (1) Applicability Any of the uses listed as requiring Design Review, and any visible exterior improvements to a site, building or structure for any such use (including new facilities,
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
587
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-03. Syringa Valley 11-07-03.4 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements
remodeling, rehabilitation projects and expansion projects) within the Syringa Valley District shall require submittal of a Design Review Application and fee in accordance with Section 11-05-05.2.E and 11-05-05.3.D 11-05-05.3.Dof this Code, except where expressly modified herein. (2) Application Content Any application to the City shall comply with Section 11-05-05.2.E and 11-05-05.3.D of this Code. (3) Level of Review The Planning Director shall determine whether an application shall be processed at the administrative level or by the Design Review Commission ("Commission") level; provided, however, all applications for projects that have less than 5,000 square feet of gross building area and less than 20,000 square feet of site improvements shall be administratively reviewed by the Planning Director. (4) Review and Findings The Planning Director or Commission, as appropriate, shall review the application to determine whether the proposed application complies with the design review objectives, considerations and guidelines set forth in Chapter 11-04 of the Boise City Code and the design criteria for the Syringa Valley District as set forth in the Syringa Valley Specific Plan. In the event of a conflict between such Sections of the Boise City Code and design standards set forth in the Syringa Valley Specific Plan, the provisions of the Syringa Valley Specific Plan shall govern. Upon making such determination, the Planning Director or Commission shall issue its findings of fact, conclusions of law and conditions of approval. Any action of the Planning Director or the Commission may be appealed pursuant to Section 11-05-04.7.A of the Boise City Code.
4.
Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements In the LR, MR, VC, and CB Sub-Districts, off-street parking and loading facilities shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-04-08, Parking and Loading, except as noted herein. In the VC and CB Sub-Districts, off-street parking and loading facilities shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-04-08, Parking and Loading, except as noted herein. In lieu of the off-street parking ratio requirements in Sections 11-04-08, nonresidential uses in the MR, VC, and CB Sub-Districts must meet an overall parking density of 3.5 per 1000 square feet. Assisted living apartments, independent living residences within the Continuing Care Retirement Community, and similar uses shall be subject to the off-street parking requirements for "Housing for Elderly" uses listed in Section 11-04-08, Parking and Loading. Memory care facilities, skilled nursing care facilities, and similar uses shall be subject to the off-street parking requirements for "Nursing Home" uses listed in Section 11-04-08, Parking and Loading. A.
Plat Approval Criteria Development within the Syringa Valley Specific Plan District shall be subject to the subdivision and other related provisions of the Boise City Code, except that a neighborhood meeting shall not be required unless that plat proposes more than 240 dwelling units. Additionally, the City Council must find that each preliminary plat proposed and/or amended within the Syringa Valley Specific Plan District substantially conforms to
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
588
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-03. Syringa Valley 11-07-03.4 Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements
the adopted Syringa Valley Specific Plan and complies with all applicable provisions of the Syringa Valley Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance. Plats must still proceed through the normal hearing process with review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. B.
Annexation Into SP-03 Syringa Valley Specific Plan District Any property owner or authorized representative may seek to reclassify their property for inclusion within the Syringa Valley Specific Plan District pursuant to 11-02-08, Specific Plan Districts.
C.
Amendments Any property owner within the Syringa Valley Specific Plan District may seek to amend the Syringa Valley Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance or the Syringa Valley Specific Plan pursuant to the Boise City Code provisions for zoning amendments.
D.
Exceptions (1) The Planning Director may grant exceptions to any setback, frontage, parking, or height restriction up to 20 percent of the applicable limit and may grant exceptions to any use restrictions on a case-by-case basis. (2) The Planning and Zoning Commission may grant exceptions to any setback, frontage, parking, or height restriction greater than 20 percent of the applicable limit. (3) Any approval pursuant to this Section shall be supported by each of the following findings: (a) The exception is consistent with the Syringa Valley Specific Plan; and (b) The exception is justified based on unique circumstances of the proposed use or exceptional design features or the shape of the land. (c) The exception would not cause undue adverse impacts on any other property. (d) For any approval pursuant to subparagraph b, above, the exception meets the general conditional use criteria in Section 11-05-05.3.C, Conditional Use Permit Initial Approval or Major Expansion. (4) Applications pursuant to this Section shall include such information as the Planning Director determines is necessary to make the applicable findings in subparagraph c, above. Applications shall be processed in accordance with the procedures established in the Syringa Valley Specific Plan for Design Review. (5) The decision on any requested exception may be appealed pursuant to the appeal provisions of the Boise City Code.
E.
Periodic Review The Planning Director may perform a review of the implementation of the Syringa Valley Specific Plan not more frequently than every one year after approval of the first Final Plat. The review may address any matters the Planning Director deems appropriate regarding the progress of the development. Any modification of the Syringa Valley Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance may only occur after review by the Syringa Valley Specific Plan Applicant and the Planning Director and in compliance with the applicable Boise City Code Sections for zoning amendments and Idaho Code Section 67-6511(d).
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
589
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-03. Syringa Valley 11-07-03.5 Definitions
5.
Definitions The following definitions apply to this Section. If any conflict exists with definitions in other parts of the Code, the following definitions control. A.
Syringa Valley Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance Section 11-07-03 of the Boise City Code or successor Section specifically setting forth zoning regulations for the Syringa Valley Specific Plan District.
B.
Syringa Valley Specific Plan The Specific Plan adopted for the Syringa Valley Specific Plan District by the City of Boise on November 29, 2016, as maintained in the official records of the City, including subsequent modifications.
C.
Syringa Valley Specific Plan Applicant Corey Barton Homes, Inc. d/b/a CBH Homes, or successor entities.
D.
Syringa Valley Specific Plan District The area designated as the SP-03 zone or successor designation on the City of Boise's zoning map and as shown on the Syringa Valley Specific Plan Overall Sub-Zoning Map (attached as Figure 7.9).
E.
Boise City Code The code of the City of Boise. If the Boise City Code is amended, any reference to the Boise City Code in this Ordinance shall be deemed to refer to the applicable amended provision.
F.
Gross Acres For the purposes of calculating residential density (units per gross acre), gross acres shall be defined as the total area in the LR, MR and VC Sub-Districts less the area included in the rights of way for S. Cole Rd., W. Lake Hazel Rd., and S. Orchard St.; less the area of the New York Canal easement; less the area of the Kirsten Coughlin City park; and less the area of the public elementary school.
G.
Continuing Care Retirement Community A campus-style facility (multiple buildings on a single lot) that provides housing, personal services, and health care, including nursing home care to people of retirement age. The community must provide a continuum of care to meet the needs of the individual residents, from independent living to assisted living to skilled nursing care and, possibly, memory care support. Meals, housekeeping, linens, 24-hour security and recreational services usually are provided. Each individual resident enters into a contract with the retirement community that defines the type of housing and services to be provided and the fees that will be charged.
H.
Memory Care Facility Same as Skilled Nursing Facility except the residents also receive care for some form of memory impairment.
I.
Skilled Nursing Facility A residential facility that provides 24-hour supervision by licensed nurses. The care usually is prescribed by a physician. Emphasis is on medical care, supplemented by physical, occupational, speech and other types of therapies. Personal care services, such as help with
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
590
Chapter 11-07 Adopted Specific Plans Section 11-07-03. Syringa Valley 11-07-03.5 Definitions
meals, bathing, dressing, and grooming are also provided along with social services, religious services, and recreational activities. A nursing facility offers care for individuals suffering from chronic diseases or conditions that do not require the constant attention of physicians. Services are provided that address the individuals' personal care and socialemotional needs.
Figure 7.9: Syringa Valley Overall Sub-Zoning Map
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Adoption Draft
591
Da
et
t
Cr
55
k ee
Eagle
44
gg
Legend: Proposed Zoning Code
44
Open Land Very Low Density (A-1) Open Land Reserve (A-2)
W
Rob
Hi
Banbury Golf Club
ll R
ie
Large Lot Residential (R-1A)
r
C
d
ee k
Suburban Residential (R-1B)
Garden City WC
N Five Mile Rd
en
Bl
W
vd
St
at
e
Hi
Urban Residential (R-3)
ll
Rd
SP-02
St
Mixed Use: Neighborhood (MX-1)
WM
Military Reserve ai
n
Mixed Use: General (MX-2)
St
Mixed Use: Active (MX-3)
W Em er al d St
Mixed Use: Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Node (MX-4)
3779 ft
Boise
W Franklin Rd
E
Mixed Use: University (MX-U)
W
Mixed Use: Health Services (MX-H)
m
84
Mixed Use: Downtown (MX-5)
ar
20
S p ri n g
84
SP-01
Hulls Gulch
SP-03
55
Meridian
W
N Cole Rd
N Cloverdale Rd
N Meridian Rd
Compact Residential (R-2)
nd
N Maple Grove Rd
N Linder Rd
N Locust Grove Rd
W McMillan Rd
hi
Traditional Residential (R-1C)
55
Industrial: Light (I-1)
sA
W Ove rland Rd
ve
Industrial: Heavy (I-2) Industrial: Technology (I-3)
E Victory Rd
S Cole Rd
S C l overdale Rd
ve
W Amity Rd
Boise Airport
n Rd
Barber Pool Reserve
ede
l Rd
ra l
W Lake Haz e
owe
SF
W G
S Ea g le Rd
i
A
2768 ft
E Bo
84
se
W Amity Rd S Meridian Rd
W Victory Rd
Way 21
69
L ucky 21
P ea k Res er v o i r
S Cloverdale Rd
3116 ft
84
3095 ft
Proposed Zoning Map - An interactive version of this map is also available at: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36920f8c19d749f2afda77d3f47a5922
0
1.5
3 Miles
[
Planning and Development Services Data Source: Feb 2023 Conversion Map 3/20/2023
blueprint Boise’s Comprehensive Plan
Boise
Publication Update: January 12, 2021 Boise City Planning and Development Services Department List of Amendments to Blueprint Boise since its adoption on November 29, 2011 1. Resolution #21500 CPA10-00002 Boise City Planning and Development Services Department requests approval of Blueprint Boise Comprehensive Plan as the Comprehensive Plan of Boise, Idaho; approving formal reasons for the decision; and providing an effective date of November 29, 2011. 2-A/B. Resolution #R-150-12 / R 21696 CPA11-00002 with CPA11-00001 Boise City Parks and Recreation Department requests approval of a text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt by reference the 2011 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Plan. Included in the 2011 Comprehensive Park and Recreation System Plan is the Parks and Recreation Long Range Capital Improvement Plan. The proposed land use assumptions and a copy of the proposed capital improvements plan are available upon request; and providing an effective date of April 24, 2012. 3. Resolution #R-299-12 / R 21845 CPA09-00001 Boise City Planning and Development Services Department requests approval of a text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt by reference the 30th Street Area Master Plan; approving formal reasons for the decision; and providing an effective date of August 28, 2012. 4. Resolution #R-368-12 CPA12-00001 Bradley B, LLC Amending the land use map of Blueprint Boise to change the land use category from Compact to Commercial for 5.58 acres of property in the City of Boise, generally located north of interstate I-84, south of West Malad Street, East of South Phillippi Street and West of South Orchard Street and providing an effective date of October 16, 2012. 5. Resolution # 121-13 CPA12-00003 City of Boise amending the text of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan by adding two new policies, NE-CCN 2.5, State Street Corridor (B), and NW-CCN 1.2 State Street Corridor (F) and by adding related text to Chapter 4 in the North End/East End Planning Areas; approving formal reasons for the decision; and providing an effective date of March 18, 2013. 6. Resolution #122-13 CPA12-00004 City of Boise amending the Boise City Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy, CB-C 1.4, to adopt the Central Bench Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan, and by adding related text to Chapter 4 in the Central Bench Planning Area; approving formal reasons for the decision; and providing an effective date of April 16, 2013. 7 . Resolution #123-13 CPA12-00005 City of Boise amending the text of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy, CEA 3.9, to adopt A Cultural Arts Plan for Boise’s 30th Street Neighborhood by reference, and by adding related text to chapter 4 of the North/East End Planning Areas; approving formal reasons for the decision; and providing an effective date of April 16, 2013.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
8. Resolution #481-13 CPA13-00001 City of Boise amending the text of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan by adding a new policy, DT-CCN 1.7 to adopt the Lusk Street Master Plan, and by adding related text to Chapter 4 in the Downtown Planning Area; approving formal reasons for the decision; and providing an effective date of December 17, 2013. 9. Resolution #85-14 CPA13-00002 City of Boise amending the text of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan by adding the Warm Springs Mesa Neighborhood Plan to the table of plans adopted by reference in the Table of Contents and by adding related text to Chapter 4 in the North/East End Planning Area; approving formal reasons for the decision; and providing an effective date of February 25, 2014. 10. Resolution #637-14 CPA14-00002 City of Boise amending the text of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan by adding the Boise River Resource Management and Master Plan to the table of plans adopted by reference in the Table of Contents; approving formal reasons for the decision; and providing an effective date of December 16, 2014. 11. Resolution #100-15 CPA14-00001 City of Boise amending the text of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan by adding the Central Addition Master Plan to the table of plans adopted by reference in the Table of Contents; approving formal reasons for the decision; and providing an effective date of March 3, 2015. 12. Resolution #136-15 CPA14-00003 Peterson Children Maple Grove, LLC amending the land use map of Blueprint Boise to change the land use category from Compact to Commercial for 2.06 acres of property in the City of Boise, generally located at 1225 North Maple Grove Road and providing an effective date of March 31, 2015. 13. Resolution #490-15 CPA14-00004 St. Luke’s Boise Medical Center requested the amendment to the text of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan by adding the St. Luke’s Health System Boise Facility Master Plan to the table of plans adopted by reference in the Table of Contents; and, adding a policy NE-CCN 2.2, approving formal reasons for the decision; and providing an effective date of October 13, 2015. 14. Resolution #1-16 CPA14-00004 City of Boise amending the text of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan by 1) adding the Open Space Matters - City of Boise Reserves Management Plan to the table of plans adopted by reference in the Table of Contents; 2) a text amendment to the List of Plan Adopted by Reference to allow minor amendments to adopted plans to be updated without amending the Comprehensive Plan; 3) a text amendment to Chapter 3, Pages 3-1 and 3-2, Land Use Map to allow parcels 1.5 gross acres or less in size the Land Use Designation need not be adhered to, provided other policies of the Blueprint Boise are found to support the proposed use; and approving formal reasons for the decision; and providing an effective date of January 5, 2016.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
15. Resolution #155-16 CPA15-00005 Boise State University amending the text of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan by adding the 2015 Boise State University Master Plan to the table of plans adopted by reference in the Table of Contents, and amending the Land Use Map to the boundaries depicted on the Revised Phase 1, Projects and Boundary Map; approving formal reasons for the decision; and providing an effective date of April 5, 2016. 16. Resolution #156-16 CPA15-00006 City of Boise amending the text of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan by adding Communities in Motion 2040 - Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan - Ada and Canyon Counties, Idaho, and to delete Communities in Motion Long-Range Regional Transportation Plan, and approving formal reasons for the decision; and providing an effective date of April 5, 2016. 17. Resolution #157-16 CPA15-00007 City of Boise amending the Land Use Map, Area of Impact boundaries, and the Comprehensive Planning areas of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan; approving formal reasons for the decision; and providing an effective date of April 5, 2016. 18. Resolution #211-16 CPA15-00009 City of Boise amending the text of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan by adding the 2015 Community Forestry Strategic Management Plan to the table of plans adopted by reference in the Table of Contents; adding a policy ES6.5; approving formal reasons for the decision; and providing an effective date of May 10, 2016. 19. Resolution #503-16 CPA16-00002 Maverik amending the land use map of Blueprint Boise to change the land use category from Large Lot to Commercial for 4.48 acres +/- of property located at 3194 South Cole Road, and providing an effective date of October 11, 2016. 20. Resolution #562-16 CPA16-00001 Devco, LLC amending the land use map of Blueprint Boise to change the land use category from Office to Mixed Use for 3.1 acres of property located at 2515 North Cole Road, and providing an effective date of November 15, 2016. 21. Resolution #579-16 CPA16-00003 City of Boise amending the text of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan by adding the 2016 Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Study, and the 2011 Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan - With 2015 Upadate, to the table of plans adopted by reference in the Table of Contents; adding a policy ES6.5; approving formal reasons for the decision; and providing an effective date of May 10, 2016. 22. Resolution #1-17 CPA15-00008 Corey Barton Homes, Inc., amending the text of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan by deleting policies SW-CCN 2.5 (a) and (b); approving formal reasons for the decision; and providing an effective date of January 10, 2017. 23. Resolution #135-17 CPA16-00005 City of Boise amending the text of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan by adding the The Downtown Parks and Public Spaces Master Plan to the table of plans adopted by reference in the Table of Contents; and providing an effective date of March 14, 2017.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
24. Resolution #145-17 CPA16-00004 City of Boise amending the text of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan by adding “Around the Next Turn: A 10-Year Management Plan for the Ridge to Rivers Trail System;” and adopt by reference the “Potential Public Preservation Sites” plan from February 1993; including various amedments in the plan text; and providing an effective date of March 21, 2017. 25. Resolution #200-17 CPA16-00006 City of Boise amending the text of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan by adding the Transportation Action Plan, to the table of plans adopted by reference in the Table of Contents; and providing an effective date of April 18, 2017. 26. Resolution #245-17 CPA16-00007 Devan Robnett amending the of Blueprint Boise to change the land use category from Suburban to Industrial for 2.58 acres +/- of property located at 2470 South Maple Grove Road, and providing an effective date of May 16, 2017. 27. Resolution #614-17 CPA17-00001 City of Boise amending the text of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan by adding the River Street Master Plan, to the table of plans adopted by reference in the Table of Contents; and providing an effective date of December 5, 2017. 28. Resolution #34-18 CPA17-00002 City of Boise amending the land use map of Blueprint Boise to change the land use category from Suburban to Mixed Use for 6.17 acres +/- of property at 1100 S. Five Mile Road; and providing an effective date of January 23, 2018. 29. Resolution #58-18 CPA18-00007 City of Boise amending the Boise City Comprehensive Plan to change the land use map designation of approximately 24 acres located at 5075 S. Holcomb Road from Industrial to Suburban Residential; and providing an effective date of July 24, 2018. 30. Resolution #59-18 CPA18-00005 City of Boise amending the Boise Comprehensive Plan to designate the East Main Street Historic District, generally located in the area of Idaho Street to the north, 2nd Street to the west, the buildings and property on the southern side of Main Street to the south, and 1st Street to the east, approving a comprehensive plan amendment to incorporate design guidelines for the designation of the new historic district; approving a rezone of 6.98 acres to R-OHD (Residential Office with Historic Design Review) and R-OHDD (Residential Office with Historic Downtown Design Review) and providing an effective date of January 8, 2019. 31. Resolution #301-18 CPA18-00002 Eric Hinderager amending the Boise Comprehensive Plan to change the land use map designation of approximately 6.9 acres located at 12451 W. Overland Road from Suburban to Commercial; and providing an effective date of July 24, 2018. 32. Resolution #302-18 CPA18-00001 Conger Management Group amending the Boise City Comprehensive Plan to change the land use map designation of approximately 24 acres located at 5075 S. Holcomb Road from Industrial to Suburban Residential; and providing an effective date of July 24, 2018.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
33. Resolution #106-19 CPA18-00009 City of Boise amending the text of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan to amend goals and policies and adopt the Central Bench Neighborhood Plan by reference; and providing an effective date of March 26, 2019. 34. Resolution #171-19 CPA18-00008 City of Boise amending the text of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan to amend goals and policies and adopt the East End Neighborhood Plan by reference; and providing an effective date of April 23, 2019. . 35. Resolution #521-19 CPA19-00002 City of Boise Jasmine Lane Area of Impact transfer between the City of Boise and the City of Meridian; authorizing the transfer of property on Jasmine Lane from the Boise Area of Impact to the Meridian Area of Impact; establishing conditions for the transfer related to comprehensive plan designation and conditions of development; and providing an effective date of October 29, 2019. 36. Resolution #33-21 CPA20-00001 City of Boise amending the Boise City Comprehensive Plan to adopt by reference 31plans; amending the comprehensive plan to retire 11 plans; amending the comprehensive plan to adopt five activity centers; amending the comprehensive plan to update the land use map and text references relative to the adopted and retired plans and the adopted activity centers; and providing an effective date of January 12, 2021. 37. Resolution #492-21 CPA21-00001 City of Boise amending the text of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan to amend goals and policies and adopt the North End Neighborhood Plan by reference; and providing an effective date of October 19, 2021. 38. Resolution #589-21 CPA21-00002 Boise Independent School District amending the land use map of Blueprint Boise to change the land use category from Education to Mixed Use for approximately 15 acres of property located at 8373 W Victory Road, and providing an effective date of December 14, 2021. 39. Resolution #553-21 CPA21-00003 City of Boise adjusting the Boise City Area of City Impact boundary, incorporating 8.93 acres, assigning an Industrial designation for property located at 4330 E Franklin Road; and providing an effective date of November 30, 2021. 40. Resolution #1-21 CPA21-00004 City of Boise validating conformity of the Urban Renewal Plan for the State Street District Urban Renewal Project with the Boise City Comprehensive Plan, and providing an effective date of September 13, 2021. 41. Resolution #113-21 CPA21-00005 City of Boise amending the text of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan to amend goals and policies and adopt the Boise Pathways Master Plan by reference; and providing an effective date of March 1, 2022.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
42. Resolution #158-22 CPA21-00006 City of Boise amending the text of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan to amend goals and policies and adopt the 2021 Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Study - Final Report -- Amended (2021) by reference; and providing an effective date of March 8, 2022.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Acknowledgements Mayor
David H. Bieter
City Council
Maryanne Jordan, Council President Alan Shealy, Council Pro Tem Elaine Clegg David Eberle Vern Bisterfeldt, former Council Member Jim Tibbs, former Council Member TJ Thomson Lauren McLean
Planning and Zoning Commission Doug Russell, Chair Brandy Wilson, Vice Chair Jennifer Stevens Doug Cooper Brian Ellsworth Gene Fadness Lauren McLean Anne Barker Tom Baskin Jay Story Joe Ryan, Youth Member Maureen Lavelle, Youth Member
Committee of Champions Miguel Legarreta Kerrie Quinn Clay Carley Mark Bowen Lauren McLean Steve Skaggs Candy Allphin Mark Hofflund Rob Howarth Don Kemper Sally Zive Dr. Stan Olson Dr. Linda Clark Stacy Pearson Brian McDevitt Julie Klocke
Ada County Association of Realtors Banner Bank Old Boise Historic District CH2M HILL Trillium Investments Deloitte US Bank Idaho Shakespeare Festival Central District Health Department Healthwise Incorporated United Way of the Treasure Valley Boise Independent School District Meridian Independent School District Boise State University Southeast Boise Neighborhood Association Collister Neighborhood Association
Neighborhood Council
Boise Heights Neighborhood Association Borah Neighborhood Association Central Bench Neighborhood Association Central Foothills Neighborhood Association Central Rim Neighborhood Association Collister Neighborhood Association Depot Bench Neighborhood Association Downtown Boise Neighborhood Association
BLUEPRINT BOISE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Downtown Business Association East End Neighborhood Association Harris Ranch Neighborhood Association Hillcrest Neighborhood Association Morris Hill Neighborhood Association North End Neighborhood Association Pioneer Neighborhood Association Riverland East Neighborhood Association South Boise Village Neighborhood Association Southeast Neighborhood Association Southwest Ada County Alliance Sunrise Rim Neighborhood Association Veterans Park Neighborhood Association Vista Neighborhood Association Warm Springs Mesa Neighborhood Association West Bench Neighborhood Association West Downtown Neighborhood Association West Valley Neighborhood Association
City Staff
Bruce Chatterton, AICP -Planning and Development Services Director Hal Simmons, Planning Director Patricia Nilsson, AICP Jennifer Tomlinson, AICP Dave Abo, AICP Colleen Carroll Bruce Eggleston, AICP Karen Gallagher Lucinda Grames (former) Deanna Gutierrez Matt Halitsky, AICP Joan Johnson Josh Johnson Kathleen Lacey Ryan McDaniel (former) David Moser Jim Pardy, PE Diane Perkins (former) Cody Riddle Susan Riggs Sarah Schafer Scott Spjute Todd Tucker Andrea Tuning Josh Wilson Sue Cummings
Consultants
Ben Herman, FAICP, Clarion Associates Darcie White, AICP, Clarion Associates Diane Kushlan, AICP, Planning and Management Services Amy Kacala, Clarion Associates Erica Heller, AICP, Clarion Associates Shay Ives, Clarion Associates Brant Birkeland, Clarion Associates Jeremy Klop, AICP, Fehr & Peers
BLUEPRINT BOISE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
BLUEPRINT BOISE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents Chapter 1: A Vision for Boise City Vision.................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Background.......................................................................................................................................................... 1-2 Blueprint Boise Objectives.................................................................................................................................. 1-2 ESTABLISH A CLEAR, SUSTAINABLE VISION FOR THE FUTURE................................................................................................ 1-2 ESTABLISH A STRONG LINKAGE BETWEEN LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION, AND URBAN DESIGN............................ 1-2 PROVIDE CLEAR GUIDANCE AT THE PLANNING AREA LEVEL................................................................................................. 1-3 SYNCHRONIZE REGULATIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY’S VISION......................................................................................... 1-3 State Requirements............................................................................................................................................. 1-3 Blueprint Boise Process........................................................................................................................................ 1-4 Relationship to The Boise City Zoning Ordinance............................................................................................ 1-5 Relationship to Ada County Planning Processes.............................................................................................. 1-6 Comprehensive Plan Amendments.................................................................................................................... 1-6 Monitoring the Comprehensive Plan................................................................................................................. 1-7
Chapter 2: Citywide Vision and Policies Quality of Life...................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Themes and Guiding Principles.......................................................................................................................... 2-1 How to Use This Chapter..................................................................................................................................... 2-5 #1: Environmental Stewardship........................................................................................................................ 2-8 PRINCIPLES, GOALS, AND POLICIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP..................................................................... 2-9 # 2: A Predictable Development Pattern........................................................................................................2-23 PRINCIPLES, GOALS, AND POLICIES FOR A PREDICTABLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN (PDP).......................................2-24 #3: A Community of Stable Neighborhoods and Vibrant Mixed-Use Activity Centers...............................2-33 PRINCIPLES, GOALS, AND POLICIES FOR STABLE NEIGHBORHOODS AND VIBRANT MIXED-USE ACTIVITY CENTERS (NAC).........................................................................................................................................................................................................2-34 #4: A Connected Community ..........................................................................................................................2-45 PRINCIPLES, GOALS, AND POLICIES FOR A CONNECTED COMMUNITY...........................................................................2-46 #5: A Community That Values Its Culture, Education, Arts and History.......................................................2-59 PRINCIPLES, GOALS, AND POLICIES FOR CULTURE, EDUCATION, ARTS & HISTORY (CEA).........................................2-60 #6: A Strong, Diverse Economy........................................................................................................................2-70 PRINCIPLES, GOALS, AND POLICIES FOR A STRONG, DIVERSE ECONOMY (EC).............................................................2-71 #7: A Safe, Health, and Caring Community.....................................................................................................2-76 PRINCIPLES, GOALS, AND POLICIES FOR A SAFE, HEALTHY, AND CARING COMMUNITY (SHCC)............................2-77
BLUEPRINT BOISE
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 3: Community Structure and Design Creating Places.................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 FUTURE LAND USE MAP...................................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Areas of Change and Stability............................................................................................................................ 3-3 Design Principles................................................................................................................................................. 3-4 GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES........................................................................................................................................................... 3-4 INFILL DESIGN PRINCIPLES................................................................................................................................................................. 3-4 Mixed-Use Activity Centers................................................................................................................................. 3-7 MIXED-USE ACTIVITY CENTER TYPES.............................................................................................................................................. 3-8 MIXED-USE LAND USE CATEGORIES..............................................................................................................................................3-11 MIXED-USE DESIGN PRINCIPLES.....................................................................................................................................................3-13 Neighborhoods..................................................................................................................................................3-17 NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE CATEGORIES..................................................................................................................................3-18 NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN PRINCIPLES.........................................................................................................................................3-23 Commercial/Employment Areas.......................................................................................................................3-29 COMMERCIAL/EMPLOYMENT AREA LAND USE CATEGORIES..............................................................................................3-30 COMMERCIAL/EMPLOYMENT AREA DESIGN PRINCIPLES......................................................................................................3-33 Public/Institutional Areas.................................................................................................................................3-37 PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL LAND USE CATEGORIES.....................................................................................................................3-38 AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA DESIGN PRINCIPLES......................................................................................................................3-42 Parks, Open Space, and Conservation Areas...................................................................................................3-43 PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND CONSERVATION LAND USE CATEGORIES.................................................................................3-44 Corridors............................................................................................................................................................3-47 CORRIDOR DESIGN PRINCIPLES......................................................................................................................................................3-49 Community Gateways.......................................................................................................................................3-53 GATEWAY DESIGN PRINCIPLES........................................................................................................................................................3-54 Special Districts and Master Plans...................................................................................................................3-56
Chapter 4: Planning Area Policies Planning Area Boundaries.................................................................................................................................. 4-1 Planning Area Policies......................................................................................................................................... 4-2 Areas of Change and Stability............................................................................................................................ 4-2 City Wide Context................................................................................................................................................ 4-2 POPULATION............................................................................................................................................................................................ 4-3 HOUSING................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-3 INCOME...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-4 EMPLOYMENT.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-4
ii
BLUEPRINT BOISE
TABLE OF CONTENTS Airport Planning Area Policies (AP)................................................................................................................ AP-1 FUTURE LAND USE MAP................................................................................................................................................................... AP-4 Barber Valley Planning Area Policies (BV).......................................................................................................BV-1 FUTURE LAND USE MAP.................................................................................................................................................................. BV-6 Central Bench Planning Area Policies (CB)......................................................................................................CB-1 FUTURE LAND USE MAP................................................................................................................................................................... CB-6 Downtown Planning Area Policies (DT)...........................................................................................................DT-1 FUTURE LAND USE MAP................................................................................................................................................................... DT-8 Foothills Planning Area Policies (FH).............................................................................................................. FH-1 FUTURE LAND USE MAP................................................................................................................................................................... FH-9 North/East End Planning Area Policies (NE)................................................................................................... NE-1 FUTURE LAND USE MAP................................................................................................................................................................... NE-6 Northwest Planning Area Policies (NW)........................................................................................................ NW-1 FUTURE LAND USE MAP................................................................................................................................................................. NW-5 Southeast Planning Area Policies (SE)............................................................................................................. SE-1 FUTURE LAND USE MAP....................................................................................................................................................................SE-5 Southwest Planning Area Policies (SW)..........................................................................................................SW-1 FUTURE LAND USE MAP.................................................................................................................................................................. SW-6 Ten Mile Creek Planning Area Policies (TM).................................................................................................TMC-1 FUTURE LAND USE MAP................................................................................................................................................................TMC-4 West Bench Planning Area Policies (WB)....................................................................................................... WB-1 FUTURE LAND USE MAP..................................................................................................................................................................WB-6
Chapter 5: Action Plan City Wide Actions................................................................................................................................................. 5-1 Theme #1: Environmental Stewardship............................................................................................................ 5-1 Theme #2: A Predictable Development Pattern............................................................................................... 5-4 Theme #3: A Community of Stable Neighborhoods and Vibrant Mixed-Use Activity Centers..................... 5-6 Theme #4: A Connected Community................................................................................................................. 5-6 Theme #5: A Community That Values Its Culture, Education, Arts, and History............................................ 5-8 Theme #6: A Strong, Diverse, Economy............................................................................................................ 5-9 Theme #7: A Safe, Healthy, and Caring Community......................................................................................5-10
Appendix A: Plans and Property Rights Plans and Property Rights..................................................................................................................................A-1
Appendix B: Glossary of Comprehensive Plan Terms Glossary................................................................................................................................................................B-1
Appendix C: Areas of Change and Stability Areas of Change and Stability............................................................................................................................C-1 BLUEPRINT BOISE
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables Table 1: Location of Required Elements in this Comprehensive Plan............................................................ 1-4 Table 2: Themes and Principles.......................................................................................................................... 2-6 Table 3: Level of Service for Community Services and Facilities Required Concurrent with the Issuance of any Development Permit................................................................................................................................. 2-29 Table 4: Level of Service for Community Services and Facilities for Planning Purposes........................... 2-30 Table 5: Types of Places and Applicable Land Use Categories....................................................................... 3-2 Table 6: 2009 Population Characteristics........................................................................................................ 4-3 Table 7: 2009 Household Characteristics......................................................................................................... 4-3 Table 8: 2009 Job and Workforce Characteristics............................................................................................ 4-4 Table 9: 2009 Income Characteristics............................................................................................................... 4-4 Table 10: Foothills Parks and Open Space Areas........................................................................................... FH-5 Table 11: Summary of Priority Action............................................................................................................. 5-11
List of Figures Figure 1: Fire Department Master Siting Plan............................................................................................... 2-31 Figure 2: Police District Map........................................................................................................................... 2-32 Figure 3: Boise Local Historic Districts........................................................................................................... 2-44 Figure 4: Master Street Map.............................................................................................................................2-49 Figure 5: Bicycle Network.................................................................................................................................2-54 Figure 6: School Districts and Facilities......................................................................................................... 2-66 Figure 7: Flood Hazards................................................................................................................................... 2-79 Figure 8: Wildland Urban Interface ................................................................................................................2-80 Figure 9: Potential Brownfield Sites............................................................................................................... 2-84 Figure 10: Parks and Recreation Plan............................................................................................................. 2-87 Figure 11: Pathway System ............................................................................................................................ 2-88 Figure 12: Future Land Use Map........................................................................................................................ 3-5 Figure 13: Airport Influence Areas ................................................................................................................. 3-41 Figure 14: Boise City Planning Areas............................................................................................................... 4-1 Figure 15: Barber Valley Environmental Features and Constraints............................................................. BV-9 Figure 16: Western Foothills........................................................................................................................... FH-6 Figure 17: Central Foothills............................................................................................................................. FH-7 Figure 18: Eastern Foothills............................................................................................................................ FH-8 Figure 19: Base Densities, Density Transfers, and Bonus Density Formulas for Open Space Preservation FH-15 Figure 20: Wildlife Habitat Areas.................................................................................................................. FH-16
iv
BLUEPRINT BOISE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF COMMON TERMS AND ACRONYMS The following terms and acronyms are used throughout this plan:
Ada County Highway Department (ACHD) Area of City Impact (AOCI) Around the Next Turn: A 10 Year Management Plan for the Ridge to Rivers Trail System (R2R) Bicycle Pedestrian Transition Plan (BPTP) Boise State University (BSU) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Capital City Development Corporation (CCDC) Code Enforcement Advisory Committee (CEAC) College of Western Idaho (CWI) Community Planning Association (COMPASS) Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) Floor Area Ratios (FARs) Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Livable Streets Design Guide (LSDG) National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) Transportation Management Association (TMA) Travel Demand Management (TDM) Treasure Valley Electric Plan (TVEP) Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Valley Regional Transit (VRT) Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
BLUEPRINT BOISE
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF PLANS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE
This table lists adopted plans inclusive of minor amendments, the date of which amendment(s) may not be listed. Major Plan Amendments shall be reflected on this table with the date of most recent adoption; Major plan amendments, as determined by the Planning Director, shall generally include the following: - Periodic updates (such as every five years) that are a statutory requirement of the legislation that requires the plan. - Complete or near complete rewriting and reformatting of the plan. - Significant expansion of the boundaries of the plan. - Significant changes in the policy direction of the plan. - Revisions to the Future Land Use Map. - Other changes deemed by the Planning Director to be significant. Plan
2016 Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Study - Final Report 2016 2021 Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Study - Final Report -- Amended (2021) 30th Street Area Master Plan A Cultural Arts Plan for Boise’s 30th Street Neighborhood
Lead Agency
Date Adopted
Boise City
2016
Boise City Boise City
2012
Boise City, West End Neighborhood
2012
Ada County Highway District East Boise Neighborhood Bicycle Ada County Highway District Fariview Avenye and Main Street Improvements and local Streets Plan Ada County Highway District Master Street Map Ada County Highway District North Boise Neighborhood Walking and Biking Plan Ada County Highway Distric Northwest Boise Neighborhood Walking and Biking Plan ACHD Pedestrian-Bicycle Transtion Plan
ACHD
2020
ACHD
2020
ACHD
2020
ACHD
2020
ACHD
2020
ACHD
2003
Ada County Highway District Roadways to Bikeways Plan Ada County Highway District Southeast Boise Neighborhood Walking and Biking Plan Ada County Highway District Southwest Boise Neighborhood Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Ada County Highway District Boise West Bench Neighborhood and Pedestrian Plan Ada County Highway District Boise Whitewater and VMP Neighborhood Plan Around the Next Turn: A 10 Year Management Plan for the Ridge to Rivers Trail System Barber Valley Specific Plan (SP02) Big Sky Neighborhood Plan
ACHD
2020
ACHD
2020
ACHD
2020
ACHD
2020
ACHD
2020
Boise City
1996, 2017
Boise City
2007
Boise City
2004
vi
BLUEPRINT BOISE
TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF PLANS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE Plan
Lead Agency
Date Adopted
Blueprint for Good Growth
Ada County
2006
Boise Airport Master Plan, 2019 Update Boise Airport Updated Noise Exposure Maps and Noise Compatibility Program Boise Pathways Master Plan Boise Central Bench Neighborhood Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan Boise’s Energy Future: A Community-wide Energy Plan Boise Fire Department Master Siting Plan Boise City Foothills Policy Plan Boise City Historic Preservation Plan Boise Downtown Urban Design Plan Boise Parks and Recreation Department Stewardship Plan for the Riparian Area Boise River Resource Management and Master Plan Boise River Trails Plan Boise State University Campus Master Plan
Boise City
2019
Boise City
2015
Boise City
2022
ACHD
2012
Boise City
2020
Boise City
2020
Boise City
1997
Boise City
1979
CCDC
2004
Boise City
2020
Boise City
2014
Boise City
2020
Boise State Univeristy
2005, 2016
Boise City
2007
Boise City
2015
Boise City, Central Bench Neighborhood
2019
Boise City, Central Rim Neighborhood
2004
Boise City
2020
Boise City
2008
Boise City, Collister Neighborhood
2007
COMPASS
2020
Boise City
2016
Boise City, Depot Bench Neighborhood
2007
CCDC
2007
Boise City
2020
VRT
2005
CCDC
1993
CCDC
2007
Boise City
2017
Boise’s Ten-year Plan to Reduce and Prevent Chronic Homelessness Central Addition Master Plan Central Bench Neighborhood Plan Central Rim Neighborhood Plan City of Boise’s Cultural Master Plan City of Boise Solid Waste Strategic Plan Collister Neighborhood Plan Communities in Motion 2040 2.0 Community Forestry Strategic Management Plan Depot Bench Neighborhood Plan Downtown Boise Elements of Continuity Downtown Boise Streetscape Standards and Specification Manual Downtown Boise Mobility Study Downtown Boise Plan Downtown Boise Streetscape Standards Downtown Parks and Public Spaces Master Plan
BLUEPRINT BOISE
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF PLANS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE Plan
Lead Agency
Date Adopted
East End Neighborhood Plan
Boise City, East End Neighborhood
2020
Eagle Road Corridor Project Development - Multiuse Pathway Improvement, Phase 1 and 2 Eagle Road Corridor Project Development - Multiuse Pathway Improvement, Phase 3 Groundwater Management Plan Harris Ranch Specific Plan (SP01) Highlands Neighborhood Plan
COMPASS (with ITD, Boise City)
2020
COMPASS (with ITD, Boise City)
2020
IDWR
1988, 2001
Boise City
2007
Boise City, Highlands Neighborhood
2005
Boise City
2006
ACHD
2009
Boise City
2013
St. Luke’s Hospital
1993, 2015
Boise City
2010
ACHD
2010
Boise City, North End Neighborhood
2021
Boise City, North West Neighborhood
2020
Hyde Park Conservation District Livable Streets Design Guide Lusk Street Master Plan Master Plan for St. Luke’s Health System Boise Facility Master Plan Update for Boise Airport Master Street Map North End Neighborhood Plan North West Neighborhood Plan Old Boise – East Side Master Plan Open Space Matters - City of Boise Reserves Management Plan
CCDC
2004
Boise City
2016
Oregon Trail Parkway Plan
Boise City
2001
Boise City, Original South Boise Neighborhood
2003
Boise City
2017
COMPASS
2020
Boise City
2017
CCDC
2004
ACHD
2007
PDS
1991
St. Alphonsus
2001
Boise CIty
2020
Boise City
2020
Boise City
2008
ACHD/VRT
2013
Original South Boise Neighborhood Plan Potential Public Preservation Sites Regional Rail with Trail Feasibility and Probable Cost Study River Street Master Plan River Street – Myrtle Street Master Plan Southwest Boise Transportation Study Southwest Community Comprehensive Plan St. Alphonsus Master Plan Shoreline Urban Renewal District Plan State Street Corridor Transit Oriented Development Plan State Street Corridor Transit Oriented Development Policy Guidelines State Street Transit and Traffic Operational Plan
viii
BLUEPRINT BOISE
TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF PLANS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE Plan
Lead Agency
Date Adopted
Sunrise Rim Neighborhood Plan
Boise City, Vista Neighborhood
2003
Sycamore Neighborhood Plan
PDS, Collister Neighborhood
1998
Boise City
2020
Boise City
2002
Boise City
2017
Boise City
1998
VRT
2020
Boise City, Veterans Park Neighborhood
1980
Boise City, Veterans Park Neighborhood
1999
Vista Vision Neighborhood Plan
Boise City, Vista Neighborhood
1999
Warm Springs Mesa Neighborhood Plan
Boise City, Warm Springs Mesa Neighborhood
2013
Boise City
2001
CCDC
2020
Boise City, West Downtown Neighborhood
2019
Syringa Valley Specific Area Plan (SP-03) The West Valley Community Center Plan Transportation Action Plan Ustick Concept Master Plan and Guiding Principles Valley Connect 2.0 Veterans Park Neighborhood Plan Veteran’s Park Neighborhood Policy Guide
Westside Downtown Framework Master Plan Westside Downtown District Refresh West Downtown Neighborhood Plan
BLUEPRINT BOISE
ix
FOREWORD
Foreword
Clarence Darrow on Boise, 1907: Boise was approached from the east through hundreds of miles of dreary, dusty desert with no living thing in sight but gophers and sage-brush. During the trip one deliberates whether to keep the car-window tightly closed and die for want of air or raise it ever so little and be suffocated with the clouds of powdered alkali. I always did both, one after the other. Through the whole region of desert waste, a long strip of green wound and twisted its tortuous way in loops and zigzags across the desolate plain ... As we neared Boise the scene changed. The fields were fresh and green, the orchards were luxuriant, the town was resplendent with lawns and flowers, shrubs and trees; the houses were neat and up-to-date. The Snake River had been intersected with dikes, which irrigated the barren wilderness and made it a beautiful garden-spot. The landscape was most pleasing, and out beyond, a circle of mountains enclosed the little city; so that after the long, wearisome journey Boise seemed like a bright green gem in a setting of blue. It is the capital of the State, with attractive public and private buildings, and a good library ... Boise had a pride in its town and people and culture, and could rightly be called the Athens of the sage-brush. Excerpted from “Athens of the Sage-Brush” in The Literature of Idaho: An Anthology, James H. Maguire, ed. (Boise: Hemingway Western Studies Center, Boise State University, 1986), pp. 168-172. Boise’s pride in its town, people, and culture is still evident more than100 years after Clarence Darrow’s visit. The expansive park and open space system, Boise River Greenbelt, foothills protection, diverse neighborhoods, numerous business start-ups and cultural activities don’t happen by accident but by the hard work and contributions of citizens. As Boise strives to be the most livable city in the United States, we continually set high standards for new growth. While many places are tempted to relax standards during uncertain economic times, our high expectations will hold value many decades later. This plan focuses on how to sustain the livability we enjoy today as Boise grows as an important regional center of housing and employment.
x
BLUEPRINT BOISE
FOREWORD
Eighth & Main, completed in 2014, is the tallest building in Idaho. The City Center Plaza, completed in 2016, is a monumental keystone element that ties Eighth & Main, the US Bank Plaza Tower, and the Boise Center on the Grove together. These projects, all developed by Gardner and Company, fully embody and implement the Blueprint Boise principles and policies of vibrant and sustainable Downtown.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
xi
A VISION FOR BOISE CITY
CHAPTER 1: A VISION FOR BOISE CITY Boise will continue to grow in stature as a world-class city with valued neighborhoods; outstanding natural, scenic, recreational, educational, historical, and cultural amenities; and economic vitality. Boise’s growth will happen in a sustainable, efficient, and responsible manner that maintains and enhances its treasured quality of life, while meeting the challenges of the future. Boise is committed to becoming a more sustainable community by taking steps to enhance the local, regional, and global environment. A sustainable community is one where the integrated economic, social, and environmental systems are structured to support healthy, productive, and meaningful lives for its residents, while laying the foundation for a high quality of life without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Boise will be known for: Environmental stewardship; A predictable development pattern; Stable neighborhoods and mixed-use activity centers; Being a connected community; Being a community that values its culture, education, arts, and history, Having a strong, diverse economy; and Being a safe, healthy, caring community.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
1-1
A VISION FOR BOISE CITY
Background Citizen input provided the basis for the city’s 1997 Comprehensive Plan and for the generalized vision that guided its development. Based on extensive community input received as part of recent regional planning efforts, such as the Blueprint for Good Growth and Communities in Motion, as well as part of the Blueprint Boise process, many of the ideals embedded in the 1997 vision still ring true. Those ideals have been expanded and refined in this updated Comprehensive Plan to reflect the changes that Boise City has experienced during the last ten years and those it is likely to face during the next ten to twenty years.
Blueprint Boise Objectives Four “big picture” objectives were identified to guide the Blueprint Boise process: Create a clear vision for the future;
Establish a strong linkage between land use, transportation, and urban design;
Provide clear guidance at the planning-area level; and
Synchronize regulations with the community’s vision.
An explanation of each objective is provided below. Create a clear vision for the future Although many of the vision, concepts and policies contained in the city’s 1997 plan remain valid today, newer concepts (e.g., transit-oriented development, mixed-use activity centers) introduced by recent regional planning efforts highlighted the need for Boise City to clearly define how regional policies would play out at a local level from a community vision, policy, and regulatory standpoint. In addition to unifying local and regional planning efforts, the Blueprint Boise process was also tasked with reinforcing the concept of Boise as a unified community in itself and defining a clear vision for the city’s future, both of which play a key role in helping to preserve the quality of life that residents value. Establish a strong linkage between land use, transportation, the environment, and urban design The need to define a more integrated approach to land use and transportation was a major objective
1-2
of the Blueprint Boise process. As with the vision, significant momentum had been established with regional efforts; however, additional work was needed to translate regional land use and transportation concepts, such as mixed-use activity centers and transit corridors, to Boise specifically. Because Boise City streets fall under the jurisdiction of the Ada County Highway District (ACHD), close coordination was and will continue to be required. To help address these and other issues, ACHD developed a plan for the implementation of the Blueprint for Good Growth effort entitled the Transportation and Livable Streets Design Guide (LSDG). Coordination with ACHD on LSDG occurred throughout the Blueprint Boise process and a foundation established for the two plans to work in unison once complete. Boise City residents clearly value the livability and character of their community. While a strong emphasis has been placed in recent years on the design and character of the urban fabric within downtown, the role of urban design in other areas of the community has been less clear. The importance of linking urban design with Blueprint Boise planning efforts was raised within the context of ensuring future growth is supportive of mass transit (e.g., density in appropriate locations, pedestrian-oriented design, public spaces) as well as a means of ensuring that future infill is viewed as a positive rather than a negative change within the city’s existing fabric. Provide clear guidance at the planning-area level Although the role of the Comprehensive Plan is primarily to address citywide planning issues, it sometimes can be challenging to reassure neighborhoods about the impacts—or lack thereof— of citywide policies on their area of the city. To help increase the level of predictability for Boiseans about the potential for future changes in their “backyards” and steer the development community to areas where future development activity may be most desirable, the Blueprint Boise process was designed to proactively seek feedback from residents in different planning areas. Feedback received as a result of this targeted outreach strategy was used to develop the more detailed policies for each planning area contained in Chapter 4. Although each planning area is distinct in its character and specific issues, planning area policies are clearly linked to the citywide vision and policies contained in Chapter 2.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
A VISION FOR BOISE CITY Synchronize regulations with the community’s vision The city’s limited set of land use tools has led to uncertainty for both neighborhood residents and the development community and often resulted in unwarranted controversy for projects that were supported by the 1997 Comprehensive Plan. In order to make sure the city had the right tools in place to implement its new Comprehensive Plan, Boise City committed to take on an update of its Development Code concurrently. This ambitious effort demonstrates Boise’s strong commitment to the implementation of the community’s vision and the overall health of the region.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
State Requirements In addition to this introduction, the Comprehensive Plan is organized into four chapters that address the 13 elements mandated by Section 67-6508 of the Idaho State Code. Table 1 on the following page identifies chapter locations for each state-mandated element. Many of the elements are addressed to some degree in multiple locations throughout the plan. Table 1 on the following page identifies locations within the plan where each element is most directly addressed.
1-3
A VISION FOR BOISE CITY
TABLE 1: LOCATION OF REQUIRED ELEMENTS IN THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Blueprint Boise Process Extensive public outreach was conducted as part of the Blueprint Boise process. Outreach efforts focused at several levels to ensure different geographic areas of the community and different interest groups were represented, as well. In addition to feedback received during the many community meetings and from the project website, the following groups met regularly with the project team:
1-4
Committee of Champions A Committee of Champions was appointed by the Mayor and endorsed by the City Council to serve as a sounding board for the planning team throughout the development of the plan—reviewing draft work products and providing strategic direction to the process. The Committee included a diverse group of community leaders with the proven ability to provide strategic direction and leadership in their particular area of expertise. Committee members
BLUEPRINT BOISE
A VISION FOR BOISE CITY provided representation in the areas of health care, education, real estate, neighborhoods, development, engineering, and many others.
A Neighborhood Council helped shape the Comprehensive Plan during numerous workshops held as part of the planning process. Neighborhood Council A Neighborhood Council was established to review draft work products and provide feedback on issues specific to each of the city’s eleven planning areas. The Council was composed of neighborhood representatives in each planning area. Materials for Neighborhood Council meetings were tailored to each planning area to allow for focused input. In addition, planners from Planning and Development Services were appointed to each Planning Area to work directly with residents and neighborhood representatives. Materials provided at meetings were also made available to neighborhood groups that wished to seek input and have discussions with other residents in their neighborhood outside of the Council meetings.
Ordinance Review Committee An Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) was established to provide targeted input on the Development Code update portion of the Blueprint Boise process. The ORC consists of 28 members representing a cross-section of professionals who use the code on a regular basis, such as architects, engineers, developers, and surveyors, as well as representatives at the neighborhood level, Boise City staff, and elected officials. During the Comprehensive Plan process, the ORC met as often as bi-monthly and focused primarily on the reorganization of the existing code. The group will also play a key role in the Blueprint Boise process by providing feedback on substantive updates to the reorganized code that will be needed to implement many of the concepts in this Comprehensive Plan. Planning and Zoning Commission/ City Council Study Sessions Joint and individual study sessions with the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission were held at key points during the process. Sessions were used by the project team to provide progress updates, present preliminary findings and alternative solutions, and to seek policy and regulatory direction. Project updates, meeting announcements and results, interim work products, and on-line surveys and other input tools were also posted on the city’s website for those not able to attend meetings.
Relationship to the Boise City Zoning Ordinance
Section 67-6511 of the Idaho State Code states that “zoning districts shall be in accordance with the adopted plan.” Since the principal method for the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan is the city’s Zoning Ordinance, the term “in accordance with” is defined as follows: A development approved or undertaken shall be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, capacity or size, timing, and other aspects of the development are compatible with and further the goals, objectives, policies, and programs of the Comprehensive Plan as it existed on the date of the application to the City.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
1-5
A VISION FOR BOISE CITY
Relationship to Ada County Planning Processes Over the last twenty years, Ada County has adopted the Boise City Comprehensive Plan to apply to lands outside the Boise City Limits but within the Area of City Impact (AOCI). The AOCI is an area where the city expects to annex, and its creation is governed by the provisions of Idaho Code 67-6528. Boise City and Ada County have a mutually adopted agreement on the administration of land use decisions with the AOCI. In addition to the application of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan to land use decisions, other important provisions include a requirement that development adjacent to city limits must first request annexation to Boise City, the imposition of police, fire and park impact fees, and the processes for mutual amendments to the city and county comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. With an AOCI, land use authority is still retained by Ada County. Boise City will recommend the county apply whichever existing zoning standards and reasonable conditions that the county has at it’s disposal to most closely match the intent of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan. The City of Boise operates and maintains a public sewer system both inside and outside the Boise City Limits. Boise City desires to use existing sewer to the greatest extent possible while minimizing the expense of new pipeline construction. To that end, when development is proposed within the Area of City Impact, Boise City will require a recommendation of approval by the Boise City Council and confirmation of the County adopting the Boise City Council’s recommended conditions of approval prior to approval of sewer extension within the impact area. The Boise City Council recommendation is based on compliance of the proposal with the Comprehensive Plan. The city will also work with Ada County in an effort to develop complementary implementing ordinances. Annual city reviews of the Comprehensive Plan shall evaluate goals and polices in light of any newly adopted County or regional plans or studies and the city will seek to amend the Comprehensive Plan as appropriate to remain consistent with those studies. In 2008 the Blueprint for Good Growth Consortium of local elected officials adopted a standardized process to guide the expansion of areas of city impact. The primary goal is to ensure that cities expand only when appropriate levels of urban services are planned and/ or provided within a reasonable time.
1-6
Comprehensive Plan Amendments The Comprehensive Plan text and map may be amended as provided by Section 67-6509 of the Idaho Code and the Boise City Zoning Ordinance. No amendment to the Comprehensive Plan shall be recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission or approved by the Mayor and City Council unless such an amendment is internally consistent with the other components of the Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Map and the goals, objectives and policies of the plan, or the amendment is also designed to change goals, objectives, and policies of the plan in such as way as to maintain internal consistency. Any amendment proposed that is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan shall include proposed additions, revisions, or deletions to the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend map amendments to the plan to the Mayor and City Council not more frequently than every six months. Plan Amendment Criteria A plan amendment may be approved if the City Council makes the following specific findings: That the amendment is required for the public convenience or necessity, or for the general welfare of the community; and
That the amendment is necessary to address changes in conditions within the community that have occurred since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted; or is necessary to correct one or more deficiencies that exist in the Plan;
That the amendment is in compliance with and will further the goals, objectives and policies of the Plan; and
That the amendment will not create inconsistencies between the goals, objectives and policies within or between any chapter of the Plan; and
That the amendment will not place an undue burden on transportation or other public facilities in the planning area, and does not adversely impact the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
A VISION FOR BOISE CITY
Monitoring the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan should be reviewed annually and revised as necessary to reflect the availability of new implementation tools, changes in state and federal law, changes in funding sources, and the results of monitoring the effectiveness of existing polices and the impacts of past decisions. In addition to reporting on the above elements, the annual review process should include a component addressing the progress of other plans and studies that are related to the Comprehensive Plan. In concert with the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission, the Planning and Development Services Department shall report annually to the council on the status of the plan and progress made in its implementation. Annual reviews of the Comprehensive Plan should include an element detailing activities associated with updates to the Zoning Ordinance. The Housing Element must be reviewed every year as required by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in conjunction with the update of the Consolidated Housing Plan and revised as necessary to reflect new conditions, shifting local attitudes, and technological advances.
Plan Organization and Administration Following this introduction, there are four chapters that constitute this plan as follows: Chapter 2: Citywide Vision and Policies – outlines the city’s vision for the future through seven themes with corresponding principles, goals, and policies.
Chapter 3: Community Structure and Design – includes the Future Land Use Map and describes the types of places the community would like to promote. This chapter also includes design principles to guide future development in each of these places.
Chapter 4: Planning Area Policies – includes the future land use, goals, and policies for Boise City’s 11 planning areas.
Chapter 5: Action Plan – defines priority actions to facilitate the implementation of this plan over the next one to three years.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
In addition to the above chapters, there are three appendices. Appendix A describes property rights applicable to this plan as prescribed by the Fifth Amendment to the United Stated Constitution and State Regulations. Appendix B serves as a glossary of terms used in this Comprehensive Plan. Appendix C contains the Area of Change and Stability Maps for all 11 planning areas. The city’s official Future Land Use Map is available through the Planning and Development Services Department and on the city’s website.
A Note About Specificity As discussed in this chapter, this Comprehensive Plan was developed based on input from a wide range of participants over several years. It contains many new policies to reflect this broad input, but also carries forward many policies that were included in the 1997 Comprehensive Plan and remain valid today. As a result, the reader may notice that policies vary, sometimes significantly, in their level of specificity. This variation is intentional—it reflects the many voices that have helped shape this plan, highlights particular areas of focus for the community where additional specificity was needed, and reinforces the ongoing evolution of the city’s growth and policy direction.
1-7
A VISION FOR BOISE CITY
The Boise Airport Terminal, 2015, is a major element of the region’s economy. The passenger terminal complex, completed in 2005, consists of three primary components—the main terminal, one connected concourse, and an integrated ground load concourse—with a total area of approximately 418,000 square feet and 22 aircraft gates in all.
1-8
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
Chapter 2: Citywide Vision and Policies Quality of Life When asked to describe what they value about their community, residents of Boise City resoundingly responded—quality of life. While “quality of life” can mean different things to different people—whether views of the foothills, a quiet neighborhood, safety, access to parks and recreation, good schools, cultural amenities, being able to walk to work, frequent transit service, or something altogether different—Boise City residents were able to agree on seven common themes that will help protect their quality of life as the city prepares to welcome many new residents over the next ten to 20 years. As noted in Chapter 1, these seven themes represent the city’s vision for the future. Of equal weight and in no particular order, the seven themes are as follows: #1: Environmental Stewardship; #2: A Predictable Development Pattern; #3: A Community of Stable Neighborhoods and Vibrant Mixed-Use Activity Centers; #4: A Connected Community; #5: A Community that Values its Culture, Education, Arts, and History; #6: A Strong, Diverse Economy; and, #7: A Healthy, Safe, and Caring Community. The process of achieving this vision will be approached holistically—not as a series of separate actions. In many cases, some rely directly on others; for example, the city will not be able to achieve its goal of protecting air quality if its land use decisions do not support increased transit usage and ultimately reduce vehicle miles traveled. Nor will the process of achieving this vision be something the city can accomplish through its actions alone. The ideals set forth by the community for Boise City clearly reinforce the ideals captured by regional planning efforts such as Blueprint for Good Growth, Communities in Motion, and the Transportation and the Livable Streets Design Guide that preceded or paralleled this planning effort. As a result, their applicability does not end at the city’s Area of City Impact (AOCI) boundary. Implementation of
BLUEPRINT BOISE
these ideals will require continued diligence and cooperation on the part of Boise City and its many regional partners. The reward for these efforts will be a better quality of life—not just for Boise residents, but for residents throughout the Treasure Valley. Because the themes are closely interrelated, a balanced approach to decision-making should be employed in the day-to-day application of this Comprehensive Plan. Careful consideration should be given to the extent to which each decision relates to one or more of the seven themes. Generally, decisions should be supportive of the overall philosophy embodied in each theme.
Themes and Guiding Principles An overview of each theme and its corresponding guiding principles is provided below.
#1: ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP Boise is committed to becoming a more sustainable community by taking steps to reduce its impact on the environment. In addition to establishing a strong foundation for a more sustainable pattern of growth through its land use and transportation policies, the city will also strive to address many other aspects of sustainability, such as climate change, air and water quality, waste reduction, energy conservation and alternative energy production, and the protection of environmentally sensitive areas, within the context of its comprehensive plan and development code. Boise City is committed to “think globally” and “act locally” by doing its part to address these issues.
2-1
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES Goals and policies to further Boise’s commitment to becoming a more sustainable community are based on the following principles: Preserve and enhance natural resources; Promote the use of environmentally -friendly development practices; Promote energy conservation and alternative energy production; Preserve opportunities for urban agriculture; Inform and educate members of the community on their role in a sustainable future; and Monitor progress towards becoming a more sustainable community.
#2: A PREDICTABLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN Boise will strive to maintain a predictable development pattern in which each part of the community has a distinct character and style. Growth will be planned in a manner that protects the quality of life valued by the city’s residents and helps the city maintain fiscal health. The city will be home to a range of housing choices, retail and service uses, and employment centers that serve the community’s needs. Activity centers throughout the city have been chosen for their ability to potentially reduce vehicle miles traveled by single occupant vehicles, resulting in an increase in pedestrian/bicycle travel and transit users. This objective must be approached at both the local and regional levels. At a local level, the city will reinforce the region’s goal of promoting more responsible growth by identifying opportunities for infill and redevelopment within established parts of the city and encouraging a more compact pattern of new growth throughout the AOCI. At a regional level, the city will continue to work with its regional
2-2
partners to promote an integrated approach to land use and transportation planning. Goals and policies to achieve a predictable development pattern are derived from the following principles: Encourage compact growth; Plan for and coordinate growth within the city’s AOCI; and Use and expand public facilities and services efficiently.
#3: A COMMUNITY OF STABLE NEIGHBORHOODS AND VIBRANT MIXED-USE ACTIVITY CENTERS Boise residents value the safety, quality, and character of their neighborhoods and the accessibility of parks, open space, and basic services. New neighborhoods will incorporate the best features of the city’s existing neighborhoods and be integrated with the surrounding community; be developed to include a mix of housing types and a pedestrian-oriented scale; and have access to a mixed-use activity center and indoor and outdoor spaces for residents to gather. Existing auto-oriented commercial centers will be revitalized as mixed-use activity centers over time to serve adjacent neighborhoods, increase housing options, and establish a more transit-supportive pattern of growth. Historic resources will be protected and enhanced as an important component of the city’s past and future. Goals and policies to achieve stable neighborhoods and vibrant activity centers are derived from the following principles: Ensure neighborhoods are served by a hierarchy of mixed-use activity centers including schools;
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
Protect stable neighborhoods; Provide a variety of housing choices; Emphasize the importance of high-quality urban design in the built environment; and Protect the city’s historic resources.
Finally, the city will support social connectivity in the community through its ongoing support of various social service organizations and by encouraging land use patterns and creating gathering places that attract people and promote social interaction. Goals and policies that promote a physically, technologically, and socially connected community are based on the following principles: Promote an integrated approach to land use and transportation planning; Expand the city’s non-motorized transportation options; Expand the city’s transit options; and Support technological and social connectivity.
#4: A CONNECTED COMMUNITY To residents of Boise, being a “connected community” extends beyond the physical connections implied by multi-modal transportation objectives. It encompasses a community that is connected technologically and socially as well. As a region, Boise and its partners have indicated a desire to strive for a connected Treasure Valley that provides safe and efficient facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, and transit. The city also acknowledges the important role that transportation plays in its long- term sustainability. The city will further these objectives first through ongoing regional coordination and thoughtful land use decisions that support the expansion of the region’s transit and pathways network over time, encouraging the use of a wide range of travel options, and promoting an overall reduction in regional traffic congestion and vehicle miles traveled. Second, the city will encourage continued expansion of a reliable technology infrastructure to serve and connect the community. Continued expansion of the city’s technology infrastructure will increase access to information and foster better communication between residents, businesses, institutions, and city government. Better technology connections will increase areas within the city where residents have the capability to work from home or in a live/work setting.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
#5: A COMMUNITY THAT VALUES ITS CULTURE, EDUCATION, ARTS AND HISTORY The quality of Boise’s cultural and performance facilities is a source of community pride. Arts and culture, including visual arts, performing arts, and local history, are integral to the city’s community identity and can be found in community celebrations and events, neighborhoods, and public institutions. The city noted the importance of supporting cultural endeavors when it created the Department of Arts and History in March 2008. Similarly, educational facilities are a source of great pride for residents, including the city’s public and private schools as well as Boise State University, Idaho State University, and University of Idaho.
2-3
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES Goals and policies to promote the role of cultural activities, education, arts, and history in Boise are based on the following principles: Reinforce the role of visual and performing arts and history within the community; Support the development of public spaces that promote community gatherings and cultural events; Promote quality schools to serve the community; Support institutions of higher education that meet the changing needs of Boise’s residents and business community; and Provide high-quality library services for city residents.
the economy. Examples of activities directed at economic development include allocating land for employment and commercial uses and planning for infrastructure needed to support such uses. Examples of activities with secondary benefits for economic development include providing an efficient and diverse transportation system that includes high-frequency transit, supporting the arts and cultural activity, encouraging high-quality schools, planning for a range of housing needs, promoting the creation of mixed-use activity centers throughout the community, and providing parks and recreational opportunities that improve quality of life and community health and make Boise attractive to employers. Goals and policies in this chapter are centered on the following principles: Maintain and enhance the city’s primary job base diversity; Leverage the city’s concentration of state and federal activities; and Reinforce the role of Downtown Boise as the city, state’s, and region’s civic, cultural, and employment center.
#6: A STRONG DIVERSE ECONOMY Boise serves as the economic hub of southwest Idaho—providing financial, medical, and commercial services for the most populous part of the state. The city should strive to maintain its current position and continue to identify opportunities to strengthen the economic base of the community. Additional efforts should continue to focus on Downtown, which is recognized as a unique area of the community whose long-term health and viability are critical to the economic success of the community and region. Opportunities to diversify the city’s economic base through the retention and expansion of smaller, “knowledge-based” and cottage industries should also be encouraged, in addition to supporting the region’s larger employers. The city and its citizens will foster a strong and diverse economy through activities that are directly targeted at economic development as well as those undertaken for other reasons that also strengthen
2-4
#7: A SAFE, HEALTHY, AND CARING COMMUNITY Boise residents rely on the city’s police and fire departments to keep them safe and to protect their property. Monitoring existing growth patterns and carefully planning for future growth helps to ensure that the city’s emergency personnel have the equipment and manpower necessary to respond to calls throughout the community. Careful planning also ensures that the city’s neighborhoods, schools, work places, and other gathering places are sited so as to minimize risks to life and property from natural hazards such as flooding and wildfires.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES In addition to ensuring the safety of the community, Boise seeks to promote the health and wellness of its residents by ensuring health care services are accessible to the community, encouraging active lifestyles, and by ensuring residents have access to a range of indoor and outdoor recreational activities. Lastly, Boise strives to be a caring community—a community that values the health and wellness of each of its residents and that seeks to provide the range of social services necessary to address a full spectrum of need. Goals and policies in this chapter are based on the following principles: Protect life and property from natural hazards; Promote a safe community; Promote active living and healthy lifestyles; Provide access to health care services; and Support a range of health and social services.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
How to Use this Chapter This chapter contains the citywide principles, goals, and policies that will guide Boise City in its decision making over the next ten to 20 years. Each of the comprehensive plan elements required by Idaho statutes is addressed within the context of the seven themes described above, as identified in Table 1. Table 2 illustrates the interconnected nature of the themes and the principles that accompany them. Many of the goals and policies listed under a particular theme support more than one theme. This table is intended as a tool for quickly locating policies related to a specific topic. These citywide policies are intended to be applied in conjunction with the Land Use Plan and design principles contained in Chapter 3 and the planning area policies contained in Chapter 4.
2-5
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
Table 2: Themes and Principles
2-6
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
BLUEPRINT BOISE
2-7
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
#1: Environmental Stewardship
Boise is committed to becoming a more sustainable community by taking steps to reduce its impact on the environment. A sustainable community is one where the economic, social, and environmental systems are in balance, so as to provide a healthy, productive, and meaningful life for its residents without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Many aspects of sustainability—energy, climate change, biodiversity—are viewed as global in nature, and it can be challenging to envision how local planning policies can affect these issues in a meaningful way. In actuality, the cumulative effects of local and regional decisions play a significant role in the sustainability not only of the community but the entire planet. Traditional elements of the city’s comprehensive plan, such as land use, transportation, growth management, and environmental protection, provide a foundation for establishing a more sustainable pattern of growth at the local level. It is
2-8
within the context of these traditional comprehensive plan elements that issues such as climate change, air and water quality, waste reduction, energy conservation, and alternative energy production should be considered. Boise City is committed to “think globally” and “act locally,” by doing its part to address these issues. Goals and policies to further Boise’s commitment to becoming a more sustainable community are based on the following principles: Preserve and enhance natural resources; Promote the use of environmentally-friendly development practices; Promote energy conservation and alternative energy production; Preserve opportunities for urban agriculture; Inform and educate members of the community on their role in a sustainable future; and Monitor our progress towards a more sustainable community.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Principles, Goals, and Policies for Environmental Stewardship (ES): PRESERVE AND ENHANCE NATURAL RESOURCES Preservation of the city’s natural resources—air, water, and environmentally sensitive areas—is a key factor in promoting sustainability and protecting quality of life. Efforts to manage the surrounding foothills and the Boise River corridor in a sustainable manner have already been under way for several years. Building on these successes, the city will continue to preserve the economic, social, and environmental resources associated with the large tracts of land in the foothills and in high desert areas and riparian and flood prone areas. In addition, the city realizes numerous and significant benefits from the protection of human health and the environment, particularly related to air and water quality. Goal ES1: Protect and enhance air quality and minimize health hazards associated with air pollution.
ES1.3: REGIONAL AWARENESS Coordinate with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), local jurisdictions, the Ada County Air Quality Board, the Clean Cities Coalition and the ACHD to: Raise awareness about ozone issues; Work toward a better understanding of local ozone issues; and Develop necessary control measures. ES1.4: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS Promote compact, walkable development patterns that support transit and reduce carbon emissions from vehicles and discourage development patterns that rely solely on vehicles for transportation in an effort to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Clean air is vital to a healthy community. ES1.1: BURNING BANS Publicize voluntary burning bans when PM2.5 exceeds 80 micrograms per centimeter (mcg/cm) and require compulsory no-burn days when PM2.5 levels exceed 100 mcg/cm. ES1.2: VEHICLE EMISSIONS (a) Support emission testing programs in seeking new technologies for testing and reducing vehicle emissions. (b) Coordinate with ACHD and Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) to improve traffic flow and minimize vehicle time spent idling and accelerating. (c) Support anti-idling programs throughout the Treasure Valley.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Goal ES2: Protect surface water quality by enhancing natural watershed processes and promoting efficient water use. ES2.1: STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT (a)Encourage high-quality design and maintenance of stormwater management infrastructure and development of practices to significantly reduce runoff, erosion, and flooding, and to meet other drainage management needs. Design should include wetland restoration where appropriate. (b)Explore opportunities for a comprehensive green streets program and the benefits associated with replacing detention pond standards with standards for green streets. ES2.2: STORMWATER CONVEYANCE PROTECTION
(a) Support strategies for flood mitigation in flood-prone areas, such as the creation of flood storage areas. (b) Pursue the restoration of floodplains and flood
2-9
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES conveyance capacities, with preferences given to non-structural and vegetated stabilization measures (e.g., setbacks, preservation of riparian areas and other types of open space). ES2.3: INTRA-JURISDICTION COORDINATION AND COOPERATION (a) Support intra-jurisdictional efforts to aggressively pursue treatment of pollutants on site or through natural filtration and management of urban runoff. (b) Identify and develop funding mechanisms to plan, construct, monitor, map, maintain, improve, expand, operate, and inspect stormwater infrastructure.
ES2.7: PRESERVE NATIVE VEGETATION LAND COVER AND FUNCTION Pursue land use action to preserve a high percent of native vegetation and encourage appropriate use of native landscape materials; support landscape areas that minimize polluted runoff and mimic natural watershed processes. ES2.8: REDUCE POLLUTANTS IN STORMWATER Minimize sources of water pollutants in urban runoff through stormwater retention, on-site water treatment technologies, and the implementation of pollution prevention programs.
ES2.4: EFFICIENT WATER USE AND REUSE (a) Encourage efficient water use and reuse within for all development. (b) Support the co-location of infiltration infrastructure into landscaping as a method to “stack” multiple environmental and economic benefits. ES2.5: MINIMIZE URBAN RUNOFF Encourage aggressive use of “green infrastructure” that maximizes stormwater retention on-site and land development designs for urban runoff that minimize flooding and the need for additional or expanded flood control and conveyance facilities. ES2.6: HIGH-FLOW CONVEYANCE MANAGEMENT & PROTECTION Support the application of best conventional engineering to manage high flows and associated efforts to replace, repair, and improve aging stormwater infrastructure.
On-site retention helps purify water before it becomes ground water.
Goal ES3: Protect groundwater quality and quantity. ES3.1: GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PLAN Participate with the state in implementing the Groundwater Protection Plan and adopt appropriate implementing ordinances. ES3.2: GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT Protect identified groundwater management areas, including the Southeast Boise Groundwater Management Area and Boise Front Groundwater Management Area, through proper land use and site planning. Development in these areas must comply with the adopted management plans and policies as applicable.
Native vegetation helps purify water and minimizes water pollution.
2-10
ES3.3: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Promote implementation of Best Management Practices for residential, commercial, industrial, and construction activities to protect ground water quality. BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP ES3.4: LANDSCAPE MATERIALS (a) Promote landscape plant materials that require minimal use of pesticides and fertilizers. (b) Encourage use of organic pesticides and fertilizers to reduce impacts on area groundwater. ES3.5: AQUIFER RECHARGE (a) Explore the contribution of unlined irrigation canals and drainage ditches in aquifer recharge and coordinate with the drainage districts and canal companies to ensure that these facilities remain unlined. (b) Support the use and preservation of natural ground water resources for recharge. ES3.6: CITY OPERATIONS (a) Explore the expansion of Integrated Pest Management practices to all city-owned properties. (b) Develop specific goals for the reduction of pesticides.
Goal ES4: Identify areas of groundwater contamination and support remediation where feasible. ES4.1: CONTAMINATION STATUS AND RESPONSE Assess areas of potential groundwater contamination and assist all appropriate agencies in prompt, adequate, and efficient response to incidents of contamination. ES4.2: REMEDIATION AGREEMENTS Review all development applications for evidence of groundwater contamination sources. If contamination is found, require the developer to work with the state to prepare a remediation agreement. ES4.3: WELLHEAD PROTECTION Coordinate with the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) and IDEQ in the identification of wellhead protection areas and apply principles for wellhead protection through the subdivision plat review process. ES4.4: INTERAGENCY RESPONSE Facilitate interagency responses to groundwater issues within the AOCI.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Goal ES5: Reduce the amount of solid waste being landfilled or incinerated. ES5.1: SOLID WASTE STRATEGIC PLAN Implement the city’s Solid Waste Strategic Plan, specifically recommendations related to: Waste reduction and recycling; Waste transfer; Promotion, education, and outreach; and Administration/organization. ES5.2: WASTE STREAM REDUCTION Reduce the community’s solid waste stream through the implementation of the 2008 Solid Waste Management Plan. Community goals for waste stream reduction are as follows: 30% diversion rate by 2012; 50% diversion rate by 2016; and 70% diversion rate by 2020. ES5.3: CITY OPERATIONS Reduce waste and lead by example in the city’s dayto-day operations by creating a waste reduction plan for city government. ES5.4: COMPOSTABLE MATERIALS Support composting through: Seasonal collection programs for yard waste and Christmas trees; Coordination with Ada County to periodically evaluate the benefits of collecting compostable materials using the current EPA model for greenhouse gases; and/or Creation of permanent community compost sites if further reduction of the city’s carbon footprint would be achieved. ES5.5: HAZARDOUS WASTE Offer curbside hazardous waste collection to ensure the proper disposal of materials. ES5.6: INTERAGENCY COOPERATION Support planning and implementation of solid waste management programs through interagency cooperative efforts. Research the role of the City in Ada County’s Eco-park efforts.
2-11
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
Goal ES6: Promote a healthy urban forest to enhance the city’s environment, air quality, and appearance.
The city’s urban forest improves the appearance and energy efficiency of the built environment, improves air quality, and enhances the overall character of the community. ES6.1: TREE CANOPY Complete a citywide tree canopy analysis to identify where significant gaps exist and trees are most needed to shade streets and parking lots. Based on the analysis: Develop a strategy for the city’s tree canopy to increase shade in the public right-of-way; Focus tree planting efforts, such as ReLeaf Boise, in areas demonstrated to have the greatest need; and Develop educational materials on the benefits of maintaining tree canopy on private property by using Class II and III trees. ES6.2: MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION Rehabilitate, restructure, and enhance the public urban forest through efforts to: Preserve healthy specimens of mature, robust, and long-living species; Ensure the health and survival of all intermediate-aged trees; Plant new juvenile trees to increase the quantity, distribution, and diversity of trees; Support the implementation of the city’s Comprehensive Planting Plan;
2-12
Develop a tree care program for the city’s most urban areas, such as in Downtown and in designated activity centers, that includes partnering with developers, ACHD, Capital City Development Corporation (CCDC), and others; and Develop a pilot project to demonstrate available tree care alternatives and increasing soil volume for trees in public rights-of-way and parking lots.
ES6.3: COMMUNITY EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Emphasize the significant role trees play in achieving a more sustainable community by expanding Boise City Forestry’s education and outreach program to include efforts to: Partner with other city departments, state agencies, neighborhood associations, schools, and other institutions; and Provide information to contractors, educators, and homeowners that explains the benefits of planting deciduous trees on the south side of homes and commercial buildings, identifies appropriate species, and provides planting and care specifications. ES6.4: TREE PROTECTION Expand the Boise Tree Ordinance to promote tree retention and replacement. ES6.5: 2015 COMMUNITY FORESTRY STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT PLAN Implement the 2015 Community Forestry Strategic Management Plan.
Goal ES7: Protect and enhance the natural environment. ES7.1: BOISE RIVER SYSTEM ORDINANCE (a) Implement and periodically update the Boise River System Ordinance to achieve the goals of flood protection, fish and wildlife protection, pollution and runoff control, recreation, and development opportunities. (b) Place priority on the protection of environmentally significant areas and waterways, identified as Class A and Class B in the Ordinance, in that order. (c) Allow for urban interface with the river when there is no demonstrated adverse impact on wildlife habitat.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP ES7.2: HABITAT STUDIES AND MAPPING (a) Conduct analysis to define and map habitat areas along perennial and intermittent waterways that are not addressed by the Boise River System Ordinance, including Five and Eight Mile Creeks, Warm Springs Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Crane Creek, Freestone Creek, Stuart Gulch, existing gravel pits, irrigation canals, and feeder canals. (b) Condition development to provide interim setbacks from these waterways until detailed mapping is completed and permanent setbacks are established. (c) Assess mapped lands for significant wildlife value and possible preservation through studies and regulations.
forest, along the Boise River and its side channels to provide protection and long term availability of wintering bald eagle perching and roosting habitat, including screening vegetation. Preserve wintering eagle day-use habitat and protect perching eagles from human disturbance and maintain healthy diverse aquatic habitat in the Boise River to support wintering bald eagles. (d) Accommodate the rookery and feeding requirements of great blue herons in conjunction with other programs enacted on behalf of wintering bald eagles. ES7.4: PROPERTY REVIEW Review all public sales, purchases, or trades of properties in the Boise Front Foothills for consistency with this plan. ES7.5: PUBLIC ACQUISITION Explore public purchase of land, easements, and development rights in the Boise River floodplain, Boise Front Foothills, and along the selected waterways in the annual city budget and capital improvement program. Give priority to lands identified in the Potential Public Preservation Sites 1993 plan.
Urban access to the Boise River should be allowed where there is no demonstrated adverse impact on wildlife habitat. ES7.3 WINTERING BALD EAGLES (a) Implement the goals and program recommendations including setbacks and use restrictions to the extent defensible by law of the Wintering Bald Eagle Conservation Plan dated May 1995. (b) Increase public awareness of Boise’s wintering bald eagle population and its habitat needs by encouraging public and private cooperation to protect, maintain and enhance riparian lands along the Boise River to provide long-term availability of wintering bald eagle habitat. (c) Maintain and enhance riparian plant communities, particularly black cottonwood
ES7.6: GIFT DEEDS Expand opportunities for open space protection provided by the Foothills Levy, by accepting gift deeds of foothills land in the mapped areas and other areas that are consistent with the public acquisition program. ES7.7: SPECIAL RESOURCE WATER DESIGNATION Retain the designation of Special Resource Water conferred by the State of Idaho on the Boise River from Lucky Peak Dam to Veterans Park.
The Boise River provides critical wildlife habitat and is a significant resource for the community. BLUEPRINT BOISE
2-13
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES ES7.8: PROTECT NIGHT SKIES Minimize light trespass from developed areas, reduce sky-glow to increase night sky access, improve nighttime visibility through glare reduction, and reduce development impact on nocturnal environments by adoption of night-sky lighting standards.
Goal ES8: Prevent and mitigate adverse impacts of excessive noise exposure. ES8.1: NOISE MONITORING (a) Monitor and update available data on existing and projected ambient and stationary noise levels. (b) Conduct a noise study to determine noise contours in 5-decibel (A-Weighted Sound Level)* increments along arterials and highways, railroad tracks, and around other noise generators. ES8.2: NOISE REGULATIONS Modify and update noise ordinances, regulations, and guidelines as required by state and federal requirements and the adopted Airport Master Plan, and based on noise monitoring.
2-14
ES8.3: UNIFORM BUILDING CODE Enforce provisions of the Uniform Building Code that prevent noise impacts between individual tenants and businesses in commercial structures, and between individual dwelling units in multifamily residential structures. ES8.4: NOISE MITIGATION Require mitigation measures for development of “noise-sensitive” land uses (such as single-family residences, hospitals, and schools) where noise studies show existing or future noise levels exceed an Ldn* of 60 dB(A) exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior. This policy is not intended to restrict multi-level or high-rise construction that cannot be protected with standard noise mitigation measures. ES8.5: STREET IMPROVEMENTS (a) Assess potential noise impacts on adjacent “noise-sensitive” land uses when expanding arterial and collector streets. (b) Require noise abatement when impacts are projected to exceed standards. ES8.6: CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Require that construction activities adjacent to “noisesensitive” land uses be regulated or conditioned, as necessary, to prevent adverse or excessive noise impacts.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
PROMOTE THE USE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY- FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES The city will continue to explore initiatives, incentives, and requirements within its policies and development regulations that will help further the community’s sustainability objectives. Sustainable site design and construction techniques such as orienting streets and buildings to optimize solar access, and promote energy conservation, utilizing sustainable stormwater management practices, and others will be encouraged at a policy and regulatory level, as appropriate, to achieve better decision-making that balances attention to the economy, the environment, and the community. To have a meaningful effect, these techniques and practices must be applied in conjunction with a stronger linkage between land use and transportation, as embodied in the mixed-use and transit-supportive principles contained in this Comprehensive Plan. The benefits of energy-efficient buildings will be lost if the future occupants of those buildings must drive twenty minutes to the nearest grocery store and commute an hour each way to work. The goals and policies outlined below establish a range of ways— beyond encouraging a more compact pattern of development—in which future development and redevelopment can be designed to reduce its overall impact on the environment. Goal ES9: Reduce water and energy consumption in new and existing development.
use reductions that: (a) Meet minimum energy efficiency levels equal to EnergyStar NW requirements; and (b) Support efforts to achieve net zero energy use in new residential construction by 2030. ES9.3: COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION Promote efficiency in new commercial construction, through incentives for documented energy and water use reductions that: (a) Exceed the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code by a minimum of 20 percent; and (b) Increase water efficiency above the adopted Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) by at least 30 percent.
The library at Ustick and Cole is landscaped with drought-tolerant and native vegetation to help conserve water. ES9.1: WATER CONSERVATION Promote water conservation through ordinance revisions and public education that encourage the use of low-flow plumbing fixtures, drought-tolerant and native vegetation, and other low-impact site development techniques in new development and rehabilitation projects. ES9.2: RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION Promote efficiency in new residential development through incentives for documented energy and water
BLUEPRINT BOISE
ES9.4 RETROFIT INCENTIVES (a) Provide incentives for residential and commercial retrofits that reduce energy use and water consumption. (b) Place the highest priority on providing incentives for retrofits that will result in the most significant decrease in energy or water use, such as the installation of high-efficiency furnaces, air conditioners, and water heaters, and low-flow plumbing fixtures. ES9.5 REUSE OF BUILDINGS Promote the adaptive reuse of historic buildings rather than demolition to promote energy conservation, conservation of embedded energy and the reuse of building materials.
2-15
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
PROMOTE ENERGY CONSERVATION AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PRODUCTION Promoting energy conservation is a key component of any sustainable community. Boise City has already taken many steps to promote energy conservation in its day-to-day operations by incorporating hybrid cars into its automobile fleet, providing incentives for its employees to ride the bus, walk and bicycle to work, and instituting recycling programs. However, the city is committed to exploring additional opportunities to promote energy conservation at the community-wide level through the creation of energy efficiency standards and incentives, demonstration projects, and through partnerships with utility companies and building associations, among others. The city is also committed to fostering the use of renewable energy and will ensure that its policies and regulations are supportive of alternative energy production at both the regional and local level. The goals and policies outlined below are intended to encourage energy conservation and improve the ease with which alternative energy production can be accomplished. Goal ES10: Reduce water and energy usage in municipal buildings and facilities. ES10.1: EXISTING MUNICIPAL FACILITIES (a) Audit existing municipal facilities to establish a baseline of current energy and water use and identify opportunities for reductions. (b) Implement all solutions with a demonstrated pay-back of seven years or less. (c) Monitor energy and water costs at all facilities and compare consumption based on similar parameters, such as square footage. (d) Share costs and other data from the city’s experience with the development and construction community. (e) Consider use of the Environmental Management System, ISO 14001, as a method to assess and track opportunities for meeting the city’s sustainability objectives.
ES10.2: MUNICIPAL BUILDING DESIGN (a) Design new municipal buildings to meet, at a minimum, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver standards. (b) Require the integration of features that will maximize energy reduction and water conservation. ES10.3: SHADING Install green roofs, “living walls” (including vine applications), and trees to shade municipal buildings and paving. ES10.4: GREEN POWER (a) Source a minimum of ten percent of the electricity consumption in city facilities from nonhydro, renewable sources, such as purchased green power and power generated on-site. (b) Consider integration and net metering of onsite renewable energy production and use in municipal facilities, such as small-scale wind turbines and hydroelectric, geothermal, bio-energy, and solar sources. (c) Explore opportunities for the city to become a purveyor of alternative energy.
Amity Elementary School is designed with earth cover as well as solar panels.
2-16
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP ES11.2: IMPROVEMENTS (a) Increase the efficiency and capacity of the city’s geothermal resources, through support for ongoing improvements. (b) Explore funding and seek partners for further expansion of the system. ES11.3: CONSERVATION MEASURES Develop and implement conservation measures in coordination with other water programs to maintain the health of the geothermal system.
Goal ES12: Promote increased use of renewable energy. Solar panels can be installed on almost any rooftop and are a great source for green power. ES10.5: SOIL CARBON SEQUESTRATION Investigate soil carbon sequestration at Twenty-Mile South Farm and implement reasonable options.
ES10.6: SUSTAINABLE PURCHASING POLICIES (a) Implement sustainable purchasing policies for the city such as energy-efficient appliances and equipment, recyclable materials, and items with recyclable content. (b) Track and review purchases on an annual basis to find reduction opportunities.
Goal ES11: Promote increased use of geothermal systems and protection of the city’s geothermal resources. ES11.1: USAGE/MONITORING (a) Encourage and create incentives for the use of geothermal systems in new development and the retrofit of existing development. (b) Monitor the geothermal aquifer and manage development to ensure current and future usage does not diminish the long-term capabilities of the resource.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
ES12.1: INCENTIVES Establish incentives for the use of non-hydro, renewable energy, such as solar and wind, in new development and the retrofit of existing development. ES12.2: REMOVE REGULATORY BARRIERS Remove regulatory barriers to renewable energy usage and production in new development and the retrofit of existing development: Identify appropriate locations for and allow for small and large scale renewable energy facilities; Establish development standards to mitigate potential impacts from renewable energy facilities; and Establish guidelines for subdivision Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that prevent barriers to sustainable building design and energy- saving installations.
2-17
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
PRESERVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR URBAN AGRICULTURE As the city continues to grow, opportunities for small-scale urban agriculture will be preserved and residential food production encouraged. Providing opportunities for community gardens, small-scale farms, and other food production within the AOCI will help reduce the community’s reliance on outside food sources, support the local economy, promote community interaction, increase access to fresh produce, promote community health, and help Boise City maintain an identity that is distinct from other communities. The goals and policies outlined below are intended to promote community-based and local food production and promote a healthy community. Theme #7, A Safe, Healthy, and Caring Community, supports this principle with goals and policies related to health care, social services, and other factors that contribute to the overall health of the community. Goal ES13: Promote community-based and local food production. ES13.1: LOCAL FOOD PRODUCTION (a) Designate appropriate public lands for community gardens within new and established neighborhoods. (b) Work with other public agencies such as ACHD to allow for use of community gardens on public lands. (c) Encourage public and private schools to allow community gardens and demonstration projects on school property. (d) Provide incentives for the incorporation of community gardens and urban agriculture in residential development.
ES13.2: INCENTIVES (a) Encourage food production in the city through targeted zoning amendments that address allowed uses, their location, and use conditions to ensure compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. ES13.3: FARMERS MARKETS Allow farmers markets by-right in designated activity centers.
Farmers markets provide local business opportunities as well as fresh food options for residents. They also serve as community gathering places. GOAL ES14: PROTECT ACCESS TO AND PROMOTE USE OF THE CITY’S CANAL SYSTEM. Community gardens promote community-based and local food production and encourage interaction among neighborhood residents.
2-18
ES14.1: CANAL ACCESS AND FUNCTIONS Coordinate with irrigation companies in the review of development applications on lands adjacent to canals for maintenance of access and canal operations.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP ES14.2: WATER RIGHTS Require the use of existing water rights as new development occurs, particularly to support urban agriculture and community gardens. ES14.3: DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS Promote the use of separate distribution systems for irrigation in new developments.
ES14.4: RETROFIT OF EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEMS Develop a program to retrofit existing development with irrigation from canals where water rights are still available or can be obtained.
Borah Park Community Garden 2012
BLUEPRINT BOISE
2-19
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
INFORM AND EDUCATE THE COMMUNITY ON THEIR ROLE IN A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE One of things Boise City can do to promote both local and global sustainability is to educate its citizens on the impacts of their day-to-day actions. The city will provide information to citizens about current practices such as recycling, energy conservation, and storm water runoff—as well as the overarching vision embodied in this Comprehensive Plan and the important role that land use plays in the sustainability of the city—as an important step towards encouraging action. The city will continue to expand the use of its web site, department newsletters, and other tools to educate residents and businesses on sustainable practices they can employ as well as on city initiatives related to sustainability. The city will also explore opportunities to partner with utility providers and regional agencies on its educational efforts. The goals and polices outlined below are intended to guide education and public information efforts related to the city’s sustainability objectives. Goal ES15: Expand public education programs to promote sustainable practices in the community.
Public education campaigns can be used to expand awareness of the city’s efforts to reduce waste through composting, keeping yard waste on site, and other strategies. ES15.1: COORDINATION OF SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS Explore options to improve coordination of sustainability efforts, including cooperative efforts with other agencies, businesses, cities and interdepartmental committees, and the appointment of a sustainability coordinator to provide leadership within the city and community and oversee public education efforts.
2-20
ES15.2: HOMEOWNER AND BUSINESS OWNER OUTREACH (a) Establish education programs to promote energy and water use reduction and groundwater protection for homeowners and existing commercial building owners. (b) Coordinate the programs with organizations such as utility providers, state and federal agencies, building associations, and interest groups. ES15.3: OUTREACH PROGRAM Implement an outreach program for residential developers, home builders, and other housing providers in partnership with local utility providers. The program should: Demonstrate how to build and market energy- efficient homes;v Provide education on designing homes to facilitate the use of renewable energy including, but not limited to: pre-wiring and pre-plumbing for potential solar installations and small-scale wind production; and Provide information on the role of Smart Growth and LEED for Neighborhood Development principles in the implementation of this comprehensive plan. ES15.4: DEMONSTRATION PROJECT Consider a demonstration project to develop plans for homes of different sizes that implement the best energy and water conservation practices pertinent to the city’s climate zone. As part of this effort, explore opportunities to: Coordinate with builders associations and housing providers; Work with utility providers to jointly fund the perceived additional cost items;
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Monitor energy use for a period of two years; and Publish the results of the demonstration project.
ES15.5: RECYCLING AWARENESS (a) Expand the city’s public education programs by promoting the “Re-think, Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle” slogan. (b) Provide incentives for residences, businesses, and local schools to generate less trash and increase the amount of materials recycled. ES15.6: YARD WASTE (a) Provide public education and outreach about the benefits of keeping yard waste on site. (b) Work with retailers to provide information to customers and publicize specific methods, such as: Retention of grass clippings on lawns for grass-recycling; Use of mulching mowers; and Use of backyard composting.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Marking storm drains increases public awareness of the relationship between stormwater runoff and the health of the Boise River. ES15.7: BOISE RIVER PROTECTION Educate the public on measures to keep pollution from the Boise River through programs, such as: “Partners For Clean Water”; The “Riversweep” annual volunteer river cleanup; Publication of “Streamlines” periodical; The Foothills Education Center; The Watershed Center; and Marking of storm drains.
2-21
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
MONITOR OUR PROGRESS TOWARD A MORE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY Becoming a more sustainable city will require an ongoing commitment to the implementation of this Comprehensive Plan, to coordination with the city’s partners in the region, and a willingness to change as new concepts and technologies evolve. As part of this commitment, the city will establish clear benchmarks to measure its progress towards the implementation of specific sustainability initiatives and the comprehensive plan as a whole. The goals and policies outlined below establish a framework for ongoing monitoring efforts. Goal ES16: Develop indicators to monitor progress on sustainability initiatives and the implementation of the comprehensive plan. ES16.1: SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS (a) Work with partner agencies and internal city departments to establish indicators to monitor the community’s progress towards the implementation of the comprehensive plan. Indicators should include measurements in each of the categories below, as data becomes available: Land Use and Development Trends; Alternative Energy; Alternative Transportation; Energy Conservation; Green Building Practices; Waste Reduction and Recycling; Parks and Open Space; and Water Conservation. (b) Base indicators on quantitative rather than qualitative information to the extent possible. (c) Use data points already being tracked by the city or by a partner agency, or those that can readily be tracked in the future to ensure indicators can be easily established and maintained. (d) Establish unique indicators for city facilities and operations versus the community as a whole.
2-22
The” Sustainable Boise” section of the city’s website promotes awareness of the city’s progress on a variety of sustainability initiatives. ES17.2: SUSTAINABLE BOISE WEBSITE Expand the “Sustainable Boise” section of the city’s website to include: Real-time tracking of the community’s progress on key sustainability initiatives; Separate indicators for city facilities and operations and the community as a whole; Comparative information from peer communities in the Treasure Valley and across the United States, as data becomes available; and A graphical interface that presents information in clear and interactive way.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | A PREDICTABLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN
#2: A Predictable Development Pattern
Boise will strive to maintain a predictable development pattern in which each part of the community has a distinct character and style. Growth should be planned in a manner that protects the quality of life valued by the city’s residents and helps the city maintain fiscal health. The city will be home to a range of housing choices, retail and service uses, and employment centers that serve the community’s needs. This objective must be approached at both the local and regional levels. At a local level, the city will reinforce the region’s goal of promoting more responsible growth by encouraging a more compact pattern of growth throughout the AOCI and identifying opportunities for infill and redevelopment within established parts of the city. The benefits of infill and redevelopment are not intended to come at the expense of the city’s historic resources. At a regional level, the city will continue to work with its
BLUEPRINT BOISE
regional partners to implement Blueprint for Good Growth and Communities in Motion and promote an integrated approach to land use and transportation planning. Goals and policies to achieve a predictable development pattern are derived from the following principles:
Encourage compact growth; Plan for and coordinate growth within the city’s AOCI; and Use and expand public facilities and services efficiently.
2-23
A PREDICTABLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
Principles, Goals, and Policies for a Predictable Development Pattern (PDP): ENCOURAGE COMPACT GROWTH A variety of opportunities for future growth exist within the AOCI— ranging from larger greenfield development sites outside the city limits to small infill and redevelopment sites within established areas of the community. The city will promote a responsible and sustainable pattern of growth by encouraging a more compact pattern of development throughout the AOCI. One of the most effective means of achieving a more compact growth pattern is to identify opportunities to accommodate future growth within the city’s existing “footprint,” either on vacant sites or through the redevelopment of obsolete buildings or uses. In Boise, these opportunities will be concentrated in the Downtown, along existing and future transit corridors, and within designated activity centers; however, small-scale residential and mixed-use infill projects will continue to occur with appropriate protections for historic neighborhoods. The goals and policies outlined below establish broad parameters to encourage compact growth. Guidance regarding the desired character, form, and function of development within the AOCI is provided by goals and policies related to Theme# 3: Neighborhoods and Activity Centers and Theme #4: A Connected Community, as well as the land use policies and design principles contained in Chapter 3: Community Structure and Design. Goal PDP1: Identify priority areas and establish incentives for infill and redevelopment. PDP1.1: INFILL PRIORITY AREAS Recognize the Downtown, designated mixed-use activity centers, major travel corridors, and other potential areas of change identified at the planningarea level as priorities for infill and redevelopment. (Planning-area policies contained in Chapter 4 should be applied to infill development, as applicable.) PDP1.2: INCENTIVES Establish incentives to encourage the production of housing and mixed-use development in infill priority areas. Incentives may include, but not be limited to: Density bonuses for infill projects based on a site’s proximity to specified existing services and infrastructure facilities; Reduced impact fees for infill development ; Accelerated development review as compared to greenfield development; Expansion of zoning allowances for highdensity residential, mixed-use development, and accessory dwelling units; and Others incentives as appropriate.
2-24
PDP1.3: PRIORITIZE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS To ensure adequate public infrastructure is in place to accommodate increased densities, place a high priority on public investments in transportation facilities, necessary water and wastewater improvements, and other essential urban services in areas targeted for infill and redevelopment as identified in this Comprehensive Plan. PDP1.4 PUBLIC EDUCATION Educate the public on the need and benefits of infill development.
Goal PDP2: Maintain and distribute information regarding housing demand and the availability of buildable land. PDP2.1: VACANT AND UNDERDEVELOPED LAND DATABASE (a) Establish a GIS-based database to monitor the availability of developable land within the AOCI and track the implementation of this Comprehensive Plan. The database should include the following information as available: Total acres of developable land within the city limits and AOCI;
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | A PREDICTABLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN The location and size of vacant, infill, and potentially redevelopable sites; Current zoning and future land use designation for sites identified; Recent housing sales and trends; Pending and proposed developments; List of incentives available; General availability of utilities; and Other pertinent information. Summarize data to allow users to quickly review information regarding different types of sites (e.g., large scale, small scale, and redevelopable and vacant infill sites). (b) Update database regularly and make information available to the public through the city’s website or other means, as appropriate.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Creating an inventory of vacant and underdeveloped land such as this may encourage interest in infill and redevelopment.
2-25
A PREDICTABLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
PLAN FOR AND COORDINATE GROWTH WITHIN THE CITY’S AREA OF IMPACT The city will take a leadership role in planning for unincorporated areas within its AOCI to ensure future development is consistent with the community’s vision and meets city standards for infrastructure and services. Sub-area plans will be prepared (or updated) where necessary and other tools established to guide new development to ensure it is supportive of the city’s vision for these areas. The goals and policies outlined below establish a broad framework for decision-making related to regional planning efforts and planning within or adjacent to the AOCI. Guidance regarding the desired character, form, and function of development within the AOCI is provided by goals and policies related to Theme #3: Neighborhoods and Activity Centers and Theme #4: A Connected Community, as well as the land use policies and design principles contained in Chapter 3: Community Structure and Design. Goal PDP3: Plan for a coordinated and sustainable pattern of growth within the AOCI.
Goal PDP4: Take a leadership role in planning for and coordinating regional growth.
PDP3.1: FUTURE LAND USE PLAN Maintain a Future Land Use Plan and map that clearly identifies the location and distribution of densities and preferred uses.
PDP4.1: REGIONAL COORDINATION Maintain working relationships with other local governments in Ada, Canyon, and other contiguous counties to adopt regional policies regarding growth and development.
PDP3.2: AOCI ANNEXATION AREAS Annex lands within AOCI when it can be demonstrated that the proposed annexation is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan includes substantial compliance with the level-of-service standards identified in Table 3. PDP3.3: EAST COLUMBIA AREA Develop a sub-area plan for the East Columbia area. PDP3.4: AOCI FUTURE EXPANSION Future expansions of the AOCI should be considered as part of coordinated regional planning efforts.
2-26
PDP4.2: REGIONAL PLANNING Work with the Ada County Consortium, Community Planning Association (COMPASS), and other regional entities to implement the goals and policies of Blueprint for Good Growth, Communities in Motion, and related regional planning efforts. PDP4.3: SUB-AREA PLANNING Facilitate sub-area planning efforts for areas outside of and adjacent to the AOCI to ensure future development is consistent with this Comprehensive Plan.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | A PREDICTABLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN
USE AND EXPAND PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES EFFICIENTLY New growth will be encouraged only in areas where adequate public water, sewer, fire protection and emergency services, schools, transit, and roads are currently available or are planned. Infrastructure will be viewed as a tool to help manage growth, not as a service that is provided in reaction to growth pressures. Efforts will be made to improve the linkage between infrastructure planning and land use planning, and all new development should be required to be served with public facilities that meet minimum levels of service standards. The goals and policies outlined below provide guidance on required infrastructure improvements, level-of-service standards, coordination, and related planning documents. Goal PDP5: Require adequate public facilities and infrastructure for all development. PDP5.1: LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Develop and maintain public services and facilities as defined in Table 3: Level of Service Standards for Community Services and Facilities. PDP5.2: CENTRAL SEWAGE AND COLLECTION SYSTEMS Install public sewage treatment and collection systems to be available for use coincident with new development, except as otherwise provided in the Foothills Plan. PDP5.3: ON-SITE STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS (a) Require construction of adequate on-site treatment and/or storm-drain and flood-control facilities coincident with new development. (b) Update the Subdivision Ordinance to address residential (subdivision) or public right-of-way drainage.
PDP5.4: PHASING REQUIREMENTS Approve developments for only the portion of the project that is consistent with Table 3: Level of Service Standards for Community Services and Facilities, and phase the remainder of the project to coincide with future availability of public facilities and services.
Goal PDP6: Plan for and coordinate the efficient expansion of public facilities and infrastructure to serve future growth. PDP6.1: WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN 2020 (a) The Wastewater Facilities Plan 2020, as amended, is adopted by reference. (b) Update the Wastewater Facilities Plan on a periodic basis to ensure consistency with this Comprehensive Plan. PDP6.2: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING Address the scheduling and funding of key facilities and services as part of the city’s five-year Capital Improvement Plan.
Goal PDP7: Coordinate with utility providers to develop plans for services and facilities for the long-term energy and utility needs of the City of Boise and the AOCI. PDP7.1: TREASURE VALLEY ELECTRIC PLAN Recognize the Treasure Valley Electric Plan (TVEP), developed by a local Community Advisory Committee, and support the build-out of electricity infrastructure detailed in the Plan. PDP7.2: RENEWABLE ENERGY Encourage enhancement of the capacity and reliability of renewable energy resources. On-site stormwater improvements help reduce the amount of water in the city’s system during high precipitation while also removing pollutants.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
2-27
A PREDICTABLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES PDP7.3: ENERGY SERVICES AND PUBLIC UTILITY FACILITIES Promote the development of energy services and public utility facilities to meet public needs. PDP7.4: CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Develop criteria for longer-term conditional use permits for utility facilities to enable utility providers to purchase property for facilities in advance and to inform the public of planned facilities. PDP7.5: UTILITY CORRIDOR SITING (a) Encourage the multiple-use of utility corridors by utility providers. (b) Support siting of utility corridors to ensure that they connect to similar facilities in adjacent jurisdictions. (c) Support siting of utility corridors within identified or designated transportation corridors. (d) Allow the appropriate placement of electric utility facilities on public rights of way. PDP7.6: UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICTS Work with Idaho Power Company and affected property owners to establish underground utility districts for selected gateways and corridors. PDP7.7: UTILITY CORRIDOR SITING Support the protection of wetlands and other critical areas with recognition that utility corridors sometimes must cross these areas, and that access is essential for repair and maintenance of these facilities. PDP7.8: NATURAL GAS Work with Intermountain Gas Company to ensure that facilities are designed and sited to be compatible with adjacent land uses.
Goal PDP8: Require that the financial, safety and environmental impacts from development be addressed and mitigated. PDP8.1: APPLICATION FEES Require that development application fees cover a portion of the costs of processing and providing services from the city departments responsible for application review. PDP8.2: SPECIAL DISTRICTS Create benefit assessment or community facilities districts, where appropriate, in which those who benefit from specific city improvements pay a proportionate share of the costs.
2-28
PDP8.3: DEVELOPER-PROVIDED SERVICES Allow development where public services and infrastructure are not available or planned only when: The developer can provide them according to adopted service standards, and Where the development is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. PDP8.4: FIRE STATION SITES (a) Require donation of fire station sites as part of new development approval, when it is determined that a development is large enough or far enough from current facilities to create the need for added fire protection. (b) Coordinate land acquisition for emergency services facilities with other city departments (e.g., Parks, Public Works, and Police) to maximize benefits to the city. PDP8.5: TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL DEVICES Work with ACHD to install traffic control facilities at all appropriate intersections, and require developers to do so when necessary. PDP8.6 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Collect development impact fees that represent a development’s proportionate share of costs for eligible public infrastructure needed to serve the new development. PDP 8.7: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN The Boise City 2021 Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Study - Final Report - Amended (2021) is adopted by reference, and, as amended. The plan includes a general description of all existing public facilities; an analysis of the total capacity of existing capital improvements; a description of the land use assumptions; a description of all system improvements, and the costs associated with new development; projected demand for system improvements; identification of sources and levels of funding available; and, a general schedule for estimated dates of construction of improvements.
Goal PDP9: Provide convenient access to public facilities and services. PDP9.1: LOCATION AND TIMING Work internally and with partner agencies to ensure that public facilities are well-located and are constructed in a timely manner.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | A PREDICTABLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN Table 3: Level of Service for Community Services and Facilities required concurrent with the issuance of any development permit*
*See Theme #1 for policies related to water, sewer, solid waste, and storm drainage; Theme #4 for policies related to streets; and Theme #7 for policies related to parks and open space, police, and fire. **Fire Station “set-aside” shall be required within the AOCI.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
2-29
A PREDICTABLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES Table 4: Level of Service for Community Services and Facilities for planning purposes* SERVICE AREA
SERVICE STANDARDS**
SERVICE
PARKS AND OPEN LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS PER 1,000 POPULATION SPACE 2010
2030
Neighborhood Parks
1.1 acres
1.15 acres
½ mile radius
Community Parks
.71 acres
.81 acres
½ mile radius
Large Urban Parks
.69 acres
.92 acres
1 mile radius
Regional Parks
.43 acres
.49 acres
Region
Linear Parks
.83 acres
.62 acres
Region
Special Use Areas
2.55 acres
1.75 acres
Region
Natural Open Space
20.58 acres
16.02 acres
Community
FIRE Response Time
4 min. response, unless excepted by Fire Department
1.5 mile
Priority 1—3 min. response
Community
Elementary School
Site size should be based on educational needs.
Varies
Jr. High School
Site size should be based on educational needs.
Varies
High School
Site size should be based on educational needs.
Varies
Federal standard
Community
Adherence to the Transportation and Land Use Integration Plan including the Livable Streets Design Guide and the Complete Streets Policy.
Community
POLICE Response Time SCHOOLS
INFRASTRUCTURE Storm Drainage Streets
*See Theme #1 for policies related to storm drainage; Theme #4 for policies related to streets; and Theme #7 for policies related to parks and open space, police, and fire. **Concurrence in any given service category may be excepted by the service provider for specific sites based on the findings that adherence to the adopted standards is undesirable or not intended for the area according to the plans of the service provider
2-30
BLUEPRINT BOISE
N Highway 55
N Eagle Rd
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | A PREDICTABLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN
W State St
41
W Highway 44
E
Sta
te
ll Rd
St
N
E Hig
hway
Master Siting Plan with Potential Future Fire Station Response Areas
North Ada County Fire and Rescue E Hi
Sea
man
ch Gul
Rd
44
Eagle
Legend
W Hill Road Pkwy
W
N Gary Ln
S Eagle Rd
E St ate St
Stat e St
W
Ada County Impact Area Outlines Hill
Rd
Potential Future Station Response Areas
E Chinden Blvd N Collister Dr
W
Chi
nd
en
02 09
Blv d
Rd
W McMillan Rd
Current Station Response Areas
us
dard Rd
y kw al P ori em M
N 27th St
36 W
N ffe
rson
5th St N
6th 5th St St
t 9th S S
01
St
oS
t
W
Myr
W
Mai n S E Id ah t
St
E
lvd
N Latah St
9th N 8th St St
N
Je
Idah
St
S
nt
ito lB
E
Myr
Fro
S
Cap
tle
nt
St
o
St
Sunset
St
E
W Kootenai St
§ ¦ ¨
EW arm
Pa rk
Spr
ings
Blv
Ave
d
Bo is
e
W Parkcenter Blvd
Ave
03 S Apple St
14
S Broadway Ave
S Vista Ave
S Orchard St
S Five Mile Rd
34
W
08
84
W Overland Rd
S Protest
Rd
S Latah St
W Beacon St
84
E Overland Rd
Fro
tle
N Orchard St
N Curtis Rd
W Emerald St
S Curtis Rd
Meridian
§ ¦ ¨
W
d
W Rose Hill St
S Cloverdale Rd
Boise
Blv
S
N Cole Rd
06
W Franklin Rd
na ca
St
W Executive Dr
N
eri Am
rt Fo
184
E Pine Ave
E Franklin Rd
W W
§ ¦ ¨
E
11
05
S 27th St
Ave rview W Fai
W Fairview Ave
sS
t
W Main St
E Fairview Ave
Hay
N 16 th St 15 th St
St
W
th
N Eagle Rd
N Maple Grove Rd
N
W Ustick Rd
N Harrison Blvd
Ve te ra
N Cloverdale Rd
E Ustick Rd
ns
04 E Ustick Rd
N Milwaukee St
N
Bog
W God
Bas
in
E McMillan Rd
N Collister Dr
N Five Mile Rd
10
N Glenwood St
16
N 36th St
E Chinden Blvd
Rd twright N Car
W Chinden Blvd
E S Maple Grove Rd
E Victory Rd
E Amity Rd
W Victory Rd
S Cole Rd
E Victory Rd
Boi
se
15
Ave
E Pa rkce
17
19
Blvd
E
07
W ar
m
S Eckert Rd
Sp
rin
gs
Ave
E Boise Ave
IDNG
W Amity Rd
nter
E Amity Rd
§ ¦ ¨ S Cloverdale Rd
12
en Rd
Ave
E Gow
rings
Whitney
S Maple Grove Rd
W Lake Hazel Rd
en Rd
rm Sp E Wa
E Lake Hazel Rd
S Eagle Rd
84
W Gow
hway
21
S
S Pleasant Valley Rd
E Hig
Te no ch logy ay W
senm S Ei
E Columbia Rd
an Rd deral S Fe Way
Kuna
E Memory Rd
This agency is not responsible for the misinterpretation of this map and makes E Deer Flat Rd as to the no inference or judgment relative safety of particular areas. This map does not meet national map accuracy standards and should not be used for engineering purposes.
0
1
2 Miles
Ü
Figure 1: Fire Department Master Siting Plan
BLUEPRINT BOISE
2-31
A PREDICTABLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
BOISE POLICE DEPARTMENT DISTRICT MAP
Desert Desert
66 66
Lake Lake Hazel Hazel
Cole Cole
8th 8th 5th 5th
15 th Harrison Harrison
26th 26th 24th 24th
6th
Deer Deer Flat Flat
21 21
25 25
135 135 BPDZ
139 139
Holcombb Holcom
Broadw Broadway ay
99th th
Owyhee Owyhee
G Goow weenn
172 172 Amity Amity st 144 144 re Fo 170 170 e k La
er rber Barb Ba 140 140 PPaar rkkcc eennt teerr Eckert Eckert 141 141
La ke Fo res t 2211
Columbia Columbia
Blue Blue Sage Sage 145 145
Hubbard Hubbard Te nm ile Cr ee k
BPDU
138 173 24 138 173 23 23 24 28 28 27 27 Hi BBoo llc i i 29 29 ssee res Victory 136 136 137 t Victory 137 F e d Ai era 26 26 rp l or t 171 171
Hollilynn Hollilynn Hubbard Hubbard
150 150
al eral eder FFed
133 133
126 126
Columbia Columbia
BPDC
149 149
Law Law
64 64 65 65 T Thhuunndd eerr M Moouunnta tain in
13 13 izoonn Hoorriz H
Apple Apple
30 30
31 Victory Victo ry 31
La La Grange Grange
36th 36th
Overland Overland
Targee Targ ee
15 15
Vista Vista Columbus Columbus
61 61
11 11
88
se ri rp Su
Valley Valley
Amity Amity
Collister Collister
32 32
10 10
156 156 sin Ba s gu Bo 44
12 12 17 17 Fr 16 o n Ma t in 20 20 18 39 39 18 19 19 P ar Alpine Alpine k 36 36 37 37 22 22 38 38 Hale Hale 35 35 Roosevelt Roosevelt
63 63
34 34
77
14 14
41 41 40 40
Pleasant Pleasant Valley Valley
Mitchell Mitchell
60 60
48 th
33 33
Overland Overland
71 71
43 rd
Glenwood Glenwood
42 42
H ill
arrdd cchha Orr O
Eagle Eagle
44 44
59 59
58 58
62 70 70 62 BPDD
45 45
66
79 79 th 99 36 8009 8009
47 47 43 43
33
gs rin Sp
109 109
57 57 Em Emera erald ld
48 48 Northview Northv iew
46 46
RDs
m ar W
72 72
117 117
56 55 55 56 Fairview Fairview
11
Orchardd Orchar
73 73
49 49 Milwaukee Milwaukee
108 108 Franklin Franklin
74 74
Five Mile Five Mile
Cloverdale Cloverdale
Eagle Eagle
100 100
51 51 50 50 Ustick Ustick
Curtis Curtis
53 53
75 75
54 54
Maple Maple Grove Grove
175 175
Ch ind en
Milwaukee Milwaukee
52 52
McMillan McMillan
80 80 St at e 81 81 55
Streets Interstate
BPDA 151 151
32nd 32nd
Bogart Bogart
76 76
99 99
98 98
153 153 ter llis Co
83 83
82 82
Maple Maple Grove Grove
Chinden Chinden 94 94
154 154
Cole Cole
77 77
H Hiillll
84 84
Ancell Ancell
BPDB
155 155
µ
BPDA BPDB BPDC BPDD BPDE BPDU BPDZ
Pierce Pierce Park Park
Horsesh Horseshoe oe Bend Bend
DISTRICT
Amyx Amyx
BPDE
Kuna Kuna 0
1
2 Miles
This drawing is to be used for reference purposes; Boise City is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained.
Plotted: 8/7/15 BPD CAU RHolford
Figure 2: Police Long Range Plan
2-32
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | NEIGHBORHOODS AND ACTIVITY CENTERS
#3: A Community of Stable Neighborhoods and Vibrant Mixed-Use Activity Centers
Boise residents value the safety, quality, and character of their neighborhoods and the accessibility of parks, open space, and basic services. New neighborhoods should incorporate the best features of the city’s existing neighborhoods and be integrated with the surrounding community; be developed to include a mix of housing types and a pedestrian-oriented scale; and have access to a mixed-use activity center and indoor and outdoor spaces for residents to gather. Existing automobile- oriented commercial centers will be revitalized as mixed-use activity centers over time to serve adjacent neighborhoods, increase housing options, and establish a more transit-supportive pattern of growth. Historic resources will be protected and enhanced as an important component of the city’s past and future.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Goals and policies to achieve stable neighborhoods and vibrant activity centers are derived from the following principles: Ensure neighborhoods are served by a hierarchy of mixed-use activity centers, including schools; Protect stable neighborhoods; Encourage a variety of housing choices; Emphasize the importance of high-quality urban design in the built environment; and Protect the city’s historic resources.
2-33
NEIGHBORHOODS AND ACTIVITY CENTERS | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
Principles, Goals, and Policies for Stable Neighborhoods and Vibrant MixedUse Activity Centers (NAC): ENSURE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE SERVED BY A HIERARCHY OF MIXED-USE ACTIVITY CENTERS, INCLUDING SCHOOLS Boise’s traditional compact neighborhoods are particularly valued by residents for their close-in location, which allows them to walk to shopping, schools, parks, and, in some cases, jobs. New developments will be encouraged to include similar features, such as mixed-use centers, traditional neighborhood design, and other urban development concepts. Policies and regulations that promote the integration of mixed-use activity centers into or adjacent to new and established neighborhoods throughout the AOCI will help reinforce this ideal and streamline the ease with which the concept may be implemented. The goals and policies outlined below are intended to establish the location of new mixed-use activity centers and to promote the revitalization of existing centers over time. Chapter 3 contains detailed land use policies for different types of activity centers as well as design principles for mixed-use development (either within an activity center or along a designated transit corridor). Land use policies and design principles in Chapter 3 provide guidance on the desired scale, mix of uses, relationship to the surrounding neighborhood, and other factors that should be considered in conjunction with the goals and policies below. Goal NAC1: Provide opportunities for residents to meet most daily needs within walking distance. NAC1.1: DESIGNATED ACTIVITY CENTERS Designate locations of existing and proposed Regional, Community, and Neighborhood MixedUse Activity Centers on the Future Land Use Map. Additional activity centers may be designated provided they are consistent with locational criteria contained in Policy NAC1.2.
NAC1.2: LOCATIONAL CRITERIA Evaluate proposed activity centers based on the locational criteria outlined below. Designate additional activity centers that: Are comprised of a mix of uses and are of a scale that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood (whether existing or proposed); Are located in an area where the topography is suitable for higher-intensity development; Will provide a range of commercial/retail services not currently available in the immediate neighborhood; Will be served by and/or focused around an existing or planned rapid transit stop; and Are consistent with the goals, policies, and principles contained in this Comprehensive Plan
Activity centers cluster retail and services providing for the daily needs of residents within close proximity.
2-34
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | NEIGHBORHOODS AND ACTIVITY CENTERS NAC1.3: AREAS OF CHANGE AND STABILITY Give priority to proposed activity centers that are located in areas of potential change within the applicable planning area, as addressed in Appendix C of this Comprehensive Plan. NAC1.4: SPECIFIC PLANS Encourage the use of the Specific Plan tool for proposed mixed-use activity centers as a means of promoting creativity and flexibility in design.
NAC2.3: PHYSICAL ENHANCEMENTS AND REVITALIZATION Encourage façade improvements, landscaping, and other physical enhancements to existing centers where redevelopment or major rehabilitation is not feasible in the near-term.
Goal NAC2: Promote the addition of new centers and the revitalization of underutilized existing centers over time. NAC2.1: MIXED-USE ZONE DISTRICTS (a) Establish mixed-use zone districts suitable for regional, community, and neighborhood activity centers. Include opportunities for varied intensity, and mix of uses based on the type of activity center and location. (b) Encourage existing single-use centers to incorporate a greater mix of compatible uses, such as offices, housing, and live-work units, through infill, adaptive reuse, or redevelopment. NAC2.2: INCORPORATE HOUSING Encourage high-density residential development as part of new activity centers and the revitalization of existing centers, provided that the project is consistent with the Design Principles contained in Chapter 3.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Façade improvements and landscaping can help improve the appearance of existing centers when major rehabilitation is not feasible in the near-term. NAC2.4: ARTS AND CULTURE Encourage the use of arts and culture to promote neighborhood identity in new centers and as a means for the revitalization of existing centers.
2-35
NEIGHBORHOODS AND ACTIVITY CENTERS | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
PROTECT STABLE NEIGHBORHOODS Boise is characterized by its many strong, healthy neighborhoods that are well-defined by geography, history, unique design, and by the social interaction of the residents. There is a feeling of community in these neighborhoods, and individual identity has not been lost. The cultural diversity of these neighborhoods is accepted and encouraged. Although many of the city’s neighborhoods will continue to evolve over time, protective measures may be necessary in some locations to ensure that each neighborhood’s distinguishing characteristics are retained. Additional measures to help stabilize and revitalize established but declining neighborhoods may also be necessary. Goals and policies outlined below are intended to guide infill and redevelopment, rehabilitation, and planning efforts in the city’s neighborhoods over time. Goal NAC3: Enhance the character of established neighborhoods.
NAC4.1: HOUSING MAINTENANCE Utilize programs that promote maintenance and improvement in the condition of existing housing, particularly dwellings occupied by households utilizing governmental and/or nonprofit housing assistance. NAC4.2: PROPERTY OWNER AND RESIDENT AWARENESS Promote awareness of the importance of property maintenance to long-term housing value and neighborhood stability through efforts such as the Code Enforcement Advisory Committee (CEAC).
Infill development, such as the new home on the left, can complement the character of established neighborhoods. NAC3.1: INFILL DESIGN PRINCIPLES (a) Encourage residential infill that complements the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood by applying the Infill Design Principles contained in Chapter 3. (b) Develop zoning standards to implement the Infill Design Principles. NAC3.2: AREAS OF CHANGE AND STABILITY Direct residential infill and redevelopment to areas identified as suitable for change within each planning area, as addressed in Appendix C of this Comprehensive Plan.
NAC4.3: REHABILITATION ASSISTANCE (a) Establish target areas for future housing rehabilitation and maintenance programs. (b) Provide economic assistance, as funds are available, to improve physically deteriorated structures in priority areas. NAC4.4: SUBSTANDARD UNITS Work with property owners, neighborhood associations, and non-profit organizations to bring substandard units into compliance with city codes and improve overall housing conditions. NAC4.5: IMPROVE BLIGHTED AREAS Use the State Urban Renewal Law, the CEAC, and other techniques to replace or upgrade blighted conditions in the city.
Goal NAC5: Give all citizens the opportunity to participate in shaping the future of their neighborhoods.
Goal NAC4: Encourage the maintenance and rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
2-36
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | NEIGHBORHOODS AND ACTIVITY CENTERS NAC5.1: DEVELOP A FRAMEWORK FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS (a) Develop a framework for the completion and updating of neighborhood plans where appropriate. Neighborhood plans should reflect consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood values, local conditions, history, neighborhood character, and specific needs. (b) Initiate neighborhood plans with city support. NAC5.2: PLAN CONSISTENCY (a) Review neighborhood plans in concert with review of the Comprehensive Plan on an annual basis. (b) Maintain consistency between neighborhood plans and the city’s Comprehensive Plan. In the event of an inconsistency between the Comprehensive Plan and a proposed neighborhood plan, consider amendments to either the Comprehensive Plan or neighborhood plan to remain consistent with the core values of the Comprehensive Plan. (c) Notify the neighborhood association of any inconsistencies. NAC5.3: ADOPTED NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS The following neighborhood plans are adopted by reference. North West Neighborhood Plan (2020) West Downtown Neighborhood Plan (2019) Warm Springs Mesa Neighborhood Plan (2013) Central Bench Neighborhood Plan (2019) East End Neighborhood Plan (2019) Lusk District Plan (2013) Collister Neighborhood Plan (2007) Depot Bench Neighborhood Plan (2007) Highlands Neighborhood Plan (2005) Central Rim Neighborhood Plan (2004) Big Sky Neighborhood Plan (2004) Original South Boise Neighborhood Plan (2003) Sunrise Rim Neighborhood Plan (2003) West Valley Community Center Plan (2002) Oregon Trail Parkway Plan (2001) East End Neighborhood Policy Guide (1999) Veteran’s Park Neighborhood Policy Guide (1999) Vista Vision Neighborhood Plan (1999) Sycamore Neighborhood Plan (1998) Ustick Concept Master Plan and Guiding Principles (1998)
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Southwest Community Comprehensive Plan (1991) North End Neighborhood Policy Guide (1985) These plans will remain in effect as adopted, but in the event of conflicts between the neighborhood plans and the policies of this Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan will take precedence.
NAC5.4: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN REVIEW Encourage neighborhood associations to review plans to ensure that they continue to reflect the needs and desires of neighborhood residents. NAC5.5: NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS (a) Consider recommendations from neighborhood plans in the context of the city as a whole. (b) Prioritize plan recommendations for capital expenditures and other actions in light of the city’s legal, administrative, and fiscal constraints. NAC5.6: COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT (a) Engage neighborhood associations in all facets of their community outside of the development review process. (b) Encourage revitalization of the Neighborhood Alliance to facilitate communication and resource sharing across neighborhood boundaries. (c) Conduct neighborhood conferences. NAC5.7: NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS Require that neighborhood associations prepare and adopt, with city support, articles of association or articles of incorporation and associated bylaws in order to be registered as a City Neighborhood Association.
Goal NAC6: Ensure that adequate resources are available for neighborhood planning purposes. NAC6.1: NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT PROGRAM Develop a project rating and ranking system for the Neighborhood Reinvestment Program in cooperation with neighborhood associations and the business community. NAC6.2 NEIGHBORHOODS WITHOUT PLANS Organize and develop plans for neighborhoods without plans as needed.
2-37
NEIGHBORHOODS AND ACTIVITY CENTERS | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
ENCOURAGE A VARIETY OF HOUSING CHOICES Boise’s average household size has been shrinking and is expected to continue to do so as the city’s population ages. This trend has sparked a growing demand for a broader variety of housing types, particularly in Downtown and the city’s older neighborhoods. The city will strive to balance its large inventory of detached single-family housing with a range of housing choices to meet the fiscal and functional needs of its residents. This range should include attached homes (duplexes, townhomes), multi-family dwellings (including condominiums), live/work opportunities, accessory dwellings, and housing included as part of mixed-use developments. As part of this objective, the city will seek ways to increase home ownership opportunities, utilize under-developed and re-developing lands for housing, and maintain a sufficient supply of workforce housing. The city will review and update existing regulations to ensure new housing types are consistent with its community character objectives for each neighborhood, providing for design characteristics that fit into existing neighborhoods. The goals and policies outlined below address at a broad level the desired mix and types of housing desired within the city. The land use policies and design principles contained in Chapter 3 provide a more detailed discussion about the density, location, and design of housing throughout the city. Goal NAC7: Facilitate an integrated mix of housing types and price ranges in neighborhoods. NAC7.1: MIX OF HOUSING Encourage a mix of housing types and densities in residential neighborhoods, particularly for projects greater than two acres.
NAC7.3: ZONING (a) Allow a mix of housing types and densities by-right in areas designated as Mixed-Use Activity Centers, Compact, and High Density Residential on the Land Use Plan map. (b) Implement standards that require a mix of housing types proportionate to the size of the development and provide incentives (e.g., density bonus or similar) for projects that exceed minimum requirements. NAC7.4: DESIGN STANDARDS Develop design standards to implement the principles outlined in Chapter 3 and that promote compatibility between housing of varied densities.
Goal NAC8: Provide residents the opportunity to seek housing in a neighborhood of their choice.
A variety in housing types and densities yields a range of price points and increases housing options for the community. NAC7.2: MANUFACTURED HOUSING Encourage the maintenance and improvement of existing manufactured housing and mobile home developments and allow for new manufactured housing development within the city.
2-38
NAC8.1: FAIR-SHARE HOUSING PROGRAM (a) Support fair-housing goals by cooperating in the establishment of a regional, fair-share housing program. (b) Prohibit discrimination in the sale or rental of housing on the basis of age, race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability. NAC8.2: PUBLIC AWARENESS Inform the general public of their rights and obligations under fair-housing laws and the grievance procedures available in case of violation.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | NEIGHBORHOODS AND ACTIVITY CENTERS
Goal NAC9: Assist in the provision of housing for low- and moderate-income households throughout the community.
(d) Consider incentives to support workforce housing, particularly within mixed-use activity centers and other areas that may be readily served by transit. NAC9.2: MOBILE HOME PARKS Grandfather the existing density of mobile home parks in the event of residential reuse to minimize the net loss of units in the city. NAC9.3: HOUSING PROGRAMS Encourage and support housing programs financed by other levels of government for low- and moderateincome and senior citizens.
Workforce housing should be distributed throughout the community. NAC9.1: WORKFORCE HOUSING (a) Encourage an adequate supply of safe, sanitary housing at costs appropriate to the varied financial capabilities of city residents. (b) Encourage diversity in the type, density, and location of housing through partnerships with members of the real estate community and area employers.. (c) Promote dispersal of low- and moderateincome housing throughout the city.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
NAC9.4: ACCESSIBLE UNITS Encourage development of residential units that are accessible to persons with disabilities and adaptable for conversion to use by persons with disabilities consistent with requirements of the building code. NAC9.5: NON-TRADITIONAL HOUSING Explore the feasibility of nontraditional housing models such as cooperative housing and singleroom- occupancy units to provide affordable housing and temporary or transitional shelter for those with special needs such as for the abused, homeless and disabled. NAC9.6: SELF-HELP HOUSING PROGRAMS Encourage development of self-help housing programs through nonprofit organizations.
2-39
NEIGHBORHOODS AND ACTIVITY CENTERS | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF HIGH-QUALITY URBAN DESIGN IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT As a community, Boise City has come to expect quality, creativity, and character in both new and infill development in its neighborhoods and activity centers. The city will clearly convey its expectations about the types of development desired for different areas of the city and ensure the appropriate tools are in place to implement its vision. In addition, the city will work with the Ada County Highway District to ensure that the design and appearance of its streets contribute to the overall character of the community. The goals and policies outlined below underscore the importance of high-quality urban design in Boise’s built environment. These goals and policies are supported by the detailed land use policies contained in Chapter 3 of this Comprehensive Plan, which address specific urban design objectives for development based on location and type. Goal NAC10: Establish clear urban design objectives for development in different areas of the city.
NAC10.2: NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING Ensure that neighborhood plans contain policies pertaining to desired urban design characteristics consistent with this Comprehensive Plan. Use these policies to supplement the Community Design Principles and Planning Area Policies contained in this Comprehensive Plan. NAC10.3: PUBLIC FACILITIES Require public facilities to be consistent with the Community Design Principles and other policies contained in this Comprehensive Plan so that they serve as a positive design example.
Design standards must address infill and redevelopment as well as new development. NAC10.1: DESIGN STANDARDS Develop illustrative design standards that encourage creativity and performance based design for employment, mixed-use, commercial, and neighborhood development to implement the Community Design Principles contained in Chapter 4. Ensure design standards address infill and redevelopment as well as new development.
2-40
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | NEIGHBORHOODS AND ACTIVITY CENTERS
Goal NAC11: Promote creativity in urban design.
Goal NAC12: Promote high-quality, pedestrian-oriented design within the public realm.
NAC11.1: INCENTIVES Provide incentives for projects to exceed minimum design requirements on portions of the development visible from public spaces. NAC11.2: SUSTAINABLE DESIGN Reinforce the link between creative urban design, public art, and sustainable development practices by encouraging the use of new construction techniques and sustainable building materials.
High-quality, pedestrian-oriented design enhances the public realm.
The 36th Street Garden Center received a Silver LEED certification from the U.S. Green Building Council for its sustainable design. NAC11.3: ZONING UPDATES (a) Ensure that the zoning districts are updated to reflect the goals and policies contained in this plan. (b) Remove barriers to desirable development patterns, particularly in those areas identified as areas of change in Chapter 4: Planning Area Policies. NAC11.4: DESIGN REVIEW AWARDS Recognize projects that incorporate exemplary urban design through the Mayor’s Excellence in Design Awards.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
2-41
NEIGHBORHOODS AND ACTIVITY CENTERS | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
PROTECT THE CITY’S HISTORIC RESOURCES Boise has already taken steps to protect many of its historic resources through the creation of historic overlay districts, landmarks, and façade easements. The city will monitor and periodically update these districts to better serve existing and future residents and to ensure they may be easily enforced. The city will work to preserve the city’s historical architecture, artifacts and information in order to maintain a sense of place for current and future generations. Historic preservation efforts should continue to be encouraged through the use of financial, building, and similar incentives for the restoration and rehabilitation of historic structures and facilities. The adaptive reuse of historic structures or properties no longer being used for their original purpose is also encouraged. The goals and polices outlined below are intended to reinforce the objectives outlined in the Historic Preservation Plan and to promote sensitivity to the city’s historic resources in the context of day-to-day decision making processes. Goal NAC13: Protect historically and culturally significant resources that contribute to community identity and history.
NAC13.4: MONITORING OF EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES Establish standards for on-site monitoring of excavation activities. Such standards shall be mandatory within historic districts and strongly suggested for other unprotected potential historic sites. NAC13.5: SITES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INTEREST Identify, inventory, and evaluate potential historic districts of particular archaeological interest. NAC13.6: DESIGNATION OF DISTRICTS Preserve the city’s historic districts and resources by developing special protective measures, such as historic and conservation districts in accordance with the Historic Preservation Plan.
The city’s many historic buildings contribute to the image and identity of the community and its neighborhoods.
Goal NAC14: Protect, enhance, and preserve Boise’s designated historic landmarks and districts.
NAC13.1: HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN Periodically update the Historic Preservation Plan to reflect changes in city regulations, standards, and planning objectives.
NAC14.1: GOALS AND POLICIES FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION Develop goals and policies for historic preservation to be included in urban renewal and specific urban design plans of the city.
NAC13.2: INVENTORY OF HISTORIC PLACES Develop and maintain a comprehensive inventory of historic places in accordance with the goals of the Historic Preservation Plan.
NAC14.2: ZONING Recommend amendments to the zoning code that facilitate historic preservation and conservation of quality urban design.
NAC13.3: DESIGNATION OF HISTORIC PLACES (a) Designate historic places based on the site’s compliance with statutory requirements and the goals and policies of the Historic Preservation Plan. (b) Identify and monitor areas with the potential to become historically significant over time.
NAC14.3: PROTECTIVE MEASURES Recommend, as appropriate, actions such as acquisition of historic easements or facade easements; historic preservation and rehabilitation through tax incentives; and, in emergency situations, lease or purchase of threatened or deteriorated property having significant historic or aesthetic merit.
2-42
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | NEIGHBORHOODS AND ACTIVITY CENTERS Boise City Historic Districts, properties, or landmarks with appropriate signs or plaques. NAC15.4: EDUCATIONAL AND INTERPRETIVE PROGRAMS Promote opportunities for scholarship, publication, and academic credit to stimulate interest in and appreciation for Boise’s historic legacy through the Arts and History Department. Undertake original historical research and interpretation to further community understanding of Boise’s past.
The Union Block, completed in 1902, is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. NAC14.4: PRIVATELY SPONSORED PROGRAMS Encourage privately sponsored programs for historic preservation and rehabilitation when consistent with the public interest and to fulfill the purpose of the Historic Preservation Plan.
Goal NAC15: Promote public understanding and appreciation for Boise’s historic heritage. NAC15.1: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (a) Solicit active participation and cooperation of people interested in the Historic Preservation Commission’s programs and Arts and History Department’s programs. (b) Encourage volunteers to assist in implementing the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and Arts and History Department archival projects, particularly for compilation and research required for the inventory of historic places. NAC15.2: INFORMATION SHARING Make inventories, historical data, references, and other material developed by the Historic Preservation Commission and Arts and History Department available to researchers, writers, students, and other interested persons, with the exception of information that may be legally privileged. NAC15.3: PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Encourage individual property owners and neighborhood associations to identify designated
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Sites such as these promote appreciation for Boise’s historic heritage.
Goal NAC16: Integrate historic preservation and conservation into Boise’s public planning process. NAC16.1: EDUCATIONAL AND INTERPRETIVE PROGRAMS Explore options for additional funding of local historic and archaeological resource programs. NAC16.2: NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH Solicit the advice and assistance of neighborhood associations in developing the Historic Preservation Commission and Arts and History Department’s plans and programs and extend support to neighborhoods in preserving properties and conserving architectural character. NAC16.3: COORDINATION Integrate historic preservation with the city’s urban, land-use, and other public planning processes that relate to the visual, aesthetic, and cultural environment.
2-43
NEIGHBORHOODS AND ACTIVITY CENTERS | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
Figure 3: Boise Local Historic Districts
2-44
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | A CONNECTED COMMUNITY
#4: A Connected Community
To residents of Boise, being a “connected community” extends beyond the physical connections implied by multi-modal transportation objectives. It encompasses a community that is connected technologically and socially as well. As a region, Boise and its partners have indicated a desire to strive for a connected Treasure Valley that provides safe and efficient facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, and transit. The city also acknowledges the important role that transportation plays in its long term sustainability. The city will further these objectives through ongoing regional coordination and thoughtful land use decisions that support the incremental expansion of the region’s transit network over time, encourage the use of a wide range of travel options, and promote an overall reduction in regional traffic congestion and vehicle miles traveled. The city will also encourage continued expansion of a reliable technology infrastructure to serve and connect the community. Continued expansion of the city’s technology infrastructure will increase access
BLUEPRINT BOISE
to information and foster better communication among residents, businesses, institutions, and city government. Better technology connections will increase areas within the city where residents have the capability to work from home or in a live/work setting. Finally, the city will support social connectivity in the community through ongoing support of various social service organizations and by encouraging land use patterns and creating gathering places that attract people and promote social interaction. Goals and policies that promote a physically, technologically, and socially connected community are based on the following principles: Promote an integrated approach to land use and transportation planning; Expand the city’s non-motorized transportation options; Expand the city’s transit system; and Support technological and social connections.
2-45
A CONNECTED COMMUNITY | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
Principles, Goals, and Policies for a Connected Community (CC): PROMOTE AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING The importance of integrating land use and transportation planning decisions has been emphasized in recent years through regional planning efforts such as Blueprint for Good Growth and the long-range transportation plan, Communities in Motion. The city’s commitment to this integration is embodied in this Comprehensive Plan and will be paramount to its implementation and success. For example, land use policies outlined for Downtown Boise and the city’s transit corridors and mixed-use activity centers, in particular, are intended to support existing and future transit and to enable more residents the ability to choose alternative modes of travel. Without the implementation of such land use policies—and the concentrations of housing, services, and jobs that will ultimately result from them—the viability of rapid transit will remain questionable in many locations, and fewer residents will be able to walk or ride their bikes to work, school, and other activities. The city will collaborate with the Ada County Highway District on land use polices and regulations to ensure future land use designations and adjacent street types and transit modes are mutually supportive. The goals and polices outlined below reflect the city’s commitment to the integration of land use and transportation decisions at a variety of levels. They should be reviewed and applied in conjunction with the land use policies and design principles contained in Chapter 3 of this Comprehensive Plan. Goal CC1: Minimize the impact of transportation systems on climate change. CC1.1: REDUCE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) (a) Encourage infill development in order to avoid costly extensions of transportation facilities and to minimize travel distances. (b) Encourage compact development with a mix of uses as a means to decrease VMT. (c) Measure and manage the VMT by city fleet vehicles. CC1.2: TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS The city’s top priority for investment of federal and local transportation dollars is to maintain the roadway, transit, and pedestrian/bicycle system. Expand the capacity of the transit system and the bicycle and pedestrian facilities. All improvements to the roadway system will be designed to accommodate all modes.
2-46
Transportation investments should be designed to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles comfortably. CC1.3: FUEL ECONOMY (a) Create incentives to encourage the use of efficient vehicles, such as free meter parking for hybrid, van pool, or car pool vehicles. (b) Pursue the acquisition of city fleet vehicles with better fuel economy. (c) Develop a database with information on fuel use and mileage records for each city vehicle. (d) Promote the use of low-emission motorcycles and scooters and non-motorized vehicles.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | A CONNECTED COMMUNITY CC1.4: FUEL TYPE (a) Use alternative fuels in fleet vehicles to decrease the level of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHG) based on net energy usage. All alternative fuels should undergo quality analysis and biodiesel products should conform to appropriate international standards. Additionally, emissions from vehicles using alternative fuels should be evaluated to ascertain air quality impacts. (b) Pursue acquisition of city fleet vehicles that operate on natural gas and/or other alternative fuels with lower emissions impacts, and encourage the acquisition of alternative fuel vehicles by Valley Regional Transit (VRT). (c) Provide education and information about the location of service stations for the general public that provide alternative fuels. CC1.5: EMISSIONS (a) Implement recommendations of the Climate Protection Program Advisory Committee to decrease emissions. (b) Coordinate with ACHD, ITD, and COMPASS to identify areas of high congestion and delay and to create solutions that improve traffic flow and minimize vehicle time spent idling and accelerating while balancing the needs of alternative transportation modes. (c) Evaluate the results of the COMPASS annual Congestion Management Report for corridors where increased investments in transit and pedestrian and bicycle facilities may be needed to improve mobility. CC1.6: REDUCE USE AND EMISSIONS (a) Reduce fossil fuel use by 40% by 2014. (b) Achieve emission levels seven percent lower than 1990 levels by the year 2012 consistent with the goals set by the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.
Goal CC2: Create an interconnected network of complete streets that serve all modes of transportation. CC2.1: CONNECTIVITY (a) Develop a street network that interconnects and distributes vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic to multiple streets.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
(b) Establish a connectivity measure to promote a connected system of roadways to alleviate traffic congestion, reduce travel distances, and increase travel options. (c) Explore opportunities to improve connectivity in existing neighborhoods without widening existing streets. (d) Prioritize maintenance of existing roadway facilities over construction of new roadways. (e) Balance the needs of through freight movements and local transportation needs. (f ) Evaluate the city truck route system’s ability to serve current and future truck-related demand.
Extended corners protect pedestrians from vehicular traffic by narrowing the street and causing cars to slow down. CC2.2: STREET DESIGN (a) Use street typologies in the ACHD Transportation Land Use Integration Plan to guide how streets relate to adjacent land uses and how specific streets are intended to provide a high degree of mobility. (b) Consider all travel modes in the design of streets. While vehicular traffic flow should be carefully considered, reasonable reduction in vehicular traffic capacities and level of service should be allowed at intersections and crossings with high pedestrian and bicycle activity to safely accommodate their crossing. (c) Provide for street lights in accordance with the City’s Street Light Placement Policy. Provide street lights in local residential areas at a maximum spacing of 600 feet and at locations where street lighting will improve public safety. The 600 foot maximum spacing
2-47
A CONNECTED COMMUNITY | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES criteria applies in areas of relatively straight and level streets that have no locations of obvious traffic conflict. Street intersections and other locations of potential pedestrian or vehicle hazards may require increased levels of street lighting.
Goal CC3: Promote transit-ready development patterns.
Lighting along arterial and major collector streets located predominately industrial and commercial areas are required to be in accordance with national standards established by the Illuminating Engineering Society and The American Association of State Highway and Traffic Officials. Both new and substantial remodels of commercial development are subject to the City’s Street Light Placement Policy. Special Lighting requirements apply to all development located within designated Historical Lighting Districts. CC2.3: LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND SAFETY STANDARDS (a) Evaluate the use of a variable or flexible vehicular level-of-service standard for roadways. (b) Create pedestrian and bicycle level-of-service standards. (c) Monitor crash data for all modes and for areas with higher-than-expected crash rates to identify needed improvements in design or safety controls. CC2.4: ADOPTED TRANSPORTATION PLANS The following plans are adopted by reference: ACHD Roadways to Bikeways Plan Boise Pathways Master Plan Communities in Motion Long-Range Regional Transportation Plan Transportation Action Plan Valley Connect 2.0 CC2.5: MASTER STREETS MAP (a) The Master Streets Map is adopted by reference. (b) Coordinate the implementation of the Master Street Map with ACHD, ITD, and VRT.
2-48
Public transportation reduces traffic congestion and air pollution while providing residents an alternative mode of transportation. CC3.1: NETWORK DEVELOPMENT (a) Work with ACHD, ITD and VRT to preserve right-of-way necessary for future public transit when planning or upgrading corridors. (b) Promote development patterns with highintensity activity centers or nodes consistent with the regional long-range transportation plan, Communities in Motion, Blueprint for Good Growth, State Street Transit and Traffic Operational Plan, and the State Street Corridor Transit Oriented Development Plan. CC3.2: TRANSIT FACILITIES (a) Identify appropriate sites for future transit development or expansion. (b)Integrate transit stops and stations into new and redeveloped sites and/or improve access to existing transit facilities. (c) Prioritize improvements of pedestrian and bicycle facilities in areas served by transit. (d) Follow best practices for pedestrian safety at intersection and crossing locations near transit stops. CC3.3: PERFORMANCE AND MONITORING Enhance the COMPASS Communities in Motion Performance Report to create a baseline and evaluate new transit investment’s impact on development activity, property values and lease rates, and residential and employment shifts.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | A CONNECTED COMMUNITY
Figure4: Master Street Map BLUEPRINT BOISE
2-49
A CONNECTED COMMUNITY | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
Goal CC4: Improve the efficiency of Boise’s transportation system by using Travel Demand Management (TDM). Support Commuteride programs that promote TDM through advertising and direct outreach to businesses and workers. CC4.2: RIDESHARING (a) Coordinate with VRT, ITD, COMPASS, and ACHD Commuteride to develop a city-wide parkand-ride system to support and encourage transit use and ridesharing. (b) Provide incentives for shared parking agreements to minimize the need for new surface lots. (c) Broaden the number of routes and schedules. CC4.3: EMPLOYER PROGRAMS (a) Support Commuteride’s employer programs through referrals of new businesses. (b) Promote and give public recognition to participants involved in successful trip conversion programs sponsored by agencies and companies. (c) Rather than providing free employee parking, encourage employers to provide an employee transportation subsidy that can be applied toward the purchase of a transit pass, vanpool program, or a parking permit. CC4.4: PARKING (a) Create incentives, such as reduced parking requirements or deferred development impact fees, when specific TDM parking techniques are implemented. (b) Work with ACHD and the ITD to reduce free on-street parking in non-residential areas that are well- served by transit. Review on-street parking meter prices and parking fines to discourage long-term (more than two hours) parking, especially in areas designated as transit corridors and transit-oriented development centers. (c) To reduce the amount of parking required, establish maximum parking requirements for all non-residential uses. Parking standards should recognize: The availability and capacity of transit service;
(d) City-owned garages should provide a range of parking alternatives for Downtown employers. CC4.5: SCHOOLS AND TDM (a) Encourage transit ridership among high school students by distributing information to students on alternative transportation options, locating new schools close to established transit routes, limiting student parking, and/or establishing closed campuses to reduce traffic impacts. (b) Support the VRT program of reduced bus fares for students. (c) Discourage and explore ways to reduce onstreet parking by students and staff in adjacent residential neighborhoods. (d) Establish parking overlay districts and neighborhood parking programs around schools where parking capacity problems exist. (e) Coordinate the development of Safe Routes to School plans with the Boise School District and Meridian School District to identify obstacles to the use of sidewalks, bike lanes, and pathways for travel to school. (f ) Encourage schools to monitor the use of alternative modes of travel to school each year. CC4.6 CAR-SHARING PROGRAM Explore the feasibility of a car-sharing program to increase alternatives to car ownership.
Availability of alternative commute modes; Access to off-site and on-street parking facilities; and The availability of joint-use parking in mixeduse areas.
2-50
Car-sharing programs, such as Flexcar, provides members with an alternative transportation option and the possibility of decreasing car ownership throughout the city.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | A CONNECTED COMMUNITY
Goal CC5: Promote safe and efficient rail service to the Boise area. CC5.1: IMPLEMENTATION (a) Ensure that zoning and development standards for properties adjacent to rail corridors are appropriate to avoid noise and encroachment impacts. (b) Minimize at-grade crossings of the tracks for new projects. (c) Preserve rail corridors for a future multi-modal transportation system that includes light rail. (d) Encourage development of rail service in the Treasure Valley in partnership with other communities. CC5.2: SAFETY (a) Coordinate with railroad companies and the ACHD to provide appropriate signage, traffic controls, and public education to promote safety at rail crossings. (b) Monitor crash data to identify areas with high crash or fatality incidents. (c) Investigate need for design changes and/or public education.
Goal CC6: Protect the long-term viability of the Boise Air Terminal as part of the City’s multi-modal transportation system. CC6.1: AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY (a) The Airport Master Plan is adopted by reference as amended. (b) Adopt land use, zoning, and subdivision standards necessary to prevent the establishment of uses that are noise-sensitive or conflict with safe operations of the airport.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
(c) Ensure the ability to expand the Boise Air Terminal as needed to meet regional air travel needs. (d) Provide access to the Boise Air Terminal for all modes of travel and improve public information and signs regarding public transportation service.
The Boise Air Terminal should be well-connected to the city by all modes of transportation, making it easy for residents and visitors to access the city and the airport. CC6.2: ACCOMMODATE HIGH-OCCUPANCY VEHICLES Incorporate high-occupancy vehicle facilities in future airport improvements, such as bus pullouts, loading platforms, shelters, and passenger information facilities. CC6.3: ANNUAL REPORTS Continue annual reporting of enplanements and roadway system demand in the vicinity of the airport to ensure convenient access to the airport is provided.
2-51
A CONNECTED COMMUNITY | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
EXPAND THE CITY’S NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION OPTION Many of Boise’s traditional neighborhoods were designed with walking and biking in mind. Continuous sidewalks and bike lanes and small, walkable blocks make the use of alternative modes safe and easy. As the city continues to grow, new neighborhoods should be designed with similar features that provide for high levels of connectivity. The city will review and update its regulations and policies to ensure its pedestrian and bicycle framework extends throughout the community—providing all residents with the ability to choose a non-motorized mode as their primary means of traveling to and from work, school, and other destinations. In addition, the city will ensure that plans for pedestrian and bicycle facilities are coordinated with applicable land use and transportation decisions and this Comprehensive Plan to provide for an overall network of connected facilities. Goals and policies outlined below establish the city’s commitment to safe and efficient pedestrian and bicycle travel throughout the community. Goal CC7: Enhance pedestrian connectivity and comfort.
Pedestrian pathways increase the recreation and transportation opportunities throughout the city while keeping pedestrians safe from motor vehicles. CC7.1: PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM (a) Connect destinations with pedestrian facilities and encourage walking for a wide variety of trips by adding sidewalk connections, restoring damaged sidewalks, and requiring sidewalks as part of development approvals. (b) Collaborate with ACHD, ITD, neighborhood associations, and schools to fix “gaps” in the pedestrian system that were identified through the ACHD Pedestrian-Bicycle Transition Plan. (c) Partner with the Meridian and Boise School Districts, private schools, neighborhood associations, ACHD, and ITD to develop and implement Safety Improvement Plans to ensure safe routes to all schools. (d) Improve complementary accessory uses,
2-52
such as restrooms, drinking water, and public telephones along major bicycle and pedestrian routes. CC7.2: DESIGN FOR PEDESTRIAN COMFORT (a) Support new development designed with compact, mixed-use patterns that are conducive to walking and bicycling. (b) Minimize pedestrian conflict with vehicles by providing buffers between the sidewalk and automobile traffic and by combining adjacent property driveways to limit curb-cuts. (c) To protect the most vulnerable street users, maximize pedestrian safety and comfort in the design of pedestrian crossings (d) Design pedestrian pathways to be welllit, secure, and with convenient connections between destinations. Avoid meandering pathways except where necessary to protect trees or avoid obstructions. CC7.3: PERFORMANCE AND MONITORING (a) Use annual resident transportation surveys and biennial employee and university faculty, staff, and student transportation surveys to identify travel trends over time and track progress toward meeting mode share goals. (b) Monitor crash data for areas with high pedestrian crash or fatality incidents for design and safety improvements. (c) Create and use pedestrian level-of-service standards to evaluate the pedestrian network and prioritize improvements. (d) Evaluate progress in implementation of the ACHD Bicycle-Pedestrian Transition Plan (BPTP) recommendations.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | A CONNECTED COMMUNITY
Goal CC8: Enhance bicycling connectivity and comfort. CC8.1: CONNECTIVITY (a) The ACHD Pedestrian-Bicycle Transition Plan and the ACHD Roadways to Bikeway Plan are adopted by reference as amended. (b) Close “gaps” in the bicycle network and improve bicycle connectivity.
Bicycle routes can provide residents an easy and sustainable way to travel around town.
(b) Promote the provision of safe, secure, appropriately designed, and conveniently located bicycle parking and shower/locker/storage facilities. (c) Construct and upgrade bicycle routes to the standards described in the ACHD PBTP and the Roadways to Bikeways Plan. CC8.3: USE AND SAFETY (a) Use annual resident transportation surveys and biennial employee and university faculty, staff, and student transportation surveys to identify travel trends over time and track progress toward meeting mode share goals. (b) Monitor accident data for areas with high bicycle crash or fatality incidents for design and safety improvements. (c) Create and use bicycle level-of-service standards to evaluate the bicycle network and prioritize improvements. (d) Evaluate progress implementing recommendations of the ACHD BPTP and the Roadways to Bikeways Plan. CC8.4 PUBLIC EDUCATION Provide information to the public about bicycle safety, laws, and routes.
CC8.2: IMPROVE FACILITIES (a) Coordinate with other governments to identify and program projects to improve complementary accessory uses, including but not limited to restrooms, drinking water, and emergency telephones along major bicycle and pedestrian routes.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
2-53
A CONNECTED COMMUNITY | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
Figure 5: Bicycle Network
2-54
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | A CONNECTED COMMUNITY
EXPAND THE CITY’S TRANSIT SYSTEM More than 30 percent of Boise’s population is dependent on alternatives to the car for their daily travel needs. A viable transit system will not only provide mobility to a large segment of the city’s residents, but will also help to improve air quality and reduce traffic congestion. Future land use decisions will promote a more compact pattern of development along planned transit corridors and in designated mixed-use activity centers. Boise’s future will include enhanced transit service that expands the service hours and frequency on major bus routes, provides new bus routes in areas that are not currently served, and adds other types of public transportation to the city and other areas in the Treasure Valley. Goals and policies outlined below establish the range of ways in which the city will seek to support this objective through its day-to-day decision making process. High-Capacity Transit Study that will identify service options for the Downtown streetcar system, the Downtown location of a multi-modal center, and the options for regional travel to Downtown Boise. (e) Actively complete other studies required to be eligible for federal New Starts transit funding. (f ) Pursue transit programs such as rail and streetcar systems as a means of achieving other nonpolluting methods of transportation. (g) Sustain the coalition of business, local governments, and users to advocate for a dedicated source of transit funding. Expanding the city’s transit system in addition to appropriate land use decisions will increase ridership, decrease traffic congestion, and increase the mobility of residents.
Goal CC9: Provide a high-quality public transit system. CC9.1: EXPAND NETWORK POSSIBILITIES (a) Promote development patterns that support existing transit routes and that will help build new routes and enhanced service over time. Transit-supportive development patterns are particularly important along transit corridors and within mixed-use activity centers where higher densities can be accommodated. (b) Support local-option taxing authority to maintain and improve transit service within Boise and to increase intercity service. Continue to support transit through local funding until a dedicated funding source is identified. (c) Implement expanded bus service identified in the Treasure Valley in Transit Plan, such as linking activity centers with high-quality transit service. (d) Support the completion of the Treasure Valley
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Enhanced bus shelters make public transportation more attractive and provide users with protection from weather. CC9.2: STREET AND TRANSIT STOP DESIGN (a) Identify street typologies with dedicated space for high-frequency or fixed guideway transit. (b) Evaluate corridors with ridership potential for transit systems such as rail, bus, bus rapid transit (BRT), or streetcar.
2-55
A CONNECTED COMMUNITY | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES (c) Encourage the use of public transportation and enhance the appearance of transit stops through- support for the installation of shelters and benches at stops and stations in neighborhoods and business areas. (d) Provide clear pedestrian access to transit stops through the application of the Mixed-Use and Corridor Design Principles contained in Chapter 3.
CC9.3: EVALUATION (a) Establish performance measures with VRT that balance coverage and service to transitdependent citizens. (b) Monitor development patterns of transitsupportive densities and evaluate against existing transit service.
Main Street Station is the location of the Downtown multi-modal center, opened in 2016. It greatly enhances the local transportation service grid, and expands the options for regional travel to Downtown Boise.
2-56
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | A CONNECTED COMMUNITY
SUPPORT TECHNOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL CONNECTIONS To Boise, being a “connected community” extends beyond the physical connections implied by the multimodal objectives outlined in this chapter. Ensuring that the city has strong technological connections that link residents, employees, and visitors to one another and the outside world facilitates activities— such as telecommuting and enhanced communications—that in turn support many of the broad goals established by this Comprehensive Plan. The city plays an important role in bringing together numerous organizations, neighborhood groups, residents, and property and business owners to coordinate programs and resources. The city also encourages land use patterns and creating places that attract people and promote social interaction. The goals and policies outlined below establish the city’s commitment to the continued expansion of a reliable technology infrastructure to serve the community and to promoting connections and building relationships that will benefit the greater good of the community. Goal CC10: Facilitate expanded access to advanced telecommunications technologies. CC10.1: EXPANDED COVERAGE AREAS Expand access of advanced telecommunications technologies to activity centers throughout Boise as a means of encouraging live/work and telecommuting opportunities. CC10.2: DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES Establish development guidelines for building design that encourage or allow: Structured wiring systems; More than one connection point for power and communications to enhance survivability of systems; Inclusion of wireless technology; Use of personal communication systems and devices inside buildings; Multiple providers for communication services;
Use of communications infrastructure as part of building security systems. CC10.3: JOINT TRENCHING Explore opportunities to accomplish joint trenching for communication and power lines, particularly in areas such as Downtown Boise and in mixed-use activity centers where opportunities are likely to arise through infill and redevelopment.
Goal CC11: Facilitate connections with partner groups and agencies. CC11.1: COORDINATION OF RESOURCES Continue to convene gatherings with partner agencies, neighborhood groups, health and service organizations, and others on issues of mutual interest and need. CC11.2: SHARED RESOURCES Seek opportunities to leverage available resources, including buildings as well as human capital, in addressing issues of mutual interest and need.
Energy management systems; and
BLUEPRINT BOISE
2-57
A CONNECTED COMMUNITY | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
Boise values its culture, arts and history. These places embody the benevolent public and private support for the development of places that foster community gatherings and cultural events. Top left is the Julia Davis Memorial in the Rose Garden of Julia Davis Park; top right is the Idaho Anne Frank Human Rights Memorial park inspired by Anne Frank’s faith in humanity; lower left is the Abraham Lincoln statue in Julia Davis Park. Lower right is the Native Idahoan dedication of the Boise Airport Terminal.
2-58
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | CULTURE, EDUCATION, ARTS, AND HISTORY
#5: A Community that Values its Culture, Education, Arts and History
The quality of Boise’s arts, cultural, and performance facilities is a source of community pride. The visual arts, performing arts, and local history are integral to the city’s community identity and economy and can be found in community celebrations and events, neighborhoods, and public institutions. The city noted the importance of supporting cultural endeavors when it created the Department of Arts and History in March 2008. The Department provides services and funding to citizens and local cultural organizations. The department also helps to collect, preserve, and interpret our cultural heritage. The connection between the availability of homegrown culture to the livability and growth of the regional economy will continue to strengthen as participation in arts, history, and other cultural opportunities increase.
Goals and policies to promote the role of cultural activities, education, arts, and history in Boise are based on the following principles: Reinforce the role of visual and performing arts within the community; Support the development of public spaces that promote community gatherings and cultural events; Promote quality schools to serve the educational and social needs of the community; Support institutions of higher education that meet the changing needs of Boise’s residents and business community; and Provide high-quality library services for city residents.
Similarly, educational facilities are a source of great pride for residents including the city’s public schools as well as Boise State University, Idaho State University, the College of Western Idaho (CWI), and the University of Idaho.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
2-59
CULTURE, EDUCATION, ARTS, AND HISTORY | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
Principles, Goals, and Policies for Culture, Education, Arts and History (CEA): REINFORCE THE ROLE OF VISUAL AND PERFORMING ARTS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY The arts have flourished in Boise because of strong community support and excel¬lent organizing structures. Music, theater, dance and other cultural activities draw visitors from around the region and Idaho. Visual and performing arts are an important part of our visual culture, as are the many museums and organizations that share our heritage. The city will continue to support the presence of these activities and facilities as part of future planning efforts. Goal CEA1: Promote public and private cultural opportunities for people of all economic, ethnic, and age groups.
CEA1.4: ACCESS Expand access to the arts for persons with limited income or physical disability through activities such as grant programs, website development, and public outreach efforts. CEA1.5: CULTURAL DIVERSITY Expand opportunities for artists of diverse cultural backgrounds to participate in Boise’s cultural life through special events.
Goal CEA2: Strengthen the number and quality of arts education programs available in Boise.
Cultural opportunities should not be limited to those who can afford them; a variety of programs should be available to all residents.
CEA2.1: SCHOOL-BASED ARTS EDUCATION Establish creative partnerships to enhance schoolbased arts education, such as after-school arts classes, summer arts camps, collaborative training for arts instructors, and training for volunteers.
CEA1.1: PROGRAM EXPANSION Maintain and expand opportunities for artists and historians through ongoing civic support, such as funding, promotion, use of city facilities and staff, ordinance amendments, and development processing. CEA1.2: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDING SOURCES Pursue and encourage stable public and private funding sources to support art and history programs. Encourage the formation of an endowment to provide a consistent funding source for arts. CEA1.3: ARTS AND HISTORY DEPARTMENT Provide leadership and advocacy for cultural programs and production through the Boise City Department of Arts and History.
2-60
Arts are an important part of education, and a variety of opportunities should be made available to children.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | CULTURE, EDUCATION, ARTS, AND HISTORY CEA2.2: NONPROFIT ARTS ORGANIZATIONS Support educational programs offered by Boise’s nonprofit arts and history organizations, and expand these programs through community education and outreach efforts.
CEA2.4: PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Expand arts programs and facilities of the Boise Parks and Recreation Department.
CEA2.3: PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS Support and expand collaborative arts education ventures between the public and private sectors, such as Arts for Kids.
The Morrison Center for the Performing Arts, located on the campus of Boise State University, opened its doors in 1984 and serves as the valley’s premier performing arts facility, seating 2,037.
The Boise Contemporary Theater has been a recipient of an economic development grant, and, the Mayor’s Awards for Excellence In Arts and History. The theater is an anchor in the Boise Cultural District, and implements the “Boise Cultural District Master Plan,” 1998. The building received CCDC funding to support the renovation of a historic warehouse into a performance space, currently owned and operated by Boise Contemporary Theater.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
2-61
CULTURE, EDUCATION, ARTS, AND HISTORY | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC SPACES THAT PROMOTE COMMUNITY GATHERINGS AND CULTURAL EVENTS Boise’s mild climate allows residents to enjoy the outdoors nearly year-round. Outdoor public spaces such as plazas and neighborhood parks should be integrated throughout the community to encourage social interaction, foster a distinct sense of place, and provide a venue for public art displays. While many such spaces exist in the core of the city and serve this function, regulations should be reviewed and updated to ensure public spaces are provided in mixed-use activity centers and neighborhoods throughout the community. CEA3: Create public spaces where people can experience art in their daily lives.
CEA3.3: ART AND HISTORY IN PRIVATE PROJECTS Develop incentives that encourage the incorporation of public art in private projects and the involvement of artists in early design stages. CEA3.4: NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT PROGRAM Encourage the use of public art, historical documentation, and interpretive programs to provide a sense of place and shared identity in the city’s neighborhoods through neighborhood planning efforts and appropriate grants.
Public art in a plaza is one way for people to experience art. CEA3.1: CULTURAL DISTRICT Support the Downtown Cultural District where arts and history will be promoted and accommodated. CEA3.2: PUBLIC ART PROJECTS (a) Incorporate public art in public projects, such as buildings, parks, recreation facilities, public works facilities, at bus stops, inside buses, within traffic circles, at city gateways, in parking garages, and other transportation facilities. (b) Involve art and history professionals from concept through final design as integral members of design teams, and in consultation with the Department of Arts and History. (c) Provide citizen oversight through the Department of Arts and History.
2-62
CEA3.5: CULTURAL FACILITIES Expand Boise’s public and private cultural facilities to better meet the needs of the city’s creative and historic organizations and improve community access to art and history events, programs, and educational opportunities. CEA3.6: LIVE/WORK SPACE FOR ARTISTS Remove barriers to the creation of live/work spaces for artists through changes in the city’s development and building regulations. CEA3.7: DOWNTOWN AS CULTURAL CENTER Work with CCDC to promote Downtown as the cultural center of the Boise area with a variety of programming opportunities and cultural initiatives. CEA3.8: ART IN ESTABLISHED CENTERS Promote the use of public art as a means to revitalize older commercial centers. CEA3.9: CULTURAL ARTS PLAN FOR THE 30TH STREET NEIGHBORHOOD Encourage the implementation of A Cultural Arts Plan for Boise’s 30th Street Neighborhood.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | CULTURE, EDUCATION, ARTS, AND HISTORY
Public art can add something new to an older plaza and create an interesting attraction.
Goal CEA4: Promote artistic endeavors serving broad audiences, involving local artists, and fostering multi-cultural artistic expression.
A community park event gives residents the opportunity to share their art with the community. CEA4.1: COMMUNITY ART EVENTS AND PROJECTS Support art and community art events in gathering places Downtown and throughout the city. CEA4.2: AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE IN THE ARTS AND HISTORY Present the biannual Mayor’s Awards for Excellence in the Arts and History. CEA4.3: CULTURAL TOURISM Develop and implement a long-range plan to promote cultural tourism, working with the Boise City Department of Arts and History, Economic Development Department, Chamber of Commerce, Boise Convention and Visitors Bureau, and other public and private entities.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
2-63
CULTURE, EDUCATION, ARTS, AND HISTORY | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
PROMOTE QUALITY SCHOOLS TO SERVE THE EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY The city will continue to support the maintenance and enhancement of the public and private educational system. A strong emphasis will be placed on providing quality school facilities in conjunction with new development and on retaining existing neighborhood schools as a means of stabilizing declining areas, reinforcing neighborhood history and identity, promoting sustainable development, and providing community gathering places. As part of the city’s increased emphasis on neighborhoods, this plan promotes the concept of the neighborhood school as an ideal model, with schools located and designed to function as focal points for family and community activities throughout the city. The co-location of community gardens and community centers with schools are also encouraged as a teaching and community-building tool. The goals and policies outlined below are intended to guide the location, accessibility, and function of school facilities, both within established areas of the community and in new neighborhoods. Goal CEA5: Ensure that adequate school sites are provided and that the intended capacity of schools is not exceeded. CEA5.1: DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS Work with the school districts to evaluate the impact on school enrollments and capacities when reviewing higher-density infill projects, zone changes, and landuse plan amendments. CEA5.2: FUTURE SCHOOL SITES (a) Work with the school districts to identify future school sites based on the city’s Land Use Plan. (b) Require that developers donate or purchase school sites identified on the facilities map, in proportion to the demand that their developments will create. (c) Ensure that school sites include room for future expansion if needed.
Goal CEA6: Create schools that are safe, accessible, and compatible with their neighborhoods. CEA6.1: SCHOOL SITING (a) Site schools in accordance with the location criteria outlined for Educational land uses in Chapter 3. (b) Coordinate the siting and expansion of school facilities with other community and neighborhood facility and infrastructure needs, including parks, to promote schools as neighborhood centers. (c) Ensure that neighborhoods are provided the opportunity to comment and review plans for new schools or the closure of existing schools.
2-64
The architecture and landscaping of this school helps to blend it in with the neighborhood. CEA6.2: ACCESS Work with schools and neighborhoods to map pedestrian and bicycle access to elementary and secondary schools on local streets and/or micropaths. CEA6.3: SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS (a) Install sidewalks, cross walks, special signage, and traffic control measures along routes to all schools. (b) Require that new developments near schools provide these features as a condition of approval, and retrofit existing neighborhoods as funding becomes available or as land uses are redeveloped. CEA6.4: SIZE AND FREQUENCY Work with the school districts to provide smaller and more frequent school sites than minimum state standards to support the “Neighborhood Schools” concept.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | CULTURE, EDUCATION, ARTS, AND HISTORY CEA6.5: JOINT USE OF SCHOOL SITES Work with the school districts to identify feasible sites to use as shared community centers.
Goal CEA7: Foster schools as community gathering places. CEA7.1: SCHOOL PLACEMENT AND ACCESSIBILITY Work with the school districts and private schools to reinforce the role of schools as gathering places within existing neighborhoods, and in the location of schools to provide focus and identity in new neighborhoods. CEA7.2: COMMUNITY GARDENS Work with the school districts and the neighborhoods to identify opportunities to co-locate community gardens with schools.
Community centers can be often be housed within existing schools to minimize costs. CEA5.6: AFTER HOURS PROGRAMS Work with the school districts to make schools available for civic functions when classes are not in session. CEA6.7: SUSTAINABILITY (a) Encourage the school districts to design and renovate schools with sustainable materials and operations. (b) Promote LEED Certification in new schools. (c) Support the rehabilitation of the city’s historic schools. Encourage the adaptive re-use of historic structures no longer being used for educational purposes. CEA6.8: PARTNERSHIPS Build better, more cooperative efforts between the city and schools to meet the complementary needs of education and provision of quality city services. CEA6.9: NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT Encourage the incorporation of building and site design features that complement the established neighborhood context as part of new schools and the renovation of existing schools.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Schools can host community events as well as other amenities such as community gardens. CEA7.3: NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS (a) In areas that are determined to be at risk of disinvestment, retain neighborhood schools through neighborhood stabilization efforts and coordination with the school districts. (b) Provide incentives to support the revitalization of neighborhood schools, particularly those with historic significance. (c) Seek opportunities to partner with the school districts and ACHD on efforts to stabilize neighborhood schools and expand their role as community centers. (d) Work with the school districts to plan for future school needs. Avoid closing or relocating neighborhood schools due to consolidation or aging facility when practical. (e) Work with the school districts to analyze transportation, infrastructure and health impacts of new or relocated school sites.
2-65
CULTURE, EDUCATION, ARTS, AND HISTORY | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
Goal CEA8: Accommodate private school opportunities for area students and residents.
CEA8.1: SUPPORT EXPANSION Support expansion and development of private schools, compliant with zoning and land-use regulations.
Figure 6: School Districts and Facilities 2-66
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | CULTURE, EDUCATION, ARTS, AND HISTORY
SUPPORT INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION THAT MEET THE CHANGING NEEDS OF BOISE’S RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS COMMUNITY Boise’s institutions of higher education play many important roles in the community. They provide an opportunity for area youth to get a quality education close to home, promote lifelong learning for area residents, and generate revenue for the city in the form of rent and daily services procured by out of state students. Perhaps the most significant of the city’s institutions of higher education is BSU, whose size and location make it a vital element of the city, particularly for the Downtown area. The city will continue to work closely with BSU and other institutions to ensure that future activities are mutually compatible with the goals and objectives of this Comprehensive Plan and the mission of each institution. Coordination with BSU and the surrounding neighborhoods on its Campus Master Plan and planned expansion will be of particular importance. The goals and policies outlined below are intended to promote ongoing coordination and cooperation between the city and its institutions of higher education. Goal CEA9: Continue to plan cooperatively with BSU on future expansion opportunities.
(b) Require that all new construction comply with requirements of the Boise City Zoning Ordinance, and ensure that it provides adequate fire protection and emergency access, both within the campus and in surrounding areas. CEA9.3: NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY Work with BSU and the surrounding neighborhoods to ensure that future development along the campus perimeter provides an appropriate transition of land use, scale, density, and design between university uses and adjacent uses. CEA9.4: DOWNTOWN INTEGRATION Work with BSU to better integrate the campus and its facilities into the Downtown area through such means as better pedestrian, bike and bus connections, and additional student housing and support services.
While BSU contributes to the identity of Boise, expansions should not compromise surrounding uses. CEA9.1: BSU MASTER PLAN Recognize the adopted BSU Framework Master Plan. Analyze fiscal impacts to the city when considering additions to the Framework Master Plan area. CEA9.2: MASTER PLAN CONSISTENCY (a) Coordinate with BSU to ensure that new campus construction is compatible with surrounding areas and consistent with Blueprint Boise.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Goal CEA10: Maximize the ability of the city’s institutions of higher education to provide quality educational services, while minimizing impacts on area residents and businesses. CEA10.1: COORDINATION WITH INSTITUTIONS Participate with institutions of higher education in the development of master plans, neighborhood plans, transit programs, and other programs that provide quality education in a manner compatible with surrounding uses.
2-67
CULTURE, EDUCATION, ARTS, AND HISTORY | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
PROVIDE HIGH-QUALITY LIBRARY! SERVICES FOR CITY RESIDENTS The city recognizes the importance of libraries as essential community facilities and will continue to invest in library locations and technologies. Locations for the Boise Public Library include the main library Downtown, two full-service branch libraries in Northwest Boise and Boise’s Central Bench area, a new library at Cole and Ustick, Hillcrest and a Bookmobile. The goals and policies below are intended to guide the community’s investment in library services over time and to ensure that future growth may be readily served. Goal CEA11: Maintain and expand library service in conjunction with ongoing growth and development.
Ada Community Library, Meridian Library District, and other municipal public libraries in the county through the Open Access Agreement. CEA11.5: NEW MAIN LIBRARY Identify options for the development of a new main library.
Libraries are important part of the community, and all residents should be able to access them easily. CEA11.1: THREE-MILE SERVICE RADIUS Provide adequate geographic coverage three-mile service radius for libraries coverage by pursuing branch libraries in the Southeast, West Bench, and Northwest. CEA11.2: CULTURAL DISTRICT PARKING STRUCTURE Explore options for development of a parking structure for the shared use of the main library and the cultural district.
Little Free Library installed as part of the Boise City Department of Arts And History program.
CEA11.3: EXPANDED ELECTRONIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS Pursue expanded electronic information systems for the library, such as expanded digital library materials, self checkout facilities, and enhanced Internet services. CEA11.4: RECIPROCAL AGREEMENTS Maintain and expand reciprocal agreements with
2-68
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | CULTURE, EDUCATION, ARTS, AND HISTORY
RELATED PLANNING DOCUMENTS One city-wide plan has been adopted to support and strengthen the integration of visual arts, performing arts, and local history as elements of the City’s community identity and economy, and as components in community celebrations and events, in neighborhooods, and in policies and activities of public institutions. CITY OF BOISE’S CULTURAL MASTER PLAN (2017) The Cultural Master Plan is a comprehensive plan to advance strategies for future cultural investments throughout the City. The Cultural Plan lays a five to ten-year groundwork toward development of arts, culture, and history in the City and presents five goals and measurable strategies to measure and to fully develop Boise’s lasting, innovative and vibrant culture..
BLUEPRINT BOISE
2-69
A STRONG DIVERSE ECONOMY | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
#6: A Strong, Diverse Economy
Boise serves as the economic hub of southwest Idaho, providing financial, medical, and commercial services for the most populous part of the state. The city should strive to maintain its current position and continue to identify opportunities to strengthen the economic base of the community. Additional efforts should continue to be focused on Downtown, which is recognized as a unique area of the community whose long-term health and viability are critical to the economic success of the community and region. Opportunities to diversify the city’s economic base through the retention and expansion of smaller, “knowledge-based” and cottage industries should also be encouraged, in addition to supporting the region’s larger employers. The city and its citizens can foster a strong and diverse economy through activities that are directly targeted at economic development as well as those undertaken for other reasons that also strengthen the economy. Examples of activities directed at economic development include allocating land for employment
2-70
and commercial uses and planning for infrastructure needed to support such uses. Examples of activities with secondary benefits for economic development include providing an efficient transportation system that includes high-frequency transit, supporting the arts and cultural activities, encouraging high-quality schools, planning for a range of housing needs, promoting the creation of mixed-use activity centers throughout the community, and providing parks and recreational opportunities that improve quality of life and community health and make Boise attractive to employers. Goals and policies in this chapter are centered on the following principles: Maintain and enhance the city’s primary job base diversity; Leverage the city’s concentration of state and federal activities; and Reinforce the role of Downtown Boise as the city, state and region’s civic, cultural, and employment center.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | A STRONG DIVERSE ECONOMY
Principles, Goals, and Policies for a Strong, Diverse Economy (EC): MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE THE CITY’S PRIMARY JOB BASE DIVERSITY The city’s existing base of primary jobs spans several employment sectors. This diversity should be maintained and expanded so that the city’s employment base can more effectively weather periodic downturns in different sectors of the economy. Attracting large facilities such as corporate headquarters for major firms—by marketing the desirability of Boise’s location and quality of life will continue to be important. However, an increased emphasis should be placed on attracting smaller, environmentally conscious, and “knowledge-based” companies that contribute much of the region’s job growth and are less likely to experience dramatic fluctuations in employment levels. Live-work units, mixed-use and transitsupportive development, and other land use patterns that provide the opportunity to reduce commute times and distances, decrease daily automobile trips, and improve the quality of life of the city’s workers will be supported. The goals and policies outlined below are intended to promote a broad range of employment opportunities in Boise City that are consistent with the community’s vision for the future. Goal EC1: Minimize the impacts of cyclical economic downturns on the city and its residents. EC1.1: TREND MONITORING Coordinate with the Chamber of Commerce, the State Department of Commerce, and others to monitor local, regional, and national economic trends and work cooperatively to continue to market Boise as a desirable place to do business, and identify successful local businesses. EC1.2: ADEQUATE LAND SUPPLY Maintain a sufficient supply of land that is reserved for a variety of industrial, retail, and office uses such as: Heavy and light industrial;
(b) Minimize competition between cities through agreements regarding the desirable location of specific types of retail and industrial uses on a regional basis. (c) Cooperate regionally on economic development initiatives.
Goal EC3: Protect the economic climate for existing businesses and promote opportunities for expansion. EC3.1: SUPPORT EXISTING BUSINESSES Create and maintain a business environment that encourages the retention, growth, and profitability of existing businesses to benefit the city, its tax base, and citizens.
High-tech industry; Regional retail; Specialty retail; Incubator retail and industrial; Office parks; Live-work; and High-rise office.
Goal EC2: Participate in the growing regional economy and maximize the city’s natural market strengths. EC2.1: REGIONAL ECONOMIC COORDINATION (a) Coordinate comprehensive planning efforts with the other cities and agencies in Ada, Canyon, Boise, Elmore, and Gem counties to achieve a regional balance of jobs to housing.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Local businesses benefit the local economy and should be encouraged to thrive throughout the city.
2-71
A STRONG DIVERSE ECONOMY | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES EC3.2: PROTECT BUSINESSES FROM ENCROACHMENT Protect existing business and industrial areas from encroachment of incompatible or noncomplimentary uses that would threaten their viability or ability to continue to operate.
EC4.1: CITY IMAGE Promote a positive image of the city to visitors by creating an attractive, well-maintained public realm through enhanced streetscapes, particularly along the gateways and corridors identified in Chapter 3: Community Structure and Design.
EC3.3: BUSINESS ASSISTANCE AND OUTREACH (a) Involve the business community in development of citywide programs related to transportation, growth management, impact fees, sustainability, environmental protection, and other related issues. (b) Provide technical assistance and outreach services to existing and prospective businesses in terms of available site locations, city permitting and licensing processes, financing, and other services as needed.
EC4.2: COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AND ACTIVITY CENTER REVITALIZATION (a) Promote the revitalization of established activity centers and corridors through the implementation of planning area-specific policies contained in Chapter 4 and design principles for mixed-use activity centers and corridors contained in Chapter 3. (b) Work with landowners, businesses, and tenants to create identifiable district themes, enhance market recognition, and promote business retention. (c) Utilize ta4x increment financing programs and other tools to revitalize deteriorated centers and provide necessary infrastructure and other public improvements.
EC3.4: FOSTER EXPANSION OF EXISTING MEDICAL CLUSTERS Work with existing medical facilities to ensure that their future space needs can be accommodated within adjacent established neighborhoods. EC3.5: LOCAL PREFERENCE Use tax dollars to stimulate local providers of goods, services and construction.
Goal EC4: Foster a positive business climate in Boise and promote the city as a desirable place to live, work, and visit.
Identifiable corridors create an attractive place to shop.
Goal EC5: Coordinate the provision of infrastructure necessary to accommodate existing and new businesses.
Retaining and attracting businesses is easier when the city is a sought-after place to live.
2-72
EC5.1: TIMING OF IMPROVEMENTS (a) Plan for the timely provision of adequate infrastructure such as roads, sewer, water, and drainage to serve development of designated areas for retail, office, and industrial uses. (b) Re-designate for less intensive uses areas that cannot be feasibly served and concentrate economic development efforts elsewhere. BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | A STRONG DIVERSE ECONOMY EC5.2: FUNDING SOURCES (a) Maintain adequate funding sources for infrastructure through the use of impact, franchise and user fees, and general fund revenues. (b) Seek state legislation to allow for other funding sources and for different revenue distribution formulas. EC5.3: ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS Take a proactive approach to environmental quality by anticipating future standards and designing treatment facilities and other infrastructure to fully meet those requirements.
EC6.2: ENCOURAGE HOME OCCUPATIONS AND COTTAGE INDUSTRIES (a) Promote home-based occupations, live/-work, and “cottage” industries to provide expanded employment opportunities and reduce traffic congestion and overall VMT. (b) Define appropriate locations for such uses; and establish standards to promote compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood context.
EC5.4: BOISE AIR TERMINAL Protect the ability to maintain and expand service at the Boise Air Terminal as a major element of the region’s economy.
Goal EC6: Promote opportunities to attract new businesses and clean industries. EC6.1: TARGET AND PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRIES Work with the city’s business partners to attract environmentally conscious “knowledge-based” companies that produce high-quality educational, scientific, or natural resource-based products and services that advocate sustainable industry principles.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Home-based occupations and live/work opportunities can be compatible with neighborhoods. EC6.3: SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS PRACTICES (a) Recruit businesses that use sustainable practices and recycled materials, or that can use locally generated recyclable materials. (b) Provide incentives for businesses that incorporate sustainable practices and source reduction into their business model and culture (c) Partner with other public agencies in providing incentives for sustainable business practices.
2-73
A STRONG DIVERSE ECONOMY | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
LEVERAGE THE CITY’S CONCENTRATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL ACTIVITIES Boise’s high concentration of state, federal, and local government activities, such as the State Capitol complex, the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), the Federal Courthouse, the Ada County Courthouse, and BSU contribute to the visibility and overall vitality of Downtown and the city as a whole. The city should work with each agency to ensure current levels of activity are being adequately served and that future expansion can be accommodated within the established physical framework of Downtown and the city. In addition, the city should continue to coordinate with federal agencies regarding plans for regional facilities, such as the Mountain Home Air Base and the National Guard at Gowen Field, to minimize the potential impacts of major fluctuations in troop levels on Boise City. Goal EC7: Continue to coordinate with state and federal agencies.
EC7.1: PLANNING COORDINATION Coordinate closely and on an on-going basis with state and federal agencies on issues that affect each respective agency such as facility expansion plans that change the demands on city services. EC7.2: LEVERAGING RESOURCES Work closely with state and federal agencies to ensure that resources are used efficiently to mutual benefit such as coordinating efforts on transportation programs and facility improvements. EC7.3: IDAHO NATIONAL GUARD Continue to support the role of the Idaho National Guard at Gowen Field as a significant contributor to the economic base of the community, region and state.
State and federal agencies provide significant employment opportunities in Boise City.
2-74
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | A STRONG DIVERSE ECONOMY
REINFORCE THE ROLE OF DOWNTOWN BOISE AS THE CITY, STATE, AND REGION’S CIVIC, CULTURAL, AND EMPLOYMENT CENTER Downtown Boise has long been the center of the community and the hub of government, cultural, and employment activities for the region. A great deal of effort has gone into the revitalization of Downtown in recent years. These efforts have proven fruitful as Downtown continues to attract new housing, jobs, and activity and is emerging as a full service urban neighborhood. The city will continue to support Downtown revitalization efforts through the development of updated design and development standards and other efforts working in conjunction with the CCDC. The goals and policies outlined below are intended to provide broad guidance on the role of Downtown within the context of the regional economy and the community as a whole. More detailed policies specific to the Downtown Planning Area are provided in Chapter 4: Planning Area Policies. Goal EC8: Continue to Enhance Downtown’s Vitality.
assessments in other areas of the city. EC8.5: SPECIAL EVENTS Support special events such as festivals, street fairs, parades, sporting events, and concerts that create a positive local, regional, and national image of the city and promote Downtown activity.
Downtown should contain attractions for day and night to maintain and increase business and activity. EC8.1: PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS Maintain and develop public/private partnerships that help support Downtown development efforts. EC8.2: INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT Work with the CCDC to promote infill and redevelopment in Downtown through update of the core area zoning and development of special area plans for priority areas. EC8.3: HOUSING Work with CCDC to promote housing in the Downtown core through the implementation of the Downtown Boise Housing Study. In particular, ensure that future development includes housing at a range of price points. EC8.4: DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES Work with CCDC to identify potential barriers to Downtown development, and to explore opportunities to incentivize higher-intensity development such as a review of fees and assessments in relationship to similar fees and BLUEPRINT BOISE
Special events Downtown attract visitors who may not normally frequent Downtown. EC8.6: DOWNTOWN MOBILITY Work with transit and transportation agencies, BSU, and Downtown organizations to implement the Downtown Boise Mobility Study. Monitor all transportation demands in the downtown area and work with ACHD and ITD to adopt appropriate level of service standards for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles. EC8.7: USE CONFLICTS Work with the Downtown Boise Association to implement the recommendations of the 2009 International Downtown Association Advisory Panel to manage potential conflicts among the office market, hospitality and entertainment uses, and housing. 2-75
A SAFE, HEALTHY, AND CARING COMMUNITY | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
#7: A Safe, Healthy, and Caring Community
An important aspect of Boise’s transition to becoming more sustainable - with economic, social, and environmental systems are in balance – is to continue being a safe, healthy, and caring community. Boise residents rely on the city’s police and fire departments to keep them safe and to protect their property. Monitoring existing growth patterns and carefully planning for future growth helps to ensure that the city’s emergency personnel have the equipment and personnel necessary to respond to calls throughout the community. Careful planning also ensures that the city’s neighborhoods, schools, work places, and other gathering places are sited so as to minimize risks to life and property from natural hazards such as floods and wildfires. In addition to ensuring the safety of the community, Boise seeks to promote the health and wellness of
2-76
its residents by ensuring health care services are accessible to the community, and encouraging active lifestyles, and by ensuring that residents have access to a range of indoor and outdoor recreational activities. Lastly, Boise strives to be a caring community that values the health and well-being of each of its residents, and seeks to provide the range of social services necessary to address a full spectrum of needs. Goals and policies in this chapter are based on the following principles: Protect life and property from natural hazards; Promote a safe community; Promote active living and healthy lifestyles; and Support a range of health and social services.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | A SAFE, HEALTHY, AND CARING COMMUNITY
Principles, Goals, and Policies for a Safe, Healthy, and Caring Community (SHCC): PROTECT LIFE AND PROPERTY FROM NATURAL HAZARDS Boise’s scenic natural setting brings with it a number of natural hazards and the risks associated with those hazards. Flooding, wildfires, landslides, and, on rare occasions earthquakes, have all posed a threat to Boise at some time in the past and will likely do so again at some point in the future. Day-to-day decisions made about where and how growth will occur can affect the impact that natural disasters have on the community if and when they do happen. The goals and policies outlined below are intended to minimize the potential for harm to people and property. Goal SHCC1: Minimize the degree of risk to life and property from wildfire. SHCC1.1: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Implement development standards such as a mitigation measures matrix, access standards, noncombustible roofs, sprinklers, clear space, and other measures in areas prone to wildfire. SHCC1.2: PUBLIC EDUCATION AND AWARENESS Promote public education and awareness of wildfire prevention and protection. SHCC1.3: WILDFIRE RESPONSE PLANS Develop, maintain, and regularly update emergency plans for wildfire response. SHCC1.4: FEDERAL AGENCY AGREEMENTS Expand current agreements with the U. S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U. S. Forest Service to provide aerial fire fighting resources. SHCC1.5: WATER RESOURCES Implement strict controls over the use of water during wildland fires and develop strategies for use of other water resources. SHCC1.6: WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE Monitor the effectiveness of provisions to protect structures and prevent loss in the wildland urban interface.
Goal SHCC2: Account for known geologic and seismic risks in land use planning. SHCC2.1: LOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF HAZARDS (a) Develop and maintain thorough knowledge of the location and distribution of geologic, seismic, and hydrologic hazards related to slope and soil stability, erosion, water table levels, and ground movement.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Boise’s natural setting presents a number of known hazards, such as wildfire. (b) Coordinate with Ada City-County Emergency Management on information regarding seismic/ geologic hazard locations. SHCC2.2: DEVELOPMENT IN HAZARD AREAS Support land use patterns and locational criteria that prohibit development in known geologic hazard areas or significantly reduce risk by requiring geologic assessment and engineering prior to construction in these areas. SHCC2.3: PUBLIC FACILITIES (a) Design and operate public safety facilities to maximize their ability to remain safe and functional during and after disasters. (b) Mitigate problems with existing, substandard city-owned structures according to priority based on level of risk, hazard to life, type of occupancy, method of construction, physical condition, and location. SHCC2.4: HILLSIDE REVEGETATION Require revegetation plans in hillside areas to promote erosion control.
2-77
A SAFE, HEALTHY, AND CARING COMMUNITY | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
Goal SHCC3: Minimize risk from flood hazards to life, property, and public investment.
SHCC3.7: PUBLIC ACQUISITION Support the public acquisition of properties located in the floodplain
Goal SHCC4: Ensure that emergency management plans, equipment and services are sufficient for potential disaster response.
Flood control improvements help reduce runoff during flood events. SHCC3.1: PUBLIC INFORMATION/COORDINATION Maintain and update public information regarding the nature and location of flood hazards in Boise. SHCC3.2: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Maintain and enforce location criteria and development standards that minimize financial loss and maximize protection of property in the event of flooding. SHCC3.3: EROSION PREVENTION Protect the Boise River banks and Foothills gulches from further erosion by enacting programs to install and maintain stream side native vegetation. SHCC3.4: FLOOD CHANNEL CAPACITY Explore strategies to maintain flood channel capacity in the Boise River, including annual spring flushing from the reservoirs or periodic dredging.
SHCC4.1: DISASTER RESPONSE PLANNING (a) Participate in the update to the 2006 All Hazards Mitigation Plan with Ada City-County Emergency Management. (b) Provide personnel and resources from Boise’s departments of Fire, Police, Public Works, Development Services, and Parks and Recreation in support of emergency management disaster response plans. (c) Maintain personnel, resources, and training necessary within the city to provide the disaster response called for in the emergency management disaster response plans. (d) Coordinate with State of Idaho Disaster Services and the City-County Emergency Management when preparing disaster response plans and when considering floodplain or seismic ordinance standards. SHCC4.2: EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE Develop, maintain, and regularly update emergency plans for earthquake response, including information on critical facilities; dam, bridge, and road damage potential; and alternative routing for emergency vehicles. SHCC4.3: CITIZEN AWARENESS Ensure that all citizens have access to information regarding emergency preparedness and response. SHCC4.4: MUTUAL AID PROGRAMS Promote and maintain emergency operations mutual aid programs with other public agencies.
SHCC3.5: RIVER ACCESS Preserve and obtain adequate access to the river for flood-control maintenance at the time of new development along the river. SHCC3.6: STREAM FLOW AND PRECIPITATION DATA Continue to obtain stream-flow and precipitation data on the seven major tributaries in the Foothills for emergency preparedness and planning purposes.
2-78
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | A SAFE, HEALTHY, AND CARING COMMUNITY
Figure 7: Flood Hazards
BLUEPRINT BOISE
2-79
A SAFE, HEALTHY, AND CARING COMMUNITY | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
Figure 8: Wildland Urban Interface
2-80
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | A SAFE, HEALTHY, AND CARING COMMUNITY
PROTECT LIFE AND PROPERTY FROM NATURAL HAZARDS Boise’s scenic natural setting brings with it a number of natural hazards and the risks associated with those hazards. Flooding, wildfires, landslides, and, on rare occasions earthquakes, have all posed a threat to Boise at some time in the past and will likely do so again at some point in the future. Day-to-day decisions made about where and how growth will occur can affect the impact that natural disasters have on the community if and when they do happen. The goals and policies outlined below are intended to minimize the potential for harm to people and property. Goal SHCC5: Ensure that as population and density increase in Boise, the crime rate does not.
SHCC5.3: COMMUNITY-BASED CRIME PREVENTION Support and encourage community-based crimeprevention efforts through regular interaction with and coordination with the existing Neighborhood Watch program, assistance in the formation of new Neighborhood Watch groups and regular communication with neighborhood and civic organizations. SHCC5.4: PATROL METHODS Increase the use of officers on foot, and bike, in neighborhoods and districts designated by the Police Department.
Community-based crime prevention efforts, such as this Neighborhood Watch group, contribute to the safety of the city’s neighborhoods. SHCC5.1: POLICE STATION LOCATIONS Utilize existing police stations and acquire new stations at locations consistent with the Boise City Police Long Range Plan and this Comprehensive Plan.
SHCC5.5: CRIME PREVENTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN Establish a Crime Prevention through Environmental Design program to promote building and site designs with well-defined and defensible spaces and an integrated mix of uses that provides opportunities for 24-hour activity. The program should include review of the demographic setting of the project, the intended uses and users of buildings and areas, designs that will encourage proper use of the facility, and maintenance of visibility of those areas through proper landscaping, lighting, and building layout.
SHCC5.2: RESPONSE TIMES Maintain adequate staffing levels and continue to improve response times, as outlined in Table 3, Level of Service Standards for Community Services and Facilities.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
2-81
A SAFE, HEALTHY, AND CARING COMMUNITY | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
Goal SHCC6: Ensure fire protection is available for all structures, and create methods of reducing fire hazards as a means of saving lives and property.
SHCC7.2: CITIZEN CPR TRAINING AND PUBLIC EDUCATION (a) Encourage citizen CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) training programs using existing personnel and resources. (b) Develop and implement additional public education activities that promote safety. SHCC7.3: RESCUE CAPABILITIES Maintain and enhance rescue capabilities that include extrication, trench rescue, high-angle rescue, water rescue, and urban rescue.
Goal SHCC8: Minimize risk to life and health from exposure to hazardous materials. Boise City Fire Station #14 SHCC6.1: BOISE CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT MASTER SITING PLAN (a) To ensure consistency with this Comprehensive Plan, update the Boise City Fire Department Master Siting Plan on a periodic basis. (b) Utilize existing fire stations and acquire new stations at locations consistent with the Master Siting Plan. (c) Utilize joint fire stations and operation agreements with adjoining fire districts and other emergency responders. SHCC6.2: CONFORMANCE WITH REGULATORY STANDARDS Require, through the development review process, that all structures and facilities adhere to applicable city, state, and national fire standards and safety guidelines. SHCC6.3: FIRE INSPECTION PROGRAM Maintain the fire inspection program as a means of identifying and remedying potential hazards before fires occur. SHCC6.4: COMMUNITY EDUCATION Educate and inform the public on fire safety and hazardous materials to protect the community and the environment from unnecessary hazards.
Goal SHCC7: Optimize Emergency Medical Services. SHCC7.1: FIRST RESPONDER CAPABILITY Maintain the Fire Department’s first-responder capability of early defibrillation for the treatment of heart attacks.
2-82
SHCC8.1: TANK FARM RELOCATION (a) Promote the relocation of tank farms and other hazardous or toxic materials storage site from within and adjacent to populated areas (such as along Franklin and Curtis Roads) to a more appropriate area. (b) Consider incentives that assist redevelopment of existing tank farms and other hazardous or toxic materials storage locations and assist applicants in obtaining appropriate entitlements for the relocation sites. Such city involvement shall not entail any acceptance of city liability. (c) Seek to enhance protective berming of tanks and other safety measures until relocation sites are implemented. SHCC8.2: LAND USE CONFLICTS Prohibit development of sensitive uses, such as schools and hospitals, adjacent to existing tank farms, pipelines, and other fixed facilities that store or use hazardous materials. SHCC8.3: TRAVEL ROUTES Designate appropriate travel routes for hazardous materials transportation. SHCC8.4: GROUNDWATER MONITORING Work with property owners to continue groundwater monitoring around existing tank farms and initiate programs to remediate contamination. SHCC8.5: SITE MAP Prepare and maintain a comprehensive list and map of sites known or suspected to contain hazardous wastes. SHCC8.6: TESTING AND REMEDIATION Require testing and remediation before development of any site identified on the contaminated sites list.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | A SAFE, HEALTHY, AND CARING COMMUNITY
GOAL SHCC9: Encourage the redevelopment or reuse of abandoned or underused areas identified as “brownfields.”
SHCC9.2: REUSE Explore opportunities to accommodate open space or recreation-oriented uses on brownfield sites not suitable for redevelopment with other uses.
SHCC9.1: REDEVELOPMENT Prioritize remediation efforts on city-owned brownfield sites in locations with redevelopment opportunities as an incentive for reinvestment.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
2-83
A SAFE, HEALTHY, AND CARING COMMUNITY | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
Figure 9: Potential Brownfield Sites 2-84
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | A SAFE, HEALTHY, AND CARING COMMUNITY
PROMOTE ACTIVE LIVING AND HEALTHY LIFESTYLES Boise residents treasure their active lifestyles. For many residents, living an active lifestyle means being able to live in compact neighborhoods where they may walk or ride their bikes to work, to shop, or to take their kids to school. For others, having access to a variety of recreational opportunities and outdoor activities is equally or more important. In this regard, the city boasts an enviable system of parks and trails and access to the Foothills trail system. These amenities not only provide recreational opportunities, but enhance the built character of the community and promote the health and well-being of its residents. As the city’s pattern of growth evolves in the coming years, additional parks, trails, open space, and recreational programs will be needed to maintain the existing levels of service. Locations for additional neighborhood parks will need to be identified in established areas, such as in and around Downtown where the number of residents is anticipated to increase dramatically. Existing park standards should be reviewed and updated to ensure smaller, urban parks and community gardens are compatible. The goals and policies outlined below are intended to promote active living and healthy lifestyles through access to recreational services and facilities. Goal SHCC10: Provide a park system made up of a hierarchy of park types.
SHCC10.2: COMPREHENSIVE PARK AND RECREATION SYSTEM PLAN (a) The Boise 2011 Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan is adopted by reference and as amended. (b) Support the implementation of the Ada County Open Space Task Force recommendations. SHCC10.3: CO-LOCATION Place a priority on locating neighborhood parks in conjunction with school sites.
Goal SHCC11: Promote healthy lifestyles though a balanced program of active and passive recreational services and facilities.
A variety of park types serve children of different ages and ensure that all children have a safe and appropriate place to play. SHCC10.1: PARK FUNDING Finance acquisition and development of parks through a variety of sources such as: general tax, utility franchise fees, park impact fees, general obligation bonds, local option sales tax, public private partnerships, certificates of participation, and public and private grants and foundations.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
SHCC11.1: YOUTH PROGRAMS Encourage public/private partnerships between the city and private or nonprofit groups and schools that operate youth programs that reach high risk youth groups in the community. SHCC11.2: SERVICES FOR THE ELDERLY AND DISABLED Offer a full range of indoor and outdoor recreation services to serve the therapeutic needs of the elderly and disabled. SHCC11.3: SERVICE LEVEL MONITORING Review demographic projections and land use plans on a period basis against the recreational standards contained in the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Plan in order to anticipate future recreation facilities and program service needs.
2-85
A SAFE, HEALTHY, AND CARING COMMUNITY | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
Goal SHCC12: Provide natural open space areas where the public can observe nature and seek solitude, and where wildlife habitat can be protected. SHCC12.1: ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (a) Encourage preservation of adequate open space and protect unique and environmentally sensitive areas. (b) Develop additional funding mechanisms to acquire unique and environmentally sensitive areas and other types of open space.
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, minimize parking impacts on adjacent neighborhoods, and minimize disturbance and harm to wildlife.
Goal SHCC13: Supplement parks and open space facilities with special use areas. SHCC13.1: COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS Prepare a detailed cost-benefit analysis and maintenance impact statement before adding any proposed special-use area. SHCC13.2: SUSTAINABLE REVENUES Encourage a sustainable source of revenue for the operation of special use facilities.
Goal SHCC14: Provide trails and pathways that are designed for single or multiple types of users. SHCC14.1: DIVERSE NETWORK Acquire diverse networks of paths and trails by dedicating or exchanging land, using Foothills Levy funding, clustering development in exchange for density transfers, or by other development bonuses. Around the Next Turn: A 10 Year Management Plan for the Ridge to Rivers Trail System is adopted by reference.
Preserving this natural area protects the natural habitat while also providing a place to observe nature. SHCC12.2: ACQUISITION PRIORITIES (a) Focus public acquisition priorities on areas offering unique features or opportunities to observe nature and/or to protect wildlife habitat, such as: Foothills habitat areas; Bald Eagle and Great Blue Heron habitat areas; Gravel pits, ponds, and other areas of environmental concern adjacent to the Boise River, and Selected waterways throughout the AOCI. (b) Give lower priority to sites that, because of development constraints such as floodways, slopes and wetlands, will not be developed, with the exception of lands identified in the Potential Public Preservation Sites 1993. SHCC12.3: PUBLIC ACCESS Locate and design public access to open space areas to promote visibility, provide linkages to other
2-86
Trails also provide an opportunity to observe and learn about nature while escaping from the city. SHCC13.2: PATH AND TRAIL DESIGN (a) Design paths and trails in accordance to the standards and policies identified in the Comprehensive Park and Recreation System Plan. (b) Continue to work with irrigation districts to provide multi-use pathways along canals.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | A SAFE, HEALTHY, AND CARING COMMUNITY
Castle Hills Park
Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Projects 2016-2025
Stewart Gulch Park Charles F. McDevitt Youth Sports Complex
Hyatt Hidden Lakes Reserve Willow Lane Boat Ramp
" F !
Sunset Park
" N Eagle Rd
W
LEGEND Park Planning Areas
Sterling Site
Ch in
de n
Blv
d
W
St at e
St
W Fairview Ave
§ ¦ ¨ 184
Boise City Limits Acquisition
E Franklin Rd
W Franklin Rd S Broadway Ave
# 0
"
General Amenities
Boat Ramp Bridge Replacement
$ +
Community Center
"
Pool Replacement/Repurpose
" F !
W Overland Rd
Molenaar Diamond Park Site
S Cole Rd
S Meridian Rd
Type
§ ¦ ¨
S Vista Ave
Amenities
Loggers Creek Bridge Replacement
84
Shoshone Park
# 0 Proposed NP Vista
Trailhead
SF
Eckert Rd Greenbelt Spur ed er
al
W
Alta Harris to Lysted Greenbelt Extension
ay
Alta Harris
Other Acquisitions and Greenup
Bowler Site
Capital Projects Greenup E Lake Hazel Rd
W Lake Hazel Rd
Acquisition
E Hw
y 21
New Trails Ridge to Rivers Trails BPR Managed Properties This drawing is to be used only for reference purposes; The City of Boise is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. This map is made in part from data prepared or compiled by Ada County. Ada County shall not be liable for inaccuracies or misuse of this map or data.
N:\Workspaces\Parks\Projects\2015_CompPlan_Mapping
0
0.35
0.7
1.4 Miles
[ Parks and Recreation GIS Services Date: 4/23/2018
Figure 10: Parks and Recreation Plan
BLUEPRINT BOISE
2-87
A SAFE, HEALTHY, AND CARING COMMUNITY | CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES
Figure 11: Pathway System
2-88
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CITYWIDE VISION AND POLICIES | A SAFE, HEALTHY, AND CARING COMMUNITY
SUPPORT A RANGE OF SERVICES FOR FAMILIES AND PERSONS IN NEED Despite the high quality of life many Boise residents enjoy, the community is not immune to the challenges of homelessness, alcohol and drug abuse, child neglect, spousal abuse, mental illness, health care access, and other social issues. Although the city’s statutory authority does not include social services, Boise recognizes the need to protect the health and quality of life of its residents, including its most vulnerable populations. The city has demonstrated this commitment through its ongoing support of health care, elder care, and social service organizations in the community and through its leadership role in coordinating social service initiatives. The goals and policies outlined below are intended to reinforce the city’s commitment to its residents and its desire to be a healthy, caring community. Goal SHCC15: Locate medical, mental health, and social services to maximize access to Boise residents.
SHCC14.4: ALLUMBAUGH HOUSE Continue to support with other local partners the ongoing operation of the regional detox center.
Goal SHCC15: Encourage wellness through care and prevention. SHCC15.1: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Provide technical assistance to local organizations that deliver health and social services to seniors, homeless persons, low income citizens, and other groups with special needs. SHCC15.2: COMMUNITY AWARENESS Participate in school and agency programs to: Provide healthy meals; Combat tobacco, alcohol, and drug dependency; All residents of Boise should have equal access to medical facilities. SHCC14.1: COORDINATION OF RESOURCES Coordinate with existing health care and social service providers and other cities and counties in the region to fully optimize available resources and efforts and to identify and fill potential gaps in service. SHCC14.2: TRANSIT ACCESS Work with VRT to ensure health care and social service facilities are accessible to residents, especially to the elderly and disabled. SHCC14.3: FACILITY SITING AND EXPANSION Work with health care and social service providers on upgrades to and expansion of existing facilities as well as the siting of new facilities through the implementation of the St. Luke’s and St. Alphonsus master plans.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Raise awareness on suicide prevention resources; Distribute city parks and recreation materials through the schools; and Distribute information about the benefits of proper nutrition and exercise.
Goal SHCC16: Provide permanent supportive housing first to those who are experiencing chronic homelessness and then to expand services to others who are experiencing intermittent homelessness. SHCC16.1: 10- YEAR PLAN TO REDUCE AND PREVENT CHRONIC HOMELESSNESS The 2007 10-Year Plan to Reduce and Prevent Chronic Homelessness is adopted by reference. SHCC16.2: FAMILY HOMELESSNESS Coordinate the on-going engagement of area businesses and faith-based organizations to reduce family homelessness.
2-89
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
Chapter 3: Community Structure and Design This chapter establishes a land use framework for future development in Boise’s AOCI over the next 10 to 20 years. This framework includes the types of places the community would like to foster and the land use patterns that will be encouraged in each of those places. The Future Land Use Map and accompanying land use criteria will be used to guide future development decisions, infrastructure improvements, and public and private investment within Boise’s AOCI. This chapter also contains a series of design principles, that provide guidance on the desired form and character of different types of development. The design principles will set the stage for planned amendments to the city’s zoning code and will help promote a more sustainable pattern of development in Boise City. Planning area policies contained in Chapter 4 should be used in conjunction with this chapter to ensure future development in the city’s eleven planning areas is compatible with the unique characteristics of each area.
Creating Places
Mixed-Use Activity Centers;
Neighborhoods;
Commercial/Employment Areas;
Public/Institutional Areas;
Parks, Open Space, and Conservation Areas;
Corridors;
Community Gateways; and
Special Districts and Master Plan Areas. The structure created by these places was captured on the Structure Plan map, which served as a foundation for discussions throughout the planning process and subsequently helped shape the Land Use Map and land use categories defined in this chapter.
The Structure Plan map, above, served as a foundation for the Future Land Use Map. Early in the planning process, the community was asked to help define the overall “structure” of the community—the types of places that make Boise a desirable place to live, work, recreate, and visit. Based on those discussions, it was determined that Boise’s built and natural environment is comprised of the following types of places:
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Future Land Use Map This chapter defines the types, characteristics, and distribution of land uses that may occur within the AOCI during the next 10 to 20 years. The Future Land Use Map identifies where the city would support the development of these uses. Future annexations by the city may occur within the AOCI. The type and distribution of uses on the Land Use Map are reflective of the city’s desire to promote a more predictable, sustainable, and connected pattern of development for the future. The Future Land Use Map is intended to serve as a guide for future zone changes. In most cases, land
3-1
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN use designations generally follow existing parcel lines, roadways, and other geographic boundaries. If the land use designation shown on the Future Land Use Map does not follow an existing parcel line, the actual delineation of land use categories shall be established at the time of zoning and/or development request. Future zone changes should generally adhere to the land use categories depicted on the Future Land Use Map, but flexibility in interpretation of the boundary may be granted by the Planning and Zoning commission, provided the proposed change is consistent with the principles, goals, and policies contained in this plan. Density ranges outlined for each land use category are based on gross acreage
and are intended to define overall densities for a planning area rather than for individual parcels. For parcels 1.5 gross acres or less in size the Land Use Designation need not be adhered to, provided other policies of the Blueprint Boise are found to support the proposed use. The Future Land Use Map identifies the following types of places and accompanying land use categories, each of which is described in this chapter:
Table 5: Types of Places and Applicable Land Use Categories Types of Places
Applicable Land Use Categories
MIXED-USE ACTIVITY CENTERS
Varies by type of activity center, but generally includes: Downtown Mixed-Use, General Mixed-Use, Commercial, and High-Density Residential.
NEIGHBORHOODS
High-Density Residential, Compact, Suburban, Large Lot, and (Foothills only) Buildable.
COMMERCIAL/EMPLOYMENT
Commercial, Office, and Industrial.
PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL AREAS
Public/Quasi-Public, Airport, and Education.
PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND CONSERVATION AREAS
Parks and Open Space, and (Foothills Plan only) Slope Protection.
CORRIDORS
All land use categories that are adjacent to the defined corridor— typically Mixed-Use, Commercial, Office, and High-Density Residential, that are typically transit-supportive.
COMMUNITY GATEWAYS
All land use categories defined in vicinity of designated community gateways.
SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND MASTER PLANS
BSU Master Plan, and Planned Community.
3-2
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
Areas of Change and Stability The Future Land Use Map is built upon the idea that the degree of change—the amount of new development or redevelopment likely to occur in different areas of the community—varies dramatically. Some areas, such as Downtown, may see substantial infill and redevelopment over the coming years, while many existing single-family neighborhoods are stable and unlikely to see much development activity at all. In areas where change is likely, it will generally occur through a combination of: New Development—Development occurring on agricultural lands, range lands, or other previously undeveloped land;
Infill Development—Development on a vacant or substantially vacant tract of land surrounded by existing development; and
Redevelopment—Development on a tract of land with existing structures where all or most of the existing structures would be razed and a new structure or structures built. A general assessment of each planning area was conducted as part of the planning process to identify established land use patterns; existing zoning, areas where new development, infill, or redevelopment could occur; and the types of development that would be likely to occur in each location. This assessment helped shape the distribution of future land uses within the AOCI. Additional discussion on the types of growth anticipated in each planning area and specific policies to guide future growth are provided in Chapter 4 of this plan.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
HOW WERE AREAS OF CHANGE AND STABILITY IDENTIFIED? A series of workshops was held with the Neighborhood Council and the broader community to help identify areas that are likely to see some degree of change in the future and those that are likely to remain stable. Generalized criteria used are summarized below:
Areas of Stability
New or recent construction
Established areas
Areas of Change Significant new development or redevelopment anticipated
Some infill and redevelopment opportunities
Reinvestment in established infrastructure needed
The process of identifying these areas helped define the distribution of land uses on the Future Land Use Map. A more detailed discussion of the criteria outlined above, and maps addressing the location and extent of these designations within each planning area, are included in Appendix C.
3-3
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
Design Principles This chapter establishes a series of design principles to guide the character and form of future development in different locations within the AOCI. The design principles are intended to build on community preferences expressed during the planning process regarding different types and intensities of development. The principles build on the types of features the community identified at a citywide level as favorable and discourages those features that were viewed as undesirable. The principles should be applied in conjunction with the planning area policies contained in Chapter 4. The design principles are intended to serve as the foundation for targeted amendments to the city’s zoning code. The principles address development at two levels: General Design Principles General Design Principles include design considerations that should be addressed as part of any development, regardless of whether the development is a large new development at the outer edge of the city, an infill development within an established neighborhood, or a multi-block redevelopment project in the heart of Downtown. Types of considerations addressed under General Design Principles include: pedestrian and street connectivity, architectural variety, and desired mix of uses, among others. Infill Design Principles Infill Design Principles address design considerations unique to infill and redevelopment occurring in older areas of the city. The primary role of these principles is to accommodate increased densities where appropriate, while protecting the character of Boise’s
3-4
established neighborhoods. Types of considerations addressed by the Infill Design Principles include: relationship to surrounding development, transitions in height and building mass, and other issues related to compatibility. Infill Design Principles are intended to apply in conjunction with the General Design Principles. Design principles are organized according to the types of places described above, but focus strictly on the built environment, which includes: Mixed-Use Activity Centers;
Neighborhoods;
Commercial/Employment Areas;
Corridors;
Gateways; and
Special Districts and Master Plans. In several instances, more than one set of design principles will apply. An example would be for an area identified on the Future Land Use Map as General Mixed-Use that falls within a designated activity center and is along a designated corridor. In this example, standards for both activity centers and corridors would apply. The following section contains a description of each type of place, characteristics of applicable land use categories, and design principles. Density ranges defined for each land use category are based on gross acreage and intended to define general overall densities for a particular land use rather than for individual parcels. Design principles for the Airport Influence Area, as identified on the map on page 3-41, are also included in this chapter.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
St
D
ad Pk
A SE
wy
MA
N
G
N Bogus Basin Rd
y 44
CA AY
ht Rd
U
S
BA SI N d R as in B us og B N
9T H
N 9th Ca St Blv pito d l N 8th St 6th N S N 8th 5th t St St
N
N
N
N A B ven Av ue e
L
S 6th 5th St St S
S Broadway Ave
DIVISION
BROADWAY
S Pr otes t Rd
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Downtown Mixed-Use
Airport Public/Quasi-Public Education
GEKELER
Fe de ra lW ay
New
Other
BO
IS PA E RK R
LAW
St S9 th
PI TO
CA d Blv ol S Ca pito l Blvd S Ca pit
VISTA S Vista Ave
VIS T A
O
84
!
!
PENNSYLVANIA
LINDEN
§ ¦ ¨
!
!
!
Public/Institutional
PARKCENTER
S Apple St
N Harrison Blvd
15 16th S TH t 13 TH
St 15 th
S 1 15 6th St th St N S
LATAH
ROOSEVELT
8TH
15TH
13TH
HARRISON
N Harrison Blvd
28TH 23RD
27TH
N 27th St
St 36 th W N Orchard St
ORC HARD S Orchard St
ORCHARD
HARD RC
N WE GO
COLE S Cole Rd
BSU Master Plan
WA R
E Boise
MS
Ave
PR
ING
BERGESON Yor k Canal
DE RA
L
W AY
E Amity Rd
Planned Community S
Slope Protection
Buildable
ECKERT
E
FE
E
AMITY
rd
N
St
EN W Go
wen Rd
§ ¨ 84
LAK E
PROD
O
ha rc
GOW
UCTIO
MAPLE GROVE
!
!
!
Parks/Open Space
IS
S Maple Grove Rd
FIVE MILE
IS E
!
!
!
sA ve
BO
S Five Mile Rd
rin g
!
!
Parks and Open Space
lv d
Sp
APPLE
N Collister Dr
R IA L M EM S
CURTIS S Curtis Rd
CURTIS
S Cloverdale Rd
EW arm
ER
CLOVERDALE
BO
S
BO ISE AIR PO RT
NG S
W Lake Hazel Rd
W ar m
Area of Impact Sp
rin
gs
Corridors
Av e
EST
Transit Corridors
Planning Areas
21
S
NO
n ch Te gy olo ay W
nm ise
AY LW
SE
HIG H
WA Y2
R
FOOTHILLS TH
W
ES
T
1 WEST BENCH
R an
COLUMBIA
NORTH END
d ¦ ¨ ¦§ ¨ §
§ ¦ ¨ ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨ § 184
184
184
¦ ¨ § 84
l Way dera S Fe
S Pleasant Valley Rd
184
HOLILYNN
[
E Hwy 21
HIGHWAY
E Gowen Rd
ER A
S Cole Rd
Major Travel Corridors FOR
Rd
FE D
S Eagle Rd
wen
N MA EN
PLEASANT VALLEY
E Go
EIS
S Cloverdale Rd
W Beacon St
RI
RO
IV
S Eagle Rd
BEACON
SP
Pa rk ce nte rB
ER NT
EAGLE
LIBERTY
N Five Mile Rd S Five Mile Rd
S Locust Grove Rd
W
LE
CE
COLUMBIA
EF ro nt St St E P B ar lv k d
M
!
!
vd
84 WRIGHT
St
W AR
!
!
Interstate Highways
S
LAKE HAZEL
le
Mixed-Use
CK
W Kootenai St
§ ¨
DESERT
E Lake Hazel Rd
MA IN FR O MY NT RT LE E
E ERV RES McKINNLEY
VICTORY
W Victory Rd
rd rcha
W Amity Rd
ST AT E
B TA
OVERLAND
SO
AMITY
Mixed-Use
St
AY LW
VICTORY
te
ter Bl
W Overland Rd
Sta
My rt
l
84
E Amity Rd
E Columbia Rd
ana
§ ¦ ¨
E Victory Rd
W
W Rose Hill St
KOOTENAI
Industrial
rkcen E Pa
OVERLAND
hC
Commercial
rk Pa d lv B
aug
Commercial/Employment
RT
FEDERA
St
e Av
W Overland Rd
enb
Compact
Office
FO
ROSE HILL
Rid
High Density
e
184
Neighborhoods
VIEW
E
184
er so n
ois
§ ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨
Je ff
W Id a W M a ho S t in St W Fro nt St
a an ric me d S A Blv
A AN IC ER
W
B
184
EM
Suburban
W
OVERLAND
E Overland Rd
§ ¦ ¨
BRA
Large Lot
St
84
W Franklin Rd
AM
St
ER
FRAN KLIN
EMERALD
MAIN W Main
W Fairview Ave
tle yr
§ ¦ ¨
E Amity Rd
W Franklin Rd
W Emerald St
M
FRANKLIN
184
184
§ ¨
EMERALD
W Chinden Blvd
G
HIGHLAND
W
Meridian
W Executive Dr
Land Use Categories E ER
RIV
E Franklin Rd
E Pine Ave
W Fairview Ave
§ ¦ ¨
§ ¦ ¨
184
E Pine Ave
O
TH TE VE
N Milwaukee St
MILWAUKEE
N Five Mile Rd
EN
FAIRVIEW
LL
K WAT ER PAR
NORTHVIEW
HI
IRENE
S 27th St
MAPLE GROVE
s ran wy ete Pk N V orial m Me
USTICK
W Fairview Ave
BO
TAFT
SUNSET
D
MITCHELL
W
COLE N Cole Rd
N Five Mile Rd
ST AT E
S
FIVE MILE
N Cloverdale Rd
V IE
IN
FAIRVIEW
N ddard Rd Mou Vie nta w D in r
H
EAGLE
MT N
W Ustick Rd
th 36
AM
E Fairview Ave
USTICK
N
Neighborhood Activity Center
CATALPA
C
CLOVERDALE
N Eagle Rd
E Ustick Rd
St
th 36
Community Activity Center
TH
St
WHITE
N Locust Grove Rd
E Ustick Rd
te
AD
LOCUST GROVE
E Ustick Rd
N Maple Grove Rd
W Go
EDNA
Sta
N
36
St
OWYHEE
McMILLAN
GLENWOOD
lvd
N Ca rtwrig
N Gary Ln
GARY
PIERCE PARK
S Eagle Rd
BOGART
en B
d St
W McMillan Rd
ind
W
N Glenwoo
Ch
Regional Activity Center
d
W
ER
CASTLE
Garden City
CHIND EN
E McMillan Rd
CO
T IS LL
lR
W Chinden Blvd E Chinden Blvd
W Chinden Blvd
Legend Mixed-Use Activity Centers
RIV ER
RT
K
Hil
E Chinden Blvd
ISE
R PA
W
BO
PI E
E RC
N 36 th St
KW
STA TE
36TH N 36th St
COLLISTER
St
NW hite w Park ater Blvd
W. H ILL RD. P AR tate
RIGHT W
ES
R AN
44
44
E. HWY
Future Land Land Use Use Map Map
Rd
Y T N U TY O C UN E O IS C A D
E Hw
W Hi ll Ro
lch man Gu
H
A
E Hi ll Rd
W Hwy 44
N Sea
C UL
N Curtis Rd
tate
LR
O
ES
HIL
HORSESHOE BEND
EDGEWOOD
N Eagle Rd
EAGLE
Eagle
B
W State St
FLOATING FEATHER
E Floating Feather Rd
N Hwy 55
W Floating Feather Rd
184
DO W
NT O
W N
EAST END
CENTRAL BENCH ¦ ¨ § 84
BA
RB
ER
¦ ¨ § 84
SOUTHWEST
AIRPORT
SOUTHEAST
VA L
LE
Y
HUBBARD
E Hubbard Rd
TEN MILE CREEK
0 E Memory Rd
E Deer Flat Rd
0.5
1
2
3 Miles
Source: City of Boise GIS, COMPASS, Clarion Associates October 5, 2018
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN Insert Future Land Use Map (11 x 17” back page)
3-6
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
Mixed-Use Activity Centers
Three types of Mixed-Use Activity Centers are identified on the Future Land Use Map: Regional, Community, and Neighborhood. Activity centers vary in their characteristics, size, location, mix of uses, and density range, as outlined on the following pages. The identification of these activity centers is intended to establish the general location of different types of activity center development in the city. Two mixeduse land use categories: Downtown Mixed-Use and General Mixed-Use illustrate the geographic extent of each activity center and establish locations suitable for mixed-use development outside of activity centers. The Mixed-Use Activity Centers designation and associated land use categories are intended to promote a more compact, pedestrian and transitoriented pattern of development in existing and new centers over time. These desired characteristics all contribute to the creation of a more sustainable pattern of development for Boise City—one of the major themes of this plan. Additional activity centers may be designated over time if the proposed centers
BLUEPRINT BOISE
(See Policy NAC1.2.): Are comprised of a mix of uses and are of a scale that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood;
Are located in an area where the topography is suitable for higher-intensity development;
Provides a range of commercial/retail services not currently available in the immediate neighborhood;
Are served by and/or focused around an existing or planned rapid transit stop; and,
Are consistent with the goals, policies, and principles contained in this plan. Development occurring within the General MixedUse land use category outside of designated activity centers should be consistent with design principles for Mixed-Use Activity Centers, as well as design principles for Corridors, where applicable.
3-7
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
MIXED-USE ACTIVITY CENTER TYPES: Regional Activity Centers FUTURE LAND USE MAP SYMBOL
CHARACTERISTICS
Regional Activity Centers serve Boise residents as well as residents of the surrounding region. Each of Boise’s regional activity centers is unique in its scale, development intensity, and mix of uses. They typically include large-scale employment and retail uses, high-density residential, and mixed-use development. Regional Activity Centers for Boise are: Downtown Boise (see also, Downtown Mixed-Use Land Use Category, pg 3-12);
Micron industrial area;
Hewlett-Packard industrial area; and
Boise Towne Square Mall.
DESIRED PATTERN
SIZE
Typically between 50 and 150 acres.
DENSITY RANGE
Non-Residential/Mixed-Use: Typical floor area ratios (FARs) of between 0.5 and 2.0, although they may be as high as 10 or more in Downtown.
Residential: Residential densities typically greater than 20 dwelling units per acre.
MIX OF USES
Dependent upon the types of activities within the individual activity center. Ranges from a diverse mix of office, retail, restaurants, institutional, residential, and other uses in Downtown to predominately employment in the Micron area.
LOCATION
Typically located in close proximity to an interstate highway for visibility and ease of access. Regional activity centers should be located to minimize the impacts of traffic on neighborhoods.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Design principles for Mixed-Use Activity Centers apply. Corridor and Gateway design principles may also apply in some locations.
TRANSPORTATION
Street design typical of town center street typologies. Facilities include transit centers, wider sidewalks, and bike lane network.
ZONE DISTRICTS
Varies based on underlying land use category designation.
3-8
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
MIXED-USE ACTIVITY CENTER TYPES: Community Activity Centers FUTURE LAND USE MAP SYMBOL
CHARACTERISTICS
Community Activity Centers are intended to meet the needs of a group of neighborhoods or the entire community. They are characterized as destinations that include grocery store anchors, moderate to high-density housing, office and service uses, and mixed-use development. Examples of Community Activity Centers include: Five Mile and Overland;
Five Mile and Ustick;
Eagle and McMillan;
Ustick and Cole;
Eckert and Warm Springs; and
Apple and Parkcenter.
DESIRED PATTERN
SIZE
Typically between 20 and 40 acres.
DENSITY RANGE
Non-Residential/Mixed-Use: Typical FARs of between 0.5 and 2. 0.
Residential: Typically between 12 and 20 dwelling units per acre.
Primary: Variety of retail, commercial, professional offices, financial institutions, and high-density residential, including live-work units. Non-residential space typically ranges from 25,000 to 150,000 square feet.
Secondary: While the mix of uses in most of the city’s Community Activity Centers today is fairly limited (typically retail and office uses), the incorporation of a broader mix of uses, including residential, is encouraged as existing centers evolve and new centers are constructed.
MIX OF USES
Mix of primary and secondary uses will vary based on adjacent uses, location, and access. LOCATION
Most appropriately located at the intersection of arterials, where they may be served by existing and planned transit and should include consideration of transit in new development. Existing and planned Community Activity Centers are identified on the Future Land Use Map. Additional centers may be identified consistent with Policy NAC1.2: Locational Criteria. (See Chapter 2.)
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Design principles for Mixed-Use Activity Centers apply. Corridor and Gateway Design Principles may also apply in some locations.
TRANSPORTATION
Street design typical of town center street typologies. Facilities include transit centers, wider sidewalks, and bike lane network.
ZONE DISTRICTS
Varies based on underlying land use category designation.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
3-9
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
MIXED-USE ACTIVITY CENTERS TYPES: Neighborhood Activity Centers FUTURE LAND USE MAP SYMBOL
CHARACTERISTICS
Neighborhood Activity Centers are intended to serve one or more neighborhoods and are characterized by small-scale retail and service uses that may include mixeduse or attached housing opportunities. These centers are characterized by a compact scale and pedestrian-friendly design that encourages pedestrian access from adjacent neighborhoods. Examples of Neighborhood Activity Centers in Boise include: Hyde Park;
36th and Hill Road; and
Bown Crossing.
DESIRED PATTERN
SIZE
Typically between three to five acres; however, may be as small as one acre when integrated within a neighborhood.
DENSITY RANGE
Non-Residential/Mixed-Use: Typical FARs of between 0.5 and 2. 0.
Residential: Typically between 8 and 16 dwelling units per acre, but may be higher if designed in accordance with the design principles.
Non-residential: Restaurants, coffee shops, offices, and small-scale retail shops. Nonresidential space typically occupies less than 25,000 square feet.
Residential uses: A range of residential uses is encouraged and may include attached single-family units, garden apartments and patio homes, apartments or condominium units above ground floor retail uses, and live-work units.
MIX OF USES
Mix of primary and secondary uses will vary based on adjacent uses, location, and access. LOCATION
Existing and planned Neighborhood Activity Centers are identified on the Future Land Use Map. Centers are generally located at the intersection of a local street and an arterial street or two local streets. Additional centers may be identified consistent with Policy NAC1.2: Locational Criteria. (See Chapter 2.)
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Design principles for Mixed-Use Activity Centers apply. Corridor and Gateway design principles may also apply in some locations.
TRANSPORTATION
Street design typical of town center street typologies. Facilities include transit centers, wider sidewalks, and bike lane network.
ZONE DISTRICTS
Varies based on underlying land use category designation.
3-10
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
MIXED-USE LAND USE CATEGORIES General Mixed-Use FUTURE LAND USE MAP SYMBOL
CHARACTERISTICS
The General Mixed-Use land use category provides a foundation for Regional, Community, and Neighborhood Activity Center development. General Mixed-Use allows for a vertical or horizontal mix of uses, including residential.
DESIRED PATTERN
DENSITY RANGE
Typical FARs of between 0.5 and 2.0; although may be significantly higher in larger Community Activity Centers where transitions to adjacent neighborhoods can be incorporated.
MIX OF USES
Specific mix of uses will vary based on adjacent uses, location, and access. Generally includes a variety of retail, commercial, professional offices, restaurants, financial institutions, and high-density residential, including live-work units.
LOCATION
Located along corridors and within activity centers where it may be readily served by existing or future transit.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Design principles for Mixed-Use Activity Centers apply. Corridor and Gateway design principles may also apply in some locations.
TRANSPORTATION
Street design typical of town center street typologies. Facilities include transit centers, wider sidewalks, and bike lane network.
ZONE DISTRICTS
A-1, R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, R-1M, L-O, N-O, R-2, R-3, MX-1, MX-2, MX-3, MX-4, MX-5, MX-H, I-1, I-2, R-O, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, PC, H-S, M-1, M-2, M-4, T-1
BLUEPRINT BOISE
3-11
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
MIXED-USE LAND USE CATEGORIES Downtown Mixed-Use FUTURE LAND USE MAP SYMBOL
CHARACTERISTICS
The Downtown Mixed-Use land use category is intended to reflect the significance of Downtown Boise’s role as the center of the community and region. The category accommodates the broad range of conditions that exist in Downtown today and is intended to support adopted plans and policies for different neighborhoods and districts within the Downtown Planning Area.
DESIRED PATTERN
DENSITY RANGE
Typical FARs will generally be between 2.0 and 10.0, although higher intensities will be supported within the Downtown Core.
MIX OF USES
Primary: Varies by location, but generally includes a mix of civic, cultural, retail, restaurant, educational facilities, medical, hotel/convention, professional offices, financial institutions, medium/high-density housing, government (federal, state, and local) buildings and properties.
Secondary: Parking and transit facilities, plazas, squares, parks, open space, and trails.
Specific mix of uses should be tailored to adopted plans and policies for different neighborhoods and districts within the Downtown Planning Area, as applicable. LOCATION
Applies within the boundaries of the Downtown Planning Area.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Design principles for Mixed-Use Activity Centers apply. Corridor and Gateway Design Principles may also apply in some locations.
TRANSPORTATION
Street design based on adopted urban renewal plans and town center typologies. Facilities include multi-model transit center, wider sidewalks, and bike lane network.
ZONE DISTRICTS
A-1, R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, R-1M, L-O, N-O R-2, R-3, MX-1, MX-2, MX-3, MX-4, MX-5, MX-H, I-1, I-2 R-O, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, PC, H-S, M-1, M-2, M-4, T-1
3-12
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
Mixed-Use Design Principles GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR MIXED-USE (GDP-MU) These General Design Principles apply to all mixed-use development occurring within designated Regional, Community, or Neighborhood Activity Centers on the Future Land Use Map, as well as areas outside of activity centers designated as General Mixed-Use. The principles address: the Relationship of Uses; Housing; Community Facilities; Pedestrian Access and Orientation; and Distinct Identity and are intended to promote a more compact and sustainable pattern of development in the city’s activity centers over time. These principles should be applied in conjunction with relevant planning area-specific policies contained in Chapter 4. Principle GDP-MU.1: Relationship of Uses
Principle GDP-MU.2: Housing (a) Encourage the incorporation of housing in activity centers either above retail storefronts or as an adjacent, but well-integrated, use to provide opportunities for residents to walk or take transit to shops, services, and jobs. (b) Incorporate higher-density housing and a wider range of housing choices in larger centers with existing or planned transit access. (c) Incorporate smaller-scale housing in Neighborhood Activity Centers that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood context.
A vertically mixed-use building in Downtown, with retail at the street level and residential above. (a) Encourage a vertical mix of uses or a combination of vertically and horizontally mixed uses based on site size, access, surrounding uses, and the overall development context. (b) Locate active uses such as retail shops and restaurants at the ground level to provide pedestrian interest. (c) Concentrate active uses at key intersections, near existing or planned transit stops, or near major public spaces to increase visibility and promote pedestrian activity. (d) Ensure site plans address the possibility of transitioning surface parking and other underutilized features of a development to a higher intensity and more integrated pattern over time, if it is not achievable at the time of development.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Retail and multi-family residential uses in this activity center are horizontally mixed and well integrated—both visually and physically.
Principle GDP-MU.3: Community Facilities (a) Incorporate schools, plazas, libraries, parks, and open space, and other community facilities into activity centers where appropriate to serve the needs of neighborhood residents.
3-13
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
(b) Encourage creative approaches to the design of community facilities in activity centers to reinforce the more compact nature of their surroundings and integrate them with other uses.
activity center and distinguish it from other activity centers in the city.
Distinctive architecture, lighting, signage, and other features help create a distinct character for each of the city’s activity centers.
Principle GDP-MU.6: Transit Access The integration of plazas and other more urban open spaces in activity centers provides a place for kids to play and adults to enjoy.
Principle GDP-MU.4: Pedestrian Access and Orientation (a) Design sites and orient buildings with an emphasis on the character and safety of the pedestrian realm:
Bring buildings close to the street;
Place parking behind or to the side of buildings; and
Provide clear pedestrian connections with generous sidewalk widths, low-level lighting, and outdoor gathering spaces. (b) Incorporate a pattern of walkable blocks in activity centers with frequent and clear pedestrian connections to surrounding neighborhoods, transit corridors and stops, parks, trails, and open space. (c) Tailor block sizes to those found in Boise’s traditional neighborhoods, which are generally less than 400 feet, with the exception of Downtown’s much smaller blocks.
(a) Design activity centers to support existing and planned transit. Cluster activity-generating uses, such as retail stores, restaurants, and daily services along transit corridors and surrounding transit stops and provide direct pedestrian access. (b) Concentrate high-density residential at the core of activity centers and within ¼ mile of existing and planned transit stops to provide ease of access and to promote increased ridership over time.
Principle GDP-MU.7: Sustainability Encourage energy-efficient construction techniques, materials, designs, and other strategies as part of new activity centers or rehabilitation efforts, consistent with the sustainability policies contained in Chapter 2.
Principle GDP-MU.5: Distinct Identity Incorporate a variety of features, such as varied materials, architectural detailing, facade articulation, varied building heights and scale, signage, landscaping, public art and other urban design elements to help establish a unique identity for each 3-14
The 36th Street Garden Center received a Silver LEED certification for its environmental design. BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
HORIZONTAL VS. VERTICAL MIXED-USE Vertical mixed-use “Vertical mixed-use” refers to the integration of two or more land use types within a building, occurring on different floors. A typical example of a vertical mixed-use building would incorporate active uses, such as stores, offices, and restaurants, at the street level and residential or office uses on the upper floors—as traditionally found in Downtown Boise and in Neighborhood Activity Centers such as Bown Crossing.
Horizontal mixed-use “Horizontal mixed-use” refers to a pattern where several types of uses or buildings, together with residential, are included as part of a cohesive development in proximity to each other – but each building would contain its own separate use. They would be designed as a set of coordinated uses, with common parking areas, strong pedestrian connections, and similar design features, but would contain separate uses in each building.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
3-15
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
INFILL DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR MIXED-USE (IDP-MU) These Infill Design Principles apply to all mixed-use development occurring within an established context in designated Regional, Community, or Neighborhood Activity Centers, as well as areas located outside of activity centers that are designated for General Mixed-Use. The principles are intended to provide policy guidance on a range of techniques aimed at ensuring that higher-density development desired within activity centers is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. These principles should be applied in conjunction with the General Design Principles for Mixed-Use above, as well as relevant planning areaspecific policies contained in Chapter 4. Principle IDP-MU.1: Mix of Uses Incorporate a broader range of uses (including housing) and higher-intensity development as opportunities to redevelop or revitalize existing centers occur over time, subject to these Infill Design Principles.
These homes were incorporated behind commercial uses along State Street, providing their residents the option of walking or biking to nearby amenities.
Principle IDP-MU.2: Relationship to Surrounding Neighborhoods Use the following techniques to promote compatibility between redevelopment within existing activity centers and the surrounding neighborhood: (a) Concentrate tallest buildings at the center of the site or along primary street frontages; (b) Provide gradual decreases in building height and mass so that new structures have a comparable scale as adjacent homes along the shared lot line or street frontage; (c) Respect existing block patterns by carrying street connections to and through the activity center; or
3-16
(d) Incorporate lower-intensity housing types (e.g., townhomes, duplexes, etc.) along a shared street frontage.
A gradual decrease in height and building mass are used to provide a transition between the five-story infill development at right and its smaller-scale neighbors to the left.
Principle IDP-MU.3: Renovation of Existing Activity Centers (a) Incorporate pad-site buildings at the street edge to break up existing surface parking and help “frame” the street and the center’s entrance, where sufficient space is available. (b) Provide landscaping in combination with low walls to screen surface parking from the street. (c) Incorporate upper floors of housing or offices above existing strip centers where structurally and economically feasible. (d) Provide pedestrian linkages between the center and adjacent neighborhoods as part of a major rehabilitation effort, where they do not already exist.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
Neighborhoods
Four neighborhood land use categories are identified on the Future Land Use Map, reflecting the diversity of housing opportunities and neighborhood characteristics that the community values. Neighborhood land use categories include: Large Lot, Suburban, Compact, and High-Density Residential. The Buildable land use category is also included as part of the Neighborhood Designation, but its applicability is limited to areas identified within the Foothills Policy Plan.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Design principles for neighborhoods are intended to promote a balanced mix of uses, a pedestrianoriented scale, distinct character, and integration with the surrounding community. Infill design principles for neighborhoods address issues of neighborhood compatibility that may arise as densities increase over time. Principles are not intended to promote neighborhoods that look and feel the same; rather, they are intended to enhance the character, accessibility, and livability of the city’s existing and future neighborhoods.
3-17
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE CATEGORIES: Large Lot FUTURE LAND USE MAP SYMBOL CHARACTERISTICS
Large lot neighborhoods feature single-family detached homes on lots ranging from ½ to more than one-acre in size. Neighborhoods typically feature more rural characteristics, such as open fencing and rural roadway cross-sections (e.g., no curb and gutter or sidewalks) and in some areas exist as enclaves within urban areas. Topography and other natural features, as well as adjacent ranges and grazing lands, contribute to the overall character of these neighborhoods depending on their location. Clustering homes to preserve these features or provide shared open space for residents is encouraged.
DESIRED PATTERN
DENSITY RANGE
Typically 1-2 dwelling units/acre, although densities may be significantly lower in some locations.
MIX OF USES
Primary: Single-family detached homes.
Secondary: Parks, open space, trails, livestock grazing , small-scale agricultural uses and community gardens. Services for large lot neighborhoods are generally provided by adjacent activity centers.
LOCATION
Typically located at the fringe of urban development or in areas such as the Foothills where steeper terrain or other natural features are unsuitable for suburban or compact neighborhood development.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Design principles for Neighborhoods apply. Corridor and Gateway Design Principles may also apply in some locations.
TRANSPORTATION
Residential typologies in the Southwest Planning area are suitable. In the Foothills Planning Area, adapted Rural roadway typologies are suitable that account for steep terrain and off-road pathways.
ZONE DISTRICTS
A-1, A-2, R-1A, R-1B, L-O, N-O
3-18
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE CATEGORIES: Suburban FUTURE LAND USE MAP SYMBOL CHARACTERISTICS
The Suburban land use category accommodates predominantly single-family detached homes on lots ranging from 7,000 to 11,000 square feet. Existing neighborhoods tend to be more isolated from surrounding uses and may require residents to rely more on driving to nearby shopping and employment destinations; however, a more integrated pattern is encouraged for new neighborhoods. This designation encompasses many areas of Boise developed between the 1950’s and today.
DESIRED PATTERN
DENSITY RANGE
3-5 dwelling units/acre.
MIX OF USES
Primary: Predominantly single-family detached homes served by adjacent activity centers; however, new suburban neighborhoods are encouraged to incorporate a mix of attached and detached dwellings.
Secondary: Parks, trails, open space and community gardens are typically integrated within each neighborhood.
MIX OF HOUSING TYPES
Predominantly single-family detached; however, may include attached single-family and multi-family units as part of a larger neighborhood development.
LOCATION
Varies; typical in developing areas of the AOCI.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Design principles for neighborhoods apply. Corridor and Gateway Design Principles may also apply in some locations.
TRANSPORTATION
Residential roadway typologies are suitable. Town Center typologies in areas at upper end of density range. Pedestrian-oriented streetscapes are desired (Principle GDP-N.5).
ZONE DISTRICTS
A-1, A-2, R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, L-O, N-O
BLUEPRINT BOISE
3-19
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE CATEGORIES: Compact FUTURE LAND USE MAP SYMBOL CHARACTERISTICS
Compact neighborhoods feature small lots (typically between 5,000-7,000 square feet), an interconnected network of sidewalks and streets, and in some cases, alley-loaded garages. This designation encompasses many of the older portions of the city, such as the North End, as well as some more recent developments designed with similar characteristics, such as Harris Ranch.
DESIRED PATTERN
DENSITY RANGE
6-15 dwelling units/acre typical.
MIX OF USES
Primary: Predominantly detached single-family homes on small lots; however, may also include a range of attached units (duplex, triplex, townhomes) and apartments and condominiums.
Secondary: Parks, open space, schools, community gardens and churches. The integration of Neighborhood Activity Centers is encouraged within compact neighborhoods to provide retail services, restaurants, employment, and other services within walking distance. A broader range of services is provided by nearby community and regional activity centers.
MIX OF HOUSING TYPES
The incorporation of a variety of housing types and price ranges is encouraged to provide choices for neighborhood residents.
LOCATION
Varies; typical of older portions of the city.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Design principles for neighborhoods apply. Corridor and Gateway Design Principles may also apply in some locations.
TRANSPORTATION
Town Center and Residential roadway typologies are suitable. Pedestrian-oriented streetscapes are desired (Principle GDP-N.5).
ZONE DISTRICTS
A-1, A-2, R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, R-1M, L-O, N-O, R-2, MX-1 PC
3-20
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE CATEGORIES: High-Density Residential FUTURE LAND USE MAP SYMBOL CHARACTERISTICS
The High-Density Residential land use category encompasses many existing areas of multi-family development within the AOCI. Existing high-density residential neighborhoods are often isolated from surrounding neighborhoods and activity centers; however, new areas of high-density residential should be incorporated as part of neighborhoods and activity centers.
DESIRED PATTERN
DENSITY RANGE
15-45 dwelling units per acre.
MIX OF USES
Primary: Predominantly apartments, condominiums, and townhomes, but may also include four-plexes and duplexes.
Secondary: Parks, trails, recreational facilities, community gardens and neighborhood centers are typically integrated within each neighborhood.
LOCATION
High-density residential neighborhoods should generally be located within or adjacent to designated Mixed-Use Activity Centers and along Corridors where they may be readily served by transit.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Design principles for Neighborhoods apply. Mixed-use and Corridor Design Principles may also apply in some locations.
TRANSPORTATION
Town Center typologies are suitable. Pedestrian-oriented streetscapes are desired (Principle GDP-N.5).
ZONE DISTRICTS
A-1, A-2, R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, R-1M, L-O, N-O, R-2, R-3, MX-1 PC
BLUEPRINT BOISE
3-21
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
NEIGHBORHOOD LAND USE CATEGORIES: Buildable Area FUTURE LAND USE MAP SYMBOL
CHARACTERISTICS
The Buildable Area land use category encompasses areas identified by the Foothills Policy Plan as potentially buildable areas based on slope. Existing slopes in buildable areas are generally less than 25%, although pockets of slopes greater than 25% may exist. Detailed slope surveys are required prior to development.
DESIRED PATTERN
DENSITY RANGE
1 unit/40 acres; density bonuses may be granted in accordance with the Density Bonus Formula.
USES
Primary: Single-family detached homes.
Secondary: Parks, open space, trails, livestock grazing, and small-scale agricultural uses (where lot sizes permit).
LOCATION
Boise Foothills.
TRANSPORTATION
Rural and Residential roadway typologies are generally suitable but may require significant adaptation to accommodate site constraints.
ZONE DISTRICTS
A-2, other zones may be used consistent with Foothills Planning Area policies
3-22
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
Neighborhood Design Principles GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR NEIGHBORHOODS (GDP- N) These General Design Principles apply to all types of neighborhoods as identified on the Land Use Map, including: Large Lot, Suburban, Compact, High-Density, and Buildable Area. The principles provide guidance on a range of site planning, urban design, and neighborhood character issues as they pertain to both new development and infill development. They are intended to enhance the livability and sustainability of the city’s neighborhoods over time. These principles should be applied in conjunction with relevant planning area-specific policies contained in Chapter 4. Principle GDP-N.1: Connectivity
A continuous network of pedestrian and bicycle connections is needed through and between the city’s neighborhoods. a) Provide a continuous network of sidewalks, bicycle, and pedestrian paths, and roadways to connect different areas of neighborhoods. (b) Establish linkages to activity centers and other adjacent uses, transit stops, and the surrounding community. (c) Avoid isolating neighborhoods with walls and gates that hinder pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connectivity. (d) Work with neighborhood residents to improve connectivity in established neighborhoods where sidewalks are absent or incomplete.
Parks and open space amenities should be integrated as part of neighborhoods to provide easy access for residents.
Principle GDP-N.3: Mix of Housing Types (a) Encourage a variety of housing types (e.g., single-family, duplex, townhomes, accessory dwelling units, apartments/condominiums). (b) Integrate distinct housing types at the neighborhood level—providing more than one type of housing (e.g., duplexes and single-family homes) on a single block where feasible. (c) Avoid creating large concentrations of specific types of housing, such as multi-family or affordable units within a neighborhood or segregating certain housing types from others.
Principle GDP-N.2: Integrated Parks and Open Space Network (a) Include or provide access to parks and open space amenities that appeal to residents of all ages and abilities. (b) Encourage alternatives to traditional parks, such as mini-parks, and public squares in the city’s more urban neighborhoods.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
3-23
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN (b) Incorporate alleys where feasible as a means of shifting garage and parking access away from primary streets, allowing for narrower street cross-sections and reducing pedestrian/vehicle conflicts.
Principle GDP-N.6: Activity Centers
A variety of housing types provides housing options for residents and adds to the character of the neighborhood.
Principle GDP-N.4: Distinct Character Provide variety in the architectural style of homes and incorporate streetscape elements, signage, and other features that will help distinguish them from surrounding neighborhoods.
Principle GDP-N.5: Pedestrian-Oriented Streetscapes
Neighborhoods should include or provide access to an activity center and associated neighborhood services. (a) Include or provide access to an activity center within each neighborhood to meet the daily needs of area residents and provide community gathering spaces. Apply this principle to designated Mixed-Use Activity Centers, as well as schools, libraries, and other community facilities intended for shared use. (b) Provide direct pedestrian connections and a clear visual relationship between uses when an existing activity center is intended to serve a new neighborhood.
Principle GDP-N.7: Garage Placement
Rear alleys allow for a pleasing streetscape without the interruption of driveways and potential pedestrian and vehicular conflicts. Create neighborhood streetscapes that increase the comfort, safety, and enjoyment of pedestrians as follows: (a) Incorporate detached sidewalks with treelawns and street trees to encourage residents to walk, rather than drive to nearby activity centers and other destinations.
3-24
Enhance the character of the street frontage and reduce the visual prominence of garages as follows: (a) Incorporate a variety of garage orientations (e.g., front-loaded, side-loaded) in neighborhoods without alleys. (b) Recess front garages behind the front façade or a front porch. (c) Limit the percentage of a home’s front façade that can be occupied by a garage door.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
Varied garage orientation creates a more visually pleasing and pedestrian-friendly street character.
Natural features, such as these wetlands, should be integrated into new neighborhoods as parks and open space.
Principle GDP-N.8: Preservation of Natural Features
Principle GDP-N.9: Preservation of Historic and Cultural Resources
(a) Plan neighborhoods to maximize the preservation of natural features, such as drainages, mature trees, documented wildlife habitat, steep slopes, and other unique features. (b) Integrate natural features as active and passive open space and trail corridors to serve the neighborhood and broader community, where appropriate.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
(a) Plan neighborhoods to maximize the protection of historic and cultural features. (b) Integrate historic and cultural features into the overall design of new neighborhoods where feasible, converting historic structures to community facilities or other uses and/or using cultural features to define interpretive themes, parks, or recreational amenities.
3-25
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
Historic features can be integrated into the design of new neighborhoods.
Principle GDP-N.10: Cluster Development
Clustering residential development in the foothills helps preserve the natural landscape.
Use cluster development patterns to: (a) Preserve scenic view corridors or natural features; (b) Create transitions between areas of different development intensity; (c) Provide open space for the common use and enjoyment of residents and the broader community; and/or (d) Preserve cohesive blocks of agricultural land.
Small-scale agricultural uses such as this community garden should be integrated into new and existing neighborhoods.
Principle GDP-N.11: Sustainability (a) Incorporate energy-efficient construction techniques, materials, home designs, and other strategies in neighborhood design consistent with the sustainability policies contained in Chapter 2. (b) Site lots in new neighborhoods to maximize solar and wind access. (c) Encourage small-scale agricultural uses as an integrated component of neighborhoods— either through the continuation of an existing agricultural use or through the incorporation of community gardens or similar features intended to support the immediate neighborhood.
3-26
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
INFILL DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR NEIGHBORHOODS (IDP- N) These Infill Design Principles apply to all types of neighborhood development occurring within an established neighborhood context. The principles provide policy guidance on a range of techniques that may be employed to promote compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. These principles should be applied in conjunction with the General Design Principles for Neighborhoods above, as well as relevant planning area-specific policies contained in Chapter 4 Principle IDP-N.1: Transitions in Building Height and Mass
(b) Maintain the traditional finish floor grade found along the block face. For example, on blocks where homes and yards have traditionally been elevated above the grade of the sidewalk, excavating existing yards to accommodate a walk-out basement or tuck-under garage is not appropriate.
Principle IDP-N.2: Streetscape Character Reinforce the established streetscape characteristics through the use of complementary setbacks, sidewalk widths, and street trees as part of infill and redevelopment projects.
The use of similar setbacks and sidewalk configurations for infill development help maintain the established character of the street.
Similar building massing and form and help ensure that infill development appears compatible with adjacent existing homes. (a) Ensure infill and redevelopment within established neighborhoods is compatible with the height, scale, existing , and massing of adjacent homes and the overall character of the street frontage. Use transitions in building heights and variations in side yard setbacks to reduce visual impacts on adjacent homes.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Principle IDP-N.3: Garage Placement and Design (a) Minimize the placement of garages along the block face of residential streets. (b) Provide garage and parking access through an existing alley where possible to avoid the addition of new driveway curb cuts. (c) Provide a variety of garage orientations (e.g., front-loaded, side-loaded) or a shared access to a central bank of garages located behind the primary structure if alley access is unavailable.
3-27
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
3-28
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
Commercial/Employment Areas
Three types of Commercial/Employment Areas are identified on the Future Land Use Map: Commercial, Office, and Industrial. Commercial/Employment areas vary in their characteristics, size, location, mix of uses, and density range, as outlined on the following pages. Designation of Commercial/Employment Areas on the Future Land Use Map is intended to recognize established Commercial, Office, and Industrial uses and the significant role these uses play in providing employment and services to the city and region; however, in some areas a transition in the form and/or mix of uses is desirable to promote a more compact, transit-supportive pattern of development.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Design principles for Commercial/Employment Areas are intended to promote the revitalization of the city’s existing Commercial/Employment Areas over time. As opportunities arise through specific planning efforts in targeted areas, property-owner requests, and increased transit service, existing Commercial/ Employment Areas should be re-evaluated and reassigned to the General Mixed-Use designation if appropriate. Priority for such evaluation should be given to major travel corridors, existing and planned transit stops, and other areas where a more intense pattern of development may be suitable in the longterm.
3-29
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
COMMERCIAL/EMPLOYMENT AREA LAND USE CATEGORIES: Commercial FUTURE LAND USE MAP SYMBOL CHARACTERISTICS
The Commercial designation is intended to provide opportunities for concentrated retail and commercial services. Many of the city’s established commercial areas are organized in a linear, auto-oriented pattern along major travel corridors. The revitalization of established commercial areas is encouraged to promote economic vitality and a more pedestrian and transit-friendly pattern of development. New commercial development should be incorporated within Mixed-Use Activity Centers as part of a broader mix of uses.
DESIRED PATTERN
RANGE OF DENSITY/ SIZE
0.35-1 FAR.
MIX OF USES
Primary: Convenience, neighborhood, community and regional shopping centers, hotels and motels, car sales, restaurants, entertainment, and similar uses; limited outpatient medical uses.
Secondary: Housing, offices, entertainment, and other complementary uses are encouraged as ancillary uses within commercial projects; however, developments seeking to incorporate a mix of uses are encouraged to seek a General Mixed-Use designation on the Future Land Use Map.
LOCATION
Commercial uses should generally be located at the intersections of arterials, convenient to customers and employees.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Design principles for Commercial/Employment Areas apply. Corridor, gateway, and mixed-use activity center design principles may also apply in some locations.
TRANSPORTATION
Town Center and Planned Commercial typologies are desired in concert with general design principles for commercial/employment areas. Commercial Collector and Commercial Local typologies may be appropriate in smaller activity centers and redevelopment of strip commercial areas.
ZONE DISTRICTS
A-1, A-2, R-1M, R-2, R-3, MX-1, MX-2, MX-3, MX-4 L-O, N-O, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, PC
3-30
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
COMMERCIAL/EMPLOYMENT AREA LAND USE CATEGORIES: Office FUTURE LAND USE MAP SYMBOL CHARACTERISTICS
The Office designation is intended to provide opportunities for smaller office complexes consisting of a single building or several buildings not located in a typical office park setting. This designation is primarily intended to capture existing areas of office development. The creation of new, “single-use” office districts is discouraged. New office uses should be integrated with retail, housing, entertainment, and other complementary uses and are encouraged to seek a General Mixed-Use designation on the Future Land Use Map.
DESIRED PATTERN
RANGE OF DENSITY/ SIZE
0.35-1.0 FAR.
MIX OF USES
Primary: Professional offices, including smaller medical uses such as dentist offices and outpatient clinics. Intensive medical uses such as hospitals or other overnight care not allowed.
Secondary: Retail, housing, entertainment, and other complementary uses are encouraged as ancillary uses within an office project; however, developments seeking to incorporate a mix of uses are encouraged to seek a General Mixed-Use designation on the Future Land Use Map.
LOCATION
Office uses should generally be located along arterials and collectors and within designated mixed-use activity centers. Office uses may be used to provide a transition between intense retail uses and surrounding neighborhoods.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Design principles for Commercial/Employment Areas apply. Corridor, Gateway, and Mixed-use Activity Center Design Principles may also apply in some locations.
TRANSPORTATION
Town Center and Planned Commercial typologies are desired in concert with general design principles for commercial/employment areas. Commercial Collector and Commercial Local typologies may be appropriate in smaller activity centers and redevelopment of strip commercial areas.
ZONE DISTRICTS
A-1, A-2, R-1M, R-2, R-3, MX-1, MX-3, MX-H L-O, N-O, C-1, H-S, PC
BLUEPRINT BOISE
3-31
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
COMMERCIAL/EMPLOYMENT AREA LAND USE CATEGORIES: Industrial FUTURE LAND USE MAP SYMBOL CHARACTERISTICS
The Industrial designation is intended to provide for concentrated areas of employment.
DESIRED PATTERN
RANGE OF DENSITY/ SIZE
0.15-0.5 FAR.
USES
Primary Uses: Heavy and light manufacturing, warehousing, mini-storage, open storage, multi-tenant industrial parks, automotive repair and similar uses are permitted.
Secondary Uses: Ancillary or support uses such as restaurants, offices, health clubs and convenience centers may be located within any Industrial area provided they are not intended to function as a primary use.
LOCATION
Desirable locations for industrial uses vary by the type and potential impact of proposed uses, as well as the opportunity to create synergy with established uses in a particular area. Priority will be given to the following types of uses in these locations: Light manufacturing, warehousing, and multi-tenant light industrial operations will be encouraged to locate within the Franklin Industrial Corridor and within the Central Bench industrial area. The industrial area west of the Boise Air Terminal is considered a lower priority area for these uses.
Heavy industries and industrial uses that generate unusual noises and/or odors should be located within the industrial districts in the vicinity of the Boise Air Terminal.
High-tech industries and research and development facilities are strongly encouraged within the Hewlett Packard and Micron industrial areas. The Franklin Industrial Corridor is considered a lower priority area for these uses.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Design principles for Commercial/Employment Areas apply. Corridor, gateway, and mixed-use activity center design principles may also apply in some locations.
TRANSPORTATION
Industrial typologies are preferred. Smaller industrial areas may be served by roadway typologies in context with surrounding land uses.
ZONE DISTRICTS
A-1, A-2, I-1, I-2, I-3 L-O, N-O, C-1, M-1, M-2, M-4, T-1, T-2
3-32
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
Commercial/Employment Area Design Principles GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR COMMERCIAL/EMPLOYMENT AREAS (GDP- C/E) These design principles are intended to promote a distinctive character and compatibility with adjacent uses for the city’s Commercial/Employment Areas. Areas located along a designated corridor or within a mixed-use activity center should also refer to design principles for those locations. Principle GDP-C/E.1: Building Design and Character
shops and restaurants in areas where pedestrian activity is desirable. (e) Ensure parking structures are visually integrated with the building(s) they are intended to serve.
Principle GDP-C/E.2: Building Orientation (a) Organize buildings to enclose and frame streets, parking lots, pedestrian walkways, outdoor gathering spaces, transit stops, and other site features. (b) Orient buildings so as to establish a strong visual relationship to the street, sidewalks, surrounding views.
This large building is designed with architectural elements that help break up the façade and provide visual interest at the street level. (a) Reduce the visual scale of large buildings as follows:
Break larger structures into multiple building volumes and masses;
Incorporate a variety of architectural elements, including recessed and protruding building elements to articulate building facades;
Incorporate roof line or height variations to visually differentiate the building massing, and incorporating recesses and setbacks on any elevation on upper floors of multi-floor buildings. (b) Use architectural elements to clearly define primary building entrances. (c) Avoid blank walls or walls with limited architectural detailing on the side or rear of structures (d) Provide visual interest for pedestrians through the incorporation of display windows and/or other architectural elements at the street level and the concentration of active uses such as
BLUEPRINT BOISE
This office building frames the corner and creates a strong visual relationship to the street.
Principle GDP-C/E.3: Site Planning (a) Locate storage areas and loading areas away from street frontages and conceal them with decorative screening or walls. (b) Provide a hierarchy of signs that is integrated with the overall character of the development, including informational signs for pedestrians.
3-33
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
This storage and loading area is located away from the street and is screened from view.
This shaded walkway helps protect pedestrians from weather and visually defines the walkway.
Principle GDP-C/E.4: Relationship to Surrounding Development
Principle GDP-C/E.6: Parking Location and Screening
(a) Limit building heights to those of the adjacent neighborhood unless increased heights can be mitigated through use of buffer yards or architectural treatments. (b) Mitigate noise, odor, lighting, and other impacts minimize impacts on surrounding uses.
Principle GDP-C/E.5: Pedestrian Connections and Amenities (a) Provide direct pedestrian connections to adjacent uses, including surrounding neighborhoods. (b) Incorporate outdoor seating, plazas, and other public gathering spaces as part of the overall development to encourage pedestrian activity. (c) Use arcades, shade structures, and other architectural features to visually define pedestrian connections between buildings and provide protection from the elements.
3-34
(a) Locate parking to the side or rear of buildings and away from primary street frontages. (b) Use landscaping or other treatments to screen surface parking from the street, soften the appearance of surface parking lots, and enhance the overall character of the development. (c) Encourage underground parking where appropriate and provide appropriate design elements to mitigate bulk and mass of aboveground parking garages.
Principle GDP-C/E.7: Sustainability Incorporate energy-efficient construction techniques, materials, and other strategies consistent with the sustainability policies contained in Chapter 2.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
INFILL DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR COMMERCIAL/EMPLOYMENT AREAS (GDP- C/E) Infill Design Principles for Commercial/Employment Areas are addressed through principles for MixedUse Activity Centers and Corridors. Proposed developments should refer to the principles that best correspond to the site’s location.
The City Center Plaza Project/Main Street Station buildings are the ultimate in commercial infill development, located on the former US Bank parking lot at 777 W. Main adjoining The Grove Plaza. The Center houses the Clearwater Analytics Company, the Boise State Computer Department, and the Main Street Station Valley Regional Transit Center in the underground stories. This multi-use facility was the result of an integrated effort and funding by the Gardner Company, CCDC, Boise City, Valley Regional Transit, ACHD, and Boise State University: dedicated October 20, 2016.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
3-35
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
The Veltex Building, completed in 2004, is a well designed mixed use commercial infill project with commercial on the first level, and residential on the upper floors. It reflects the architectural detail and proportions of the buildings in the Old Boise Historic District in which it is located. It achieves the look of compatibility with the historic buildings, yet it is a thoroughly modern design.
3-36
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
Public/Institutional Areas
Three types of Public/Institutional Areas are identified on the Future Land Use Map: Public/Quasi-Public, Airport, and Education. Public/Institutional Areas vary in their characteristics, size, and location as outlined on the following pages.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Principles for Public/Institutional Areas are limited to those provided for development within the Airport Influence Area. Principles are intended to ensure future development within the Airport Influence Area is designed in accordance with the Airport Master Plan.
3-37
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL LAND USE CATEGORIES: Public/Quasi-Public FUTURE LAND USE MAP SYMBOL
CHARACTERISTICS
The Public/Quasi-Public designation includes facilities and services provided by the city, special districts, or by a quasi-public organization.
DESIRED PATTERN
RANGE OF DENSITY/ SIZE
Varies.
USES
Government offices, community centers, fire stations, libraries, hospitals, cemeteries, churches, and other places of worship. Also includes facilities needed for essential public services such as electrical substations, water and wastewater facilities, and other public utility-type uses.
LOCATION
Varies.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Design principles for neighborhoods, activity centers, or Commercial/Employment Areas apply, as applicable, depending on location.
TRANSPORTATION
Roadway typologies are dependent on general nature of the public facility. Public facilities that are open for frequent public visitation should be located on transit routes and in areas with well-developed pedestrian facilities.
ZONE DISTRICTS
A-1, A-2, MX-H, I-1, I-2, I-3 M-2, M-4, T-1, T-2
3-38
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL LAND USE CATEGORIES: Education FUTURE LAND USE MAP SYMBOL
CHARACTERISTICS
This designation includes all education and support services and facilities and applies to all existing and proposed public and private schools, colleges, and universities. Detailed master plans may apply.
DESIRED PATTERN
RANGE OF DENSITY/ SIZE
N/A
USES
Public and private schools, colleges, and universities and associated support services and facilities.
LOCATION
Varies based on facility type and size. Generally, schools should be centrally located within neighborhoods to allow for bike and pedestrian access and co-located with parks where feasible. Larger community and regional facilities should be located along major arterials and collectors to provide access from other areas of the community.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
N/A; however, detailed master plans may apply to some facilities, such as BSU, as identified on the Future Land Use Map.
TRANSPORTATION
Roadway typologies are dependent on general land uses in the vicinity of the school. Universities and high schools should be located on transit routes, and all schools should be located in areas with well-developed pedestrian facilities.
ZONE DISTRICTS
A-1, A-2, MX-U U
BLUEPRINT BOISE
3-39
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL LAND USE CATEGORIES: Airport FUTURE LAND USE MAP SYMBOL CHARACTERISTICS
This designation is intended to accommodate airport activity, aviation-related businesses, and the Idaho National Guard. It does not include commercial and industrial uses located around the airport.
DESIRED PATTERN
RANGE OF DENSITY/ SIZE
N/A
USES
Airport activity, aviation-related businesses and the Idaho National Guard.
LOCATION
Applies to the Boise Airport Environs and the additional area covered by the Airport Master Plan.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Design principles for the Airport Influence Area apply.
TRANSPORTATION
Connection to the interstate, regional arterial networks, and public transit is necessary to link the Airport to major regional destinations.
ZONE DISTRICTS
A-1, A-2, MX-2, MX-3, MX-4, I-1, I-2 L-O, N-O, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, M-1, M-2, M-4, T-1
3-40
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
Figure 13: Airport Influence Areas
BLUEPRINT BOISE
3-41
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
Airport Influence Area Design Principles GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR THE AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA (GDP- AIA) These General Design Principles apply to all development occurring within the Airport Influence Area, as identified on the Airport Influence Area map. The principles address soundproofing and compatible uses for each zone of the Airport Influence Area. These principles should be applied in conjunction with relevant planning area-specific policies contained in Chapter 4. Principle GDP-AIA.1: Noise-Sensitive Uses (a) Limit new development within Airport Influence Area C to non-residential uses; residential uses are prohibited. (b) Limit expansion of existing noise-sensitive land uses. (c) Protect existing uses within the Federal Way and Airport heavy industrial area from encroachment by residential and other “noisesensitive” uses.
Principle GDP-AIA.2: Soundproofing and Use Restrictions All new development and existing structures within the Airport Influence Area must comply with the following: (a) All new residential development and new schools in Airport Influence Area A, which are affected by average sound levels in the 6065 DNL and/or aircraft traffic patterns below 1,000 feet, are required to provide a sound level reduction of 25 dB. (b) All development within Airport Influence Area B is affected by average sound levels in the 65-70 DNL and/or aircraft traffic patterns below 1,000 feet. Residential development is not allowed within Area B. All compatible uses will be required to provide sound insulation in noise sensitive areas of a facility.
3-42
(c) All development within Airport Influence Area B-1 is affected by average sound levels in the 65-70 DNL and/or aircraft traffic patterns below 1,000 feet. New residential development will be required to provide a sound level reduction of 30 dB. For new residential development, the maximum density is three residential units per acre. No new schools are allowed. Office and commercial use are compatible. All compatible uses will be required to provide sound insulation in noise sensitive areas of a facility. (d) All development within Airport Influence Area C is affected by average sound levels greater than 70 DNL. The approved Airport Noise Compatibility Plan identifies that existing residential uses in this area are to undergo sound insulation. Residential uses in this area will be considered non-conforming and no new residential development is allowed. Nonnoise sensitive manufacturing, industrial and commercial uses are allowed. All compatible uses are required to provide sound insulation in noise sensitive areas of a facility.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
Parks, Open Space, and Conservation Areas
Three types of Parks, Open Space, and Conservation Areas are identified on the Future Land Use Map: Parks and Open Space, and Slope Protection. Land use categories vary in their characteristics, size, location, and uses, as outlined on the following pages.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Additional policies regarding the location, types, and provision of parks and open space lands are addressed as part of citywide policies contained in Chapter 2: A Predictable Development Pattern.
3-43
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND CONSERVATION LAND USE CATEGORIES: Parks and Open Space FUTURE LAND USE MAP SYMBOL CHARACTERISTICS
The Parks and Open Space designation encompasses all parks, open space, and recreational areas within the AOCI and is limited to such uses. This designation is intended to provide for the active and passive recreational needs of the community. Parks and open space are generally provided by the city and its regional partners; however, privately operated facilities which also serve recreational needs, such as golf courses, may be included.
DESIRED PATTERN
SIZE
Varies, ranging from as small as 1-3 acres to 40+ acres for regional facilities. Pocket parks or similar facilities may be smaller than one acre where necessary to serve increased densities within established neighborhood as a result of infill and redevelopment.
USES
Parks, trails, community gardens and other recreational facilities. Also includes passive open space and urban hardscape parks.
LOCATION
Varies based on facility type and size. Generally, neighborhood parks should be centrally located within neighborhoods to allow for bike and pedestrian access. Larger community and regional facilities should be located along major arterials and collectors to provide access from other areas of the community.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Existing park master plans.
TRANSPORTATION
Parks and open space areas should be served by well-developed pedestrian facilities, bike facilities, and pathways. Regional parks in urban areas should be served by public transit services, particularly when large events occur.
ZONE DISTRICTS
A-1, A-2
3-44
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND CONSERVATION LAND USE CATEGORIES: Slope Protection FUTURE LAND USE MAP SYMBOL
CHARACTERISTICS
The Slope Protection designation generally coincides with areas identified as open space or slope protection areas by the Foothills Policy Plan. The designation is intended to protect the scenic quality of the Foothills, along with the wildlife habitat, sensitive plant species, and the general environmental quality of the area. While very limited residential is permitted within slope protection areas, these areas are generally intended to remain undeveloped.
DESIRED PATTERN
RANGE OF DENSITY/ SIZE
1 dwelling unit/40 acres.
USES
Single-family detached dwellings.
LOCATION
Within the boundaries of the Foothills Policy Plan.
TRANSPORTATION
Well-designed trails and pathway facilities are suitable. Rural roadway typologies may be suitable if designed to limit visual intrusion and to limit dust and erosion.
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Additional policies apply—see Chapter 4, Foothills Planning Area.
ZONE DISTRICTS
A-2
BLUEPRINT BOISE
3-45
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
The Esther Simplot Park, dedicated in 2016, is the most recent addition to the “Ribbon of Jewels.” It is an expansive 55-acre site encompassing approximately 23 acres of ponds suitable for fishing, wading and swimming. It is adjacent to the Bernadine Quinn Riverside Park, and the two are joined by bike and pedestrian trails, and a waterway. Park features include trails, docks, wetlands, boardwalks, shelters, grassy open areas, a playground, bridges and restrooms. The paths in the park total approximately one mile in length.
3-46
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
Corridors
The following types of Corridors are identified on the Future Land Use Map: Transit Corridors, Major Travel Corridors, and Interstate Highways. Transit Corridors Three corridors have been identified as future highvolume transit routes that may be served by buses, BRT, or fixed guideway transit (e.g., commuter rail or light rail). Also included are primary bus routes that serve the community. Although the type of service to be provided along these has yet to be determined in many cases, the purpose of their identification is to encourage land use patterns along these corridors that will support existing and future transit. Major transit corridors identified include: Rail Corridor: This freight rail corridor, also known as the “Boise Cutoff,” has been identified as an opportunity for future fixed-guideway transit to serve the Boise City and the surrounding region. Future land uses along the corridor should be supportive of this transit potential.
State Street (State Highway 44): Future plans for State Street have included widening
BLUEPRINT BOISE
between Downtown Boise and Eagle Road to accommodate a dedicated lane for transit. BRT would be the likely mode choice for this corridor.
Chinden/Broadway: This corridor is second only to I-84 in its importance as a regional travel corridor. Future plans for the Boise portion of the corridor will focus on pedestrian crossing enhancements, streetscape improvements, and various improvements to traffic operations. The corridor also serves as a key transit linkage between Downtown Boise, Garden City, and Eagle.
Major Travel Corridors Major travel corridors have been identified for their role in carrying traffic both within Boise and throughout the region. Together with the Interstate Highways noted below, they form a grid of north/ south and east/west connections for the community. Major corridors include: Franklin Road, Cloverdale Road, and Cole. While existing development patterns in many corridor locations are far from transitsupportive, they represent an opportunity for the
3-47
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN community to promote a more compact pattern of development time that willcompact accommodate community toover promote a more patterntransit of in the future. over time that will accommodate transit development in the future. Interstate Highways Interstate Highways Boise is served by two Interstate Highways: I-84 and I-184,iswhich provide to Downtown and and other Boise served by twoaccess Interstate Highways: I-84 I-184, which provide access to Downtown and other
areas of the community. Due to the high-speed and gradeoforthe barrier-separated nature these corridors, areas community. Due to theofhigh-speed and Corridor Design Principlesnature are generally intended grade or barrier-separated of thesenot corridors, to be applied in Principles these locations. They are here Corridor Design are generally notnoted intended acknowledge their locations. significance within the city and to be applied in these They are noted here region and theirtheir relationship to the other to acknowledge significance within thecorridors city and described region andabove. their relationship to the other corridors described above.
Broadway Bridge-Old (1956-left) & New (September 2016-right) The new bridge design implements many Blueprint transportation and corridor policies, such as bike and pedestrian circulators integrated into the Greenbelt.
It is part of the Idaho State Highway System, and they were responsible for the design, construction and funding.
The bridge was expanded from four to six lanes, two bike lanes, and wide sidewalks with belvedere viewpoints.
The 1956 Broadway Bridge
3-48 3-48
The 2016 Broadway Bridge
BLUEPRINT BOISE BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
Corridor Design Principles GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR CORRIDORS (GDP- C) These General Design Principles apply to all development occurring adjacent to corridors identified on the Future Land Use Map. The principles address a range of site planning and urban design issues intended to promote a more intense pattern of development that is compatible with adjacent neighborhoods. These principles should be applied in conjunction with relevant planning area-specific policies contained in Chapter 4. Principle GDP-C.1: Site Planning for Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Principle GDP-C.2: Intersections and Crossings (a) Design intersections and crossings along corridors with the accessibility and safety of multiple modes in mind, including bikes, pedestrians, and transit. (b) Raised or textured crosswalks and other techniques should be incorporated to increase the visibility of crossings to automobiles.
Corridor development should be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle activity. Plan new development along corridors to encourage pedestrian and bicycle activity and facilitate access to existing and planned transit: Incorporate detached or wider sidewalks and outdoor gathering spaces with seating and other amenities;
Include parking and storage facilities for bicycles;
Locate surface parking behind buildings and away from street frontages or using structured parking;
Provide direct connections between buildings, parking areas, transit stops, and surrounding neighborhoods.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Textured curb cuts and crosswalks increase safety for pedestrians and bicyclists at busy intersections
Principle GDP-C.3: Building Organization (a) Organize buildings to frame and enclose corners, pedestrian walkways, and transit stops. (b) Concentrate highest-intensity uses within one-quarter mile of transit stops to promote increased ridership and help support services.
3-49
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
Principle GDP-C.5: Housing Locate high-density residential along corridors, particularly in areas with existing or planned transit service and in mid-block locations where access and circulation for commercial uses would be difficult.
Corridor buildings should frame and enclose intersection corners.
Principle GDP-C.4: Vehicular Access Provide concentrated access points as required by applicable access management plans to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles.
3-50
High-density residential development is desirable along corridors where residents have increased access to services and transit.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
INFILL DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR CORRIDORS (IDP-C) These Infill Design Principles apply to all infill and redevelopment occurring adjacent to corridors identified on the Future Land Use Map. The principles are intended to provide policy guidance on a range of site planning and urban design issues aimed at ensuring that higher-density development desired along the city’s corridors is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. These principles should be applied in conjunction with the General Design Principles for corridors above, as well as relevant planning area-specific policies contained in Chapter 4. Principle IDP-C.1: Transitions to Adjacent Neighborhoods
Principle IDP-C.4: Renovation of Existing Corridor Development
Provide transitions between higher-intensity corridor development and adjacent neighborhoods as follows: Concentrate tallest buildings along corridor frontages away from adjacent neighborhoods;
Provide gradual decreases in building height and mass so that new structures have a comparable scale as adjacent homes along the shared lot line or street frontage;
Incorporate lower-intensity housing types (e.g., townhomes, duplexes, etc.) along a shared street frontage where sufficient lot depth and/ or a frontage road exist; and
Buffer or locate parking lots, delivery, storage areas, and other noise-generating activities away from existing adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Principle IDP-C.2: Pedestrian Connections to Adjacent Neighborhoods (a) Provide pedestrian connections between mid-block corridor developments and adjacent neighborhoods to enhance the access to transit corridors and nearby activity centers. (b) Place an increased emphasis on this principle in locations where established block lengths are prohibitive for most pedestrians and where neighborhoods have been closed off from adjacent corridors.
Principle IDP-C.3: Lot Consolidation Encourage the consolidation of smaller parcels for the purposes of redevelopment to accommodate a more pedestrian and transit-oriented pattern of development over time and facilitate improved site design.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Taller buildings are located along the corridor and transition to lower heights as the development approached adjacent established neighborhoods. (a) Support the gradual revitalization of the city’s corridors over time. (b) Encourage the renovation of existing centers when existing development patterns are likely to remain to enhance the appearance of the corridor and attract further investment. (c) Incorporation pad-site buildings at the street edge to break up existing surface parking and help “frame” the corridor, where opportunities exist. (d) Use landscaping in combination with low walls to screen surface parking from the corridor. (e) Encourage the addition of upper floors of housing or offices to existing strip centers where structurally feasible.
3-51
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
St. Mary’s Crossing is comprised of two office buildings located at the corner of 27th and State Street. The project is an excellent example of infill development in the State Street Corridor. Buildings are placed along the street frontages with the parking to the side and rear, promoting pedestrian access. The buildings include modulation of the façade through stepping of the wall planes, and with the mixture in materials and colors.
3-52
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
Community Gateways
The purpose of the Community Gateway designation and the associated design principles is to protect and strengthen the visual character of the city’s gateways or primary entrance points. Key considerations include the streetscape characteristics, screening of parking, utility placement, and building design and orientation. The following gateways have been identified as the highest priority for commitment of public resources:
BLUEPRINT BOISE
I-84 to Vista Avenue to Capitol Boulevard;
I-84 to Broadway Avenue to Warm Springs;
State Street to Highway 55;
I-184 Connector off-ramp and entrance to Franklin and Milwaukee; and,
I-184 Connector from I-84 to Capitol Boulevard.
3-53
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
Gateway Design Principles GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR COMMUNITY GATEWAYS (GDP- CG) Design principles for Community Gateways are intended to guide future public investment and ensure that development occurring with the city’s gateway areas enhances, rather than detracts from the overall character of the area. These principles should be applied in conjunction with other design principles as relevant based on the development location and types of uses proposed. Principles are intended to apply to new development, infill and redevelopment, and the rehabilitation of existing gateway development. Principle GDP-CG.1: Streetscape Character
Community gateways should be defined by an enhanced streetscape character. (a) Promote an enhanced streetscape for the city’s gateways that extends from the roadway right-of-way to private development areas on either side. (b) Encourage the integration of characterenhancing features such as: street trees, sidewalk furniture, special paving, public art, shade structures, pedestrian connections, median landscaping and monument signage, and a range of landscape treatments as part of future development or revitalization efforts. (c) Establish a consistent design theme and/ or landscape design character that reflects the unique qualities of each gateway. (d) Coordinate with appropriate agencies to implement gateway treatments for the corridors identified in the transportation plan of record. (e) Underground existing utilities as development or redevelopment occurs or other opportunities arise.
3-54
Principle GDP-CG.2: Site Planning/ Development Orientation (a) Landscape development setbacks to buffer development, help preserve key view corridors, provide an inviting environment for pedestrians, and to establish a consistent character for the gateway. (b) Orient development towards the gateway corridor, providing a high level of architectural detailing and entrances for pedestrians. (c) Bring buildings located at major intersections closer to the street to anchor corners and to help form a gateway into adjoining neighborhoods. (d) Locate parking and loading areas away from the gateway corridor and screen these features using a combination of landscaping, berming, and/or decorative fencing.
Corridor development should be oriented towards the corridor with parking located behind buildings to help frame the right-of-way and create a consistent appearance.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
Principle GDP-CG.3: Signs
Principle GDP-CG.4: Access (a) Establish centralized access points as development occurs to manage traffic circulation and protect the character of the city’s gateways. (b) Pursue joint access agreements or alternative access plans at time of development entitlement for parcels with gateway street frontage.
Visual clutter resulting from pole signs and billboards in community gateways should be transitioned to monument signs over time. (a) Limit development signage in gateway areas to low-profile monument signs designed as part of a larger development scheme. (b) Use consolidated signage for larger developments to minimize visual clutter. (c) Prohibit billboards along freeway frontages and scenic corridors (i.e., Hill Road, Bogus Basin Road, Warm Springs Avenue, and, Highway 21). (d) Establish a consistent and well-designed program of public informational signage to reinforce the character of Boise’s gateways.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
3-55
COMMUNITY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN
Special Districts and Master Plans SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND MASTER PLANS Planned Community FUTURE LAND USE MAP SYMBOL DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Area-specific policies apply in addition to design principles for neighborhoods, activity centers, and commercial/employment as applicable. See Chapter 4, Southeast Planning Area and Ten Mile Creek Planning Area.
CHARACTERISTICS
Applies to the Ten Mile Creek Planning Area, a largely undeveloped area south of the current Boise AOCI. The area is generally suited for urban development and has been considered by Boise City for inclusion in a future AOCI expansion. Also applies to the largely undeveloped East Columbia area in the Southeast Planning area.
LOCATION
Ten Mile Creek Planning Area and East Columbia area.
BSU Master Plan FUTURE LAND USE MAP SYMBOL CHARACTERISTICS
The BSU Master Plan ensures future growth will be consistent with the needs of the surrounding neighborhood and the future land use policies of the city. Uses in the BSU expansion area are anticipated to include multi-story buildings with an ultimate capacity of 500,000 to one million square feet over a 10-block area. Uses could include university-related private sector research facilities and business incubators, as well as traditional academic uses. The plan addresses the desired location of BSU growth over time, as well as issues of campus appearance, parking, student housing, and land use mix.
LOCATION
Within the boundaries of the Downtown Planning Area.
3-56
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l INTRODUCTION
Chapter 4: Planning Area Policies
Figure 14: Boise City Planning Areas
Planning Area Boundaries Boise City’s AOCI is divided into eleven planning areas, each of which has distinct characteristics. Neighborhood or subarea plans have been developed in many of the planning areas to provide localized guidance within the overall context of the city Neighborhood Association contact information is available on the city’s website using the following link:
Although distinct in their character and specific challenges they face, each of the city’s planning areas must be consistent with the overarching themes and guiding principles established in Chapter 2 of this plan.
https://www.cityofboise.org/programs/energize/neighborhood-associations/
BLUEPRINT BOISE
4-1
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l INTRODUCTION Each of the planning areas is listed below: Airport Planning Area
Barber Valley Planning Area
Central Bench Planning Area
Downtown Planning Area
Foothills Planning Area
North /East Ends Planning Area
Northwest Planning Area
Southeast Planning Area
Southwest Planning Area
Ten Mile Creek Planning Area
West Bench Planning Area
Areas of Change and Stability As part of specific goals and policies for each planning area, some sections of this chapter contain references to potential Areas of Change and Areas of Stability.
City Wide Context The following city wide demographics provide a context for the individual planning areas to each other and to the city as a whole. Tables 6 through 9 provide a summary comparison of all of the planning areas and citywide; more specific information is contained in each planning area section. The following are 2009 projections for the City of Boise. The COMPASS Community Choice Growth Projections, August 2007 are adopted by reference.
Planning Area Policies
Population Population: 244,216 people. Median Age: 34.7 years.
This chapter is organized by planning area, in alphabetical order, and contains Future Land Use maps and detailed goals and policies for each area. Specifically, these planning area level goals and policies are intended to: Serve as a resource for planning area residents and neighborhood associations;
Housing Total Households: 99,229 households. Household Composition: 26.9 percent under the age of 20. Median Home Value: $196,266. Tenancy: Homeowners represent 61.6 percent of all households in Boise.
Reinforce the citywide policies contained in the other chapters of this Comprehensive Plan;
Income Median Household Income: $60,127.
Provide more detailed policy guidance on issues and opportunities specific to each planning area; and
Serve as a foundation for future neighborhood planning efforts.
Employment Total Jobs: 137,548 jobs. Total Workforce: 130,798 workers. Employers: Boise’s two largest employers are Micron Technology (11,000) and Hewlett-Packard Co. (4,000).
Goals and policies for each planning areas are organized under the following topic headings, as applicable: Land Use and General Development
Neighborhood Protection
Transportation, Infrastructure, and Services
Recreation and Open Space Preservation
Environmental Protection and Open Space Conservation
Scenic and Aesthetic Concerns
4-2
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l INTRODUCTION TABLE 6: 2009 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS POPULATION
MEDIAN AGE
2009 POP.
PERCENT OF BOISE
2009 MED. AGE
PERCENT OF BOISE
244,216
100%
34.7
100%
AIRPORT
1,291
< 1%
37.9
109%
BARBER VALLEY
1,386
< 1%
44.4
128%
CENTRAL BENCH
42,634
17%
34
98%
DOWNTOWN
6,121
3%
28.1
81%
FOOTHILLS
10,229
4%
44
127%
NORTHEAST
26,798
11%
35.7
103%
NORTHWEST
16,247
7%
35.7
103%
SOUTHEAST
34,485
14%
32.4
93%
SOUTHWEST
33,026
14%
36.5
105%
36
< 1%
N/A
0%
71,962
29%
34.6
100%
BOISE PLANNING AREA
TEN MILE WEST BENCH
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Report for Boise and its planning areas, 2009.
TABLE 7: 2009 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS HOUSEHOLDS
RENTAL TENANCY
HOME VALUE
2009 H.H.
PERCENT OF BOISE
2009 TENANCY
PERCENT OF BOISE
2009 MED. HOME VALUE
PERCENT OF BOISE
99,229
100%
61.6%
100%
$196,266
100%
AIRPORT
502
1%
69.5
113%
$193,382
99%
BARBER VALLEY
550
1%
84
136%
$216,964
111%
CENTRAL BENCH
17,817
18%
42.7
69%
$154,570
79%
DOWNTOWN
3,109
3%
14.3
23%
$187,500
96%
FOOTHILLS
4,218
4%
72.8
118%
$336,173
171%
NORTHEAST
12,792
13%
50.9
83%
$198,905
101%
NORTHWEST
6,602
7%
71.4
116%
$192,512
98%
SOUTHEAST
14,716
15%
60.2
98%
$203,217
104%
SOUTHWEST
11,528
12%
85.6
139%
$212,395
108%
14
0%
N/A
0%
N/A
0%
27,332
28%
71.8
117%
$195,905
100%
BOISE PLANNING AREA
TEN MILE WEST BENCH
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Report for Boise and its planning areas, 2009.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
4-3
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l INTRODUCTION TABLE 8: 2009 JOB AND WORKFORCE CHARACTERISTICS JOBS
WORKFORCE
2009 JOBS
PERCENT OF BOISE
2009 WORKERS
PERCENT OF BOISE
37,137
100%
37,146
100%
11,248
8%
0
0%
BARBER VALLEY
N/A
N/A
1,300
1%
CENTRAL BENCH
19,257
14%
6,315
5%
DOWNTOWN
30,260
22%
17,003
13%
FOOTHILLS
N/A
0%
N/A
0%
NORTHEAST
13,299
10%
15,710
12%
NORTHWEST
3,306
2%
8,763
7%
SOUTHEAST
19,256
14%
20,666
16%
SOUTHWEST
11,369
8%
18,311
14%
N/A
0%
N/A
0%
37,137
27%
37,146
28%
BOISE PLANNING AREA: AIRPORT
TEN MILE WEST BENCH
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Report for Boise and its planning areas, 2009.
TABLE 9: 2009 HOUSEHOLD INCOME CHARACTERISTICS HOUSEHOLD INCOME 2009 MED. H.H. INCOME
PERCENT OF BOISE
$60,127
100%
AIRPORT
$63,777
106%
BARBER VALLEY
$70,605
117%
CENTRAL BENCH
$47,038
78%
DOWNTOWN
$26,680
44%
FOOTHILLS
$90,486
150%
NORTHEAST
$49,372
82%
NORTHWEST
$66,607
111%
SOUTHEAST
$62,386
104%
SOUTHWEST
$75,223
125%
N/A
0%
$63,822
106%
BOISE PLANNING AREA:
TEN MILE WEST BENCH
Source: ESRI Business Analyst Report for Boise and its planning areas, 2009.
4-4
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l INTRODUCTION
PLANNING AREAS - CITY WIDE PLANS Related Planning Documents There are several plans and studies related to City-wide themes and policies. These plans, along with Blueprint Boise, will help guide future development in the City. Ada County Parks and Open Space Master Plan (2007) The Ada County Parks and Open Space Master Plan establishes goals and policies necessary to ensure that adequate resources will be available to meet the current and future needs for parks and open space facilities and services in Ada County. The Ada County Parks Plan complements existing City plans and policies and furthers the City’s partnership with Ada County to maintain and secure open space. Ada County Highway District Master Street Map (2016) The ACHD Master Street Map was adopted in 2010 and first amended in 2013. In 2016, the ACHD again amended the Master Street Map and adopted the following amendments affecting the City of Boise: added a layer of local streets to the map, removed roundabouts no longer feasible, made adjustments requested by partner agencies, and made changes to the collector roadway system that have occurred through approval on development applications, and corrected minor errors. Ada County Highway District Roadways to Bikeways Plan (2018) The Roadways to Bikeways Plan includes eight (8) new neighborhood-level bicycle and pedestrian plans, planning and engineering practices, and innovative design treatments for pathways, sidewalks and bike facilities. Boise’s Energy Future (2019) Boise’s Energy Future is a community-wide plan for using energy wisely and actively managing where the energy comes from to navigate toward increased use of clean, renewable energy by 2035. The Energy Plan moves the City and residents toward long-range goals of increased sustainability and decreased reliance on fossil fuels. Boise Fire Department Master Siting Plan (2019) The 2019 Fire Master Siting Plan provides a map of potential sites for expansion of City fire stations to meet the needs of the community as growth occurs. Boise Parks and Recreation Department Stewardship Plan for the Riparian Corridor (2002) The Riparian Corridor Stewardship Plan provides a base inventory of vegetative cover type habitats and recommends maintenance and restoration measures to facilitate management in the Boise River riparian zone. The study area includes Boise Parks and Recreation Department’s greenbelt and 70-foot setback from the 6,500 cubic feet per second highwater line in the Boise River. The Corridor Stewardship Plan provides data and recommendations to assist in implementation of the Boise River Resources Management and Master Plan (2014). Boise River Trails Plan (2009) The Boise River Trails Plan articulates the vision for a two-county, non-motorized system of trails along the Boise River. The Plan was adopted in 2009 by: Ada County, Canyon County, and Cities of Boise, Caldwell, Eagle, Garden City, Meridian, Middleton, Notus, Parma, and Star. Communities in Motion 2040 2.0 (2019) Communities in Motion (CIM) 2040 2.0 is the current Long-Range Transportation Plan for Ada and Canyon Counties. CIM forecasts how the region is expected to grow, anticipates the transportation needs to accommodate that growth, then prioritizes projects to meet those needs. The regional long-range transportation plan is updated every four years.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
4-5
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l INTRODUCTION
PLANNING AREAS - CITY WIDE PLANS Related Planning Documents (Continued) Regional Rails with Trails Feasibility and Probable Cost Study (2019) The Rails with Trails Feasibility and Probable Cost Study analyzed a trail alignment along the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) in the Treasure Valley, connecting the Cities of Nampa, Meridian and Boise. The Study is a high-level look at the most feasible alignment to create a backbone trail that local trails can tie to and branch off from the rail corridor and is intended to be the first step in the planning process for a trail adjacent, parallel to and/or connected to the UPRR corridor. Valley Connect 2.0 (2018) ValleyConnect 2.0 is Valley Regional Transit’s current six-year capital investment and service plan. ValleyConnect 2.0 establishes network design principles, establishes performance metrics, and establishes the themes for prioritizing projects.
4-6
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l AIRPORT
Airport Planning Area
LOCATION AND CONTEXT The Airport Planning Area (“Airport area”) is a key part of Boise’s economy and transportation network; it features a multi-purpose airport, rail lines, and interstate highway access. The Union Pacific Rail lines are located in the southeast and northeast corner of the Airport area near Interstate I-84. Land uses within the Airport area are primarily transportation-related or industrial in nature. Only a very small portion of Boise households live in the Airport area; however, a substantial portion of the city’s workforce is employed in the area.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
The Boise Airport is a regional airport serving southwest Idaho, eastern Oregon, and northern Nevada, with commercial, general aviation, cargo, and military uses. It is served by two existing runways and a third runway currently used by the Idaho Air National Guard. The third runway is slated in the Airport Master Plan for conversion to commercial use by 2015. Gowen Field, located on the south side of the airport terminal is home to the Idaho Air National Guard and the Idaho Army National Guard. In addition to the military, another major federal user of the Boise Airport is the National Interagency Fire Center. AP-1
AIRPORT l PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Location and Context (Continued) The Boise Airport is a major economic driver for Boise and the region. Among the most important planning issues in Airport area is ensuring that future development is compatible with airport operations and that the airport has room to expand to meet future demand. Noise sensitivity, location, height, and the potential safety impacts associated with uses that involve the gathering of large groups of people are all important factors to consider when evaluating future development opportunities in the Airport area.
Demographic Profile Population
TRENDS AND KEY ISSUES Growth Trends The Boise Airport is expected to expand in area as well as in the number of jobs. Over 1.6 million square feet of new industrial, office, and commercial space was added in the Airport area from 2000 to 2006—just over 13 percent of the total square footage added in Boise as a whole.
Employment Airport area jobs are projected to more than double by 2025, increasing from 11,248 in 2007 to 24,258 in 2025.
Development Constraints Future development potential in the Airport area is constrained by the Airport Influence Area Overlay District, which limit uses to those that are compatible with the safety concerns and noise created by air traffic.
Utilities The Chevron pipeline crosses the Airport area. An associated fuel distribution and storage facility is located northwest of Gowen Road and Production Avenue.
Population: In 2010, the residential population of the Airport area was 901. Median Age: Airport area residents are slightly older (37.9) than Boise residents. Housing Total Households: In 2010, the Airport area was home to 398 households. This accounts for less than one percent of Boise households. Median Home Value: Median home value of $193,382 in the Airport area is slightly lower than in Boise as a whole. Tenancy: Most Airport area residents own their home (69.5 percent). Renters represent just 20.4 percent of Airport area households, while they represent 32.2 percent of Boise households. Income Median Household Income: In 2009, the median household income for Airport area residents was $63,777, slightly higher than for Boise as a whole. Employment The Airport area functions as a major employment center for Boise and the region. The area is home to about 7.4 percent of all Boise jobs. Jobs are projected to more than double by 2025, increasing from 11,248 in 2007 to 24,258 in 2025.
Land Use Characteristics Existing Land Use
The Airport area contains 3,618 acres, or 5.1 percent of Boise’s land area as a whole. Over a third, 32.9 percent or 1,192 acres, of the land in the Airport area is controlled by the Boise Airport. There are 355 vacant acres in the Airport area. Other major land uses in the Airport area are agricultural and grazing uses, (1,358 acres), public and semi-public uses (409 acres), industrial uses (173 acres), and commercial uses (91 acres). These uses include the Idaho Humane Society, the Valley Ride Bus Barn and Boise City Urban Forestry. The Airport area has just 41 acres in residential use, all of which is in single-family residential uses.
AP-2
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l AIRPORT
Parks and Recreation There are no outdoor park properties in the Airport area, and one indoor recreation facility: Idaho Ice World. The facility is located off Interstate-84 and contains two regulation-sized ice rinks. The city offers organized recreation programs and public skate sessions at this facility.
Transportation The Boise Airport serves as a major regional transportation hub for passenger air travel, air taxi, and air cargo and connects travelers to other ground transportation options including rental cars, taxis, hotel shuttles, and private bus service to regional recreation destinations. Interstate-84 provides primary access to the Airport area; therefore, construction projects and delays on the interstate affect access to the airport. In addition, a railroad spur and docking area are located to the southeast of the airport terminal. There is currently one bus stop located at the airport and it is served by three different routes from the downtown transfer location. COMPASS Community Choice Growth Projections, August 2007. 2010 Census Data for population an d households. COMPASS Development Monitoring Reports (2000-2007). ESRI Business Analyst Report, Airport Planning Area (2009).
TRENDS AND KEY ISSUES Transportation Most workers in the Airport area live elsewhere in the community. The average commute time for workers in 2000 was 19.3 minutes. Three ValleyRide public bus routes include a stop at the Boise Airport; however, industrial employment areas in the Airport area are not served by public transit.
Boise Airport Expansion Boise’s Airport Terminal Building was expanded in 2003, increasing passenger service capacity. A third parallel runway was constructed south of Gowen Road in 1999. Currently, it is used exclusively by the military; however, in 2011, it will be available for public use. In addition, Boise’s Airport Terminal Building was expanded in 2003, increasing passenger service capacity. An update to the Airport Master Plan, the 2009 Master Plan Update for Boise Airport was published in the spring of 2009. It will guide runway extensions and the airport’s ability to meet increases the number of passengers served.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
AP-3
AIRPORT l PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Airport Planning Area: Future Land Use Map
AP-4
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l AIRPORT
AIRPORT POLICIES Centers, Corridors, and Neighborhoods (AP-CCN) Policies for this section reinforce the role of the Airport area as one of the city’s major employment centers and promote development that is compatible with and compliments airport operations. Goal AP-CCN 1: Promote compatible industrial and airport-related development. AP-CCN 1.1: NOISE STANDARDS Ensure all development within the Airport Influence Area complies with noise standards for development as outlined in Chapter 3 of this Comprehensive Plan. AP-CCN 1.2: COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT (a) Accommodate a range of manufacturing and open-storage uses in industrial areas east, west, and south of the Boise Airport. (b) Encourage industrial and airport-related development south of the third runway in conjunction with the extension of Lake Hazel Road and Orchard Street and the construction of a secondary street network. AP-CCN 1.3: INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT Avoid encroachment from non-industrial uses, such as residential, to protect Boise Airport operations and minimize future conflicts. AP-CCN 1.4: ACCESSORY RETAIL SERVICES Limit commercial uses in areas designated for industrial to accessory retail services intended to serve employees within the same building and/or the immediate area. AP-CCN 1.5: FUEL FARM (a) Protect existing pipeline, fuel storage, and terminal facilities within the Airport area. (b) Accommodate additional fuel storage and terminal facilities outside of the runway protection zone.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
AP-CCN 1.6: LOW-INTENSITY RECREATIONAL USES Allow for low-intensity recreational uses, such as golf courses with no water hazards, on industriallydesignated lands south of the Boise Airport. AP-CCN 1.7: RESIDENTIAL IN AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA B AND C Allow new subdivisions in accordance with base zone standards, but prohibit higher density rezones, conditional use permits for higher density, and accessory dwelling units. This policy applies to parcels within Airport Influence Area B and C that have base zones that allow residential development and that are designated as residential on the Future Land Use Map. Where residential development is allowed in accordance with the base zone standards, the sound level reduction and sound proofing requirements are the same as required for residential uses that are allowed in the B-1 zone.
Goal AP-CCN 2: Promote regional retail uses adjacent to the airport and I-84. AP-CCN 2.1: REGIONAL RETAIL Support a range of regional retail services associated with air and interstate travel, such as hotels and motels, restaurants, parcel delivery services, car rentals and related uses between the Vista and Broadway interchanges.
AP-5
AIRPORT l PLANNING AREA POLICIES
AIRPORT POLICIES Connectivity (AP-C) Policies for connectivity focus on identifying development opportunities compatible with a regional transportation hub and ensuring there are reliable transit options for people traveling to the Airport area. Goal AP-C 1: Ensure that the Airport area has a high degree of accessibility from all modes of transportation. AP-C 1.1: LAKE HAZEL ROAD/GOWEN RELOCATION (a) The Lake Hazel/Gowen Relocation Alignment Study Report is adopted by reference. (b) Support construction of the new Lake Hazel Road and a new secondary roadway network, and access management policies, consistent with the study’s recommendations. AP-C 1.2: ORCHARD STREET ALIGNMENT/ EXTENSION Support the construction of a new alignment of Orchard Street, beginning south of the New York Canal, to connect to Lake Hazel Road and the inclusion of pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the Orchard Street Extension.
AP-6
AP-C 1.3: TRANSIT Stimulate alternative forms of transit to and from the airport and encourage transit ridership at the Boise Airport. AP-C 1.4: RAIL CORRIDOR Use the city-owned rail corridor for existing freight needs and plan for its use as future commuter rail, utilizing the city-owned railroad spur and loading dock located east of the Boise Airport terminal. AP-C 1.5: NATIONAL GUARD TANK ROUTE Protect the alignment of a National Guard tank route between the Boise Airport and National Guard training areas. AP-C 1.6: I-84 EXPANSION/IMPROVEMENTS (a) Support the expansion of Interstate-84 along the boundary of the Airport area in order to enhance mobility throughout the Treasure Valley. (b) Study the viability of a new interchange or underpass of I-84 at Amity Road.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l AIRPORT
AIRPORT POLICIES Public Services/Facilities (AP-PSF) Policies for this section focus on the expansion of existing public services/facilities to meet future demand and on special design requirements necessary to maintain safe operations at the Boise Airport. Goal AP-PSF 1: Accommodate expansion of airport operations over time. AP-PSF 1.1: AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Support the implementation of the Airport Master Plan as adopted by reference in Chapter 2 of this Comprehensive Plan.
Goal AP-PSF 2: Support safe airport operations. AP-PSF 2.1: LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS Review landscape regulations to ensure the requirements do not attract birds that would interfere with flight operations.
AP-PSF 2.4: SECURITY REQUIREMENTS Recognize the need for special security requirements around airport-related uses.
Goal AP-PSF 3: Accommodate expansion of the Idaho National Guard operations over time. AP-PSF 3.1: IDAHO NATIONAL GUARD OPERATIONS Ensure that incompatible land use is minimized in the vicinity of Gowen Field in order to safeguard mission training requirements and military training areas.
AP-PSF 2.3: STORM WATER FACILITIES Plan storm water facilities to drain quickly to prevent attracting birds/waterfowl.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
AP-7
AIRPORT l PLANNING AREA POLICIES
AIRPORT POLICIES Neighborhood Character(AP-NC) Policies for this section focus on identifying potential opportunities for public art and design features, as well as areas for recreation and open space. Goal AP-NC 1: Recognize the Boise Airport as a major gateway to Boise and the State of Idaho. AP-NC 1.1: COMMUNITY GATEWAYS (a) Support the installation of landscaping and art installation at the Vista interchange to recognize its importance as a major gateway to Boise City. (b) Ensure development along the I-84 Corridor is consistent with the General Design Principles for Community Gateways as contained in Chapter 3.
AP-8
AP-NC 1.2: CITY INVESTMENTS Ensure city investments in public infrastructure on Boise Airport property are well-designed and attractive to create a favorable impression of Boise by visitors. AP-NC 1.3: CULTURAL AMENITIES Accommodate museums and other similar uses that are compatible with airport operations and that support aviation interests and education. AP-NC 1.4: DESIGN REVIEW Review applicability of design review to Boise Airport facilities.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l AIRPORT
AIRPORT POLICIES Related Planning Documents Three supplemental plans apply to the Airport area. These master plans will help guide future development in the Airport area. Boise Airport Master Plan (2019 Update) The Airport Master Plan recommends a long-term development plan involving all functional areas of the Airport, including runways and taxiways, passenger terminal, general aviation, support facilities, and ground access. A primary area of focus in this Master Plan recommends solutions to airfield issues at the Airport to include the removal and/or relocation of various taxiways, as well as threshold relocation and extension of Runway 10R-28L, along with associated lighting and instrumentation. The Plan identifies future requirements and recommended locations for passenger terminal facilities, as well as for future public parking and associated ground access facilities. The provision of facilities to support general aviation operations and tenants at the Airport is also included in the plan with locations for future hangar facilities identified. The Master Plan also expands upon current planning efforts on the southeast section of the Airport regarding the implementation of a consolidated cargo facility and an additional airline maintenance facility. Boise Airport Updated Noise Exposure Maps and Noise Compatibility Program (2015) The 2015 Airport Noise Exposure Maps and Noise Compatibility Program prescribes specific standards for measuring aircraft noise, estimating cumulative aircraft noise exposure using computer models, describing aircraft noise exposure (including instantaneous, single event and cumulative levels), coordinating Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) development with local land use officials and other interested parties, documenting the analytical process and development of the compatibility program, and outlines local and federal land use guidelines, as well as existing and future land uses, amongst other requirements. Gateway East Urban Renewal Plan (2018) The Gateway East Urban Renewal Plan provides a capital improvement program and funding plan for a portion of the eastern section of the Airport Planning Area. The Plan includes a list of public improvements and an Economic Feasibility Study which projects when funds from Tax Increment Financing within the district will be available to make those improvements. The Gateway East Plan implements Blueprint Boise and furthers the City’s responsibility to plan for orderly growth, support economic stability and future development, and protect the Airport Influence Area.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
AP-9
AIRPORT l PLANNING AREA POLICIES This page blank.
AP-10
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l BARBER VALLEY
Barber Valley Planning Area
Location and Context The Barber Valley Planning Area (“Barber Valley”) encompasses 1,705 acres southeast of Downtown. The Barber Valley is home to two planned communities, Harris Ranch and Barber Valley, that at buildout will include an additional 3,300 dwelling units. The Barber Valley is a gateway to the Foothills and is the eastern gateway into the City of Boise. The area has a rich history and was formerly home to the town of Barberton(shortened to Barber in 1909 by the post office) a company mill town developed in conjunction with the Barber Lumber Company. With 650 residents, Barber was the second largest city in
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Ada County; however, in 1935, the Barber mill was shut down and the town was torn down in 1935 and 1936 and many of the homes were moved to Boise. The Barber Valley is also home to a diverse array of wildlife including mule deer, elk, American pronghorn, migratory birds, upland game birds and the bald eagle. Lower elevation portions of the foothills are designated as big game winter range, are primarily in the ownership of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and host the largest wintering deer herd in the state of Idaho. The Boise River Wildlife Management Area is also located in the Barber Valley.
BV-1
BARBER VALLEY l PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Location and Context (continued) Demographic Profile Population Population: In 2010, the population of the Barber Valley was 1,377. Median Age: Barber Valley residents are older (44.4) than Boise residents.
TRENDS AND KEY ISSUES Population About 1,386 residents lived in the Barber Valley in 2009. The population is projected to increase to 10,494 by 2025, assuming full build-out of Harris Ranch and Barber Valley planned communities.
Employment Barber Valley jobs are projected to increase from 273 in 2007, to 3,190 jobs by 2025.
Growth Trends Barber Valley households are projected to increase from 550 to 4,462 between 2009 and 2025, as build out occurs. Approximately 420 dwelling units have been built in the Harris Ranch planned community since 2000. Entitlements for 1,655,000 square feet of commercial, office and institutional uses are in place for 195 acres in the central part of the Barber Valley.
Development Constraints Development in the Barber Valley is constrained by a variety of conditions, including slopes, the Boise River System, and habitat areas.
BV-2
Housing Total Households: In 2010, the Barber Valley was home to 604 households. This accounts for less than one percent of the households in Boise. Household Composition: Fewer families with children reside in the Barber Valley, with 26.3 percent of residents falling under age of 20. Median Home Value: Median home value in the Barber Valley ($216,964) is 10 percent higher than in Boise as a whole. Tenancy: Most Barber Valley residents own their homes (84%). Renters represent just 5.7 percent of Barber Valley households, while they represent 30.4 percent of Boise households overall. Income Median Household Income: In 2009, the median household income for the Barber Valley was $70,605. Employment Jobs: The Barber Valley contains no major employment centers today; however, major employment centers are planned as part of the Harris Ranch and Barber Valley planned communities. As a newly developing area only a few hundred jobs are currently located in the Barber Valley. Workforce: Barber Valley workers represent less than one percent of the Boise workforce.
Land Use Characteristics Existing Land Use
The Barber Valley contains 1,705 acres, making up two percent of Boise’s total acres.
Residential uses account for 37.5 percent of the land in the Barber Valley. Much of that percentage is comprised of single-family residential uses (856 acres), with multi-family residential uses comprising 50 acres.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l BARBER VALLEY
Planned commercial and office uses are expansive within the planned communities, with 1,099,000 square feet proposed in Harris Ranch and 556,000 square feet proposed for Barber Station. This would occupy 195 acres or 8.1 percent of the Barber Valley.
An additional 44.3 percent (1,070 acres) of Barber Valley is devoted to park, recreation and open space use, and 8.6 percent (208 acres) are in Public/SemiPublic use.
Historic industrial uses in the Barber Valley, such as lumber mills, will give way to the planned developments of the Harris Ranch and Barber Valley specific plans.
Build-out projections for the planned communities of Harris Ranch and Barber Valley are 2,515 and 862 households respectively.
Utilities
A significant portion of the Barber Valley is located within the seasonal flood plain. Flood hazard control structures along several gulches were upgraded in the early 2000s; however, there is the possibility of some flood risk along the gulches in an extreme rain event.
Response time for emergency services will be improved in the Barber Valley resulting from a new fire station and other public infrastructure provided by Harris Ranch and Barber Valley planned developments.
Transportation
Several new roadways are proposed in the Barber Valley including a widened Warm Springs Avenue, South Parkway Boulevard, and the local roads that will provide access for the planned communities.
Parks and Recreation The Barber Valley is home to a variety of recreational amenities, including:
The Boise River and its associated Greenbelt Path;
Access to the Foothills and its regional trails network;
Barber Valley Park (managed by Ada County);
Barber Pool Reserve; and
Two city parks in development, the Marianne Williams and Alta Harris Park.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
TRENDS AND KEY ISSUES Utilities The Boise River System presents a seasonal potential for flooding and a significant portion of the Barber Valley is located within the flood plain
Transportation Several new roadways are proposed in the Barber Valley. Most Barber Valley residents commute to work elsewhere in the community. The Barber Valley is not currently served by public transit. Barber Valley roads experience through traffic traveling to Boise County and Stanley area destinations on Highway 21.
BV-3
BARBER VALLEY l PLANNING AREA POLICIES
BV-4
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l BARBER VALLEY
Location and Context (continued) Schools There are two schools in the Barber Valley: East Junior High School has recently relocated from the corner of E. Warm Springs Avenue and Broadway Avenue to the north side of E. Warm Springs Avenue east of Lysted Road. East Junior High School opened at the new location in the fall of 2009 and has an enrollment of 514. The old East Junior High was constructed in 1953 to relieve crowding at Boise Junior High (North). East was constructed on the old Public School Field grounds on Warm Springs Avenue. The old East Junior High will be was transformed back into an Athletic Complex by BSU. The Boise Schools will use the new Athletic Complex for high school football and for larger track and field meets. It will also be the home facility of the BSU Track and Field Team.
Riverstone International School is located at the southeast corner of E. Warm Springs Avenue and S. Lysted Road. In 2001, the school was accredited by the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges and Universities (NASCU) and the State of Idaho. In that same year the school approached the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) to begin the rigorous authorization process that would permit the School to offer the IB Diploma Programme. This required adding grades ten through twelve to the Upper School. To develop a global student body, the school’s first international exchange students arrived in 2002. The school continues to grow and enrollment for the 2010-2011 school year is at 316 including 32 international students from 16 countries.
Sources: COMPASS Community Choice Growth Projections, August 2007. 2010 Census Data for Population and Households. COMPASS Development Monitoring Reports (2000-2007). Harris Ranch Specific Plan (2007). Barber Valley Specific Plan (2007). ESRI Business Analyst Report, Barber Valley (2009).
BLUEPRINT BOISE
BV-5
BARBER VALLEY l PLANNING AREA POLICIES
BARBER VALLEY PLANNING AREA: FUTURE LAND USE MAP
BV-6
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l BARBER VALLEY
BARBER VALLEY POLICIES Centers, Corridors, and Neighborhoods (BV-CCN) Goals and policies for this section focus on promoting the revitalization of major travel corridors and activity centers; ensuring that the scale of future infill and redevelopment is compatible with the Barber Valley’s varied character; and identifying areas where more detailed planning will be needed in the future. Goal BV-CCN 1: Respect the Barber Valley’s unique development context.
Impacts to wildlife habitat, open space, and other natural resources should be minimized as the Barber Valley develops over time. BV-CNN 1.1: CONTEXT SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT Design development to preserve wildlife habitat and connectivity, open space, and context-sensitive recreational opportunities. BV-CNN 1.2: PROTECTION OF NIGHT SKIES Minimize light trespass from developed areas, reduce sky-glow to increase night sky access, improve nighttime visibility through glare reduction, and reduce development impact on nocturnal environments by adoption of nigh-sky lighting standards. BV-CNN 1.3: MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION (a) Collaborate with Ada County and the Ada County Open Space Task Force regarding planning issues and development east of the AOCI and within the Barber Valley’s geographic boundary. (b) Coordinate development standards where possible. BLUEPRINT BOISE
Goal BV-CCN 2: Integrate consideration for wildlife corridors into land use and transportation planning. BV-CNN 2.1: WILDLIFE CORRIDORS (a) Collaboratively plan land use, transportation, and recreation with the IDFG and other affected agencies with the goal of maintaining viable access to the Boise River for deer and elk from the WMA, as well as protection for non-game wildlife species. (b) Minimize impacts to wildlife corridors shown on Figure 10 as private lands and public facilities are developed over time. Assure that developments within wildlife corridors (such as fences and structures) comply with IDFG standards and guidance. (c) Collaborate with other agencies in acquiring grants for wildlife corridors and related transportation improvements. (d) Recognize and apply the wildlife corridors to updates of the adjacent Foothills Planning Area policies and the Boise River System ordinance. (e) Foster the creation of one wildlife management plan for Barber Valley to include game and non-game species. Require that new development on parcels outside of the existing Harris Ranch and Barber Valley planned communities align with the Harris Ranch Wildlife Management Plan so that the area may progress towards consistency and landscape-level management.
Goal BV-CCN 3: Implement the adopted specific plans for Harris Ranch and Barber Valley. BV-CNN 3.1: PROPERTIES OUTSIDE OF THE HARRIS RANCH AND BARBER VALLEY SPECIFIC PLANS Use the adopted specific plans for Harris Ranch and Barber Valley as the policy basis for additional development in the Barber Valley.
BV-7
BARBER VALLEY l PLANNING AREA POLICIES BV-CNN 3.2: GROUNDWATER PROTECTION Protect existing community wells and local water sources in accordance with the IDEQ groundwater protection program. BV-CNN 3.3: OPEN SPACE PROTECTION Identify opportunities to combine and cluster land uses to preserve open space in the Foothills and wildlife corridor areas.
Clustered housing allows more open space to be preserved.
BV-8
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l BARBER VALLEY
Figure 15: Barber Valley Environmental Features and Constraints
BLUEPRINT BOISE
BV-9
BARBER VALLEY l PLANNING AREA POLICIES
BARBER VALLEY POLICIES Connectivity (BV-C) Goals and policies for connectivity focus on identifying and implementing improvements that will enhance the ease and safety of multi-modal travel in the Barber Valley. Goal BV-C1: Ensure future development and roadways are consistent with objectives for the Barber Valley.
Goal BV-C2: Connect land uses within the Barber Valley and create connections to adjacent areas. BV-C 2.1 CONNECTIONS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT Make connections between Barber Valley trails, new developments, and existing developments, as well as the Greenbelt. Link gaps in the existing sidewalk system to provide connectivity and public safety along Warm Springs Avenue.
Roundabouts, such as this one at Mill Station, reduce traffic speeds and promote pedestrian safety. BV-C 1.1: TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT Require new development in the Barber Valley to coordinate education and outreach activities to promote the use of alternative transportation options with the Transportation Management Association. BV-C 1.2: WARM SPRINGS CORRIDOR PLAN Work with ACHD to implement a Warm Springs Corridor Plan to provide an attractive gateway with traffic calming measures, such as roundabouts. Pedestrian crossings and control of traffic speed are critical elements to be implemented. Work with Valley Ride to create safe transit stops.
Encourage development of a park-and-ride location at Highway 21 and Warm Springs.
Reduce wildlife mortality and increase public safety by providing wildlife crossings along Warm Springs. Collaborate with property owners, ACHD, and IDFG to identify needed wildlife crossings.
Collaborate with the ITD, ACHD, and IDFG to preserve wildlife use at the identified wildlife corridor near the Idaho 21 bridge.
BV-10
Additional connections, such as this Greenbelt bike path are needed to connect Barber Valley to adjacent areas. BV-C 2.2: BIKE ROUTES Maintain alternative transportation routes for bicycles and provide bike lanes on the redesigned Warm Springs Avenue. Ensure bicycle routes and sidewalks connect the Boise River Greenbelt to the foothills. BV-C 2.3: TRAIL CONNECTIONS Connect R2R trails to each other and with the Greenbelt. Specific connections include, but are not limited to, the following: Connect the east-west trail designated in the Barber Valley plan (SP02) behind the Terraces neighborhoods to the Homestead Trail on the west, and to the West Highland Valley Trail on the east.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l BARBER VALLEY
Extend the Greenbelt eastward from the current dead-end at Barber Dam.
Provide a safe crossing across Warm Springs at two points: from Highland Valley Road to the Greenbelt; and from the Homestead Trail to the Greenbelt.
BV-C 2.4: TRAIL USE AND DIVERSITY Encourage a diversity of trail types and uses throughout the Barber Valley, from paved, flat trails like the Greenbelt to steep, natural surface trails. Work with IDFG and R2R to identify appropriate seasons of use and closure.
A diversity of trail types is desirable throughout the Barber Valley.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
BV-11
BARBER VALLEY l PLANNING AREA POLICIES
BARBER VALLEY POLICIES Public Services/Facilities (BV-PSF) Goals and policies for this section focus on identifying areas where investment in infrastructure are needed in the Barber Valley to implement the community’s vision. Goal BV-PSF1: Continue to improve access to public facilities and services in the Barber Valley.
BV-PSF 1.2: ADEQUATE PARKING LOT ACCESS Provide appropriate parking areas for key Greenbelt and Barber Valley trail areas and sportsman’s access areas to the Boise River.
Goal BV-PSF2: Recognize the potential for sustainable energy development in Barber Valley. BV-PSF 2.1: GEOTHERMAL ENERGY (a) Encourage sustainable use of the geothermal resource in development plans and building activities. (b) Review the IDWR monitoring data of geothermal resources in the Harris Ranch area to ensure that well levels do not decrease. Future site of the Marianne Williams Park. BV-PSF 1.1: PUBLIC PARKS Implement the master site plans for Alta Harris Park, Marianne Williams and other public parks in the Barber Valley.
BV-12
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l BARBER VALLEY
BARBER VALLEY POLICIES Neighborhood Character (BV-NC) Goals and policies for neighborhood character focus on attributes and activities that contribute to the overall character and livability of the Barber Valley’s neighborhoods, including parks, open space, recreation, public art, and historic areas. Goal BV-NC 1: Maintain the unique character of the Barber Valley through use of design guidelines and plans for development in the Barber Valley. BV-NC 1.1: JOINT-USE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Design parks and open space to serve both the human and wildlife populations in the Barber Valley. BV-NC 1.2: HISTORIC INTERPRETATION Celebrate and provide opportunities to interpret the Barber Valley’s rich history. Foster creation of interpretive and educational centers, such as a historic ranch where children could learn about farming or the earlier history of the area. BV-NC 1.3: MARKERS AND SIGNAGE Co-locate historical markers and interpretive signage with trailheads, Greenbelt benches, and sportsman’s access points as opportunities exist.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Pedestrian-oriented signage orients trail users to area activities. BV-NC 1.4: RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES Allow context-sensitive recreation and prohibit recreational activities that inflict permanent damage to water quality, wildlife habitat, or native plants.
BV-13
BARBER VALLEY l PLANNING AREA POLICIES
BARBER VALLEY POLICIES Related Planning Documents There have been a number of plans and studies prepared for portions of the Barber Valley. These plans, along with Blueprint Boise, will help guide future development in the Barber Valley. These plans contain requirements for annual reviews so that the City can determine what is working and what may need improvement in the execution of the plans. Harris Ranch Specific Plan (2007)
Barber Valley Specific Plan (2007)
The Harris Ranch Specific Plan (SP01) is a mixed use development that is being built on and around the site of what was once the largest town in Idaho, the mill town of Barberton. Covering 1,800 acres, the Harris Ranch Specific Plan embraces New Urbanist design concepts. Specifically, it is designed to integrate into the existing urban pattern, provide for a mix of uses within walking distance, allow for commercial uses to address area residents’ retail and employment needs, provide a mix of housing types and affordability, and support a multi-modal transportation framework.
The Barber Valley project (SP02) redevelops formerly industrial and agricultural lands around the Harris Ranch development. The project has three main components: Barber Station, a commercial and compact residential area surrounded by Marianne Williams Park; the Mill District, a compact to suburban residential area, much of which is already built; and The Terrace, a single family detached residential area on the east end of the planned community. Barber Station will include approximately 36 acres of office and commercial uses—including restaurants, shops, and possibly a hotel—and approximately 17 acres of compact and high density residential uses. The Mill District will include compact residential uses, likely to include a campus-style retirement continuing care community. The Terrace will be developed as 250 suburban residential units.
The Harris Ranch development consists of highdensity and compact residential neighborhoods, surrounded by park and trail systems. A mixed-use district is at the center of the development. The foothills portion of the development is clustered to limit road development, and 56.37 acres were donated to IDFG. The city will receive a 27.96 acre park (Alta Harris Park) park, a fire station, and other amenities that serve residents locally and city-wide.
BV-14
The city will receive a 70-acre riverfront regional park and assistance to restore the natural river bank and associated floodway and ecosystem degraded by former old industrial uses. Fifty-six acres of hillsides above The Terrace have been donated to the IDFG.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | CENTRAL BENCH
CENTRAL BENCH PLANNING AREA
Location and Context The Central Bench Planning Area (“Central Bench”) is centrally located between the Downtown and Airport Planning Areas. Central Bench contains a broad mix of residential, commercial, office, medical, and industrial uses. Access to the Union Pacific Rail lines, interstate and arterial roadways facilitate the distribution of goods and services in this area and provide access to nearby community assets such as BSU, the Boise Towne Square Mall and Downtown Boise. The Central Bench is also home to the Boise Depot, the city’s historic railroad depot, which sits high on the bench overlooking the State Capitol, the Boise River, the Foothills and the Downtown.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Many Central Bench neighborhoods were developed in the 1950s and 1960s, and offer smaller, more affordable priced homes than are available in other parts of the city. The area has seen some disinvestment over time; however, competitivelypriced homes, amenities, and its proximity to Downtown have begun to spur some residential and commercial infill development in recent years. Protection of established neighborhood character and livability are key objectives for the Central Bench. The Central Bench also offers diverse schools, a high proportion of urban parkland, the Morris Hill Cemetery, and a private golf course.
CB-1
CENTRAL BENCH | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Location and Context (Continued) The Central Bench is largely developed and is constrained by surrounding developments and/or roadways. The area has seen significant small lot redevelopment in recent years. Redevelopment is occurring as older commercial retail centers complete major renovations such as the Vista Village shopping center while others, like the Hillcrest Shopping Center have undergone minor renovations to upgrade the exterior to create a more modern appearance.
Land Use Characteristics Existing Land Use
TRENDS AND KEY ISSUES Population and Households Over 16 percent of Boise residents lived in the Central Bench, with a population of 42,634 in 2009. Population is projected to increase to 44,359 by 2025. Central Bench households are projected to increase by 6.8 percent (from 17,198 to 18,368) between 2008 and 2025.
Employment The Central Bench is well-balanced: 15 percent of Boise jobs and 17 percent of its workforce is located here. Central Bench jobs are projected to increase nearly 15 percent by 2025 (from 22,172 in 2007 to 25,517).
Transportation Central Bench is defined on its south and west sides by interstate I-84. The Central Bench is well-served by public transit, primarily by bus routes. Nearly 12 percent of Central Bench residents reported using public transit to commute to work in 2000. The average commute time for a Central Bench worker in 2000 was 16.9 minutes. Orchard and Emerald Streets and Vista and Overland Streets are constrained transportation corridors in the Central Bench. The sidewalk system is lacking but the street system is relatively fine.
The Central Bench contains 6,008 acres, or 7.8 percent of Boise’s total acres.
Single-family residential uses occupy more than half (45.7 percent) of the Central Bench (2,745 acres.) Multi-family residential uses occupy an additional 243 acres (four percent).
The Central Bench has more land in office use (369 acres) than any other planning area, which is 28 percent of all land in office use in Boise.
Just seven percent (417 acres) of the land in the Central Bench is vacant.
Demographic Profile Population Population: In 2010, the population of the Central Bench was 38,689. Median Age: Central Bench residents are younger (33.6) than Boise residents. Housing Total Households: In 2009, the Central Bench was home to 17,976 households. This accounts for approximately 18 percent of Boise’s households. Household Composition: The number of families with children under the age of 20 residing in the Central Bench (25.5%) is slightly lower than in Boise as a whole. Median Home Value: Median home value in the Central Bench ($154,570), lower than the median value for Boise as a whole. Tenancy: Almost half of Central Bench residents rent their homes (42.7%). Homeowners represent 51.5 percent of all households. Income Median Household Income: In 2009, median household income for Central Bench residents was $47,038. Employment Jobs: Just over 14 percent of Boise jobs are located in the Central Bench. Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center is a significant regional employer in the Central Bench. Workforce: Central Bench workers represent nearly 17 percent of the Boise workforce.
CB-2
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | CENTRAL BENCH
Parks and Recreation The Central Bench is home to a dozen developed parks. Many of these are small neighborhood and dog parks, such as Owyhee Park, Bowden Park, Phillipi Park, Borah Park and Morris Hill Park which offer recreation to nearby local residents. The Central Bench also has easy access to several larger recreation amenities, such as:
South Municipal Pool;
Borah Pool;
Boise River Greenbelt Pathway system;
Ann Morrison Park; and
Julia Davis Park.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CB-3
CENTRAL BENCH | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Schools There are 14 schools in the Central Bench. In addition to the educational significance of these facilities, several Central Bench schools are historically significant and contribute to the overall character of the neighborhood. High Schools
TRENDS AND KEY ISSUES Utilities In addition to Boise City service, the Bench Sewer District provides sewer service, water utilities, and irrigation to the Central Bench.
Infill and Redevelopment Multi-family building permits issued in the Central Bench nearly doubled (from 50 to 98 annually) between 2000 and 2007. Single-family building permits increased from 35 in 2000, to 25 by mid-year 2007. Nearly 1 million s.f. of non-residential building space has been built in the Central Bench since 2000; about 7.8 percent of the Boise total of just over 13 million s.f.
Parks and Recreation The Central Bench has access to a mix of park facilities, including numerous neighborhood parks. Almost all of the parkland in the Central Bench is developed. Because the Central Bench is largely built out, opportunities are limited for adding any new parks.
Schools There are 14 schools in the Central Bench. Bishop Kelly and Borah High Schools, South Junior High, ten elementary schools, and Boise Christian School. School enrollment in the Central Bench has been declining.
CB-4
Bishop Kelly High School is located on the south side of Franklin Road just east of Cole Road. In the 1930’s, Bishop Edward Joseph Kelly dreamed of establishing a Catholic high school under the direction of the Catholic Diocese of Boise. In 1964, that dream became a reality when Bishop Kelly High School opened its doors in the fall of 1964. Bishop Kelly is Boise’s only accredited private High School and is home to approximately 600 students. Borah High School is located on the south side of Cassia Street just west of Curtis Road, and opened in 1958. In the 2007-2008 school year, 1,509 students enrolled.
Junior High South Junior High is located on the southwest corner of Cassia Street and Shoshone Street and has approximately 685 students that attend the school each year. Construction on the original building was completed in 1948 and the school campus more than doubled over the years. In 2008, the original building was torn down and the new South Junior High School was relocated into a new, spacious and modern building on the same site. The Art Deco section of the library wall of the original building has been preserved and will become a portion of an amphitheater/ interpretive plaza.
Elementary Schools Jefferson Elementary is located on the east side of Latah Street between Alpine Street and Rose Hill Road. In the 2009 school year, there were 350 children enrolled. Jefferson School was constructed in 1949. Since 1949, the school has been expanded three times in order to provide for the educational needs of children within this central bench neighborhood. Sacred Heart Elementary is located on the south side of Cassia Street just east of Latah Street. Sacred Heart Catholic School holds the distinction of being an Idaho Merit School. The curriculum follows the State of Idaho guidelines and integrates a comprehensive religious education program as well. The campus can accommodate 250 students in grades pre-K through 8. Franklin Elementary was constructed in 1905 on the southwest corner of Franklin Road and Orchard Street. The building was constructed from stone acquired from a local quarry. The school bell was added in 1907. In 1949, the school was annexed into the Boise School District and transitioned from a senior high school to an elementary school. Franklin Elementary school closed in 2008 as part of a Boise School District’s decision to consolidate several elementary schools into new facilities. Jackson Elementary was located on the east side of Cole Road just south of Franklin Road. Jackson Elementary closed in 2008 as part of a Boise School District’s decision to consolidate several elementary schools into new facilities. During the 2007-2008 school year, Jackson Elementary educated 327 children. Monroe Elementary is located on the south side of Cassia Street just east of Latah Street. In 1954, Monroe Elementary School was constructed. The school has undergone two building projects that have added on to the original structure. Even with the two additions, Monroe Elementary School remains the smallest school in the Boise School District and has just under 300 children enrolled.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | CENTRAL BENCH Grace Jordan Elementary is one of Boise School District’s newest elementary schools and is located just south of Overland Road within the Randolph Robertson Subdivision. It was opened in August 2008, bringing together approximately 550 students when the District demolished McKinley Elementary School and eliminated Franklin and Jackson Elementary Schools. Grace Jordon Elementary is one of three elementary schools within in Boise that include community centers operated by Boise Parks and Recreation. Whitney Elementary is located on the southwest corner of Overland Road and Owyhee Street. The original Whitney School was a two-story red brick building constructed in 1923. The building burned to the ground only one year later. A new Whitney School was built in 1925. In 1936 and 1946 additions to the building were constructed. In 2009, a new Whitney Elementary School was built and is what now serves the 400 children located on the Boise Bench. Whitney Elementary School is one of three elementary schools within in Boise that include community centers operated by Boise Parks and Recreation. The community center features multipurpose rooms to be used for after-school programs and also provide space for fee-based programs in performing and visual arts for children and adults. Hillcrest Elementary is located on the east side of Orchards Street between Interstate 84 and Overland Road within the Hillcrest Country Club Subdivision. Hillcrest Elementary was constructed in 1958, and expanded once. Hawthorne Elementary is located on the south side of Targee Street just east of Vista Avenue. Originally, fourteen World War Two barracks were converted to classrooms and moved onto the site. In 1956, five rooms of the permanent building were constructed and after two additions in 1961 and 1966, Hawthorne Elementary is now an 18 room school with a multipurpose room, library and office complex. During the 2007-2008 school year there were 324 children enrolled in Hawthorne Elementary. Owyhee-Harbor School is located just north of I-84 and the Boise Airport on the corner of Owyhee Street and Pasadena Street and was constructed in 1969 with two wings which were originally designed in an open classroom concept to facilitate team teaching. This school remained an open classroom school through the 2003-2004 school year. In 2004 the District decided to convert Owyhee to a Harbor School and remodeled the facility to create separate classrooms but retained a common work area at the center of each wing for individual or small group instruction as needed. Today there are 314 children enrolled in Owyhee Harbor Elementary School. Boise Christian School is a Christian-based elementary and child care program that has been in existence since 1962. The school is located on the west side of Roosevelt Street just south of Emerald Street. The schools curriculum is based on the A Beka curriculum and is accredited by the American Christian Schools International. In 2009, the elementary learning program has 30 children enrolled and the child care program had 15 children.
Sources: COMPASS Community Choice Growth Projections, August 2007. 2010 Census Data for Population and Households. COMPASS Development Monitoring Reports (2000-2007). ESRI Business Analyst Report, Central Bench (2009).
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CB-5
CENTRAL BENCH | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Central Bench Planning Area: Future Land Use Map
CB-6
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | CENTRAL BENCH
CENTRAL BENCH POLICIES Centers, Corridors, and Neighborhoods (CB-CCN) Goals and policies for this section focus on promoting the revitalization of major travel corridors and activity centers; protecting the character of established neighborhoods; ensuring that future infill and redevelopment enhances the Central Bench’s livability; encouraging the identification and protection of historic resources; and identifying areas where more detailed planning will be needed in the future. Goal CB-CCN 1: Promote the revitalization of activity centers and corridors throughout the Central Bench.
(c) Encourage new development that complements the character of the corridor and its role as a major gateway into Downtown from the Boise Airport.
CB-CCN 1.1: DESIGNATED ACTIVITY CENTERS Six mixed-use activity centers have been designated to serve the Central Bench to promote the availability of local services within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. They include:
Overland and Orchard;
Overland and Vista;
Overland and Cole;
Orchard and Emerald; and,
Emerald and Curtis.
Additional activity centers may be designated in accordance with the location criteria provided in Chapter 3. CB-CCN 1.2: ST. ALPHONSUS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER (a) Establish a medical/office/government campus setting in the St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center area. (b) Discourage new industrial uses outside the area specifically designated for industrial uses. CB-CCN 1.3: ORCHARD STREET CORRIDOR (a) Encourage a mix of small-scale, pedestrianoriented commercial, retail, and higher-density residential uses along Orchard Street; concentrate taller building heights within activity centers. (b) Promote the rehabilitation of existing strip centers through façade and landscape enhancement and the assemblage of smaller parcels to accommodate larger redevelopment opportunities.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Recent development as part of ongoing efforts to revitalize the Orchard Street Corridor. CB-CCN 1.4: OVERLAND ROAD CORRIDOR (a) Encourage a mix of small-scale (one to three stories) pedestrian-oriented, mixed use development along Overland Road, particularly between Vista and Federal Way. (b) Promote the rehabilitation of existing strip centers façade and landscape enhancements and the assemblage of smaller parcels to accommodate larger redevelopment opportunities where feasible. (c) Place the highest priority on revitalization efforts for the Overland/Orchard activity center and areas west of Orchard due to limitations east of Orchard. CB-CCN 1.5: VISTA AVENUE CORRIDOR (a) Encourage a mix of small-scale (one to three stories) pedestrian-oriented commercial, retail, and higher-density residential uses along Vista Avenue.
CB-7
CENTRAL BENCH | PLANNING AREA POLICIES (b) Promote the rehabilitation of existing strip centers through façade and landscape enhancement and the conversion of existing single-family homes to offices and businesses. (c) Promote the assemblage of smaller parcels to accommodate larger redevelopment opportunities where feasible. (d) Encourage new development that complements the character of the corridor and its role as a major gateway into Downtown from the Boise Airport.
CB-CCN 1.7: CURTIS AND EMERALD Encourage the redevelopment of the southwest corner of Emerald and Curtis with a mix of uses to support pedestrian movement and the use of transit in site design and building placement. Incorporate a local roadway network in the redevelopment of the site to ensure connection to the existing street system. CB-CCN 1.8: AIRPORT RELATED USES Support airport-related accessory uses north and west of the Vista/I-84 interchange (south of the New York Canal). Goal CB-CCN 2: Conduct detailed planning for opportunity areas as appropriate.
Goal CB-CCN 2: Conduct detailed planning for opportunity areas as appropriate CB-CCN 2.1: TANK FARM AREA Explore opportunities for the redevelopment of the tank farm located in the Morris Hill area as a highdensity, mixed-use area through the Specific Plan process. The process should:
The rehabilitation of existing strip centers through façade and landscape enhancements is encouraged. CB-CCN 1.6: BSU/ANN MORRISON PARK AREA Encourage higher-density housing, in conjunction with supporting retail services between Capitol Boulevard and Ann Morrison Park to increase housing opportunities for BSU students and downtown employees.
CB-8
Focus on the area between Orchard, I-84, and adjacent to the rail corridor;
Include input from Central Bench residents and businesses and property owners in the immediate vicinity; and
Evaluate alternative Land Use designations for the area; and
Seek alternative state or federal funding to expedite relocation.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | CENTRAL BENCH
Goal CB-CCN 3: The Central Bench will continue to provide a diverse mix of housing for the community. CB-CCN 3.1: NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS Consider neighborhood plans in conjunction with the goals and policies contained in this Comprehensive Plan when reviewing proposed development submittals. CB-CCN 3.2: MIX OF HOUSING TYPES Encourage a mix of housing types, lot sizes, and price points in the Central Bench, in accordance with the policies contained in this chapter, to maintain the area’s diverse character.
(b) Infill development is anticipated to continue throughout the Central Bench’s compact neighborhoods; but will be focused in areas identified as Level 2 on the Areas of Change and Areas of Stability Map for the Central Bench, located in Appendix C. (c) Encourage infill development in these locations that is consistent with the design principles contained in this Comprehensive Plan to ensure compatibility with surrounding homes. (d) Consider limits on overall lot coverage for infill development to reserve the integrity of the area’s larger lot sizes.
CB-CCN 3.3: HIGH DENSITY NEIGHBORHOODS (a) High density neighborhoods in the Central Bench, as identified on the Future Land Use Map, are intended to accommodate pockets of housing adjacent to mixed-use activity centers and corridors where residents may easily access services and transit. (b) Encourage infill development in these locations that is consistent with the design principles contained in this Comprehensive Plan to ensure appropriate transitions are provided to surrounding established neighborhoods. CB-CCN 3.4: COMPACT NEIGHBORHOODS (a) Compact neighborhoods in the Central Bench, as identified on the Future Land Use Map, are intended to remain functionally and stylistically diverse in the character of homes and type of homes that exist.
Many homes in the Central Bench feature larger lot sizes and mature vegetation, adding to the area’s more open character. CB-CCN 3.5: SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOODS (a) Suburban neighborhoods in the Central Bench, as identified on the Future Land Use Map are anticipated to remain largely single-family in character, with the exception of areas just west of Orchard, which are anticipated to see some infill and redevelopment. (b) Ensure that infill and redevelopment that occurs west of Orchard is consistent with the design principles contained in this Comprehensive Plan and provides appropriate transitions to promote compatibility with the single-family character of neighborhoods to the west.
Infill development increases the variety of housing available within walking distance of transit and other services. BLUEPRINT BOISE
CB-9
CENTRAL BENCH | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
CENTRAL BENCH POLICIES Connectivity (CB-C) Goals and policies for connectivity focus on identifying and implementing improvements that will enhance the ease and safety of multi-modal travel in the Central Bench. Goal CB-C1: Provide a safe-environment for walking and bicycling. CB-C 1.1: STREET IMPROVEMENTS Continue to identify and implement targeted improvements to sidewalks, bike lanes, curb and gutter, street lights, and other infrastructure in existing areas and as infill and redevelopment occur, particularly along the Overland Road, Emerald and Orchard Street corridors.
Expansion of the Greenbelt is needed to increase connections between the Central Bench and other areas of the community. CB-C 1.3: GREENBELT SIGNAGE/ACCESS (a) Establish wayfinding signage to direct pedestrians and bicyclists to the Greenbelt.
Improvements to pedestrian facilities and other infrastructure in the Central Bench, such as these sidewalks along Overland, should be implemented as infill and redevelopment occur. CB-C 1.2: GREENBELT AND TRAIL EXPANSION (a) Extend the Greenbelt west of Orchard to provide a connection to the Boise Towne Square Mall and to expand biking opportunities to and from the Central Bench.
(b) Explore the feasibility of a park and ride lot at Garden Street and the Greenbelt to increase access from other areas of the community. CB-C 1.4: BOISE CENTRAL BENCH NEIGHBORHOOD PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PLAN Implement the recommendations of the Central Bench Neighborhood Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan.
(b) Continue to expand the network of trails and bike paths within the Central Bench, exploring opportunities for trails that parallel the canals.
CB-10
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | CENTRAL BENCH
CENTRAL BENCH POLICIES Public Services and Facilities (CB-PSF) Goals and policies for this section focus on identifying areas where investment in infrastructure are needed in the Central Bench to implement the community’s vision. Goal CB-PSF 1: Upgrade existing infrastructure to meet future demands of infill and redevelopment.
Basic infrastructure improvements, such as these pedestrian crosswalks, are needed in several areas of the Central Bench. CB-PSF 1.1: POLICE SUBSTATION Establish a police substation in the Central Bench as infill development activity increases and population density warrants.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CB-PSF 1.2: COMMUNITY CENTERS Explore opportunities to partner with the school district to establish community centers in the Vista/ Cherry Lane area.
Facilities such as the Morley Nelson Community Center, pictured above, provide places for Central Bench residents to recreate and gather.
CB-11
CENTRAL BENCH | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
CENTRAL BENCH POLICIES Neighborhood Character (CB-NC) Goals and policies for neighborhood character focus on attributes and activities that contribute to the overall character and livability of the Central Bench’s neighborhoods, including open space and recreation, public art, and historic and design review areas. Goal CB-NC 1: Maintain current level of service for neighborhood parks and trails.
Goal CB-NC2: Protect character-defining neighborhood features. CB-NC 2.1: CONSERVATION AND HISTORIC DISTRICTS (a) Identify areas of historically significant or otherwise unique architecture in the Central Bench. (b) Establish protective regulations, such as conservation districts, as appropriate. CB-NC 2.2: TREE PRESERVATION Encourage the retention of mature trees as infill and redevelopment occurs over time.
Many Central Bench residents take advantage of the area’s numerous park facilities. CB-NC 1.1: NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS (a) Identify and plan for new neighborhood parks in areas where an increase in density is planned or has occurred over time. (b) Consider sites smaller than current minimum park standards as a way of accommodating pocket parks, dog parks, and other amenities within this established neighborhood. CB-NC 1.2: POCKET PARKS Incorporate pocket parks and other small-scale amenities in mixed-use activity centers to reduce impacts on existing park facilities as density increases over time.
CB-12
Mature trees and historic homes contribute to the character of the Central Bench’s neighborhoods.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | CENTRAL BENCH
CENTRAL BENCH POLICIES Related Planning Documents There have been a number of plans and studies prepared for portions of Central Bench. These plans, along with Blueprint Boise, will help guide future development in Central Bench. Vista Neighborhood Plan (1999)
Depot Bench Neighborhood Plan (2007)
Much of the Vista Neighborhood belonged to the Whitney Township prior to annexation into the City of Boise (in 1962 and 1986). The Vista Neighborhood Plan records the history and landmarks of the area and sets forth a vision. The vision for the neighborhood is of attractive, safe and well-maintained residential areas that preserve older housing units, improved role and function of Vista Avenue, new parks and recreation opportunities, and additional mobility and transportation choices, including good public transit as well as bike- and pedestrian-friendly routes.
The Depot Bench Neighborhood is bounded by Federal Way, Overland Road, Roosevelt Street, and Crescent Rim. The neighborhood is distinctive, has a diverse population, and includes families who have lived in the area for several generations. Key features include city treasures such as the Boise Depot, Ahaveth Beth Israel and Morris Hill Cemetery; one of the city’s densest tree canopies, small neighborhood schools, varied housing styles, distinctive canals and a commanding view of the Boise skyline from its northern-most boundary. The goals of the plan include: protecting the neighborhood’s unique character, supporting development that is compatible with the character of the existing neighborhood, and maintaining an attractive, stable, and close-knit neighborhood. The Depot Bench Plan articulates its vision and includes a guide to desired long-term land use, transportation, and community design.
Sunset Rim Neighborhood Plan (2003) The Sunrise Rim Neighborhood is a small residential neighborhood that is sandwiched between the airport; the freeway, and a deep barrier canal. There is very little land that is suitable for development. The consensus among residents is to preserve and enhance the residential quality of the neighborhood and to promote a safe, appealing environment in which to live. The plan seeks to promote a safe, quiet, pedestrian friendly residential area; free of business ventures; promoting a quality and pleasing visual appearance with the most up to date conveniences. In the commercial area, the plan encourages continuation of the existing business pattern be continued, and that new businesses not be major traffic generators or have visual impacts such as signs.
Central Rim Neighborhood Plan (2004) The Central Rim Neighborhood is a small enclave on the Boise Bench notable for outstanding valley and mountain views, diversity of homes, tree-lined streets, and families. The purpose of the Central Rim Neighborhood Plan is to ensure that commercial and residential development and regional transportation improvements enhance rather than jeopardize its livability. The vision is of: A revitalized neighborhood with viable, community-based local businesses; safe pathways for people to walk; a mix of well-maintained housing; free of debris with good curbside appeal; a strong identity and known for its safety.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Central Bench Neighborhood Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan (2012) The Ada County Highway District prepared a detailed plan for the development of a connected system of pedestrian and bicycle facilities for the Central Bench Planning Area. The objectives of the plan include: people can conveniently walk or bike to their destinations, people feel safe walking and biking, facilities are provided for people from all age groups, people with disabilities are more easily mobile, and visitors are attracted to the enhanced walking and bicycling environment.
CB-13
CENTRAL BENCH | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
CB-14
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | DOWNTOWN
Downtown Planning Area
Location and Context The Downtown Planning Area (“Downtown”) is centrally located within the city, and is bounded on its southwest side by the Boise River, the Boise Bench and Beacon Avenue, and generally by Broadway/ Avenue A on the southeast, Fort Street on the northeast, and 16th, 19th Street and Idaho Streets on the northwest. Downtown is the civic, economic and cultural heart of Boise City and the region is anchored by the Idaho State Capitol Building, the Idaho Supreme Court, Boise City Hall, Ada County Administration Building, South 8th Street Warehouse District, Old Boise Historic District and Hays Street
BLUEPRINT BOISE
historic districts, Julia Davis Park, and many other amenities. It is the largest employment center in the State of Idaho. Downtown is also home to many of the area’s major employers, corporate headquarters, and regional services such as St. Luke’s Hospital and Boise State University. Access is provided by the I-184 connector and a range of public transportation alternatives. Rich with culture and 150 years of history, Downtown hosts a range of activities and cultural events throughout the year.
DT-1
DOWNTOWN | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Location and Context (Continued)
TRENDS AND KEY ISSUES Growth Trends Fewer than three percent (6,121) of Boise residents lived in Downtown in 2009. However, demand for urban housing has been increasing and residents are projected to more than double to 13,686 by 2025.
Employment Downtown has the highest concentration of employment in Idaho, with more than 33,000 workers in 2005. Jobs are projected to increase by 63.5 percent, to 55,175 in 2030.
Infill and Development Downtown is the only planning area that lost single family residential units (52) from 2000 to 2007. Most of these losses occurred because of private redevelopment activity where houses were removed and replaced by development houses, or where parcels were cleared to make room for parking needed by adjacent businesses. Trends indicate a corresponding increase in multi-family permits issued during the same time (782 multi-family units were added between 2000 and 2007). More than 2.5 million s.f. of new office and commercial space was added in Downtown between 2000 and 2007.
DT-2
A great deal of emphasis has been placed on Downtown beginning in 1965. The Boise City Council has established four urban renewal districts: Central, River Myrtle-Old Boise, Westside Downtown, and 30th Street. Each of these districts has a long-term master plan and capital investment strategy. Redevelopment efforts by the CCDC, Boise’s urban renewal agency have resulted in a vibrant and walkable business core, construction of nine public parking garages and other infrastructure, beautification of streets, public plazas and renovation of historic buildings. This public investment has stimulated development of office buildings, restaurants and bars, retail shops, urban housing and cultural and entertainment venues. Renovation of historic buildings and new commercial and mixed-use development, has brought new life to many blocks and created a lively street environment. Demand for urban housing appears to be increasing, which will likely spur continued redevelopment in Downtown. Creating a vibrant urban center where people are able to live, work and play and where walking, bicycling and transit are practical alternatives to the automobile are key goals for Downtown.
Demographic Profile Population Population: In 2010, the population of Downtown was 6,364, or 2.5 percent of all Boise residents. Median Age: Downtown residents are younger (28.1) than Boise residents as a whole. Housing Total Households: In 2009, Downtown was home to 3,775 households. This accounts for 3.1 percent of the households in Boise. Household Composition: Fewer families with children reside in Downtown, with 20.5 percent of residents falling under the age of 20. Income Median Household Income: In 2009, median household income for Downtown residents was $26,680. Employment Jobs: Almost 22 percent of Boise jobs are located in Downtown Workforce: Downtown residents represent just 1.3 percent of the Boise workforce.
Land Use Characteristics Downtown has the most intensive and varied mix of land uses in the city, including high rise office buildings, hotels and condominiums, a thriving commercial district with numerous shops, restaurants and service businesses, local, state and federal government offices, St. Luke’s Regional Medical Center, Boise State University, and cultural, entertainment and convention facilities.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | DOWNTOWN Existing Land Use Downtown is the city’s smallest planning area. It contains 1,013 acres, making up just over one percent of Boise’s total area. Single-family residential uses occupy a small portion (6.5 percent) of Downtown (66 acres.) Multi-family residential uses occupy an additional 48 acres (4.8 percent.) Downtown contains a mix of office and commercial uses. These uses occupy 6.9 percent (69 acres) and 23.5 percent (238 acres) respectively. 27.6 percent of Downtown is comprised of parks, recreation and open space uses (280 acres). The State of Idaho owns approximately 30 acres in Downtown, including the State Capitol complex. 17.6 percent (179 acres) of Downtown is currently vacant. Historic Districts Three of the city’s eight historic districts are located in Downtown: Old Boise District; Hays Street District; and South 8th Street Warehouse District.
Parks and Recreation Downtown includes three exceptional parks along the Boise River, all of which have a community-wide significance. Julia Davis Regional Park (90 acres), which includes a rose garden, several museums, and Zoo Boise, an accredited zoo that is one of Boise’s top visitor attractions. Ann Morrison Park (145 acres), with gardens, tennis courts, lighted softball diamonds, soccer and football fields, a picnic pavilion and children’s playground. Kathryn Albertson Park (41 acres), which is an attractive home for resident and migratory wildlife in Downtown. It features wide, paved footpaths which wind through the park with signage describing wildlife and environmental themes.
TRENDS AND KEY ISSUES Tourism & Conventions Tourism is a growing sector in the Idaho economy. The Boise Airport is the largest airport in Idaho. Downtown‘s proximity to the airport makes it a portal for tourists traveling to southwest Idaho. Downtown also serves as a destination for a three-state region because of its cultural, educational and medical facilities and attracts national and international visitors as jumping off point for Idaho’s recreational assets. Boise Centre (Convention Center) located conveniently Downtown.
Parks and Recreation Continued investment in Downtown parks is important to its livability. More infill and redevelopment will result in increased demand for public spaces such as urban parks and plazas in Downtown.
Downtown also includes Capitol Park, C.W. Moore Park, Noble Park, and the Pioneer Community Center and Pioneer Tot Lot in the River Street neighborhood. All of these facilities are in the River Myrtle-Old Boise Urban Renewal District. Downtown also has easy access to other parks and recreation amenities, including: Boise River Greenbelt Path; Boise Foothills; and Fort Boise Park. Downtown is an urban center that includes not only parks but other public spaces such as plazas and sidewalks with benches, planters and cafes. Examples include the Grove Plaza, 9th & Grove Plaza and Spring Run Plaza. The master plans for the urban renewal districts in Downtown consider development of a
BLUEPRINT BOISE
DT-3
DOWNTOWN | PLANNING AREA POLICIES network of parks, plazas and other civic spaces important to creating a livable environment in Downtown.
DT-4
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | DOWNTOWN
Schools Downtown is home to two k-12 schools, Boise State University, a branch of the University of Idaho and, opening in the Fall of 2011, Concordia University Law School. Foothills School of Arts and Science Foothills School of Arts and Science was founded in 1992 to provide an alternative learning environment through an integrated curriculum. It is a private school located in Downtown at the corner of 8th and River in a leased space in a converted warehouse near the Boise City Library. This school is seeking to buy or build its own facilities and wants to remain Downtown. Enrollment is 150 students. The school serves students from preschool through the 9th grade. Boise Senior High School Boise Senior High is one of five public high schools in Boise. It is the oldest of the five and is located near the Downtown core at 10th and Washington. Boise High is listed on the National Register for Historic Places under the Tourtellotte and Hummel Architecture nomination as well as the Fort Street Historic District. The original structure was constructed in 1908 in the Early Classic Revival style. Enrollment is approximately 1398 students. In addition to the educational significance of these facilities, the historic character of the school is a significant asset to the Downtown area. Boise State University Boise State is Idaho’s metropolitan research university, located in the state’s population center and capital city, a hub of government, business, the arts, health care, industry and technology. The campus is home of 11 Idaho Professor of the Year honorees since 1990 and the 2005 national champion student debate and speech team. Boise State is the largest university in Idaho with an all-time state enrollment record of 19,667 students. The university offers more than 190 fields of interest. Undergraduate, graduate and technical programs are available in seven colleges: Arts and Sciences, Business and Economics, Education, Engineering, Graduate Studies, Health Sciences, and Social Sciences and Public Affairs. Students can also study abroad, participate in one of the largest internship programs in the Northwest, and work with professors on health-related research to fight cancer, arthritis and Alzheimer’s disease, among others.
TRENDS AND KEY ISSUES Transportation The Boise Airport serves as a significant portal to Downtown and the region. Downtown is only three miles from the Boise Airport, which has recently been renovated. Most Downtown workers live elsewhere in the community. The average commute time for a Downtown worker in 2000 was 17.6 minutes. Traffic congestion and commute times are expected to increase in Downtown as employment and housing grows. Downtown is within easy bicycling distance from the neighborhoods on its periphery. More needs to be done to provide bicycle facilities to encourage bicycle commuting.
Schools If the number of residential units increases significantly as projected and families with children are attracted to living Downtown-expanding school capacity may be needed.
Campus life offers adventure and activity. More than 200 student organizations, new residence halls along the Boise River Greenbelt and a state-of-the-art Student Recreation Center provide opportunities for both individual development and fun. More than one million visitors come to campus annually for Nobel and Pulitzer Prize-winning speakers, Bronco football, Martin Luther King Jr. Human Rights Celebration and other events.
Transportation Downtown serves as a hub for the public transportation system in the Treasure Valley and is expected to continue in this role for the foreseeable future. Boise City and its regional partners are working to create a robust, multimodal transportation system serving Downtown and the region. More investment is needed in transit and other alternatives to the automobile to cope with increased demands on the transportation system and decrease vehicle miles traveled, fuel
BLUEPRINT BOISE
DT-5
DOWNTOWN | PLANNING AREA POLICIES consumption, traffic congestion, and air pollution. There are a number of significant transportation projects underway at this time including the Downtown streetcar and multimodal center, bus rapid transit line on State Street, regional high capacity transit corridor for the region, and the 30th Street extension.
Sources: COMPASS Community Choice Growth Projections, August 2007. 2010 Census Data for Population and Households. COMPASS Development Monitoring Reports (2000-2007). ESRI Business Analysis Report, Downtown (2009).
DT-6
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | DOWNTOWN
Art & Culture Downtown has a high concentration of public artworks and cultural and entertainment venues, which makes Downtown a community asset and regional destination. Art and cultural activities have created a vibrant city center, enlivening the street scene, year round contributing to keeping Downtown healthy.
Urban Housing and Livability Until recently, Downtown has been viewed primarily as an office and commercial center rather than a place for living. Downtown housing is viewed as a key to offering the sizeable workforce in Downtown the option of living close to where they work, and decreasing commuting, fuel consumption, traffic capacity. Residents living Downtown add to Downtown vitality and safety and support Downtown businesses. Employers, developers, financial institutions, and government agencies have joined together to develop programs for producing housing affordable to the Downtown workforce. CCDC launched the Downtown Housing Initiative in 2004. Since then, 260 Downtown residential units have been completed: CitySide Lofts, Royal Plaza, Grand Avenue Townhomes, the Jefferson, Aspen Lofts, the Gem-Nobel Building, and R. Grey Lofts. A number of issues need to be addressed so Downtown is an attractive environment for residents as well as businesses. They include noise, parking, loading and unloading, trash collection, property maintenance, graffiti and safety.
TRENDS AND KEY ISSUES Art & Culture The total economic impact of the nonprofit arts and culture industries in Boise is $38 million annually, of which a significant part is spent in Downtown. A lively arts and culture scene is considered key to attracting cutting edge businesses and the workforce they need to thrive. Maintaining and enhancing Downtown’s cultural offerings into the future is key to Downtown’s and the community’s success.
Urban Housing and Livability Delivering housing at an affordable price is a challenge that is expected to get more difficult in the future. Housing affordability will continue to be a significant issue. Since CCDC launched the Downtown Housing Initiative in 2004, 260 units have been built or are nearing completion.
Reinvestment & Design Quality A healthy Downtown is considered essential to maintaining a healthy community. Keeping Downtown healthy requires continuing commitment and reinvestment. Boise City and CCDC are endeavoring to raise the architectural quality of Downtown buildings in their review of development proposals.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
DT-7
DOWNTOWN | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Downtown Planning Area: Future Land Use Map
DT-8
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | DOWNTOWN
DOWNTOWN POLICIES Centers, Corridors, and Neighborhoods (DT-CCN) Policies for this section focus on promoting Downtown revitalization, ensuring the scale of future infill and redevelopment is compatible with adjacent planning areas, and identifying areas where more detailed planning will be needed in the future. Goal DT-CCN 1: Maintain Downtown as the civic, economic, educational, social and cultural center of the city and region, which includes a concentrated, higher density Central Business District (CBD) activity center and integrated subdistricts. DT-CCN 1.1: DOWNTOWN AREA PLANS (a) Use adopted master plans and development guidelines for Downtown to guide development. (b) Update these plans and consolidate them into one document. DT-CCN 1.2: MIX OF USES Develop a vibrant mix of uses in Downtown which encourage
24-hour activity; Office; retail and service businesses; Residential; hotel, convention and medical facilities; and Civic, cultural, educational and entertainment uses.
(b) Recognize that government and social services provide a stable base for Downtown’s economy and are more accessible to the public since Downtown is a transit hub. DT-CCN 1.4: URBAN BUILDING FORMS (a) Establish design criteria that require developments built in the CBD to use urban building forms where typically buildings are placed at the sidewalk and create a street wall, street level space is activated with peopleoriented uses, and building entrances and openings are oriented to public sidewalks rather than to parking lots. (b) Work with developers to use building massing in Downtown that responds to the traditional pattern of lots within blocks, and creates a collage of buildings in each block rather than fullblock mega-buildings or “superblocks”. DT-CCN 1.5: AVOID AUTO-ORIENTED BUILDING FORMS Avoid strip commercial, open air drive-through lanes, and other auto-oriented building forms in the CBD. DT-CCN 1.6: RELATIONSHIP TO NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS (a) Recognize that Downtown and the traditional neighborhoods that encircle Downtown have a symbiotic relationship. Monitor the health of Downtown and these neighborhoods, and invest in keeping these places prosperous.
Expanding the Downtown will help promote 24-hour activity. DT-CCN 1.3: GOVERNMENT AND SOCIAL SERVICES (a) Maintain Downtown as the administrative center for city, county, state and federal governments and for social service providers.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
(b) Recognize that the neighborhoods surrounding Downtown contribute to the workforce and customer base for Downtown businesses and provide a reservoir of housing for Downtown workers. Maintain close ties between Downtown and these neighborhoods through walking and bicycling routes, transit, range of available shopping, services, dining, culture and entertainment, and through community events.
DT-9
DOWNTOWN | PLANNING AREA POLICIES (c) Keep residents in these neighborhoods informed about Downtown issues, plans, regulations and development projects, and invite the neighborhood associations to participate in reviewing and commenting on these items. DT-CCN 1.7: LUSK STREET AREA Recognize the Lusk Street Master Plan as the vision for growth and redevelopment in the Lusk Street neighborhood. The Lusk Street Master Plan intends for the area to become a true urban neighborhood with a strong emphasis on diverse urban housing opportunities, retail sub-districts, small businesses and other uses associated with technological innovation and Boise State University. DT-CCN 1.8: WEST DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN Recognize the West Downtown Neighborhood Plan as the vision for growth and development in the West Downtown Neighborhood. The Plan envisions West Downtown as an urban environment where multi-modal transportation is the backbone to a neighborhood that is safe, walkable and bikeable. The neighborhood location activates a creative spirit that is attractive to innovators and entrepreneurs because of the balanced mix of affordable housing types, access to recreational amenities and potential for expanded growth and development.
Goal DT-CCN 2: Create in-town residential neighborhoods and increase the amount and range of housing choices available in Downtown and adjacent neighborhoods. DT-CCN 2.1: DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOODS (a) Create thriving Downtown neighborhoods at the periphery of the CBD to allow people to live and work in Downtown, to increase support of Downtown businesses and to make Downtown safer and more vibrant.
Residential uses Downtown increase housing options for the community, and promote 24-hour activity. DT-CCN 2.2: HOUSING CHOICES Provide a variety of housing types and living opportunities for a range of household types and income levels. Give particular attention to developing housing suitable for families. DT-CCN-2.3: WORKFORCE HOUSING Provide incentives to promote development of housing affordable to people working in Downtown, so people can live closer to work, reduce commute distances, make walking, bicycling and transit practical alternatives to driving and allow a wide diversity of people to live in Downtown. DT-CCN-2.4: ACCESSIBILITY TO AMENITIES Encourage residential development on sites within walking distance of employment centers, neighborhood services, parks and the Boise Greenbelt, and other amenities.
(b) Encourage residential development in the Westside, Old Boise-Eastside, Parkside, South 8th Street / Cultural District and the River Street neighborhood have been identified as prime locations for urban neighborhoods.
DT-10
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | DOWNTOWN
Goal DT-CCN 3: Encourage redevelopment of surface parking lots and other underutilized properties.
DT-CCN 3.1: INCENTIVES Establish incentives to encourage the redevelopment of surface parking lots and other underutilized properties. DT-CCN 3.2: UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES (a) Initiate conversations with owners of underutilized parcels to acquaint them with plans for Downtown redevelopment and to learn their plans for future development of their properties. (b) Identify areas with redevelopment potential and utilize visualization tools such as the Downtown Model to generate momentum on development sites.
Surface parking lots represent significant redevelopment opportunities for Downtown.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
(c) Foster conversations between property owners and developers to identify partnership opportunities.
DT-11
DOWNTOWN | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
DOWNTOWN POLICIES Parking (DT-PKG) Goals and policies for parking focus on identifying and implementing improvements that will improve the efficiency and appearance of parking in Downtown. Goal DT-PKG 1: Implement a Downtownwide parking system that coordinates all on and off-street parking resources.
DT-PKG 1.3: ON-STREET PARKING (a) Recognize that on-street parking is important to the success of storefront retail businesses and to creating pedestrian-oriented, walkable areas, slowing traffic and increasing pedestrian safety. (b) Give priority to retaining or restoring on-street parking in areas where ground floor retail and service businesses predominate.
On-street parking contributes to pedestrian comfort while adding to the overall parking stock Downtown.
DT-PKG 1.4: CONVERTING ON-STREET PARKING TO OTHER USES Establish policies and a defined multi-agency process for evaluating proposals to convert on-street parking to other uses that balance the effect on vitality, economic development, and multimodal transportation. These policies shall address, but not be limited to: (a) Sidewalk cafes: Consider that sidewalks are part of the network of public spaces in Downtown and that sidewalk activity such as outdoor dining generates vitality. Where a property owner or business owner proposes the removal of on-street parking to expand the sidewalk and establish an outdoor dining area, evaluate:
DT-PKG 1.1: DOWNTOWN-WIDE PARKING SYSTEM Coordinate Downtown public parking resources, including public parking garages, surface parking lots available for public parking, and on-street parking into a seamless system for parking customers. DT-PKG 1.2: PUBLIC PARKING GARAGES (a) Maximize the use of the public parking garage system in Downtown and coordinate the expansion of these facilities to support development in Downtown.
The mix of uses on the block face, and whether restaurants are clustering at this location;
If it is possible to use a narrow dining area and/ or overhead doors to provide an indoor-outdoor dining experience without expanding the sidewalk;
(b) Identify creative ways to supply parking facilities through public, public-private, and private partnerships.
If it is possible to add outdoor dining and also retain parking for part of the block face; and
How the change in sidewalk width and onstreet parking affects flexibility on what types of businesses could locate on the block face in the future.
(c) Recognize that supplying parking in parking structures allows the removal of surface parking lots, reduces the amount of land used for parking, makes land available for more productive uses, and increases development intensity, walkability and vitality.
DT-12
(b) Bicycle corrals: Consider the improvement gained in bicycle facilities and whether a mix of vehicular and bicycle parking supports storefront businesses as much as or more than vehicular parking alone.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | DOWNTOWN DT-PKG 1.6: PARKING REDUCTION OVERLAYS Expand the parking reduction overlay districts as transit services and, the Downtown public parking systems are expanded. DT-PKG 1.7: SHARED PRIVATE PARKING (a) Encourage owners of private employee parking lots to make parking available to the public in the evenings and on weekends.
Sidewalk cafes enhance the pedestrian environment. DT- DT-PKG 1.5: PARKING REQUIREMENTS (a) Establish maximum as well as minimum requirements for parking and promote shared parking among uses. (b) Develop parking ratios that recognize that Downtown typically generates less parking demand than is required by the zoning ordinance.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
(b) Continue work with the Downtown Parking Consortium to assess Downtown parking needs and develop parking facilities through privateprivate and private-public partnerships. DT-PKG 1.8: PARKING MANAGEMENT (a) Protect neighborhoods in and surrounding Downtown from parking spillover. (b) Consider developing employee parking lots at the periphery of Downtown with shuttle service to the CBD, or in locations with transit service to Downtown.
DT-13
DOWNTOWN | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
DOWNTOWN POLICIES Connectivity (DT-C) Goals and policies for connectivity focus on identifying and implementing improvements that will enhance the ease and safety of multi-modal travel in Downtown. Goal DT-C 1: Develop a robust, multimodal transportation system in Downtown, with an emphasis on transit, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation and safety.
(b) Implement the improvements to the bicycle network identified in the Downtown Boise Mobility Study – Implementation Program as resources allow. (c) Increase the supply of bicycle racks and lockers, and explore the use of bicycle corrals, in Downtown to expand end-of-trip facilities for bicyclists. (d) Work with developers to add bicycle lanes and route markings along development frontages if they are on the bicycle network. (e) Encourage developers to include bicycle parking and showers in project designs as appropriate.
A strong bicycle network provides a safe transportation alternative and promotes a bicycle community. DT-C 1.1: MULTIMODAL CENTER Establish a multimodal center in Downtown that serves as a connection point between travel modes. DT-C 1.2: TRANSIT Maintain Downtown as the transit hub for the region and improve transit facilities in terms of quality, frequency and coverage. DT-C 1.3: EXPAND BUS SERVICE Coordinate with VRT on the expansion of bus service in Downtown. DT-C 1.4: REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM Support the creation of a public transit system that connects Downtown to outlying areas of the city and surrounding communities. DT-C 1.5: BICYCLE NETWORK (a) Create a network of designated bicycle lanes and routes in Downtown, and expand bicycle facilities and amenities to encourage the use of bicycles for transportation and recreation. DT-14
DT-C 1.6: PEDESTRIAN NETWORK (a) Create a network of safe, attractive pedestrian routes in Downtown to encourage walking as a transportation mode and as an enjoyable part of the Downtown experience. (b) Continue to work with the DBA to create attractive and lively streets and explore potential partnerships with local businesses to promote walking in downtown. (c) Develop a comprehensive way-finding system for Downtown featuring pedestrian scale signage to mark walking routes and show direction, distance/time, and access to: points of interest, community services, public buildings, transit, trails and parks, and major activity centers. (d) Promote installation and evaluation of enhanced pedestrian countdown signals, crosswalk markings, leading pedestrian intervals, expanded audible pedestrian signal program, installing new accessible pedestrian pushbuttons, increasing pedestrian walking times to cross signalized intersections, and implementing and evaluating pedestrian scramble phases which enable pedestrians to cross at a signalized intersection in all directions at the same time while drivers are stopped.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | DOWNTOWN DT-C 2.2: COMPLETION OF STREET GRID Where gaps exist in the street grid, work with property owners and developers to establish missing street segments when property is proposed for development or redevelopment consistent with the Downtown Boise Mobility Study.
A safe, continuous pedestrian network will add to the vibrancy of Downtown. DT-C 1.87: TRANSIT MALL Retain the transit mall on Main and Idaho to assure transit access to Downtown business core until the multimodal center is established. Restoration of onstreet parking on Main and Idaho streets is desired.
DT-C 2.3: STREETSCAPE Continue a program of improving sidewalks along Downtown streets with paving, street trees, historic lights, benches, planters, and other street furnishings consistent with the Downtown Boise Streetscape Standards and the Downtown Boise Elements of Continuity. Use streetscape to give Downtown a distinctive identity, beautify the public realm, and create a safe, appealing environment in which to walk.
Goal DT-C 2: Continue to develop a framework of streets, paths and open spaces that builds upon existing networks and strengthen connections to the Boise River and Downtown subdistricts. DT-C 2.1: BLOCK PATTERN (a) Retain a high level of connectivity in Downtown by maintaining the traditional street grid and block pattern (260 feet by 300 feet). (b) Where superblocks exist, work with property owners and developers when redevelopment is proposed to re-establish the street grid and create blocks that approximate the traditional block size. If it is not feasible to re-establish streets, obtain public pedestrian ways protected by easements in place of the street grid so development areas approximate the traditional block size.
Attractive streetscapes promote pedestrian activity. DT-C 2.4: TWO-WAY TRAFFIC (a) Evaluate Downtown’s one-way street system to determine where it is feasible to re-establish two-way streets to improve connectivity, and enhance the pedestrian environment and retail success. (b) Proceed to implement two-way streets where feasible and as resources allow.
(c) Avoid development of mega-structures on superblocks that create either real or perceived barriers to connectivity.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
DT-15
DOWNTOWN | PLANNING AREA POLICIES DT-C 2.5: FRONT AND MYRTLE STREET IMPROVEMENTS (a) Implement the enhancements to the pedestrian environment along Front and Myrtle Street identified in the Downtown Boise Mobility Study as resources allow.
DT-C 2.6: CONNECTIONS TO MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS Enhance connections between the Downtown core and the St. Luke’s Regional Medical Center and BSU campus.
(b) Improve north-south connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists across Front and Myrtle by installing signals on both sides of the Connector at 12th, 10th, 5th, and 3rd streets and Avenue A.
DT-C 2.7: PIONEER CORRIDOR Enhance the Pioneer Corridor connecting Downtown to the Boise River, as development occurs.
DT-16
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | DOWNTOWN
DOWNTOWN POLICIES Public Services/Facilities (DT-PSF) Goals and policies for this section focus on identifying areas where investment in infrastructure are needed in Downtown to implement the community’s vision. Goal DT-PSF 1: Maximize the use of existing infrastructure Downtown and make improvements as needed as development intensifies.
DT-PSF 1.4: ALLEYS (a) Retain alleys whenever feasible so they continue to be available for deliveries and trash collection. Improve the condition of the alleys so they are clean and free of debris.
DT-PSF 1.1: INFRASTRUCTURE (a) Evaluate existing water, sewer, storm drainage, and utility lines to determine their adequacy for present needs.
(b) Develop a program to install trash compactors in alleys to reduce the amount of room needed for trash collection.
(b) Develop a plan for infrastructure improvements to accommodate projected future growth.
DT-PSF 1.5: PUBLIC RESTROOMS Provide public restrooms in areas of Downtown with high pedestrian activity.
DT-PSF 1.2: GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES (a) Encourage use of geothermal resources in new development when available. (b) Expand the geothermal system to increase coverage in Downtown as resources allow.
DT-PSF 1.6: SAFETY Continue successful collaboration between the Boise Police Department and Downtown neighborhood associations and businesses in order to reduce crime rates in the downtown area.
DT-PSF 1.3: LOADING AND UNLOADING / TRASH COLLECTION (a) Include adequate space for loading/ unloading and trash collection activities in new development. (b) Work with ACHD and others to retrofit alleys and streets in Downtown to allow for loading/ unloading and trash collection in areas where there is a concentration of delivery activity and a lack of delivery facilities. (c) Explore limiting delivery hours and truck sizes used in delivery operations.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
DT-17
DOWNTOWN | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
DOWNTOWN POLICIES Neighborhood Character (DT-NC) Policies for this section focus on sustainability and creation of a safe, clean and enjoyable environment for downtown. Goal DT-NC 1: Use Downtown development as a model for sustainable land use, development, and construction practices.
Goal DT-NC 2: Create a safe, clean, and enjoyable environment for businesses, residents, and visitors in Downtown.
DT-NC 1.1: TRANSPORTATION Promote alternative transportation facilities in Downtown to reduce fuel consumption, air and water pollution, and traffic congestion.
DT-NC 2.1: DOWNTOWN BOISE STRATEGIC PLAN (a) Develop effective strategies to resolve issues that affect the willingness of people to visit and to invest, work and live in Downtown. (b) Recognize that residents are especially sensitive to quality-of-life issues and that increasing the number of people living in Downtown is important to its long-term prosperity. (c) Utilize this plan to as a way to coordinate efforts of public agencies and other groups working on Downtown challenges and to attract resources.
Comfortable and attractive transit facilities support ridership. DT-NC 1.2: RESOURCE CONSERVATION (a) Create innovative programs and incentives to assist businesses and residents in Downtown to be more energy-efficient and to reuse and recycle resources. (b) Facilitate discussions among business owners and residents on this issue and support businesses that develop private-sector programs. (c) Ensure adequate space for recycling facilities is included in new development. (d) Explore the possibility of creating a Downtown recycling center
DT-NC 2.2: HOMELESSNESS AND PANHANDLING (a) Enlist Downtown stakeholders, and social service and government agencies in implementing the Mayor’s Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness. (b) Give attention to development of transitional housing, programs to assist people with substance abuse problems, counseling and job training. (c) Adopt an ordinance to regulate panhandling. DT-NC 2.3: GRAFFITI Maintain an intensive program for removing graffiti quickly from buildings, structures, public infrastructure and other improvements in Downtown. DT-NC 2.4: LATE NIGHT FOOD VENDORS (a) Limit late night food vendors to approved areas where they will not have an adverse impact on residential uses, or existing businesses. (b) Assure that late night food vendors remove litter each night and pay for or do their fair share toward cleaning sidewalks and streets to remove debris.
DT-18
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | DOWNTOWN DT-NC 2.5: NOISE The downtown entertainment industry provides substantial revenue to both the City and State’s economy including employment opportunities. The City’s noise ordinance should be revised to attempt to balance this vital economic necessity with residential quality of life concerns and to better address noise impacts from:
Entertainment and music venues using amplified sound;
Construction noise and delivery vehicles; maintenance equipment; and
Other noise sources impacting Downtown residents.
DT-NC 2.6: SOUND MITIGATION IN RESIDENTIAL UNITS (a) Work with the development community to establish new sound mitigation standards for residential construction (both rental and owner) in Downtown. (b) Address mitigation of both exterior noise and noise between units.
Goal DT-NC 3: Recognize the role religious institutions and other service providers play in the success of Downtown. DT-NC 3.1: EXPANSION OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES Encourage non-residential uses like day care centers, churches, schools, and community centers to locate and expand in Downtown consistent with the review process required by the city’s zoning ordinance.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
DT- NC 3.2: SOCIAL SERVICE NETWORK (a) Support the continued operation and expansion of the social service network in Downtown. (b) Recognize that a number of social service agencies seek Downtown locations because they are well-served by transit and provide access to the full range of public and private agencies offering assistance. (c) Avoid a concentration of social services in any one area of Downtown. DT-NC 3.3: DOWNTOWN YMCA Recognize the Downtown YMCA as an important institution for employees and residents, and actively support its continued operation and expansion efforts. DT-NC 3.4: CHILDCARE FACILITIES Encourage childcare facilities to locate Downtown to serve employment centers and adjoining neighborhoods. DT- NC 3.5: ADEQUATE PARKING (a) Require that churches and social service agencies provide adequate parking with any expansion project. (b) Allow for off-site and shared parking arrangements to meet parking needs. (c) Allow on-street parking to be counted toward parking needs when parking needs occur on weekends and evenings and on-street parking is generally available at these times.
DT-19
DOWNTOWN | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Goal DT-NC 4: Set a high standard for the quality of urban design, building design, and construction in Downtown, especially in the CBD. DT-NC 4.1: URBAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES (a) Utilize the urban design principles contained in the adopted master plans for the urban renewal districts. (b) Develop a consolidated Downtown plan that covers the entire Downtown and includes the urban renewal districts. In this plan:
Reconfirm the vision for Downtown;
Carry forward the preferred development concepts from the urban renewal plan that are still relevant; and
Articulate urban design and architectural design principles for Downtown, as well as character statements and development objectives for the various subdistricts within this area.
DT-20
DT-NC 4.2: DESIGN GUIDELINES Develop design guidelines that carry forward the vision, design principles, desired character and development objectives stated in adopted plans for Downtown. Recognize that the design guidelines may set higher standards for the CBD than for the periphery of Downtown. Address specific architectural elements that are particularly important in the CBD. DT-NC 4.3: REVIEW PROCESS Implement a collaborative multi-agency review process for Downtown projects that involves the developer, the developer’s design team, agency staff, DBA and other downtown neighborhood associations and community members in a continuing conversation as the project design goes from idea to conceptual design to design review submittal. DT-NC 4.4: INCENTIVES FOR DESIGN Create incentives for unique, high-quality design.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | DOWNTOWN
DOWNTOWN POLICIES Culture, Education and Arts (DT-CEA) Goals and policies for this section focus on maintaining Downtown as a vibrant cultural center, providing a variety of educational opportunities, and protecting the area’s historic resources. Goal DT-CEA 1: Maintain Downtown as the cultural center for the community and the region. DT-CEA 1.1: DOWNTOWN AS CULTURAL CENTER (a) Develop, support, and expand a wide variety of cultural, educational facilities, and activities in Downtown. (b) Retain Downtown as a location of choice for community-wide cultural celebrations and events.
DT-CEA 1.4: CALENDAR OF EVENTS Encourage efforts by cultural organizations, foundations, private businesses, and public agencies to sustain an on-going calendar of cultural events, artist-in-residence programs, lecture series, and continuing education classes in Downtown. DT-CEA 1.5: PUBLIC SPACES Design public spaces so they are suitable for cultural events and make them available for cultural activities.
DT-CEA 1.2: CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS (a) Encourage cultural organizations to locate their offices in Downtown to foster a spirit of collaboration and partnership in providing a rich cultural life for the community. (b) Provide assistance to cultural organizations to assure their continued prosperity. DT-CEA 1.3: CULTURAL DISTRICT (a) Enhance recognition of and the level of activity in the Boise Cultural District. (b) Work to attract additional cultural facilities to locate there and encourage programming and events on an on-going basis.
Flexible public spaces accommodate a variety of events and activities. DT-CEA 1.6: INFUSION OF CULTURE IN DOWNTOWN EVENTS Incorporate arts, culture, education and/or history into Downtown events such as Art at the Market. DT-CEA 1.7: HOUSING AND STUDIO SPACE FOR ARTISTS (a) Explore ways to provide housing and studio spaces for people engaged in creative pursuits in Downtown. (b) Design studio spaces to allow members of the public to visit, observe and participate in the creative process.
District markers help make this area more recognizable to residents as well as visitors. BLUEPRINT BOISE
DT-21
DOWNTOWN | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Goal DT-CEA 2: Retain and expand K-12 educational facilities, higher education, and a variety of learning opportunities in Downtown. DT-CEA 2.1: INCENTIVES Provide incentives for public and private schools to locate Downtown. DT-CEA 2.2: SCHOOL RETENTION/EXPANSION Support the retention and expansion of existing schools. DT-CEA 2.3: WORKFORCE EDUCATION Facilitate an on-going conversation between Boise High School, BSU, University of Idaho and other institutions of higher learning with Downtown businesses to assure that course offerings needed by Downtown businesses and their workforce are available. DT-CEA 2.4: CONNECTIONS WITH HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS (a) Strengthen linkages between BSU, the University of Idaho, and other institutions of higher learning, as well as Downtown businesses and cultural and social service organizations.
DT-CEA 2.6: CREATIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT (a) Encourage cultural and educational organizations to continue offering creative learning experiences at Downtown facilities and to create an atmosphere of educational adventure that will attract people from the community and the region. (b) Make public facilities available for these activities.
Goal DT-CEA 3: Recognize and protect the historic resources in Downtown. DT- CEA 3.1: ADDITION OF NEW BUILDINGS (a) Encourage a range of architectural styles in new buildings in historic areas in a way that does not detract from areas of historic character. (b) Design new infill buildings in historic areas so they respect the scale and massing of the historic buildings and they make appropriate transitions if new buildings are at a higher density. DT- CEA 3.2: ADAPTIVE REUSE Facilitate the renovation and adaptive reuse of Downtown’s historic buildings whenever feasible.
(b) Encourage BSU and the University of Idaho and other institutions of higher learning to make course offerings available in the CBD. (c) Strive to make Downtown an asset to the social, cultural, and economic life of faculty, staff and students at these educational institutions. DT-CEA 2.5: BOISE MAIN LIBRARY! (a) Develop the Boise Main Library into an education center with a strong outreach to special populations such as refugee groups, atrisk youth, seniors, and others. (b) Encourage siting of the new main library in the Downtown area.
DT-22
Adaptive reuse allows for the preservation of older or historic buildings while allowing for new uses within.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | DOWNTOWN
DOWNTOWN POLICIES Economic Development (DT-ED) Goals for this section focus on preserving a strong and diverse economy in Downtown that balances economic development with other planning priorities. Goal DT-ED 1: Create and maintain a prosperous economy in Downtown. DT-ED 1.1: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM (a) Create an economic development program in Downtown, secure resources, and identify an organization responsible for its implementation. (b) Focus on growing, attracting and retaining successful businesses in Downtown. (c) Monitor the level of interest in Downtown investment and the types of businesses located in Downtown. (d) Recognize that Downtown requires continuing attention to stay competitive relative to other lower-cost locations for business investment. DT-ED 1.2: CREATIVE INDUSTRIES (a) Strive to grow, attract, and retain industries that focus on generating creative ideas and products that meet real world needs and provide meaningful work. (b) Communicate with business owners in these industries regarding what they need to be successful and what barriers to success need to be removed. DT-ED 1.3: INNOVATION INCUBATORS (a) Establish facilities that offer low cost space and support services to creative thinkers and provide them with the opportunity to collaborate, generate innovative ideas, and translate them into marketable products. (b) Use these incubators to grow ideas into profitable business enterprises. (c) Work with these entrepreneurs to identify ways in which public agencies, venture capitalists, educational and financial institutions, and others can provide support to these creative endeavors. (d) Consider use of surplus space in public facilities for these incubators.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
DT-ED 1.4: DEVELOPING A WORKFORCE Facilitate conversations between business leaders, BSU, the University of Idaho, College of Western Idaho, school districts, and technical training programs to identify what knowledge, skills and abilities are needed from future workers and develop collaborative programs to supply these needs. DT-ED 1.5: ATTRACTING A WORKFORCE (a) Recognize that the creative workforce is attracted to places which offer quality of life, environmental responsibility, an authentic sense of place, a relaxed but also stimulating lifestyle, and opportunities for meaningful work. (b) Continue to invest in creating a vibrant, walkable, people-oriented urban environment in Downtown that is rich with social, cultural and educational offerings, a lively street scene, refreshing public spaces, beautiful historic and contemporary buildings, and close-in neighborhoods. (c) Provide easy access from Downtown to natural amenities including the Boise River Greenbelt, Boise Foothills, trail systems, and public parklands.
Goal DT-ED 2: Strive to keep Downtown’s economy diversified. DT-ED 2.1: HEALTHY RANGE OF ECONOMIC SECTORS Keep the various sectors of the Downtown economy healthy including technology and communication systems; agribusiness; financial, legal, government and professional services; tourism, conventions and conferences; lodging; arts, culture and education; real estate development and management; entertainment; sports; shopping and consumer goods; service businesses; restaurants, bars and nightclubs. DT-ED 2.2: EMERGING INDUSTRIES Lend support to emerging industries which will help to diversify the economy (see DT-ED 1.2 and DT-ED 1.3). DT-23
DOWNTOWN | PLANNING AREA POLICIES DT-ED 2.3: AVOID OVER CONCENTRATION Monitor the composition of the economy and take steps to avoid an over concentration in certain sectors.
Goal DT-ED 3: Find an appropriate balance between the demands for economic prosperity, historic preservation, and quality design in reviewing development applications. ET-ED 3.1: RELEVANCE TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Identify historic preservation, quality design, and economic development as issues to be evaluated in the review of development applications.
(b) Consider community values, aesthetics, economics and other relevant factors in describing the relationship between these issues, and defining priorities. ET-ED 3.3: BALANCING COMPETING PRIORITIES (a) Develop policies and guidelines on how to balance between these issues when there are competing priorities. (b) Incorporate these policies into the consolidated Downtown plan (see DT-CNN 1.1) and in the development review process.
ET-ED 3.2: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ISSUES (a) Work with appointed and elected officials, CCDC, DBA, historic preservation organizations, developers, property owners, and other stakeholders to understand the dynamics between historic preservation, design quality, and economic development in Downtown development projects.
DT-24
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | DOWNTOWN
DOWNTOWN POLICIES Related Planning Documents There have been a number of plans and studies prepared for portions of Downtown. These plans, along with Blueprint Boise, will help guide future development in Downtown. There are four urban renewal districts, six urban renewal district plans, and two neighborhood plans that guide development in the Downtown, the plans cover approximately 754 acres. The Boise City Council has incorporated these plans into the Boise Comprehensive Plan by reference, and where they apply, they serve as the neighborhood plans for Downtown. The six urban renewal district plans that apply to these districts are: Westside Downtown Framework Master Plan (2001) River Street-Myrtle Street Master Plan (2004); Old Boise-Eastside Master Plan (2004); 30th Street Area Master Plan (2012); River Street Master Plan (2017); and Shoreline Urban Renewal District Plan (2018) The map below shows where these plans apply. Descriptions of these plans follow.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
DT-25
DOWNTOWN | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Neighborhood (District) Plans Westside Downtown Framework Master Plan (2001) The Westside Downtown Framework Master Plan is the guiding policy and urban design document for the majority of the Westside Downtown urban renewal district. The district was established in 2001, as the third urban renewal district in Boise. Urban renewal designation enabled additional public financing options and was intended to reinvigorate and enhance the area. The plan addresses many issues, including urban design and character, intensity and placement of land uses, the need for civic spaces, as well as parking, circulation, and mobility. The urban renewal district is 143.5 acres and is bounded approximately by 9th, Grove, 16th and Washington streets. The plan envisions the expansion of the Downtown business core westward to 13th Street and creation of a mixed use, urban neighborhood with an emphasis on housing between 13th and 16th Streets.
River Street-Myrtle Street Master Plan (2004) This master plan covers the area approximately from Broadway to Americana and from Grove Street to the Boise River Greenbelt or 291 acres. This master plan describes a preferred development concept including desired land uses and intensities, and provide design and development guidelines and action steps for building and site design, historic resources, street character, civic spaces, transportation and parking. They identify seven subdistricts and provide a detailed description of existing conditions and desired outcomes for these areas. The River Street-Myrtle Street Plan envisions the development of four in-town urban neighborhoods in Parkside, the Warehouse/Cultural District and the River Street neighborhood areas. These areas would include housing, neighborhood retail and a mix of commercial uses. How development should happen along Front and Myrtle streets is given particular attention.
Old Boise-Eastside Master Plan (2004) This master plan covers the area approximately from Capitol Boulevard to Broadway and from Jefferson Street to Grove Street, excluding St. Luke’s Regional Medical Center or 49 acres. The existing urban fabric is fine grained and includes numerous historic buildings. It includes a commercial district from the pioneer days and a traditional neighborhood with DT-26
early 20th century houses and tree-lined streets, The preferred development concept does not envision a dramatic change in character…other than a modest increase in intensity, a better balance between land uses, slowing the conversion of houses to offices and adding housing. It emphasizes increasing the number of people living in Old Boise-Eastside, which will promote retail vitality, allow people to work and live in Downtown, reduce traffic congestion and increase safety. Higher density, mixed use redevelopment is expected on vacant or underutilized parcels surrounding the historic commercial district.
30th Street Area Master Plan (2012) The 30th Street Area Master Plan outlines a vision and long-term development plan for the 30th Street planning area bordered by 23rd Street, Irene Street, State Street, Veterans Park, the Boise River, and Fairview Avenue. Opportunities for development and redevelopment vary within the 681 acre planning area. The area includes well-established, intact neighborhoods, and four subdistricts with redevelopment potential. The ITD and Main/Fairview subdistricts offer potential for mixed-use, transitoriented, urban style activity centers. The 27th Street subdistrict is envisioned as a neighborhood commercial/ housing focus area, and the 30th Street/ Park View subdistrict as specialty residential/specialty commercial. The Master Plan will guide investment and development, and support neighborhood stability and diversity as change occurs.
River Street Master Plan (2017) This new River Street Master Plan builds upon development policies first established in the 1994 River/Myrtle Urban Renewal Plan for the area. This set of policies also takes into account the dramatic growth and development that have occurred in the area over the past five years and seeks to clarify an urban vision that will guide the continuing build out of this unique downtown sub-district. This plan focuses on the categories of Land Use, Housing, Transportation, Open Space/ Recreation, Economic Development, and Sustainability.
Shoreline Urban Renewal District Plan (2018) The Shoreline Urban Renewal District Plan identifies approximately 190 acres in and adjacent to Downtown Boise that meet the criteria for designation as an urban renewal district. The plan includes a market analysis, revenue model, urban framework and infrastructure plans, as well as BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | DOWNTOWN projected project costs, a feasibility model and capital improvement plan. The Shoreline Plan covers a 24year period and may be revised during that timeline. Improvements in this section of Boise in and adjacent to the southern side of the Downtown, will improve connectivity between downtown and the Boise River, stimulate investment, assist in addressing the City’s housing needs, integrate retail uses and services, and engender a more connected and diverse city.
Lusk Street Master Plan (2013) The Lusk Street Master Plan incorporates the properties east of Ann Morrison Park, south of the Boise River, west of Capitol Boulevard, and north of the Boise Depot. The Master Plan intends to provide clear guidance for development in the area. The plan outlines the desire of the residents and business owners in the area, as well as the city’s vision for how the area grows in the next twenty to thirty years. The intent of the plan is for the Lusk Street area to become a true urban neighborhood with a strong emphasis on diverse urban housing opportunities, retail sub-districts, small businesses and other uses associated with technological innovation and Boise State University.
Westside Downtown District Refresh (2016) The 2016 Westside Downtown District Refresh outlines a future for the urban renewal area just west of Downtown Boise as a part of the downtown with a unique identity evolving from district neighborhoods. The Westside Refresh updates the 2012 Westside Downtown Framework Master Plan with the following recommendations: develop a proactive strategy for public investments primarily serving housing, invest in Placemaking that supports housing and creates a unique identity for neighborhoods within the district, develop strategies that support housing, amend the zoning code to reflect the vision,. The Westside Refresh provides detailed lists of features and concept designs for four specific geographies and uses: Culinary Quarter
West Downtown Neighborhood Plan (2019) The West Downtown Neighborhood Plan identifies goals and actions for future development and design within the neighborhood which is a 65-acre area of twenty city blocks situated one-half mile northwest of Boise’s downtown core. The Plan provides a road map for the West Downtown which is poised to become an urban mixed-use neighborhood. The Plan paints a picture illustrating an urban lifestyle that is designed for all West Downtown’s residents, workers, visitors and travelers. The West Downtown Neighborhood Plan culminates a one-year public planning effort to create a plan addressing current and future growth and the design of that growth in the West Downtown Neighborhood.
Boise Downtown (Central District) Urban Design Plan – Framework Master Plan & Design Guidelines (1987) The original Central urban renewal district was comprised of two federal urban renewal project areas. Project Area I was formed in 1968 and Project Area II was formed in 1970. These project areas covered 12 and one half blocks of Downtown Boise. The original plans for these areas focused on land acquisition, clearance of existing buildings and attracting a major regional shopping mall to Downtown Boise. Approximately nine blocks were cleared. New development was built including One Capital Center, Statehouse Inn, Grove Street Garage, Idaho First National Bank Tower (now the U.S. Bank Tower), Boise City Hall and the Ada County Administration Building. Efforts to attract a shopping mall, however, were unsuccessful. In 1987, the Boise City Council established a new vision and direction for the Downtown core and made major revisions to the Central District urban renewal plan. The district boundary was amended to include 15 blocks and the Boise Downtown Urban Design Plan – Framework Master Plan & Design Guidelines were adopted. This document continues to guide redevelopment in the Central District.
Linen District
The 1987 plan focuses on creating a fine-grained, people-oriented environment with beautiful streets, parks and plazas, retaining historic building. The current extent of the Central District is from 130 feet south of Front Street to Bannock Street and from 9th Street and to Capitol Boulevard. It also includes the block occupied by Boise City Hall and encompasses 35 acres.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
DT-27
Exchange District Green Corridors + Connections
DOWNTOWN | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
River Street-Old Boise Urban Renewal District (2004)
Downtown Boise Streetscape Standards (1987; Amended 2007)
The River Street-Myrtle Street urban renewal district was originally formed in 1994. In 2004, it was amended to incorporate the Old Boise-Eastside area and other parcels and was renamed the River Myrtle-Old Boise urban renewal district. This district now includes 340 acres. Two master plans have been adopted to guide redevelopment of this district: Old Boise-Eastside and River Street-Myrtle Street master plans.
This planning document describes seven types of street character and has a map which shows the character type that applies to the street segments in Downtown. Each character type has a diagram showing how the sidewalk area is to be paved, whether trees are in grates or tree lawns, and types of furnishings that are to be installed. The Streetscape Standards are intended to create a network of attractive sidewalks that provide an inviting setting for private development and encourage walking and bicycling in Downtown. This document is a companion to the Downtown Boise Elements of Continuity.
BSU Framework Master Plan (New Plan adopted in 2005) The purpose of the BSU Framework Master Plan is to ensure BSU growth will be consistent with the needs of the surrounding neighborhood and the future land use policies of the city. Uses in the BSU expansion area are anticipated to include multi-story buildings with an ultimate capacity of 500,000 to 1 million square feet over a 10-block area. Uses could include university-related private sector research facilities and business incubators, as well as traditional academic uses. The plan addresses desired location of BSU growth over time, as well as issues of campus appearance, parking, student housing, and land use mix.
DT-28
Downtown Boise Elements of Continuity (1987; Amended 2007) This document provides detailed specifications for the furnishings to be used in Downtown streetscapes. Furnishings include brick pavers, tree grates, benches, planters, trash receptacles, bicycle racks, bollards, drinking fountains and newspaper racks. The Elements of Continuity is intended to create a consistent palette of furnishings that unify the overall look of Downtown streets. This document is a companion to the Downtown Boise Streetscape Standards.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | DOWNTOWN
Downtown-Wide Plans Downtown Boise Mobility Study (2007) The Downtown Boise Mobility Study (DBMS) was undertaken by a consortium including Boise City, CCDC, ACHD, Valley Ride, ITD, COMPASS and BSU. It presents a comprehensive approach to mobility within Downtown Boise and for people traveling from, to and through Downtown. It analyses the current state of transportation systems in Downtown, projects future growth in Downtown to 2025, analyzes the transportation impacts and recommends programs and capital projects that:
Support the vision for Downtown as a vibrant, mixed-use, people-oriented urban center for Boise and the region; and
Are robust enough to handle future transportation demands.
Key recommendations for Downtown included: Develop a Downtown multimodal center and circulator and create a network of pedestrian and bicycle routes that make transit, walking or bicycling practical as an alternative to using an automobile; and encourage mixed use in Downtown to allow more people to live close to where they work. It also recommends improving the regional transit system to get commuters to and from Downtown, and to reduce traffic congestion at peak commute times on Downtown streets.
Downtown Boise Policy Plan (1993) Boise City prepared this plan at the request of the Downtown Boise Association (DBA). The purpose of this plan was to preserve and enhance the strengths of Downtown businesses by providing guidance for future growth and development in Downtown. It promotes Downtown as a dynamic and viable employment, business, and service center by emphasizing its economic strengths. The plan includes goals and policies regarding land use, business and residential development, transportation and parking. The key objectives in this plan were incorporated into 1997 Boise City Comprehensive Plan.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Bicycle /Pedestrian Counters are placed downtown to assist in active transportation planning throughout downtown and Boise City.
Downtown Cultural District Master Plan (1998) The original River Street-Myrtle Street Urban Design Plan adopted by the Boise City Council in 1994 introduced the idea of creating a Boise Cultural District along South 8th Street. The Boise Cultural District Master Plan was prepared by the Boise City Arts Commission and CCDC in 1998. It proposes official designation of a cultural district and using it as a cornerstone for expanding artistic, cultural and educational activities in Downtown. Since then, the Cultural District has been recognized as being between 6th and 9th Street from Idaho Street to the Boise River, and including the cultural institutions in Julia Davis Park. A map identifying 23 cultural facilities in this area has been published, and signage and kiosks have been installed.
Pioneer Corridor Plan (2001) The Pioneer Corridor is a project to reconnect Downtown and the Boise River through redeveloping a historic walkway and the River Street neighborhood it passes through. The Corridor vision grew out of the Pioneer Corridor Design Competition, held by CCDC in 2001 and includes: enhanced bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, new mixed-use residential redevelopment and celebration of the neighborhood’s cultural history.
DT-29
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | FOOTHILLS
FOOTHILLS PLANNING AREA
Location and Context The Foothills Planning Area (“Foothills”) provides the backdrop to Boise City and is the northern extent of the city. Boise’s Foothills are highly valued by residents for their natural beauty and many recreational assets. In addition to providing critical wildlife and plant habitat, the area also provides watershed and riparian environments, agricultural uses and abundant recreational opportunities, such as rock climbing, hiking and mountain biking. Planning in this area has focused on balancing development with the natural environment including impacts on adjoining neigh-
BLUEPRINT BOISE
borhoods, transportation, recreational opportunities and environmental issues and wildlife mitigation. In recent years, a number of low-density residential subdivisions have been developed in this planning area. The traffic impacts of Foothills developments on existing neighborhoods to the south is a continuing concern. In 2001, the citizens of Boise voted in favor of a twoyear special tax levy that raised nearly $10 million for open space conservation in the Foothills. Since then, city efforts have successfully protected over 6,600 acres, in coordination with the Idaho State Board of
FH-1
FOOTHILLS | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Location and Context (continued) Lands and the Bureau of Land Management, among other partners. The land ownership in the greater Boise Foothills area (which includes the planning area) is approximately 60% private and 40% public.
TRENDS AND KEY ISSUES Growth Trends Several new low-density subdivisions have been built in the Foothills Area since 2000. Although the number of units represents just 4 percent of the residential units constructed in Boise during the same time, development activity has been controversial due to the area’s visual and recreational significance and access constraints. The Foothills Conservation Advisory Committee has protected 8,200 acres as permanent public open space and is currently working with landowners in the area on additional open space acquisitions.
Utilities Due to topographical constraints, sewer service is neither available nor planned in much of the Foothills Area. Flood hazard control structures along several gulches in the Foothills Area were upgraded in the early 2000s; however, there is the possibility of some flood risk along the gulches in an extreme rain event. Response time for emergency services may be slower in some portions of the Foothills Area due to steep topography and limited access. Fire response times are longer than the adopted standard response time. In instances where fire responds to an emergency outside of the service area, users may be required to pay for the services. Boise City adopted a policy to not extend city sewer services into the Foothills Planning Area prior to annexation.
Policies for the Foothills that are contained in this chapter have been carried forward from the Foothills Policy Plan, which was adopted in March 1997. Since the adoption of the Foothills Policy Plan, concerns have been raised regarding the intensity of future development in the Foothills and the potential impacts of future development on the capacity of Foothills roadways and those in “downstream” neighborhoods. Note: Policies contained in this chapter are intended to be reviewed and applied in conjunction with the Foothills Ordinance, one of the Foothills Policy Plan’s primary implementation mechanisms.
Land Use Characteristics Existing Land Use The Foothills Area is the city’s largest planning area. It contains 15,086 acres, making up twenty percent of Boise’s total acres. The Foothills Planning Area is the least developed planning area. The planning area has more environmentally constrained land (4,879 acres) and land in agricultural and grazing use (5,099 acres) than any of Boise’s other planning areas. An additional 6 percent (1,037 acres) of the planning area is devoted to park, recreation and open space use, and 15 percent (2,411 acres) are in Public/SemiPublic use. Residential uses account for just 17 percent of the land in the planning area. Much of that percentage is comprised of single-family residential uses (2,722 acres), with multi-family residential uses comprising just 24 acres. Commercial and office uses are limited within the planning area, occupying less than 2 percent of the planning area. There are no industrial uses in Foothills. Development Constraints Development in the Foothills is constrained by a variety of conditions, including steep slopes and the slope protection ordinance, lack of sewer, a previous limit on the number of buildable lots, and by zoning at one home per 40 acres on much of the buildable area. Limited access is also a constraint to providing emergency and public safety services. Traffic impacts on a limited, congested system and the costs of road and transit infrastructure are significant constraints. Wildfires have occurred in the Foothills and can be expected to occur in the future. The City has adopted a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) that covers the entire Foothills geography in an attempt to reduce the risk of fire in the Foothills. This ordinance attempts to limit the fire hazards associated with development in the Foothills by requiring specific building codes, site planning requirements and landscaping requirements. Many soil types in the Foothills are not conducive to urban development.
FH-2
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | FOOTHILLS
The cost to provide urban services to the Foothills is higher than in other areas of Boise City due to topographic constraints. Fire service is difficult to provide to many areas in the Foothills that were developed in the county, which can cause residents using services to have to pay for them. Relationship to Adjacent Planning Areas Due to the topography, a limited amount of east-west travel corridors in the Foothills exist. Most travel to and from the Foothills Planning Area traverses the North/East End and Northwest Planning Areas. A continuing concern of the “downstream” residents is the necessary balance of the service needs of Foothills developments while protecting the livability of their neighborhoods.
TRENDS AND KEY ISSUES
Demographic Profile
Population
Population Population: In 2010, the population of the Foothills Area was 9,537. Median Age: Residents are older (44.3 years) than Boise residents as a whole (34.7 years). Housing Total Households: In 2009, the Foothills Area was home to 4,190 households. This accounts for approximately 4 percent of the 99,341 households in Boise. Household Composition: Fewer families with children reside in the Foothills Area, with 23.5 percent of residents falling under age of 20 versus 26.9 per-cent in Boise. Median Home Value: Median home value in the Foothills Area ($336,173) is 58 percent higher than in Boise as a whole ($196,266). Tenancy: Most Foothills Area residents own their homes (74.7%). Renters represent just 20.5 percent of Foothills Area households, while they represent 32.2 percent of Boise households. Income Median Household Income: In 2009, median household income for Foothills Area was $90,846. This was significantly higher than in Boise as a whole ($60,127). Employment Jobs: About 2 percent of Boise jobs are located in the Foothills Area. Workforce: Foothills Area workers represent 4.1 percent of the Boise work-force.
Just over 4 percent (10,229) of Boise residents lived in the Foothills Area in 2009, and residents are projected to increase to 11,247 by 2025.
PARKS AND RECREATION The Foothills Planning Area contains few improved small or neighborhood parks, somewhat short of the city’s standards for the population, but much of the city’s open space reserves are in the planning area. There is a recreational trail system that includes Ridge-To-Rivers Trails and trails on private property. The city properties complement and, in some cases, connect to public open space in the Foothills that are managed by other public entities including the Idaho State Lands Board and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Priority open space conservation areas within Foothills include Hull’s Gulch, Table Rock and Warm Springs Mesa, Polecat Gulch, and in Ada County the Idaho Fish and Game Department’s Wildlife Management Area, and Dry Creek open space. City-owned parks and open space lands in the Foothills Area are listed in Table 10.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Planning area households are projected to increase by 5.7 percent (from 4,218 to 4,462) between 2009 and 2025.
Employment The Foothills Area contains no major employment centers. As a result, jobs are projected to increase modestly, from 1,001 in 2007, to 1,287 by 2025.
Transportation Roadway construction is constrained by topography in many parts of Foothills. Most Foothills residents commute to work elsewhere in the community. The planning area is not currently served by public transit. The average commute time for a Foothills worker in 2000 was 17.7 minutes Area roads experience through traffic traveling to the Bogus Basin Ski Resort, Hidden Springs, and the Ada County Landfill. Hill Road is a constrained corridor that provides needed east/west connectivity between Boise and surrounding communities such as Eagle and Rural Ada County. New development in the Foothills will be constrained by existing roadway capacity.
FH-3
FOOTHILLS AREA POLICIES POLICIES FOOTHILLS || PLANNING PLANNING AREA
North River Planning Area - Western Section
Optimist Youth Sports Complex
Proposed NP Pierce Park Polecat Gulch Reserve
Shadow Hills Elementary Riverglen Jr. H.S.
W Hi ll R
Gary Lane Site
d
Castle Hills Park Pierce Park Elementary
Cynthia Mann Elementary
Stewart Gulch Park
N Collister Dr
N Five
Mile Rd
WC
Gateway W McMillan Rd Elementary
hind e
nB
lvd
Willow Lane Park Capital H.S.
LEGEND
Hillside Jr. H.S.
Mountain View Park
Schools
Highlands Elementary
Boise City Limits
Proposed Park Sites
William Howard Taft Elementary
* #
Lowell Veterans Pool Memorial Esther Park Simplot Lowell Park Site Elementary
Boise River Park Phase 2
N Cole Rd
N Maple Grove Rd
BPR Managed Properties
Hillside to Hollow Reserve Sunset Park
Willow Lane Athletic Complex
Milwaukee Park
Proposed NP Cole/Ustick
Collister Elementary
Owens Park
Hyatt Hidden Lakes Reserve
Jullion Park
Quail Hollow Golf Course
Hillside Park
Catalpa Park
N 36th St
t
N Gary Ln
WS tate S
NC a
right R d rtw
Magnolia Park
Washington Elementary
St. Marys Elementary
Boise River Park Bernardine Quinn Whittier Riverside Park Elementary in St Ma W
W Fairview Ave
Madison Pre-school
Hulls Gulch Reserve
Camel's Back Reserve
Elm Grove Park
Boise Hills Park
Camel's Back Park
McAuley Park
Longfellow North Elementary Memorial Jr. H.S.
Military Reserve
Park
Fairview Park
§ ¦ ¨ 184
Foothills East Reserve
Fort Boise Park
W Emerald St
Neighborhood Park
BPR Facilities
Foothills East Park
" ?
Education Centers
( !
Administrative
" Z
Archery
"
Golf
" ñ )
Memorial
" Æ
Nature Center
" Í
Dog Off Leash Area
"
Swimming Pool
! " F ( !
Trailhead
+ $
Proposed Community Center 0
Chesnut This drawing is to be used only for reference purposes; The City of Boise is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. This map is made in part from data prepared or compiled by Ada County. Ada County shall not be liable Morrison for inaccuracies or misuse of this map or data. Ann Hills Memorial Pathway Park
Camel's Back Park
McAuley Park
N
Gordon S. Bowen Park Military Reserve Fort Boise Learning Center
Robert Noble Park W Fr on tS My t rtle St
Julia Davis Park
Frank Church Alternative
Fort Boise Park
Adams Elementary
Municipal Park
Natatorium Pool and Hydrotube Av e
Schools
Warm Springs Park
Boise City Limits
Proposed Park Sites * #
Warm Springs Golf Course
Williams Park
Ivywild Park
Kroeger Park
Baggley Park
E Bo ise Av e Timberline H.S. EP ark
Helen B. Lowder Park
Marianne Williams Park
cen
ter Blv
This drawing is to be used only for reference purposes; The City of Boise is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. This mapeisdmade e in part from data prepared or compiled by Ada County. Ada County shall not be liable for inaccuracies or misuse of this map or data.
ral
W ay
" ?
Education Centers
( !
Administrative
" Z
Archery
"
Golf
" ñ )
Memorial
" Æ
Nature Center
" Í
Dog Off Leash Area
( !
Recreation/Community Center
"
Swimming Pool
" F !
Trailhead
Æ
Zoo
d
East Jr. H.S.
SF
Neighborhood Park
BPR Facilities Mesa Reserve
Manitou Park
Proposed NP Vista
Legend BPR Managed Properties
Quarry View Park
kcenter Blvd
S Broadway Ave
Terry Day Park
Castle Rock Reserve
Laura Moore Cunningham Arboretum
W
Bo ise
Foothills East Park
Roosevelt Elementary
Pioneer Cemetery
P ar
W
Johnston Parcel
Foothills East Reserve
Aldape Park
Boise State University
FH-4 FH-4
0.5 Miles
North River Planning Area - Eastern Section
Boise Hills Park
Memorial Park
W
0.25
Parks and Recreation GIS Services Date: 6/9/2015
Longfellow Elementary
North Jr. H.S.
Madison Pre-school
Johnston Parcel
Recreation/Community Center
0
0.25
0.5 Miles
N
Parks and Recreation GIS Services Date: 6/9/2015
BLUEPRINT BOISE BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | FOOTHILLS
NAME Boise Hills Park Camel’s Back Park Camel’s Back Reserve Fort Boise Military Reserve Cemetery Hillside Park Hillside to Hollow Reserve Hulls Gulch Reserve Johnston Parcel Mesa Reserve Military Reserve Polecat Gulch Reserve Quail Hollow Golf Course Stewart Gulch Park Total Acres in Foothills
PARK TYPE Neighborhood Neighborhood Open Space Special Use Community Open Space Open Space Open Space Open Space Open Space Open Space Special Use Neighborhood
STATUS Partially Developed Developed Reserve Developed Developed Reserve Reserve Undeveloped Reserve Reserve Reserve Developed Partially Developed
ACRES 7.31 10.9 63.1 1.1 11.0 257.9 291.7 10.0 164.1 734.3 476.3 141.3 5.8 2,174.9
PLAN AREA Foothills Foothills Foothills Foothills Foothills Foothills Foothills Foothills Foothills Foothills Foothills Foothills Foothills (2016 data)
TABLE 10: FOOTHILLS PARKS AND OPEN SPACE AREAS
BLUEPRINT BOISE
FH-5
FOOTHILLS | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
FIGURE 16: WESTERN FOOTHILLS
FH-6
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | FOOTHILLS
FIGURE 17: CENTRAL FOOTHILLS
BLUEPRINT BOISE
FH-7
FOOTHILLS | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
FIGURE 18: EASTERN FOOTHILLS
FH-8
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | FOOTHILLS
Foothills Planning Area: Future Land Use Map
BLUEPRINT BOISE
FH-9
FOOTHILLS | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
FOOTHILLS POLICIES Centers, Corridors, and Neighborhoods (FH-CCN) Policies for this section focus on preserving the area’s abundance of visual and recreational opportunities by promoting a balance between development and the natural environment; ensuring future development preserves the topography of the area and existing wildlife habitat; ensuring that rangeland and established neighborhoods are preserved, protected and integrated into the urban environment in a responsible manner; and ways to reduce the risk of natural disaster. Goal FH-CCN 1: To share growth throughout the community controlled development of appropriate Foothills areas shall be allowed pursuant to standards and conditions that are protective of the Foothills, wildlife and neighborhoods.
Goal FH-CCN 2: To promote a mix of land uses and densities in the Foothills to accommodate a variety of housing, shopping, transportation, public facility, recreation and wildlife needs.
FH-CCN 1.1: HILLSIDE AND FOOTHILL AREA DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Public and private sector developments shall comply with all guidelines and standards for excavation, grading and placement of building envelopes as provided in the Uniform Building Code and the “Hillside and Foothill Area Development” Ordinance and the proposed “Foothills Design Guidelines” when adopted. FH-CCN 1.2: FOOTHILLS DESIGN GUIDELINES Boise City shall adopt Foothills Design Guidelines which implement the Foothills Planning Area Polices regarding site development, design, grading, road improvements, revegetation, and building standards and other requirements. FH-CCN 1.3: FUTURE LAND USE MAP The Future Land Use Map for the Foothills is a generalized depiction of potentially buildable areas based upon slope. Further determination of the amount, type and location of development shall be made at the time when a development application is reviewed. The developer shall submit detailed documents depicting wildlife habitat areas, existing slopes, geology and soils. This data shall be used to make more detailed determinations regarding the extent of the buildable area governed by the policies of this plan and the “Hillside and Foothill Area Development” ordinance.
FH-10
Commercial and employment areas provide for residents of the Foothills Planning Area. FH-CCN 2.1: COMPATIBILITY OF USES Foothills developments shall be compatible with and complementary to adjacent uses and neighborhoods. Substantial density, intensity or design changes shall only be allowed by creating transitional uses or buffers so that abrupt changes are avoided. FH-CCN 2.2: DEVELOPMENT ADJOINING PUBLIC LANDS New Foothills development adjoining federal and other public lands held for preservation shall provide a buffer to protect wildlife habitat, recreation, watershed and other natural resources, and minimize adverse impacts on such lands and water bodies. Creation of such buffers on already developed property should be encouraged.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | FOOTHILLS FH-CCN 2.3: MIX OF HOUSING TYPES (a) A mixture of densities and housing types shall be encouraged in the Foothills. (b) Multiple family dwelling developments shall be located near dedicated open space, schools, or parks; adjacent to arterial or collector streets; or near commercial/community activity centers. FH-CCN 2.4: EMPLOYMENT CENTERS Employment center proposals may be considered as part of the Planned Development process, given that they meet a standard of land use intensity not unlike adjoining residential uses. Acceptable uses will be held to design and environmental protection standards, and shall not produce traffic greater than that generated by residential uses for the same amount of land. Commercial and office uses should be predominantly neighborhood related and located in areas where: a.) slopes are 15 percent (15%) or less; b.) they are adjacent to activity centers, clustered development or the intersections of collector or arterial streets; and, c.) the center will capture trips from the surrounding neighborhood; and, d.) the development is compatible with the design, size and surrounding neighborhoods. FH-CCN 2.5: AGRICULTURE AND RANGELAND Agricultural and rangeland uses are encouraged in the Foothills. Preservation of agricultural rangeland areas may qualify as dedicated open space under the density bonus. Dedication of cur-rent grazing land would be credited for density at the rate of one unit per ten acres if the agricultural use continues with a perpetual easement. Small-scale agricultural uses are encouraged.
Goal FH-CCN 3: Regulate Foothills development considerations through the review process. FH-CCN 3.1: DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The Planned Unit Development process is the required Foothill development mechanism, as regulated by Section 11-07-09 in the Boise Development Code, because it is the most effective tool for addressing obstacles associated with traffic, terrain, aesthetics, connections for neighborhoods, urban density developments and as a means to provide adequate buffers for transitional uses between adjacent existing developments. The Planned Unit Development application shall demonstrate compliance with design guidelines, provision of public facilities, habitat protection, fire protection and other considerations stated throughout the Boise City Comprehensive Plan and other applicable regulations. Legal notice of Planned Unit Development applications for Foothills development shall be given to all affected neighborhood associations and other agencies and groups that may be affected by the proposals. Cooperative joint development of public service facilities shall be required when the development timing is coincidental. FH-CCN 3.2: CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT Foothills planned development shall incorporate a clustered lot layout to preserve open space.
Clustered housing helps to preserve open space in the Foothills.
Rangeland in the Foothills help preserve open space.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
FH-CCN 3.3: COMMON OPEN SPACE IN DEVELOPMENT Common open space shall be included in Foothills developments, ownership, use and maintenance responsibilities for each type of common open space area must be addressed at the time of development application. The city may accept dedication of the open space area to the public at large and manage the same. FH-11
FOOTHILLS | PLANNING AREA POLICIES FH-CCN 3.4: GULCHES Proper development shall recognize and respect the multiple roles that gulches play including, but not limited to, transportation corridors, flood control, trail access, recreation, wildlife and environmental attributes. FH-CCN 3.5: TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES All zone change and development applications shall include a traffic impact analysis. The study shall take into consideration the impact of the project on street levels of service. The city’s preferred standards shall be those identified in the Ada County Highway District’s Policy Manual, or the current adopted standard of record. Projects may require modification, traffic management plans, street improvement plans, off-site improvements and other acceptable mitigation to maintain transportation service standards adjacent to the project and in downstream neighborhoods. FH-CCN 3.6: CONTROL DRAINAGE Each development shall provide permanent management and maintenance of all floodway and drainage mechanisms and facilities to maximize safety and the preservation of habitat and aesthetic features. These shall comply with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended, Public Law 100 4, Title IV Permits and licenses Certification, Section 401 (a) (1), and Section 404 Permits for Dredged and Fill material wetland and flood plain regulations as amended, where applicable. The adopted Boise City Storm Water Best Management Practices shall be used to establish the drainage management plan. This drainage plan is subject to periodic review to ensure compliance with best management practices. FH-C 3.7: GATED DEVELOPMENTS Gated developments in the Foothills are prohibited due to the potential for such development to restrict or delay emergency response. FH-CCN 3.8: PARK & RIDE AND/OR CARPOOL Park and ride, bus, and carpool facilities shall be considered an amenity for planned developments, subject to approval from all agencies with jurisdiction over these facilities.
Goal FH-CCN 4: Retain, preserve and in appropriate cases enhance the natural scenic views from the Foothills and to the Foothills. FH-CCN 4.1: ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY Development shall be designed to protect the general landforms of the Foothills. Building forms and roof
FH-12
lines shall blend with the natural terrain to limit sharp contrast. FH-CCN 4.2: COLOR PALETTE The colors used in developments shall blend with the natural environment to limit sharp contrast.
Building form, roof lines, and color blend with the natural environment. FH-CCN 4.3: SIGNAGE Billboards are prohibited in the Foothills. Signage on buildings may only identify its occupant, be indirectly illuminated, may not exceed 24 inches in letter height and may not extend above the height of the primary structure. Free-standing signage must be of the monument type and not exceed 10 feet in height. FH-NC 4.4: LANDSCAPING The use of indigenous landscaping is highly preferred in the Foothills, as are other drought tolerant or xeric plant species. Develop incentives to encourage the use of indigenous landscaping. Landscaping shall be designed to minimize hazards from wildfires to structures and from structure fires to wildlands in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Wildland Urban Inter-face (WUI) ordinance.
Goal FH-CCN 5: Design naturally to celebrate the Foothills prominent ridgelines, skylines, knolls and toe slopes as an indispensable community asset. FH-CCN 5.1: PROTECT THE FOOTHILLS AS THE BACKDROP TO BOISE The City of Boise shall preserve, protect and maintain the natural scenic values of prominent ridges, skylines, knolls and toe slopes of the Foothills as the backdrop to Boise by creating a process for Foothills development. This process will outline alternative options
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | FOOTHILLS and resolve the threat to this asset by working with property owners in the Foothills to reach consensus. Project design shall preserve the natural appearance of prominent ridges, skylines, knolls and toe slopes and concentrate development on more obscured areas of development sites.
The Foothills serve as an important scenic backdrop to Boise and should be preserved. FH-NC 5.2: MINERAL OR GRAVEL EXTRACTION New mineral or gravel extraction activities will preserve the watershed, threatened and endangered plants, conserve wildlife habitat areas, and preserve the natural scenic values of the Foothills. New mineral extraction should not create visible scaring and aesthetic concerns shall be taken into account in mineral extraction proposals. New mineral extraction or gravel extraction or rock quarry activity will be permitted only when the area’s overall topographic integrity is shown to be retained or regenerated in a timely fashion and all significant environmental, cultural and archaeological features are preserved, and when such use is compatible with existing and planned development. A reclamation plan and bond shall be re-quired for these operations prior to project initiation. FH-CCN 5.3: TERRAFORMING The city shall protect steep slopes from development where there is a threat of fire danger, compromised view-sheds and/or impacts of cut and fill techniques associated with lot padding and road building. Building site pads shall maximize the retention of the
BLUEPRINT BOISE
natural form of the earth to create the appearance of natural topography by using contours to resemble the existing natural slope and topography of that terrain, integrating cut and fill slopes into the surrounding terrain, blending grades into the Foothills backdrop and all developments will avoid producing a flat or squared off appearance. Prior to the giving of entitlement to a development, the city must approve the revegetation plan for the development site that shall demonstrate: erosion control, efficient water management, fire protection and compatibility with the flora and fauna associated with the visual qualities of the Foothills and that revegetation is expected to occur within one growing season from the initial disturbance and revegetation action will be sustained by the developer until such a time that it becomes self sustaining. FH-CCN 5.4: GEOLOGIC FEATURES Integrate development with unique geologic features by using the least intrusive portion of site. Site specific information shall be required on the geotectonic, geologic, geomorphic and hydrologic characteristics of proposed Foothills development so natural and potential hazards induced by development are identified, and further, that these hazards are avoided or mitigated. The City should consider a landmark program to identify unique geologic features within the Foothills. FH-CCN 5.5: HAZARDOUS AREAS & SAFETY Foothills development shall be designed and engineered to avoid hazardous areas, thereby minimizing risk to life and property. The location of development will be regulated to avoid environ-mentally sensitive areas such as water bodies, floodways, landslides and fault zones, steep slopes, and unstable soils, and shall protect wildlife and habitat areas. Development shall be prohibited on slopes of 25% grade or greater and within designated floodways. Necessary infrastructure and utilities may be placed within these areas subject to proper engineering and compliance with other policies of this plan.
FH-13
FOOTHILLS | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Avoiding steep slopes and locating development on flatter lands avoids potential hazards.
Clustering development can help preserve vital habitats for wildlife.
FH-CCN 5.6: MECHANICALLY REINFORCED EARTH Use of retaining walls associated with lot pads will be limited in height and bulk and set back from property lines to provide for the integrity of the hillside, the safety of the subject property and the neighboring properties. Retaining walls shall be designed and engineered to hold the loads placed upon them. The city will limit the development of hazardous areas unless the Project Engineer can demonstrate to the City Engineer that site limitations can be overcome.
FH-CCN 6.2: BUILDABLE AREAS Areas designated on the Future Land Use Map as Buildable are generally characterized by existing slopes less than 25% grade, density bonuses may be granted in these areas in return for the provision of permanent open space. The base density shall be 1 unit / 40 acres plus the density bonus formula: density credits only transfer to areas of less than 25% slope and only parcels greater than 1 acre in size may be counted in the open space/density bonus calculation. As the amount of permanent open space increases, the allowable density shall also increase according to the Density Bonus Formula. Within the buildable areas there may be pockets of land greater than 25% slope, the existence of such areas shall be documented by the developer through detailed slope surveys as part of the development application.
Goal FH-CCN 6: Preserve the wildlife habitat and scenic values of the Foothills viewshed while providing for buildable slopes and base unit density. FH-CCN 6.1: CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT FOR HABITAT The practice of clustering of development and preserving the open spaces shall be used to maintain environmental and wildlife features, such as wetlands, threatened plant species, riparian areas, big game winter range, and sensitive wildlife habitats. All open space credited for density bonus purposes (Figure 18) must remain in a primarily natural condition with the goal to maintain it for wildlife habitat and recreational uses. Open space areas shall be located to form continuous corridors subject to the review and recommendation of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game within the mapped Wildlife Habitat Areas (Figure 19). Such areas may remain as private open space, may be used for public trail easements, or may be dedicated to a public land trust or other group for conservation management purposes, with preference given to public access recommended and implemented through the Foothills Ordinance.
FH-14
FH-CCN 6.3: SLOPE PROTECTION AREAS Areas designated on the Future Land Use Map as Slope Protection Areas are generally characterized by slopes that exceed 25%. Within such areas, the base density shall be 1 unit / 40 acres. Within Slope Protection Areas there may also be pockets of land that are less than 25% slope. The existence of such areas must be documented by the developer through detailed slope surveys. Density for these pocket areas shall be 1 unit /per 40 acres, plus additional units allowed under the density bonus.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | FOOTHILLS FIGURE 19: BASE DENSITIES, DENSITY TRANSFERS, AND BONUS DENSITY FORMULAS FOR OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION 1. Base Densities: The base density shall be one unit per 40 acres for all areas designated as buildable (less than 25% slopes) and non-buildable (greater than 25% slopes). 2. Density Credit Transfer: Density credits for non-buildable areas may be transferred to buildable areas at a rate of one unit per 40 acres. 3. Density Bonus: Density Bonuses earned through open space preservation will be in addition to the one unit per 40 acres base density. Density Bonus Formulas Open Space Preservation Within Buildable Areas
Density Bonus Within Buildable Areas*
25%
.50 units/acre
50%
1.5 units/acre
75%
3.0 units/acre
*The transfer of density rights from one parcel to another is allowed and encouraged under this plan. The method of calculating the available density on a given parcel for transfer to another parcel will be detailed in a future implementing ordinance
BLUEPRINT BOISE
FH-15
FOOTHILLS | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
FIGURE 20: WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS
FH-16
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | FOOTHILLS FH-CCN 6.4: CREDIT ALLOWANCE FOR OPEN SPACE The density bonus shall be revised to define more clearly the credit allowances for Priority Open Spaces. The ratio of non-buildable to buildable land should not exceed 50% for lands receiving the density bonus. FH-CCN 6.5: DENSITY BONUS TRANSFER Density transfers between parcels of different ownership and/or the same ownership, and clustering of development shall be allowed, and in some areas required, as a means of protecting sensitive areas by maintaining open space and allowing for more efficient urban services. FH-CCN 6.6: SENSITIVE WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS Foothills developments shall be reviewed with the following priority considerations depending upon location. Where clustered developments are proposed, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game shall be asked to provide advice regarding the most desirable locations to maintain open wildlife corridors which comply with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game management plans. FH-CCN 6.7: DEVELOPMENT AREAS The Eastern Foothills (east of 8th Street) shall be the highest priority area for open space acquisition. The Central Foothills (between 36th Street and 8th Street) shall be developed only to the extent that it can be demonstrated that traffic impacts on existing neighborhoods will be minimized. Special designs to minimize east-bound traffic from areas west of 36th Street may be required. The Western Foothills (Highway 55 to 36th Street) shall be considered to be the first priority area for development, subject to adequate street capacity and infrastructure. FH-CCN 6.8: OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION PRIORITIES
Acquire open space and natural areas in the Boise Foothills that will:
Protect water quality;
Preserve wildlife habitat;
Provide increased recreational areas for walking, biking, and other outdoor activities;
Limit over-development and traffic; and,
Protect natural vegetation that prevents mudflows and washouts.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Goal FH-CCN 7: Reduce or minimize the threat of wildfires and protect against the loss of life and property. FH-CCN 7.1: WILDFIRES AND SAFETY A fire safety plan shall be submitted in the Planned Unit Development application demonstrating effective safety measures during and after construction that include fire prevention and an emergency evacuation plan if a wild fire occurs. Where Foothills developments are adjacent to undeveloped areas, wildfire hazards shall be assessed and minimized through subdivision design, street layout, building design and landscape and building materials restrictions. FH-CCN 7.2: WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE Proposed developments outside of the Boise Fire Department response area, in the Foothills Planning Area, may be developed at densities of one unit per forty acres, and must conform to the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) fire prevention regulations. Areas within Boise City limits and outside of the Boise Fire Department response area can only be developed at densities of one unit per forty acres until the fire protection infrastructure meets the most current level of service standard adopted by the city. FH-CCN 7.3: FIRE SUPPRESSION Foothills development located outside of the 1.5 mile driving distance, or four minute response time, from fire stations shall require approved fire sprinkler/suppression systems in dwelling structures. Fire sprinkler systems are required in all new Foothills residential buildings with a floor area in excess of 5,000 square feet, and are encouraged for all other residences in areas vulnerable to range fires. FH-CCN 7.4: FIRE BREAK ROADS Protect the public health and safety of the community by requiring two points of ingress/egress for all developments and seek to place local and collector roads to maximize effectiveness for use as fire breaks. FH-CCN 7.5: BUILDING ENVELOPES Maximize the building envelopes of development sites to provide access around the structure for fire protection. FH-CCN 7.6: BUILDING MATERIALS Structures in the Foothills bordering any open area with natural vegetation shall comply with Boise City building code provisions adopted to implement the
FH-17
FOOTHILLS | PLANNING AREA POLICIES International Wildland-Urban Interface Code. The purpose of the building code provisions are to regulate and govern the mitigation of hazard to life and property from the intrusion of fire from wildland exposures, fire from adjacent structures and prevention of structure fires from spreading to wildland fuels.
FH-CCN 7.7: LANDSCAPING Foothills developments shall conform to Firewise landscaping practices established by the Boise Fire Department. All newly constructed Foothills structures shall be protected by a landscaped fire break and fire breaks shall be encouraged for already constructed structures.
Future subdivision being developed along Bogus Basin Road
FH-18
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | FOOTHILLS
FOOTHILLS POLICIES Connectivity (FH-C) Goals and policies for connectivity focus on identifying and implementing improvements that will enhance the ease, safety and value of multi-modal travel in the Foothills. Roadways in the Foothills are distinct from roadways elsewhere in the city and this section addresses these concerns. Goal FH-C 1: Provide for a transportation system that preserves the environment of the Foothills. FH-C 1.1: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Actively seek an efficient, cost effective and environmentally protective transportation system which satisfies existing and future land uses, preserves public safety and protects wildlife habitat areas, surface and groundwater quality, and provides for fire and flood control measures. Road-ways shall be located, designed and built for maximum longevity; reducing erosion, slippage and breakups. Promote road systems that service the clustered developments in the buildable areas on the valley floors. FH-C 1.2: MASTER STREET PLAN New collectors and arterials shall conform with the Master Street Map. Amendments to the Master Street Map to add new arterials and collectors in the Foothills will require a thorough environmental and fiscal review to ensure they are consistent with the principles of this plan. FH-C 1.3: TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS Improvements to the transportation system should balance the long term development objectives with the protection of neighbor-hood quality and must be in scale with existing downstream neighborhood character. FH-C 1.4: ACCESS MANAGEMENT Topography in the Foothills restricts the capacity of roadways. Foothills developments will need to follow access management policies due to the effect that rolling hills and curving roads have on a driver’s line of sight. Use of common driveways and other design innovations should be used in Foothills developments to reduce the quantity of curb cuts on roadways in the Foothills, and to re-duce the area of impervious surface in developments. All urban density Foothills development projects must have a means of emergency access if a reasonable means of secondary access cannot be provided. All development shall meet the access requirements of the fire district within which the development is located. BLUEPRINT BOISE
FH-C 1.5: STREET LIGHTS Streetlights in the Foothills shall use shielded luminaries designed to provide adequate public safety while lessening the light visible from the valley and at other users of the Foothills. FH-C 1.6: BUS, PARK AND RIDE, AND CARPOOL In order to increase the efficiency of the transportation system, transit facilities, park and ride lots and all carpool facilities are encouraged to be located near the intersections of arterials in the Foothills. Encourage the establishment of additional facilities needed to accommodate additional travel demand to Bogus Basin Ski Resort. New facilities should be designed with permeable construction materials, such as gravel or other acceptable medium and drainage may be contained by using low maintenance indigenous landscaping to control erosion. FH-C 1.7: RECREATIONAL ROADWAYS Roadways through Hulls Gulch/Camels Back and Military Reserves should not be upgraded or expanded beyond what is necessary to serve their basic function of park and existing resident access. Roads and roadway improvements for any use, other than park access, or historic public safety and residential access, shall not be permitted.
Hulls Gulch historic road.
FH-19
FOOTHILLS | PLANNING AREA POLICIES FH-C 1.8: HISTORIC ROADWAYS Roadways within historic neighborhoods shall not be upgraded or altered to increase capacity with-out an amendment to the Master Street Map. FH-C 1.9: TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES The city shall advocate the use and further creation of effective traffic management strategies as a means of protecting service levels of streets from increasing traffic volumes, as well as mitigation for new development.
Goal FH-C 2: Mitigate the impacts of development on roadway capacity within the Foothills traffic-shed. FH-C 2.1: PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS Automobile traffic may be required to experience some inconvenience for the purpose of helping to preserve the integrity of neighborhoods. Development and growth shall minimize impacts on the traffic system and the quality of existing neighborhoods. FH-C 2.2: LIMIT FOOTHILL ROADWAY WIDTH Foothills roadway widening shall be limited so as to reduce adverse impacts on the natural environment. Separate pedestrian/bike pathways may be preferable to on-street paths and sidewalks in instances where the roadway is constrained by topographic or other natural features.
Limiting widening of roadways will help preserve the natural environment.
FH-20
FH-C 2.3: MAINTAIN FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION Upgrading the roadway functional classification of residential streets, collectors and/or arterials shall be discouraged and shall only occur where a significant community-wide need can be identified as part of the adopted Regional Transportation Plan. FH-C 2.4: DIRECT HEAVY TRAFFIC VOLUMES Heavy traffic volumes shall be encouraged to travel on the higher functionally classified road-ways and discouraged from traveling down the lower functionally classified roadways in the immediate and mediate traffic shed. FH-C 2.5: STATE STREET CORRIDOR State Street shall be the major east-west mobility corridor for heavy traffic volumes. FH-C 2.6: FOOTHILLS ROADWAY CAPACITY Boise City shall actively monitor Foothills street capacity as it is consumed by development and shall be prepared to limit Foothills development as capacity is reached. Work with the Ada County Highway District to ensure that traffic impact studies adequately measure the amount and breadth of impacts to the transportation system to ensure downstream traffic impacts are measured prior to the approval of new Foothills development.. FH-C 2.7: ROADWAY CAPACITY THRESHOLDS The Foothills should be considered for development only when the traffic capacity exists in the system to maintain the collector and arterial streets at a Level of Service D (LOS D) or equivalent Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratio. FH-C 2.8: MITIGATE TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF NEW DEVELOPMENT Development proposals in the Foothills Planning Area shall prepare a traffic impact study that measures impacts on the street system and surrounding neighborhoods. Development entitlements should not push the street system functionality below acceptable levels of service. Mitigation for adding vehicle trips to roadways that will function at unacceptable levels of service shall be paid by the developments causing such effects on a proportionate basis. Mitigation will be determined by Boise City and may include impact
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | FOOTHILLS fees, Special Assessment District fees, and other processes that result in improving the overall system in the vicinity, such as installation of traffic calming devices, trail and pathway improvements, development of mass transit systems, improving non-automobile modes, installing cyclist facilities, upgrading or installing trailheads, improving trails and other corrective transportation measures.
Goal FH-C 3: Continue to expand multi-modal facilities and interconnectivity in the Foothills. FH-C 3.1: TRANSPORTATION AND PATHWAY PLANS New developments must locate streets, sidewalks, bicycle paths, and bus stops that conform to adopted transportation and pathway plans and to promote inter connectivity within the Foothills traffic sheds to enhance public safety and access for emergency services. FH-C 3.2: BUILD VALUE IN EXISTING PLANS Implement the Around the Next Turn: A 10 Year Management Plan for the Ridge to Rivers Trail System and the Roadways to Bikeways Plan and seek to improve east to west multi-modal connectivity. FH-C 3.3: BIKE LANES Constructing bike lanes is a mandatory design criterion for Foothills development. FH-C 3.4: SIDEWALKS Sidewalks will be provided on at least one side of all Foothills roads with appropriate landscaped buffers. In lieu of a second sidewalk on the opposite side of the road, an adequate bicycle and pedestrian pathway system shall be provided. Sidewalk buffer requirements and pathway designs will conform to the Foothills Design Guideline criteria. FH-C 3.5: MULTI-MODAL DEVELOPMENT Developers shall comply with the Around the Next Turn: A 10 Year Management Plan for the Ridge to Rivers Trail System, and, the Ada County Highway District Roadways to Bikeways Plan by constructing bike lanes, designating and preserving planned trail and common open space areas for public acquisition or dedication in exchange for density transfers, land exchanges or cluster development. All trail heads shall be provided with public parking and buffered from the surrounding uses. Access for the disabled shall be incorporated into the designs for trail heads and parking areas. No loss of allowable density shall
BLUEPRINT BOISE
occur where property is transferred to public ownership. A state or local unit of government may sell or exchange density from its property to developable property. FH-C 3.6: PUBLIC FACILITY MAINTENANCE The development and maintenance of public trail support facilities, parking lots, rest rooms and other such features shall be the responsibility of the public.
Goal FH-C 4: Empower the public to access, traverse and enjoy the public lands, open spaces and trails by removing obstacles to access and interconnectivity. FH-C 4.1: PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY SYSTEM Foothills developments, adjacent neighborhoods, schools, and open spaces shall be linked with a pedestrian pathway system which is distinct and separate, where feasible, from the roadway system. Internal neighborhood connections shall be provided through varied design provisions, including sidewalks and paths. FH-C 4.2: OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS SYSTEM A network of parks, common open spaces and continuous recreational trail systems for public use will be developed within the Foothills. The trail system will connect lowland neighborhoods and public parks with Foothill neighborhoods, public parks and public lands. Public open space and public parks shall be linked by a path/trail system composed of on street paths, secondary trails and primary trails and will be managed for multiple uses. Points of access to public lands should be served by public roads, or primary or secondary trails routed around or between developments. Work with equestrians to identify and designate trails for equestrian use.
Multiple uses of public trails provides increased recreation options.
FH-21
FOOTHILLS | PLANNING AREA POLICIES FH-C 4.3: ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS Foothills development shall be integrated with public lands in a manner that preserves public access and protects public lands value and provides secondary access points to public trails and lands.
FH-C 4.4: SECONDARY TRAILS Secondary trails shall be established where there are no existing public or other secondary trails connecting to primary trails. Secondary trails within developments shall allow public access and be located to link the on street path system to public trails and lands. The need for secondary trails shall be evaluated case by case, based upon the likelihood of significant use. When a secondary trail is required, the developer shall establish a right of way for the trail in a location that will reduce walking distance.
Foothills development should include public access to open spaces and trails.
FH-22
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | FOOTHILLS
FOOTHILLS POLICIES Public Services/Facilities (FH-PSF) Goals and policies for this section focus on identifying areas where investment in infrastructure are needed in the Foothills to implement the community’s vision. Goal FH-PSF 1: Plan for future high quality city services and infrastructure improvements and protect public health in the Foothills.
FH-PSF 1.5: AREA OF CITY IMPACT BOUNDARY The location of the AOCI Boundary shall be revised with concurrence from Ada County to reflect appropriate urban and rural land uses.
FH-PSF 1.1 AVAILABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES Development in the Foothills shall be limited by the availability of sewer, water, drainage, fire fighting and other infrastructure or services; in accordance with service area standards cited in the Boise City Comprehensive Plan. Urban development in the Foothills, defined as densities greater than one unit per ten acres, shall only be permitted in urban service planning areas where infrastructure and services exist or can be made available. All developments of urban density shall be serviced by an approved water system and shall be serviced by wet line sewers in accordance with the Boise City Subdivision Ordinance and the Boise City Sewer Regulations
Goal FH-PSF 2: Provide high quality urban infrastructure with deliberate care to protect the Foothills from adverse environmental impacts.
FH-PSF 1.2: FUTURE FACILITY PLANNING Providers of urban services in the Foothills shall prepare future facility plans and acquisition maps. When feasible, utility corridors shall be consolidated in road corridors, but designed in a way to not interfere with the road structure in maintenance and retrofitting circumstances. FH-PSF 1.3: INFRASTRUCTURE AS A CUMULATIVE INVESTMENT Public and urban services shall be capable to meet the ultimate needs of the service area. Infrastructure provided with new development shall be designed to handle requirements of potential adjoining developments, such as adequate rights of way, sewer capacity, drainage, etc. Drainage plans shall take into account possible drainage challenges between lots in the same or adjoining subdivisions. FH-PSF 1.4: PHASED DEVELOPMENT Urban development in the Foothills shall be phased according to the ability to provide urban services and shall include sewer, water, schools, transportation, fire, police, and other public safety services.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
FH-PSF 2.1: SOUND INFRASTRUCTURE Plan for the most efficient, cost effective and environmentally sound infrastructure systems and public services which protect existing and future land uses, preserve public safety and protect wild-life habitat areas, surface and groundwater quality, and flood control measures. FH-PSF 2.2: STEEP OR UNSTABLE TERRAIN Extending urban service facilities through steep or unstable terrain shall be avoided whenever possible, and will be required to meet strict safety and engineering design standards. FH-PSF 2.3: AVOIDS HAZARDS Infrastructure and urban service facilities shall avoid hazardous and environmentally sensitive areas such as stream beds, floodways or installations on terrain that is difficult to access and service. FH-PSF 2.4: SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE COST Lands shall be developed in accordance with all governing development standards. Only lands that can be served using techniques which do not impose an extraordinary service and maintenance cost on the general service subscriber shall be developed. FH-PSF 2.5: ROADS AND FLOODWAYS New road construction shall not be allowed within any floodway, except as necessary to cross the floodway where no reasonable alternative exists. As a condition of approval, all proposals where a road crosses the floodway will completely mitigate the effects on hydrology, vegetation and wildlife through measures approved by the Department of Public Works.
FH-23
FOOTHILLS | PLANNING AREA POLICIES FH-PSF 2.6: CONCEAL INFRASTRUCTURE Infrastructure design shall blend with the Foothills landscape so as not to distract attention from the natural environment.
Views overlooking the Quail Hollow Golf Course
FH-24
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | FOOTHILLS
FOOTHILLS POLICIES Neighborhood Character (FH-NC) Policies for this section focus on identifying the essential character of the Foothills, its cultural re-sources, and inherent value in expanding wildlife habitat, open space, and recreational uses. Goal FH-NC 1: Recognize and preserve our history and culture as a tangible link to the past: discover, experience and educate. FH-NC 1.1: CULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT PLACES Archaeological sites, historic sites and areas of a sensitive geologic or ecologic nature shall be identified, inventoried and protected. FH-NC 1.2: ARTS AND CULTURE The city will continue to support the performance, visual, fine and cultural arts by supporting the presence of these activities and facilities within the greater Foothills area. FH-NC 1.3: EDUCATIONAL Continue to provide educational programming at the Foothills Learning Center. FH-NC 1.4: HISTORIC USES Preserve the history of agriculture and grazing in the Foothills. Work with landowners to protect existing viable agricultural uses where possible through the use of easements, cluster development, or other protective techniques.
Goal FH-NC 2: Protect the beauty, safety and utility provided to this city by the Foothills watershed and floodway. FH-NC 2.1: WATERSHED The Foothills watershed shall be protected. FH-NC 2.2: DRAINAGE Where appropriate the city shall encourage safe and innovative methods for dealing with drainage to create, increase or enhance wildlife habitat areas in the Foothills.
FH-NC 2.4: FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT Increasing the downstream dimensions of the 100 year flood plain and the down cutting angle and velocity of streams as a result of upstream development shall not be allowed.
Goal FH-NC 3: Protect the natural water purification system provided to this city by the Foothills. FH-NC 3.1: VEGETATION NEAR WATER Vegetation along streams, water bodies and in gulches shall be protected and enhanced to stabilize and protect banks and minimize sedimentation and erosion. Natural drainages should be enhanced, where appropriate, to increase the ability to stabilize and slow the erosion process and protect the water body, where this does not conflict with the Federal Emergency Management Agency regulations for flood plains and water bodies. FH-NC 3.2: IMPERVIOUS SURFACES Reduce and minimize impervious surfaces, which shall be designed and located to support the natural system of drainages and aquifer recharge areas and to lessen peak flows of runoff. Construction of impervious surfaces within a floodway shall be avoided. FH-NC 3.3: WATERBODIES AND SEDIMENT Water bodies shall be protected from contamination and sediments, particularly during construction phases of development. Waters shall be protected so that they comply with the state water quality standards.
FH-NC 2.3: FLOOD CONTROL Improved flood control and flood system management shall be allowed, provided safety, habitat and aesthetic features of the natural system are maintained, and all required local, State and Federal development permits are obtained. Floodways shall be maintained and preserved for open space uses including habitat areas.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
FH-25
FOOTHILLS | PLANNING AREA POLICIES dedicated to preservation of historic or archaeological sites, or by public ownership as funding allows. Where a habitat is judged critically important to preserve, the habitat or appropriate wildlife easements shall be protected by private ownership, or by organizations dedicated to preservation of wildlife habitats, or by public ownership.
Goal FH-NC 5: Enhance, enjoy, and preserve the Foothills open space.
Protecting water bodies from sediment, especially during construction is critical. FH-NC 3.4: GROUNDWATER QUALITY Groundwater quality shall be protected and maintained by retaining on site runoff from Foot-hills development, so that it can be naturally filtered and allowed to percolate. If the site is unsuitable for on site drainage, alternative off site drainage may be permitted.
GOAL FH-NC 4: Identify, conserve and protect the native plant and animal habitat in the Foothills. FH-NC 4.1: STUDY HABITAT Accurate and specific information on a development site shall be evaluated concerning the characteristics of critical deer and elk habitat and wildlife migratory corridors in the Foothills. Sources of information are the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Proposed development projects shall have wildlife habitat area studies prepared by qualified professionals and submitted with the project application for review by the above agencies. FH-NC 4.2: CONSERVE HABITAT Boise City will work with Idaho Department of Fish and Game to identify and conserve sensitive wildlife habitat areas and natural wildlife corridors connecting open space habitat areas Where sensitive sites are judged to be critically important to preserve, as defined in the Open Space Management Plan, they shall be protected by private ownership, by organizations
FH-26
FH-NC 5.1: OPEN SPACE AND TRAIL ACQUISITION Continue the city’s efforts to secure public open space lands in the Foothills through the serial levy process. Work with land trusts and other organizations to acquire priority open space lands for the public. Public trails and common open space areas should be acquired by the public through such methods as purchase, donation, easements or land exchanges, or the use of density bonuses and/or transfers of development rights.
Goal FH-NC 6: Find ways to increase the enjoyment of the Foothills through effective implementation strategies. FH-NC 6.1: OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT PLAN Development proposals shall comply with the Public Lands Open Space Management Plan for the Boise Foothills (2000) adopted by Council December 5, 2000 (Resolution 16287) and the plan shall continue to be implemented through both the development process, and in conjunction with plans and capital improvements from the participants, Boise Parks and Recreation Department, Bureau of Land Management, United States Forest Service, Ada County, Boise County, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and Idaho Department of Lands. FH-NC 6.2: STATE ENDOWMENT LANDS State Endowment lands shall be regarded the same as private lands under policies of this plan. FH-NC 6.3: OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT PLAN Update the Public Lands Open Space Management Plan for the Boise Foothills (2000), to reflect the recent acquisition of public open space and the development entitlements approved by Ada County and Boise City.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | FOOTHILLS
FOOTHILLS POLICIES Related Planning Documents There have been several plans and studies prepared for Foothills. These plans, along with Blueprint Boise, will help guide future development in the Foothills Planning Area. Around the Next Turn: A 10 Year Management Plan for the Ridge to Rivers Trail System (2016) Ridge to Rivers (R2R) is a cooperative partnership consisting of the following agencies: City of Boise, Ada County, Bureau of Land Management Boise District, Boise National Forest and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. The goal of the Ridge to Rivers partnership is to provide a high-quality system of trails for the enjoyment of Treasure Valley residents and visitors to the Boise Foothills. The 10 Year Management Plan will guide the trail network and the trail community forward for the next 10 years. The plan establishes a vision for the Ridge to Rivers trail system, provides data and trends context for trail-related decision making, guides future trail management and development by setting clear goals and a range of possible strategies and policies to achieve those goals and identifies priority actions for implementation.
Ada County Highway District North Boise Neighborhood Walking and Biking Plan (2016) The North Boise Neighborhood Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan identifies future pedestrian and bicycle projects to promote safe, effective, and convenient walking and biking facilities for residents and visitors in the North area of the City. The study area is bounded by the foothills to the north and downtown Boise to the south. The study area encompasses the Sunset, North End, Central Foothills, Boise Heights, and Highlands neighborhoods, and the Somerset development area in the foothills.
Collister Neighborhood Plan (2007) The Collister Neighborhood Association is bounded on the north by the Boise City Impact Area boundary, on the east by 36th Street, on the west by Pierce Park Lane north to Seaman’s Gulch and on the south by State Street. Portions of Collister are located in the Northwest Planning Area, while the majority is in Foothills. The Collister Neighborhood Plan sets out a vision and goals to guide new development
BLUEPRINT BOISE
in the area and provide a basis for determining development review decisions. The eight main goals of the plan relate to provision and use of utilities, the natural environment, opens pace and recreation facilities, mobility and transportation, quality of life, youth, social and economic health and sustainability, commercial development, and alternative transportation networks.
Harris Ranch Specific Plan (2007) The Harris Ranch Specific Plan (SP01) is a mixed use development that is being built on and around the site of what was once the largest town in Idaho, the mill town of Barberton. Covering 1,800 acres, the Harris Ranch Specific Plan embraces New Urbanist design concepts. Specifically, it is designed to integrate into the existing urban pattern, provide for a mix of uses within walking distance, allow for commercial uses to address area residents’ retail and employment needs, provide a mix of housing types and affordability, and support a multi-modal transportation framework. The Harris Ranch development consists of highdensity and compact residential neighborhoods, surrounded by park and trail systems. A mixed-use district is at the center of the development. The Foothills portion of the development is clustered to limit road development, and 56.37 acres were donated to IDFG. The city will receive a 27.96 acre park (Alta Harris Park), a fire station, and other amenities that serve residents locally and city-wide.
Barber Valley Specific Plan (2007) The Barber Valley project (SP02) redevelops formerly industrial and agricultural lands around the Harris Ranch development. The project has three main components: Barber Station, a commercial and compact residential area surrounded by Marianne Williams Park; the Mill District, a compact to suburban residential area, much of which is already built; and The Terrace, a single family detached residential area on the east end of the planned community. Barber Station will include approximately 36 acres of office and commercial uses—including restaurants, shops,
FH-27
FOOTHILLS | PLANNING AREA POLICIES and possibly a hotel—and approximately 17 acres of compact and high density residential uses. The Mill District will include compact residential uses, likely to include a campus-style retirement continuing care community. The Terrace will be developed as 250 suburban residential units. The city received a 70-acre riverfront regional park (Marianne Williams) and assistance to restore the natural river bank and associated floodway and ecosystem degraded by former old industrial uses. Fifty-six acres of hillsides above The Terrace have been donated to the IDFG.
Public Lands Open Space Management Plan for the Boise Foothills (2000) The Boise Parks and Recreation Department with six local, state and federal agencies have developed an open space preservation plan for the Boise Foothills, which includes parts of the Foothills planning area. This plan guides the expenditure of $10 million raised through a property tax levy for open space in the Boise Foothills. The plan sets out priority conservation areas and open space preservation goals. This plan also coordinates Foothills land management policies and issues between local, state and federal agencies.
Interim Foothills Transportation Plan (1998) The Boise City Council adopted the Interim Foothills Transportation Plan as an amendment to the Boise City Comprehensive Plan. It implements the adopted policies of the Foothills Policy Plan. The policies limit the transportation alternatives by restricting the location of new transportation facilities in the Central Foothills and limiting adverse impacts to neighborhoods and environmental resources. Destination 2015, the Regional Transportation Plan, provided a basis for defining the existing and planned transportation system serving the Foothills Planning Area. The recommendations in this Interim Plan reflect additions to Destination 2015 that would be needed to provide additional transportation improvements to more fully implement the Foothills Policy Plan.
FH-28
The Potential Public Preservation Sites 1993 The purpose of the Potential Public Preservation Sites 1993 was to identify and facilitate preservation of land or water areas within the Boise City Area of City Impact for public benefit because of unique environmental, recreational, aesthetic, and cultural characteristics. The goals included: - The identification and prioritization of characteristics that guided the selection process. - The identification and prioritization of unique land and water areas. - To enhance recreation opportunities compatible with the preservation of unique land and water resources within the Boise City Area of Impact. - To facilitate the preservation of critical wildlife habitat; our historical and archaeological heritage; the scenic and aesthetic character of Boise; public access to new or already established public use areas, Foothills gulches, Boise Greenbelt, and associated city and state parks, State, BLM, and USFS lands. - To connect or link significant public open spaces and parks through a system of open linear corridors or paths. - To identify and contact the appropriate government agencies or private organizations that can facilitate the preservation of land and water areas by acquiring necessary legal interest.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l NORTH/EAST END
North/East End Planning Area
Location and Context The North/East End Planning Area (“North/East End”) is one of the oldest portions of Boise City and contains six historic districts. These districts protect the North/East End’s historic homes, Hyde Park (a popular neighborhood commercial district), and an area of diverse residential homes. These traditional neighborhoods are some of the most desirable in the city. In the center of the North/East End is the Military Reserve, a 479-acre complex containing the Veteran’s
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Administration and a military cemetery, in which veterans of the Mexican War, Civil War, Indian Wars, and Spanish American War are interred. This complex and portions of the Warm Springs neighborhood are heated by two of the three geothermal utilities in Boise City. The North/East End contains mostly residential land uses, professional offices associated with the state capitol and Veterans Administration, and a limited amount of commercial, which is focused along State Street. The North/East End is largely built out, although limited infill and redevelopment activity has occurred in recent years.
NE-1
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l NORTH/EAST END
Demographic Profile Population Population: In 2010, the population of the North/East End was 25,203. Median Age: North/East End residents are slightly older (35.7) than Boise residents overall.
TRENDS AND KEY ISSUES Employment
North/East End jobs are projected to increase only slightly—from 2,263 in 2005 to 2,743 in 2025.
Utilities
There are two geothermal heating utilities extended to the North/East End, for the military reserve and Warm Springs neighborhood. The Lander Street Waste Water Treatment facility is located in the North/East End.
Transportation
Most workers commute to jobs outside of the North/East End.
The average commute time for a North/ East End worker in 2000 was 17.9 minutes.
There are many public bus routes through and within the North/East End.
State Street is planned for a High Capacity Transit Corridor, served by bus rapid transit (BRT) express service, and improved primary service.
Housing Total Households: In 2010, the North/East End was home to 12,564 households. This accounts for nearly 14 percent of Boise households. Household Composition: Fewer families with children reside in the North/East End—with 22 percent of residents falling under the age of 20. Median Home Value: Median home value in the North/East End ($198,905) is comparable to Boise as a whole. Tenancy: North/East End homeowners represent 50.9 percent of all households. Income Median Household Income: In 2009, median household income for residents of the North/East End was $49,372. Employment Jobs: 8.8 percent (13,299) of Boise’s jobs are located in the North/East End Workforce: Workers residing in the North/East End represent 12 percent (15,710) of the Boise workforce as a whole.
Land Use Characteristics Existing Land Uses The North/East End contains 3,592 acres, making up almost 5.5 percent of Boise’s total acres. Single-family residential uses occupy nearly 44 percent (1,659 acres) of the North/East End. Multi-family residential uses account for 2.5 percent (96 acres) of the North/East End 25 percent of land in the North/East End (951.3 acres) is occupied by parks, recreation and open space uses—the highest percentage of any planning area. Another 525 acres is occupied by Public/ Semi-Public uses, including the Military Reserve. Commercial and office uses are limited within the North/East End occupying 3 percent (119 acres) and 5 percent (176 acres), respectively. Historic Districts Six of the city’s nine local historic districts are located in the North/East End. These include the Warm Springs, North End, East End, Harrison Boulevard, Hays Street and Hyde Park Historic Districts.
NE-2
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l NORTH/EAST END
Parks and Recreation The North/East End is home to diverse parks and open space reserves, ranging from Fort Boise Park, to properties along the Boise River, such as the proposed Esther Simplot, White Water Park and Bernadine Quinn Parks in the north and Municipal Park in the south. The Ridge to Rivers Trail runs through the North/East End, and access to the Boise River Greenbelt is available north and south of downtown as well. Other notable parks and recreation amenities include: Castle Rock Reserve Foothills East Park and Reserve Military Reserve and Cemetery Warm Springs Golf Course Natatorium Camels Back Reserve, and Lowell Pool. The Bogus Basin Ski Resort is also accessed from the North/East End—just a 20 minute drive from the city.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
NE-3
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l NORTH/EAST END
Schools The North/East End is home to 14 schools. In addition to the educational significance of these facilities, several North/East End schools are historically significant and contribute to the overall character of the neighborhood.
TRENDS AND KEY ISSUES Parks and Recreation
The North/East End has some of the largest parks and open space reserves in central Boise, including the Warm Springs Municipal Golf Course.
Fort Boise, an Idaho state park, which includes several museums as well as the Fort Boise Learning Center, is also located in the North/East End.
Schools
There are 14 schools in the North/East End.
Elementary schools include: Taft, Collister Lowell, Washington, Longfellow, Whittier, St. Mary’s, St. Josephs, Roosevelt, and Adams.
Junior High schools include: North and East.
The only public high school is Boise High.
NE-4
High Schools Boise High School is located at 1010 West Washington Street (bounded by 9th, 13th and Franklin Streets). The institution is the oldest of the four public senior high schools in the city. The school has an enrollment of 1,400+ students, with the first classes beginning in 1903. The structure is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Junior High Schools North Junior High School is located at 1105 13th Street (bounded by 15th, Fort and Resseguie Streets). The school has an enrollment of 790 students Elementary Schools William Howard Taft Elementary is located at 3722 Anderson Street which is near the intersection of State and Anderson Street. The school has an enrollment of 361 students. The school has a tremendous amount of diversity. Their instructional program is geared to meet the needs of students who come to the school with below grade level as well as challenge those who are in need of enrichment.
Collister Elementary School is located at Collister Drive and Catalpa Drive. The school has an enrollment of 232 students Taft was the first school district in the Collister area was organized in 1910. The first school term opened in the fall of 1911 in a one room wood frame building located on a one acre lot on the west side of Collister Road, directly across from Catalpa Street. Blanche H. Lovelace taught 56 students. In 1912, a four room, brick with stone trim school was built amidst a prune orchard on land donated by Dr. George Collister. Cast iron Waterbury coal heaters heated rooms for students in grades 1-8. In 1922 Collister was annexed into the Boise City School District. By 1948 four rooms had been added to the west side of the school. During this period, the building was stuccoed, the basement kitchen was completed and land was purchased on the north end of the property to extend the playground. Six classrooms, an auditorium and an office were added to the east end of the school in 1953.
Lowell Elementary has a current enrollment of 306 students. The school is located at 1507 N. State Street (bounded by Lemp and 30th Streets). The school first opened in September 1913. During the school’s first years, Lowell served only students in grades one through four. Students in the area in grades five through eight attended Washington School. In 1926, the north unit of the present school was built. It contained four classrooms, an office on the BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l NORTH/EAST END second floor and an auditorium in the basement. Lowell had, by this time, expanded to eight grades.
Washington Elementary School is located at 1607 N. 15th Street (bounded by Lemp, 16th, and Ridenbaugh Streets). The school has an enrollment of 253 students. The school opened its doors on 1900 with only two classrooms and expanded to four classrooms in 1901 and finally by 1947 the school expanded to 12 classrooms.
Longfellow Elementary School is located at 1511 N. Ninth Street (bounded by 10th, Sherman and Resseguie Streets). The school has an enrollment of 232 students. Longfellow School was built in 1905. The first classes began in the fall of 1906. Grades 1-8 were served in the three-level building.
Whittier Elementary School is located at 301 N. 29th Street (bounded by 30th, Jefferson, and Idahos Streets). The school has an enrollment of 321 students. The school opened in the fall of 1949.
St Mary’s Elementary School (K-8) is located at 2620 W. State Street (bounded by 26th and 28th Street). This is a Catholic school with an enrollment of enrollment of 193 students.
St Joseph’s Elementary School (K-8) is located at 825 W. Fort (bounded by 9th, 8th and Hay’s Streets). The Catholic school has an enrollment of over 360 students and was established in 1868.
Roosevelt Elementary School is located at 908 E. Jefferson Street (bounded by Elm, Maple, and East State Streets). The school opened in 1920, and currently has an enrollment of 321. The school is located within the East End Historic District.
Adams Elementary School is located at 1725 Warm Springs Avenue. Adams began as a neighborhood school offering grades 1-4 in 1955, with a fifth grade offered in 1958 and a sixth grade following in 1960. Current enrollment is 342.
Sources: COMPASS Community Choice Growth Projections, August 2007. 2010 Census Data for Population and Households. COMPASS Development Monitoring Reports (2000-2007). ESRI Business Analyst Report, North/East End (2009).
BLUEPRINT BOISE
NE-5
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l NORTH/EAST END
North/East End Planning Area: Future Land Use Map
NE-6
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l NORTH/EAST END
NORTH/EAST POLICIES Centers, Corridors, and Neighborhoods (NE-CCN) Goals and policies for this section focus on promoting the continued development of a mix of housing types and ensuring the scale of future infill and redevelopment complements the North/East End’s historic character.
Goal NE-CCN 1: Ensure future development compliments with the established character of the North/East End.
NE-CCN 1.5: HISTORIC DISTRICTS Apply the procedures and requirements of the designated Historic Districts as appropriate. NE-CCN 1.6: TRANSITIONS Provide transitions between non-residential or higher-intensity residential uses and adjoining neighborhoods consistent with the design principles contained in Chapter 3 of this Comprehensive Plan.
Goal NE-CCN 2: Encourage a mix of housing, employment, and recreational opportunities to serve the North/East End.
The character of the North/East End is largely defined by its many historic homes. NE-CCN 1.1: NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS Ensure new development is consistent with adopted neighborhood plans. NE-CCN 1.2: OVERLAY / CONSERVATION DISTRICTS Establish additional tools, such as overlay or conservation districts, where additional guidance is needed to protect neighborhood character. NE-CCN 1.3: INFILL HOUSING (a) Support intensification of the North/East End primarily through the development of accessory units, duplexes and townhouses, rather than high-density multifamily units. (b) Focus higher-density housing and mixed-use development within the 30th Street Master Plan Area, as planned. (c) Ensure that infill development is consistent with the design principles contained in Chapter 3 of this Comprehensive Plan. NE-CCN 1.4: NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER Design new development to reflect elements of the historic architecture and traditional neighborhood character that exist in the North/East End.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
This new activity center in the North/East End includes a mix of housing types and supporting retail uses. NE-CCN 2.1: DESIGNATED ACTIVITY CENTERS Thirteen mixed-use activity centers have been designated to serve the North/East End to promote the availability of local services within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. They include:
Hyde Park; State Street and 30th Street; State Street and 18th Street; 27th Street and Stewart Street; 30th Street and Main Street; 36th Street Garden Center Armory; Broadway Avenue / Myrtle Street / E. Park Boulevard / E. Front Street;
NE-7
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l NORTH/EAST END Broadway Avenue / E. Warm Springs Avenue; Fort Boise Area; E. Walling Street / E. Warm Springs Avenue vicinity; and Warm Springs Avenue (Trolley House).
between Avenues B and C and East Jefferson that are comparable to the bulk and scale of existing structures. Limit scale and bulk of new structures north of East Jefferson to scale and bulk comparable to the adjacent, existing residential neighborhood.
Additional activity centers may be designated in accordance with the location criteria provided in Chapter 3.
NE-CCN 2.4: MILITARY RESERVE AREA (a) Allow city, federal and other public and institutional uses in the developed portion of the Military Reserve area. (b) Preserve the remainder of the Military Reserve area as open space, although pathways, trail and bicycle transportation improvements may be allowed.
The adaptive reuse of existing structures can be an effective means of promoting the revitalization of established neighborhood activity centers. NE-CCN 2.2: ST. LUKE’S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER (a) Develop the St. Luke’s Regional Medical Center area in accordance with the 2015 St. Luke’s Health System Campus Master Plan as adopted by the City Council. (b) Require an amendment to the Land Use Map for expansion of the HS zoning district outside of the currently designated Public/Institutional use area. NE-CCN 2.3: MEDICAL OFFICE/SUPPORT SERVICES Permit private medical offices and support services
NE-8
Preservation of open space within the Military Reserve area is an important consideration for the North/East End. NE-CCN 2.5: STATE STREET CORRIDOR Encourage a compact, transit-supportive pattern of development and redevelopment, and mix of uses along the State Street Corridor as outlined in the State Street Corridor Transit Oriented Development Policy Guidelines.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l NORTH/EAST END NE-CCN 2.6: STATE STREET CORRIDOR Implement the State Street Transit and Traffic Operational Plan (TTOP) to achieve the land use, roadway and transit vision for the State Street Corridor. NE-CCN 2.7 30TH STREET AREA MASTER PLAN Implement the 30th Street Area Master Plan, encouraging a compact, transit-oriented and transitsupportive pattern of development and mix of uses to serve local and community needs. NE-CCN 2.8: MAIN STREET/ FAIRVIEW AVENUE/30TH STREET EXTENSION Encourage high-density, transit supportive, mixeduse development along the Main/Fairview/30th Street Extension, at the ITD site at Rose Street and the 30th Street Extension, and along the Main/Fairview Corridor consistent with the 30th Street Area Master Plan.
The 30th Street Area Master Plan identifies suitable locations for high density residential development, such as these row homes NE-CCN 2.9: ARMORY Encourage adaptive re-use of the historic Armory building. Integrate the Armory into a mixed-use development of neighborhood commercial/office/ residential uses including workforce housing and public open space. Work with the neighborhood association and other interested organizations to locate resources to preserve the Armory building. NE-CCN 3.0: FORT BOISE AREA Create an area plan, including the Armory site and other public property on the west and north side of Fort Boise Community Center, from Reserve Street to 4th Street on the north side of Fort Street which will identify opportunities for mixed-use development of neighborhood commercial, office and residential uses, workforce housing and public open space.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
NE-9
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l NORTH/EAST END
NORTH/EAST POLICIES Connectivity (NE-C) Goals and policies for connectivity focus on identifying and implementing improvements that will enhance the ease and safety of multi-modal travel in North/East End.
Goal NE-C1: Monitor the effects of development in adjacent planning areas on the North/East End.
Goal NE-C3: Facilitate the expansion of multi-modal facilities.
NE-C 1.1: STREET CLASSIFICATIONS Avoid upgrading local streets and collectors in North/ East End to higher classifications to accommodate development in the Foothills.
Goal NE-C2: Ensure future roadway improvements enhance rather than detract from the North/East End’s character. NE-C 2.1: STREET DESIGN Ensure street improvements and the construction of new roadways occurs in compliance with citywide street policies contained in Chapter 2 of this Comprehensive Plan. NE-C 2.2: 36TH AND CATALPA INTERSECTION Support construction of a roundabout at the 36th and Catalpa intersection.
Continuing to expand the North/East End’s network of sidewalks and bicycle lanes will encourage multimodal travel. NE-C 3.1: HILL ROAD (a) Preserve existing two lane design of Hill Road between 36th Street and Harrison Boulevard. (b) Integrate appropriate safe transportation options including transit, bikes, pedestrian and trails while preserving the existing two lane design. NE-C 3.2: 30TH STREET MASTER PLAN Support the implementation of planned transit facilities and corridors outlined in the 30th Street Master Plan. NE-C 3.3: SIDEWALKS Require sidewalks to be separated from roadway for the safety and comfort of pedestrians in conformance with the Transportation Land Use Integration Plan and to preserve the historic character of the neighborhoods. NE-C 3.4 PARK AND RIDE Investigate locations for a park and ride facility to serve the Bogus Basin Ski Area.
NE-10
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l NORTH/EAST END
NORTH/EAST POLICIES Public Services/Facilities (NE-PS) Goals and policies for this section focus on identifying areas where investment in infrastructure are needed in the North/East End to implement the community’s vision.
Goal NE-PS1: Maintain existing services for North/East End residents. NE-PS 1.1: SCHOOL RETENTION Support the maintenance and retention of neighborhood schools in the North/East End. In the event of a school closure, work with the school district to support adaptive reuse of neighborhood schools.
NE-PS 1.2: 30TH STREET MASTER PLAN Evaluate potential impacts of higher intensity development on existing public services and facilities in the North/East End as the 30th Street Master Plan is implemented over time to ensure services and facilities can be improved or expanded to maintain existing service levels for North/East End residents.
Neighborhood schools, such as the Longfellow School pictured above, play an important role in the North/ East End.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
NE-11
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l NORTH/EAST END
NORTH/EAST POLICIES Neighborhood Character (NE-NC) Goals and policies for neighborhood character focus on attributes and activities that contribute to the overall character and livability of North/East End neighborhoods, including parks, open space, recreation, public art, and historic areas.
Goal NE-NC1: Continue to preserve and enhance the character and livability of North/ East End’s neighborhoods. NE-NC 1.1: TRAIL CORRIDORS Expand trail connections from the North/East End to adjoining areas and the Foothills trail network.
NE-NC 1.3: ADJOINING DEVELOPMENT Monitor the effect of development in other planning areas on the North/East End, especially Foothills development for traffic and other impacts on the area.
NE-NC 1.2: NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Maintain and enhance the North/East End’s neighborhood parks. Expand the range of activities allowed in parks with polices for urban agriculture contained in Chapter 2 of this Comprehensive Plan.
Open space adds to the character of North/East End. NE-NC 1.4: OPEN SPACE Continue to preserve and acquire public foothills open space as a significant amenity for the North/East End and the entire city.
Gordon S. Bowen Park.
NE-12
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l NORTH/EAST END
NORTH/EAST POLICIES Related Planning Documents There have been a few plans and studies prepared for portions of the North/East End. These plans, along with Blueprint Boise, will help guide future development in the North/East End.
30th Street Area Master Plan (2012)
The 30th Street Area Master Plan outlines a vision and long-term development plan for the 30th Street planning area bordered by 23rd Street, Irene Street, State Street, Veterans Park, the Boise River, and Fairview Avenue. Opportunities for development and redevelopment vary within the 681 acre planning area. The area includes well-established, intact neighborhoods, and four subdistricts with redevelopment potential. The ITD and Main/Fairview subdistricts offer potential for mixed-use, transitoriented, urban style activity centers. The 27th Street subdistrict is envisioned as a neighborhood commercial/ housing focus area, and the 30th Street/ Park View subdistrict as specialty residential/specialty commercial. The Master Plan will guide investment and development, and support neighborhood stability and diversity as change occurs.
Hyde Park Conservation District Neighborhood Plan (2005)
Hyde Park was a thriving commercial district from the turn of the century. Streetcar service supported the district, connecting it to the surrounding neighborhood and downtown. Hyde Park was designated as a local historic district in 1980 and was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1982.The intent of the Hyde Park Conservation District Plan is to maintain the historical commercial district as a functioning community asset and maintain the current mix of commercial and adjacent residential uses. The conservation district protects the historical and architectural character of Hyde Park and establishes parking standards for the area.
Veterans Park Neighborhood Policy Guide (1999)
Veterans Park Neighborhood is located immediately northwest of Downtown, adjacent to the Boise River and State Park. The neighborhood is primarily residential. Housing is diverse in both age and type, with approximately 35% of the homes built prior to 1940. Other land uses include commercial along State Street and an area of industrial uses. Goals of the Plan are: (1) To preserve the residential character of the neighborhood, and encourage future development
BLUEPRINT BOISE
that recognizes its unique amenities and natural features and is consistent with it’s character; (2) To meet the service needs of residents of the for commercial facilities while reducing negative impacts on adjacent residential areas; (3) To recognize State Street’s importance as a gateway to the City of Boise and encourage appropriate development.
North End Neighborhood Plan (2021)
The North End Neighborhood Plan replaces an earlier plan adopted by the City of Boise in 1985, the North End Policy Guide. This Plan’s expressions of the visions and values of neighborhood residents should serve as a reasonable guide to all pertinent decision makers. The plan includes a historical perspective of the “fine grain” of the neighborhood, analyzes current trends impacting the neighborhood, and acknowledges the existing planning and policy landscape. The plan establishes a framework centered around a vision and set of six goals related to transportation, housing, community engagement, and sustainability.
East End Neighborhood Policy Guide (1999)
The East End Neighborhood’s development closely parallels the beginnings of Boise City. In the northwest corner of the neighborhood lies Fort Boise and Military Reserve Park which was established in 1863 to protect miners and Eastern emigrants from attacks by local tribes. In 1890, C.W. Moore and a group of other prominent Boise businessmen joined in a venture to drill for and develop hot water adjacent to the Penitentiary. The group promptly struck 92 degree Fahrenheit water at a depth of eighty feet and by 1891, the group had sunk two wells to a depth of four hundred feet and were drawing water suitable for space heating and other uses. C.W. Moore promptly built the mansion located at the corner of Warm Springs Avenue and Walnut Street and gained the distinction of having the first house in the United States heated with geothermal water. The East End was also home to the Natatorium which, at its time was the largest indoor swimming pool in the country. The East End is also home to historic public buildings, mansions, some limited commercial uses and office uses. The goals of the plan are, 1) To maintain the character of the East End by
NE-13
PLANNING AREA POLICIES l NORTH/EAST END recognizing its unique amenities and natural features, encouraging appropriate infill development and allowing development in adjacent areas that does not negatively impact the existing neighborhood 2) Protect and enhance the existing single-family residential character of the neighborhood 3) To route traffic around the neighborhood’s interior and concentrate it on designated arterial/collector streets and 4) Maintain and improve the East End’s quality of life and level of public/quasi-public services.
State Street Corridor Transit Oriented Development Plan (2019)
The State Street Corridor Transit Oriented Development Plan provides analysis, background and recommendations for the expansion of Valley Regional Transit service to include bus rapid transit on the State Street/SH 44 corridor, and design sketches, policy and zoning recommendations for four TOD transit stations on State Street at Whitewater Park Boulevard, Collister Road, Gary Lane/Glenwood Streets, and Horseshoe Bend Road. The State Street TOD Plan offers a guideline for developers, investors, residents, policy makers and the City team to understand and implement the vision of mixed-use, high quality development necessary to achieve high capacity transit, and to assist the region in addressing transportation, housing, and employment challenges on the State Street corridor. Designs for transit stations and development types at each TOD node translate the transit corridor vision into graphics easily understandable to stakeholders and the general public. The TOD Plan should be considered when applications are submitted to the City for land use projects and review of transportation projects.
State Street Transit and Traffic Operation Plan (2011)
The State Street Transit and Traffic Operational Plan (TTOP) details the near, medium-and-long-term improvements to achieve the high capacity transit vision on State Street.
A Cultural Arts Plan for Boise’s 30th Street Neighborhood (2012)
A Cultural Arts Plan for Boise’s 30th Street Neighborhood identifies eight thematic principles, community branding “tone” and imagery, and possible locations for art throughout the 30th Street area. The Plan recommends specific opportunities for public art to contribute to the vibrant character of the area and to incorporate functional art which enhances daily activities. The Plan’s purpose is to inspire integration of art into development projects, as stand-alone pieces, interpretive signs, walking path indicators, as benches, bike racks and sculptures amongst other ideas. Suggested art projects represent the neighborhood’s natural attributes, multi-cultural energy, history and unique diversity.
State Street Corridor Transit Oriented Development Policy Guidelines (2008)
The State Street Corridor Transit Oriented Development Policy Guidelines are intended to assist jurisdictions and neighborhoods adjacent to the State Street Corridor to plan and prepare for development of new, active places for people and support efficient transit with high ridership. Concentrated site-specific plans and implementation of transit supportive development will improve the function and introduce a new form and design to a corridor in need of revitalization.
NE-14
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | NORTHWEST
Northwest Planning Area
Location and Context The Northwest Planning Area (“Northwest”) extends from north of the Boise River and State Street to Hill Road, and west from 36th Street to Horseshoe Bend Road along the State Street Corridor. State Street is the most recognized local feature of the Northwest. Only two river crossings, Glenwood Street and Veterans Memorial Parkway, enable north/south travel and State Street serves as a major east/west commuter corridor.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Land use in the Northwest is principally residential with strip commercial along the arterials. Remnants of rural larger lot residential land with pastures and small scale urban farms remain. The Northwest also includes a major recreation park, Optimist Park. The extension of public sewer has resulted in subdivision development between Gary Lane and Bogart Lane. In the Collister neighborhood, infill has occurred through combination of small lot development and some subdivisions.
NW-1
NORTHWEST | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Demographic Profile Population Population: In 2010, the population of the Northwest was 14,405. Median Age: Northwest residents are slightly older (35.7) than Boise residents overall. Housing Total Households: In 2010, the Northwest was home to 6,253 households. This accounts for 6.6 percent of Boise households.
TRENDS AND KEY ISSUES Utilities
Household Composition: The Northwest is somewhat more affordable for young families and seniors, who make up higher percentages of Northwest population than of all Boise. For example, 26.9 percent of Northwest residents fall under the age of 20.
The Northwest has sewer service available, but some pockets in the far northwest do not have sewer service,; however, there are current plans for extensions.
Median Home Value: Median home value in the Northwest is slightly lower ($192,512) than in Boise as a whole.
Floodplains are located along the Boise River within the Northwest.
Income Median Household Income: In 2009, median household income for the Northwest residents was $66,607.
Transportation
Tenancy: Most Northwest residents own their homes (71.4%). Northwest renters represent 26.9 percent of all households.
More than half of Northwest workers commute to jobs elsewhere in the community. The average commute time for a Northwest worker in 2000 was 19.5 minutes.
Employment Jobs: Just over two percent (3,306) of Boise jobs are located in the Northwest.
State Street is the major transportation corridor in the Northwest carrying through traffic from the Foothills, Eagle, and areas west. A bus rapid transit route is planned along State Street. The Northwest is currently served by public bus route #9 and #10.
Land Use Characteristics
Development in the northwest areas of Ada County and the City of Eagle has resulted in increased travel along Hill Road and State Street. Both of these corridors currently operate at Level of Service F during the peak hour.
Development Constraints There are remnant pastures in the Northwest planning area that could be preserved for their small scale urban agricultural characteristics.
NW-2
Workforce: Northwest workers represent 6.7 percent of the Boise workforce.
Existing Land Use The Northwest is the city’s second smallest planning area. It contains 2,286 acres, making up almost 3.5 percent of Boise’s total acreage. Single-family residential uses occupy just over 60 percent of the Northwest (1397 acres.) Multi-family residential uses occupy just 4 percent of the land area (92 acres). Most of the multi-family residential uses are proximate to the State Street corridor. Approximately 10 percent of the land within the Northwest (228.6 acres) is currently vacant. The Northwest Planning Area is home to the Collister Library! There are remnant pasture lands and parks that each occupy 7 percent of the land within the Northwest at 166 acres and 160 acres, respectively. Commercial, office, and industrial uses are limited within the Northwest, occupying 120 acres, 19 acres, and 4 acres, respectively. Combined, they occupy just 6 percent of the Northwest as a whole. Commercial and office developments are found along State Street. The Lake Harbor planned unit development on the south side of State Street is located in the Northwest.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | NORTHWEST Parks and Recreation The Northwest includes neighborhood parks and one large urban park, the 51 acre Optimist Youth Sports Complex. The park features sports fields, open play areas, public art, and a fishing pond. Residents in the Northwest have close access to outdoor recreation opportunities in the Boise Foothills.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
NW-3
NORTHWEST | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Schools There are five schools in the Northwest. In addition to the educational significance of these facilities, two of the Northwest’s schools are historically significant and contribute to the overall character of the neighborhood. Junior High Schools River Glen Junior High is located at the base of the foothills in the Northwest, on the west side of Gary Lane south of Hill Road. The school was dedicated as the eighth and newest junior high school of the Boise School District on September 18, 1998. Total enrollment is 753 students in grades 7th through 9th.
TRENDS AND KEY ISSUES Parks and Recreation The pond at the Optimist Youth Sports Complex is stocked with fish by the Idaho FGD, and can be enjoyed by youth on a catch and release basis. Recreational connections to the Foothills are important for Northwest residents. Access to the Foothills is provided by Seamans Gulch Road, Collister Road, Pierce Park Road, and 36th Street.
Elementary Schools Shadow Hills Elementary opened for students for the first time on August 11, 1997. It is located southeast of the intersection of Bogart Road and Hill Road Parkway and serves students from Kindergarten through Sixth grade. The total enrollment is 650 students.
Cynthia Mann Elementary is located on the south side of Castle Drive, approximately two miles east of Pierce Park Elementary. The school was opened in 1990 and is named for Cynthia Mann who was a pioneer teacher who taught in the Boise area for 40 years. Total enrollment is 585 students in grades Kindergarten through 6th.
Collister Elementary was built as a four room brick building in 1912 on land donated by Dr. George Collister. The school is located on Catalpa Drive, east of the intersection with Collister Drive. Total enrollment is 218 students in grades Kindergarten through 6th.
Pierce Park School stands today where it has since its opening, on the west side of Pierce Park Lane near the intersection with Castle Drive. The land was acquired from W. E. Pierce in 1911 for $1.00. The building was completed in October, 1911, with school beginning in early November. The conditions of the agreement stated that the land must be continuously used for a school, without one year’s lack of use. If the agreement was violated, the land reverted to the heirs of W. E. Pierce. The total enrollment is 221 students in grades Kindergarten through 6th.
Schools The Northwest has a higher proportion of school-age children than is found citywide. There are five schools in the Northwest: Shadow Hills Elementary, Cynthia Mann Elementary, Collister Elementary, Pierce Park School, and River Glen Junior High.
Sources: COMPASS Community Choice Growth Projections, August 2007. 2010 Census Data for Population and Households. COMPASS Development Monitoring Reports (2000-2007). ESRI Business Analyst Report, Northwest Planning Area (2009).
NW-4
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | NORTHWEST
Northwest Planning Area: Future Land Use Map
BLUEPRINT BOISE
NW-5
NORTHWEST | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
NORTHWEST POLICIES Centers, Corridors, and Neighborhoods (NW-CCN) Goals and policies for this section focus on promoting the revitalization of major travel corridors and activity centers; ensuring the scale of future infill and redevelopment is compatible with the Northwest’s varied character; and identifying areas where more detailed planning will be needed in the future. Goal NW-CCN1: Accommodate a range of uses and development characters to serve the Northwest. NW-CCN 1.1: ACTIVITY CENTERS Encourage mixed-use transit supportive densities in and around the intersections of activity centers located at:
Glenwood and State Street 36th and Hill Road Collister and State Street Horseshoe Bend Road / State Highway 44 (State St)
Additional activity centers may be designated in accordance with the location criteria provided in Chapter 5.
Façade and landscape enhancements were used to revamp this strip center on State Street. (d) Support the assemblage of smaller parcels to accommodate larger redevelopment opportunities where feasible. (e) Encourage a range of economic development opportunities from small scale retail to office uses that will complement existing services available on State Street. (f ) Implement the State Street Transit and Traffic Operational Plan and the State Street Corridor Transit Oriented Development Plan to achieve the land use, roadway and transit vision for the State Street Corridor.
Redevelopment along the State Street Corridor. NW-CCN 1.2: STATE STREET CORRIDOR (a) Designate areas along State Street as TransitOriented Development nodes consistent with the regional Long-Range Transportation Plan and the State Street Corridor Study.
NW-CCN 1.3 NEIGHBORHOODS A mix of housing types and lot sizes will be encouraged in the Northwest to maintain the area’s diverse character.
(b) Encourage pedestrian-oriented mixed use development along State Street where sufficient infrastructure exists or is planned. (c) Encourage the rehabilitation of existing strip centers through façade and landscape enhancement. NW-6
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | NORTHWEST
NORTHWEST POLICIES Connectivity (NW-C) Goals and policies for connectivity focus on identifying and implementing improvements that will enhance the ease and safety of multi-modal travel in the Northwest. Goal NW-C1: Continue to enhance bicycle and pedestrian connectivity throughout the Northwest. NW-C 1.1: NORTH/SOUTH TRAIL CONNECTION Link the Foothills with the Boise River by creating a north/south pedestrian/bike path in the Northwest between Bogart Lane and Highway 55. NW-C 1.2: BIKE/PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Promote safe and efficient pedestrian circulation throughout the Northwest with particular emphasis on bike/pedestrian facilities connecting surrounding areas to State Street. NW-C 1.3: PEDESTRIAN/ VEHICULAR CONNECTIONS Ensure new commercial and residential developments provide connections to adjacent properties to promote movement between neighborhoods.
Goal NW-C2: Facilitate the expansion of transit facilities. NW-C 2.1: INTEGRATION OF TRANSIT FACILITIES Integrate current and future transit service into the layout of new development along major corridors and near activity centers. NW-C 2.2: STATE AND GLENWOOD STREET ACTIVITY CENTER Integrate mass transit facilities with the opportunity for future expansion into the activity center at State Street and Glenwood Street.
Goal NW-C3: Maintain the efficiency of the Northwest’s roadway network. NW-C 3.1: ON-STREET PARKING STANDARDS Maintain on-street parking in the Northwest. NW-C 3.2: STATE STREET ACCESS Limit direct lot access for new development without encouraging increased traffic on side streets. NW-C 3.3: STREET CLASSIFICATIONS Discourage upgrading of local streets and collectors to higher classifications to accommodate development in the Foothills.
Improving bicycle and pedestrian connectivity should be an important consideration for future development in the Northwest.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
NW-7
NORTHWEST | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
NORTHWEST POLICIES Public Services/Facilities (NW-PSF) Goals and policies for this section focus on identifying areas where investment in infrastructure are needed in the Northwest to implement the community’s vision. Goal NW-PSF1: Maintain existing public facilities and services and expand as needed to serve existing and future Northwest residents. NW-PSF 1.1: FIRE STATIONS Update the Fire Station Siting Plan when new station sites are identified. Continue cooperative efforts with the North Ada County Fire District to provide mutual aid in the Northwest
NW-8
NW-PSF 1.2: NEW PUBLIC SERVICES Locate new public facilities and services in activity centers, in proximity to transit. NW-PSF 1.3: TRANSIT STOPS Support the improvement of existing transit stops. Ensure all transit stops are connected to sidewalks or other pedestrian facilities.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | NORTHWEST
NORTHWEST POLICIES Neighborhood Character (NW-NC) Goals and policies for neighborhood character focus on attributes and activities that contribute to the overall character and livability of the Northwest’s neighborhoods, including open space and recreation, public art, and historic and design review areas. Goal NW-NC1: Maintain and enhance the livability of the Northwest. NW-NC 1.1: PARK FACILITIES Emphasize the development of public park facilities and preservation of existing facilities. NW-NC 1.2: PUBLIC RECREATION FACILITIES Provide connectivity to recreation facilities from new development and redeveloping sites within the Northwest.
Rural character of the Sycamore area. NW-NC 1.4: SYCAMORE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN Retain the rural character of the Sycamore area through the implementation of the Sycamore Neighborhood Plan.
Pockets of agricultural land, such as this community garden, are found throughout the Northwest. NW-NC 1.3: URBAN AGRICULTURAL LANDS Support the retention of urban agricultural lands and activities in the Northwest.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
NW-NC 1.5: NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING Work with residents to develop a neighborhood plan for the northwest corner of the Northwest Utahna/ Bogart Lane area to identify an appropriate mix of land uses and bike and pedestrian connections. NW-NC 1.6: NORTH WEST NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN Recognize the North West Neighborhood Plan as the vision for growth and development in the North West Neighborhood. The Plan emphasizes the imperative to consider and retain open space and the natural environment as fundamental to the strength, shape, and context of the neighborhood, and to retain the cultural context of the Northwest area by identifying, preserving, and commemorating local history, natural assets, and heritage. The North West Plan identifies five goals, along with strategies and actions, to further the Neighborhood Vision and lists desired characteristics and features for new development or redevelopment.
NW-9
NORTHWEST | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
NORTHWEST POLICIES Related Planning Documents There are three Neighborhood Plans and two corridor plans prepared for portions of the Northwest. This plan, along with Blueprint Boise, will help guide future development in the Northwest. North West Neighborhood Plan (2020) The North West Neighborhood Plan culminates a 13-month public planning effort to create a plan addressing current and future growth and the design of that growth in the North West Neighborhood. The Plan’s actions center on maintaining open space, trails and aspects of the neighborhood’s agricultural heritage as change and development occur. Retaining the cultural context of the neighborhood is a strong component of the Plan. The North West Neighborhood Plan presents principles to promote building and site design that fit into the context of the neighborhood and the Plan emphasizes the importance of retaining neighborhood characteristics that make it a desirable place to live. The Plan supports Transit Oriented Development along the State Street Corridor with design features and connectivity that complement the structure and fabric of adjacent neighborhoods.
Collister Neighborhood Plan (2007) The Collister Neighborhood Association is bound on the north by the Boise City Impact Area boundary, on the east by 36th Street, on the west by Pierce Park Lane north to Seaman’s Gulch and on the south by State Street. Portions of Collister are located in the Northwest, while the majority is in Foothills. The Collister Neighborhood Plan establishes a vision and goals to guide new development in the area and provide a basis for determining development review decisions. The eight main goals of the plan relate to provision and use of utilities, the natural environment, open space and recreation facilities, mobility and transportation, quality of life, youth, social and economic health and sustainability, commercial development, and alternative transportation networks.
NW-10
State Street Corridor Transit Oriented Development Plan (2019) The State Street Corridor Transit Oriented Development Plan provides analysis, background and recommendations for the expansion of Valley Regional Transit service to include bus rapid transit on the State Street/SH 44 corridor, and design sketches, policy and zoning recommendations for four TOD transit stations on State Street at Whitewater Park Boulevard, Collister Road, Gary Lane/Glenwood Streets, and Horseshoe Bend Road. The State Street TOD Plan offers a guideline for developers, investors, residents, policy makers and the City team to understand and implement the vision of mixed-use, high quality development necessary to achieve high capacity transit, and to assist the region in addressing transportation, housing, and employment challenges on the State Street corridor. Designs for transit stations and development types at each TOD node translate the transit corridor vision into graphics easily understandable to stakeholders and the general public.
State Street Transit and Traffic Operational Plan (2011) The State Street Transit and Traffic Operational Plan details the near, medium-and-long-term improvements to achieve the high capacity transit vision on State Street.
Sycamore Neighborhood Plan (1998) The Sycamore neighborhood is bounded by Sycamore Street to the west, Catalpa Drive to the north, Taft Street to the south, and the lots on the east side of Tamarack Drive. The area originally developed in the 1940’s into large lots to allow room for large gardens. The area still retains agricultural land uses and is subject to a zoning overlay district to protect its unique character.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | SOUTHEAST
Southeast Planning Area
Location and Context The Southeast Planning Area (“Southeast”) has a great degree of diversity in land use and intensity. The Southeast ranges from urban in the northwest to low rural densities in the south. The Southeast is home to Micron Industries and Albertsons/Supervalue Inc., two of Boise’s largest private employers. The Boise Avenue corridor, portions of which are the original Oregon Trail, runs through the Southeast.
apartments and smaller single-family residences. Older parts of the Southeast have received intense infill development and gentrification in recent years. Neighborhoods in the Southeast vary, from the former townsite of Barber, now a mobile home park, to the new infill development at Bown Crossing, to planned developments on the outskirts of Boise, such as Surprise Valley and Harris Ranch.
Neighborhoods in the northwest portion of the Southeast are higher density, with multi-family
BLUEPRINT BOISE
SE-1
SOUTHEAST | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Demographic Profile Population Population: In 2010, the population of the Southeast was 32,656. Median Age: Southeast residents are slightly younger (32.4) than Boise residents as a whole.
TRENDS AND KEY ISSUES Employment Southeast jobs are projected to increase by more than thirty percent by 2025, increasing from 21,707 in 2007 to 28,350 in 2025. Several of Boise’s largest employers are located in Southeast including Albertson’s and Micron.
Housing Housing in the Southeast is consists primarily of detached single-family homes.
Development and Infill Potential In recent years, both greenfield and infill development has occurred in the Southeast.
Schools There are seven schools in the Southeast: one high school, two junior high schools, six elementary schools, and one K-12 international school.
Housing Total Households: In 2010, the Southeast was home to 15,500 households. This accounts for over 14.8 percent of the households in Boise. Household Composition: Almost the same proportion of families with children resides in the Southeast as in Boise overall, with 26.9 percent including residents under the age of 20 in the Southeast. Median Home Value: Median home value in the Southeast ($226,745) is 3.3 percent higher than in Boise as a whole. Tenancy: Most Southeast residents own their homes (60.2 %). Southeast renters represent just 34 percent of all households, similar to Boise households as a whole. Income Median Household Income: In 2007, median household income for Southeast residents was $62,386. Employment Jobs: About 14 percent of Boise jobs are located in the Southeast. Workforce: Southeast workers represent 15.8 percent of the Boise workforce. Employers: Several of Boise’s largest employers are located in the Southeast, including Albertsons and Micron Industries.
Land Use Characteristics Existing Land Use
SE-2
The Southeast contains 4,036 acres, making up almost six percent of Boise’s total acres.
Single-family residential accounts for 22 percent of the land within the Southeast—occupying 890 acres.
Multi-family residential uses are limited within the Southeast occupying just 98 acres (two percent.)
Agricultural lands account for 41.4 percent (1,673 acres), while parks, recreation and open space lands account for 6.3 percent (258 acres.)
Sixteen percent (654 acres) of the land in the Southeast is vacant.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | SOUTHEAST
Parks and Recreation The recreational amenities of the Boise River, including parks and greenbelt trail, are one of the strong assets of the Southeast. The Boise River Greenbelt Path runs almost the entire length of the planning area. The Southeast is also home to the State of Idaho Parks and Recreation Headquarters as well as diverse city parks and recreation facilities, including the:
Oregon Trail Historic Reserve;
Barber Park;
Ivywild Park;
Terry Day Park;
Manitou Park;
Baggley Park;
Lowder Park; and
Simplot Sports Complex, a 161-acre large special use area with a wide arrangement of sports fields; featuring several little league fields and soccer fields.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
SE-3
SOUTHEAST | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Schools There are seven public K-12 schools in the Southeast. In addition to the educational significance of these facilities, several schools in the Southeast are historically significant and contribute to the overall character of the neighborhood. High Schools ■ Timberline High School is located on the corner of E. Boise Avenue and S. Apple Street. It is a three year comprehensive public senior high school with an enrollment of approximately 1150 students and a faculty of 65 teachers. It opened in August of 1998. Junior High Schools ■ Les Bois Junior High School is located on the north side of E. Grand Forest Drive between S. Snapdragon Place and S. Sweet Gum Way. Les Bois Junior High School has a total enrollment of 827 students. Elementary Schools ■ Garfield Elementary School is located at the southeast corner of Broadway Avenue and W. Boise Avenue. Garfield School was part of a separate independent school district until 1910, when it was annexed into the Boise District. The original building, which stood at the northeast corner of Boise Avenue and Broadway (currently the site of a car wash), was replaced in 1927 by a new structure across Boise Avenue. The new school housed grades 1-8 in eight classrooms. Growth in southeast Boise in the 1940’s made it necessary to add on to the school. Today Garfield serves approximately 550 students in grades K through 6. ■
Liberty Elementary School is located north of E. Bergeson Street and east of S. Law Drive on the south side of Centennial Park. Liberty Elementary School has an enrollment of 492 students. On March 12, 2007 the Boise School District Board approved a pilot public Montessori program to be located at Liberty Elementary School. The District opened one lower elementary (6-8 yrs/1st-2nd grade) classroom in the fall 2007 for the 2007-08 school year. In the fall of 2008, two Lower Elementary Classrooms (6-9 years/Grades 1-3) were in session. In the fall of 2009, an upper elementary class (10-12 years/4th-6th grade) will open.
■
Riverside Elementary School is located at the eastern terminus of E. Victory Road on the south side of E. Parkcenter Boulevard west of S. Bown Way. Riverside began the 1992-93 school year with over 800 students. Current enrollment is around 600. Successive years found Riverside at capacity and relying on neighborhood schools to facilitate any additional students. The passage of a bond issue in 1996 provided much-needed relief from overcrowding at Riverside and other southeast elementary schools. On Riverside’s front yard, visitors can see the Bown House, built in 1879. Riverside School enjoys a unique relationship with the Bown House which is a living museum dedicated to preserving our heritage for Idaho’s children. Riverside is the only school in Idaho to have a site of this nature on its school grounds where fourth grade students from around the valley are invited to visit during the school year.
■
Trail Wind Elementary School is located on the south side of E. Lake Forest Dr. west of S. Adonis Place. At 47,000 square feet, this facility accommodates approximately 680 students in 20 classrooms for grades K-6. The school features a wide variety of multi-media equipment, such as a central network connecting all classrooms, multiple computer terminals in each classroom, tack boards, liquid chalk board systems, and built-in cable-wired TV/VCR units. The school was built with masonry and sloped roofs for energy efficiency and low maintenance. As the number of students increased, the school implemented a second-phase plan. This provided a wing, adding six classrooms to accommodate an additional 200 students.
■
White Pine Elementary School is located on the south side of E. Linden Street east of E. Boise Avenue. Construction began on the school in June of 1989. White Pine Elementary opened for the 1990-91 school year. As part of the plan for constructing White Pine, Campus School, located on the grounds of Boise State University, was closed and sold to the University. Many teachers from Campus were transferred to White Pine, along with others from around the District.
Sources: COMPASS Community Choice Growth Projections, August 2007. 2010 Census Data for Population and Households. COMPASS Development Monitoring Reports (2000-2007). ESRI Business Analyst Report, Northwest Planning Area (2009).
SE-4
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | SOUTHEAST
Southeast Planning Area: Future Land Use Map
BLUEPRINT BOISE
SE-5
SOUTHEAST | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
SOUTHEAST POLICIES Centers, Corridors, and Neighborhoods (SE-CCN) Goals and policies for this section focus on promoting the revitalization of major travel corridors and activity centers; ensuring the scale of future infill and redevelopment is compatible with Southeast’s varied character; and identifying areas where more detailed planning will be needed in the future. Goal SE-CCN 1: Provide a range of commercial and employment options within Southeast. SE-CCN 1.1: DESIGNATED ACTIVITY CENTERS Six mixed-use activity centers have been designated to serve the Southeast and to promote the availability of local services within walking distance of residential neighborhoods. They include:
Broadway Avenue and Boise Avenue;
Boise Avenue and Apple;
Boise Avenue and Norfolk;
Boise Avenue and Eckert;
Federal Way and Gowen (Micron).
Additional activity centers may be designated in accordance with the location criteria provided in Chapter 3.
SE-CCN 1.3: FEDERAL WAY INDUSTRIAL AREA Protect the Federal Way industrial area for heavy industrial uses. Ensure adequate water availability for large industrial uses. SE-CCN 1.4: BROADWAY/BOISE ACTIVITY CENTER (a) Explore opportunities to develop the intersection of Boise Avenue and Broadway Avenue as a mixed-use community center through a more detailed planning effort. (b) Evaluate traffic calming tools and techniques to encourage pedestrian and cyclist movement as part of planned development. SE-CCN 1.5: FEDERAL WAY CORRIDOR Establish Federal Way between Bryson and Overland as a higher-intensity mixed-use area.
High-density housing is encouraged within designated activity centers and in the vicinity of the Park Center office park area. Bown Crossing’s mix of shops and restaurants serve ”walk up” traffic as well as patrons who travel from other areas of the community. SE-CCN 1.2: HIGH-TECH EXPANSION Reserve the area surrounding current Micron facilities for future high-tech industrial expansion.
SE-6
SE-CCN 1.6: HIGH DENSITY HOUSING Permit affordable and high-density housing development in the Park Center office park area, provided that appropriate site designs are used to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | SOUTHEAST
Goal SE-CCN 2: Provide opportunities for future expansion. SE-CCN 2.1: AREA OF CITY IMPACT BOUNDARY Coordinate with Ada County regarding the expansion of the AOCI boundary south of the Columbia area into the area surrounding the Isaac Canyon interchange.
Encourage water efficient/xeriscape landscape plans.
Attainment of the maximum unit count for Columbia shall be contingent on adequate water sources.
The City will develop a connectivity index for all new development in the East Columbia area to ensure connected roadways and pathways in the area.
Higher residential densities are envisioned adjacent to Micron and other activity areas as part of the East Columbia area. SE-CCN 2.2: EAST COLUMBIA AREA Develop the East Columbia area according to the following principles:
A master plan that demonstrates adherence to the principles outlined below shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval prior to further entitlement in the East Columbia area. Incentives to achieve New Urbanism designs shall be considered as part of the Master Plan.
Developed density is envisioned not to exceed 4 units per gross acre.
Encourage higher residential densities adjacent to the Micron Tech Park and other activity areas.
Identify appropriate locations for neighborhoodand community serving commercial uses, schools, fire stations and parks.
Adhere to land-use restrictions of the Airport Impact Area.
Adhere to Groundwater restrictions of the Southeast Groundwater Management Area.
Improve South Technology Way and East Columbia Road with bike lanes.
Plan an arterial road network in this area.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
SE-7
SOUTHEAST | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
SOUTHEAST POLICIES Connectivity (SE-C) Goals and policies for connectivity focus on identifying and implementing improvements that will enhance the ease and safety of multi-modal travel in the Southeast. Goal SE-C1: Improve multi-modal access to and within the Southeast.
Opportunities to use easements as a means of expanding pedestrian and bike connections in the Southeast should be explored. SE-C 1.1: TRAIL CORRIDORS Pursue the use of canal easements, abandoned rail lines, and utility easements as pedestrian and bike trails within the Southeast. Ensure preservation of the Oregon Trail through new development in the East Columbia District.
SE-8
SE-C 1.2: EXPANDED TRANSIT SERVICE Explore opportunities to provide transit service to the Micron facility and other activity centers in the Southeast
Expanding commuting options to major employers such as Micron is an important consideration for the Southeast.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | SOUTHEAST
SOUTHEAST POLICIES Public Services/Facilities (SE-PSF) Goals and policies for this section focus on identifying areas where investment in infrastructure are needed in the Southeast to implement the community’s vision. Goal SE-PSF1: Upgrade infrastructure to support future infill and redevelopment. SE-PSF 1.1: PRIORITY AREAS As opportunities arise, focus street, sidewalk, and other basic infrastructure improvements in locations where reinvestment in established infrastructure or significant new development/redevelopment are anticipated as identified on the Areas of Change and Stability map for the Southeast contained in Appendix C. Place the highest priority on improvements in the following locations:
South Boise Village neighborhood;
Broadway Avenue and Boise Avenue activity center; and
Broadway Avenue Corridor.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
SE-9
SOUTHEAST | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
SOUTHEAST POLICIES Neighborhood Character (SE-NC) Goals and policies for neighborhood character focus on attributes and activities that contribute to the overall character and livability of the Southeast’s neighborhoods, including parks, open space, recreation, public art, and historic areas. Goal SE-NC 1: Reinforce the role of the Southeast as a gateway to Downtown and the community as a whole.
SE-NC 2.2: AMITY ROAD Encourage small-lot, single-family development on the north side of Amity Road.
SE-NC 1.1: BROADWAY GATEWAY Establish Broadway Avenue as a gateway with special design considerations for new development while preserving older historic buildings.
SE-NC 2.3: BROADWAY AVENUE CORRIDOR (a) Encourage residential and mixed use development along the Broadway Avenue corridor.
SE-NC 1.2: GOWEN INTERCHANGE Explore opportunities to enhance the appearance of the area surrounding the Gowen Interchange as future development occurs.
Goal SE-NC 2: Protect and enhance the character of the Southeast’s established neighborhoods.
The Bown School, one of several notable historic structures found in the Southeast.
(b) Provide clear connections between the local street interface and uses fronting Broadway Avenue. SE-NC 2.4: BSU AREA NEIGHBORHOODS Preserve existing single-family neighborhoods, where possible, south of BSU (north of Boise Avenue, south of Beacon Street between Capitol Boulevard and Broadway Avenue).
Existing single-family neighborhoods south of BSU should be maintained where possible.
SE-NC 2.1: SOUTH BOISE VILLAGE Explore the opportunity to create a conservation district within the South Boise Village to preserve the historic character of the area.
SE-10
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | SOUTHEAST
SOUTHEAST POLICIES Related Planning Documents There have been a number of plans and studies prepared for Southeast. These plans, along with Blueprint Boise, will help guide future development in the Southeast. Ada County Highway District Southeast Boise Neighborhood Walking and Biking Plan (2013) The Southeast Walking and Biking Plan identifies future pedestrian and bicycle projects to promote safe, effective and convenient walking and biking facilities for residents and visitors. The Plan provides a list of prioritized bike and pedestrian projects developed through ACHD’s outreach efforts and assists City neighborhoods and the City team in annually recommending their highest priority bike and pedestrian projects for consideration in the ACHD Five-Year Work Plan.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Original South Boise Neighborhood Plan (2003) The Original South Boise Neighborhood is 33 blocks bounded by Beacon Street, Broadway, and Boise Avenues. It is within walking distance of downtown Boise, the Greenbelt, Parkcenter, and BSU. The neighborhood includes a variety of housing types, offices, restaurants and retail businesses which were developed beginning in the 1890s. The plan is intended to provide a design framework for compatible future development that preserves the historic character of this neighborhood, and provides for new amenities, such as a neighborhood micropark and sidewalks. The plan also aims to beautify the neighborhood with trees, gardens and public art and instill a sense of pride of place.
SE-11
SOUTHEAST | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Bown Crossing has grown and created an activity center that is a prime example of desirable mixed use design principles in this plan.
SE-12
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | SOUTHWEST
Southwest Planning Area
Location and Context The Southwest Planning Area (“Southwest”) includes both low-density rural development and more intense urban development patterns near Cole Road and I-84. The older residential subdivisions were developed in the 1960’s and 1970’s when the Southwest was in rural Ada County. In the early 1980’s the Southwest experienced widespread failures of septic systems, and Ada County asked Boise City to extend the municipal sewer system into the area. The area was then included in the AOCI, and annexations have occurred over the past 20 years.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
The Southwest contains predominantly single family residential land uses, however the northern portion of the Southwest consists of many commercial, retail and industrial uses. Recently, several large planned developments have been approved that will include a mix of uses at commercial nodes. Roadway demand exceeds capacity in several of the key transportation corridors in the Southwest; this issue is expected to worsen with further development.
SW-1
SOUTHWEST | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Demographic Profile Population Population: In 2010 the population of the Southwest was 38,130, 13.5% of the city total. Median Age: Southwest residents are older (36.5 years) than Boise residents as a whole.
TRENDS AND KEY ISSUES Employment There are more workers living in the Southwest than there are jobs located in the Southwest.
Land Composition The Southwest contains a wide variety of land uses including: single family residential, commercial and industrial, and agriculture/grazing uses, however a lack of transit exists in the area. It is the City’s intention to focus development in designated activity centers particularly in disinvested areas.
Parks and Recreation Peppermint Park features many amenities including turf areas, trees, open space, and walking paths. The park was funded through the use of neighborhood impact fees.
Housing Total Households: In 2010, the Southwest was home to 113,764 households. This accounts for 11.6 percent of the households in Boise. Household Composition: More families with children reside in the Southwest, with 29.5 percent of residents falling under the age of 20. Median Home Value: Median home value in the Southwest ($212,395) is 9.2 percent higher than in Boise as a whole. Tenancy: Most Southwest residents own their homes (85.6 %). Southwest renters represent just 10.8 percent of all households. Income Median Household Income: Median Household Income: In 2009, median household income for Southwest residents was $75,223. Employment Jobs: There were 11,369 jobs in the Southwest in 2007 comprising 7.5 percent of Boise jobs. Workforce: Southwest workers represent 14.0 percent of the Boise workforce.
Land Use Characteristics
Annexation in the Southwest
Existing Land Use
The Boise City Sewer Extension Policy reads in part;
The Southwest is the fourth-largest planning area. It contains 7,166 acres—just over 16 percent of Boise’s total acres.
For any development, prior to granting final sewer construction plan approval, the City will require the following: Within the Area of Impact-A recommendation of approval by Boise City Council and confirmation of the County adopting the Boise City Council’s recommended conditions of approval for any development.
The Southwest has the most acres in single family residential use (4,846 acres), occupying 67.6 percent of the Southwest.
Agriculture/grazing uses occupy 11 percent (835 acres) of the Southwest.
Commercial (267 acres) and industrial (73 acres) uses represent a small percent of the Southwest, but comprise 11.7 and 6 percent, respectively, of all such acres in Boise.
Other land uses include airport (267 acres), public/semi-public (264 acres), and parks, recreation and open space (258 acres); each occupying nearly 4 percent of the Southwest.
All new subdivisions in the Southwest are required to include a plat note requesting annexation to Boise City.
SW-2
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | SOUTHWEST
Parks and Recreation There are six parks in the Southwest, many of which are undeveloped. The largest is the 158-acre Murgoitio site, which is planned to be developed with ball fields, equestrian areas, water features, and picnic areas as funds become available upon annexation into the city limits. Development of these parks will be funded through Park Impact Fees assessed on new residential development in the area. Peppermint Park, a seven-acre park adjacent to Pepper Ridge Elementary School celebrated Phase I development in October 2006. Phase I improvements included site grading, installation of concrete pathways, utility extensions, topsoil, grass, trees and trash receptacles.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
SW-3
SOUTHWEST | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Schools There are ten schools located in the Southwest:. High Schools Frank Church High School is an alternative high school that began classes in 2008. The purpose of the Frank Church High School is to assist students who have dropped out or are at risk of dropping out of traditional school in graduating from high school. Junior High Schools
TRENDS AND KEY ISSUES Schools There are ten schools located in the Southwest. Elementary schools include: Pepper Ridge, Maple Grove, Amity, Silver Sage, Lake Hazel, Silver Sage, and Christine Donnell School of the Arts. The two junior high schools located in the Southwest are Lake Hazel and West Junior High schools. Frank Church is the only high school located in the Southwest.
West Junior High School was constructed in 1952-53 at the intersection of Curtis Road and Emerald Road and had several additions throughout the years in an effort accommodate expanding enrollment numbers. In the fall of 2008, West moved from the location at Curtis and Emerald to its new location behind the district offices off of Victory Road and has an enrollment of 783 students. Lake Hazel Middle School is located at the intersection of LaGrange and Valley and has 1035 students in attendance. Elementary Schools Pepper Ridge Elementary School is located near the intersection of Cloverdale and Overland roads. Pepper Ridge elementary school was opened in the fall of 2004, adjacent to Peppermint Park and has a total enrollment of 638 students. Maple Grove Elementary School is located just north of Victory on Maple Grove Road. The original Maple Grove Schoolhouse sat on the southeast corner of Franklin and Maple Grove Roads and was abandoned by the District in the late 1940’s. In 1968 the new Maple Grove School was constructed and was planned for twelve classrooms but the area grew so rapidly that seven more classrooms were added. In 1973 an additional six classrooms were added. The school has a total enrollment of 560. Amity Elementary School opened in 1979 as a model for school construction nationwide because of the use of solar energy and earth cover. The school’s design won several awards for its energy saving, efficient design. 673 students attend Amity Elementary and it is located on Amity Road between South Five Mile Road and Cloverdale Road. Silver Sage Elementary School is located on West Snohomish Street west of Cole Road. Silver Sage is a neighborhood school that is committed to academic growth for each of its 325 students. Lake Hazel Elementary School is located on Lake Hazel Road east of Cloverdale Road. Lake Hazel Elementary School was built in 1974 and is located within the Meridian School District boundaries and has an enrollment of 464 students. Desert Sage Elementary School is located within the Charter Pointe Community south of Lake Hazel Road. It opened at the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year. This school has a capacity of 650 students and has 711
SW-4
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | SOUTHWEST students enrolled at this time. Christine Donnell School of Arts is the first magnet school and first art-based elementary school in the State of Idaho. It is located on Five Mile Road, south of Lake Hazel Road. Starting in 2004, 364 students from five traditional elementary schools chose to attend the school. Today the school is home to 462 students in grades K through 8 and the student body is selected by lottery rather than by any admission criteria. Sources: COMPASS Community Choice Growth Projections, August 2007. 2010 Census Data for Population and Households. COMPASS Development Monitoring Reports (2000-2007). ESRI Business Analyst Report, Southwest Planning Area (2009).
BLUEPRINT BOISE
SW-5
SOUTHWEST | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Southwest Planning Area: Future Land Use Map
SW-6
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | SOUTHWEST
SOUTHWEST POLICIES Centers, Corridors, and Neighborhoods (SW-CCN) Goals and policies for this section focus on promoting the revitalization of major travel corridors and activity centers; ensuring the scale of development is compatible with the Southwest’s varied character; and identifying areas where more detailed planning will be needed in the future. Goal SW-CCN 1: Promote a diverse land use pattern that increases opportunities for housing and community and neighborhood services while retaining the distinctive rural elements of the Southwest. SW-CCN 1.1: DESIGNATED ACTIVITY CENTERS Five mixed-use activity centers have been designated to serve the Southwest. They include:
Overland and Five Mile;
Victory and Five Mile;
Lake Hazel and Five Mile;
Lake Hazel and Maple Grove; and
I-84 and Overland.
Additional activity centers may be designated in accordance with the location criteria provided in Chapter 5.
as commercial or mixed-use on the Land Use Map, within designated activity centers, and in the Reserve Planned Community. SW-CCN 1.3: CLUSTERING (a) Encourage residential development to cluster at higher densities to increase opportunities to preserve open space. (b) Concentrate open space resulting from clustering along creeks, drainage swales, and canals where appropriate. (c) Ensure development clusters are set back from creeks and drainage swales. (d) Provide public trails along creeks, drainage swales, and canals where appropriate. SW-CCN 1.4: NORTH OVERLAND AREA (a) Encourage a combination of multifamily, townhouse and single-family housing types on the north side of Overland Road, between Maple Grove and Five Mile Roads. (b) Support office and neighborhood commercial uses that are planned and developed in conjunction with residential development. Manage vehicular access to Overland Road for such nonresidential uses.
Existing activity centers in the Southwest today are low in density and largely oriented to retail and commercial services; opportunities to intensify these areas over time should be explored. SW-CCN 1.2: COMMERCIAL/RETAIL Cluster new commercial uses to the areas designated
BLUEPRINT BOISE
SW-CCN 1.5: MAPLE GROVE/COLE ROAD AREA (a) Limit industrial development in the area between Maple Grove and Cole Roads to light manufacturing and similar uses such as multitenant office development. Prohibit trucking operations and other heavier industries in this location. (b) Office development on the east side of Maple Grove Road, between Victory and Targee Roads should be of a low rise design and should only include those retail uses that are clearly oriented toward providing services for office workers.
SW-7
SOUTHWEST | PLANNING AREA POLICIES SW-CCN 1.6: AMITY ROAD AREA Cluster development in the area generally bounded by Amity, Maple Grove, Five Mile and Lake Hazel Roads, to preserve open space and provide setbacks from the Five Mile and Eight Mile Creeks. SW-CCN 1.7: NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVITY CENTER Establish a neighborhood activity center in the vicinity of Lake Hazel and Five Mile Roads. Mixed residential commercial, townhouses and modular-lot residential uses should be permitted in and around the urban village. Densities as high as 15 to 20 units per acre may be permitted in the village, but should transition to four units per gross acre abutting existing lowdensity residential areas. SW-CCN 1.8: ANNEXATION INFORMATION Provide property owners and residents with information on city zoning and other regulations upon annexation. SW-CCN 1.9: OVERLAND ROAD AND FIVE MILE ROAD CORRIDORS Encourage a more pedestrian-oriented development pattern along Overland and Five Mile Roads. SW-CCN 1.1O: AIRPORT INFLUENCE Ensure all development within the Airport Influence Area complies with noise standards for development as outlined in Chapter 3 of this Comprehensive Plan.
Goal SW-CCN 2: Support a pattern of coordinated development within the Reserve Planned Community Area. SW-CCN 2.1: CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN A conceptual master plan that demonstrates adherence to these principles should be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval prior to the first entitlement in The Reserve area. SW-CCN 2.2: BOUNDARY Define the Reserve Planned Community Area as an area generally bounded by the New York Canal and Cole Road on the west, Pleasant Valley on the east, and the extension of South Latigo Roads on the south.
SW-8
SW-CCN 2.3: MIX OF USES (a) Establish the Reserve as a mixed-use development with a range of residential housing types and densities, neighborhood commercial centers, and a business campus. (b) Appropriate locations for each use type are outlined in the policies below. SW-CCN 2.4: BUSINESS CAMPUS (a) Establish a business campus north of Lake Hazel Road extension that includes a mix of uses such as assembly, auto repair and service, fabrication, medical and dental laboratories and research facilities, wholesale, offices, self service storage and medical and professional offices. (b) Incorporate ancillary uses such as restaurants, health clubs, and child care and convenience centers within the business campus provided they are intended to primarily serve employees of the business park and the surrounding residential community. (c) Regional serving commercial uses should not be allowed. SW-CCN 2.5: LAKE HAZEL ROAD EXTENSION (AREA TO NORTH) Apply the following considerations to the area north of the Lake Hazel Road extension: (a) Provide safe access for school children to walk from the area north of Lake Hazel Road to a planned school located on the south side of the Lake Hazel Road extension. SW-CCN 2.6: LAKE HAZEL ROAD EXTENSION (AREA TO SOUTH) Apply the following considerations to commercial development in the area south of the Lake Hazel Road extension: (a) Establish two small pedestrian-oriented neighborhood commercial centers. (b) Develop neighborhood commercial centers and surrounding residential development as an urban village, utilizing New Urbanism principles to integrate the commercial center with the residential community and create a community gathering place.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | SOUTHWEST (c) Design buildings with a pedestrian scale and site them in proximity to the street frontage to convey a visual relationship to the street and provide for easy pedestrian access. (d) Provide connections between buildings and adjacent residential areas using common sidewalks, pedestrian areas, bicycle routes and secondary streets. Apply the following considerations to residential development in the area south of the Lake Hazel Road extension: (a) Incorporate a variety of residential housing types, densities, and price points, including: townhouses, row houses, multi-family or condominiums, small lot patio homes, accessory dwellings, live/work, and detached single family dwellings. Allow for live/work units and accessory dwelling units. (b) Encourage a mix of residential/commercial, live/work units, townhouses, condominiums, and/or multi-family along the south side of the Lake Hazel Road extension at a density of 10-20 units per acre. (c) Locate residential housing types such as townhouses, multi-family, and small lot patio or row homes around the school/park at densities ranging from 6-15 dwelling units per acre. (d) Include equestrian trails in the southernmost area where the density can drop to one to five units per acre. (e) Limit the overall developed density for the area south of the Lake Hazel Road extension to six dwelling units per gross acre. (f ) Connect residential areas using a system of pedestrian pathways, bike paths and interconnected streets.
SW-CCN 2.8: OPEN SPACE AND PATHWAY SYSTEM (a) Establish an open space and pathway system adjacent to the New York Canal and Eight Mile Creek. Dedicate these pathways to the City of Boise, if acceptable to the Parks and Recreation Department. (b) Encourage dual purpose drainage areas that provide usable open space and/or amenities. SW-CCN 2.9: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL/CITY PARK (a) Establish a site for the co-location of an elementary school and a new City Park south of the Lake Hazel extension, centered in the residential neighborhood on local, not collector, streets. (b) Provide street frontage on a minimum of two sides of the park. (c) Connect the park/school site to the pathway adjacent to the New York Canal. (d) Dedicate this pathway to the City of Boise, if acceptable to the Parks and Recreation Department. SW-CCN 2.10: AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREAS Development in the Reserve Planned Community area must adhere to the land-use restrictions of the Airport Influence Areas. SW-CCN 2.11: STREET NETWORK AND CAPACITY (a) Development adjacent to the Lake Hazel Road extension should include a back road system for vehicular access to limit access to the Lake Hazel Road extension. (b) Support the densities and intensities of use outlined in these policies contingent upon satisfactory street capacity as determined by future traffic analysis.
SW-CCN 2.7: PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY Encourage pedestrian activity through the use of detached sidewalks, reasonable block lengths and micro-paths. Discourage use of cul-de-sacs.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
SW-9
SOUTHWEST | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
SOUTHWEST POLICIES Connectivity (SW-C) Goals and policies for connectivity focus on identifying and implementing improvements that will enhance the ease and safety of multi-modal travel in the Southwest. Goal SW-C1: Improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and linkages.
GOAL SW-C2: Improve street system connectivity.
SW-C 1.1: LAKE HAZEL CONNECTION Extend Lake Hazel Road eastward as shown on the Lake Hazel/Gowen Relocation Alignment Study Report.
SW-C 2.1: COLLECTOR ROADS Develop new collector roads in accordance with the Master Streets map.
SW-C 1.2: INTERCONNECTED STREETS Particular attention should be paid to new development to ensure compatibility with existing development including street system interconnections.
SW-C 2.2: RESUBDIVISIONS & STREET CONNECTIONS Resubdivisions of existing large lots will provide new street connections as needed to improve connectivity throughout the Southwest
SW-C 1.3: PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS Improve pedestrian-connections across Five Mile Road and Lake Hazel Road. SW-C 1.4: PEDESTRIAN TRAILS (a) Expand the network of trails along canals and other open space corridors to connect neighborhoods, parks, and schools. (b) Encourage development to provide micropath connections to surrounding trails and roadways.
SW-10
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | SOUTHWEST
SOUTHWEST POLICIES Public Services/Facilities (SW-PSF) Goals and policies for this section focus on identifying areas where investment in infrastructure are needed in the Southwest to implement the community’s vision. Goal SW-PSF 1: Ensure public services and facilities are available upon annexation. SW-PSF 1.1: FIRE STATION SITING Implement the fire station siting plan in coordination with the Boise Fire Department. SW-PSF 1.2: SEWER EXPANSION The Boise City Sewer Extension Policy reads in part; For any development, prior to granting final sewer construction plan approval, the City will require the following: Within the Area of Impact-A recommendation of approval by Boise City Council and confirmation of the County adopting the Boise City Council’s recommended conditions of approval for any development. All new subdivisions in the Southwest are required to include a plat note requesting annexation to Boise City.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
SW-11
SOUTHWEST | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
SOUTHWEST POLICIES Neighborhood Character (SW-NC) Goals and policies for neighborhood character focus on attributes and activities that contribute to the overall semi-rural character and livability of the Southwest’s neighborhoods, including parks, open space, recreation, and public art. Goal SW-NC 1: Maintain and enhance the semi-rural character of the Southwest. SW-NC1.1: COMMUNITY GARDENS Encourage use of public parks and other open-space areas as community farms and gardens to preserve the rural and agricultural heritage of the Southwest. SW-NC1.2: URBAN AGRICULTURE Promote the continuation of existing agriculture in the Southwest and look for opportunities to expand urban agriculture in new developments. SW-NC1.3 SEMI-RURAL CHARACTER Open fencing and other design features shall be used to the greatest extent feasible to retain the semi-rural character of the Southwest.
SW-12
Large lot development and large tracts of agricultural give the Southwest a semi-rural character. SW-NC1.4: PARK DEVELOPMENT Support the development of Murgoitio and Pearl Jensen Parks upon annexation into Boise City
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | SOUTHWEST
SOUTHWEST POLICIES Related Planning Documents There have been a number of plans and studies prepared for Southwest. These plans, along with Blueprint Boise, will help guide future development in the Southwest. Ada County Highway District Southwest Boise Neighborhood Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2018) The Southwest Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan focuses on making bicycling and walking comfortable, efficient and convenient forms of transportation for residents and visitors in the Southwest area of the City. The Plan provides a list of prioritized bike and pedestrian projects developed through ACHD’s outreach efforts and assists City neighborhoods and the City team in annually recommending their highest priority bike and pedestrian projects for consideration in the ACHD Five-Year Work Plan
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Syringa Valley Specific Plan (SP-03) (2016) The Syringa Valley Specific Plan (Plan) will guide development in the Southwest Boise Reserve Planned Community area as designed in Blueprint Boise. The Plan covers approximately 551 acres within the Reserve Planned Community Area which is defined as generally bounded by the New York Canal (NY Canal) and S. Cole Road on the west, extension of S. Orchard Street on the east, the extension of W. Latigo Drive on the north, and W. Columbia Road on the south. The Plan centers on the extension of W. Lake Hazel Road from Cole Road over the NY Canal to the extension of S. Orchard Street. The Syringa Valley Specific Plan will guide mixed-use development over several decades; the development includes a range of housing types and densities, neighborhood commercial centers and a business campus.
SW-13
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | TEN MILE CREEK
Ten Mile Creek Planning Area
Location and Context The Ten Mile Creek Planning Area (“Ten Mile Creek area”) is located south of the current Boise AOCI, generally south of Columbia Road and traversing the lands between South Cloverdale Road and South Cole Road. The Ten Mile Creek area is largely undeveloped, is generally suited for urban development, and has been considered by Boise City for inclusion in a future AOCI expansion. Transportation and sewer planning efforts are underway. The future built environment can emulate desired principles of sustainability, transit-ready development, high quality urban design, and conservation of unique natural features. Developments will be
BLUEPRINT BOISE
required to prepare conceptual master plans prior to the approval of development entitlements to ensure that these principles are considered. This plan represents a high level overview of the Ten Mile Creek area, with an expectation that more detailed planning will occur with specific development proposals. The current southern and eastern boundaries of the Ten Mile Creek area may be expanded as Boise City further explores the need for additional urban capacity. Future subarea planning will include those elements agreed upon among Ada County and the other cities for AOCI expansion through the Blueprint for Good Growth Consortium.
TMC-1
TEN MILE CREEK | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
TRENDS AND KEY ISSUES
Population
Population
The Ten Mile Creek area’s population is the smallest of all the planning areas in Boise.
The Ten Mile Creek area is comprised of 78 households (2010 Census) with approximately 220 residents. These households are on 173.5 acres or 12 percent of the Ten Mile Creek area’s 1,436 acres.
The Ten Mile Creek area is comprised of portions of Census Block Groups 1 and COMPASS Traffic Analysis Zones; therefore it is difficult to derive accurate demographic analysis for the area.
There are only a few jobs in the Ten Mile Creek area, mostly in agriculture.
Land Use Characteristics The Ten Mile Creek area is currently under the zoning jurisdiction of Ada County.
Historic, Cultural and Natural Resources The Ten Mile Creek area is home to both natural and man made water bodies –the Ten Mile Creek and the New York Canal.
Land Use Characteristics
The Ten Mile Creek area encompasses 1,447 acres.
Current land uses include agriculture and rural residences. There are 502 acres in agricultural uses.
There is one 40-acre property owned by the BLM north of Vallejo Drive, but immediately to the south is approximately 900 acres owned by the BLM.
Ada County currently has zoning jurisdiction, and the properties are zoned Rural Residential which provides for 10-acre minimum lot size.
The Williams Gas Pipeline operates a natural gas pipeline within a 75-foot easement in the western half of the Ten Mile Creek area.
Transit This area is currently undeveloped. Future plans for this planning area will need to address planning for transit that is available within and outside of the planning area.
Land Ownership
A vast majority of the Ten Mile Creek area is controlled by two major development interests.
The four largest land holdings comprise 668 acres, or 47.5% of the total.
An additional small property along South Cloverdale Road and properties along the south side of the New York Canal west of Maple Grove Road are expected to continue as rural residences until urban services are provided
Historic, Cultural and Natural Resources
TMC-2
A prominent feature of the Ten Mile Creek area is the New York Canal, constructed in 1900. The canal bisects the planning area and will be a major consideration in designing a connected street system.
The E.V. Fountain House on South Cloverdale Road is the only historic site in the Ten Mile Creek area. Constructed in 1910, the house was listed in the 1989 Ada County Farmstead Survey and at the time was eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
The Ten Mile Creek and its associated floodplain on the western edge of the Ten Mile Creek area is the only natural waterway. As the area has historically been farmed, natural vegetation along the creek is limited.
The Ten Mile Creek area has a northwest topographic aspect, rising 50 feet in elevation from the northwest corner at Cloverdale and Columbia Roads to a high point east of Hubbard Road. Except for steep slopes associated with the banks of the New York Canal, slopes are generally between 0 and 8 percent throughout the Ten Mile Creek area. High desert natural features include sagebrush vegetation that provides cover and food for wildlife.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | TEN MILE CREEK
Soils are generally suited for urban development, and with proper site engineering, limits to urban development are few.
Roadways The existing street system consists of section line roads with limited connectivity due to the presence of the New York Canal. The north-south roadways include Cloverdale Road, Five Mile Road, and Maple Grove Road. Five Mile and Maple Grove Roads terminate north of the New York Canal, and future development to the south will need to fund new crossings. The ACHD adopted the Southwest Boise Transportation Plan that includes the Ten Mile Creek area. The plan depicts a collector system for the area and makes recommendations on arterial connections.
Public Facilities No public facilities are currently located in the Ten Mile Creek area. Development in the area will need to provide for schools, fire stations, parks and police coverage in accord with the standards in this Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the Kuna School District and the Meridian School District currently have jurisdiction within the Ten Mile Creek area, and provision of school facilities will require coordination to ensure their respective standards are achieved.
Sources: COMPASS Community Choice Growth Projections, August 2007. 2010 Census Data for Population and Households. COMPASS Development Monitoring Reports (2000-2007). ESRI Business Analyst Report, Ten Mile Creek Planning Area (2009).
BLUEPRINT BOISE
TMC-3
TEN MILE CREEK | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Ten Mile Creek Planning Area: Future Land Use Map
TMC-4
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | TEN MILE CREEK
TEN MILE CREEK POLICIES Centers, Corridors and Neighborhoods (TMC-CCN) Goals and policies for this section focus on coordination on the future development of the Ten Mile Creek area, defining activity centers to serve future growth, promoting a mix of housing types, and identifying areas where more detailed planning will be needed in the future. Goal TMC-CCN 1: Expand AOCI boundary to include the Ten Mile Creek area. TMC-CCN 1.1: REGIONAL COORDINATION Coordinate with Ada County on the expansion of the AOCI boundary to include the Ten Mile Creek area as a preferred area for future urban expansion. TMC-CCN 1.2: LAND CAPACITY MONITORING Monitor COMPASS growth forecasts and vacant land availability to determine sufficiency of the AOCI to accommodate new growth.
Goal TMC-CCN 2: Develop the Ten Mile Creek area as a cohesive, transit-supportive neighborhood. TMC-CCN 2.1: PLANNING REQUIREMENTS Lands within the Ten Mile Creek area are designated as Planned Community on the Land Use Map and require the approval of a master concept plan or specific plan prior to receiving development entitlements. TMC-CCN 2.2: MINIMUM DENSITIES (a) Require minimum gross densities of at least 8 dwelling units per acre near activity centers and potential transit stops within identified bus transit corridors to support the provision of efficient and convenient transit service. (b) Promote transit supportive densities and designs in mixed-use activity centers and in other areas along the corridors where stable neighborhoods or natural resources inhibit the compatible establishment of higher densities.
TMC-CCN 2.3: MASTER CONCEPT PLAN (a) Properties on the south side of Columbia Road, between Cloverdale Road and Five Mile Road, should be developed after the completion of a master concept plan depicting a combination of residential and neighborhood commercial uses and limited access to Columbia Road, Hubbard Road, Cloverdale Road and other arterials as appropriate to maintain regional mobility. (b) Provide a range of neighborhood-serving uses in commercial centers, including grocery and sundries, dining, medical and dental offices, day care, satellite government offices and similar uses. All commercial development should be of a pedestrian-oriented design. Prohibit new regional retail uses. (c) Incorporate neighborhood commercial areas at the Cloverdale Road/Columbia Road intersection and the Cloverdale Road/Hubbard Road intersection. TMC-CCN 2.4: CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT Cluster new residential and commercial structures to preserve open space and provide setbacks from the Ten Mile Creek. TMC-CCN 2.5: ACTIVITY CENTER DESIGN (a) Develop the area east and south of the New York Canal, neighborhood commercial centers, and surrounding residential development as an urban village, integrating it into the community and incorporating community and neighborhood gathering places. (b) Design buildings and streets at a pedestrian scale. (c) Connect commercial centers and adjacent residential areas with sidewalks, bicycle routes, and trail systems.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
TMC-5
TEN MILE CREEK | PLANNING AREA POLICIES TMC-CCN 2.6: ACTIVITY CENTER SPACING Provide neighborhood mixed use centers at appropriate intervals along arterials.
Goal TMC-CCN 3: Provide opportunities for services and employment within the Ten Mile Creek area. TMC-CCN 3.1: COMMERCIAL SERVICES Provide neighborhood commercial areas to provide close to home shopping and services. TMC-CCN 3.2: LIVE/WORK OPPORTUNITIES Create opportunities for commercial or small scale manufacturing activities with dwelling units located within, near, or nearby the working spaces.
TMC-6
Goal TMC-CCN 4: Provide a variety of housing options in the Ten Mile Creek area. TMC-CCN 4.1: MIX OF HOUSING TYPES Encourage a diversity of housing types, styles, and densities (from low-density to high-density) in the Ten Mile Creek area that are affordable to a range of income levels, including, but not limited to:
Townhouses;
Row houses;
Multi-family apartments or condominiums;
Small patio homes;
Detached single-family homes; and
Estate housing.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | TEN MILE CREEK
TEN MILE CREEK POLICIES Connectivity (TMC-C) Goals and policies for connectivity establish a framework for future multi-modal travel in the Ten Mile Creek area with particular emphasis on transit service. Goal TMC-C1: Establish an interconnected network of streets and trails to serve the Ten Mile Creek area.
TMC-C 1.7: STREET TYPOLOGIES Develop a system of street typologies based on the ACHD Livable Streets Design Guide.
TMC-C 1.1: MASTER STREET FRAMEWORK Develop a master street framework for the Ten Mile Creek area based on the outcomes of the ACHD Southwest Boise Transportation Plan and the ACHD Livable Streets Design Guide that provides a high level of interconnectivity and improves regional mobility.
TMC-C 1.8: TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE DEVELOPMENT Promote transit supportive and transit-ready development at activity centers and potential transit nodes.
TMC-C 1.2: SOUTH CLOVERDALE ROAD Limit access to South Cloverdale Road to a minimum of one-quarter mile intersection spacing, as typical for limited-access arterial streets. TMC-C 1.3: COMPLETE STREETS (a) Minimize street widths, travel lanes and design speeds to balance the safety of all users. (b) Design streets and intersections to facilitate both pedestrian and vehicle movement. TMC-C 1.4: COLE TO CLOVERDALE CONNECTION Extend Vallejo Road or a suitable alternative street to connect Cole and Cloverdale Roads. TMC-C 1.5: SECTION LINE ROADWAY SYSTEM (a) Extend a section line roadway system into the Ten Mile Creek area where feasible with special consideration given to the natural topography and other site features.
TMC-C 1.9: MULTI-MODAL STREET DESIGN Require multi-modal design of new transportation corridors. TMC-C 1.10: CANAL CROSSINGS Provide for the use of a latecomers agreement for funding of new canal crossings that provide access to the Ten Mile Creek area. TMC-C 1.11: INTERCONNECTED STREETS Fund new roadway improvements to serve the Ten Mile Creek area through impact fees on development sufficient to fund roadway needs. TMC-C 1.12: TRANSIT CORRIDORS AND NODES Identify potential transit corridors and nodes and reserve them on plans for future use. TMC-C 1.13: PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PATHWAYS Integrate a network of pedestrian and bicycle pathways into the transportation system.
(b) Provide collector roadways as necessary to facilitate adequate traffic distribution. TMC-C 1.6: PEDESTRIAN EMPHASIS Encourage pedestrian activity by connecting land uses with pedestrian pathways and bike lanes.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
TMC-7
TEN MILE CREEK | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
TEN MILE CREEK POLICIES Public Services/Facilities (TMC-PSF) Goals and policies for this section focus on identifying infrastructure needed in the Ten Mile Creek area to serve future growth and strategies to promote energy efficiency. Goal TMC-PSF 1: Protect environmentally sensitive areas. TMC-PSF 1.1: RUNOFF COLLECTION POINTS Encourage a greater number of smaller runoff collection points for localized infiltration and limit impervious surfaces, especially near sensitive areas and limit large detention ponds. TMC-PSF 1.2: DRAINAGE WAY SETBACKS (a) Set back new development from existing floodplains and drainage swales to preserve those areas and attendant riparian habitat as natural open space. (b) Encourage clustered housing units at higher densities as a means of providing this open space.
TMC-PSF 2.4: IDAHO POWER Coordinate the provision of electrical service in coordination with planned Idaho Power facilities. TMC-PSF 2.5: PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES Develop and maintain adequate public services and facilities as defined in Chapter 2, Tables 3 and 4: “Level of Service Standards for Community Services and Facilities,” for the purpose of capital improvement planning and development permitting. TMC-PSF 2.6: SCHOOLS Coordinate future school needs and siting with the Kuna and Meridian School Districts and strive for walkable elementary school sites.
(c) Provide public trails along creeks, drainage swales and canals where appropriate.
Goal TMC-PSF3: Promote efficient development patterns and construction techniques.
Goal TMC-PSF 2: Ensure adequate public facilities are available to serve the Ten Mile Creek area.
TMC-PSF 3.1: WASTEWATER REUSE AND REDUCTION Reduce pollution from wastewater and encourage water reuse.
TMC-PSF 2.1: POLICE SERVICES Provide police services through substation sites in commercial centers or by co-location with other public safety entities.
TMC-PSF 3.2: PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION Examine the potential for developing a joint project and regional pressurized irrigation pumps.
TMC-PSF 2.2: SITING OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES Include a detailed analysis and siting of necessary police, fire, schools, and parks as part of the master development concept plan in accordance with approved plans.. TMC-PSF 2.3: PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY Require identification of a public water supply prior to rezoning land to an urban density.
TMC-8
TMC-PSF 3.3: HEAT ISLAND EFFECT Design developed areas to limit heat islands to minimize impact on micro-climate and human and wildlife habitat. TMC-PSF 3.4: SOLAR STRATEGIES Encourage the use of passive and active solar strategies.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | TEN MILE CREEK TMC-PSF 3.5: ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS (a) Encourage the submission of energy efficient standards for structures within proposed developments and promote energy conservation to reduce air, water and land pollution.
TMC-PSF 3.6: WILLIAMS NORTHWEST PIPELINE Incorporate the 75-foot Williams Northwest Pipeline easement as an open-space amenity and provide for pedestrian access. When planning development that incorporates this easement, the following shall apply:
(b) Submit an energy plan that describes the energy efficiency standards for structures and site design and any on-site renewable energy self supply that may be utilized.
An open space trail, free of trees and other deeprooted plants, is the ideal easement use. This reduces the public exposure by minimizing the opportunity for “dig-ins.” When this is not possible, lot division on either boundary of the easement is preferable to splitting the easement between lots.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
TMC-9
TEN MILE CREEK | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
The Ten Mile Planning Area, in this aerial looking northeast, is in a beautiful setting. This plan provides a policy framework for a livable and sustainable pattern for community building here.
TMC-10
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | WEST BENCH
West Bench Planning Area
Location and Context The West Bench Planning Area (“West Bench”) has a balanced mix of employment centers, retail and commercial services, and neighborhoods. The West Bench has seen some of the most intense growth since 2000 of any planning area, with over 21 percent of all new residential units and just under 25 percent of non-residential construction citywide. The West Bench is adjacent to three other cities; Garden City, Meridian, and Eagle.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
The area between Interstate 1-84, Emerald and Maple Grove is designated as a mixed use district, as are several smaller areas in the West Bench. Boise Towne Square Mall offers retail, food and entertainment opportunities and the surrounding commercial district provides a regional supply of goods and services. A large industrial area is located north of Franklin Boulevard. Several arterial corridors have developed into strip commercial areas, such as Fairview and Cole Roads. These diminish in the northwest portion of the West Bench, where residential neighborhoods are the dominant land use.
WB-1
WEST BENCH | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Location and Context (continued) The West Bench’s residential neighborhoods are in high demand, and infill is occurring on small parcels in this area. Additional population and job increases are expected in the West Bench in the next two decades. The area also includes a significant number of schools, in both the Boise and Meridian School Districts.
Demographic Profile TRENDS AND KEY ISSUES Growth Trends Over 29 percent (69,975) of Boise residents live in the West Bench in 2010. This number is projected to increase to 82,618 by 2025. Several areas in the West Bench have been designated for redevelopment as mixed use districts.
Building Permit Activity The West Bench had 35 percent of all new multifamily units and 19 percent of new single family units constructed in Boise between 2000 and 2006. Nearly 3 million square feet of new nonresidential building area was added in the West Bench since 2000 – the most in any Boise planning area.
Employment West Bench jobs are projected to increase by just over 20 percent, from 41,946 in 2005 to 50,644 in 2025.
Utilities The West Boise Wastewater Treatment facility is located in the far north portion of the West Bench.
Population Population: In 2010, the population of the West Bench was 69,975 or 29.4% of the city’s total. Median Age: West Bench residents are nearly the same age (34.6) as Boise residents overall. Housing Total Households: In 2010, the West Bench was home to 28,859 households. This accounts for nearly 28 percent of the households in Boise. Household Composition: More families with children reside in the West Bench, with 29.5 percent of residents falling under the age of 20. Median Home Value: Median home value in the West Bench ($195,905) is just under Boise as a whole. Tenancy: Most West Bench residents own their homes (71.8 %). West Bench renters represent just 25.6 percent of all households. Income Median Household Income: In 2009, median household income for West Bench residents was $63,822. Employment Jobs: Over 27 percent of all Boise jobs are located in the West Bench. Workforce: 28.4 percent of the Boise workforce lives in the West Bench. Employers: Hewlett Packard is a major employer located in the West Bench. The Boise Research Park contains several large employers, such as DirecTV and the ITT Technical Institute.
Transportation
Land Use Characteristics
The average commute time for a West Bench worker in 2000 was 19 minutes.
Existing Land Use
North – south travel has improved in recent years through implementation of the Bench-Valley Transportation Plan to connect Maple Grove, Five Mile and Curtis Roads to Chinden Boulevard.
WB-2
The West Bench contains 9,762 acres, making up almost fifteen percent of Boise’s total acres.
Single-family residential uses occupy over just over half (53 percent or 5,197 acres of the West Bench’s total acres.
Multi-family residential uses in the West Bench account for nearly 40 percent (449) acres of Boise’s multi-family land.
Over 33 percent of Boise’s commercial land is located in the West Bench (1,083 acres) along with 34 percent of Boise’s industrial land (729 acres.)
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | WEST BENCH
The West Bench is more densely developed than some areas of Boise, with more than a quarter of Boise households in about 15 percent of the land area.
In recent years, significant infill development has occurred in the area.
Parks and Recreation Thirteen neighborhood parks are located in the West Bench. At 44 acres, Hyatt Hidden Lakes Reserve is the largest park and includes a 22 acre wetland. Large sport-oriented parks in the West Bench include the C.F. McDevitt Youth Sports Complex and Hobble Creek Park.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
WB-3
WEST BENCH | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
Schools The West Bench is home to numerous public and private schools. In addition to the educational significance of these facilities, several West Bench schools are historically significant and contribute to the overall character of the neighborhood. High Schools
TRENDS AND KEY ISSUES
Centennial High School was established in 1987. The school is a four year comprehensive public senior high school with outstanding arts and athletic programs. Enrollment for 2008 was 1951 students.
Capitol High School was established in 1965. Capital High School has sustained a tradition of outstanding performance in academic achievement, activities, and athletics. Enrollment for 2008 was 1476 students
Parks and Recreation A variety of park facilities are currently available; however, infill and redevelopment will continue to drive a need for more parks to serve area residents. Hyatt Hidden Lakes Reserve provides West Bench residents and visitors with a 44 acre natural environment that is accessible to many surrounding neighborhoods.
Schools Children in the West Bench attend both Boise and Meridian Public School Districts. There are 21 schools in the West Bench. Elementary Schools include: Cecil D. Andrus, Frontier, Joplin, Pioneer, Ustick, Spalding, Summerwind, McMillan, Koelsch, Horizon, Valley View, Mountain View, Morley Nelson, Maranath Christian, Boise Valley Adventist, and Cole Christian. Centennial and Capital High Schools are located in the West Bench, as well as ITT Technical Institute, a private technical college.
WB-4
K-8 Schools
Maranatha Christian School was founded in 1976 and is a private K–8 grade school affiliated with the Assembly of God Church.
Boise Valley Adventist School is a private K – 8 grade school affiliated with the Seventh-Day Adventist Church.
K-6 School
Cole Christen Elementary is a private K - 6 grade school and is not affiliated with any specific Christian faith denomination. The school was founded in 1972.
Elementary Schools
Cecil D. Andrus Elementary is a K-5 public school in a suburban community. The school was opened in the fall of 1997 and was named in honor of the state’s former governor and school advocate Cecil D. Andrus. The school offers students rigor in academics and varied opportunities to participate in community service, extra-curricular activities, and fine arts. The enrollment for the 2008 year was 592 students.
Frontier Elementary is a K-5 public school and offers the following programs: Meridian Early Intervention Preschool for developmentally delayed children; PBI Positive Behavior Intervention. Enrollment for the 2008 year was 468 students.
Joplin Elementary is a public elementary school that serves students in grades K-5. Enrollment for 2008 was 390 students. The school provides innovative and current educational opportunities.
Pioneer Elementary School of the Arts is a Magnet School which allows students from six area schools - Summerwind, Discovery, Ustick, Joplin, Frontier and McMillan to attend Pioneer. Enrollment for the 2008 year was 682 students. Idaho State Department of Education Standards are taught through a collaborative, inter-disciplinary approach that integrates visual arts, music and kinesthetic movement into classroom instruction.
Ustick Elementary School is one of the oldest elementary schools in the School District. The original Ustick School is located approximately a mile east of the current site. That building was constructed in 1908. It is still standing and is privately owned. It was used until 1959 when the current site was developed. Enrollment for 2008 was 475 students.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | WEST BENCH
Spalding Elementary is a year round school that consists of five tracks running on different calendars throughout the year. 2008 enrollment was 740 students. Spalding also consists of a preschool program and challenge center. Spalding has a new audio/video lab where students can produce the announcements/news. The school has received a Micron Foundation Grant that will allow Spalding teachers to be trained on a new math instructional focus called DMT, Developing Mathematical Thinking. Teachers have implemented this process in their classrooms and continue to focus on introducing students to new strategies on how to solve math problems.
Summerwind Elementary School was built in 1974. The Math and Science Academy is housed at Summerwind, which is a magnet program that includes one classroom at each grade level focusing instruction on the areas of math and science. Enrollment for 2008 was 400 students.
McMillan Elementary is the Foreign Language Magnet School with Mandarin Chinese and World Cultures as the focus. Enrollment for 2008 was 382 students.
Koelsch Elementary has been part of the Boise School District for over 50 years and serves a wide diversity of students from all over the world. The school also provides a Developmental Pre-School for three and four year old children. Enrollment for 2008 was 335 students.
Horizon School was built in 1992. In addition to regular education classes the school offers a wide variety of programs which include gifted and talented, special education, Title I reading and math, ELL (English Language Learners), as well as an on-site day care that operates before and after school for school-aged children. Enrollment for 2008 was 675 students.
Valley View Elementary School’s classrooms are arranged in grade level “clusters” which are partially open with a common area in the center, making it easy for teachers to work with students in various achievement, skill, ability and subject area groups. Valley View also houses the District full-time gifted and talented classes for the Capital Area Quadrant. The “Just for Kids” day care is also available for students before and after school. Enrollment for 2008 was 485 students.
Mountain View was built as a six-room school in 1958. Mountain View is one of a few Boise schools that is not on a busy thoroughfare. It is nestled in a residential area away from traffic. The school has large play areas that border a city park and neighborhood housing on all sides. Enrollment for 2008 was 400 students.
Morley Nelson Elementary is a new school which includes a community center operated by Boise Park and Recreation. Enrollment for 2008 was 572 students.
ITT Technical Institute
ITT Technical Institute is a private college offering technology-oriented programs. ITT Technical Institute offers Bachelor of Science and Associate of Applied Science Degrees.
Sources: COMPASS Community Choice Growth Projections, August 2007. 2010 Census Data for Population and Households. COMPASS Development Monitoring Reports (2000-2007).
BLUEPRINT BOISE
WB-5
WEST BENCH | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
West Bench Planning Area: Future Land Use Map
WB-6
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | WEST BENCH
WEST BENCH POLICIES Centers, Corridors, and Neighborhoods (WB-CCN) Goals and policies for this section focus on promoting the revitalization of major travel corridors and activity centers; ensuring the scale of future infill and redevelopment is compatible with the West Bench’s varied character; and identifying areas where more detailed planning will be needed in the future. Goal WB-CCN 1: Promote revitalization of activity centers and corridors throughout the West Bench.
WB-CCN 1.2: FAIRVIEW CORRIDOR (a) Encourage opportunities for higher density and mixed use development along the length of the Fairview corridor. (b) Collaborate with ACHD on a concept design to promote access management policies, accommodation of transit, and accommodation of regional travel needs. (c) Encourage the rehabilitation of existing strip centers. (d) Support the assemblage of smaller parcels to accommodate larger redevelopment opportunities where feasible.
The rehabilitation of existing strip centers through façade, landscape, and signage enhancements is encouraged throughout the West Bench. WB-CCN 1.1: DESIGNATED ACTIVITY CENTERS Five mixed-use activity centers have been designated to serve the West Bench. They include:
Franklin Road and Five Mile Road;
Boise Towne Square Mall;
Five Mile Road and Ustick Road;
Hewlett Packard Industrial area; and
Ustick Road and Cole Road;
McMillan Road and Cloverdale Road;
McMillan Road and Five Mile Road; Chinden Boulevard and Eagle Road.
Additional activity centers may be designated in accordance with the location criteria provided in Chapter 3.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Access management is a key consideration for the Fairview Corridor as infill and redevelopment occur over time. WB-CCN 1.3: USTICK CORRIDOR Encourage a mix of small-scale (one to three stories) pedestrian-oriented mixed use development within designated activity centers along the Ustick Corridor. Explore the feasibility of a corridor study for Ustick Road.
WB-7
WEST BENCH | PLANNING AREA POLICIES WB-CCN 1.4: USTICK CENTER Promote development of the Ustick Center with mixed-use and high density residential while preserving the historic character of the West Bench.
The character of historic resources in the Ustick Center should be preserved as part of future revitalization efforts. WB-CCN 1.5: CORRIDOR STREETSCAPES Encourage the installation of detached sidewalks and street trees as redevelopment and street improvements occur along major travel corridors in the West Bench to improve pedestrian comfort and safety. WB-CCN 1.6: FRANKLIN AND FIVE-MILE ACTIVITY CENTER (a) Concentrate transit-supportive development patterns and intensities at the Franklin and FiveMile Activity Center to support future transit along the rail corridor.
Goal WB-CCN 2: Reinforce the established character of the West Bench’s neighborhoods. WB-CCN 2.1: SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOODS Suburban neighborhoods in the West Bench, as identified on the Future Land Use map are anticipated to remain largely single-family in character, with the exception of areas between Fairmont Park and Ustick, between Winstead Park and Fairview and south of Fairview, which are anticipated to see some infill and redevelopment. Should infill and redevelopment occur in these or other locations, it should be consistent with the design principles contained in this Comprehensive Plan to ensure compatibility with the single-family character of surrounding homes and adjacent neighborhoods. 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. WB-CCN 2.2: COMPACT NEIGHBORHOODS Compact neighborhoods in the West Bench, as identified on the Future Land Use map, are intended to accommodate a mix of housing types. Infill development is anticipated to be focused in areas identified as Level 2 on the Areas of Change and Areas of Stability map contained in Appendix C. Regardless of its location, infill development should be consistent with the design principles contained in this Comprehensive Plan to ensure compatibility with surrounding homes.
(b) Reevaluate opportunities for future mixed-use development along the length of the Franklin Rail Corridor following the completion of the High Capacity Rail Study. WB-CCN 1.7 EMERALD AND CURTIS ACTIVITY CENTER Encourage the redevelopment of the southwest corner of Emerald and Curtis to support pedestrian movement and the use of transit in site design and building placement. Incorporate a local roadway network in redevelopment of the site to ensure connection to the existing street system.
WB-8
Compact neighborhoods can accommodate a mix of housing types.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | WEST BENCH
Goal WB-CCN 3: Support the retention of regionally significant land uses in the West Bench. WB-CCN 3.1: HEWLETT-PACKARD INDUSTRIAL AREA Maintain a concentration of high tech industries and light manufacturing in the Hewlett Packard industrial area while allowing limited support services for employees. Ensure that the transit system provides ample ridership opportunities to the HP area.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
WB-CCN 3.2: BOISE TOWNE SQUARE MALL AND MILWAUKEE AREA Examine opportunities for workforce housing to provide housing close to the mall and spin-off businesses that can be supported by nearby residents. Examine opportunities for local transit at the mall to reduce parking and ease mall congestion.
WB-9
WEST BENCH | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
WEST BENCH POLICIES Connectivity (WB-C) Goals and policies for connectivity focus on identifying and implementing improvements that will enhance the ease and safety of multi-modal travel in the West Bench. Goal WB-C 1: Promote transportation choices to improve access and mobility in the West Bench. WB-C 1.1: COMMUTER RAIL (a) Promote the development of commuter rail service on the existing rail corridor. (b) Encourage higher development densities to support future transit. WB-C 1.2: EAGLE ROAD Support the ITD access management policy for Eagle Road to promote increased safety and mobility.
WB-C 2.1: THROUGH-TRAFFIC Pursue a variety of strategies, including regional land use and infrastructure planning and coordination, to mitigate impacts of through-traffic on West Bench residential neighborhoods. WB-C 2.2: PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE CONNECTIVITY Encourage greater connectivity of pedestrian walkways and bike paths between residential neighborhoods and major employment centers, public parks, plazas, and neighborhood commercial centers (i.e. Ustick Town Site).
Goal WB-C 2: Encourage greater connectivity of major roadways and pedestrian pathways within the West Bench.
A pedestrian pathway providing recreation opportunities as well as quicker routes to surrounding amenities.
WB-10
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | WEST BENCH
WEST BENCH POLICIES Public Services/Facilities (WB-PSF) Policies for this section focus on the expansion of existing public services/facilities to meet future demand for these amenities in the West Bench. Goal WB-PSF 1: Encourage the development of public and private facilities/services that promote the community’s vision.
WB-PSF 1.3: BRANCH LIBRARY (a) Support the revitalization of commercial areas near the new branch library at Cole and Ustick Roads.
WB-PSF 1.1: RECREATIONAL/CULTURAL AMENITIES Promote the expansion and development of community parks, cultural centers, plazas and public spaces to serve activity centers in the West Bench.
(b) Monitor the economic impact of the new branch library.
WB-PSF 1.2: HYATT WETLANDS Work with adjacent neighborhood groups to implement the park master site plan for the Hyatt Wetlands.
Ustick and Cole Library.
Hyatt Wetlands.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
WB-11
WEST BENCH | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
WEST BENCH POLICIES Neighborhood Character (WB-NC) Policies for this section focus on identifying potential opportunities for public art and design features as well as areas for recreation and open space. Goal WB-NC 1: Enhance the character of the West Bench’s neighborhoods.
Goal WB-NC 2: Create park space that is easily accessible to all neighborhood residents. WB-NC 2.1: NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS Create an additional centrally-located park to keep up with neighborhood demand for accessible public amenities.
Consideration of neighborhood design principles will result in new development and infill that enhances the established character of the West Bench. WB-NC 1.1: NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN PRINCIPLES Consider neighborhood design principles contained in this Comprehensive Plan when reviewing proposed development submittals to ensure new and infill development enhance, rather than detract from the area’s established character.
Neighborhood parks should be centrally-located to increase accessibility to residents throughout the West Bench.
Goal WB-NC 3: Support the implementation of adopted neighborhood plans. WB-CCN 3.1: NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS Consider adopted neighborhood plans in conjunction with the goals and policies contained in this Comprehensive Plan when reviewing proposed development submittals. WB-CCN 3.2: BIG SKY NEIGHBORHOOD Preserve the rural character of the Big Sky Neighborhood through implementation of the Big Sky Neighborhood Plan.
WB-12
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | WEST BENCH
WEST BENCH POLICIES Related Planning Documents There have been a number of plans and studies prepared for West Bench. These plans, along with Blueprint Boise, will help guide future development in the West Bench Big Sky Neighborhood Plan (2004)
Ustick Neighborhood Plan (1997)
The Big Sky neighborhood, developed in the 1970’s, is a low density area nestled within the urban environment of Boise in the vicinity of many major Boise employers and businesses. Residents of the Big Sky neighborhood enjoy large lots where they play, grow gardens, trees, flowers and can keep livestock. At the heart of the community is an irrigation system that connects every lot. In June of 2004, residents were encouraged by Boise City Council to generate a neighborhood plan for future land use. The mission of the Big Sky Neighborhood Plan is to preserve the large lots and open character of the neighborhood and to retain the rural personality of this unique location, while encouraging increased agrarian rights.
The Ustick neighborhood contains 130 acres of mostly two-acre lots surrounded by Ustick Road, Maple Grove Road, Cory Lane and North Mitchell Street. The area dates from 1908, when the Interurban Streetcar Company built a line along Ustick Road, connecting it with Boise and the surrounding towns. The Ustick area originally contained a number of irrigated orchards and country homes. Current land uses include residential, open space, public uses and small commercial areas within a walkable environment. Today, as the city grows, the area is under pressure to increase density. The plan envisions residential infill resulting in a neighborhood with a mix of housing types and prices, including single family, duplexes, town homes and apartments, and sets out design principles for the neighborhood. Also envisioned are a new park, school, and better pedestrian connections to transit stops.
West Valley Community Center Plan (2002) The West Valley Community Center Plan is a site specific plan to revitalize the old town site of Ustick and the adjacent retail area near the intersection of Ustick and Five Mile Roads. The purpose of the plan is to recreate the neighborhood’s own community center full of healthy businesses, workplaces, and gathering places -- a multifaceted community center with convenient neighborhood shopping, pleasant surroundings, a place to walk, play, and visit with neighbors. The plan looks to create a neighborhood with a choice of residences for all ages and incomes, opportunities to walk and bicycle to nearby shopping, adequate retail and new local employment opportunities. A desired outcome is to reduce the number and distance of vehicle trips on the overcrowded road networks while providing an enhanced quality of life for the entire West Valley Neighborhood.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Ada County Highway District Boise West Bench Neighborhood Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan (2013) The West Bench Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan focuses on making bicycling and walking comfortable, efficient and convenient forms of transportation for residents and visitors in the West Bench area of the City. The plan provides a list of prioritized bike and pedestrian projects developed through ACHD’s outreach efforts and assists City neighborhoods and the City team in annually recommending their highest priority bike and pedestrian projects for consideration in the ACHD Five-Year Work Plan.
WB-13
WEST BENCH | PLANNING AREA POLICIES
WEST BENCH POLICIES Related Planning Documents Eagle Road Corridor Project Development Program– Multi-Use Pathway Improvement, Phases 1 and 2 (2016)
Eagle Road Corridor Project Development Program – Multi-use Pathway Improvement, Phase 3 (2017)
The Eagle Road Corridor Project Development Program addresses the need for bicycle and pedestrian facilities along Eagle Road. Many gaps exist in sidewalks between Overland Road and Chinden Boulevard and there are no bike lanes. Phase 1 identified and prioritized pathway needs on the corridor. Phase 2 developed specific, programmable projects for a continuous 10-foot pathway along four segments of Eagle Road in the following high priority areas:
Phase 3 of the Eagle Road Corridor Project Development Program developed three application-ready, preconcepts for pathway projects along the corridor. Projects were scoped for the following segments:
Franklin Road to Pine Avenue (east side of Eagle Road)
Pine Avenue to Fairview Avenue (west side of Eagle Road)
Fairview Avenue to River Valley Street (west side of Eagle Road)
River Valley Street to Ustick Road (west side of Eagle Road)
WB-14
River Valley Street to Ustick Road (east side of Eagle Road)
Boise / Meridian City Limit to McMillan Road (west side of Eagle Road)
McMillan Road to Chinden Road (both sides of Eagle Road)
BLUEPRINT BOISE
PLANNING AREA POLICIES | WEST BENCH
Education Facility: In 1999, Dr. Trudy Comba donated a piece of property located near the corner of Five Mile and Ustick Road to the City of Boise. The site included an education “barn” and 3.5 acres of land. The Comba family’s vision was that the barn be used for educational purposes, focusing on kids in need. In 2013, the City of Boise, the Comba family, and Boise Urban Garden School (BUGS) partnered to rebuild the barn. The BUGS “barn” is now a 1,500 square foot indoor education facility, complete with an onsite commercial kitchen. Additionally, Comba park is home to a new .75 acre garden, a playground and Boise’s first sprayground, a play area designed for children with water features that spray, sprinkle, and drop water.
Neighborhood: Comba Park and the BUGS education facility are located near the intersection of Five Mile and Ustick Road. There are seven schools within close proximity of Comba Park, with a high population of low-income students. There are very few opportunities for after school and summer enrichment programs for children in this neighborhood. The location of the BUGS education facility provides easy access to neighborhood children who wish to attend programs. The garden and onsite commercial kitchen provide facilities for greater community involvement at the park.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
WB-15
ACTION PLAN
CHAPTER 5: ACTION PLAN
Blueprint Boise establishes a broad vision for Boise City over the next 10 to 20 years. This vision is supported by a detailed framework of goals and policies, as outlined in Chapters 2-5, to help guide the community in its day-to-day efforts of implementing it. However, because of the plan’s comprehensive scope and its long-term outlook, it is important to define a set of priority actions to facilitate its implementation. This chapter outlines a set of targeted actions necessary to begin to implement the Comprehensive Plan over the next one to three years. Actions are organized under the umbrella of the vision’s seven supporting themes. This chapter should be reviewed annually and amended as needed in accordance with the comprehensive plan amendment process outlined in Chapter 1 and the city’s strategic planning process
Citywide Actions Priority actions outlined below are intended to focus the city’s efforts and resources on actions that should be taken as soon as possible to ensure that future decisions are aligned with the goals and polices contained in this Comprehensive Plan. The actions outlined in this chapter are not intended to address steps needed to implement each and every policy contained in this Comprehensive Plan; rather they should be viewed as reflective of the city’s highest priorities related to the Comprehensive Plan for the next one to three years. Some of these actions are already underway or reflect the continuation of ongoing city efforts and partnerships. Others represent movement in an altogether new direction for the city as a result of the planning process. Actions should be reviewed and updated periodically to reflect the city’s accomplishments, available resources, and potential shifts in policy direction. A detailed discussion of priority actions, by theme, is provided below. In some cases, multiple actions will be required to implement a particular priority. References to relevant policies are provided where relevant. In some instances, multiple policies relate to a particular action; however, due to the inter-related nature of the seven themes and the plan policies, only those policies directly related to the action are referenced. Table 11, beginning on page 5-11, includes an abbreviated summary of these priority actions, identifies lead and supporting entities, and assigns a general timeline for completion.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Theme #1: Environmental Stewardship (ES) Priority actions identified to implement comprehensive plan policies related to environmental stewardship include: (1) Lead by example; (2) Develop tools to measure and monitor progress; (3) Strengthen protection of environmentally sensitive areas and waterways; and (4) Align development standards with sustainability objective, and (5) Expand public education programs to promote sustainability in the community. Action ES-1: Lead by example.
The city has made great strides in recent years on its many sustainability initiatives. The following actions reflect the city’s continued commitment to these initiatives and others to support the implementation of this Comprehensive Plan. ES-1.1: CITY FACILITIES AND PROJECTS Take the initiative on all city facilities and projects as opportunities for demonstration of sustainable building design and site-planning principles, including but not limited to:
Locating new city office facilities within a mixeduse activity center where they offer live-work–shop options for employees and may be readily served by transit;
Incorporate sustainable building design techniques and materials on new construction and renovation projects, seeking LEED certification or other recognition where appropriate and economically feasible to promote awareness;
5-1
ACTION PLAN Conduct energy audits of existing facilities and complete upgrades to existing facilities to promote energy conservation, implementing solutions with a demonstrated payback of seven years or less;
Increase the use of non-potable water in city parks and residential irrigation; and
Track and annually review purchases to find reduction opportunities.
Source a minimum of ten percent of city facility energy consumption from non-hydro, renewable sources in accordance with the Climate Protection Committees recommendations;
Establish a tracking format for departments to monitor progress and document estimated waste diverted as waste reduction policies are implemented.
Incorporate on-site energy production and net metering through the use of solar, wind, geothermal, technology where feasible;
Integrate low-impact site development such as storm water quality best management practices; and
Other measures as appropriate.
(See policies ES5.1 through 5.5 and ES11.1 through11.4) ES-1.2: EXPAND SUSTAINABLE BOISE SECTION OF CITY WEBSITE Expand the Sustainable Boise section of the city’s website to include more quantitative tracking and monitoring criteria regarding the city’s progress in the categories discussed under action ES-2.1, on the following page. Keep this section of the website current to encourage frequent visits and use social media and to help engage the community in the challenge of becoming more sustainable in their dayto-day lives.
(See policies ES5.1, 5.2, and 5.3.)
Action ES-2: Develop tools needed to measure and monitor progress.
In order to understand the impacts of different sustainability initiatives over time and determine which initiatives are most effective, a clean understanding of baseline conditions must be established. From there, changes to the baseline can be monitored and evaluated. ES-2.1: ESTABLISH TRACKING AND MONITORING CRITERIA Work with partner agencies and coordinate with internal city departments to establish quantitative measurements by which sustainability initiatives and the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan can be monitored on an annual basis both within city facilities and in the community as a whole. Establish measurements in each of the categories below to answer these and other questions, as data become available:
Land Use and Development Trends—What percentage of new development occurred through infill or redevelopment versus greenfield development? What percentage of new dwelling units were located within mixed-use activity centers or along major travel corridors? How does the average density of new development compare to that in previous years?
Alternative Energy—How much of Boise’s energy comes from renewable sources? How many households or businesses generate some or all of their own energy from solar, wind, or geothermal sources? Where is there potential for new geothermal customers?
Alternative Transportation—What is the mode split for Boise commuters between automobile, bike, transit, and pedestrian trips? What is the average commute time? How many miles of bike lanes or paths exist in the city?
(See policy ES16.2) ES-1.3: REDUCE WASTE IN THE CITY’S DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS Create a plan to reduce waste in the city’s day-to-day operations, including consideration of the following: Adopt a city-wide green purchasing policy which identifies sustainable products;
Provide “Re-think, Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle” education for city employees;
Ensure all Boise City owned and operated facilities fully participate in the city’s recycling programs;
Discourage the use of single use plastic beverage bottles and other disposables at city sponsored meetings and events, unless otherwise necessary for public health and safety;
Adopt a policy to purchase products locally first;
5-2
BLUEPRINT BOISE
ACTION PLAN
Energy Conservation—What are the potential energy savings per household that would result from conversion to energy efficient appliances and heating and cooling systems, adding insulation, replacing leaky windows, and other conservation techniques?
Green Building Practices—What are the potential savings in terms of waste reduction or energy conservation that result from common green building practices? How many buildings annually are being constructed in Boise using green building practices?
Waste Reduction and Recycling—How much waste do Boise residents generate annually? How much waste is diverted annually through the city’s recycling and composting programs? What new initiatives are being taken to further reduce the city’s waste stream?
Parks and Open Space—How many acres of parks and open space do Boise residents have access to? How many residents are within walking distance of a city park? How many miles of trails? —How many community gardens exist in the city? How many people participate in Parks programs? Water Conservation—What is the annual water usage per household for Boise? What are the potential savings in water usage per household that would be generated by the installation of low-flow fixtures, xeric landscaping, or other water conservation strategies?
Include comparative data, to the extent possible, to help frame the city’s relative progress as compared to peer cities and the country as a whole. (See policies ES17.1 and 17.2.) ES-2.2: UPDATE CITY WEBSITE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON PROGRESS Expand the Sustainable Boise section of the city’s website to include a graphical interface that provides real-time tracking of the community’s progress on the list of sustainability initiatives outlined above and the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, as data becomes available. (See policy ES17.2.)
Action ES-3: Strengthen protection of environmentally significant areas and waterways.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Environmental stewardship is one of the primary tenets of this plan. The following action aims to increase protections for some of Boise’s most treasured natural features, the Boise River and its tributaries. ES-3.1—REVIEW THE RIVER SYSTEM ORDINANCE Complete a comprehensive review of the Boise River System Ordinance relative to the goals of flood protection, fish and wildlife protection, pollution and runoff control, recreation, and development opportunities. Evaluate the need for amendments to the existing ordinance.
Action ES-4: Align regulations and development processes with sustainability policies.
Multiple actions are needed to remove potential barriers to the implementation of the sustainability objectives outlined in this plan and provide incentives to encourage sustainable development. Priority actions to implement these goals include: ES-4.1—CONDUCT SUSTAINABILITY AUDIT Review the Boise City Code and development processes as a means of identifying potential barriers and recommendations for achieving the city’s sustainability objectives. Prioritize recommendations beyond the specific actions identified in Actions 5.2 5.4 according to the level of effort and time necessary to make revisions and/or develop new approaches. (See policy ES10.1.) ES-4.2—UPDATE DEFINITIONS Incorporate modern definitions for renewable energy facilities (solar, wind, etc.), waste, salvage, and recycling uses, community gardens and urban agriculture, and other similar uses into the development code. Give consideration to the scale of these uses to ensure all potential scenarios have been addressed, e.g., solar panels on a home vs. a multi-acre solar array. (See policy ES10.2 and ES14.1.) ES-4.3—REVIEW, UPDATE, AND EXPAND PERMITTED/PROHIBITED USES Identify appropriate locations for uses that support sustainability policies, such as renewable energy facilities, waste, salvage, and recycling use, and community gardens and urban agriculture. Update permitted/prohibited uses in each zoning district to facilitate these types of uses and incorporate them in new zoning districts, where appropriate. This action
5-3
ACTION PLAN will help streamline future processing of permits for such uses and ensure that the city has appropriate standards in place to mitigate the potential impacts of uses, as discussed in Action ES-5.4, below. (See policy ES10.2,13.3, and14.1.) ES-4.4—CREATE NEW ZONING DISTRICTS Develop new mixed-use zoning districts to facilitate the more compact and sustainable patterns of development supported by the policies contained in this Comprehensive Plan. See Actions NAC 1.1 and EC 2 for a discussion of specific districts recommended. ( See policies NAC11.3 and EC8.2) ES-4.5—EXPAND OR CREATE NEW STANDARDS TO SUPPORT SUSTAINABLE USES Create new standards to address the potential impacts of renewable energy facilities such as wind and solar installations, waste, salvage, and recycling uses, and community gardens and urban agriculture. In addition, develop or update existing standards and regulations to support sustainability policies in the following areas:
ES-4.6—EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES FOR URBAN AGRICULTURE Develop a strategic plan to promote expanded opportunities for community-based and local food production. Identify opportunities for urban agriculture on public land and coordination with schools and other agencies with land resources. (See policy 14.1.) ES-4.7—ESTABLISH INCENTIVES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES. Explore a range of incentives to encourage the incorporation of water and energy-saving fixtures or for renewable energy features and site development techniques. (See policies ES 9.1-9.4, 10.2, 13.2, and 13.2.) ES-4.8—DEMOLITION ORDINANCE Consider adoption of a demolition review ordinance to include an integrated recycling plan for building demolition and deconstruction projects.
Lighting—Update standards to include dark-sky preservation measures and requirements for energy saving fixtures;
Action ES-5.1 Expand public education programs to promote sustainable practices in the community.
Water conservation—Develop requirements for conservation features such as: low flow lavatory faucets; dual flush toilets or toilets with 1.3 gallons per flush or less; low flow shower heads; use of grey water; use of treated effluent for landscaping; drought tolerant and/or native vegetation, the retention of rainwater on-site, and others as appropriate.
ES-5.1 COORDINATION OF SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS Explore options, including cooperative efforts with other agencies and cities, inter-departmental committees, and appoint a sustainability coordinator to provide leadership within the city and community and oversee public education efforts.
Tree protection—Expand the Boise Tree Ordinance to include: tree protection requirements for private development, particularly infill development in established areas of the community; the retention of healthy trees that exceed a particular caliper in size; replacement standards for tree removal; provisions to discourage the premature removal of trees in advance of development; and standards for increasing tree canopy in parking lots. Provide flexibility through variances or other means to address infill development on smaller sites.
(See policies ES6.4, 7.8, 9.1 through 9.4, 10.2,13.1, and 13.2.)
Priority actions to implement these goals include:
Theme #2: A Predictable Development Pattern (PDP) Priority actions to promote a more predictable pattern of development include: (1) Establish incentives for infill development, (2) Increase education and awareness about infill development, and (3) Monitor Area of City Impact boundary. Action PDP1: Establish incentives for infill development
Implementation of the city’s vision will require an increased emphasis on infill and redevelopment that pushes “inward and up” as a priority rather than out. 5-4
BLUEPRINT BOISE
ACTION PLAN The following actions are intended to help encourage infill development within the community and to ensure that it is compatible with the city’s established neighborhoods. PDP-1.1: PRIORITIZE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS Identify and prioritize needed infrastructure improvements to foster infill development and redevelopment in downtown, designated mixeduse activity centers, along major travel corridors, and in other potential areas of change identified at the planning area level. (See policy PDP1.3.) PDP-1.2: ESTABLISH INCENTIVES Develop incentives (such as zoning allowances for loft apartments, commercial and residential mixed uses, and accessory uses) to encourage the private sector to provide needed housing in the city. Examples include:
Density bonuses for infill projects based on a site’s proximity to specified existing services and infrastructure facilities;
Reduced impact fees for infill development;
Access to an improved land use database to identify potential sites for infill and redevelopment;
Infill prototypes to demonstrate desirable development configurations for typical infill sites, including site plans and building elevations; Accelerated development review process as compared to Greenfield development through administrative review, priority review times, and other measures as part of the zoning code update; and Other incentives as appropriate.
(See policies PDP1.2, 1.3, and 2.1.)
Action PDP-2: Increase education and awareness about infill development.
Infill development represents change within established areas of the community and with change often comes the potential for controversy. The following actions are targeted at increasing public awareness and support for infill development through a variety of initiatives and at monitoring the affects of infill on the community over time.
PDP-2.1—INFILL EDUCATIONAL CAMPAIGN Develop an educational campaign designed to promote the value of infill development, show positive examples of well-designed projects, and promote awareness of areas in the city where infill and redevelopment are likely to occur in the future. (See policy PDP1.4.) PDP-2.2—SEEK COMMUNITY INPUT ON INFILL STANDARDS Seek community input on the development of new zoning districts and design standards for infill development to increase awareness of existing and proposed regulations and proactively address neighborhood concerns. (See policy PDP1.4.) PDP-2.3—MONITOR PROGRESS (a) Improve the city’s land use database to track information on acreage, existing and potential development, vacant and underutilized lands, pending and approved infill projects by development type, and other pertinent information. (b) Update the land use data base quarterly or as needed based on development activity. (c) Incorporate a summary of infill-related data from the land use data base as part of the comprehensive plan monitoring process. (See policy PDP2.2.)
Action PDP3: Plan for coordinated growth within the AOCI boundary.
Although many of the policies in this Comprehensive Plan are focused on infill development, development pressure within and outside of the ACIAOCI boundary are likely to continue. As a result, it is important for the city to also maintain focus on the AOCI boundary as it relates to the other priorities outlined in this chapter. PDP-3.1—MONITOR AOCI BOUNDARY Maintain a land capacity analysis for the AOCI using the improved land use data base (See Action PDP 2.3, above.) to monitor the overall availability and distribution of land within the AOCI. Include a distinction between greenfield development sites and potential infill and redevelopment opportunities in the capacity analysis. (See policies PDP3.1 through 3.3.)
BLUEPRINT BOISE
5-5
ACTION PLAN PDP-3.2—EAST COLUMBIA AREA Develop a sub area plan for the East Columbia area.
THEME #3: A COMMUNITY OF STABLE NEIGHBORHOODS AND VIBRANT MIXED-USE ACTIVITY CENTERS (NAC) Priority actions to promote neighborhood stability and the creation of vibrant mixeduse activity centers include: (1) Establish tools necessary to achieve desired patterns of development and (2) Update the city’s neighborhood planning framework. Action NAC-1: Establish tools necessary to achieve desired patterns of development.
In order for the city to achieve the types of neighborhoods and activity centers called for in this plan, new regulatory tools are needed. Having the proper tools in place is important to streamline the approval process for development that is consistent with this Comprehensive Plan. The tools will also make it difficult to approve development patterns that are not consistent with this Comprehensive Plan. Specific actions include: NAC-1.1—ESTABLISH NEW ZONING DISTRICTS Develop a series of mixed-use zoning districts to promote a more transit-supportive pattern of development. Consider form-based approaches where appropriate. Multiple districts may be required to address the varied character, scale, intensity, and mix of uses desired in different locations of the city; however, it is likely there will be a number of common elements (e.g., pedestrian connectivity requirements). Separate new districts will be required for the downtown. Additional discussion regarding those proposed districts is provided under Action EC-2. (See policies NAC-2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.) NAC-1.2—DEVELOP DESIGN STANDARDS Develop design standards for employment, mixeduse, commercial, and neighborhood development to implement the Community Design Principles in Chapter 4 for new and infill development. Standards should be highly illustrative to convey key concepts and support the policies contained in this Comprehensive Plan.
5-6
(See policies NAC-2.1 through 2.3, 3.1, 3.2, 7.1, 7.4, 10.1, and design principles in Chapter 3)
Action NAC-2: Update the city’s neighborhood planning framework.
Neighborhood plans serve as an important link between the broad goals and policies contained in this Comprehensive Plan, the more detailed planning area policies contained in Chapter 4, and the targeted goals and policies found in the city’s adopted neighborhood plans. (See goal NAC-5.) This action emphasized the importance of this linkage: NAC-2.1—UPDATE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING FRAMEWORK Update the city’s current neighborhood planning framework to:
Work with neighborhood associations to develop review items;
Clarify the process for developing new neighborhood plans;
Define criteria used to trigger updates to an existing neighborhood plan;
Define required elements of future neighborhood plans; and
Establish a checklist for determining consistency with this Comprehensive Plan.
(See policies NAAC5.1through 5.6.)
#4: A CONNECTED COMMUNITY (CC) Priority actions to promote a more connected community include: (1) Expand non-motorized transportation, (2) Develop the tools needed to measure and monitor progress towards a more connected community, and (3) Improve technological and social connections. Action CC-1: Expand non-motorized transportation.
The continued expansion of non-motorized transportation opportunities in Boise City will plays a critical role in the implementation of this Comprehensive Plan. In order to support the more compact, pedestrian, and transit-supportive pattern of development the community desires, streets must be designed and built to facilitate walking, biking, and
BLUEPRINT BOISE
ACTION PLAN transit ridership. Conversely, the pattern and intensity of new development and infill must also support these goals. Priority actions related to development patterns are addressed in greater detail by Action CSN-1, PDP-1, and SDE-2. Priority actions to support the expansion of non-motorized transportation include:
(See actions PDP-2.3 and PDP-3.1.)
CC-1.1: PROMOTE TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS Create mixed-use and transit-supportive development zoning districts for designated activity centers, corridors, downtown, and other areas with opportunities for compact, pedestrian-friendly growth.
Evaluate the use of a variable or flexible vehicular level of service standard for roadways and create pedestrian and bicycle level of service standards;
Enhance the COMPASS Communities in Motion Performance Report to create a baseline and evaluate new transit investment’s impact on development activity; property values and lease rates: and residential and employment shifts;
Work with school districts to establish a monitoring mechanism for the use of alternative modes of travel to school each year;
Use annual resident transportation surveys and biennial employee and university faculty, staff, and student transportation surveys to identify travel trends over time and track progress toward meeting mode share goals; and
Work with Valley Regional Transit to establish performance measures that balance service area coverage and service to transit dependent citizens.
CC-2.1—MODIFY/DEVELOP TRACKING STANDARDS Modify existing standards or develop new tracking standards as follows:
(See policies CC3.2, 7.2, and 9.1.) CC-1.2: LIVABLE STREETS DESIGN GUIDE UPDATE Adopt the Master Streets Plan and associated street cross-sections established by the Livable Streets Design Guide. CC-1.3: UPDATE PARKING AND STREET STANDARDS Reexamine standards for public and private streets, sidewalks, and alleys to promote pedestrian and bicycle safety and mobility. Establish maximum parking requirements for all non-residential uses. Parking standards should recognize:
The availability and capacity of transit service;
Availability of alternative commute modes;
Access to off-site and on-street parking facilities; and
The availability of joint-use parking in mixed-use areas.
(See policies CC2.2, 4.4, 7.1, 8.1, and 8.2.) CC-1.4: CREATE STANDARDS FOR STREET CONNECTIVITY Establish standards for street connectivity, particularly in those planning areas where large areas of change have been identified.
Action CC-2: Develop the tools needed to measure and monitor progress.
In order to track the city’s progress toward creating a more connected community, specific benchmarks and standards are needed. Priority actions outlined below are intended to be completed in conjunction with other monitoring efforts described in this chapter, particularly those related to the overall pattern and intensity of development with the city over time.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CC-2.2—MONITOR PROGRESS Use existing tracking mechanisms and new standards, as they become available, to monitor the following:
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT);
Level of Service (roadways, pedestrians, and bicycles);
Emission levels and fossil fuel usage as applicable to measure progress towards goals set by the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement;
Crash data for all modes and for areas with higher than expected crash rates or fatality incidents; and
Monitor development patterns of transit-supportive densities and evaluate against existing transit service; and
Monitor traffic impacts of development in the Foothills Planning Area.
Make data available as part of the Sustainable Boise
5-7
ACTION PLAN section of the city’s website, as described in Actions ES-1.2 and ES-2.2. (See policies CC-1.5 and 7.3.)
Action CC-3: Improve technological and social connections.
As described in Chapter 2, Boise views the concept of a connected community as one that extends beyond physical transportation-related connections. The following priorities emphasize the city’s desire to continue to expand its technological and social connections to support the community: CC-3.1—EXPANDED COVERAGE AREAS Expand access to advanced telecommunications technologies to activity centers throughout Boise as a means of encouraging live/work and telecommuting opportunities. (See policy CC10.1.) CC-3.2—DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES Establish development guidelines for building design that encourage or allow:
Structured wiring systems;
More than one connection point for power and communications to enhance survivability of systems;
Inclusion of wireless technology;
Use of personal communication systems and devices inside buildings;
Multiple providers for communication services;
Energy management systems; and
Use of communications infrastructure as part of building security systems.
(See policy CC10.2.) CC-3.3—COORDINATION OF RESOURCES Continue to convene gatherings with partner agencies, neighborhood groups, health and service organizations, and others on issues of mutual interest and need. Seek opportunities to leverage available resources, including buildings and human capital, in addressing issues of mutual interest and need.
VALUES ITS CULTURE, EDUCATION, ARTS, AND HISTORY (CEA) Priority actions to foster culture, education, arts, and history include: (1) Promote schools as neighborhood centers and (2) Strengthen the number and quality of arts and history opportunities in Boise. Action CEA-1: Promote schools as neighborhood centers.
The city recognizes the important role that its neighborhoods schools can play as neighborhood centers. The following actions seek to expand this function in areas of the community where school facilities may not be utilized to their fullest potential. CEA-1.1: IDENTIFY SHARED-USE OPPORTUNITIES Work with the school district to identify opportunities for community gathering spaces and public art at existing school facilities and to collaborate on the design of new schools as models of good design, with facilities that can be used as community centers. Examples of community facilities to be considered include community gardens, meeting spaces, and recreational facilities. Explore creative ideas for colocation of other community facilities with schools such as libraries, recreation centers, and after school and daycare activities. (See policy CEA6.5.) CEA-1.2: DEVELOP LOCATION AND DESIGN CRITERIA Develop criteria to address neighborhood school design objectives that promote schools as neighborhood centers, including location, access, joint facility use, and sustainability. (See policy CEA6.1.) CEA-1.3: SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS Require new development to install sidewalks, cross walks, special signage and traffic control measures along routes to all schools. Retrofit existing neighborhoods as funding becomes available or as land uses are redeveloped. (See policy CEA-6.3.)
Action CEA-2: Strengthen the number and
(See policy CC-1. 1.)
THEME #5: A COMMUNITY THAT
5-8
BLUEPRINT BOISE
ACTION PLAN
quality of arts and history opportunities in Boise.
Arts and history play a significant role in Boise City and the city’s historic resources and cultural amenities are valued by not just Boise residents, but the whole region. Priority actions for arts and history include: CEA-2.1: LEADERSHIP Provide leadership through the Boise City Department of Arts and History for cultural programs and production. Enhance the Boise community by providing leadership, advocacy, education, services and support for the arts, culture, and history. (See policies CEA-1.1 through 1.5.) CEA-2.2: ARTS EDUCATION INITATIVES Develop arts education initiatives featuring the public art program and performing arts as well as conduct regional arts and culture planning with other cities in Ada County.
PRACTICES Provide incentives for businesses that incorporate sustainable practices into their business model. (See policies CEA1.1 through 1.5, EC6.3.)
Action EC-2: Promote downtown vitality.
Downtown has historically been and will continue to be the heart of Boise City. As with other areas of the city, adjustments to current regulations and processes are needed to help support the creation of an even more vibrant Downtown in the future. Priority actions include: EC-2.1—UPDATE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Create new downtown zoning district(s) to promote the urban design principles contained in adopted master plans for the Downtown Planning Area. Standards should address:
Mix of uses;
Urban building forms;
Housing;
THEME #6: A STRONG, DIVERSE ECONOMY (EC)
Relationship to nearby neighborhoods;
Parking location and quantity;
Priority actions to promote a strong, diverse economy include: (1) Promote sustainable industries and (2) Encourage Downtown vitality.
On and off-site connectivity;
Block patterns; and
Action EC-1: Promote sustainable industries.
Other urban design principles as identified.
(See policy EC8.2)
(See policies CEA-1.1 through 1.5.)
Just as Boise seeks to be a leader in building a more sustainable city for the future, it seeks to attract businesses and employers with similar goals for their companies. The following actions are intended to support the city’s efforts in attracting sustainable industries: EC-1.1: FOSTER HOME OCCUPATION AND LIVE/ WORK OPPORTUNITIES Redefine and update home occupation and live/work standards as part of the development code update, to provide expanded employment opportunities and reduce traffic congestion and overall vehicle miles traveled. Include standards to ensure neighborhood compatibility and minimize transportation impacts. (See policies CEA1.1 through 1.5, EC6.1 and 6.2.) EC-1.2: INCENTIVES FOR SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS
BLUEPRINT BOISE
EC-2.2—IDENTIFY AND IMPLEMENT INCENTIVES Work with CCDC to identify and implement incentives to encourage higher-intensity development downtown, and identify and reduce regulatory barriers. Potential incentives may include:
Expansion of parking overlay districts;
Density bonuses;
Infrastructure improvements; and
Others as appropriate.
(See policy EC-8.4.)
THEME #7: A SAFE, HEALTHY, AND CARING COMMUNITY (SHCC)
5-9
ACTION PLAN
Priority actions to promote a safe, healthy, and caring community include: (1) Minimize risks associated with natural hazards, (2) Promote activE living and healthy lifestyles, and (3) Monitor special needs.
Technical assistance to local health and social service organizations; and
Participation in school and agency programs.
Action SHCC-1: Minimize risks associated with natural hazards.
SHCC-3.2: UPDATE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SOCIAL CARE FACILITIES Review and update use requirements and development standards to foster the supply of “social care” uses, including standards for child care, elder care, rehab facilities, and group homes. Update the development code to allow these uses in additional zoning districts, where appropriate.
Boise’s dramatic natural setting increases its exposure to natural hazards. Priority actions to minimize risks associated with these hazards include: SHCC-1.1—UPDATE HAZARD AREA MAPPING Work with the Ada City/County Emergency Management Department and other local, state, and federal partners to compile and maintain mapping that identifies the location and distribution of known hazards in the community, including: geologic; seismic; hydrologic; and wildfire.
(See policies CEA-1.1 through 1.5, and SHCC-10.1 through 10.3.)
(See policies CEA-1.1 through 1.5 and SHCC-10.1 through 10.3.)
(See policies SHCC-1.6 and 2.1.)
Action SHCC-2: Promote active living and healthy lifestyles.
Boise is home to an enviable network of parks and open space, which encourage residents to lead active lifestyles. To help support active lifestyles, additional connections are needed to improve access between these amenities and surrounding neighborhoods. Priority actions include: SHCC-2.1—EXPAND PATHWAY AND TRAILS NETWORK Implement Around the Next Turn: A 10 Year Management Plan for the Ridge to Rivers Trail System to improve connections between the city’s parks, and between neighborhoods.
Action SHCC-3: Monitor special needs.
Boise recognizes the need to protect the health of ALL of its residents, including its most vulnerable populations. Priority actions include: SHCC-3.1: COORDINATION OF SOCIAL SERVICE INTIATIVES Coordinate with existing health care and social service providers to monitor special needs that arise with the city’s most vulnerable populations including but not limited to refugees, homeless, elderly, and low income residents. Provide assistance through;
Ongoing leadership in the coordination of social service initiatives;
5-10
BLUEPRINT BOISE
ACTION PLAN
Table 11: Summary of Priority Actions The table below provides a list of priority actions needed to implement this plan, by theme. City staff and planning officials will need to update this table on an annual basis, or as necessary, to keep the responsibilities and actions current. The “Lead” and “Partners” columns identify city department(s) responsible for leading a particular action and the partner departments or agencies whose participation and assistance will be required to complete the action. Abbreviations for city departments are as follows: Planning and Development Services (PDS), Public Works (PW), Parks and Recreation (P&R), Information Technology (IT), and Arts and History (A&H). The “Timing” column lists four possible time frames for implementing actions: (1) - Immediate Priority, to be implemented concurrent within one to two years after plan adoption. (2) - High Priority, to be initiated as soon as possible and completed within two year to three years after plan adoption. (O) - Ongoing, are actions that occur continually. ACTIONS
LEAD
PARTNERS
TIMING
ES-1.1—Take the initiative on all city buildings and projects as opportunities for demonstration of sustainable design and development practices.
PDS, Mayor’s Office
PW, P&R
O
ES-1.2—Expand the Sustainable Boise section of the city’s website and update regularly to highlight progress in each of the categories identified. (See also, ES-2.2.).
PDS, Mayor’s Office
IT
O
ES-1.3—Create a plan to reduce waste in the city’s day-to-day operations.
PW
All depts.
2
ES-2.1—Work with city departments and partner agencies to establish tracking criteria, data sources, and responsibilities.
PDS
PW, P&R, ACHD, COMPASS
2
ES-2.2—Expand the Sustainable Boise section of the city’s website to provide real-time tracking of the community’s progress. (See also, ES-1.2.)
PDS
IT, PW, P&R, ACHD, COMPASS
O
THEME #1: ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP ES-1: LEAD BY EXAMPLE
ES-2: DEVELOP TOOLS NEEDED TO MEASURE AND MONITOR PROGRESS
ES-4: STRENGTHEN PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT T AREAS AND WATERWAYS
ES-4.1—Review the River System Ordinance to ensure continued protection of environmentally significant areas and waterways.
PDS
P&R
1
ES-5: ALIGN REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES WITH SUSTAINABILITY POLICIES
ES-5.1—Identify potential barriers and recommendations for achieving the city’s sustainability objectives in the development code.
PDS
PW, P&R
1
ES-5.2—Incorporate new or updated definitions into the zoning code to support sustainability policies.
PDS
PW, P&R
1
ES-5.3—Review, update and expand permitted/prohibited uses in existing zoning districts to support sustainability policies.
PDS
PW, P&R
1
ES-5.4—Create new mixed-use zoning districts to facilitate compact development.
PDS
PW, P&R
1
ES-5.5— Expand or create new standards to support sustainable uses.
1
BLUEPRINT BOISE
5-11
ACTION PLAN
ACTIONS
LEAD
PARTNERS
TIMING
ES-5.6—Develop a strategic plan to promote expanded opportunities for community-based and local food production.
PDS
P&R
ES-5.7—Establish incentives for energy conservation and sustainable development practices.
PDS, PW
2
PDP-1.1—Prioritize infrastructure improvements in areas targeted for infill and redevelopment.
PDS, PW
2
PDP-1.2—Establish incentives for the production of housing on underutilized land.
PDS
2
2
THEME #2: A PREDICTABLE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN PDP-1: ESTABLISH INCENTIVES FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT
PDP-2: INCREASE EDUCATION AND AWARENESS ABOUT INFILL DEVELOPMENT
PDP 2.1—Promote the benefits and positive examples of infill development through an education campaign.
PDS
Ox
PDP 2.2—Seek community input on the development of new zoning districts and design standards for infill development. (See also, CSN-1).
PDS
1
PDP 2.3—Monitor progress of infill development and infill possibilities.
PDS
O
PDS
O
PDP-3: PLAN FOR COORDINATED GROWTH WITHIN THE ACI BOUNDARY
PDP 3.1—Maintain a land capacity analysis for the AOCI using the improved land use data base.
THEME #3: A COMMUNITY OF STABLE NEIGHBORHOODS AND VIBRANT MIXED-USE ACTIVITY CENTERS NAC-1: ESTABLISH TOOLS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE DESIRED PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT
NAC-1.1— Create mixed-use and transit-supportive development zoning districts. Consider form-based approaches where appropriate. (See also CC.1.)
PDS
1
NAC-1.2—Develop design standards to implement the Community Design Principles in Chapter 4.
PDS
1
PDS
2
NAC-2: Update the City’s Neighborhood Planning Framework NAC-2.1—Update neighborhood planning framework. THEME #4: A CONNECTED COMMUNITY CC-1: EXPAND NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION
CC-1.1—Create mixed-use and transit-supportive development zoning districts. (See also, NAC-1, PDP-1, and EC-2).
PDS
ACHD, CCDC
1
CC-1.2—Adopt an updated master streets plan.
PDS
ACHD
2
CC-1.3—Reexamine standards for public and private streets, sidewalks, alleys, and parking.
PDS
ACHD
1
CC-1.4 - Establish standards for street connectivity, particularly in those planning areas where large areas of change have been identified.
PDS
ACHD
1
5-12
BLUEPRINT BOISE
ACTION PLAN
ACTIONS
LEAD
PARTNERS
TIMING
CC-2.1—Modify existing standards or develop new tracking standards.
PDS
ACHD, COMPASS, SDS
1
CC-2.2—Use existing tracking mechanisms and new standards, as they become available, to monitor progress towards goals.
PDS
ACHD, COMPASS, School Districts
O
CC-2: DEVELOP TOOLS NEEDED TO MEASURE AND MONITOR PROGRESS
CC-3: IMPROVE TECHNOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL CONNECTIONS
CC-3.1—Expand access to advanced telecommunications technologies in mixed-use activity centers.
PDS
2
CC-3.2—Establish development guidelines for building design that encourage or allow advanced telecommunication features.
PDS
2
CC-3.3—Continue to convene gatherings with local partners on issues of mutual interest and need. Seek opportunities to leverage available resources.
PDS
O
THEME #5: A COMMUNITY THAT VALUES ITS CULTURE, EDUCATION, ARTS, AND HISTORY CEA-1: PROMOTE SCHOOLS AS NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS
CEA-1.1—Develop design criteria to address neighborhood school design PDS objectives that promote schools as neighborhood centers.
SDS
1
CEA-1.2—Work with school districts to identify locations and needs for future school sites.
PDS
SDS
O
CEA-1.3—Establish safe routes to schools.
PDS
SDS
O
CEA-2: STRENGTHEN THE NUMBER AND QUALITY OF ARTS AND HISTORY OPPORTUNITIES IN BOISE
CEA-2.1—Provide leadership through the Boise City Department of Arts and History for cultural programs and production.
A&H, PDS
O
CEA-2.2—Develop arts and education initiatives locally and regionally.
A&H, PDS
O
EC-1.1—Redefine and update home occupation and live/work standards.
PDS
1
EC-1.2—Provide incentives for businesses that incorporate sustainable practices and source reduction into their business model.
ED
CCDC
1
EC-2.1—Create new downtown zoning districts and development standards.
PDS
CCDC, ACHD
1
EC-2.2—Remove regulatory barriers to and establish incentives to encourage higher-intensity development downtown.
PDS
CCDC, ACHD
1
THEME #6: A STRONG, DIVERSE ECONOMY EC-1: PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRIES
EC-2: PROMOTE DOWNTOWN VITALITY
BLUEPRINT BOISE
5-13
ACTION PLAN
ACTIONS
LEAD
PARTNERS
TIMING
PDS
CNTY
O
PDS, P&R
CNTY
O
THEME #7: A SAFE, HEALTHY, AND CARING COMMUNITY SHCC-1: MINIMIZE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL HAZARDS
SHCC-1.1— Work with local, state, and federal partners to compile and maintain hazard area mapping. SHCC-2: PROMOTE ACTIVE LIVING AND HEALTHY LIFESTYLES
SHCC-2.1—Implement the Pathway System Plan and the Ridge-to- Rivers Pathway Plans to improve connections between the city’s parks. SHCC-3: MONITOR SPECIAL NEEDS
SHCC-3.1— Coordinate with existing health care and social service providers to monitor the special needs of vulnerable populations.
PDS
O
SHCC-3.2—Update child care standards and allow in additional districts.
PDS
1
5-14
BLUEPRINT BOISE
APPENDIX A: PLANS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS
Appendix A: Plans and Property Rights A land use regulation or action must not be unduly restrictive so that it causes a “taking” of a landowner’s property without just compensation. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that private property shall not be taken for public use “without just compensation”. In the land use context, the argument is that if the land use ordinance, regulation or decision is so restrictive as to deprive the owner of economically viable use of the property, then the property has for all practical purposes been taken by inverse condemnation.
Federal Standard The determination, as to whether or not a land use decision amounts to a taking as prohibited by the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, has been a difficult task to resolve for the courts, including the U. S. Supreme Court. Determining when a government action amounts to a taking, requiring either the payment of compensation or invalidation of the action for violation of due process, is a complex undertaking. The U. S. Supreme Court itself has admitted candidly that it has been unable to develop a “set formula”’ to determine when “justice and fairness” require that economic injuries caused by public action be compensated by the government, rather than remain disproportionately concentrated on a few persons. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U. S. 104, 124 (1978) (quoting Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590, 594 (1962)). Instead, the high court has observed that “whether a particular restriction will be rendered invalid by the government’s failure to pay for any losses proximately caused by it depends largely ‘upon the particular circumstances [in that] case.’ (Penn Central at 124) (alteration in original) (quoting U.S. v. Central Eureka Mining Co., 357 U.S. 155, 168 (1958)). The question of whether a regulation has gone too far and a taking has occurred has been an ad hoc, factual inquiry.
State Requirements In 1995, the Idaho State Legislature amended the Local Land Use Planning Act to include “[a]n analysis of provisions which may be necessary to ensure that land use polices, restrictions, conditions and fees do not violate private property rights, adversely impact property values or create unnecessary technical limitations on the use of property . . .” Idaho Code § 67-6508 (a). Although a comprehensive plan that contains such analysis does not provide an absolute defense to a taking claim, some courts give weight to comprehensive plans when they consider taking problems. Courts seem impressed by a municipality’s efforts to plan, and the usual planning process that strives to comprehensively balance land use opportunities throughout a given community. In an effort to provide municipalities guidance with regards to “takings,” the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Idaho has prepared the following checklist in reviewing the potential impact of a regulatory or administrative action upon specific property. 1) Does the regulation or action result in a permanent or temporary physical occupation of private property? Regulation or action resulting in a permanent or temporary physical occupation of all or a portion of private property will generally constitute a “taking.” For example, a regulation that required landlords to allow the installation of cable television boxes in their apartments was found to constitute a “taking.” (See Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419 [1982]).
2) Does the regulation or action require a property owner to dedicate a portion of property or
BLUEPRINT BOISE
A-1
APPENDIX A: PLANS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS to grant an easement? Carefully review all regulations requiring the dedication of property or grant of an easement. The dedication of property must be reasonably and specifically designed to prevent or compensate for adverse impacts of the proposed development. Likewise, the magnitude of the burden placed on the proposed development should be reasonably related to the adverse impacts created by the development. A court will also consider whether the action in question substantially advances a legitimate state interest. For example, the United States Supreme Court determined in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n 483 U. S. 825 (1987) that compelling an owner of waterfront property to grant a public easement across his property that does not substantially advance the public’s interest in beach access, constitutes a “taking.” Likewise, the United States Supreme Court held that compelling a property owner to leave a public green way, as opposed to a private one, did not substantially advance protection of a floodplain, and was a “taking.” (Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 U. S. 2309 [June 24, 1994]). 3) Does the regulation deprive the owner of all economically viable uses of the property? If a regulation prohibits all economically viable or beneficial uses of the land, it will likely constitute a “taking.” In this situation, the agency can avoid liability for just compensation only if it can demonstrate that the proposed uses are prohibited by the laws of nuisance or other preexisting limitations on the use of the property. (See Lucus v. South Carolina Coastal Coun., 112 S. Ct. 2886 [1992].) Unlike one, and two property available. (See Florida Rock Industries, Inc. v. United States, 18 F.3d 1560 [Fed. Cir. 1994]). The remaining use does not necessarily have to be the owner’s planned use, a prior use or the highest and best use of the property. One factor in this assessment is the degree to which the regulatory action interferes with a property owner’s reasonable investment-backed expectations.
Carefully review regulations requiring that all of a particular parcel of land be left substantially in its natural state. A prohibition of all economically viable uses of the property is vulnerable to a takings challenge. In some situations, however, there may be preexisting limitations on the use of property that could insulate the government from takings liability. 4) Does the regulation have a significant impact on the landowner’s economic interest? Carefully review regulations that have a significant impact on the owner’s economic interest. Courts will often compare the value of property before and after the impact of the challenged regulation. Although a reduction in property value alone may not be a “taking,” a severe reduction in property value often indicates a reduction or elimination of reasonably profitable uses. Another economic factor courts will consider is the degree to which the challenged regulation impacts any development rights of the owner. As with three, above, these economic factors are normally applied to the property as a whole.5) Does the regulation deny a fundamental attribute of ownership? Regulations that deny the landowner a fundamental attribute of ownership — including the right to possess, exclude others and dispose of all or a portion of the property — are potential takings. The United States Supreme Court recently held that requiring a public easement for recreational purposes where the harm to be prevented was to the flood plain was a “taking.” In finding this to be a “taking,” the Court stated: The city never demonstrated why a public green way, as opposed to a private one, was required in the interest of flood control. The difference to the petitioner, of course, is the loss of her ability to exclude others . . . [This right to exclude others is “one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property.”] Dolan vs. City of Tigard, 114 U. S. 2309 (June 24, 1994). The United States\ Supreme Court has also held that barring the inheritance (an essential attribute of ownership) of certain interest in land held
A-2
BLUEPRINT BOISE
APPENDIX A: PLANS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS by individual members of an Indian tribe constituted a “taking.” Hodel v. Irving, 481 U. S. 704 (1987). 5) Does the regulation serve the same purpose that would be served by directly prohibiting the use or action, and does the condition imposed substantially advance that purpose? A regulation may go too far and may result in a takings claim where it does not substantially advance a legitimate governmental purpose. (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 107 S CT. 3141 [1987]; Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 U. S. 2309 [June 24, 1994]). In Nollan, the United States Supreme Court held that it was an unconstitutional “taking” to condition the issuance of a permit to land owners on the grant of an easement to the public to use their beach. The Court found that since there was not indication that the Nollans’ house plans interfered in any way with the public’s ability to walk up and down the beach, there was no “nexus” between any public interest that might be harmed by the construction of the house, and the permit condition. Lacking this connection, the required easement was just as unconstitutional as it would be if imposed outside the permit context. Likewise, regulatory actions that closely resemble, or have effects of a physical invasion or occupation of property, are more likely to be found to be takings. The greater the deprivation of use, the greater the likelihood that a “taking” will be found.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
A-3
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TERMS
Appendix B: Glossary of Comprehensive Plan Terms Accessory Unit A second unit, typically a rental, that is added to an existing single family home. Adaptive Reuse The modification of buildings to accommodate a land use other than that for which the building was originally constructed. Affordable Housing Housing with rents or mortgage costs that are 30% or less of the gross monthly income of a household at 80% or below the Boise Metropolitan Statistical Area median income. Airport Influence Area A delineated area around the Boise Air Terminal that is subject to increased noise and safety impacts due to the proximity of airport operations and flight patterns. Restrictions on land use and building occupancy; and requirements for noise attenuation of new structures are applied in this area. Airport Noise Zone One of several mapped noise impact areas within the Airport Influence Area. Special land use and noise attenuation regulations are in effect for the Airport Noise Zone. Area of Impact Also known as the city’s planning area. It is the land area surrounding the limits of each city, negotiated between each individual city and the county in which it lies. Each city has comprehensive planning authority for its area of impact, but until annexation occurs, zoning and development entitlement is handled by the county.
Alternative Transportation Forms of travel that are different than travel by automobile, including walking, bicycling; and use of transit vehicles such as buses, streetcars, light rail and commuter rail. Avigation Easements Property rights granted to airports by adjacent or nearby properties that allow the airport to create noise and other impacts on the properties through normal airport operations. Base Zone The uses allowed and the accompanying development standards in areas covered by the designations on the zoning map. These are noted in capital letters and often times followed by numbers. Benefit Assessment District A defined area which is voluntarily established by the property owners within it to subject themselves to special monthly or annual assessments in order to pay debt which has been incurred for a specific improvement or repair, such as storm drains, sidewalks, street lighting or similar facilities. Best Management Practice A practice or combination of practices, techniques, or measures developed, or identified by the designated agency and identified in the state water quality management plan which are determined to be the cost effective and practicable means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by non-point sources to a level compatible with water quality goals. (This proposed definition will be presented to the State Health and Welfare Board for approval).
BLUEPRINT BOISE
B-1
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TERMS Blueprint for Good Growth The Blueprint for Good Growth is a collaborative multi-jurisdictional effort intended to coordinate land use and public facility decisions so that growth in Ada County will be an asset to existing residents and future generations. The plan establishes an overall framework for growth management in Ada County that includes policies and strategies that ultimately will be incorporated into the plans, regulations and practices of Ada County, its cities, Ada County Highway District (ACHD) and the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). Buffer An area within a property or site, generally adjacent to and parallel with the property line, either consisting of existing natural vegetation or created by the use of trees, shrubs, berms and/or fences and designed to limit views and sounds from the development tract to adjacent parties and vice versa. Building Codes Legislative regulations that prescribe the materials, requirements and methods to be used in the construction, rehabilitation, maintenance and repair of buildings. Boise City has adopted the Uniform Building Code (UBC), developed by the International Conference of Building Officials. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) A public transportation system that uses buses to provide a transportation service that is of a higher speed than an ordinary bus line. Often this is achieved by having lanes that are dedicated to buses, or making improvements to existing facilities, vehicles, and scheduling. Capital Improvement Program A process of identifying and budgeting for the public facilities that a jurisdiction will need to construct in order to serve existing and anticipated development. Capital improvement programming is typically done in five year increments with annual updates. A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) must address the type of project, the location of the project, the cost of the project, the source of funds to finance
the project, the agency or department responsible for the project and the time frame for completion of the project. Capital Improvement Programs are a primary tool of most growth management programs. Certificate of Appropriateness A document awarded by the Historic Preservation Commission allowing an applicant to proceed with a proposed alteration, demolition or new construction within a locally designated historic district, following determination of the proposal’s suitability according to applicable criteria. Circulator or Circulator Transit Routes served by buses, streetcars, or other types of public transit that distributes people throughout an area. Circulators often connect with high-capacity transit stations and bring passengers within an area to and from the station. Class A, B and C Lands The Boise River System ordinance establishes three land and water habitat classifications that are afforded varying levels of protection: Class A areas provide extremely important habitats for fish and wildlife and for flood control and protection. The objective for these lands is to preserve and protect them for their primary benefits to fish and wildlife in general, and to protect bald eagle, great blue heron, trout and waterfowl habitat in particular. Class B areas provide good potential for improvements to natural resource functions and values. The objective for these lands is to invite development plans that demonstrate improvement to natural resource functions and values, and mitigate negative impacts to existing resource functions and values. Class C lands are the least important for preservation, providing limited fish and wildlife habitat and limited potential for enhancement because of incompatibility with other uses. The objective for these lands is to invite development plans that provide landscaping and other habitat improvements.
B-2
BLUEPRINT BOISE
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TERMS Climate Change or Global Warming Changes to the climate due to human caused emissions of greenhouse gases and their increased concentrations in the atmosphere. These changes have been linked to an increase in global and regional average temperatures, which is referred to as global warming. Major greenhouse gases (GHG) include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane(CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), and ozone (O2). Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) A grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on a formula basis for entitlement communities. This grant allots money to cities for housing rehabilitation and community development, including public facilities and economic development. Compatible Land uses capable of existing together without conflict or ill effects. Complete Streets Streets or roadways designed and operated to enable safe, attractive, and comfortable access and travel for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and public transit users of all ages and abilities are able to safely and comfortably move along and across a complete street. Community Garden A neighborhood-based, small-scale urban agriculture activity (primarily focused on fruits, vegetables and flowers) that can contribute to community development, environmental awareness, positive social interaction, community education and general health. This type of garden is generally divided into multiple plots for crop cultivation and maintained by individual parties. Conditional Use Permit A special permit required for use classifications typically having unusual site development features or operating characteristics requiring special consideration so that they may be designed, located,
and operated compatibly with surrounding development. Consolidated Housing Plan A housing and community development plan undertaken as a requirement of the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Consolidated Plan succeeds the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), and makes it possible for entitlement cities to access federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME funds as a single grant submission. The Consolidated Plan endeavors to address the housing and community development needs of low and moderate income households, and special needs populations within the city. Cross- Access Agreement An agreement between adjacent property owners in which internal connections are provided between parking areas in order to improve traffic flow on the street by minimizing the number of access points needed. Cross-access agreements are typically obtained incrementally as a condition of approval for new development. The first on to develop will be required to make an irrevocable offer of cross-access to the adjacent parcel and must design the parking lot to accommodate the access. When the adjacent owner wishes to develop, they will be conditioned to reciprocate with a similar cross-access agreement and complete the access. Routes served by buses, streetcars, or other types of public transit that distributes people throughout an Decibel A unit of sound pressure level (abbreviated dB) which is used to express noise level. The term dB(A) is the same concept, except that it is “Aweighted” to de-emphasize very low and very high frequency sounds and to provide a better correlation with subjective reactions to noise. The term Ldn is a further refinement which is the average equivalent A-weighted sound level during a 24- hour day, averaged on an annual basis.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
B-3
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TERMS Density The number of units (e.g. families, persons, housing units, jobs or buildings) per unit of land, usually expressed as “per acre”. Density Transfer Credits A process permitting unused allowable densities in one area to be used in another area. Where density transfer is permitted, the average density over an area will remain constant, but will vary by subarea. Within a single development, the result will normally be a clustering of buildings on smaller lots with other land retained as open space. Design Guidelines A set of design parameters used to evaluate the acceptability of a project’s design. Diversion Rate The percentage of waste materials diverted from traditional disposal such as landfilling or incineration to be recycled, composted or reused. Facade Easements A specific category of historic easement that protects the facade of a building by controlling alterations and requiring maintenance. Fair Housing Act Fair Housing Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, enacted to prohibit housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, handicap, sex, and/or familial status. Fire Flow The minimum number of gallons per minute that are needed to fight a fire in a structure, for two continuous hours through fire plugs in the near proximity of the structure. Fire flow requirements are established by the national Uniform Fire Code and are a factor in the city’s ISO rating. Floodway Fringe The area that lies between the floodway and the outside boundary of the 100-year flood. Also known as the 100-year floodplain. Development is
permitted in this area subject to compliance with standards for finished floor elevation and/or flood proofing. Floodway The river channel and adjacent land areas that must be reserved to discharge flood waters from a 100year flood. Development is prohibited in this area. Floor Area Ratio A measure of the amount of floor area that can be built on a site based on a predetermined ratio of allowable floor area to lot area. The Boise City Zoning Code defines Floor Area Ratio as “the sum of the horizontal areas of the several floors inside the exterior walls of a building or portion thereof divided by the lot area.” Floor Area Ratios are generally used to control building heights and/or bulk. Franchise Fees A method of financing public improvements in which the private or publicly traded purveyors of certain services in the City must pay the City a franchise fee for the opportunity of being able to operate in the City. Examples of franchise fees include those levied on cable TV providers and phone service providers. Functional Classification A system for classifying the transportation system in terms of the character of service that individual facilities are providing or are intended to provide, ranging from travel mobility to land access. Roadway system functional classification elements include freeways or expressways, other principal arterials, minor arterials, collector streets, and local streets. Future Facilities Maps Maps of the suggested general or known specific location of planned but unbuilt facilities such as schools, fire stations, power lines, sub stations, parks, etc. Future facilities maps should be prepared by the various service providers and should be based upon needs projected from data such as growth projections, comprehensive plan land use
B-4
BLUEPRINT BOISE
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TERMS maps and policies, and zoning. Such maps may be adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. Future Land Use Map The Future Land Use Map depicts the general distribution of proposed land uses, by general category, throughout the city and, in conjunction with other applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan, provides direction for which zoning designations may be appropriate. The map is included in Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan. Gateway Building A building located at a gateway and which dramatically marks this entrance or transition through massing, extended height, use of arches or colonnades, or other distinguishing features. Gateway/Gateway Treatment A major corridor of entry into the City of Boise that will tend to create initial impressions of the City for visitors. Gateway streets should be subject to enhanced design review standards such as signage, landscaping, architecture, vehicular access and materials. Green Building/Green Design The US Environmental Protection Agency defines green buildings as Structures that incorporate the principles of sustainable design-design in which the impact of a building on the environment will be minimal over the lifetime of that building. Green buildings incorporate principles of energy and resource efficiency, practical applications of waste reduction and pollution prevention, good air-quality and natural light to promote occupant health and productivity, and transportation efficient in design and construction, during use and reuse. Green Infrastructure Natural systems and processes that perform environmental services that benefit humans and their settlements. These environmental services include reducing flooding, recharging aquifers for which people obtain their drinking water, and cleaning storm water.
Gross Acreage A measure of land area in which the amount of land credited to a parcel or parcels includes the area out to the centerline of abutting public streets or other public rights-of-way. The Future Land Use Map residential density designations are based upon gross acreage rather than net acreage, which counts only the legal parcel area minus any land that must be dedicated to public street or other public right ofway. Growth Management A process of managing the growth and development of a community in such a way that the amount and location of growth that occurs is anticipated by local agencies and necessary public services are planned and financed to occur in conjunction with the growth and resulting need for those services. Growth management is not taken to mean the setting of arbitrary caps on development nor the establishment of a preferred rate of growth. However, growth may be purposely slowed or delayed if it is apparent that essential services will be overwhelmed by growth. When a method is found to plan and finance the necessary services, growth may be allowed to resume at the market pace. High Capacity Transit Fixed-rail transit, bus rapid transit, or multiple high frequency bus routes that operate on no less than ten-minute headways at peak service, or by commuter rail service that connects the station area to other regional employment or activity centers. Highest and Best Use The use of a property that will bring to its owners the greatest profit. In theory, the economics of the real estate market establish a maximum value for each parcel of land at any given time. Highest and best use may not be the same as the use planned for an area through the Future Land Use Map. Historic Easements Any easement, restriction, covenant or condition running with the land designed and designated to
BLUEPRINT BOISE
B-5
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TERMS preserve, maintain and enhance all or part of the existing state of place of historical, architectural, archeological, educational or cultural significance. Homeless Shelter A facility providing temporary housing to populations who are homeless, transient, or indigent, which may also provide ancillary services such as meals and counseling. Impact Fees A method of financing off-site public improvements in which developers are charged a facility specific fee in proportion to the amount of need for the facility that their development project will generate. A jurisdiction must first establish impact fee districts and quantify the amount of need for facility improvements that each new development in the district will create. Fees are typically assessed on a per-square foot of construction basis. Examples of impact fees are traffic impact fees and park impact fees. State legislation is required to authorize the creation of impact fees for specific types of facilities. Infill Housing Housing units constructed on small remnant parcels within otherwise developed neighborhoods. The city has historically allowed higher density housing than the zoning would otherwise allow on such lots as a means of encouraging the efficient use of land. To qualify as an infill lot, a developer must demonstrate that sewer and water service are available and that 80 percent of the parcels within a 300 foot radius of the subject lot are developed. Inventory of Historic Places A compilation of site forms and information gathered on historic and potentially historic sites in Idaho. The Inventory includes 35,000-40,000 sites of historic, architectural or archeological interest. It is maintained by the State Historic Preservation Office, within the Idaho State Historical Society. Intensity of Use The number of dwelling units per acre for residential development and floor are ratio (FAR) for
nonresidential development, such as commercial, office, industrial, and public/institutional. Internal Consistency A finding that the various goals, objectives and policies of the chapters and subsections of the Comprehensive Plan do not contradict one another. The Comprehensive Plan may not be amended in such a way that conflicting policies are caused to exist. Internal consistency of the Comprehensive Plan policies is important to maintain so that proper and defensible findings for approval or denial of applications may be made, based upon the plan Jobs/Housing Balance An optimum ratio of employment opportunities to housing opportunities within a limited area that is deemed to minimize the need for long distance automobile commutes, thereby reducing traffic congestion and improving air quality. A ratio of 1.5 jobs for every housing unit is generally considered to be an appropriate jobs/housing balance. Leadership in Energy in Environmental Design (LEED) LEED is an internationally recognized green building certification system, providing third-party verification that a building or community was designed and built using strategies aimed at improving performance across all the metrics that matter most: energy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissions reduction, improved indoor environmental quality, and stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts. (source US Green Building Council) Level of Service A measure of the effectiveness of a transportation network, or the elements thereof, such as roadways and intersections. LOS is expressed as a letter A-F, with A being best and F being worst. ACHD has set LOS D as an acceptable level of service for collectors and minor arterials, and LOS E as an acceptable level of service for principal arterials. Linkage A line of communication, such as a pathway, arcade,
B-6
BLUEPRINT BOISE
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TERMS bridge, lane, etc., linking two areas or neighborhoods which are either distinct or separated by a physical feature, e.g. a railroad line, major arterial, or a natural feature such as a river or stream. Livable Streets for Tomorrow The Transportation and Land Use Integration Plan is an outgrowth of the region’s Blueprint for Good Growth which is aimed at addressing the best methods to manage growth for a sustainable future in Ada County, Idaho. Through the Blueprint for Good Growth and Communities in Motion longrange planning efforts, the public has stated a desire for better design of roadways and increased coordination with adjacent land uses. People have expressed preferences for roads that fit well and complement the built environment (neighborhood, downtown district, etc.). There also appears to be a strong desire for well-thought-out growth that avoids sprawl and ensures that basic services are in place and that the development does not become a drain on the prior residents. ACHD’s answer is the Transportation and Land Use Integration Plan, or TLIP, an attempt to better link land-use and transportation planning. Local Improvement District (LID) Known by the acronym LID, a system whereby adjacent and benefiting property owners share in the expense of public improvement installations. Low Income Household A household that earns or receives 80% or less of the median income for the Boise Metropolitan Statistical Area (BMSA). Very low income households are defined as earning or receiving 50% or less of the median income for the BMSA. Manufactured Housing Housing, such as mobile homes, that is shipped to the site either as a completed unit or as a number of completed sections and rooms which can be joined on-site with a minimum of effort. Massing The three-dimensional bulk of a structure consist-
ing of height, width, and depth. Master Plan A conceptual plan submitted for approval prior to application for individual entitlements. A master plan must depict the general type, amount and distribution of proposed land uses, the basic circulation system, the general location of open space, the general sizing and distribution of utilities and services, and the expected phasing of development. Subsequent plat maps and other entitlements will reviewed for consistency with the master plan. Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Regional policy body, required in urbanized areas with populations over 50,000, and designated by local officials and the governor of the state. Responsible, in cooperation with the state and other transportation planning providers, for carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning requirements of federal highway and transit legislation. Mitigation Measures Matrix A matrix of locational, design and material standards that are intended to protect various types of structures and landscapes from the threat of wildfire, flooding or similar natural hazards. Mixed Use - Horizontal A development or group of developments that includes a combination of residential and commercial or office uses. The Future Land Use Map identifies several areas in which mixed use development should be required. Mixed use development may reduce reliance on automobile travel, but is not synonymous with New Urbanism. Mixed Use - Vertical A building that includes a combination of residential and commercial or office uses. Commercial uses are typically found on the ground level, with residential and/or office uses occupying the upper floors of buildings. The Future Land Use Map Identifies several areas in which mixed use should be required.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
B-7
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TERMS
Multi-Modal Transportation System A transportation system which employs a variety of interconnected methods of moving people and goods into, around and out of an area. These methods include but are not limited to airplanes, automobile, bus, rail, car pooling, van pooling, bicycling and walking. Multiple Objective Management Plan A plan that manages floodway and flood hazard areas for a variety of uses and objectives, including but not limited to; flood protection, water quality, aquifer recharge, habitat protection, recreation, aesthetics and development. The existing Boise River System ordinance addresses many of the issues of a Multiple Objective Management Plan, but could be expanded to provide more comprehensive emphasis on flood protection (planned periodic scouring flows, more restrictive development standards) and habitat protection (Wintering Bald Eagle study recommendations, black cottonwood forest rejuvenation). National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Known by the acronym NPDES. A point source permitting program established pursuant to Section 402 of the federal Clean Water Act, NPDES permits are issued for all direct discharges to surface waters including: municipal (over 100,000 population) and industrial wastewater and municipal and industrial stormwater. Boise City has two wastewater NPDES permits and is a co-permittee with ACHD, ITD, Settlers Irrigation District, Drainage District III and Boise State University (BSU) for a municipal stormwater permit.
National Register of Historic Places The official list of the nation’s cultural resources worthy of preservation. Administered and maintained by the National Park Service in the Department of the Interior.
Neighborhood Reinvestment Program (NRP) A grant program, whereby registered neighborhood associations identify and prioritize neighborhood capitol improvement projects. Neighborhood Specific Plans (NSP) A plan written by the neighborhoods with assistance from city staff that prescribes a long-range plan for neighborhood maintenance and/or improvement (See Specific Plan). Net Metering A program that allows customers to generate power on their property and connect it to a utility’s power system. The electric meter “spins” backwards, providing a credit for energy production against charges for energy used. Systems connected to the grid are referred to as “interconnected.” New Economy A knowledge and idea based economy where the keys to wealth and job creation are the extent to which ideas, innovation, and technology are embedded in all sectors of the economy. New Urbanism/Neo-Traditional Code A form of development in which a range of housing product types and supporting commercial services are provided in close proximity to one another and designed to be pedestrian-oriented. New urbanism projects do not exclude automobiles, rather, they place pedestrians on an equal basis in terms of priority.
Overlay Zones Overlay zones are special “supplementary” restrictions on the use of land beyond the requirements in the underlying zone. A parcel of land may have more than one overlay zone. These overlay designations appear on the city’s zoning maps following the base zone designations.
B-8
BLUEPRINT BOISE
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TERMS
Park Classifications: Community Park Usually exceeds 20 acres in size and serves a one to two mile radius. Because community parks are larger they typically require additional support facilities such as parking, restrooms, covered play areas, etc., and often have sports fields or similar facilities as their central focus. Large Urban Park Designed to serve the entire community and provide a wide variety of specialized facilities such as sport fields, indoor recreation facilities and large picnic areas. Large urban parks usually exceed 50 acres, and should be designed to accommodate many people. Linear Park Open space areas that generally follow a stream corridor, ravine, street or other elongated feature. They often contain various types of trail systems. These parks vary greatly in size and service standards. Mini-Park Also referred to as pocket parks, these parks are typically single purpose play lots designed for young children. Because of their small size (less than two acres), facilities are usually limited to a small grass area, a children’s playground and a bench or a picnic table. A mini-park site should be located central to its quarter-mile service area. The Boise Parks and Recreation Department does not provide Mini-Parks. Neighborhood Park A combination playground and park, designed primarily for non-supervised, unorganized recreational activities. Neighborhood Parks are generally three to ten acres, and typically serve residents within a half-mile radius.
Regional Park Large recreational parks which serve the city and the area beyond. Regional parks in urban areas sometimes offer a wider range of facilities and activities such as museums and other cultural attractions. Special Use Areas Public recreation lands with a single purpose facility or activity that does not fit into any other category. Examples of these types of facilities include sports complexes, golf courses, interpretive parks, etc. Natural Open Space Land maintained primarily in its natural condition, with recreation uses potentially accommodated where they do not conflict with natural values. Such lands provide opportunities to observe nature and obtain a higher level of solitude than is typically found in developed parks. Parkway A planting area located within the public right-ofway typically located between the curb and the sidewalk, and planted with ground cover and trees. Pedestrian Oriented Development Development designed with an emphasis primarily on the street sidewalk and pedestrian access to buildings rather than on automobile access and parking spaces. Planned Unit Development (PUD) A development project, typically residential, entitled under the provisions of the Planned Development section of the Boise City zoning code. Under these provisions, a development can deviate from minimum lot sizes and other standard requirements of the code, in return for provision of common open space and other more creative design features. Planning Area On the largest scale, the entire area (Area of Impact) for which the city has authority to prepare comprehensive plans. On a smaller scale, planning area
BLUEPRINT BOISE
B-9
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TERMS refers to the various sub-areas (i.e. West Bench, Central Bench, Southwest, etc,) which the city has defined as making up the larger planning area. These sub-areas are defined by physical barriers and/or the character of existing developments within them, and may each have specific planning objectives and policies articulated in the Comprehensive Plan.
2) Neighborhood Reinvestment Program (NRP), a grant program, whereby neighborhoods identify and prioritize neighborhood capitol improvement projects; and 3) Neighborhood Specific Plans (NSP)--A plan written by the neighborhoods with assistance from city staff that prescribes a long-range plan for neighborhood maintenance and/or improvement.
Police Priority Response Times The Police Department maintains an internal standard for response times. Priority Three calls, such as serious crimes in-progress or crimes posing imminent physical danger, receive a three-minute response time from time dispatched. Priority Two calls, such as domestic violence, receive a six to eight minute response; and Priority One calls, such as vandalism, receive a 20-minute response, but may not be dispatched for several hours if there are higher priority calls.
Rowhouses Single-family housing built on narrow lots and without side yards. These houses are built to the property line without any space between them and so when viewed, can give the impression of a row of houses.
Projects of Neighborhood Impact A proposed development which, because of the nature of its proposed use, size, or other considerations will impact a given neighborhood and therefore requires special review. Regional Fair Share Housing Program A regional housing strategy, whereby a fair share allocation of regional housing demands must be planned for and accepted by local jurisdictions. Fair share formulas are usually based on population need, percentage of existing affordable units, and the ability to accommodate additional growth. Registered Neighborhood Associations These are neighborhood associations which are officially registered with the city. Neighborhood Associations which are officially registered with the city are entitled to the following program benefits: 1) Early Notification System (ENS), a City to neighborhood written communication of Planning Commission level development applications (conditional use, variance, annexation, and/or rezone) that are planned within a neighborhood’s geographic boundary;
Screening and Bufferyard Program A proposed program in which potentially unattractive uses such as loading docks, storage areas and mechanical equipment are screened or buffered from view through techniques such as dense landscaping, decorative fencing, parapet walls, and other measures. Section 8 Housing Rental housing partially subsidized through the Federal Section 8 program. Strip Commercial A variety of unrelated retail, service and fast food uses that are located at mid block locations along arterials, oriented to take advantage of passing automobile traffic. Connectivity between strip commercial uses is usually poor, and each use will often have its own curb cut onto the arterial. Sustainable Community A sustainable community is one where the economic, social, and environmental systems are in balance, so as to provide a healthy, productive, and meaningful life for its residents, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Single Room Occupancy A residential unit designed for the occupancy by
B-10
BLUEPRINT BOISE
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TERMS one or two individual tenants. Such units typically do not have both separate bathroom and kitchen facilities. Southeast Ground Water Management Plan A 17-square mile management area in southeast Boise that has been established by the Idaho Department of Water Resources, due to declining groundwater levels in the area. Establishment of the management area limited additional development of the aquifer. A groundwater management plan for this area will be prepared by the state that will determine the future use of ground water in the area and may suggest land use regulations to promote recharge. Special Overlay District An area with unique issues that are not adequately addressed through standard zoning provisions. For these areas, overlay zoning districts exist or are proposed that add additional zoning limitations or requirements over the existing zoning. In such cases, the existing zoning is the “base zone”, and the “overlay zone” adds the additional standards that must be followed. Special Resource Water Those specific segments or bodies of water designated in state water quality standards as needing intensive protection in order to preserve outstanding or unique characteristics or to maintain current beneficial use. The Idaho Division of Environmental Quality is the state agency responsible for assessing and designating uses for waters of the state. Specific Plan Specific Plan Districts address concerns to an area when other zoning mechanisms cannot achieve the desired results. An area may be unique based on natural, economic or historic attributes; be subject to problems from rapid or severe transitions of land use; or certain public facilities which require specific land use regulations for their efficient operation. Specific Plan districts provide a means to modify zoning regulations for specific areas defined in master, neighborhood, or community plans. Each
Specific Plan has its own nontransferable set of regulations. Specific Plan district regulations are applied in conjunction with a base zone. The specific regulations of the base zone, overlay zones, or other regulations apply unless the Specific Plan District provides other regulations for the same specific topic. Storm Drainage Surface stormwater that is collected and conveyed through inlets and buried pipes to a point where is safely discharged, either into open water or into the ground. It is a substitute for natural surface drainage and infiltration. Streetscape The space between the buildings on either side of a street that defines its character. The elements of a streetscape include: building frontage/façade, landscaping (trees, yards, bushes, plantings, etc.), sidewalks, street paving, street furniture and street lighting.
Sustainable Development Development with the goal of preserving environmental quality, natural resources and livability for present and future generations. Sustainable initiatives work to ensure efficient use of resources. Tax Increment Financing A program designed to leverage private investment for economic development projects in a manner that enhances the benefits accrued to the public interest. Traffic Calming A variety of physical methods used to control traffic flow, maintain a safe and comfortable neighborhood and decrease the dominance of cars through physical or regulatory control of speed or movement on local and collector streets. Examples of traffic calming tools include speed humps, chokers and traffic circles. Transit-Oriented Development
BLUEPRINT BOISE
B-11
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TERMS A form of development in which high density uses and or activity/employment centers are located in very close proximity to existing or planned transit facilities. Transportation Demand Management Known by the acronym TDM, a variety of measures that are intended to minimize the number of new automobile trips that new developments generate. Such measures may include but are not limited to; provision of bike lanes, park and ride lots, bus stops, rideshare programs, employee incentives for alternative transportation measures, employer provided bike lockers and shower facilities, carpool lanes, traffic calming devices, etc. Transportation Improvement Program Known by the acronym TIP, a five year program of planned and budgeted transportation improvements supported by the Ada County Regional Transportation Plan. Transportation Management Association Known by the acronym TMA, an association of employers in an area who coordinate their efforts to promote the use of alternative forms of transportation by the area’s employees. Transportation Management Associations may maintain a list of employees’ addresses used to coordinate car pool programs and may provide information on bus routes, bike lanes, park and ride lots, etc. The formation of a TMA is sometimes a condition of further development or improvement in a traffic-impacted area. Underdeveloped Land Land which has a low ratio of improvement value to land value and is therefore considered to be prime for recycling to more modern uses. Underdeveloped land is not meant to imply that all non-conforming uses, old uses or housing constructed at densities below the maximum allowed by the zoning should be recycled. Urban Agriculture The growing, processing, and distribution of food
and other products through intensive plant cultivation and animal husbandry in and around cities. Urban agriculture contribute to food security by increasing the amount of food available to people living in cities and by also allowing fresh vegetables and fruits to be made available to urban consumers. Urban Design The arrangement, appearance, and functionality of cities and the relationship between buildings and sites with other buildings and sites and public spaces including streets. Urban Form The location, arrangement, density, appearance, and functionality of buildings and spaces within a city and the larger landscape. Urban Service Planning Area Areas where municipal sewer facilities and most other services and utilities are available or planned in officially adopted plans. Urban services shall generally be considered to include: central water, fire protection, parks and recreation facilities, police protection, public sanitary sewers, public transit, schools, storm drainage facilities, and urban standard streets and roads. User Fees A method of financing public improvements or maintaining existing facilities by charging the users of the facilities a reasonable fee. An example of a user fee would be a park entrance fee. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Term used for describing the total number of miles traveled by a vehicle in a given time. Most conventional VMT calculation is to multiply the average length of trips by the total number of trips. Wastewater Treated or untreated water and associated contaminants resulting from agricultural, industrial, municipal and domestic sources. Wellhead Protection Area
B-12
BLUEPRINT BOISE
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TERMS The surface and subsurface area surrounding a well or wellfield supplying water to the public. In this area, contaminants are likely to move toward and reach a drinking water well. Wellhead Protection Program An approach intended to prevent contamination of a wellhead protection area. The federal Safe Drinking Water Act requires states to prepare wellhead protection guidelines for the use of individual jurisdictions. The Boise City Public Works Department is implementing the guidelines in the Area of Impact. Wetlands Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support vegetation that is adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands are protected through a variety of federal and other regulations. Wintering Bald Eagle Conservation Plan A special study prepared by the Bald Eagle Task Force including recommendations for special setbacks, land use restrictions and other management techniques intended to ensure the continued presence of wintering bald eagle in Boise. The recommendations were intended to provide guidance for future Comprehensive Plan policies, Boise River System ordinance amendments and project conditions of approval.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
B-13
APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TERMS
This page blank.
B-14
BLUEPRINT BOISE
APPENDIX C: AREAS OF CHANGE AND STABILITY
Appendix C: Areas of Change and Stability Planning Area Maps This appendix includes a map delineating the areas of change and the areas of stability for each of the planning area listed below: • Airport Planning Area •
Barber Valley Planning Area
•
Central Bench Planning Area
•
Downtown Planning Area
•
Foothills Planning Area
•
North /East Ends Planning Area
•
Northwest Planning Area
•
Southeast Planning Area
•
Southwest Planning Area
•
West Bench Planning Area
Areas of Change and Stability As discussed in Chapter 3: Community Structure and Design, a series of workshops were held with the Neighborhood Council and the broader community to identify established land use patterns, existing zoning, areas where new development, infill, or redevelopment could occur, and the types of development that would be likely to occur in each location. This process helped shape the location and composition of areas of change and areas of stability. Criteria to define generalized areas are as follows: Areas of Stability Areas identified as “Areas of Stability” generally meet one or more of the characteristics below: NEW OR RECENT CONSTRUCTION New or recently constructed development in which change will be limited to the completion of elements included as part of the current phase of the Master Plan or Planned Unit Development that are
already under construction. ESTABLISHED AREAS Established area that meet a combination of the following criteria: • Stable or increasing property values. •
Absence of new building or tear-down permits in the past 10 years.
•
Absence of vacant or underutilized land.
•
Protective regulations, such as an historic district, in place that limit degree to which alterations in the existing pattern may occur.
•
Underlying zoning consistent with built pattern.
Areas of Change The degree of change anticipated to occur within areas identified as “Areas of Change” may vary dramatically; therefore, three categories have been established to help distinguish these areas. This additional level of specificity is intended to increase the level of predictability for residents and property owners about the degree of change that is anticipated in their planning area. The process of identifying these areas helped to define the distribution of land uses on the Future Land Use map. Areas of Change and Stability maps for each planning area are intended to serve as a general guide for considering development proposals in each area when used in conjunction with the Future Land Use map. The maps are not intended to be a used as a stand-alone decision making tool for use in reviewing, approving, or denying a proposed development; rather, they are intended to be one of many considerations to be taken into account within the context of the goals and policies contained in this plan and the city’s normal review processes.
BLUEPRINT BOISE
C-1
APPENDIX C: AREAS OF CHANGE AND STABILITY Categories are described below: LEVEL 1: SIGNIFICANT NEW DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT ANTICIPATED Significant new development anticipated on vacant parcels in the area. New development typically consists of a similar use and development intensity as found in the immediate area. Redevelopment of underutilized parcels may also be anticipated and may result in a change of use and/or a change in development intensity. Redevelopment potential triggered by one or more of the following criteria: • Location of property (e.g., along planned transit corridor or other major travel corridor, or within an existing Redevelopment District); •
Potentially underutilized nature of property (e.g., low improvement to land value ratio, vacant buildings;
•
Redevelopment plan or approved development currently in place;
•
Relocation or planned relocation of a major use (e.g., school); or
•
Completion of additional phases of an approved Master Plan or Planned Unit Development that are approved but are not currently under construction.
improvement to land value ratio; and/or •
Desirable location and/or neighborhood character.
Although a change in use would not be likely to occur in Level 2 areas, the density at which the use occurs may increase. LEVEL 3: REINVESTMENT IN ESTABLISHED INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED Reinvestment in infrastructure necessary to stabilize area and prevent further decline. Infrastructure needs will vary by location but may include upgrades to existing public facilities such as: • Schools; •
Parks;
•
Streets; and/or
•
Water and wastewater system
LEVEL 2: SOME INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES Some market-driven infill and redevelopment likely to occur within an established area. A Level 2 designation would typically be limited to areas with one or more of the following characteristics: • Availability of vacant lots or small parcels suitable for infill; •
A built pattern that is less intense than the underlying zoning allows (e.g., single-family detached neighborhood with lot sizes far in excess of minimum lot size requirements or single-family detached neighborhood with zoning that permits attached units, such as duplexes or townhomes);
•
High concentration of building permit and/ or tear down activity in past ten years;
•
High concentration of parcels with a low
C-2
BLUEPRINT BOISE
Boise
APPENDIX C: AREAS OF CHANGE AND STABILITY
Airport Planning Area: Areas of Stability and Change Bo ise r ve Ri
Fiv em
ile
BOISE AIRPORT
Cr ee k
84
SIMPLOT COMPLEX
Legend Mixed-Use Activity Centers Regional Activity Center
Community Activity Center Neighborhood Activity Center
Areas of Change/Stability Degree of Anticipated Change
1 - Significant New Development/ Redevelopment Anticipated 2 - Some Infill and Redevelopment Anticipated 3 - Reinvestment in Established Infrastructure Needed
Other Parks and Open Space Area of Impact
0
0.25
0.5
1 Miles
Source: City of Boise GIS, Ada County Assessor, Boise City Public Works Department, Clarion Associates (2009) October 2009 (Draft)
Area of Stability
BLUEPRINT BOISE
C-3
APPENDIX C: AREAS OF CHANGE AND STABILITY
Barber Valley Planning Area: Areas of Stability and Change Legend Mixed-Use Activity Centers Bo ise
Regional Activity Center
r ve Ri
PA R
Community Activity Center
KC EN
Neighborhood Activity Center
TE R
Areas of Change/Stability Degree of Anticipated Change
LAW
BERGESON
BARBER PARK
Area of Stability
RT KE C E
Other Parks and Open Space Area of Impact
ALTA HARRIS PARK
SE
L ER A FED
HOLCOMB
BO I
1 - Significant New Development/ Redevelopment Anticipated 2 - Some Infill and Redevelopment Anticipated 3 - Reinvestment in Established Infrastructure Needed
MARIANNE WILLIAMS PARK
0
BARBER POOL RESERVE
0.125
0.25
0.5 Miles
Source: City of Boise GIS, Ada County Assessor, Boise City Public Works Department, Clarion Associates (2009) October 2009 (Draft)
SIMPLOT COMPLEX
AN ENM EIS C-4
BLUEPRINT BOISE
VIE
IRENE
44 TH
IN
L
TA
IL
UN
SUNSET APPENDIX C: AREAS OF CHANGE AND STABILITY
H
MO
H
IRE NE
L
IA
R
O
EM
M
TE
R
AN
S
AM
VE
STI
C
CH I
K
GRA NGE R
36
TH
FO RT
TH
15
16
TH
27TH
LIBERTY
TH
13
TH
HA YS
VIEW
H
E
JE
FF
ER
SO
N
4T
H
O CK
N
RE
3R
11
MAI
D
A
NN
2N
N
BA
D
A
O
H
IC
AH
5T
R
TH
AM
E
ID
10
TH
IRVING
REL INE
RT
ALLUMBAUGH
SHO
ST AT
MA IN FR ON T
DEN
12
CHIN
TH
9T
H
14
FAIR
FO
MILWAUKEE
FAIRVIEW
ER
T 1S
L TO PI
UE
B
FRANKLIN
AV
EN
ANN MORRISON PARK
MORRIS HILL CEMETERY
LIBE RTY
E
FR
UN
IVE
RS
ITY
W AR
T
MYR
SP
RI
NG
S
TL E
BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
ROS E HILL
M
PA
RK
PROTEST
BO
IS
E
KOOTENAI
MANITOU PARK
SPECTRUM
SATURN
FEDERA
COLUMBUS
NEZ PE RCE
BROADWAY
ORCHA RD
TARGEE
TARGEE
ANNETT
APPLE
OWYHEE PARK
VICTORY
LINDEN
ANNETT
VICTORY
SHOSHONE PARK
VICTORY
ELDE R
ACCESS
VISTA
SATURN
COLE
CHERRY
BROXON
MAP LE GROVE
L
PHILLIPPI PARK
TARGEE
HIGHLAND
BROADWAY
OVERLAND
BO IS E
DIV IS ION
VISTA
BOWDEN PARK
BEACON
OWY HEE
ENTERTAINME NT
OV ERLA ND
CASSIA PARK LATAH
ORCHARD
BORAH PARK
CASSIA
CURTIS
COLE
LINCOLN
ROSE HILL
ON
JULIA DAVIS PARK
PARKCENTER
LIBERTY PARK
SERV
CA
CURTIS
EMERALD
EME RALD
ALLUMBAUGH
BARRISTER
RAYMOND
EXECUTIVE
FAIRMONT
ROOSE VELT
MAPLE GROVE
MILWAUK EE
23RD
LIBE RTY
ND EN
6T
MITCHELL
NORTHVIEW
MITCHE LL
FIVE MILE
CORY
ST AT E
S
HARRISON
U
8TH
S
8TH
AM
28TH
AD
HARRISON 15TH 13TH
Central Bench Planning Area: Areas AD of Stability and Change W
USTICK
RIV
AC
MITCHE LL
CE
SS
WRIGHT
SENECA AIRPORT
AMITY
Community Activity Center Neighborhood Activity Center
Other
0.15
0.3
0.6 Miles
Source: City of Boise GIS, Ada County Assessor, Boise City Public Works Department, Clarion Associates (2009) October 2009 (Draft)
Area of Impact
Area of Stability
AMITY
PR
PLE ASANT VALLE Y
DESERT
BO IS E
COMME RCE ENTERP RISE
0
Parks and Open Space
k
1 - Significant New Development/ Redevelopment Anticipated 2 - Some Infill and Redevelopment Anticipated 3 - Reinvestment in Established Infrastructure Needed
ENTERP RISE
AMITY
HIGHLANDER
Parks and Open Space
ile
Degree of Anticipated Change Cree
Regional Activity Center
ORCHARD
Fiv Areas of Change/Stability em
BIENAPFL
Mixed-Use Activity Centers
DEVELOPMENT
BOISE AIRPORT
Legend
FIVE MILE
RANGE
AL WO RT
GOW
OD
UC
TIO
N
84
EN
GOW EN
BLUEPRINT BOISE
C-5
AD AMAPPENDIX C: AREAS OF CHANGE AND STABILITY S 8TH
ST AT E
13TH
15TH
Downtown Planning Area: Areas of Stability and Change FO RT
23RD
DE N
27TH
ST AT E
MA IN
ER
IC
AN
NA
ON
FORT BOISE PARK
T
E ERV RES
A
P IT OL
AM
AM
CA
I ER
FR
MA
IN
PIT OL
CA
ANN MORRISON PARK
CA
CH IN
JULIA DAVIS PARK FR
ON
T
Boise
Legend Areas of Change/Stability Degree of Anticipated Change
1 - Significant New Development/ Redevelopment Anticipated 2 - Some Infill and Redevelopment Anticipated 3 - Reinvestment in Established Infrastructure Needed
BO IS E
Other Parks and Open Space Area of Impact
0
Area of Stability
0.25
0.5 Miles
Source: City of Boise GIS, Ada County Assessor, Boise City Public Works Department, Clarion Associates (2009) October 2009 (Draft)
C-6
BLUEPRINT BOISE
APPENDIX C: AREAS OF CHANGE AND STABILITY
BO GU SB
ASI N
Foothills Planning Area: Areas of Stability and Change Legend Mixed-Use Activity Centers Regional Activity Center
HIL L
is e Bo
Community Activity Center
u Co
BOGART
y nt
Degree of Anticipated Change
1 - Significant New Development/ Redevelopment Anticipated 2 - Some Infill and Redevelopment Anticipated 3 - Reinvestment in Established Infrastructure Needed
PIERCE PARK
GARY
Garden City
JOPLIN
Neighborhood Activity Center
Areas of Change/Stability STA TE
Area of Stability
Parks, Open Space, and Conservation Parks and Open Space
AL WO
Slope Protection
RT H
27TH
CAMELS BACK RESERVE
FO R
I-84
Area of Impact
0
8TH
HARRISON 15TH 13TH
ST AT E
CH IN DE N
23RD
44 TH CURTIS
LIBERTY
COLE
MILWAUKEE
MAPLE GROVE
MITCHELL
FIVE MILE
IRENE AD AM S
Other
HULLS GULCH RESERVE
SUNSET
SHAMROCK
0.25 0.5
1 Miles
Source: City of Boise GIS, Ada County Assessor, Boise City Public Works Department, Clarion Associates (2009) October 2009 (Draft)
T
MILITARY RESERVE
MA FR IN ON T
EMERALD
EXECUTIVE
FRANKLIN
BO IS E
KOOTENAI
GEKELER
TE R
ek
LAW
APPLE
BROADWAY
r
PA RK CE N
ve Ri
VISTA
ise
ile Cre
VICTORY
Bo
Eightm
ORCHARD
OVERLAND
COLE
DESERT
SPR I
NG S RT
KE EC
AMITY BO ISE
LA GRANGE
WA RM
BARBER POOL RESERVE
84 GOW EN
LAKE HAZEL
21
EDGEWOOD
NG FEATHER
E EIS
CHAPIN
A NM N
BLUEPRINT BOISE
C-7
PIERCE PAR
APPENDIX C: AREAS OF CHANGE AND STABILITY
N
R
H
Y
JO IN
EL LE
D
N
N
S
LA
FE
S
R
North/East End Planning Area: Potential Areas of Change COLLISTER
G
CATALPA
CATALPA
H
IL
L
CARTW RIGHT
BO
GU
S BA
SIN CU
BRAE
ING RL
SY
O
R
WILLOW LANE COMPLEX
L IA R
36
TH
EW VI D N LA H TH
CURTIS
Community Activity Center
8TH
ND EN
NORTHVIEW
8TH
CH I
13TH
Regional Activity Center
LIBERTY
S
K
27TH
C
28TH
O EM M S AN R TE
STI
HARRISON
ST AT E
AD AM
VE
U
Mixed-Use Activity Centers
IG
IRE NE
44
Legend
H
CAMELS BACK RESERVE
VETERANS MEMORIAL
S
15TH
AM
23RD
W
MILITARY RESERVE
16
UNION
HA YS
VIEW
9T
H
14
FAIR
TH
13
TH
27TH
Neighborhood Activity Center
23RD
H
TO PI CA
B UE EN
ON
AN
KL
IN
UT
ITY
PA
O
C
K
SP RI
PARKCENTER
NG
BEACON
M
WARM SPRINGS PARK
LINCOLN
LATAH
R
AR W
Parks and Open Space
E
RK
ROS E HILL
CASSIA
BL
CASTLE ROCK
LN
RS
TA
TL E
WA
IVE
TAIN
T
ROOSE VELT
Other
MCKINLEY
AV
FR
MYR
MOUN
CE
T 1S L ORCHA RD
UN
FRANKLIN
E
FR
JULIA DAVIS PARK
3 - Reinvestment in Established Infrastructure Needed Area of Stability
SERV
SHAW
FOOTHILLS EAST RESERVE ER
D
RE
RVE
ES
D
N
E RES
PI
N
IN
SO
HA
ER
H
FF
6T
JE
2N
TH
E
O CK
3R
CURTIS
2 - Some Infill and Redevelopment Anticipated
LIBE RTY
NN
MAI
ANN MORRISON PARK
EME RALD
FAIRMONT
FRANKLIN
BA
11
R
A
O
H
ER
1 - Significant New Development/ Redevelopment Anticipated
E
N
AH
5T
TH
RIV
AM
A
ID
RT
IRVING
IC
ST AT
MA FR IN ON T
REL INE
FO
Degree of Anticipated Change
SHO
10
DEN
12
CHIN
TH
FAIRVIEW
Areas of Change/Stability
4T
VIE
44 TH
IN
HULLS GULCH RESERVE
SUNSET
HI LL
TH
TA
SUNSET
SUNSET 32ND
50
UN
USTICK
COLE
MERE
TAFT
TH
AD
MO
AM
36TH
OR
TH
AL W
C
E
MALLARD
HIGHLAND
0.3
NEZ PE RCE
FEDERA
0.6 Miles
BROADWAY
0.15
COLUMBUS
0
WIND
S ONG
OV ERLA ND
E
OWY HEE
KOOTENAI
DIV IS ION
PROTEST VISTA
Area of Impact
BO IS
BROADWAY
S
Slope Protection
PENNSYLVA NIA
L
Bo ise
GE KELER
R RU
PL AP
APPLE
LAW
GO W EN
E
C-8
E
N
IS
TARGEE
VICTORY COLE
VE RI
BO
TARGEE
r ve Ri
Source: City of Boise GIS, Ada County Assessor, Boise City Public Works Department, Clarion Associates (2009) October 2009 (Draft)
BLUEPRINT BOISE
APPENDIX C: AREAS OF CHANGE AND STABILITY
Northwest Planning Area: Areas of Stability and Change Mixed-Use Activity Centers Regional Activity Center
Community Activity Center Neighborhood Activity Center
Areas of Change/Stability Degree of Anticipated Change
1 - Significant New Development/ Redevelopment Anticipated 2 - Some Infill and Redevelopment Anticipated 3 - Reinvestment in Established Infrastructure Needed
BOGART
Area of Stability
Other
GARY
Garden City
Parks and Open Space Slope Protection
PIERCE PARK
Area of Impact
CASTLE
0
0.15
0.3
0.6 Miles
RT
H
WILLOW LANE COMPLEX
ST AT E
SUNSET
8TH
13TH
AL WO
CATALPA
36TH
COLLISTER
Source: City of Boise GIS, Ada County Assessor, Boise City Public Works Department, Clarion Associates (2009) October 2009 (Draft)
44 TH
CH IN DE
N
FO RT
27TH
HIL L
Legend
DRY CREEK CEMETERY
BLUEPRINT BOISE
C-9
IRENE
27TH
8TH
Southeast Planning Area: Areas of Stability and Change MA FR IN ON T
ANN MORRISON PARK
E RES
JULIA DAVIS PARK
Legend
RVE
Mixed-Use Activity Centers Regional Activity Center
Community Activity Center Neighborhood Activity Center
Areas of Change/Stability Degree of Anticipated Change
1 - Significant New Development/ Redevelopment Anticipated 2 - Some Infill and Redevelopment Anticipated 3 - Reinvestment in Established Infrastructure Needed
Bo ise
Other
TE R
Parks and Open Space Area of Impact
BARBER ERT K PARK EC
BERGESON BOISE AIRPORT
Area of Stability
LAW
APPLE
PA RK CE N
r ve Ri
IS E BO
GEKELER
BO ISE
0
84
BARBER POOL RESERVE
0.25
0.5
1 Miles
Source: City of Boise GIS, Ada County Assessor, Boise City Public Works Department, Clarion Associates (2009) October 2009 (Draft)
21
SIMPLOT COMPLEX
21
L ERA FED
GOW EN
HOLCOMB
Boise
FO RT
BROADWAY
I-84
23RD
ST AT E
CH IN DE N
HARRISON 15TH 13TH
APPENDIX C: AREAS OF CHANGE AND STABILITY
AD AM S
AN NM EISE
C-10
BLUEPRINT BOISE
CUR
LIB
MIL
MA
MI
FIV
SHAMROCK
CLO
FAIRVIEW
I-84
MA FR IN ON T
E RES
APPENDIX C: AREAS OF CHANGE AND STABILITY
RVE
EXECUTIVE FRANKLIN
FRANKLIN
Boise
Southwest Planning Area: Areas of Stability and Change 84
BO IS
E
Fiv em
ile
BOISE AIRPORT
Cr ee k
HIGHLANDER LA GRANGE
DESERT
FIVE MILE
CLOVERDALE
MURGOITIO SITE
GO W EN
COLE
eek ile Cr
VICTORY
GOW EN
LAKE HAZEL
CHAPIN COLUMBIA
Legend Mixed-Use Activity Centers
Areas of Change/Stability Degree of Anticipated Change
Regional Activity Center
Community Activity Center Neighborhood Activity Center
1 - Significant New Development/ Redevelopment Anticipated 2 - Some Infill and Redevelopment Anticipated 3 - Reinvestment in Established Infrastructure Needed
Other Parks and Open Space Area of Impact
0
0.25
0.5
Area of Stability
1 Miles
KUNA
KUNA
PLEASANT VALLEY
Source: City of Boise GIS, Ada County Assessor, Boise City Public Works Department, Clarion Associates (2009) October 2009 (Draft)
BLUEPRINT BOISE
C-11
GEKELER
Eigh tm
BROADWAY
EAGLE
ORCHARD
OVERLAND
BALLENTI
FLOATING FEATHER EDGEWOOD
APPENDIX C: AREAS OF CHANGE AND STABILITY HIL L HIL
EDGEWOOD
STATE
L
West Bench Planning Area: Areas of Stability and Change ST AT
E
SE
AM
AN
G
CH UL
PIERCE
PARK
EDGE
HORS ESHOE BEND
WOOD
HWY 55
HWY 44
MACE
NA
Legend
HILL ROAD
BOGA RT
UTAH
GILLIS
Regional Activity Center HI LL
GA RY
IDE
ND
IN
1 - Significant New Development/ Redevelopment Anticipated 2 - Some Infill and Redevelopment Anticipated 3 - Reinvestment in Established Infrastructure Needed
G
Y R R S N EL LE
CATALPA
GLENWOOD
MITCHE LL
ST AT E
AL WO
GODDARD
VIEW
Other
E
TAFT
Parks and Open Space Area of Impact
TA
IN
VI
SUNSET
H
SUNSET
IL
SUNSET
L
13TH
UN
EW
AD
S
36
IN
D
E
RS
TE TA
18
4
ALLUMBAUGH
TE
FAIRVIEW
A
13 TH
11 L TO PI CA ROOSE VELT
FED
Meridian
ER
ROS E HILL
COLE
LATAH
AL
CASSIA
CLOVERDA LE
SE
ORCHA RD
ENTERTAINME NT
OWY HEE
OVERLAND
BO I
VISTA
KOOTENAI
OV ERLA ND
RES
EME RALD
Boise
84
MA FR IN ON T
TH
N
CURTIS
LIBE RTY
ALLUMBAUGH
A
ER
E
IC
RIV
AM
R
NE
CURTIS
OR
IRVING
EXECUTIVE
FAIRMONT
BARRISTER
FO RT
MAIN
N
23RD
H
27TH
LIBE RTY
MILWAUK EE
C
SH
EXECUTIVE
8TH
TH
TH
N
IN
FRANKLIN
28TH
S
Source: City of Boise GIS, Ada County Assessor, Boise City Public Works Department, Clarion Associates (2009) October 2009 (Draft)
27TH
FAIRMONT PARK
AM
16
CH IN DE
TH
K
1 Miles
15
C
IRE NE
E
0.5
TH
STI
0.25
14
U
AD 0 AM
23RD
TE
R
AN
S
M
EM
O
R
IA
L
ST AT
WINSTEAD PARK
PINE
FRANKLIN
R
COLE
MO
VE
MAP LE GROVE
NORTHVIEW
O
ELI
FAIRVIEW CLOVERDALE MEMORIAL PARK
MAPLE GROVE
CORY
AM
H
44 TH
MITCHE LL
MITCHE LL
FIVE MILE
IN
MOUNTAIN VIEW PARK
USTICK
SHAMROCK
CLOVERDALE
TA
MILWAUKEE PARK
USTICK
GRA NGE R
UN
RT
C
TH
MO
SY
50
JULLION
SHAMROCK
FIVE MILE
KENT
ALWORTH
E BRA
Area of Stability
36TH
MCMILLAN
EAGLE
LA
TAIN VIEW
EDNA
EAGLE
Degree of Anticipated Change S
FE RR GA
MOUN
MCMILLAN
HICK ORY
HN
COFFEY
ETT
MARIGOLD
CF MCDEVITT
LOCUST GROVE
Areas of Change/Stability JO
LIN
DEMEYER PARK
FAIRVIEW
Neighborhood Activity Center CASTLE
COLLISTER
JOP
HOBBLE CREEK PARK
ERS
Garden City
Community Activity Center
32ND
STA TE
RIV
JOPLIN
CARTWRI
Mixed-Use Activity Centers CASWELL
PIERCE PARK
RIVER
ARNEY
BOISE
GARY
DUNCAN
BOGART
GHT
IS LA ND WOODS
BOIS E
Eagle
SPECTRUM PEPPE RMINT
TARGEE
TARGEE
HOLLANDALE
Eightm
VICTORY GO W EN
ek
COLE
ile Cre
VICTORY
TARGEE
Fiv em
ile
Cr ee k
C-12
IDAHO BOISE AIRPORT
BLUEPRINT BOISE
BROADWAY
EAGLE
SATURN
NEZ PE RCE
Zoning O rd i n a n c e Rew r i te:
SURVEY #1 SUMMARY PROJECT BACKGROUND Boise’s zoning code outlines what is and isn’t allowed in our city—it has shaped Boise as we know it. Our 55-year-old zoning code is outdated and does not provide the tools we need to ensure future development matches the things we know our community cares about—safety, open space, walkable neighborhoods, and predictable development patterns. To support our city’s long-term vision as our community grows and changes, we started the process to rewrite our zoning code. During the Phase II: Preliminary Outreach, the project team developed a survey to seek feedback from the community on the current state of Boise’s zoning code. What follows summarizes and analyzes the feedback received through the online survey.
SURVEY OUTREACH AND PUBLICITY The survey was created in collaboration between the Comprehensive Planning Division and the Office of Community Engagement. The survey was written in English and translated into Spanish. A member of the Citywide Advisory Committee was consulted to review the Spanish language version and made edits to make the translation more appropriate for a Spanish speaking audience. The survey was open to the public from Monday, November 16, 2020 to Sunday, December 27, 2020. It was shared through the project’s email list, the city’s “In the Know” newsletter and on social media throughout December. Partner agencies, such as Valley Regional Transit (VRT) and City Go, shared the survey link in their newsletters. Some city government partners also included a link to the survey in their Instagram stories, which discussed the Zoning Code Rewrite and/or the Housing Bonus Ordinance.
PARTICIPANTS In total, there were 853 responses. Of that number, approximately half of the respondents skipped questions from Question 6 on. This resulted in a 46% completion rate. Based on the first question, which asked how people self-identify in terms of their interest/role in the City of Boise, a majority of respondents, 85.5% (725) were residential property owners. It is important to note that fewer than 5% of respondents identified as having a business interest in developing property such as commercial property owners (4%), land use/planning/design consultants or architects (3%), and land developer (1%), or builders (less than 1%,). The remaining “other” category consisted of people who self-identified as landlords, students, former residents, realtors, investors, property owners, and more. 86%
100%
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNER
80%
60%
40%
13%
RENTER
12%
BUSINESS OWNER
20%
4%
OTHER (please specify)
4%
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNER
3%
LAND USE/PLANNING/DESIGN CONSULTANT OR ARCHITECT
1%
LAND DEVELOPER
1%
BUILDER 0%
GENERALLY In this section, survey respondents were asked to share their general experience and comfort level with the city’s comprehensive plan, Blueprint Boise, the city’s zoning code, and other design guidelines such as the Design Review Standards and Guidelines and Historic Preservation Guidelines.
Familiarity with Blueprint Boise The comprehensive plan is a master plan designed to provide a clear and sustainable vision for the City of Boise. While Blueprint Boise was adopted in 2011 by the City Council, most respondents reported they had no knowledge of Blueprint Boise or they were just slightly familiar with it.
69% of respondents either strongly agree or agree with the city’s vision within Blueprint Boise
However, when given the text of the city’s vision from Blueprint Boise, a majority of respondents reported strongly agreeing (36%) or agreeing (33%) with the vision. It is notable that only 10% of respondents disagreed (at any level) with the vision. The primary goal of the Zoning Code rewrite is to implement the city’s vision found in Blueprint Boise.
Familiarity with the Zoning Code and Other Design Guidelines To assess what is working or not working with the current zoning code, the survey asked respondents how familiar they were with the code and guidelines. Similar to respondents’ familiarity with Blueprint Boise, most respondents were not familiar at all (38%) or just slightly familiar (27%) with the city’s zoning code or other design guidelines. Familarity with
Familarity with the
BLUEPRINT BOISE
ZONING CODE
Not at all
38%
28%
Slightly familiar
29%
27%
Somewhat familiar
17%
19%
Moderately familiar
12%
12%
Extremely familiar
4%
4%
While 42% of respondents reported not commonly using any city zoning code or design guidelines, respondents did report using the zoning code most (22%) followed by Historic Preservation Guidelines (16%).
ORGANIZATION AND/OR USER-FRIENDLINESS Questions in this section of the survey sought to understand perceptions about the existing code’s organization and clarity. This includes clear language, tables, and illustrations that contribute to the code’s ease of use. When asked which standards or components within the existing code they found challenging, unclear, or confusing, most respondents identified the role of neighborhood plans in development approvals as challenging. In the open-ended comments, many respondents acknowledged that they were unfamiliar with the codes/standards, and identified individual standards based off very limited experience using the code.
In addition to the standards provided, respondents also noted in the open comment section, that the floodplain ordinance, Planned Unit Developments (PUD’s) and transportation standards--such as street widths, sidewalks and bike lanes--as unclear or difficult to understand. Standards within the City of Boise’s Zoning Code that respondents find challenging, unclear, or confusing (check all that apply):
% of respondents
The role of neighborhood plans in development approvals
53%
Permitted and conditional uses available in different zone districts (e.g., duplexes, manufactured homes, childcare facilities, drive-throughs, taverns)
49%
Administration and procedures (e.g., the application process, development approvals, noticing)
35%
Subdivision of land (i.e., the creation of new lots or division of existing lots)
34%
Design review standards (e.g., building placement, building materials, building form, rooflines, streetscapes)
34%
Dimensional standards (e.g., building height, building and parking setbacks, lot areas)
32%
Site design (e.g., building placement, parking, landscaping, screening)
28%
Overlay districts (e.g., parking overlays, historic preservation overlays, airport overlays)
27%
Historic preservation standards (e.g., lot coverage, architectural style, building materials, building height)
25%
Sign standards (i.e., type, size, and location of signs)
16%
We also asked respondents to elaborate on why the zoning code standards were challenging, unclear, or confusing. There were several comments about the existing code being long, complex, fragmented, and difficult to understand because of selected terminology and a lack of visual examples. There were several suggestions to explore moving toward a formbased code approach which relies on illustrations. Over 30% of respondents felt each of the 10 components of the zoning code (noted in the table above) needed a table, illustration or diagram, with 51% of respondents noting that dimensional standards (building height, parking, etc.) are most in need of an illustration. However, it was noted that illustrations should give general ideas, but not stifle creativity.
ZONES AND LAND USES The zone district/land use component of a zoning code describes what types of uses (residential, commercial, office, etc.) and their intensity (high-density, mixed-use, single-family etc.) are allowed by right, by conditional use, or are prohibited in a certain area of the city. This section of the survey asked what uses should be expanded, what new uses should be encouraged, and if any uses should be prohibited in certain areas across the city. When given a list of common zone districts/uses within the city, most respondents indicated they would like to see more parks/open space, downtown mixed-use, and mixed-use activity centers. It appears respondents preferred mixed-use centers to single-use commercial and office districts. While most respondents were supportive of seeing mixed-use development in targeted locations across the city (downtown and at activity centers), there was less agreement on what type of residential development should be permitted in other areas of the city. 37% of respondents favored the expansion of small-lot and high-density development while only 24% of respondents supported the expansion of suburban and large-lot residential development.
Which type of development would you like to see more in Boise? (check all that apply) 5%
OFFICE
5%
INDUSTRIAL
8% 24% 24% 37% 37%
COMMERCIAL LARGE-LOT RESIDENTIAL (i.e., a half-acre or more lots) SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (i.e., 7,000-11,000 square foot lots) HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (e.g., condominiums, townhomes, and apartments) SMALL-LOT RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE ACTIVITY AREAS Two or more uses across an area or site (e.g., Bown Crossing and the Boise Townsquare Mall) DOWNTOWN MIXED-USE Two or more uses within a building or site (i.e., residences and offices in the same building)
56% 61% 68%
PARKS/OPEN SPACE
Allowed and Prohibited Land Uses Next, we asked to respondents to provide suggestions for uses that they felt should be allowed or prohibited in the zoning code. In the open-ended comment, respondents suggested a range of allowed and prohibited uses, with many believing that some uses should be allowed while others felt the same use should be prohibited. Respondents Suggested
Respondents Suggested
ALLOWED LAND USES
PROHIBITED LAND USES
High-Density Housing
High-Density Housing
Single Family Zoning
Single Family Zoning
Large Lot Residential
Large Lot Residential
Small commercial (small businesses, retail, bars, cafes and markets) in residential neighborhoods
Small commercial (small businesses, retail, bars, cafes and markets) in residential neighborhoods
Urban farming on properties less than an acre (goats, roosters, farms, etc.)
Livestock
Light-industrial, especially within formerly commercial spaces
Self-storage outside industrial areas
Tiny home subdivisions and/or manufactured/ modular home communities
Heavy polluting uses / gravel pits
Expanding those eligible to build accessory dwelling units (ADU’s) (non-owner occupied and/ or with septic/well water)
Strip malls
Seasonal markets (selling plants, crafts, farmers market items, etc.) on large residential or neighborhood areas
Large surface parking lots
Co-housing (private homes clustered around shared space and resources)
Adult-businesses (vape shops, tattoo parlors, etc.)
“Missing Middle Housing” such as cottages, triplexes, rowhomes, duplexes, and four-plexes with limited parking
Development within the foothills, along the river, and near the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)
Food trucks or “Accessory commercial units”
Drive-through establishments
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Questions in the Development Standards section explored perceptions about how buildings and sites currently look and if they help achieve city goals.
Implementing City Goals When asked to rate current development standards (how buildings/properties should look and feel) in terms of helping the city meet its goals, the weighted average indicated respondents felt the standards are doing a poor to fair job of helping the city achieve its goals. Similarly, when asked about how current development standards improve our community, respondents felt they are doing just a fair job. It is important to note that many respondents indicated confusion or frustration about these two questions, especially those who acknowledged they were “not familiar with” or “not consistent users” of the zoning code or other design guidelines.
Strength of the Development Standards Respondents were also asked if they felt any of the development standards that regulate how buildings and sites should look and feel were too flexible, too restrictive or too vague. There were many conflicting responses, with some thinking a specific standard was too flexible while others thinking the same standard too restrictive. Respondent’s perceptions that following existing development standards are: TOO FLEXIBLE
TOO RESTRICTIVE
Lot coverage
Lot coverage
Parking
Parking
Substandard lots
Substandard lots
Setbacks
Setbacks
Lighting
Floor area ratio
Open space for large complexes
Green energy (solar panels)
Landscaping and tree preservation Grading and drainage Affordable housing Design (poor quality) Sidewalks Roadway infrastructure Many comments said that the code was generally too vague or that they felt that standards were applied inconsistently, with too many variances granted. Many respondents stated in the open ended comments that “big developers” had more flexibility than individual property owners. They also expressed frustrations with development and new construction in general or disagreed with the actual requirements in the code (i.e., density or maximum building height). Additionally, many brought up frustrations with land use restrictions such as prohibiting neighborhood serving commercial, single-family only zones, or medium density zones.
New Development Design When asked to consider new development on vacant or under-utilized parcels, a majority indicated building and site design (63%), tree preservation (59%), open space (58%), and access/connectivity (54%) as the most important elements to ensure high-quality development. Additional suggestions for important elements included historic preservation and antidisplacement policies. Other comments included conflicting ideas on restriction of private property rights, many wanting the city to stop approving development, while others urged the city to allow property owners to do what they want with their property. It was also noted that conditional use permits should not be “one size fits all” and each should have unique review criteria.
Codes and Standards Limiting Equity with the City of Boise In this section, respondents were asked to offer open-ended comment on any codes or standards they felt were limiting the city’s ability to advance principles of equity by being welcoming and accommodating to all community members. Respondents noted they perceived the following codes and standards as limiting equity within the City of Boise: • Lack of requirements for improved transportation infrastructure (roadway capacity, sidewalks, bike lanes, transit) especially for individuals with disabilities or without cars. • Limited accessibility standards (inclusive design for individuals of all abilities). • Development standards that promote car-centric design (cul-de-sacs). • Limited R-3/higher density zoning and/or too much low-density residential (single-family only zoning). • Limited mixed-use zoning. • Minimum lot sizes. • Lack of affordable housing types. • Isolation of affordable housing in certain areas of the city. • Public hearing processes. Several comments took issue with the question. Some responded that they did not want the city to be more welcoming, while others expressed concerns that the city is “welcoming to others at the expense of current residents.” Other responses included concerns about policy decisions such as low-wages and lack of rent control. Many commented on the need for a requirement for affordable housing in all new developments.
Process and Procedures Questions in this section asked for feedback about how development applications are accepted, reviewed, and acted upon by local officials. This included the review body in charge of each action (i.e., staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, the Design Review Committee, and/or the City Council), the steps involved in the review process (i.e., public notice, public participation, hearings, appeals), and deadlines for each of these steps within the development process. There was limited agreement among respondents when asked to identify development procedures that could be improved to produce a more equitable, predictable and timely process. Most respondents indicated the need to improve the procedures for zone changes (42%), design review and historic design review (40%), planned unit developments (PUD’s) (37%), and variances (35%).
Development procedures that respondents believe could be improved to produce a more equitable, predictable, and timely process (check all that apply):
% of respondents
Zone change (i.e., rezone of a parcel from one distinction to another)
42%
Design review and historic design review (i.e., the process of requiring projects located in areas throughout the city to follow design standards)
40%
Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval (e.g., regulatory process that provides developments flexibility from the traditional standards of the zone)
37%
Variances from development standards
35%
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval (e.g., drive-throughs, hair salons, childcare facilities, multi-family housing in certain zones)
34%
Subdivision platting (i.e., the process of splitting one larger piece of land into several smaller parcels of land)
33%
Historic property or historic district designations
33%
Special exception approval (receiving permission to do something on a property the zoning ordinance permits only under certain special circumstances)
30%
Hillside development permits
28%
Appeals of decisions
25%
Annexation (i.e., the process of bringing property into the city limits)
24%
River system permits
21%
Floodplain permits
19%
RECOMMENDED PROCESS AND PROCEDURE IMPROVEMENTS We asked respondents for recommendations on how these development procedures could be improved. Respondents recommended better aligning the current code with the comprehensive plan, addressing rapid growth, limiting exceptions and variances, and enforcing rules when they are not followed. Many also said the development process is long and cumbersome and should be streamlined to allow more “by-right” development. It was recommended that high-quality development standards should be applied consistently to all developments, without any deviations. There were additional suggestions for specific improvements to the code, including: • Reducing development in the foothills and along the Boise River. • Requiring developments to pay for and install infrastructure. • Creating/improving mixed-use zones. • Allowing and encouraging high-density residential housing. • Making rezones more difficult to obtain. • Requiring pedestrian amenities with all developments (sidewalks and street lighting). • Mandating environmental stewardship and “green” policies. • Making it easier to create and protect historic resources. • Incorporating small scale farming and urban agriculture into developments. An overwhelming majority (75%) of survey respondents said the decision-making criteria within our existing code is unclear and applied inconsistently. Historic preservation guidelines were specifically identified as unclear and inconsistent. Many individuals felt the criteria was complex and not easily understood, making decisions feel unpredictable and scary. Some recommended, to increase predictability, that the public should have more input in the process, while others felt that, to increase predictability, there should be more “by-right” development, with objective rules addressing the impacts of
development, not public opinion. Many also feel the code is subjective and open to personal interpretation. Respondents indicated a belief that staff and decision makers at times disregard the rules depending on the applicant or the location of the project. While some people did feel the processes and procedures were followed, they believed the rules and criteria were not good or in the public’s interest. Finally, the survey asked if there are land use and zoning procedures that need to be changed to provide equitable opportunities for everyone to participate. Overwhelming, 72% of respondents stated the city’s current zoning processes and procedures needed to be changed. Specific recommendations included: • Simpler and illustrated processes and procedures. • Larger public notice signs at development sites. • Expanded radius for public noticing. • Less urgent timeframes. • Allowing testimony in multiple ways (virtually hearings, online feedback forms, etc.). • Holding public hearings at City Hall West when the development under consideration is in west Boise. • Increase access to government buildings including free parking at the city’s parking garage or a nearby downtown parking garage.
OPEN-ENDED COMMENTS 154 responses were recorded for the final question of the survey, which asked respondents to share any additional thoughts, questions or concerns. While various responses were shared, over 20 responses indicated the survey was too technical or complex. Some of these responses highlighted the survey felt skewed toward those with in-depth knowledge about zoning and planning, making it harder to complete the survey. Five responses specifically asked for more educational materials to help better inform the feedback they provided, as well as illustrations and graphics in future surveys. Some respondents also expressed concerns about the timing of the survey, noting that both holidays and COVID-19 likely contributed to less interest or awareness about the project and the survey. Other responses included concerns about over-development, affordable housing, building heights, climate change and sustainability, R-1 and R-3 zone limitations under the current zoning code, helping people who currently live here, historic preservation and demolition, better public transit, and better building and site design.
BOISE IDAHO
Zoning Code Rewrite Diagnostic and Solutions Report - Revised JANUARY 2021
In partnership with:
1600 Stout Street, Suite 1700 Denver, CO 80202 www.clarionassociates.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 1.
What We Heard from Boise Citizens ............................................................................... 3 Implement Blueprint Boise .................................................................................................. 4 Better Zoning Districts ......................................................................................................... 4 Update Zoning Districts ................................................................................................... 5 Introduce Form-Based Zoning Elements ......................................................................... 5 Improve the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Process .................................................. 6 Enhance Historic Preservation Districts ........................................................................... 7 Improve Use Regulations .................................................................................................... 7 Expand Housing Options ................................................................................................. 7 Integrate Neighborhood Commercial ............................................................................... 8 Limit Auto-Oriented Uses ................................................................................................ 9 Enhance Development Quality and Standards .................................................................... 9 Incentivize Infill and High-Quality Development ............................................................... 9 Evaluate Parking Standards ...........................................................................................10 Increase Connectivity .....................................................................................................10 Maintain Community Character ......................................................................................10 Improve Review and Decision Procedures .........................................................................11 Refine the Design Review Process.................................................................................12 Include More Graphics and Illustrations .............................................................................12
2.
What We See – Based on National Experience ..............................................................13 Generally ...........................................................................................................................13 Zone Districts .....................................................................................................................14 A Dated Menu of Available Districts................................................................................14 An Overly Complex Menu of Office, Commercial, and Industrial Districts .......................14 Few Affordable Housing Options ....................................................................................15 Few Building Form Controls ...........................................................................................15 Dated Institutional District Controls .................................................................................15 Poor Communication of Intended Neighborhood Character ............................................15 Permitted Uses ..................................................................................................................16 A Thin Menu of Innovative Housing Options ...................................................................16 Procedural Barriers to Multifamily Housing Development ...............................................17
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite Diagnostic and Solutions Report
Dated Social Service and Care Uses ..............................................................................17 Overly Detailed Commercial and Industrial Use Categories............................................17 Overly Complex Accessory Use and Home Occupation Standards ................................18 Development and Design Standards ..................................................................................18 Parking and Loading Standards Need Refinement .........................................................18 Lengthy, Detailed, and Wordy Standards .......................................................................18 An Unpredictable Mix of Standards, Criteria, and Waivers .............................................19 Subdivision Standards .......................................................................................................19 Procedures and Administration ..........................................................................................19 Well Organized and Illustrated........................................................................................19 Incomplete Procedural Content ......................................................................................20 Scattered and Unclear Waiver Provisions.......................................................................20 Incomplete and Overlapping Decision Criteria ................................................................20 Definitions ..........................................................................................................................21 Appendix A: Detailed Recommendations for Specific Changes.................................................22 Chapter 11-01: General Provisions........................................................................................22 Chapter 11-02: Review and Decision Bodies .........................................................................22 Chapter 11-03: Review and Decision Procedures .................................................................22 Chapter 11-04: Zoning Districts .............................................................................................22 Chapter 11-05: Overlay and Specific Plan Districts................................................................23 Chapter 11-06: Use Regulations............................................................................................23 Chapter 11-07: Development and Design Standards .............................................................24 Chapter 11-08: Flood Hazard Regulations.............................................................................24 Chapter 11-09: Subdivision Standards ..................................................................................25 Chapter 11-010: Sign Standards ...........................................................................................25 Chapter 11-011: Nonconformance.........................................................................................25 Chapter 11-012: Definitions ...................................................................................................25 Chapter 11-013: Adopted Specific Plans ...............................................................................25
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite Diagnostic and Solutions Report
The first draft of this document was released in late April of 2020. Since then, the Zoning Rewrite project restarted with several kick-off events, a new Citywide Advisory Committee (CAC), and a public survey. This final report has been updated to reflect comments received from the CAC, public input received at kick-off events, and the results of the public survey conducted at the end of 2020. Additions to the report are highlighted in blue.
Executive Summary Boise has been planning for its future – a lot. Blueprint Boise summarizes and integrates the City’s vision for future growth and for protecting those unique places that make Boise special. The City has also moved forward to engage its citizens in refining that vision through efforts like Energize Our Neighborhoods, Community Conversations on Growth, and Grow our Housing. Most recently, six Transition Committees prepared reports to assist with the transition of Mayor Lauren McLean’s new administration and support the collective vision of a “City for Everyone.” The outcomes of those efforts reveal two key facts. First, Boise’s citizens care deeply about their city and their neighborhoods; and second, they still believe in and support the key goals and objectives of Blueprint Boise. What has not been done is a thorough update of the Boise Zoning Code also referred to as the Code to align the city’s zone districts, development and design standards, and procedures to align with the goals of Blueprint Boise. In fact, this misalignment is a source of frustration to citizens, development applicants, the Design Review Committee, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Although the Zoning Code was reorganized and partially updated a few years ago, many key goals of the Blueprint Boise vision – including community health, connectivity, and affordable housing – are not reflected (or only weakly reflected) in the Code. In addition to missing these substantive focus areas, the proliferation of outdated development review and approval criteria in the current Code make it difficult for citizens to engage effectively and are themselves a source of frustration. In short, many citizens feel that development decisions made under the current Code do not promote the Blueprint Boise vision, and it is unclear how they could engage in the process to make development decisions more consistent with that vision. In 2019, Clarion Associates and Kushlan | Associates were retained by the City to complete this overdue rewrite of the Boise Zoning Code. We made an initial visit to Boise late last year to kick off that process, and the pages that follow summarize the Clarion Team’s initial insights as to what needs to be changed. The election of a new Mayor in late 2019 and the dramatic changes in governance and outreach practices that arrived with the COVID-19 pandemic in March of 2020 slowed this effort, but the Zoning Code Rewrite project was restarted in the late summer of 2020. The information collected to date – from late 2019 through late 2020 -- can be summarized in these seven points. The current Boise Zoning Code is: •
A Poor Fit with Boise’s Planning Goals The current Zoning Code is very poorly designed to implement many key goals in Blueprint Boise – including community health, walkability, transit-orientation, affordable housing, mixed-use development, and neighborhood character protection.
•
Poorly Designed to Protect What Makes Boise Unique Although Boise is destined to keep growing and Blueprint Boise provides clear direction on how to best accommodate that growth, the Code does not include the tools or incentives to ensure the city retains the character and quality of life that make it a great place to live.
•
Not Adequately Focused on Equity and Inclusion In addition to creating barriers to more affordable housing, the current Zoning Code does not adequately address the needs of communities of color, households with limited transportation
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite Executive Summary - January 2021
1
•
options, persons with disabilities, recent immigrants, renters, or persons experiencing homelessness. Not Designed for Effective Citizen Engagement Although the Code includes several requirements for neighborhood meetings and public hearings, those opportunities are poorly communicated and the degree to which citizen or Code users can influence the outcome of development review decisions is unclear.
•
Unnecessarily Complex and Vague Many design and development standards, as well criteria for review and approval of different types of development are very detailed and complex, but they use vague terminology that leads to unpredictable outcomes and citizen distrust of the development review process.
•
Dated and Uneven The lineup of zoning districts, lists of permitted uses, and development standards are in many cases very dated. In addition, some minor development issues have unnecessarily complex standards, criteria, and procedures, while much more important development challenges are subject to only weak standards and vague approval criteria.
•
Poorly Illustrated and User-Unfriendly Although recently re-organized, the current regulations have few illustrations, graphics, photos, and drawings. A better illustrated Code would help illustrate the intended character of each zoning district, and would reduce misunderstandings and disagreements among citizens, staff, appointed boards, and elected officials as to what the Code requires.
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite Executive Summary – January 2021
2
Introduction Over the past year, Clarion Associatres and Kushlan | Associates have completed a detailed review of the Boise Zoning Code (which we sometimes refer to as “the Code”) to identify its strengths, weaknesses, internal inconsistencies, and alignment with Boise’s planning goals. We reviewed the current regulations in light of Blueprint Boise and we considered the City’s planning efforts after adoption of that comprehensive plan – including Energize our Neighborhoods, Community Conversations on Growth, Keep Boise Moving, Grow our Housing, and A City for Everyone, among others. We also conducted an initial visit to interview citizens, neighborhood organizations, and Code users to ask what they thought was working well – or not. Following that initial visit in late 2019, the Clarion Team planned to conduct a more extensive round of public engagement, information, and listening sessions in early 2020, but planning for that second visit was delayed by the challenges of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Work on this Diagnostic and Solutions Report restarted in the summer of 2020, with instructions from Mayor McLean to create a larger and more inclusive Citywide Advisory Committee (CAC) and to ensure the Zoning Code Rewrite reflected the guidance of A City for Everyone.The new CAC was appointed in late summer and met (virtually) three times in 2020. In addition, we worked with the Boise project team to design and conduct a detailed citizen survey to identify what the Code could be doing better. Over 800 citizens completed at least part of the survey (while many skipped some of the more detailed questions), and the results of that survey are now reflected in this report. This Diagnostic and Solutions Report is organized into three sections. Part 1 summarizes what we heard from Boise residents and Code users to date. Part 2 collects the Clarion Team’s observations about the Code based our national experience with best practices in Code organization, design, clarity, predictabiilty, and transparency. In addition to these two parts, an Appendix collects numerous smaller, detailed, section-specific issues that need to be corrected during the Code rewrite process. Items in the Appendix do not rise to the level of major themes and challenges, but each of the listed issues compromises the effectiveness, predictability, internal consistency, or understandability of the Code, and correcting them is important.
1. What We Heard from Boise Citizens The Boise Zoning Code Rewrite project kicked off in mid-November 2019 with a series of internal staff meetings, interviews, meetings with various community and Code user groups (including 70 individual code users), appointed officials, and a brief meeting with the City Council. During that first visit, and during the fall of 2020, we have heard from the following groups: •
The City of Boise Project Management and Technical Teams (comprised of City staff from various departments);
•
The initial Citizens Advisory Committee ;
•
The expanded Citizens Advisory Committee appointed by Mayor McLean;
•
Some Neighborhood Associations;
•
Appointed officials (Historic Preservation Commission, Design Review Committee, and Planning and Zoning Commission);
•
Some local developers, architects, design professionals, and business owners;
•
Individual residents;
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite Introduction – What We Heard – January 2021
3
•
Public comments during two kick-off webinars; and
•
An online survey completed by over 800 respondents.
The feedback we received at these meetings in regard to the project are summarized below. More detailed section-specific recommendations are shown in Appendix A.
Implement Blueprint Boise Blueprint Boise, adopted in 2011, represents the community’s overall vision for where and how it wants to grow and develop in the future. The Code is one of the primary tools for implementing that vision and should reflect the plan’s goals, policies, and strategies concerning the physical growth and development of the City. Across all the groups interviewed, it was clear that Blueprint Boise’s vision and policies still have broad support. The main issue is the disconnect between the plan and the Code. The Code does not effectively implement or support some of the policies set forth in Blueprint Boise and clear connections should be made to the plan during the Code drafting process. For example, policies that promote the public health of citizens should be reflected through Code provisions that focus on walkability, provide options for pedestrian and bicyclists, limit auto-oriented uses, discourage fast food establishments in favor of healthy food, allow urban agriculture to increase the supply of local food, and avoid excessive parking areas that increases walking distances between uses. There was also frustration about the growing need for affordable housing and the barriers to innovative and affordable housing in the current Code. Additionally, many citizens asked that the Code rewrite process include a concerted effort to provide more information and education about zoning. More specifically, they asked for information about how zoning works; the differences between use-based, form-based, and performance zoning, best zoning practices used in medium-sized high quality of life cities throughout the U.S.; what zoning tools are available to implement key planning goals, and the tradeoffs involved in choosing one zoning tool over another. In addition, some citizens asked for a refresher course on Blueprint Boise for the benefit of those who did not live in the city at the time it was adopted. Additional input during the fall of 2020 included: •
Many comments emphasizing the need for a broad range of outreach techniques to allow for equitable and meaningful engagement in decisions about how the revised Code should implement Blueprint Boise;
•
Significant emphasis on the need to implement the diversity, equity, and inclusion policies set forth in Blueprint Boise; and
•
Strong support for land use regulations that support Blueprint Boise’s sustainability goals, including, but not limited to energy efficient buildings, safe wildlife migration corridors, increased opportunities for solar and renewable energy, and preservation of sensitive lands, open space and farmland.
Better Zoning Districts The foundation of any zoning ordinance is the collection of zoning districts into which the community is divided. Code users identified several key areas to improve this particular section of the Code.
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite What We Heard– January 2021
4
Update Zoning Districts We received a wide range of comments regarding the weaknesses of individual zoning districts, including the detailed recommendations for specific zoning districts listed in Appendix A. However, the key theme for improvement was a need to refine the lineup of zoning districts and update standards within each zoning district. A comprehensive approach to aligning the zoning districts with the types of places Boise wants to create will not only help implement Blueprint Boise but also reduce requests for piecemeal rezoning to one-off districts over time. The current lineup of Boise zoning districts is shown to the left. Code users agreed the total number of zoning districts could be narrowed down by consolidating several districts into one similar, more flexible district or by eliminating districts that may only apply to small areas of the City. Within that simpler lineup of zoning districts, more context-specific standards should be drafted to better achieve the specific types of development in different parts of the City if needed. For example, transitoriented design and mixed-use development were two concepts endorsed by many interviewees. Refining the current list of districts to include mixed-use zoning districts with standards appropriate for areas of varied scale and intensity would help introduce more creative developments and enable the density to better support growth of the transit system. Additional input during the fall of 2020 included: •
Many comments regarding the complexity of overlay zoning districts and confusion about which standards apply to proposed developments in overlay districts; and
•
Support for zoning districts and standards that would make it easier to construct infill development projects.
Introduce Form-Based Zoning Elements Code users and citizens also supported the incorporation of more form-based zoning elements to improve street-orientation, walkability, visual interest, and the compatibility of new structures with the character of the area around them. In downtown and activity centers, form-based controls could allow a more flexible range of uses to occupy buildings over time, while ensuring the building itself remains sensitive to the existing urban fabric around it. For example, form-based development standards like build-to lines, requirements for doors and windows along streets and sidewalks, and prohibitions on new parking areas between building fronts and the streets they face could be used to discourage commercial strip mall development and incentivize more compact mixed-use projects along commercial corridors. Those types
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite What We Heard– January 2021
5
of standards would also help diversify the built environment throughout the City in both suburban and
urban contexts. Additional input during the fall of 2020 included: •
Strong support for stronger form-based zoning elements such as improved sidewalks, pedestrianorientation and walkability, compatible building height/ transition requirements, more context-sensitive setbacks;
•
Desire to learn more about form-based zoning controls and the advantages and disadvantages of different form-based approaches;
•
Requests to reevaluate lot and building standards (building heights, minimum setbacks, minimum lot sizes, and development density) throughout the city – and particularly for residential development -to better protect existing character or promote changes called for in Blueprint Boise; and
•
Apprehension about compatibility and transitions between areas with taller/more intense development and lower scale residential neighborhoods.
Improve the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Process The consensus among many citizens was that the current “one size fits all” PUD regulations do not provide significant benefits to the City. Instead, the PUD process is often used to package several wouldbe variances whose collective impact is to permit development quite different from that envisioned in the underlying zone district. Instead of focusing on flexibility, the PUD process should focus on the benefits or amenities provided to the City, and the list of desired amenities should be rethought, aligned with Blueprint Boise, and described with as much specificity as possible. The type and number of amenities required should better relate to the extent of requested divergences from the base zoning district standard; projects that request numerous unusual allowances should be required to provide more substantial amenities. There is a fundamental lack of predictability within the existing PUD process which is problematic for neighbors, applicants, developers, staff, and appointed officials. The Code should clarify the process and review criteria for PUDs to better achieve quality innovative design. Additional input during the fall of 2020 included: •
Several comments on the lack of predictability within the existing PUD process, confusion about when a PUD is or should be required, and concern that infrastructure development does not keep pace with housing construction.
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite What We Heard– January 2021
6
Enhance Historic Preservation Districts Many citizens recognized the importance of historic preservation standards but felt there was a lack of education and communication about historic preservation and the processes and requirements that apply to historic properties. Property owners and developers sometimes invest in a historic property before understanding the full extent of the allowances and prohibitions when redeveloping or renovating their property. In addition, the relationship between historic preservation standards and procedures and those in the underlying zoning district is often poorly understood. This results in tension between applicants, staff, and appointed officials - tension that could be reduced by formalizing a preapplication meeting requirement, increasing public outreach within historic districts, and clarifying the roles of staff, the Historic Preservation Committee, and City Council in each step of the review process. Additional input during the fall of 2020 included: •
Many comments about the weakness of the current historic preservation standards and processes, the inability to intervene in the demolitions of historic structures and the need for the Code standards to better align with federal requirements; and
•
Several comments about perceived inconsistent application of preservation standards (i.e., singlefamily homes cannot make small changes, but large historical commercial properties are demolished).
Improve Use Regulations Code users agreed that an analysis of the various land uses allowed within each district is equally important. Although some parts of the current use regulations and the Table of Allowed Uses are functioning well, there are several significant opportunities for improvement. Expand Housing Options There was a broadly shared interest for the expansion in housing options throughout the city for several reasons - to support affordable housing goals, to enable long-time neighborhood residents to age in place, and to increase building variety in ways that are consistent with existing neighborhood scale and character. The Code rewrite should explore new housing options such as co-housing, cottage housing, live/work units, tiny homes, and smaller single-family attached products to further diversify the housing stock. Current allowances for existing housing types within each of the zoning districts should be reevaluated and made more flexible where possible. Additionally, the use-specific standards should be refined to better address the impacts associated with certain housing types (such as multifamily products)
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite What We Heard– January 2021
7
that may require additional landscaping or screening to offset the impacts of additional density in some zoning districts. Additional input during the fall of 2020 included: •
Support for exploring housing options outside of residential zoning districts such as the conversion of commercial uses to residential uses and allowing multifamily products in industrial zoning districts;
•
Strong interest in “missing middle” housing, mixed-income developments, and accessory dwelling units;
•
Apprehension about allowing higher-density housing options and the potential negative impacts on traffic, neighborhood character, and safety;
•
Support for providing housing options that allow residents to age in place, specifically looking at seniors in manufactured home communities and those priced out of the housing market;
•
The need for inclusive housing solutions for those groups not often represented such as: low-income residents, minorities, renters, college students, residents without a car or a home;
•
Desire for more small-scale and urban agriculture and local food production while maintaining transition standards within residential areas; and
•
Support for more flexibility in home occupations.
Integrate Neighborhood Commercial Along with a greater variety of housing types, citizens wanted more small-scale commercial options in closer proximity to residential areas. “Coffee, ice cream and beer” within walking distance of residences reduces the number of vehicle trips required for common conveniences and helps foster a sense of community within neighborhoods. Allowances for compatible uses such as restaurants, breweries, limited retail, and other personal services should be expanded and use-specific standards drafted to ensure potential impacts (noise, parking, etc.) are mitigated. The potential new mixed-use zoning districts described in the section above can also be used to promote a variety of smallscale commercial uses. Additional input during the fall of 2020 included: •
A mix of opinions in support of small-scale commercial uses in residential areas and opposing comments focused on the potential negative impacts to traffic, property taxes, and overall neighborhood character; and
•
Concerns about allowing new commercial development in historical neighborhoods and districts,
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite What We Heard– January 2021
8
Limit Auto-Oriented Uses
Certain uses were identified as problematic in achieving the goals of Blueprint Boise, including but not limited to auto-oriented uses ranging from car dealerships to drive-through establishments. Those uses should be limited or prohibited in those zoning districts intended to promote denser, walkable neighborhoods. Where auto-oriented uses are allowed, the use-specific standards should be tightened to limit their size and mitigate their negative impacts on neighborhood character and walkability. Special attention should be given to specific commercial areas or corridors that Blueprint Boise identifies for more transit-oriented development, but that are instead occupied by (or attracting) auto-oriented uses.
Additional input during the fall of 2020 included: •
Little direct feedback on this issue, but several related comments related to coordination of land use and infrastructure; and
•
Differing opinions about road widening; some concerned that new, larger developments are approved without necessary road and infrastructure improvement and others that road expansions prioritize automobile travel and lead to adverse health and community outcomes.
Enhance Development Quality and Standards A common theme from the initial outreach was that the current development standards are not effectively producing the types and quality of development desired by the community and promoted in Blueprint Boise. Incentivize Infill and High-Quality Development In light of Boise’s steadily growing population and the increased cost of providing urban services and utlities to outlying areas, citizens and other Code users supported the need to incentivize high quality infill development. Opportunities for infill development include a range of underused property types from old churches to neglected big box retail buildings and aging shoppettes on high traffic corridors.
Additional input during the fall of 2020 included: •
Support for stronger focus on building and site design quality, tree preservation, open space, access and connectivity, sidewalks, and landscaping when evaluating the quality of development;
•
Many comments highlighting perceived vagueness, inconsistent administration, and/or enforcement of the current development standards; and
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite What We Heard– January 2021
9
•
Many comments suggesting greater controls on building heights in transition areas between commercial or activity centers and the low-density residential neighborhoods behind them, particularly for infill development sites.
Evaluate Parking Standards Code users advocated for new parking standards to shift away from the current auto-centric standards by reducing parking requirements and strengthening siting, access, and screening requirements. The City currently receives many requests for waivers of minimum and maximum parking standards, which generally indicates problems with the existing standards. Integrating shared parking standards and incentives would decrease the amount of space reserved for parking in a development while remaining realistic and sensitive to the economic need to provide parking options. Like other sections of the Code, the parking standards, including the criteria for parking reductions, should be predictable and should be applied consistently. Additional input during the fall of 2020 included: •
Differing opinions about parking requirements, with some concerned about a lack of adequate parking in downtown and for multifamily developments while others consider existing minimum parking requirements to be excessive;
•
Concern that the parking requirements for specific uses (such as ADUs) are overly restrictive, while others (such as produce stands) are too permissive;
•
Apprehension about making changes to parking requirements that would further decrease the amount of available street parking; and
•
Some interest in electric vehicle parking requirements.
Increase Connectivity Along with the desire to move away from auto-oriented development, citizens emphasized the lack of walkability and access to transit throughout the city. Updated design standards for bicycle and pedestrian options are necessary to produce walkable areas and reduce vehicular traffic. This is especially important in denser environments such as downtown and activity centers, as well as within neighborhoods where amenities are available near homes. Improvements in these areas will require increased coordination with the Ada County Highway District. Additional input during the fall of 2020 included: •
Strong support for enhancing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure (e.g., bike lanes and canal pathways) and a few comments promoting pedestrian-only zones downtown;
•
More concern with the quality and access to public transportation, including safe routes to public transit and encouraging housing near transit corridors; and
•
A few comments highlighting the need to consider pick-up/drop-off zones (both related to public transportation and businesses) and the safety implications for pedestrian and bicycle routes.
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite What We Heard– January 2021
10
Maintain Community Character Although there was support for more compact and dense development in some parts of the City, citizens were wary that new development might be incompatible with the much-loved character of mature residential neighborhoods throughout the City. There was interest in establishing improved design standards for transition areas between established neighborhoods and nearby commercial centers. Limiting the mass and scale of buildings adjacent to residential neighborhoods and enhancing landscaping and screening requirements along those boundaries would help avoid disruption to existing residential neighborhood character. Additionally, engaging and educating residents about what zoning currently allows in their neighborhoods and how new development proposals could impact them would help facilitate informed discussions and reduce frustration when a new project is proposed. Additional input during the fall of 2020 included: •
Many comments seeking more objective design review criteria to evaluate whether a development fits the “character” of the surrounding area;
•
Perceptions that even when design review standards are clear they are sometimes applied inconsistently; and
•
Strong emphasis on protecting the character of residential areas and ensuring the Code adequately mitigates the impact of commercial, mixed-use, and higher-density residential development in close proximity to lower density residential uses.
Improve Review and Decision Procedures During our initial visit to Boise, we heard a variety of comments about the development review procedures in the City, and many of the concerns stemmed from a perceived lack of predictability and consistency throughout the various (and sometimes overlapping) review processes. These chapters of the Code should be improved with more objective review criteria and clear descriptions of how each review procedure works – with particular focus on describing opportunities for public engagement when multiple reviews are required. Neighborhood meeting requirements were singled out as needing attention in order to reduce the current confusion experienced (and in some cases misinformation spread) by neighbors, developers, staff, and appointed officials. A more transparent, efficient, and objective review process could also help limit the number of variances and waivers requested by applicants. Although varied in scope, each review procedure has an associated decision-making authority and there was significant interest in clarifying those roles – particularly when a project needs to complete more than one type of review or is subject to overlapping development standards. Clear expectations must be set at each level of the review process to avoid unpredictable outcomes, and to reduce conflict and distrust between applicants, neighbors, staff, and appointed officials. Focused public outreach and opportunities for collaboration between the decision-making bodies should also be explored. Additional input during the fall of 2020 included: •
Significant agreement that many land use and zoning decisions appear unclear or inconsistent, decision-making criteria are not applied consistently, and decisions are sometimes difficult for nearby neighborhoods to understand;
•
Strong support for setting clear standards and reducing the number of exceptions or variances approved by the City;
•
Concerns with the current subdivision process including insufficient evaluation of traffic implications and environmental impacts, inadequate infrastructure improvement requirements, and overall cost and length of the process;
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite What We Heard– January 2021
11
•
Strong desires to clarify the role of neighborhood associations, neighborhood plans, and other adopted plans the development review and approval process; and
•
Requests to re-evaluate what types of decisions are made administratively without the opportunity for public comment or engagement.
Refine the Design Review Process In conjunction with the City’s overly detailed design standards, the Design Review process was identified as a potential area for improvement. Citizens perceive that some projects that have been through the Design Review process have not met the conditions placed on them at the time of Design Review approval. In some cases, this may be due to post-approval modifications approved by the City, but in other cases it is probably due to conflicting understandings of those conditions or incomplete inspections. To address this frustration, the Design Review process must be as user-friendly and straightforward as possible, and the review criteria should be refined to be more objective and predictable. The duties and responsibilities of the Design Review Committee should also be clarified and aligned with and understood by other decision-making bodies to avoid conflict as projects move through the larger development review process. Additional input during the fall of 2020 included: •
Significant concern with the subjective nature of the current design review process and lack of clarity especially regarding the role or impact of public input on proposals; and
•
A few comments about the design review standards being overly restrictive.
Include More Graphics and Illustrations One common issue that emerged from our discussions with Boise citizens and code users was the lack of education and information about basic zoning concepts, tools, procedures, and sections of the Code. Illustrations, photos, and flowcharts of complex review procedures should be used more frequently throughout the Code to provide additional clarity on the development standards and to summarize detailed information. Tables and graphics are particularly helpful in communicating dimensional standards (lots, blocks, height, setbacks) for each zoning district as well as clarifying the decision-making authority associated with the different development review procedures. Flowcharts are useful within development review procedures to convey the relationship between common review procedures and specific application types. Additional input during the fall of 2020 included: •
Support for illustrations throughout the Code, with the most interest expressed for dimensional standards, permitted and conditional uses, design review standards, site design standards, and the role of neighborhood plans in development approvals; and
•
Additional interest in ensuring larger summary tables (e.g., the use table) are straight-forward and easy to use for all types of Code users.
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite What We Heard– January 2021
12
2. What We See – Based on National Experience In addition to listening to a first round of comments from 70 citizens and Code users, the Clarion Team reviewed the current Boise Zoning Code in light of our 28 years of national experiences rewriting development regulations for over 190 communities of all sizes throughout the U.S. and Canada. More specifically, we compared the current Code against best practices in zoning ordinance organization, clarity, transparency, effectiveness, efficiency, and userfriendliness. We use this information to supplement what we hear locally, because sometimes Code users are not aware of ways the regulations could be improved – simply because they have never experienced living or working with a different Code. The pages below outline some of the major areas in which we think the content, procedures, and structure of the Boise Code could be improved. In some cases, our review addressed the same topics raised by citizens and other Code users, but we focused our review on comparisons with best practices and how divergences from those best practices may be leading to the frustrations expressed during out first round of interviews.
Generally Before getting to specifics, however, we need to mention a significant underlying issue that needs to be addressed in the Code rewrite – and that is distrust. One of the unusual aspects of our first visit to Boise was the high level of distrust about zoning decisions that appears to exist between citizens, developers, appointed officials, and City Council. Differing opinions about proposed developments are common in all communities, and frustrations that continue over time can erode trust anywhere, but the frequency with which distrust and conflict was mentioned in Boise was unusual. We believe some of the causes of that distrust are found in the Code itself, and the Code rewrite process can help rebuild some of that trust. One of our key observations about the current Code is the “unevenness” of its content and the wordy complexity of many of its development standards and review criteria. Some chapters – such as Hillside and Foothills Development, the Boise River System Overlay District, Design Review, and Historic Preservation are very detailed and wordy. Other important topics – such as connectivity, walkability, and opportunities for innovative housing - are addressed simplistically if they are addressed at all. To make matters worse, the long lists of detailed development standards overlap each other. An applicant needing to obtain both Design Review and a Conditional Use approval in an overlay zone district would need to navigate his or her way through at least three (maybe more) lists of detailed standards and criteria. The problem is not just the length and complexity of that content, but the fact they will often conflict. Perhaps because of the complexity of the lists themselves, the criteria in those lists are often worded vaguely – with words like “compatibility” and “consistency”. In spite of multiple lists of standards and criteria used by the Design Review Committee, Planning and Zoning Commission, and Historic Preservation Commission, we were left with the impression that those standards would still allow each Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite What We See – January 2021
13
group to approve, condition, or deny almost any development application – it all depends on which of the overlapping and sometimes conflicting criteria are given more weight than others. We believe the result of all these words in zoning decisions are unpredictable to both neighborhood citizens and project applicants - and that leads to distrust in the system as a whole. In some areas, the current Code reads as if more standards, more criteria, and more steps have been added over time to try to “plug the holes” that lead to unpopular outcomes – but we suspect in many cases those added words and steps have only made decision-making more unpredictable. Simplifying, clarifying, and making standards and criteria more objective can go far towards rebuilding trust in the zoning process. One related issue is – although recently reorganized – there are several structural changes that could make the Boise Zoning Code easier for citizens to understand and use. Several chapters of the Code – such as Historic Preservation and Flood Protection - have not been well integrated with the rest of the Code structure. Review and approval procedures, opportunities for waivers and flexibility, definitions, and criteria are in many cases still embedded in individual topical chaptes of the Code rather than being integrated with all other review and approval procedures in Chapters 11-01, 11-02, and 11-03.
Zone Districts A Dated Menu of Available Districts The current lineup of Boise zoning districts is poorly matched to the kinds of places encouraged by Blueprint Boise, for several reasons. The current breakdown of zoning districts into Residential, Office, Commercial, and Industrial ignores the strong national trends toward blending many of these uses in mixeduse development. Newer ordinances generally organize the districts into categories of Residential, Mixed-Use, and Special Purpose, in order to create more walkable, integrated areas to live and work and play. In fact, the core of most modern codes is the middle category of Mixed-Use zone districts, which can be designed to cover a wide variety of neighborhoods – in fact, all but those low density neighborhoods that want to remain purely residential and those high intensity assembly and fabrication uses that should not be mixed with residential living. An Overly Complex Menu of Office, Commercial, and Industrial Districts In addition, the current zoning district lineup appears overly complex – particularly the large number of overlay districts, many of which have fairly detailed development review standards and criteria. To start with, the menu of nine office and commercial districts and the list of four industrial districts (Chicago has three) could be significantly simplified. The types of parking adjustments reflected in the three parking overlay districts are usually addressed within the parking standards themselves, and not through the use of overlays. We believe that overlay districts should be used sparingly, and often the goal of an overlay district can be achieved through updated standards in the base zoning districts. In some cases it appears that overlay districts were created to address weaknesses in the Code itself, and if the rewrite addresses those issues, the overlay may no longer be needed.
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite What We See - January 2021
14
Few Affordable Housing Options Although Blueprint Boise supports, and many citizens emphasized, the need for a wider variety of housing and more affordable housing options, the current Code includes no districts designed to allow smaller singlefamily homes. The smallest lot size available for singlefamily development is in the R-1M district - which is subject to lengthy development standards – but its 4,320 square foot minimum lot size and 36 foot lot width standards are much larger than the 2,500 square foot and 25 foot width standards in many newer Codes (often reflecting the fact that older parts of many cities were already platted and built on that small lot framework). In addition, the dwelling unit per acre limits on multifamily development in several zone districts tends to drive up housing costs by requiring builders to build fewer, larger units within a given building size, rather than responding to market pressures by building the smaller units that buyers and renters can afford. Many newer Codes have also moved away from Floor Area Ratio (FAR) measures, especially in more urban scale districts, in favor of building envelope and lot coverage controls, because the combination of both types of controls on density tends to encourage over-consumption of land. Few Building Form Controls Although Blueprint Boise includes several goals related to street-oriented development, walkability, and pedestrian-friendly development, the current Code includes few tools to achieve those results. Although the PC district appears to have been created with some of these objectives in mind, it reads as a complex add-on with limited appicability. Instead of creating these complex standards, many newer development codes integrate tools to create pedestrian-friendly development – such as build-to lines/maximum setbacks, requirements for doors and windows facing the street, and parking lot location requirements – into the basic development standards for many multifamily and mixed-use zoning districts. Dated Institutional District Controls The current Health Services and University districts appear to include one-off combinations of select development standards designed around specific needs and concerns about those types of institutions at the time the districts were created – standards that can easily become dated as institutional needs change. Many newer Codes include more flexible development standards and incentives that allow broad flexibility for complex institutions to create the types of new facilities they need to thrive while protecting surrounding neighborhoods from adverse impacts related to the scale, height, traffic, and parking related to these valuable institutions. Poor Communication of Intended Neighborhood Character Finally, the descriptions of the different zoning districts do not help communicate the intended character or the key development parameters very well. A lack of drawings, photos, or illustrations makes it difficult for citizens to understand what types of development are allowed in their neighborhood or to evaluate whether a proposed new development fits in with that character. Many newer Codes use a two-page spread for each zone district to communicate graphically and visually what types of development can be
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite What We See - January 2021
15
expected. An example of that approach from another community is shown below, and we recommend the Boise Code be revised to incorporate this two-page spread layout.
Permitted Uses A Thin Menu of Innovative Housing Options In addition to not allowing or encouraging small lot single-family housing development, the list of permitted uses in the current Boise Zoning Code does not address many of the innovative housing options included in many modern development regulations. The Code does not address or allow cottage developments, tiny houses, co-housing development, or livework units. Although it mentions triplexes and fourplexes, those are treated as varieties of multifamily housing, while an increasing number of newer Codes treat them as forms of “Missing Middle” housing that should be allowed in a wider range of residential zone districts. In contrast, Flagstaff, Arizona, identifies and permits 15 different types of innovative (and generally more affordable) housing options. On the other hand, the Boise Codes contains loopholes that have allowed poorly designed narrow frontage houses and multi-bedroom duplexes to occur in some areas where they are inconsistent with surrounding character and (at least until recently) did not have the design and development standards in place to mitigate those adverse impacts.
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite What We See - January 2021
16
Procedural Barriers to Multifamily Housing Development The current Code also creates significant barriers to development of some types of multifamily development that will be needed to address current afforability challenges. The current permitted use tables categorize multifamily uses in terms of dwelling units per acre, which (as noted above) tends to drive up housing prices. More significantly, multifamily housing development standards are exceptionally lengthy and detailed, and the use itself is listed as a conditional use in almost all of the multifamliy, office, and commercial districts, which adds time and uncertainty to the development approval process. In contrast, almost all newer development codes allow multifamily housing as a permitted use in many or all multifamily zone districts, subject to design and development standards. An increasing number of new Codes also allow the market to determine how many units are created within defined multifamily building envelopes and parking requirements. Dated Social Service and Care Uses The current list of group living uses appears dated and may not cover the expanding range of housingand-services products being created to respond to our aging society. As an example, the current Code does not explicitly address continuum-of-care facilities or housing developments that provide a mix of independent living, assited living, social services, and medical care. Importantly, in those cases where the current Code does define group living and care uses, they are almost never permitted in most of the residential zone districts, which reduces opportunities for Boise’s citizens to “age-in-place” in the neighborhoods they love. Finally, although the current provisions for child care are exceptionally detailed, there is almost no mention of adult day care while most newer Codes provide substantial opportunites for adult day care facilities. Overly Detailed Commercial and Industrial Use Categories Traditionally, many zoning ordinances tried to define every use that might possibly be proposed and to develop regulations to address the potential impacts of each of them. But the market economy has shown that it can invent new uses and combinations of uses faster than the zoning codes can be updated to list or regulate them. More importantly, advances in environmental controls mean that many uses that used to be considered “heavy” or “dirty” no longer have significant environmental or traffic impacts on their surroundings. As a result, almost all newer Codes use fewer, broader, more flexible lists of land uses that allow significant freedom for providers of goods and services to innovate and to adjust to changing market demands. In Boise, the lists of commercial and industrial uses are dated and overly detailed. Interestingly, although the current Code lists a wide range of specific industrial activities, they are almost all allowed or conditionally allowed in exactly the same zone districts. These lists should be consolidated and significantly simplified to enable Boise to better compete in the rapidly changing global economy. In addition, the broad availability of commercial uses in industrial zones should be re-evaluated in order to preserve key industrial lands for their intended purposes. While some industrially-zoned lands may be appropriate for development or
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite What We See - January 2021
17
redevelopment as business parks that include a broad range of office, research, commercial, and industrial uses, other lands may be uniquely suited for and important to retain for industrial uses. Overly Complex Accessory Use and Home Occupation Standards In many cities, a surprizingly high volume of zoning questions, complaints, and enforcement activity concern accessory uses (including accessory dwelling units and home occupations) and accessory structures like backyard sheds, pools, patios, decks. To reduce confusion and complaints, it is important those regulations be clear, objective, and easily understood. In Boise, many of the development standards for accessory uses do not meet that test. The classification of accessory structure regulation based on the size of the structure is unusual and not intuitive to many citizens. The standards for accessory dwelling units are quite detailed and much longer than those used by many other medium-sized cities across the U.S. The same can be said for regulations related to home occupations, which could be significantly simplified without risking adverse impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.
Development and Design Standards Parking and Loading Standards Need Refinement While Boise’s standards for both minimum and maximum parking are fairly detailed, we heard that requests for variances and adjustments to both requirements are received frequently. In some cases, the current minimum parking standards appear high (for example the 1 per 3 seat standard for eating and drinking establishments and the 1 per 750 square foot standard for industrial uses). On the other end of the spectrum, the current maximum parking limits of 150% or 175% of minimum requirements do not reflect best practices in that area. Instead of fixed percentages, most newer Codes take a more tailored approach based on the typical needs of different land uses. In addition, newer Codes often exempt smaller parcels from maximum parking limits altogether, because smaller lots offer less risk of “over-parking”, because minor amounts of over-parking have few impacts on walkability and street-orientation, and because enforcement of maximum parking limits on smaller facilities often absorbs a disproportionate amount of zoning enforcement time and effort. Both Salt Lake City, Utah, and Bloomington, Indiana, are currently revising their ordinances to make this change. In addition, the current Boise parking standards do not provide automatic reductions in minimum required parking for mixed-use development and shared parking facilities, changes that would both encourage infill development and simplify parking administration. Lengthy, Detailed, and Wordy Standards As mentioned in the introduction of this Part 2, many of the development standards in the Boise Code are longer and more detailed, while using vaguer and more subjective terminology, than is often found in newer Codes. That is especially true in Chapter 11-07 (Development and Design Standards). The Hillside and Foothills Development Standards, Design Review, and PC District Standards, in particular, should be reviewed and updated for clarity, objectivity, and brevity. More words covering more topics does not make for better decisions; Fewer, clearer standards using objective terms and measures that do not Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite What We See - January 2021
18
overlap other standards and criteria make for better and more predictable decisions that build trust in the integrity of the zoning process. An Unpredictable Mix of Standards, Criteria, and Waivers Despite the reorganization of the Boise Zoning Code a few years ago, Chapter 11-07 (Development and Design Standards) contains a confusing blend of general development standards, criteria to guide different types of decision-making, and procedures to waive specific types of parking, landscaping, and other standards. The user-friendliness of the Code could be significantly improved if all decision-making criteria and all procedures for waivers and adjustments appeared in Chapter 11-03 (Review and Decision Procedures). In addition, it would be helpful if the district-specific evelopment standards appeared in the two-page spread in subsection of Chapter 11-04 (Zoning Districts) describing that district. If possible, it would also be helpful if procedures and waivers related to Flood Hazards in Chapter 11-08 were instead grouped with other flexibility and relief provisions in Chapter 11-03.
Subdivision Standards Although often overshadowed by zoning regulations, subdivision standards are extremely important, because they establish the framework within which Boise will grow, both externally and through infill development. They establish the network of streets, trails, walkways, open spaces, and drainageways, which will in turn determining whether the Blueprint Boise goals for walkability, connectivity, and community health will be implemented in these areas. Unfortunately, this chapter of the current Code appears to have been mostly added onto, rather than integrated into, the City’s development regulations. Like many older subdivision regulations, the standards in this chapter appear to take a mechanical view, rather than an urban design view, of how subdivisions are created. They appear to focus more on technical compliance with platting requirements, traffic safety, required land dedications, and required improvements than on connectivity, variety of development, and public health issues emphasized in Blueprint Boise. There are few if any connections to the connectivity standards in earlier chapters, and the subdivision buffering standards appear to overlap the landscaping standards. In addition, there are few clear links to other portions of the Code addressing the avoidance of sensitive lands or protection of unique or interesting site features. Most newer Codes consider subdivisions to be an integral part of the land development process and integrate subdivision standards with zoning standards on similar topics. In addition, most newer Codes have a table indicating the stage at which each development standard will be considered – e.g. at subdivision platting, during a master planning process, or at the time of site design – in order to reduce confusion and ensure that each topic is addressed when the information to make good decisions on that topic is available.
Procedures and Administration Well Organized and Illustrated Chapters 11-02 (Review and Decision Bodies) and 11-03 (Review and Decision Procedures) are organized to match best practices used in many newer Codes. The organization of “Procedures” in Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite What We See - January 2021
19
Chapter 11-03-02 into 10 standard steps in the review and decision process, and the inclusion of a flowchart for each of the Specific Procedures in Chatper 11-03-03 helps Boise citizens understand how each review will proceed. Incomplete Procedural Content However, Chapters 11-02 and 11-03 are incomplete, because several procedures that can influence the outcome of development applications are not included. The description of the functions and powers of the Historic Preservation Commission and the procedures for historic designation and the approval of certificates of appropriateness appear in the Historic Preservation Districts. Most of the substantive requirements for approval of a Hillside and Foothills Development permit appear in Chapter 11-07-08, and most of the criteria for approval of development in floodplains is found in Chapter 11-08. Scattered and Unclear Waiver Provisions It is clear the City has an abnormally high number of variances and waivers that are approved each year. Additionally, many opportunites for waiver or adjustments of development standards are missing from this chapter. Procedures and criteria for waivers of Boise River System standards are found in Chapter 11-05-06, those for adjustments of residential parking and sidewalk standards are found in 11-06-03, waivers of other minimum and maximum parking standards are in 11-07-03, waiver of landscaping requirements are in 11-07-05, waivers of hillsides and foothills development standards are found in 11-07-08, and adjustments to subdivision regulations are found in Chapter 11-05-09. In addition, Chapter 11-03-04-13 provides an additional Exception process and the Planned Unit Development process provides additional ways to package several adjustments and further diverge from the use, development, and design standards that would otherwise apply to a project site. This scattering of waiver and adjustment provisions is important to examine for two reasons: First, because they increase the likelihood that development approvals will seem unpredictable to Boise’s citizens and to neighbors of the proposed development – and unpredictable outcomes is one of their chief complaints. Second, these waiver opportunities can overlap with each other; a given application may request multiple waivers, and it can become difficult for staff and applicants, as well as citizens, to determine which waiver criteria will apply or which standard is more important, how they relate to each other, and when and where to appear to support or object to those requests for waivers. Incomplete and Overlapping Decision Criteria As noted in the introduction to Part 2 of this document, the weaknesses listed above are compounded by the fact that many decision criteria for different types of applicatons are very wordy and detailed, but use vague terminology that makes it difficult for citizens to tell what will and will not be approved. That unpredictability is enhanced because the general decision criteria in Step 7 of Chapter 11-03-03-6 (which apply when the Code does not list more specific criteria) are themselves fairly general and vague. Stronger general decision-making criteria would enable the application-specific criteria to be simplified and improve citizen’s ability to predict what is and is not consistent with the Code. While each list of decision criteria in the Code may have been created with good intentions – and may in fact address most of the concerns that arise in that type of development application – when applied in combination they create a decision-making system that is not clear or transparent, and the resulting unpredictability has created an atmosphere of distrust and frustration among citizens, applicants, staff, appointed boards, and City Council.
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite What We See - January 2021
20
Definitions While often an afterthought, a good definitions chapter is key to the transparency, efficiency, and predictability of any development code. After the current dated lists of permitted and conditional uses is simplified, each of those uses should be defined clearly. Regulatory text should be taken out of the use definitions and instead listed in zone district, development, or design standards. In addition, all definitions in the Code should appear in Chapter 11-02. While it is natural for specialized review bodies such as floodplain regulators, historic preservation review bodies, design review bodies, wireless communication staff, and airport authorities to want all of the definitions they work with to appear next to their specific development standards and procedures, this is a disservice to citizens and other Code users. Instead of appearing in scattered locations, topic specific definitions -- like those related to floodplains -- can appear in a discrete section of Chapter 11-02 under the letter F titled “Floodplain-related Definitions,” where they can be easily located by citizens, applicants, and staff. Doing so significantly reduces the chances that a citizen or neighbor will review the definitions chapter, not find a definition, and invest time and energy trying to engage in a development review process without knowing the term is in fact defined somewhere else in the Code. Finally, many definitions would benefit from illustrative graphics, and those should be added during the Zoning rewrite process.
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite What We See - January 2021
21
Appendix A: Detailed Recommendations for Specific Changes
Supplementary to the summarized feedback described in the Diagnostic and Solutions Report, we received a variety of detailed recommendations or comments related to specific sections of the Code to consider as the Code is rewritten. The following input is organized by its relevance to the existing sections of the Boise Zoning Code.
Chapter 11-01: General Provisions •
There are issues with annexing properties and assigning a holding zone – zone it immediately to what the comprehensive plan advises.
•
Review areas of change and stability in Blueprint Boise for how that might inform processes.
•
Clarify the references to plans and other policies outside the code – are they regulatory or advisory?
•
Push the provisions of the Transportation Action Plan as much as possible.
Chapter 11-02: Review and Decision Bodies [No specific recommendations]
Chapter 11-03: Review and Decision Procedures •
Clarify when staff is required to attend neighborhood meetings.
•
Require Design Review for: •
Office/commercial uses larger than 5,000 square feet.
•
Industrial uses larger than 10,000 square feet.
•
Any development adjacent to residential.
•
The degree to which additions and modifications can modify initial Design Review approvals should be clarified.
•
Draft specific criteria for small projects required to go through Design Review.
•
Require a thorough in-process and project completion inspection for projects that are approved through Design Review.
•
Add a demolition review process.
Chapter 11-04: Zoning Districts •
Rezone the tank farm.
•
Specific Districts:
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite Appendix A – January 2021
22
•
R1M allows smaller lots, but a disincentive for developing in that zone is the requirement for alleys.
•
Review apartments in L-O District.
•
Evaluate the allowance of residential in L-O and R-O districts through CU. It is often utilized to achieve density and is located in areas where residential may not be appropriate.
•
T-1 district is candidate for elimination (one area district).
•
M-1, M-2, M-3, M-4 could be collapsed into fewer districts (e.g., light industrial and more intense industrial). Potentially reduce from 4 to 2.
•
PC zoning downtown may be applicable along certain roadways that may include but are not limited to Broadway Avenue.
•
Support for PC zone recently enacted along State Street. Need more areas designated to support transit and pedestrian activity.
•
R-O need better standards for active use on ground floor.
•
Evaluate C-1 and C-2D zones south of university.
•
Allow smaller lot sizes in residential areas so that zoning tools respond to market.
•
Need standards that reflect tiny houses as accessory, temporary and primary residences.
•
Integrate form base zoning in suburban locations: require orientation of the door to the street.
•
Planned Unit Developments: •
It is extremely difficult to do PUD with single-family development because base zoning doesn’t allow desired lot sizes (3,200 sq. ft. to 4,000 sq. ft.).
•
The degree to which PUDs may exceed the density of underlying zoning (particularly for duplexes and substandard lots should be clarified.
•
Overlay process has begun from BSU, but elements of that could be adopted if completed during this project.
•
Zone for anticipated growth of University.
Chapter 11-05: Overlay and Specific Plan Districts •
Airport overlay standards need to be incorporated in zoning.
•
Need new corridor zoning or overlay for certain roadways that include but are not limited to State Street.
Chapter 11-06: Use Regulations •
Need new standards or classification for individually leased rooms in duplexes with one kitchen.
•
Evaluate the range of uses for industrial zones.
•
Look at setback and parking restrictions for ADUs.
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite Appendix A - January 2021
23
•
Ensure height and square footage definitions are consistent across departments (e.g., planning, building and fire).
•
Evaluate the landscaping, setbacks and site coverage requirements for fourplexes.
•
Need better multifamily design and development standards.
•
Look at which zone districts should allow storage units, as well as the design of storage units to improve aesthetic impact.
•
The degree to which commercial uses can exist on outdoor rights-of-way, and the degree to which clear passages for pedestrian access must be preserved around those commercial uses, should be clarified.
•
Develop identified roadways that include but are not limited to Broadway Avenue with mixed-use with residential above.
•
Car oriented uses (service stations, drive throughs, auto-sales) need to be eliminated from PC and C1 or neighborhood Commercial zones as well as other key pedestrian-oriented roadways.
Chapter 11-07: Development and Design Standards •
Parking structures should not be located on corners.
•
Consider whether middle floor parking (between an active ground level and occupied upper floors) should be permitted and if so in which zone districts.
•
Design against dead zones.
•
Planters installed blocking door swing areas for ADA parking stalls.
•
Evaluate sidewalk design and improve code enforcement within the public right-of-way downtown to ensure compliance with ADA standards and promote walkability.
•
Add transit level of service in requirements in code.
•
Need more code enforcement officers to ensure that approved buffer and screening measures are maintained.
•
Make it easy to replicate the North End neighborhood development of mixed-use and housing.
•
Foothills development:
•
•
Height: evaluate transition standards and waiver requirements. Impose minimums in certain areas.
•
Implement Blueprint Boise’s aspirations for hillside and foothills development standards.
Evaluate the FAR requirements downtown – it is a barrier to development.
Chapter 11-08: Flood Hazard Regulations •
Add wildfire mitigation regulations. Wildland Urban Interface Guidelines should be clearly communicated early and often.
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite Appendix A - January 2021
24
Chapter 11-09: Subdivision Standards •
Consider under what circumstances the City should require the creation of a Homeowners Association (HOA) and if so, for what purposes?
Chapter 11-010: Sign Standards [No specific recommendations]
Chapter 11-011: Nonconformance •
Allow for “good” nonconformities.
Chapter 11-012: Definitions [No specific recommendations]
Chapter 11-013: Adopted Specific Plans [No specific recommendations]
Boise, ID – Zoning Code Rewrite Appendix A - January 2021
25
PROJECT BACKGROUND Boise’s zoning code has shaped Boise as we know it, outlining how property can be used in our city. To support our city’s longterm vision as our community grows and changes, we have started the process to rewrite our zoning code in three modules. This first module of the zoning code outlines what is and is not allowed within certain zones across the city. This module proposed the following changes to help better align our zoning code with the city’s long-term vision: •
Condense and rename zoning districts
•
Allow new housing types within all residential zones
•
Allow small-scale commercial in some residential zones
•
Create new zones that allow mixed-use development
The City of Boise sought feedback on this draft document from May 10 to June 15. The Boise community had the opportunity to take part in an online public survey, attend in person and/or virtual meetings, or meet with a planner through scheduled “office hours.” Community input will help refine the first module to ensure the City grows in a sustainable, efficient, and responsible manner that allows us to support and enhance our quality of life.
HOW DID WE REACH OUT? From May 10 to June 15, the Zoning Code Rewrite team began to advertise and perform the engagement tactics noted below to gather public input on Module 1. In-person events were held at a variety of times and locations throughout the City of Boise to accommodate various schedules and provide convenient engagement opportunities near where residents live. Notice for each engagement opportunity was shared through the project’s email list, the city’s “In the Know” newsletter and on social media throughout May and June. Partner agencies and Neighborhood Associations were also informed of engagement opportunities. Local media advertised the outreach events including two articles on BoiseDev.com, an interview on Radio Boise (KRBX) Vital Idaho, and several repeating segments on KTVB. ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITY
DATE /TIME
LOCATION
PARTICIPANTS
Community Wide Survey
May 10 - June 15
Online
1,054
Office Hours with a Planner
Every Monday and Wednesday from May 19 to June 14; 11:00 AM - 1:00 PM
Virtual and at City Hall
7
City Council Work Session
Tuesday, May 18 4:00 PM
City Hall
N/A
Community Conversation
Friday, May 21 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM
Virtual
32
Community Conversation
Monday, May 24 5:30 PM - 6:30 PM
Cassia Park
4
Community Conversation
Wednesday, May 26 4:00 PM - 5:00 PM
Baggley Park
1
Community Conversation
Wednesday, June 2 11:30 AM - 12:30 PM
Winstead Park
8
Community Conversation
Monday, June 7 6:00 PM - 7:00 PM
Virtual
22
Community Conversation
Thursday, June 10 6:00 PM - 7:00 PM
Magnolia Park
+/-60
SUMMARY OF DRAFT MODULE 1 SURVEY The Draft Module 1 survey had three questions about the respondent and eight questions addressing each of the four proposed changes.
Who did we hear from? While we did hear from people living in every area of the city as shown below, we received the most responses from those who live in the North/East Ends and Northwest. We also heard from an a majority of people who live in single-family homes (90% of respondents), hearing from just 33 people who live in an apartment, 24 people who live a townhome, and 6 people who live in a triplex or fourplex. Similarly, the responses were from majority homeowners (90% of respondents).
NEIGHBORHOOD RESPONSES: WHAT NEIGHBORHOOD DO YOU LIVE IN?
North/East Ends 206 Northwest 153
West Bench 115
Central Bench 102
Southeast 94 Southwest 66
RE SPOND E NT 'S CURRE NT T YPE OF H O M E
Foothills 54
785 Single-Family Home
Downtown 36 Barber Valley 15
90%
Airport 11
OW N
Ten Mile Creek 3
33 Apartment 24 Townhouse
10% R ENT
20 Duplex 7 Condo
6 Triplex/Fourplex 2 ADU (Accessory
Dwelling Unti)
CONDENSED AND RENAMED ZONE DISTRICTS The City’s Comprehensive Plan, Blueprint Boise, identifies where people and services should be located to accommodate longterm growth in Boise. To align our zoning code to our City’s comprehensive plan, Module 1 proposes condensing and renaming several existing zoning districts. We asked residents how well they believed the proposed condensed and renamed zones address the City’s long-term needs.
HOW WELL DOES THE PROPOSED CHANGES MEET THE FUTURE NEEDS OF OUR CITY? Overall, 45.6% of respondents believe the proposed zone district changes would position the city “worse” or “much worse” than our current zoning code while 36.2% believe the changes would be “better” or “much better” than the current zoning code. A portion of respondents believe the changes would neither benefit nor detract from the City’s ability to meet future needs.
23% Much worse
27.2%
Better
9%
Much better
22.6% Worse
18.2%
About the same
NEW HOUSING TYPES WITHIN ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES Module 1 proposes expanding housing choice by including triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes as allowed housing types in all residential zones (subject to design and development standards). We asked our residents several questions to understand their comfort with allowing these types of housing types, what they perceived the impact of expanded housing choice will be, and what they felt should be prioritized for development and design standards.
DO YOU SUPPORT ALLOWING OTHER HOUSING TYPES IN ALL BOISE NEIGHBORHOODS? Overall, 56% of respondents “oppose” or “strongly oppose” expanding housing choice in all Boise neighborhoods while 37% “support” or “strongly support” the expansion of housing choice.
38%
Strongly Oppose
19%
Strongly Support
18%
Support
18%
Oppose
7%
Neither
WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE THE IMPACTS OF EXPANDING HOUSING CHOICE WILL BE? agree
neutral
disagree
It will cause too many trees to be lost It will lead to more mixed income neighborhoods It will lead to more diverse neighborhoods It will displace existing neighbors or businesses It will impact my property values negatively It will lead to traffic concerns It will lead to too many parked cars It will make good use of existing infrastructure 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Overall, respondents appeared to hold a wide variety of opinions about the impact of expanding housing choices; however, there are areas of commonality (50% or above): It will lead to traffic concerns
75%
It will lead to too many parked cars
70% 59%
It will cause too many trees to be lost It will lead to more mixed income neighborhoods
51%
It will impact my property values negatively
51%
It will displace existing neighbors or businesses
51%
WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO CONSIDER AS WE ALLOW NEW TYPES OF HOUSING?
MOST | IMPORTANCE | LEAST
When asked what elements of design and development were most important when expanding housing choice, the following design criteria received the highest weighted scores.
The size of the building How close the residences are to one another The height of the residences The way the residences look The trees and landscaping Pedestrian safety and comfort Where people park their cars Private open space Lighting The front yard
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE SHOULD KNOW? We gave respondents the opportunity to share general thoughts about the expansion of housing choice in all residential areas. About half of the respondents skipped this question (495 skipped out of 1,051). Our community expressed a wide range of views some related to the proposed draft Module 1 changes and some outside the scope of the project. Below is a summary of some of the ideas/concerns that were shared: •
Opposition to the removal of R1-A
•
Desire to maintain open space
•
Opposition to expanding housing choice
•
•
Opposition to any changes in zoning
Desire to use environmentally sensitive building practices (water conservation, fire protection)
•
Support for increased residential density
•
•
Support for expanding housing choice
Desire to identify solutions/programs to expand/incent affordable housing development
•
Support for mixed-use development
•
Desire for new growth/development to pay more than existing residents
•
Concerns about parking
•
•
Concerns about how increasing development will impact infrastructure capacity (roads, utilities, emergency services)
Desire for more adaptive reuse/building conversion rather than new construction
•
Desire to make zoning changes across the board, not exempt certain neighborhoods
•
Concerns about transient neighbors/bad behavior
•
Desire for more experienced Planning and Zoning Commissioners
•
Concerns about overcrowding and overbuilding
•
Desire to expand the tree canopy
•
Concerns about short term rentals
•
•
Concerns about resident safety, noise, shading, traffic, speeding etc.
Belief that proposed changes only benefit developers, that ideas are being pushed through by developers
•
Concerns over “Not in My Backyard” sentiment preventing the building of housing
Belief that people do not want to live in apartments
•
Concerns about a shelter for those experiencing homelessness
Questions about how Design Review fits into these proposed changes
•
Questions about dimensional standards
•
Desire to stop building in the foothills
•
•
Desire for cottage courts to be an allowed use
Questions about what is the logic behind these proposals
• •
SMALL SCALE COMMERCIAL IN SOME RESIDENTIAL ZONES MOST | IMPORTANCE | LEAST
Module 1 proposes allowing small-scale commercial and retail in some residential zones. We asked what the most important design and development standards are to ensure that small-scale commercial uses fit within residential zones. The following design and performance criteria received the highest weighted scores.
Noise levels How close the building is to residences Where people park their cars Size of the building Height of the building Way the building looks Pedestrian safety and comfort Hours/days of operation Trees and landscaping Exterior lighting
NEW MIXED-USE ZONES As part of the condensing of commercial and office zones, Module 1 created new mixed-use zones that could allow residential, office, and commercial development on the same site. To understand our community’s opinions about mixed-use development, we asked what excited or concerned them about mixed-use developments. Below are some of the major themes we heard: Excitement about Mixed-Use Development •
Business: Economic development / opportunity, support variety of local businesses
•
Housing: Increase housing and potentially more affordable housing options
•
Inclusion: Promote equity, reduce segregation, support diversity
•
Good Governance: making good use of infrastructure, being responsive to change/growth
•
•
Multi-Modal Transportation: Reduce congestion, shorten or reduce car trips, improve air quality, create better places for biking and walking, support a viable transit system
Concerns about Mixed-Use Development •
Vehicle Impacts: Not enough parking, increased congestion, bringing traffic and parked cars into residential neighborhoods, people will still drive, our transit is not good enough
•
Design: Too much parking, strip mall design with large parking lots in front of buildings, general bad design/ aesthetics, loss of tree coverage, sterile, cold, massive buildings
•
Behavior: Crime, noise, less family-oriented businesses, light pollution, decrease in property values, smell
•
Change: Change in neighborhood character, adding higher densities in areas not currently dense, adding new residents at the expense of existing residents, loss of history
•
Overbuilding: Too much commercial development, will not create special/unique places, loss of open space, wildlife impacts, mega-blocks
•
Infrastructure: missing sidewalks, poor quality transit, incompatible roadway design
•
Distrust/Lack of Faith in Government: giving special privileges to developers, poor regulation and enforcement, poor interagency partnership
•
Gentrification: loss of affordable housing,replacement with luxury housing/condos, increase in property values pushing people out
•
It Won’t Work: We won’t build dense enough, we won’t attract authentic local businesses, existing residents will stall development, businesses won’t be successful
•
No concerns
No excitement
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS As part of the public engagement for draft Module 1, staff hosted facilitated conversations with the community, both, in-person at local parks and virtually via Zoom. The conversations started with an introductory presentation covering background information in regard to Blueprint Boise and zoning as well as the key proposed draft Module 1 changes. We then facilitated a conversation with two questions: •
What principles of Blueprint Boise resonate with you?
•
Will these changes meet the needs of Boise into the future?
BLUEPRINT BOISE PRINCIPLES Participants were shown a list of Blueprint Boise principles and asked what values resonated with them. Understanding which values of Blueprint Boise resonate with participants will help evaluate tradeoffs associated with difficult zoning choices. Through each community conversation we heard every principle expressed with a strong desire to prioritize quality of life and advancement of environmental stewardship. Most participants supported the vision of Blueprint Boise and recognized the importance of balancing competing needs. However, at 1 of the 6 community conversations, some residents felt Blueprint Boise did not represent their interests.
MEETING BOISE'S NEEDS INTO THE FUTURE We asked participants a broad question to spark thought and conversation about the impact of the proposed changes. Below represent summaries of the feedback related to the four proposed changes: Condense and rename zoning districts •
Some frustration about the removal of R1-A
•
Some belief that the removal of R1-A will decrease housing diversity and neighborhood diversity within the city
•
Stated conflict between removing/condensing some zones and its impact on environmental stewardship
•
Some desire for an agricultural zone
•
Some belief that R1-B should also be removed
•
General support for mixed-use zones
Allow new housing types within all residential zones •
Some believed the City could go further and allow even more housing types in all residential zones
•
Some believed this change could have unintended consequences removing public participation or incenting teardowns, redevelopment, and displacement
•
Some were less concerned about the number of units and more concerned about the form/design of the building
•
Some believed that single-family neighborhoods should stay single-family
•
Desire for diversity of housing types in large new developments (not just single-family homes or large apartment complex)
•
Important design considerations noted: height, parking, usable open space
Allow small-scale commercial in some residential zones •
General support for small-scale commercial uses in residential zones
•
Recognition that context matters to ensure that these fit within existing residential areas
•
Attention to parking, noise, and “family-friendly” uses
Create new zones that allow mixed-use development •
Preference for local businesses
•
Recognition that providing parking is important but do not want to see parking as part of the design
•
Belief that adequate infrastructure (sidewalks, pathways, transit) is needed for mixed-use areas to be successful
Other topics that emerged from general comments included: Public engagement •
Need to find a way to get people to show up and participate. Zoning seems boring but this impacts everyone and we need to try and reach people
•
Find new ways to reach residents – TV, postcards, utility bill inserts, etc.
City leadership concerns •
Feeling that Blueprint Boise does not represent all residents
•
Feeling that some areas of the city are often ignored
•
Feeling that developers get whatever they want
ADDENDUM Participants provided a wide range of comments both via the online survey, as well as the live community conversations. Comments are available as an Addendum document posted on the project's website; Zoning Code Rewrite | City of Boise
MODULE 2 OUTREACH SUMMARY
PROJECT BACKGROUND Boise’s zoning code has shaped Boise as we know it, guiding how the built environment of our city evolves. To support Boise’s long-term vision as our community grows and changes, we are rewriting our zoning code in three parts, called modules. The first module of the zoning code outlines what kind of uses are and are not allowed within each zone across the city. The second module outlines development and design standards for redeveloping properties within the city. Community outreach for Module 2 took place January 27th - April 9th of 2022.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Module 2 outlines development and design standards for redeveloping properties within the city. Design standards include dimensional requirements for building height, building setbacks, housing density, parking requirements, building design, and incentives for developments that provide a community benefit. module, the draft document proposes the following updates: 1.
Updating dimensional requirements to allow smaller minimum lot sizes and/or lot widths for all residential zones
2. Removing the density calculation requirement of housing units per acre in all zones 3.
Adding design requirements to protect the transition between neighborhoods and higher intensity zones (i.e. commercial zones)
4.
Creating new zoning incentives in exchange for energy or water saving improvements
5. Reducing off-street parking requirements for singlefamily, duplex, triplex, and 4-plexes from two parking spaces per home to one parking space per home
6. Broadening the building and site design standards to apply to all new development, rather than just those parcels identified in the Design Review Standards & Guidelines 7.
Creating a new section of the code that establishes standards for the safe location of driveways and construction of new streets or pathways that help pedestrians, bicyclists, cars and delivery vehicles move safely and efficiently
8. Creating a new section of the code that requires site improvements for new developments such as landscaping, lighting, signs and other on-site materials to be kept clean and in good condition
To collaborate with and gather feedback from the community, we used a variety of tools to reach our residents. A recap of comments and concerns are included in this report. Module 2 proposes several changes to the zoning code that would apply to all areas of the city. Residents value unique neighborhood characteristics and would like to be able to predict what growth will look like and provide sufficient housing at various price points for Boiseans. Overall, we heard that residents love our city and revisions to Module 1 and 2 of the draft zoning code should focus on: •
Directing development where there is public investment
•
Maintaining a variety of neighborhoods
MODULE 2 OUTREACH SUMMARY | 1
•
Explicitly producing the type of affordable and sustainable development the city needs
•
Identifying areas in the city that are purposely managed for conservation
This report outlines the results of the surveys as well as a comprehensive look at the feedback gathered at community outreach events.
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS Community conversations were structured to present information and facilitate conversations around Module 2’s eight major changes. Each of these events, hosted in person and virtually, were organized to give a background of the zoning code rewrite, incorporate our “why” with several recent policy plans and strategic initiative action plans, and present the eight major changes proposed in the draft. We partnered with a local consultant and longtime planner from Kushlan & Associates to facilitate the conversations. Attendees were asked the following three prompts: •
What “why” resonates most with you?
•
What are your initial reactions to the first four changes?
•
What are your initial reactions the last four changes?
Below are the six-policy action plans the city has invested in to support the city’s goals. Attendees were asked to choose which “why” resonated most with them.
Grow in a sustainable & efficient manner that maintains our treasured quality of life. (Blueprint Boise, 2011) Maximize our constrained land to address increasing housing demand. (Housing Needs Analysis. 2021) Position the community to be carbon neutral by 2050 while enhancing community resilience to a changing climate. (Climate Action Roadmap, 2021) Elevate the full experience of a person with a disability living, working, and recreating in Boise. (Cross Disability Task Force Recommendations, 2021) Build on legacy of the greenbelt to expand safe pathways for walking and biking citywide. (Pathways Master Plan, 2021) Create a modern, well-balanced transportation system that provides real mobility choice while creating great places. (Transportation Action Plan, 2016) Understanding which priorities and policies resonate with participants most can help evaluate difficult zoning choices. Through each community conversation we heard every initiative or action plan expressed with a strong desire to prioritize the treasured quality of life outlined in Blueprint Boise. However, it was clear the phrase ‘quality of life’ can be interpreted differently to each resident of Boise. When we hosted outreach events with Boise Young Professionals and a Boise State Urban Studies class, the priorities of younger residents shifted toward the city’s climate action goals and the need for more affordable housing.
MODULE 2 OUTREACH SUMMARY | 2
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS PROPOSED CHANGES TO DRAFT MODULE 2 Many of the residents we heard from expressed concerns that the approach in both Modules 1 and 2 apply to all neighborhoods and seem to direct growth everywhere instead of focusing increased density strategically, where there is sufficient public investment. Furthermore, many made clear that changes to the base zoning would negatively impact existing overlay districts. The topic of highest interest from the community was the proposal to reduce parking minimums for all single family, duplex, tri-plex and 4-plexes. This concern was mainly rooted in the perception that Boise residents would “never give up their cars” due to a variety of factors including weather, lack of transit, and lifestyle. However, at several events there was a change in prioritization for younger Boiseans who felt the reduction in the parking minimums would offer them more choice in deciding what worked best from them in terms of housing, parking, and transportation. The community understands that growth is happening and there needs to be a nuanced approach to help develop where infrastructure already exists in our city. Additional comments and themes that emerged are grouped categorically below: TOPIC AGENCY COORDINATION
NATURAL RESOURCES & CONSERVATION
UNIQUE NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS
DESIGN MATTERS
GOOD GOVERNANCE
AFFORDABILITY
COMMENTS •
Collaboration is needed between zoning and public transportation
•
Infrastructure concerns: density, water, sewer, roadways, emergency services, schools
•
Request to keep, and where possible, strengthen, the WUI/Firewise standards – including the ability to monitor and enforce these standards
•
We need to consider our city’s water resources, specifically ensuring our aquifer is protected and replenished
•
How are we balancing preserving the foothills with the need for density and affordability
•
Southwest values green space, pathways, and access to the outdoors. They need better public transportation and access to amenities/services
•
West Bench has little public transportation, relies heavily on cars
•
Southeast needs adequate parking, especially near the Boise State campus
•
Northwest values large lot sizes and small agriculture/livestock farms
•
Foothills would like to keep large lots and access to nature and looks to protect the foothills
•
Central Bench encourages suburban style neighborhoods with adequate parking for recreations vehicles (boats, RVs)
•
North/East End enjoys the historic preservation of the neighborhood and walkability
•
Desire for neighborhoods with amenities like grocery stores, parks, shops, and services
•
Appreciation for considering quality access & connectivity in neighborhoods
•
Appreciation for design standards in zoning code
•
Detached sidewalks are good, helpful for safety on high-speed roads
•
How will design maintenance be monitored and enforced?
•
Being able to predict how a property will be developed would be helpful
•
Density will help with transportation, access, open space, and increasing quality of life
•
We need to limit sprawl but does a blanket zoning code across the entire city mean we risk losing Boise’s uniqueness and the diversity between different neighborhoods
•
Concern about housing prices that are unattainable, and the lack of supply
Participants provided a wide range of comments both via the online survey, as well as the community and neighborhood conversations. Results from both surveys and community conversations are attached as an addendum to this report. MODULE 2 OUTREACH SUMMARY | 3
OUTREACH METHODS On January 27, 2022, Planning and Development Services (PDS) released the draft Module 2 and began community outreach. In-person events were held at a variety of times and locations throughout the City of Boise to provide convenient engagement opportunities for residents. In addition to seven neighborhood planning area meetings, we also hosted virtual events and several community conversations to present the housing needs analysis from Housing and Community Development. Presenting the housing needs analysis set the stage for how the zoning code rewrite can help create solutions to address our current housing crisis. The city offered an online survey for the wider community and a more technical survey for individuals that are quite familiar with the existing zoning code. To encourage broad survey participation, we used a combination of social media posts, email marketing using the city’s external In The Know newsletter, targeted post card mailings, poster routes, press releases, Next Door, and printed business cards that were distributed at each community event. Partner agencies and Neighborhood Associations were also informed of engagement opportunities. Local media advertised the outreach events on BoiseDev. com, KTVB Channel 7, KIVI Channel 6, Fox News Channel 9 as well as KIDO 580 Radio. In total, roughly 3,800 people participated in Module 2 outreach. Outlined below is the list of events that city staff presented to the community.
MODULE 2 DATE
EVENT
PARTICIPANTS
TYPE
January 13, 2022
Urban Land Institute - NEXT Cohort (35-45 years old)
16
In Person
February 8, 2022
Central Bench
27 / 10
In Person / Virtual
February 9, 2022
Urban Land Institute – Idaho Developer Product Council
20
Virtual
February 12, 2022
Housing + ZCR Conversation
49
In Person
February 16, 2022
West Bench
29
In Person
February 22, 2022
Accessibility Taskforce Committee Presentation
6
Virtual
February 23, 2022
Housing + ZCR Conversation
39
Virtual
March 1, 2022
Southwest
40
In Person
March 2, 2022
Housing + ZCR: Housing Groups
35
Virtual
March 4, 2022
Idaho Walk Bike Alliance
17
Virtual
March 8, 2022
Climate Groups
25
Virtual
March 9, 2022
Foothills
35
In Person
March 9, 2022
COMPASS
15
Virtual
March 12, 2022
Community
14
Virtual
March 16, 2022
Northwest
45
In Person
March 22, 2022
Boise Young Professionals
14
In Person
March 29, 2022
Community
20
Virtual
March 30, 2022
BSU – Urban Studies
22
In Person
March 30, 2022
Neighborhood Leadership
48
In Person
March 31, 2022
Southeast / Airport
15
In Person
April 6, 2022
North End / East Ends
52
In Person
April 7, 2022
Urban Land Institute
21 / 15
In Person / Virtual
MODULE 2 OUTREACH SUMMARY | 4
SUMMARY OF DRAFT MODULE 2 SURVEYS – COMMUNITY & TECHNICAL Over 3,114 people responded to the community survey and 47 responded to the technical survey. Results from the community survey are outlined below. Comments and technical survey results are attached as an addendum.
WHO DID WE HEAR FROM? The survey responses covered a wide range of Boise neighborhoods, from every planning area in the City of Boise and represented renters, homeowners in a variety of housing types. PLANNING AREA
PERCENT OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS
*PERCENT OF CITY POPULATION
Airport
1.6%
1%
Barber Valley
1.8%
3%
Central Bench
16%
15%
Downtown
3%
3%
Foothills
3%
4%
North/East End
19%
10%
Northwest
14%
6%
Southwest
15%
13%
Southeast
14%
17%
West Bench
18%
28% *Data Source: ESRI Population Estimates
HOME OCCUPANCY
SURVEY RESPONDENTS
*CITY POPULATION
Rent
16.5%
35%
Own
82.3%
65%
Other
1.2%
n/a *Data Source: 2021 ESRI Population Estimates
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Module 2 includes the standards for how development look and feel. Each element of Module 2, whether sidewalk requirements or limits on how tall a building can be, seeks to use design to create new development that contributes to the vibrancy of the city. The first question of the survey asked respondents to think broadly about what elements of design they perceive to have the greatest effect on creating exceptional places. MODULE 2 OUTREACH SUMMARY | 5
Overall, residents prioritized connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists and not with street-oriented and friendly design with almost 60% of residents citing those standards as ‘very important’.
We then asked residents to rank development and design standards and their level of importance. Almost half of respondents want to prioritize protecting sensitive lands, such as the foothills and river, as well as indicating concern about how large areas of unprotected land will be divided into neighborhoods (14.1%).
In the existing zoning code, there is a residential density calculation that sets a maximum of units per ace for a single piece of property. In the survey, residents were asked if removing the density calculation to focus more on the design criteria, such as maximum height, parking, and setbacks, would help encourage creative housing design and various housing types. Over 62% of respondents thought that removing the density calculation would create more housing types.
As a follow up question, we then asked if this proposed changes would help encourage more affordable housing types and 43% said yes and 37% said no.
MODULE 2 OUTREACH SUMMARY | 6
The Module 2 draft includes new ways to provide more predictability regarding compatibility between homes and more intense uses (like schools, hotels or other businesses) next to them. 55% of respondents indicated the the suggested changes will help protect existing neighborhoods and reduce potential conflicts between residential and nonresidential land uses.
Throughout outreach, parking was a topic of high interest. The draft proposes updating parking requirements to generally reduce the minimum number of required parking spaces. Among survey respondents, 58% didn’t think the proposed changes make sense for Boise.
The draft also includes new standards to encourage smaller blocks and more frequent street and sidewalk connection points to encourage walking and bicycling as an alternative to automobile trips. 54% of respondents felt the proposed changes would encourage more walking and bicycling and reduce the number and length of automobile trips.
The draft Module 2 proposes changing standards for landscaping with new requirements to: encourage xeriscaping (using organic mulches to reduce evaporation, discourage weed growth, and keep the soil cool); install drought-tolerant or adaptive sod/seed mix. Limit grass to 33% of the landscaped area; prohibit invasive plants; and limit the use of water features (fountains, waterfalls, and ponds). Three-quarters of survey respondents reacted favorably to these proposed changes, indicating strong support for promoting environmental stewardship through environmentally friendly development practices.
The draft zoning ordinance proposes some relatively simple standards to enhance the city’s regulation of exterior lighting to incentivize energy efficiency and protect nighttime environments. A solid majority of respondents agreed with the proposed changes.
MODULE 2 OUTREACH SUMMARY | 7
OUTREACH SUMMARY REPORT – REVISED MODULES 1 +2
PROJECT BACKGROUND Boise’s zoning code has shaped Boise as we know it, guiding how the built environment of our city evolves. To support Boise’s long-term vision as our community grows and changes, we are rewriting our zoning code in three parts, called modules. The first module of the zoning code outlines what kind of uses are and are not allowed within each zone across the city. The second module outlines development and design standards for redeveloping properties within the city. Staff completed outreach for Module 1 in the spring of 2021 and outreach for Module 2 in the winter of 2022. City staff completed another round of community outreach to review the revised Modules 1 and 2 throughout July of 2022.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The zoning code rewrite is a multi-year process that includes deep community engagement with residents to shape Boise’s future. Following outreach for Module 2, city staff heard residents and made significant changes to the original Modules 1 and 2 that were presented to the community. For staff to begin working on Module 3, it was important for the City of Boise to share revisions with the community and provide an update on the new direction of the zoning code rewrite to ensure there was a solid foundation to build upon. The community had opportunities to participate through three in-person open houses as well as a digital open house hosted on the zoning code rewrite webpage. The open house format allowed staff to present the new framework, have a conversation with residents during the question-and-answer portion and for the residents to look more in-depth at the presentation with boards spread throughout the room during an open house forum. The boards provided additional details from the presentation and residents were able to share questions or comments with city planners. The digital open house mirrored the in-person event, with the same opportunity to provide feedback. At the open houses, staff presented the new framework with four new goals for the zoning code rewrite, which are a direct reflection what we heard from the community. The new framework city staff presented are outlined below: 1.
Have a variety of great neighborhoods.
2. Direct development where there is planned public investment.
3.
Have a strategy to produce affordable and sustainable housing.
4.
Manage growth along the edges of the city
Within this framework, staff presented how the city plans to achieve each of these goals. Additional details were covered in depth during the presentation such as descriptions of the new zones that tell us where and what can be built in the city, explaining how transit-oriented development will encourage development and growth where we have our bus transit lines, and how the city will not continue to grow on the edges of the city to be conscious of our current infrastructure and water resources. Residents were encouraged by the updates and could more easily see and predict what could be built, and where, in the city. This predictability carried a positive tone throughout the community conversations and, in general, residents understood how the city is working to utilize where the public has committed to investment areas such as the State Street Urban Renewal District and major streets that have every fifteen-minute bus service times, to our advantage. This report presents the feedback and recommendations we heard from the community during the latest round of outreach in July 2022 for the revised draft of Modules 1 and 2 of the Zoning Code Rewrite.
REVISED MODULES 1 +2 OUTREACH SUMMARY | 1
SUMMARY OF OPEN HOUSES & COMMENTS RECEIVED The three open houses hosted by the city brought a variety of community members both who have participated in previous outreach, as well as new participants who had not engaged in this project. Overall, there was predominantly positive feedback from the community, with a broad focus on how the city plans to handle growth in a well thought out way. As growth and housing continue to be top of minds for residents, members of the community continue to wonder how these changes will impact their individual neighborhoods. While some residents were excited about additional infill in their neighborhoods, others were concerned that the city took a step backwards by removing the triplexes and fourplex allowance in all residential zones. The presentation slide below shows one of the new mixed-use zones known as the MX-4 Transit Oriented Development zone that is located at four major transit locations along State Street with details of those building dimensions. These four locations have a 60ft height limit and are allowed to exceed that height if they include affordable housing. Residents understood there are only four locations for these types of large buildings and that we want to encourage these areas to focus on alternative modes of transportation; however, a few residents were concerned about the height of the buildings and the reduction of parking causing cars to park in the neighboring streets.
DIRECT DEVELOPMENT WHERE THERE IS PLANNED PUBLIC INVESTMENT: STATE STREET TRANSIT STATIONS
MX-4: Mixed-Use TOD •
No density calculation
•
60 ft height limit / no height limit for affordable housing
•
0' setbacks with requirement for wide sidewalks
While the large-scale zones received general support, residents continue to prioritize neighborhoods and what those will look and feel like. Several residents acknowledged that we want to enable walkable and bikeable neighborhoods that are safe and have amenities close to where people live. The STIL on Latah Street was given as an example of a MX-1 zone, also known as the Mixed-Use Neighborhood zone and there was general support for these types of neighborhood-scale projects that promote community in walkable places. In previous outreach, residents expressed concern with sprawling growth and the strain it puts on infrastructure, particularly our water resources. Residents were receptive to the proposal to limit sprawl by managing where growth occurs on the edges of the city. Additional details on this topic (particularly annexation) will be presented in Module 3.
REVISED MODULES 1 +2 OUTREACH SUMMARY | 2
Many residents had comments on the proposed strategic infill incentive that is shown below. A map was shown with all locations eligible for the infill incentives; however, the map does not identify whether they would follow the site characteristics to be able to include a slightly denser development. This proposal created some excitement for those encouraging density within the neighborhoods; however, others wanted to know how many parcels this would apply to within the city.
STRATEGIZE TO PRODUCE: AFFORDABLE + SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Bo
Eligibl
Su
Tra
Strategic Infill, Location: •
R-1B or R1C Zone AND
•
If you are within 300-feet of collector road or minor arterial or within 1/4 mile of a property zoned MX-3
Site Characteristics: •
55-feet of frontage AND
•
Vacant lot OR lot where the improvement /structure value is no greater than 25% of total assessed value OR incorporate existing structure AND
•
No approved demolition permit for the property within the past three years.
REVISED MODULES 1 +2 OUTREACH SUMMARY | 3
Overall, most comments received at the public open houses supported the new proposal and aligned with the new framework. Additional comments and themes that emerged are grouped categorically below: TOPIC PARKING
AFFORDABILITY
ZONING DISTRICTS
COMMENTS •
Ensure developments have enough parking without adversely impacting the area.
•
Ensure adequate monitoring and compliance of affordable units.
•
Encourage affordability for both homeowners as well as renters.
•
Would like infill to be eligible in all residential zones including the R-1A zone.
•
Interest in expanding the MX-3 zone beyond State Street, Vista Avenue and Fairview Avenue.
•
Creating boundaries for the R-2 zone to ensure it does not expand into entire neighborhoods.
•
Concern with the reemergence of the large lot residential zone (R-1A).
•
Disappointment with character overlay zones staying as is. Specifically, the Sycamore and Big Sky Overlay Zones.
•
Encouragement for MX-2 to be pedestrian friendly.
•
Mechanical units should be internal to buildings or ground mounted rather than on rooftops.
•
Desire for detached sidewalks on all roadways.
•
Strong support for open space throughout the city whether the open space was private, communal, pocket parks, access to trails and pathways or traditional parks.
•
More specifics for O-3 Zone and the potential to expand its use
•
Ensuring neighbors are noticed when a development is proposed in the area.
•
Allowing the public to participate in the development process.
•
Participation earlier in the process.
•
Coordinate conversations with all public service providers.
DESIGN MATTERS
DESIRE FOR OPEN SPACE
MODULE 3: LOOKING FORWARD AT PROCESS
As residents left the open house, a board was near the exit to ask for feedback on whether they believe these revisions will help shape the future design and development of Boise in a positive way. Participants were given the option of yes or no. Of the respondents who answered, more than 86% believed the revisions to Modules 1 and 2 will help shape the future design and development of Boise in a positive way. The same question was asked of the online open house participants, but they were asked to rate on a scale of 1-5, 1 being “I strongly do not believe the revisions will help shape the future of design and development in a positive way” and 5 being “I strongly believe these revisions will help shape the future of design and development in a positive way”. Of the seven participants who completed the online open house, 40% of respondents rated the changes a 4 believing that these revisions will help shape the future design and development in a positive way, 20% rated the changes a 1, 20% rated the changes a 2 and 20% rated the changes a 3.
REVISED MODULES 1 +2 OUTREACH SUMMARY | 4
OUTREACH METHODS On July 11, 2022, Planning and Development Services (PDS) released the revised draft Modules 1 and 2 and began community outreach. In-person events were held at locations throughout the City of Boise to provide convenient engagement opportunities for residents. In addition to three public open houses, the City of Boise also hosted a digital open house for individuals unable to attend the in-person events. The city gathered feedback at each open house as well as collected comments through our email and phone channels. City staff responded to roughly fifty individual phone calls and emails that were about the zoning code rewrite to answer further questions and seek additional understanding. To encourage broad participation, staff used a combination of social media posts, email outreach using the city’s external In the Know newsletter, press releases and website banners. Local media advertised the outreach events on BoiseDev. com and KTVB Channel 7, and the Planning Director interviewed with additional news partners. Partner agencies and neighborhood associations were also informed of engagement opportunities. In total, roughly 300 people participated in the revised Modules 1 and 2 outreach. Outlined below is the list of events that city staff presented to the community. The PowerPoint presentation from the open houses can be found as an addendum to this report. DATE
EVENT
PARTICIPANTS
TYPE
July 14, 2022
Open House – Hillcrest Library
58
In-person
July 18, 2022
Open House – Boise Downtown Main Library
48
In-person
July 28, 2022
Open House – Quail Hollow Golf Course
62
In-person
July 11, 2022 – July 31, 2022
Virtual Open House
7
Virtual
August 11, 2022
Neighborhood Collaborative Meeting
19
Virtual
REVISED MODULES 1 +2 OUTREACH SUMMARY | 5
OUTREACH SUMMARY REPORT – MODULE 3
PROJECT BACKGROUND The City of Boise has experienced a significant shift in the last decade, from a quiet, small city to a burgeoning one at the center of a metropolitan area known as the Treasure Valley. As the city has grown, it’s become imperative for our zoning code and policies to evolve. The current effort to modernize Boise’s zoning code will support the city’s vision in creating a city for everyone while also maintaining its history that makes Boise such a unique place to live. The Zoning Code Rewrite has been broken up into three modules with outreach at the center of each. Modules 1 and 2 proposed the uses and the design standards which create a foundation for staff to use as a guide for Module 3. The third module outlines the processes that will ensure the previous modules will be efficient and transparent for members of the community, city staff and developers. Community outreach for Module 3 took place October 13 - November 16, 2022.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The city hosted five community conversations over the course of five weeks. With our residents in mind, staff hosted each session at a different community library to ensure residents were able to attend, no matter where they live in the city. Each outreach conversation included a 20-minute presentation, followed by a question-and-answer period, and finished with an open house where attendees were able to take a closer look at printed boards which mirrored the presentation. To ensure participants had the opportunity for deeper engagement, each board was staffed by a city planner. During previous community outreach, we heard several themes related to the process and procedures of development. These themes helped guide staff to create three main goals for Module 3 described below: 1.
Create a development process that will reinforce our city’s vision and goals.
2. Create a development process that will involve the community and partners early to ensure project concepts meet our desired outcomes. 3.
Create a development process that will result in excellent projects.
A fundamental change in the development review procedure in the draft zoning code is the creation of four application types. Every project in the city will now be designated as one of the four types of applications; applications vary from a temporary business sign (Type 1) to an annexation (Type 4). Within each of the application types, additional details were presented about who reviews and approves each project type and what review body would also oversee the appeal process. The additional three changes under the project types and application process are as follows: •
The creation of an Interdepartmental/Inter-Agency Review Body
•
Reinstating a Hearing Examiner
•
Elevating the Design Review Committee, currently a sub-committee of the Planning and Zoning Commission, to be the Design Review Commission
Examples of how the new processes compare to the current process were given at the end of the presentation. This comparison provided perspective on the project types and how each translated in the application approval process. Residents were very receptive to the clarity the application types provide along with who is reviewing the applications and the appeals. This report has been compiled to synthesize the feedback and recommendations heard from the community conversations about Module 3.
REVISED MODULE 3 OUTREACH SUMMARY | 1
SUMMARY OF WHAT WE HEARD The conversations around Module 3 were positive and constructive with valuable feedback. The proposed new processes provide guidance to the community to ensure new projects reflect what our community has prioritized throughout this process. We have compiled comments, located at the end of this section, to highlight additional questions and remarks that residents touched on during each of the five sessions. In general, there was excitement for the proposed improvements to transparency and clarity on how and when residents become involved in the process. In addition to creating application types, Module 3 included three key changes that were presented to the community. The first change presented was the creation of an Interdepartmental/Inter-Agency Review Process which would be made up of internal and external partners, such as Boise Fire and Ada County Highway District. The city and community partners would meet regularly with applicants in efforts to ensure projects are meeting the requirements and desired outcomes of Boise residents. Residents were encouraged that more collaboration would be happening versus transmitting comments on projects. The development community was worried that adding this additional step might slow down the process for them and subsequently, cost them more money. The second major proposal is to reinstate the Hearings Examiner as a review body to provide an objective and legal view. The Hearing Examiner would appeal most Type 2 appeals, as well as variances. Residents had quite a few questions about the responsibilities of this role, whether they can make objective decisions and if they would be a City of Boise employee or contract employee. Although, other residents also understood the Hearing Examiner would bring a legal perspective to review variances and appeals of Type 1 applications. The third major proposal is to elevate the Design Review Committee to a Commission. Elevating the Design Review Committee would eliminate an additional review body for appeals and would instead appeal straight to City Council. Residents responded positively, understanding that with this change the city is priortizing how buildings look, feel and are designed. In addition to the changes described, the city created the Community Development Tracker which is an online tracking tool to provide real-time information on the location of developments and their current status in the review process. This addition lives outside of the zoning code, but residents were most excited about how user friendly the tool is and the potential ability to have direct emails sent about developments in their neighborhoods. The table below shows the four new proposed application types and projects that would fall under each type. The community was receptive to the application types because it was clear and predictable on which review body and process would be needed, depending on the type of project. There was more inquiry of what these projects might physically look like, and residents were asking for more illustrations, specifically when it came to the new application type known as Allowed Use – Alternative Form. TYPE 1 SIMPLE REVIEW No Appeal
TYPE 2 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW *May require Interdepartmental Review
Appeal to Hearing Examiner
TYPE 3 APPOINTED BODY REVIEW AND DECISION Requires Interdepartmental Review
Appeal to City Council
TYPE 4 CITY COUNCIL REVIEW AND DECISION Requires Interdepartmental Review
Appeal to District Court
Temporary Sign
Record of Survey
Hearing Examiner: Variance
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
Home Occupation
Minor Small Lot
Planning & Zoning Commission: Major Expansion of a Nonconforming Use Allowed Use – Alternative Form Conditional Use Permit Hillside Category 3 Complex River System Permit
Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Hillside Category 1 & 2
Nonconforming Use Sign Program Group Childcare Accessory Dwelling Unit Duplex/Triplex/ Fourplex Other Allowed Uses* River System Permit Conditional Use Permit – Modification* Minor Design Review*
Design Review Commission: Major Design Review Major Small Lot Historic Preservation Commission: Certificate of Appropriateness
Annexation/Rezone Planned Unit Developments Subdivisions Subdivision Related Items
ITALIC: New RED: Not required by LLUPA (Local Land Use Planning Act)
Allowed Use – Allowed Form*
REVISED MODULE 3 OUTREACH SUMMARY | 2
While the purpose of this outreach was to focus on the new processes being implemented with updating the zoning code, we still received comments related to information presented in Modules 1 and 2. The themes that came out during discussion were concerns for incentivizing less parking, affordability in housing products, and concerns of where 5G towers are allowed. Below is an example from a presentation slide of a process that currently exists, compared to a proposed process for an application that would need to be reviewed by one of our appointed review bodies such as the Planning and Zoning Commission. The new application process is intended to bring community partners into the project earlier for collaboration on what is most important to the community. Residents were excited be involved earlier in the process where their input could provide value to the project and allow the developer to make changes before the project is too far along in the design phase. However, we also heard that neighbors might want an additional neighborhood meeting after the Interdepartmental/Inter-Agency Review Body before the project went to a public hearing.
EXISTING PROCESS - HEARING LEVEL Pre-Application Meeting Concept 0-100%
Neighborhood Meeting
Submit Application
Agencies and Partners Review
Staff Report
Planning & Zoning Commission Decision
EXISTING PROCESS - APPLICATION TYPE 3 Concept Review Meeting 25%
Neighborhood Meeting
Mid-Process Review Meeting with Staff
Interdepartmental Review - 50%
Application is submitted - 100%
Staff Report
Planning & Zoning Commission Decision
POTENTIAL APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
Additional comments received from the community are grouped categorically below. TOPIC
COMMENTS • Request a guaranteed allotment of time for public meetings to give predictability for presentation length • Request for engagement outside of Neighborhood Associations (NAs)
Neighborhood Association Involvement
• Recommend the city provide a standard to the NAs for notifying the relevant residents • Support for generating a form for NAs to capture resident feedback, for both the city’s records and NA • Concerned that NAs do not represent the majority of neighborhood residents • Present a minimum standard for NA engagement, as some NAs are more effective at reaching residents than others
Developer Neighborhood Meetings Community Development Tracker
• Recommend the city take part in providing protocols for neighborhood meetings that will facilitate consistency and accountability in developer disclosure • Propose to include an attendance list with comments or objections from attendees as an attachment to the application • Expand the tracker to include approved applications within the last year • Expand the notification radius from 300 feet of development to the planning area
General Process/ Interdepartmental Review
• Appreciative that the new process will help streamline projects • Suggest clarification on application type for adaptive reuse or demolishing existing buildings • Appreciative of more opportunity for working in tandem with Neighborhood Associations and other public agencies • Request for additional visual examples of the new product types allowed, specifically for Type 2 and 3 applications
Product Types/ Design
• Support for moving away from car-centric development • Concern with new single-family homes contributing to unsustainable practices such as, lawn water consumption • Incentivize “visitibility” for mobility accessibility
REVISED MODULE 3 OUTREACH SUMMARY | 3
HOW WE REACHED OUT The city identified three target audiences for outreach that included the general community, neighborhood associations, and professionals who work within the development community. We did a combination of virtual and in-person events hosted by city staff and individual organizations. We also hosted an event with the Boise State Urban Studies and Community Development class at Boise State to engage our young residents. Other community partners that we continue to engage with include Urban Land Institute (ULI), Boise Young Professionals, NeighborWorks, Boise Regional Realtors, Building Contractors Association of SW Idaho, and safe streets advocates. The open house was designed to provide participants an opportunity to get acquainted with navigating the materials with staff who are well versed in the proposed changes. In conjunction with the community conversations, an online digital open house and PowerPoint was created on the city’s website. This allowed residents to walk through the same presentation given at outreach events and provide comments and feedback. The city used various advertising and marketing channels to inform residents about the upcoming outreach related to Module 3. We advertised the events through multiple city social media channels, the city’s weekly newsletter - In the Know, the Zoning Code Rewrite email list and earned local media publications from KTVB, Idaho Statesman, BoiseDev, and NPR. Local partners and neighborhood associations also advertised the events on their respective communication channels. Outlined below is the list of events the city hosted throughout the community. The PowerPoint presentation from the open houses can be found as an addendum to the report. DATE
EVENT
PARTICIPANTS
TYPE
October 13, 2022
Timberline High School
20
In-Person
October 17, 2022
Borah High School
28
In-Person
November 3, 2022
Capital High School
35
In-Person
November 8, 2022
Zoom
41
Virtual
November 16, 2022
Ada County Library at Victory
35
In-Person
During outreach, there was an entrance survey that captured demographics of who attended the in-person meetings. We were able to collect 72 responses out of approximately 148 in-person attendees. It is important to mention that while there were repeat participants at each meeting, they were only asked to fill out the survey once. The information collected from the survey shows that 80 percent of attendees were homeowners and 20 percent were renters. We saw a variety of ages amongst homeowners and 57 percent of renters fell in between the age category of 18-24. We had equal representation from all planning areas within the City of Boise. However, we did not see equal representation in terms of race and/or ethnicity, 82 percent identified as white, five percent as Hispanic/Latinx, one percent African American/Black, one percent east Asian, and 10 percent preferred not to answer. The last question on the survey, “how did you hear about this event?” was posed so that we can collect information on our communication efforts. The results show that there was an equal spread of residents that heard about our outreach efforts from various communications channels.
REVISED MODULE 3 OUTREACH SUMMARY | 4
Start Date November 19, 2019 November 19, 2019 February 22, 2020 September 17, 2020 October 15, 2020 November 5, 2020 November 16, 2020 November 19, 2020 December 12, 2020 January 1, 2021 January 14, 2021 January 21, 2021 February 9, 2021 February 18, 2021 February 22, 2021 February 23, 2021 February 25, 2021 March 1, 2021 March 18, 2021 April 5, 2021 April 22, 2021 May 10, 2021 May 10, 2021 May 12, 2021 May 18, 2021 May 19, 2021 May 20, 2021 May 21, 2021 May 24, 2021 May 26, 2021 June 2, 2021 June 7, 2021 June 10, 2021
Event City Council Work Session Focus Group Interviews Online Survey #2 Citywide Advisory Committee Meeting Citywide Advisory Committee Meeting Kick Off Webinar Events Online Survey #1 Citywide Advisory Committee Meeting Morris Hill Neighborhood Association Presentation Boise City Utility Bill insert American Institute of Architects (AIA) Presentation Citywide Advisory Committee Meeting Building Contractors Association of Southwest Idaho Citywide Advisory Committee Meeting Sierra Club and Golden Eagle Audubon Society Presentation City Council Work Session Boise City Public Works Environmental and Climate Action Team Boise City Utility Bill Insert Citywide Advisory Committee Meeting Planning & Zoning Commission Presentation Citywide Advisory Committee Meeting Online Survey #3 Boise State Discussion – Module 1 Design Review Committee Presentation City Council Work Session Office Hours Citywide Advisory Committee Meeting Community Conversation Virtual – Module 1 Community Conversation at Cassia Park – Module 1 Community Conversation at Baggley Park – Module 1 Community Conversation at Winstead Park – Module 1 Community Conversation Virtual – Module 1 Community Conversation at Magnolia Park– Module 1
Reach 15 44 1896 50 68 430 853 106 30 66,300 125 71 30 84 22 210 30 66,300 130 106 91 1054 8 110 100 6 66 32 4 1 8 22 60
Type In-person In-person Survey Virtual Virtual Virtual Survey Virtual Virtual Mail Virtual Virtual Virtual Virtual Virtual Virtual Virtual Mail Virtual Virtual Virtual Survey Virtual Virtual Virtual Hybrid Virtual Virtual In-person In-person In-person Virtual In-person
Module Module 0 Module 0 Module 1 Module 0 Module 0 Module 0 Module 0 Module 0 Module 0 Module 0 Module 0 Module 1 Module 0 Module 1 Module 0 Module 0 Module 0 Module 0 Module 1 Module 1 Module 1 Module 1 Module 1 Module 1 Module 1 Module 1 Module 1 Module 1 Module 1 Module 1 Module 1 Module 1 Module 1
June 17, 2021 June 24, 2021 June 28, 2021 July 15, 2021 July 21, 2021 August 19, 2021 September 29, 2021 October 21, 2021 October 27, 2021 November 12, 2021 November 13, 2021 December 16, 2021 January 13, 2022 January 19, 2022 January 19, 2022 January 27, 2022 February 8, 2022 February 8, 2022 February 9, 2022 February 9, 2022 February 12, 2022 February 14, 2022 February 14, 2022 February 16, 2022 February 17, 2022 February 22, 2022 February 23, 2022 February 24, 2022 February 28, 2022 March 1, 2022 March 1, 2022 March 2, 2022 March 4, 2022 March 8, 2022
Citywide Advisory Committee Meeting Southeast Neighborhood Association Meeting Historic Preservation Commission Citywide Advisory Committee City Council Work Session Citywide Advisory Committee Leadership Boise Alumni Association Presentation Citywide Advisory Committee ULI – Women’s Leadership Group - Urban Brain Bites Program City of Boise – Accessible Parking Committee Accessible Parking Committee Presentation Citywide Advisory Committee Urban Land Institute - NEXT Cohort (35-45 years old) 2022 Survey # 4 – Community Survey #5 – Technical Citywide Advisory Committee City Council Work Session Central Bench – Neighborhood Conversation Design Review Committee Work Session Urban Land Institute – Idaho Developer Product Council Housing + ZCR Conversation Zoning Code Rewrite Email Planning & Zoning Work Session West Bench – Neighborhood Conversation Citywide Advisory Committee Accessibility Taskforce Committee Presentation Housing + ZCR Conversation Building Boise Winter Newsletter Historic Preservation Work Session City Council Work Session Southwest Housing + ZCR (Housing folks) Roberta’s Groups Idaho Walk Bike Alliance Climate Groups
75 15 81 63 218 66 16 84 100 6 12 186 16 3114 47 109 163 37 161 20 49 365 128 29 87 6 39 3500 129 177 40 35 17 25
Virtual Virtual Virtual Virtual Virtual Virtual Virtual Virtual Hybrid In-person In-person Virtual In-person Survey Survey Virtual Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid Virtual In-person Email Virtual In-person Virtual Virtual Virtual Email Hybrid Hybrid In-person Virtual Virtual Virtual
Module 1 Module 1 Module 1 Module 1 Module 1 Module 1 Module 1 Module 1 Module 1 Module 1 Module 1 Module 1 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2
March 9, 2022 March 9, 2022 March 12, 2022 March 16, 2022 March 22, 2022 March 28, 2022 March 29, 2022 March 30, 2022 March 30, 2022 March 31, 2022 April 6, 2022 April 7, 2022 April 21, 2022 May 9, 2022 May 26, 2022 June 30, 2022 July 8, 2022 July 14, 2022 July 18, 2022 July 28, 2022 August 10, 2022 August 11, 2022 August 23, 2022 August 25, 2022 August 29, 2022 September 7, 2022 September 12, 2022 September 22, 2022 September 27, 2022 September 29, 2022 September 30, 2022 October 4, 2022 October 13, 2022 October 17, 2022
Foothills COMPASS Community Conversation Northwest Conversation Boise Young Professionals Urban Land Institute Community Conversation BSU – Urban Studies Neighborhood Leadership Southeast / Airport North End / East Ends Urban Land Institute Citywide Advisory Committee American Institute of Architects – Idaho Chapter Citywide Advisory Committee Citywide Advisory Committee Virtual Open House Hillcrest Library Open House Downtown Library Open House Quail Hollow Golf Course Open House Design Review Committee Neighborhood Associations Collaborative Visioning Conservation Voters of Idaho Citywide Advisory Committee Historic Preservation Commission Agency and Interdepartmental Review and Process Outreach Planning and Zoning Commission Mayor’s Business Roundtable – Dev. Comm. Boise Regional Realtors Citywide Advisory Committee Agency Coordination – Canyon County City Council Work Session Community Conversation Community Conversation
35 15 14 45 14 28 20 22 48 15 52 36 222 18 141 253 7 58 48 62 76 19 10 149 82 5 290 35 35 107 2 129 20 28
In-person Virtual Virtual In-person In-person Hybrid Virtual In-person In-person In-person In-person Hybrid Virtual In-person Hybrid Hybrid Virtual In-person In-person In-person Hybrid Virtual Virtual Hybrid Hybrid Virtual Hybrid In-person Virtual Hybrid In-person Hybrid In-person In-person
Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 2 Module 1-2 Revised Module 1-2 Revised Module 1-2 Revised Module 1-2 Revised Module 1-2 Revised Module 1-2 Revised Module 1-2 Revised Module 2 Module 1-2 Revised Module 3 Module 1-2 Revised Module 1-2 Revised Module 1-2 Revised Module 2 Module 3 Module 3 Module 3 Module 3
October 27, 2022 November 1, 2022 November 3, 2022 November 8, 2022 November 9, 2022 November 14, 2022 November 16, 2022 November 17, 2022 November 28, 2022 December 5, 2022 December 6, 2022 December 8, 2022 January 10, 2023 January 26, 2023 February 9, 2023
Citywide Advisory Committee ULI – – Idaho Developer Product Council Community Conversation Virtual Community Conversation Design Review Committee Planning and Zoning Commission Community Conversation Neighborhood Association Collaborative Visioning Historic Preservation Commission Safe Streets Advocates Idaho Power Citywide Advisory Committee City Council Work Session Citywide Advisory Committee Meet up with Mayor and Planning Director Tim Keane
113 30 35 41 48 176 35 45 66 14 8 111 124 111 48
Hybrid In-person In-person Virtual Hybrid Hybrid In-person Hybrid Hybrid Virtual Virtual Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid In-person
Module 2 Module 3 Module 3 Module 3 Module 3 Module 3 Module 3 Module 3 Module 3 Module 3 Module 3 Module 2 Module 3 Module 3 Module 3
March 22, 2023 Tim Keane Director, Planning and Development Services City of Boise 150 N Capitol Blvd Boise, ID 83702 Re: Zoning Code Update Dear Tim, Thank you for the City’s outreach and engagement with Boise State University’s staff during the zoning code update. The University’s long-standing zoning designation has been significantly improved by clearly supporting the responsible and adequate use of our campus property. We particularly appreciate the attention given to dimensional standards in the newly designated MX-U (University) zone. Our campus is part of the Downtown Planning Area, and the removal of a height limit brings numerous positive impacts for future planning efforts. Being able to develop taller, downtownappropriate facilities will limit horizontal expansion, and allow for greater infill development on campus. We also support the preservation of certain perimeter controls, and the requirement for a public engagement when projects may impact the surrounding community. The relationships we hold with our neighbors are important, and this approach will ensure an inclusive and collaborative process. We look forward to continued collaboration with the City of Boise, as Boise State fulfills the objectives of its Strategic Plan and Campus Master Plan. Sincerely,
Drew Alexander Director of Planning CC:
Alicia Estey, Vice President for University Affairs and Chief Operating Officer
CITY OF BOISE INTER-DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE Date: March 8, 2023 To:
Planning and Development Services
From:
Mike Sheppard P.E., Civil Engineer II Public Works Department
Subject:
CPA23-00001; 150 N. Capitol Blvd.; Sewer Comments
No comments/objections. If you have any further questions, please contact Mike Sheppard at 608-7504.
CITY OF BOISE INTER-DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE Date: March 8, 2023 To:
Planning and Development Services
From:
Mike Sheppard P.E., Civil Engineer II Public Works Department
Subject:
ZOA23-00001; 150 N. Capitol Blvd.; Sewer Comments
No comments/objections. If you have any further questions, please contact Mike Sheppard at 608-7504.
CITY OF BOISE INTER-DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE Date: 2 March 2023 To:
Planning and Development Services
From:
Tom Marshall, PW Street Lighting Supervisor Public Works Engineering
Subject:
Street Light Comments ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001: Citywide:
No comments. If you have further questions, please contact Tom Marshall at 208-608-7526
Tom Marshall PW Street Light Program Supv Public Works Office: (208)608-7526 tmarshall@cityofboise.org cityofboise.org
Creating a city for everyone.
I:\PWA\Subjects\Review Comments\CUs\templates and process\CU Streetlight master comment templete.docx
March 21, 2023 RE: Initial comments on the new zoning code ordinance (ZOA23-0001 & CPA23-0001)
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission, City Staff, and Elected Officials, Thank you for giving Veolia Water Idaho the opportunity to review and comment on the soon-to-be-finalized planning and zoning update. We are filing this letter to have our input included in the staff report to the Planning and Zoning Commission. We plan to send additional information before April 20 after taking more time to digest the many implications this rewrite might have. I can say wholeheartedly, we support the city’s initiatives to promote water conservation, a core value shared by Veolia and its employees. We have many unanswered questions on the modern zoning code’s section 11-04-010 Assured Water Supply. While Veolia is the state's largest drinking water utility, we are not the only provider operating within Boise’s city limits. Safe drinking water is provided to the community from a variety of systems and developments of all sizes. Any of these operations could meet requirements to be a “designated water provider” under the city’s new planning and zoning definition. We are also curious as to how section 11-04-010 would be administered and enforced, and how that overlaps with the authority of Idaho Department of Water Resources, Idaho Public Utilities Commission, and other established state agencies. The proposed ordinance raises concerns regarding Idaho Code section 42-201(7) which delegates exclusive authority over the appropriation of the public surface and ground waters of the state to the Idaho Department of Water Resources. It states that “no other agency, department, county, city, municipal corporation or other instrumentality or political subdivision of the state shall enact any rule or ordinance or take any other action to prohibit, restrict or regulate the appropriation of the public surface or ground waters of the state, and any such action shall be null and void.”
Veolia Idaho Operations 8248 W. Victory Road Boise, ID 83709 tel. (208) 362-7304 www.mywater@veolia.us
Our customers must come first as we evaluate the proposed changes to code. It is imperative that any potential conflicts of interest in regulatory authority and increases to service costs are settled before any new rules have the potential to adversely affect Treasure Valley residents. We look forward to working with you to address these outstanding questions. Sincerely, Marshall Thompson V.P. & General Manager Veolia Water Idaho
Veolia Idaho Operations 8248 W. Victory Road Boise, ID 83709 tel. (208) 362-7304 www.mywater@veolia.us
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 5:36 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Joshua Aaron Email rafkind@pacificu.edu Address 3303 N Tamarack Boise Idaho 83703 Comment With the severely restricted access the public will have to zoning policies and decisions once this upzone is enacted it is morally correct to take our input into account before the process is completed. Please please please, I have lived in Boise my whole life. Don’t change this beautiful city into an urban density nightmare. Stick to the Boise Blueprint that so many people invested so much time into. Push growth into our beautiful bordering rural communities and grow Idaho as a whole not just our population centers. Idaho has always done things a little different and a little better. This proposed upzone takes us the way of Phoenix, Los Angeles and other uninhabitable urban decaying cities. The Zoning Code Rewrite will eliminate Boise's power to negotiate with developers on a site‐specific basis. Currently, Idaho law allows cities to require 'Development Agreements' (DAs) when developers request individual rezones. These DAs are essentially open‐ended negotiations between Boise and developers to provide public benefits that otherwise are not required by city or state ordinance. For example, Boise can negotiate for truly affordable housing, for upholding policies of Blueprint Boise, for requiring access to a trailhead, or for dedication of public open space. However, because the ZCR grants these higher densities with one decision, the city will forever lose this critical power to negotiate. In so doing, the City of Boise will also abdicate most of its future power to respond to site‐specific information and concerns from local residents. This is not a benefit that streamlines the process this is a loss of the public’s ability to contribute to their sense of place and their neighborhood. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:58 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Michael Aberg Email PilotAberg@gmail.com Address 1516 S Biggs St Comment Something else I would like to add is that we should consider increasing density limits along the Boise Pathways Plan. This would allow for that increase in traffic to be absorbed by some of the walking and biking paths. Focusing the increase in density around car‐centric metrics like arterials and connectors will only lead to a conflict with parking requirements and the increase in traffic. Not to mention the known negative health impacts of car exhaust, microplastics from tire wear and break dust, and constant noise exposure. We should not condemn any high density projects to life next to such a negative physical and mental health impact. One thing I am concerned about is that if the Zoning Code Rewrite does not take place, Boise will eventually suffer the fate of becoming an unaffordable resort or retirement town like McCall or Boulder. There is no way to control the number of people who move to Boise; but we can control whether or not we have the housing supply to support them without pricing out families who have been here for generations. If we do nothing, Boise's meteoric property value increase can only be expected to continue. Though the prices of the early 2010's are long gone, the Zoning Code Rewrite will hopefully slow down that increase by allowing us to build more homes, more densely. All of that said, I figured I would take a moment to talk about what makes Boise special to me, and how the Zoning Code Rewrite preserves those ideals. Boise has a unique commitment to open space and parks, a fortunate proximity to world class nature and outdoor recreation, and a wonderfully diverse and welcoming culture. What does not make Boise special to me is a commitment to single family houses, a commodity which can be found almost anywhere else in the United States, or excluding future residents because they weren't fortunate enough to get here at the right time. Thanks for your time and allowing me to be a part of this process, Michael Aberg If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 2:01 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Michael Aberg Email PilotAberg@gmail.com Address 1516 S Biggs St Comment The Zoning Code Rewrite is a sorely needed update to Boise's zoning code. Though it's not perfect, it's definitely better than what currently exists. Allowing for more mixed use developments like the beloved Stil / Push & Pour / Wyld Child at Latah and Alpine would be wonderful. By giving every neighborhood the chance to have a mixed use area within walking distance, hopefully we can reduce some traffic throughout the city (or at least vehicle miles driven!). Increasing density within neighborhoods is a welcome addition to the zoning code. Attaching affordability and environmental restrictions on increasing density runs the risk of discouraging denser development, but it at least ensures that any changes to a neighborhood will come with community benefits. One way to improve this would be to ensure that any remodeling of a current lot that increases the size of a single family home would also come with those environmental restrictions. Splitting lots ensures that new varieties of housing can be built, such as the "missing middle" that allowed my parents to begin earning equity in their homes by starting with a condominium, moving up to a townhouse, then into a single family home. This also allows future generations to not be trapped by the desires of the past. Not everyone wants a large lot with lots of yard maintenance these days. Something else I would like to add is that we should consider increasing density limits along the Boise Pathways Plan. This would allow for that increase in traffic to be absorbed by some of the walking and biking paths. Focusing the increase in density around car‐centric metrics like arterials and connectors will only lead to a conflict with parking requirements and the increase in traffic. Not to mention the known negative health impacts of car exhaust, microplastics from tire wear and break dust, and constant noise exposure. We should not condemn any high density projects to life next to such a negative physical and mental health impact. One thing I am concerned about is that if the Zoning Code Rewrite does not take place, Boise will eventually suffer the fate of becoming an unaffordable resort or retirement town like McCall or Boulder. There is no way to control the number of people who move to Boise; but we can control whether or not we have the housing supply to support them without pricing out families who have been here for generations. If we do nothing, Boise's meteoric property value increase can only be expected to continue. Though the prices of the early 2010's are long gone, the Zoning Code Rewrite will hopefully slow down that increase by allowing us to build more homes, more densely. All of that said, I figured I would take a moment to talk about what makes Boise special to me, and how the 1
Zoning Code Rewrite preserves those ideals. Boise has a unique commitment to open space and parks, a fortunate proximity to world class nature and outdoor recreation, and a wonderfully diverse and welcoming culture. What does not make Boise special to me is a commitment to single family houses, a commodity which can be found almost anywhere else in the United States, or excluding future residents because they weren't fortunate enough to get here at the right time. Thanks for your time and allowing me to be a part of this process, Michael Aberg If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
randialbrechtsen <randi.albrechtsen@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 2:58 AM CityCouncil; Mayor McLean; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning rewrite
March 22, 2023 Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 pageZoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. 1
Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Randi Beth Albrechtsen 1209 E Washington St. Boise, ID 83712
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Saturday, March 18, 2023 4:36 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Danielle and Richard Alexander Email dani.rich.alex@gmail.com Address 3810 N Mountain View Drive Comment We live in a nice quiet, friendly neighborhood that has very little traffic. We do not want it to be rezoned to allow apartments or businesses. We have seen the increased traffic apartments bring to an area and believe that it they would severely affect our way of life and property value. Please do not rezone this area of Boise. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
Ellen Anderson <mizeanderz@gmail.com> Friday, March 17, 2023 8:58 AM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite Ellen Anderson; BARAK ANDERSON (SPOUSE) [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
I am deeply disappointed in the way the city and P&Z is handling this matter. There is NOT transparency and fairness to our citizens when this short window of time is utilized to manipulate the system so that our community has less than adequate time to understand and respond. I then wonder what "powers that be" are at work here. Previously, I believed that I lived in a city where most city leaders were respectful of its members. Previously, I believed that there was a greater degree of fairness and transparency. How can the city kowtow to those who have the deepest pockets to work matters to their greatest advantage? Where is your skepticism about those who have the most to gain, financially, about such changes? THIS IS WRONG for our city and I do not believe that those who are manipulating this zoning code, are unaware of the implications. Our city does not want this type of development where foresight and understanding of what has happened in other cities is ignored. Please stop the rapidity of this process and listen to what the citizenry chooses, NOT what big money and development dictates. Sincerely, Ellen Anderson resident and small business owner
Bloom Montessori / 208 697-1234 1307 N 18th St. Boise Idaho 83702 located on indigenous land
bloommontessori.wordpress.com
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Sue Armstrong <suearm123@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 5:08 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
March 22, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboi se.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by today, March 22 – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely,
Sue Armstrong 42 S Mesa Vista Dr Boise, ID 83705 208‐871‐1272 1
Sent from my iPad
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:02 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Mary Ann Arnold Email makdarnold@aol.com Address Boise, ID 83703 Comment Our thoughtful and informed preservation of local history is an imperative for our future generations. I support giving sufficient time for the review and understanding by the public of the proposed zoning changes. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 5:14 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Matt Arriaga Email marriaga77@outlook.com Address Boise, ID 83705 Comment This re‐zoning is approaching insanity. The vast majority of Boisean's do not approve of it and we have not been heard. What ever happened to the City of Trees? Are "green" projects composed mostly of concrete like a huge apartment complex? What happened to harm no neighborhood or resident? How does all this rezoning help the average Boise resident? Or is it really for the developers who are dumping money into campaigns? Or more tax money? Follow the money and we will find our answers. Please STAND up and do what's right for the residents of Boise and do not have your legacy be turning Boise into a concrete jungle. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 8:01 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Janet Aubuchon Email janetaubuchon1@gmail.com Address 832 E Pennsylvania Drive Boise ID 83706 Comment As a Boise resident I am extremely opposed the proposed Boise upzoning/code rewrite. This change to current zoning regulations will greatly and permanently damage the integrity, consistency and livability of Boise neighborhoods. The only beneficiaries to this looming disaster will be developers, who will be allowed to rampage unbridled in their pursuit of profit throughout our city with no meaningful controls. I cannot understand why the mayor and current city council would inflict this potential travesty upon the current residents of our existing neighborhoods. Apparently our mayor and council want to radically increase density to gain more federal dollars for her purposes, clearly not to improve the livability of Boise neighborhoods. This new code is not in the best interest of the current citizens of Boise and the residents of its diverse neighborhoods. If changes are to occur in density, it ought to take place in new, planned neighborhood developments not to existing neighborhoods. Negative impacts of the proposed zoning code: 1. Allows intrusive and incompatible uses such as apartments, boarding houses, retail sales, bars, cafes, and bed and breakfasts in the middle of residential neighborhoods. Eliminates requirements and opportunities for public hearings. 2. Increased demand from investors and developers will drive up property and home values, raising taxes and further challenging home affordability. 3. New code will encourage demolishing existing homes with taller, bigger, denser construction with less required parking. Trees and private open space will be lost. 4. By making higher density housing an allowed use by right, the code shuts out neighbors from the proceedings and from being meaningfully heard, circumvents the normal planning and zoning process, and reverses the city's decades‐long commitment to its neighborhoods. 5. My neighborhood was recently able to drive a crime‐ridden wide‐open crack house from our area through use and enforcement of Boise's existing zoning codes. With this new code we would not have that tool available to us to improve the safety and livability of our neighborhood. We would still have the crack house and the mayor would have her "density" goals. This is unacceptable. 6. Infrastructure such as schools, fire, police would become overburdened and require higher taxes from all of us to subsidize the demand. 1
I reject this code as it is currently proposed. The mayor has tried to ram it through. This new code is bad for Boise and all who love our city and wish to continue to have a peaceful and quality lifestyle. I am not a robot
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 11:27 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Bailey Email baileycp0530@aol.com Address Boise, ID 83704 Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 12:00 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Kathleen Barrett Email kathleenbarrett26@gmail.com Address 324 mobley drive Comment The Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
Bill Basham <wfb711@earthlink.net> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:28 AM ZoningRewrite Holli Woodings [External] ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
TO: Members of the Boise City Council
RE: Boise zoning code rewrite as presented
1.) Needs to be acted upon only after the November election wherein the Council will be more representative of the citizenry at large, as opposed to one somewhat heavily weighted by mayoral appointees.
2.) Probable effects of reducing privacy and sunlight to existing properties (40+ foot allowable building heights)
3.) Will result in a significant increase in the use of on-street parking, which is a major problem in older neighborhood areas with somewhat narrower street systems.
4.) Removable of the requirement for ADUs to be allowable only with owner occupancy of the property is a highly undesirable circumstance, resulting in increased commercial rentals, which does not bode well for neighborhood continuity and stability.
Respectfully submitted, William Basham 2701 N. 26th St. Boise, Idaho, 83702
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 3:21 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Judy Batten Email judybatten5@yahoo.com Address 5623 S HOLLYHOCK PL Comment As a Boise resident I vehemently oppose the proposed Boise upzoning/code rewrite. This change to current zoning regulations will greatly and permanently damage the integrity, consistency and livability of Boise neighborhoods. The only beneficiaries to this disaster will be developers, who will be allowed to rampage unbridled in their pursuit of profit throughout our city with no meaningful controls. I cannot understand why the mayor and her city council would inflict this monster upon the residents of our city. She evidently wants to radically increase density to gain more federal dollars for her purposes, clearly not to improve the livability of Boise neighborhoods. This new code is not in the best interest of the citizens of Boise and the residents of its diverse neighborhoods. Negative impacts of the proposed zoning code: 1. Allows intrusive and incompatible uses such as apartments, boarding houses, retail sales, bars, cafes, and bed and breakfasts in the middle of residential neighborhoods. Eliminates requirements and opportunities for public hearings. 2. Increased demand from investors and developers will drive up property and home values, raising taxes and further challenging home affordability. 3. New code will encourage demolishing existing homes with taller, bigger, denser construction with less required parking. Trees and private open space will be lost. 4. By making higher density housing an allowed use by right, the code shuts out neighbors from the proceedings and from being meaningfully heard, circumvents the normal planning and zoning process, and reverses the city's decades‐long commitment to its neighborhoods. 5. My neighborhood was recently able to drive a crime‐ridden wide‐open crack house from our area through use and enforcement of Boise's existing zoning codes. With this new code we would not have that tool available to us to improve the safety and livability of our neighborhood. We would still have the crack house and the mayor would have her "density" goals. This is unacceptable. 6. Infrastructure such as schools, fire, police would become overburdened and require higher taxes from all of us to subsidize the demand.
1
I reject this code as it is currently proposed. The mayor has tried to ram it through. This new code is bad for Boise and all who love our city. I am not a robot
2
DATE: March 21, 2023 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission, REF: ZOA23-00001; CPA23-0001
zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org
I OPPOSE THE THE BOISE ZONING CODE REWRITE BECAUSE: The process of writing this code has occurred without widespread public input and neighborhoods have been left in the dark about its impacts. The City has yet to directly tell the public how dramatically their neighborhoods will change due to the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite. A city council vote on the Zoning Code Rewrite must fully represent the voters instead of using appointed members of the city council. New development standards will destabilize existing neighborhoods. Reducing lot sizes in R-1C and R-2 encourages lot splits and incompatible infill much denser than existing neighborhoods, destabilizing them and breaking faith with neighbors who believed the neighborhoods they were buying into (and paying unbelievable taxes for) were stable. Raising the height limit in residential zones will radically change the character of neighborhoods, reducing privacy, and vegetation. Increasing housing density in the neighborhoods will contribute to increased congestion, traffic, on-street parking, and safety hazards for children, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc. Changes to the Boise City Zoning Code should be written to protect neighbors rather than to destabilize their neighborhoods. Owner occupancy for homes with ADUs will be removed and allowed ADU size will be increased. Today, a home with an accessory dwelling unit must have owner-occupancy of at least one of the two units. The new draft eliminates the owner-occupancy requirement for accessory dwelling units. This change will destabilize neighborhoods by creating de-facto duplexes in areas where they are not now allowed, de-incentivize homeownership, increase commercialized short-term rentals, and promote renting by the room in existing single-family houses. Proposed parking reductions will shift parking from on-site to on-the-street. This change reduces builders’ costs and increases their profits by pushing parking onto streets, often already crowded. Zoning-required off-street parking is necessary to avoid unsafe congestion on the street. The new code favors some neighborhoods over others. Increased density and height limits, reduced lot sizes, and more allowed uses will not affect neighborhoods with covenants, conditions, and restrictions mandating only one dwelling unit per existing lot. New rules will primarily affect older neighborhoods often inhabited by residents of modest income. The new code is a radical plan to eliminate single-family homes across large areas of Boise. The rewrite benefits developers and investors, is detrimental to homeowners and future homeowners, adds more buildings, cars, noise, and congestion to already crowded neighborhoods. High density apartments (that will never be owned, only rented) should be pursued downtown or in already existing zones, not shoved into old neighborhoods without the proper support for increased concentration. Removing homes that are single-family owned to install multi-units that are owned by absentee investors is a sure disaster for existing neighborhoods as proved in many cities nationwide that have fallen to this kind of profit-driven zoning. Property taxes are so high here we should be seeing something other than the destruction of our neighborhoods for the prices paid. Sincerely, Kristen Baumchen 224 N Hot Springs Dr. 83712
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 10:00 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Alan Baun Email thebauns@msn.com Address 211 N Louisa St., Boise, Idaho. 83712 Comment As a former Ada County P&Z Commissioner, I approve the modifications to the current Boise P&Z Code. Change is difficult for many…but it is as perennial as the seasons. Assuming that the changes have met with the approval of all pertinent utilities and agencies with respect to adequate capacities and manageable impacts…the changes proposed do address population expansion needs for the city. They also afford additional latitude for existing property owners to increase the utilization of their properties while having negligible impact on most property values. No legislation is ever perfect, but the Code Changes are a good start and will be monitored and modified as needed over time…to insure Smart Growth for Boise. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 13, 2023 9:19 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Kevin Bayhouse Email kevinbayhouse@gmail.com Address Boise, ID 83705 Comment To Whom it may concern, there was once a time that I approved of these mixed use type of land use plans to diversify the cityscapes and make them more balanced. But...I no longer feel that the end goal is to balance anything. I feel that the end goal is to cram as many people into as tiny a space as possible and limit markets and force people into living a virtual reality. I feel that there is a push to transition life into a pod‐like sphere to achieve some kind of ultra efficient lifestyle. Many of the people promoting these ideals are NOT themselves leading by example. They are very wealthy and command great attention in the media sphere. They live like kings among the serfs. They celebrate the Green future of downsizing while they grow their abundant bank accounts. They are hollow. I cannot in good conscience condone UpZoning people into Stack‐n‐Packs and demolishing their modest single family homes. If you want people to "own nothing....rent everything....and be happy"....just show them what prison is. It seems like that if efficiency is what is being sought....that would be the ultimate acquisition of it. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:53 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Steven D Benner Email sdbenner1@gmail.com Address 2808 S. Colorado Ave. Comment I fully support the proposed Boise Zoning Code, and believe it will accomplish the goals that have been set out including: • Bringing about efficient development that encourages affordable and fair housing, diverse and inclusive communities with a variety of housing choices. • Promoting the use of environmentally friendly development practices, encourages energy conservation and the use of renewable resources • Protecting the character of residential, business, cultural and institutional areas as well as natural areas. • Achieving an integrated approach to land use and transportation that provides safe and efficient transportation system for pedestrians, bicycles, buses and cars and trucks. • Promoting high quality urban development and • Protecting Boise’s historic resources Strategies that I believe will be effective in achieving these goals include: • Tying density incentives with requirements for affordability and sustainable design. • Tying reduced parking and increased height allowances with requirements for affordability and sustainable design. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 10:37 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Paula D Benson Email paulainboise@gmail.com Address 1564 E LENZ LN Comment The city needs to SLOW DOWN the process for review and approval. The timeframe allowed for citizens to understand a 611‐page document of technical speak is not realistic in the least. You all wrote it and maybe you understand what it all means but citizens DO NOT. The code is full of items that can negatively impact neighborhoods by allowing density without notification to impacted neighbors; both residential and commercial. Why are you in such a rush? The upcoming election is not an excuse to push this rezone onto the public. There is no Cliff Notes version to help people know what they are going to have to live by for the next 40 or 50 years. This is not democratic, in spite of what you believe your outreach to have been, nor is it fair to impose this type of process onto us as your voting public. The city is on the wrong side of history with this effort. The federal government suggests at least 60 days to 180 days for a complex document like this. What is your excuse for this short timeframe? Do not send this to P&Z and then onto the City Council within this timeframe. Mayor McLean, this could be your "library". I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Betty Bermensolo <bsolo6@msn.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:45 AM ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Rewrite
Boise Planning & Zoning, City Council, Thankyou for this opportunity to comment . I am concerned about 2 aspects of this zoning rewrite. 1) There appears to be an opportunity for much more developer concessions(eg. Leave mature trees, more open space , transitional densities etc) to balance the density bonuses that the city is offering. What can the developer provide to ease into changes, compromise, trade offs in transition that will benefit existing neighbors. How can the city ensure that development pays for growth ? 2) Critical infrastructure certainty is not comprehensively and independently addressed . Do we have the water to allow the growth that is being requested with assurance that it will not deprive existing residents ? Please see that these elements are thoroughly addressed to ensure that all Boise newcomers are given the welcome they deserve. Betty Bermensolo SWACA Board
Sent from my iPhone
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 7:50 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name John Bertram Email jbertramstudio@gmail.com Address 83705 Comment “Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 12:14 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Theodore and Kathy Blank Email tadblank@hotmail.com Address 2224 S Tawny Woods Place, Boise, Idaho 83706 Comment 1. The public review of the proposed new zoning code ordinance (NZCO) is inadequate and consideration of the NZCO should be withdrawn from the approval process until the citizens have much more time to understand it, evaluate its impact and approve or disapprove of it through a referendum or election cycle. Despite what the mayor implies we and our neighbors were completely unaware of this process and that lack of transparence is a common refrain among the Boise citizenry we have spoken with. 2. The objective of the NZCO enunciated by the mayor's office, ie to help the children and parents of Boise residents that can't find housing, is unsupported by any study that we know of and in any event is a subjective goal that is not necessarily embraced by the majority of citizens. Without a referendum or election cycle it is unknown whether the subjective desires of the mayor and Boise citizens align. 3. Even if the mayor is correct that under current zoning it is difficult for the children and parents of current residents to find housing, the implementation of a NZCO that benefits a group that currently is NOT EVEN A BOSIE HOMEOWNER over those of us that HAVE LIVED HERE YEARS, CONTRIBUTED WITH OUR TAXES, OUR TIME, and NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS is a terrible misdirection in support in favor of future homeowner over current homeowners that have made Boise the desirable place others wish to live. 4. Those citizens of Boise who have expended countless tax dollars and personal finances and time in improving their properties and neighborhoods did so with the objective reasonable expectation that those investments would be protected in the future in a similar way that they had been protected in the past. There is no justification in undoing those expectations based on a preference for potential future homeowners who have made no contribution to the city. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:44 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Derek Blomquist Email DerekBlomquist@gmail.com Address Boise, ID 83702 Comment Please do not approve these Zoning code rewrites as they will damage important aspects of our daily life. Removing the owner occupancy for ADUs, why would you do that? Increasing their size too? This doesn't create affordable housing, it creates greedy out of state real estate investors to drive rents up. It decreases affordability by allowing development of new homes in historic districts taking away everything that is great about living here. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Andrea Tuning Monday, March 20, 2023 11:42 AM ZoningRewrite FW: Contact Form Submitted to PDS
From: PDS <PDS@cityofboise.org> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 7:47 AM To: Andrea Tuning <ATuning@cityofboise.org> Subject: FW: Contact Form Submitted to PDS
From: noreply@cityofboise.org <noreply@cityofboise.org> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2023 9:52 AM To: PDS <PDS@cityofboise.org> Subject: Contact Form Submitted to PDS
To help protect y our priv acy , Microsoft Office prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. City of Boise
CREATING A CITY FOR EVERYONE
CONTACT FORM SUBMITTED TO PDS From Joy Boswell Idoluvintage@gmail.com Phone Number: 7609545354 I am opposed to upzoning in Boise. If you favor upzoning, you should view this. It shows some of the reasons it is not well thought out. If you live in the historic district, you won't be affected by upzoning‐‐you are protected. But the loss of the tree canopy elsewhere is a real concern. The false promise of affordable housing is an even bigger concern. Take a look at what has happened with upzoning in Seattle. https://youtu.be/jEJ8tfplZcs
1
Contact Form Submitted On: https://www.cityofboise.org/departments/planning‐and‐development‐services/
To help protect y our priv acy , Microsoft Office prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. City of Boise Logo
208-608-7000 info@cityofboise.org 150 North Capitol Boulevard, Boise, ID 83702
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 7:06 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Joe Boswell Email jboswell2x@gmail.com Address 119 N 18TH STREET Boise 83702 Comment Please accept my comments as opposed to the upcoming rezone/upzone experiment in Boise. It concerns me that the negative aspects of density in a neighborhood will only affect the economically challenged areas of Boise–not the most affluent neighborhoods. Economic racism I believe is the term used for this type of zoning. If it’s good for Boise it should apply to all of Boise. It also concerns me that many on the council and mayor's office all live in an area that will feel no effect from this rezone. A rezone effort when all of Boise is represented would be fair. I also realize that one concept of density is getting citizens out of cars and on bikes or walking. But when I see mostly abandoned bus stops and bike lanes it gives me no confidence that car use will be reduced. I see the future of Boise as a town of density with no appetite for transportation other than by car. We will have density and congestion and no rational plan for how to manage it. Thank you! Joe Boswell I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:21 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name LEA BOWMAN Email leakbowman@gmail.com Address 2714 N TAMARACK DRIVE BOISE ID 83703 Comment Please think of Boise's values and its natural environment and reject this overwhelming plan to radically alter our city and change the very fabric of this place we love... obviously just to make a select few rich. It's sickening!! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 5:14 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Richard Bowman Jr Email rwbowmanjr@gmail.com Address 1900 North 28th Street Comment Both my wife Nancy Bowman and I do not support the rezone. Way too much density, only benefits developers. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 10:50 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Jerry Brady Email jbrady2389@gmail.com Address 2042 E. Trolley Ct. Comment I support the new zoning proposals. My views were expressed in an op‐ed in the Statesman a few weeks back. I am unable to upload that file here but the gist of my arguments is that Boise must add housing at an accelerating rate, over 1,000 a year, primarily for those below or at AMI and must do so primarily along bus routes. That is the gist of the plan as I understand it. I also support expansion of housing in clusters around existing community or commercial centers. An example are the houses being built west of new coffee shop on 27th. The gist of the Don't Upzone Boise campaign plays on a fear that "my" neighborhood will change. For nearly everyone with an established, full‐lot, newer or historic home this is not true or likely. I saw two along Warm Springs this morning. Nothing is going to change! This is fundamentally about homes for 'working people," meaning civil servants, teachers, construction workers and those making an average wage. Driving them into Kuna, for example, is unnecessary, wasteful and a loss for Boise. It's a good plan, let's get it done. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:02 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Brian Email aiko810@msn.com Address 2204 W. Ona St Comment I think it is in poor taste that the city of Boise would allow a zoning rewrite that would allow greedy developers to build multi dwelling units next to residential single family homes in already developed neighborhoods. This is an attack on Boise residents who have lived in these neighborhoods and are already dealing with traffic, utility, parking, infrastructure and school issues. The City of Boise is looking to create a place where the only owners of property in these neighborhoods will be landlords and property development firms. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 7:12 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name SUE Email uhighsue@aol.com Address 83706 Comment March 21, 2023 I have several concerns about the Planning and Zoning proposal for Boise. I attended two Planning and Zoning Meetings. At the meeting at Les Bois JH in the library, the mayor approached me and asked if this was my first time at a meeting and asked me why I was there. When I said that I was not happy with some of the things going on (in a conversation voice) she just left. She did not ask my concerns. At that same meeting I asked about why so much building was going on. I mentioned if we did not build so many buildings that our population would not grow so quickly. Some gentleman from the audience yelled out “Well that is a very unpopular position.” I did not participate any more at the meeting. I thought they were input meetings not just go and agree with what is being done or proposed. I have not talked with anyone that wants Boise to grow as fast as it is now. There are many reasons to slow down growth. I then attended a second meeting with a friend as I was too intimated to go alone. At this meeting I mentioned water shortages and was told by the chairperson that if we grew in the city we did not have a problem with water as it did not use as much as growing in the foothills or desert??? I don’t understand this at all? Everyone needs water. I wonder why there are only 22 days and not 30 to express our thoughts? Why is Boise trying to be very dense? I think most people here want space so that is why they are here. We are becoming more dense than big cities like New York City. I was born in New York so know how dense that city was and is now. I have seen what was allowed to be built at Bannock and 15th. What a terrible addition to a beautiful older neighborhood. I wonder how the people on that street feel? Were they ignored if they did not like that tall building that did not fit in with the neighborhood? Another one is at Targee and Vista. How can these be approved in old neighborhoods that have always looked nice before? Parking is always a problem. With the new restrictions proposed on parking I can see the neighborhoods inundated with cars. If the apartments do not have enough parking for all the people who live there then they have no choice but to park on the streets wherever they find room. This is very unacceptable. I know the mayor wants everyone to use public transportation but it is not very usable in Boise. Not everyone wants to ride a bike to go where they need to go either. Not having enough parking causes worse air quality while people drive around trying to find parking places!! Residents should have a choice to have a car or not. 1
I hope this is taken seriously this time. Our quality of life has gone down hill in the last 3 years! I do not believe it did me any good to go to the Planning and Zoning meetings except to tell me what I should want and like. I would really like some answers. I have not heard one person that agrees with what the Planning and Zoning Commission is doing. Sue Brooks 3553 S Constitution Way Boise, ID 83706 If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 5:00 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Janet Burke Email janetburke117@gmail.com Address Boise, ID 83706 Comment As a Boisean, I reject this Zoning Rewrite. You have not presented this information to the public in full transparency and further more this sort of reconstruction should be put on the ballot for "The People of Boise" to vote on. This is an extensive over reach for a City Council Panel. I request to seize and hold this "New Zoning Code" until you give the public further input. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Madison Lockhorn From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:
James Carpentier <James.Carpentier@signs.org> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 2:09 PM ZoningRewrite Timothy Keane; David Hickey; pking@nwsigncouncil.org; Rob@nwsigncouncil.org [External] Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Section 11-04-012 Signs, and existing sign regulations ISA-NWSC comments Bosie ID Draft Sign Code 3.22.23.pdf; Content Neutral Sign Codes report FINAL R.pdf; Street Graphics and the Law 5' monument sign copy height.pdf; EMC Resource - ISA 2014 Analysis of FHWA Study of CEVMS.pdf; Texas A & M Traffic Safety & EMCs.pdf; EMC Resource Recommended Night -Time Brightness Levels Revised 8-16.pdf
Boise Planning & Zoning Commission Re: Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Section 11‐04‐012 Signs, and existing sign regulations Dear Chairperson Schafer: I am contacting you on behalf of the Northwest Sign Council (NWSC) and the International Sign Association (ISA). Both organizations work with jurisdictions throughout the Northwest to assist in the creation of beneficial and enforceable sign regulations. We have several recommendations and cited references attached to this email, pertaining to your Zoning Code Rewrite (Section 11‐04‐012 Signs), as well as existing sign regulations, for your consideration. Most of these comments and recommendations focus on electronic message displays (EMD) and the important issue of content‐neutral sign regulations. Please forward this email and attached documents to the Planning & Zoning Commission, Mayor McLean and City Council. We appreciate your consideration of these recommendations. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or for more information. Thanks James Carpentier, AICP Director, State & Local Government Affairs International Sign Association 480.773.3756 / james.carpentier@signs.org Signs.org / SignExpo.org
1
CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN
Sign Research Foundation 2022 Analysis Mark White, White & Smith, LLC
Photo by Joe Ravi CC-BY-SA 3.0
Published November 2022
CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
2
CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN
03
WHAT ARE CONTENT-BASED REGULATIONS
04
WHAT LEGAL TEST APPLIES TO CONTENT-BASED
06
WHAT ARE CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES?
07
TIPS TO COMPLY WITH REED
09
REGULATING SPECIFIC SIGN TYPES
11
TEMPORARY, INCIDENTAL AND YARD SIGNS
11
POLITICAL SIGNS
12
SPECIAL EVENT SIGNS
13
HUMAN SIGNS/SIGN WALKERS
13
COMMERCIAL SIGNS
14
ARTWORK AND MURALS
14
ON- VS. OFF-PREMISE SIGNS
16
PUBLIC FORUM
19
REED’S TOP 10 TAKEAWAYS
20
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
21
© SIGN RESEARCH FOUNDATION
CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN
AFTER REED AND AUSTIN
Local governments throughout the United States regulate signs to promote aesthetics and traffic safety. These sign codes typically address the location, dimensions and physical design of signs. Sign regulations often classify signs based on what they say – i.e., their messages. In 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued its seminal First Amendment decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert that, for all practical purposes, rendered message categories unconstitutional. The Reed decision opens a number of grey areas in drafting sign regulations that lower courts have attempted to sort out. One questionable area was resolved nearly seven years after Reed to address the issue of on- versus off-premise signs, in City of Austin vs. Reagan National Advertising. This article summarizes the state of the law, sorts through the practical issues in complying with content-neutrality, and offers pointers for local governments considering a sign code update.
© SIGN RESEARCH FOUNDATION
3
CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN
What are Content-Based Regulations? To comply with Reed, sign regulations should be “content-neutral” – in other words, agnostic about the sign’s message or who is expressing it. While content-neutrality is deceptively simple on its face, it raises practical issues in defining and implementing sign codes.
Content-Neutral Sign Regulation: When a sign is regulated without regard to the message or the speaker. Content-neutral sign codes regulate signs by their temporal (i.e., whether a sign is temporary or permanent), locational (for example, whether a sign is freestanding or attached, or is in a commercial or residential zoning district), or physical (for example, whether a sign is digital or static) characteristics. While the First Amendment has permitting and language precision implications for sign codes, the Reed decision deals with the issue of message control. Reed holds that “content-based” regulations are subject to “strict scrutiny” in the courts. A “content-based” regulation controls the topic of communication, and in some instances the speaker. For, example, in Reed the Town of Gilbert, Arizona established a sign category known as a “Temporary Directional Signs Relating to a Qualifying Event,” which were signs directing the public to a nonprofit group meeting (such as a church service at a school).
THE TEMPORARY DIRECTIONAL SIGN THAT STARTED IT ALL! When Pastor Clyde Reed wanted people to know where services for his Good News Community Church were located, he was relegated to using these kinds of small temporary directional signs to get the word out. The small church in Gilbert, Arizona, often rented different spaces in temporary locations, making visible and effective signage critical in directing the community. But the Town of Gilbert severely restricted the size, location, number and duration that temporary directional signs could be, especially compared to other signs with political and ideological messages. For example, political signs could be up to 32 square feet and displayed for up to 5 months, but Pastor Reed’s signs could only be up to 6 square feet and out for just 12 hours before the services, and taken down after 1 hour afterwards. Image Source: AZCentral.com (https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/gilbert/2015/01/12/ gilbert-church-signs-supreme-court-arguments/21636837/)
4
© SIGN RESEARCH FOUNDATION
CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN
A temporary directional sign was limited to 6 square feet in area, could stay up 12 hours before and one 1 hour after an event, and only 4 temporary directional signs were allowed on public or private property. By contrast, other temporary sign categories such as “political signs” – defined as temporary signs designed to influence the public elections – were allowed 16 square feet in residential and 32 square feet in commercial districts, could stay up 60 days before a primary and 15 after a general election. The only difference between temporary directional signs and political signs is the kind of message they display.
Homeowners Association 80 sq. ft. Political Sign 32 sq. ft.
Ideological Sign 20 sq. ft. Good News’ Church Invitation Sign 6 sq. ft.
Display Time Before
Event
UNLIMITED
Ideological Sign
4 1/2 MONTHS
Election
30 DAYS
HOA Event
16 HOURS
Real Estate Sale
12 HOURS
Religious Event
Display Time After UNLIMITED 15 DAYS 48 HOURS 36 HOURS 1 HOUR
© SIGN RESEARCH FOUNDATION
5
CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN Therefore, the regulations are content-based, i.e., they turn on the sign’s content (message), as opposed to its physical characteristics (such as whether it not it is erected on a freestanding pole or attached to a building). This is the case even if the regulations do not discriminate among viewpoints; simply controlling the type of message renders a regulation content-based even when it does not favor some viewpoints over others. A sign regulation is content-based if the message displayed on a sign has a regulatory impact. Generally, if the zoning administrator has to read the sign to determine what regulations apply, the regulation is likely contentbased – with the exception of the on-premise/off-premise distinction, as per Austin. Even if the regulation restricts or favors a category of speech for a benign reason (such as to allow churches to guide congregants to services in temporary locations), the regulation is still considered content-based. An innocuous justification cannot transform a content-based law into one that is content-neutral. In addition, the Reed decision intimated that content-neutral regulations that target or favor speakers is content-based if it impacts the message.
What Legal Test Applies to Content-Based Regulations? Content-based regulations are subject to “strict scrutiny” in the courts. This means several things: First, the regulation must serve a compelling government interest. A compelling interest is one that exceeds the substantial or legitimate interests supporting a conventional zoning regulation (such as a protecting property rights), and few interests are deemed compelling. Courts have held that aesthetics and traffic safety – the traditional interests that support sign regulations – are not sufficiently “compelling” to support content-based regulations. See Clark v. City of Williamsburg, 388 F.Supp. 1346 (D. Kan., 2019), cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 2629, 209 L.Ed.2d 754 (2021) (citing Quinly v. City of Prairie Village, 446 F. Supp. 2d 1233, 1243-44 (D. Kan. 2006); Outdoor Sys., Inc. v. City of Merriam, 67 F. Supp. 2d 1258, 1269 (D. Kan. 1999); Solantic, LLC v. City of Neptune Beach, 410 F.3d 1250, 1268 (11th Cir. 2005). Second, the regulation must be narrowly tailored to that interest. If other sign categories burden those interests more but are less restricted because of what they say, the restriction is not narrowly tailored. For example, in Reed, the Town limited the number and size of temporary directional signs to control clutter, but political signs were unlimited in number and had significantly larger sign allowances. Therefore, political signs were allowed to intrude on the Town’s aesthetic interests to a greater extent than temporary directional signs based only on what they said. This was not narrowly tailored to the Town’s aesthetic interests. Finally, the regulation is presumed unconstitutional, and the local government has the burden to prove that it meets the first two tests.
6
© SIGN RESEARCH FOUNDATION
CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN Therefore, content-based regulations, or facially-content-neutral regulations justified in relation to content, rarely survive a constitutional challenge when subject to strict scrutiny. As noted in Reed, few sign codes are free of content-based provisions under the Court’s content-neutrality standard, both for temporary signs and permanent signs. Every local jurisdiction that regulates signs in their community should review their ordinance and revise it in light of Reed, if necessary.
What are Content-Neutral Sign Codes? Content-neutral sign codes regulate signs by their temporal (i.e., whether a sign is temporary or permanent), locational (for example, whether a sign is freestanding or attached, or is in a commercial or residential zoning district), or physical (for example, whether a sign is digital or static) characteristics. In other words, a sign code that regulates only the “time, place, and manner” of signs is considered content-neutral. Content-neutral regulations are subject to intermediate, rather than strict, scrutiny. Courts also apply intermediate scrutiny to regulations that affect only commercial speech.
© SIGN RESEARCH FOUNDATION
7
CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN Intermediate scrutiny requires that a sign regulation is narrowly tailored to serve a substantial governmental interest and leave ample alternative avenues of communication. Some lower courts have found that aesthetics and traffic safety are not “compelling” interests under the strict scrutiny standard. However, aesthetics and traffic safety typically meet the “substantial government interest” standard and courts are more deferential in assessing whether those regulations are tailored sufficiently to meet their stated objectives than they are when strict scrutiny applies.
Both the majority and concurring opinions in Reed summarized the types of regulations that are considered content-neutral. Content-Neutral Regulations Include:
1 3 5
8
MAXIMUM SIGN SIZE
2
MATERIALS
LIGHTING
4
MOVING PARTS
6
BANNING OR REGULATING SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
8
DISTINGUISHING FREESTANDING AND ATTACHED SIGNS
10
REGULATING SIGNS DIFFERENTLY BY ZONING DISTRICT
12
TIME RESTRICTIONS ON ADVERTISING A ONE-TIME EVENT
PORTABILITY
7
LOCATIONS
9
DISTINGUISHING FIXED VERSUS CHANGEABLE ELECTRONIC SIGNS
11
TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED PER FRONTAGE OR AREA
13
GOVERNMENTAL SIGNS
© SIGN RESEARCH FOUNDATION
Keep in mind that the regulatory matters listed here are content-neutral only if they are not triggered by the sign’s message or user (a possible exception is government signs, which remains a grey area). For example, setting a maximum footcandle brightness for digital signs is, on its face, content-neutral. However, allowing digital signs only for gas prices or churches could be content-based.
Notably, the concurring opinion in Reed stated that regulating off-premise signs differently from on premise signs, a traditional element of local and state billboard regulation, is content-neutral. However, this did not preclude billboard operators from litigating against on-premise/off-premise distinctions in cities and states across the country over the next several years. The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified that issue (see discussion of OffPremise Sign Regulations, below).
Tips to Comply with Reed To comply with the principles announced in Reed, a sign code should establish three (3) broad sign categories based on their physical characteristics. These typically include freestanding signs, attached signs, and incidental signs.
Three Sign Categories Based on Physical Characteristics
FREESTANDING SIGNS
ATTACHED SIGNS
INCIDENTAL SIGNS
Signs that are not attached to any other structure, ie. pole signs and monument signs.
Signs that are attached to a building or structure, ie. wall signs, window signs and murals.
Smaller signs that are physically subordinate to the principal freestanding or attached signs on the site, ie. directional signs, historic markers, temporary signs. (The sign code can break temporary signs into a separate category).
CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN To ensure that a sign code is content-neutral, a community should begin by removing all references to the content of sign types, or sign messages that trigger permitting or related sign regulations. For example, a community could replace project identification sign categories with regulations for a single monument or pole sign for properties in a commercial zoning district. This replaces a message trigger (i.e., whether the sign identifies the site) with the physical parameters of the monument or pole sign. A possible exception is sign categories that directly relate to public safety issues. The majority opinion in Reed stated that “[a] sign ordinance narrowly tailored to the challenges of protecting the safety of pedestrians, drivers, and passengers--such as warning signs marking hazards on private property, signs directing traffic, or street numbers associated with private houses-well might survive strict scrutiny.” By contrast, all provisions in a sign code that refer to number, area, structure, location and lighting of signs are content-neutral and unaffected by Reed if those categories do not relate to what the sign says. However, keep in mind that other First Amendment requirements apply. For example, a content-neutral regulation that inadvertently chokes off too much speech (see discussion of yard signs below), or that gives a zoning administrator unlimited discretion to deny or condition a sign permit, can intrude on First Amendment rights even if the regulations are facially neutral. Therefore, even if the regulations are content-neutral, a community should make sure that sign allowances are not overbroad and consider how sign permits are processed.
Sign codes should also include severability and substitution clauses.
10
A severability clause is common to most zoning and land development codes and simply provides that if any part of the code is invalidated in court, the rest of the code remains valid. This is important because there are many grey areas in sign regulations, and both the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts are still fleshing out the parameters of contentneutrality. A substitution clause simply allows a sign to substitute a noncommercial message on any sign that permits a commercial or another noncommercial message. For a truly content-neutral code, this may seem superfluous. However, this simply clarifies that a sign code regulates only the physical characteristics of the sign and not its message.
© SIGN RESEARCH FOUNDATION
CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN
Regulating Specific Sign Types While Reed’s principles are deceptively simple, there are unsettled issues in its application to specific sign types. These range from traditional temporary placards (such as political yard signs) to lighted projections on buildings. This section explores how the lower courts have treated various, common sign categories and how to address them in your sign codes.
Temporary, Incidental and Yard Signs Temporary signs are difficult to codify as they are traditionally identified by their message or function. For example, real estate signs relate to the sale of property, and political signs relate to an election. However, a community can regulate the time, place and manner of temporary signs if they are not called out by their message. For example, a sign code can regulate signs based on temporary materials (such as cloth, canvas, vinyl, cardboard, wallboard, or other temporary materials), or temporary types such as feather signs. In addition, the sign code can fold temporary signs into an overall allocation of incidental signs for a site, remaining agnostic about how those signs are used.
For temporary signs, the community should consider a flat time allocation, rather than one tied to specific events. For example, a city amended its sign code after Reed to cap the number of temporary signs on any property, with an allocation of 5 additional signs 45 days before and 14 days after an election. This allocation did not restrict the message of the additional signs. In an unreported federal district court opinion, the court ruled that this was impermissibly user-based even though it did not regulate the additional sign’s message (www.ricardopacheco.com et al. v. City of Baldwin Park, No. 16-CV-09167-CAS, 2017 WL 2962772 (C.D. CA. July 10, 2017)). The court suggested that the community could, for example, allow additional signs for a limited number of times per year not tied to specific events. “For example, the City could authorize five additional signs of up to 12 square feet for 60 days one time per year at the time of the speaker’s choosing.”
© SIGN RESEARCH FOUNDATION
11
CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN Instead of defining signs by message or function, the sign code should establish overall allocations for incidental or temporary signs. How those signs are used - whether to sell the property, advertise their favorite political candidate, or to express an opinion - is up to the property owner. For example, the City of Indianapolis established a set of standards for “noncommercial opinion signs.” After that was found to violate content-neutrality principles, the city replaced that with an overall allocation for yard signs. This was found consistent with content-neutrality requirements (Geft Outdoor LLC v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis (S.D. Ind. 2016)). As is mentioned above, however, the overall allocation of yard signs must allow a sufficient amount of speech even if it is content-neutral. Several federal court decisions have invalidated sign codes allowing only one or two yard signs as restricting too much speech, even when those restrictions are content-neutral (Willson v. City of Bel-Nor (E.D. Mo. 2020); Arlington County Republican Committee v. Arlington County (4th Cir. 1993)). To avoid administrative and enforcement issues with having to identify whether a sign as “temporary” and enforcing time limits, communities can also fold temporary signs into an overall sign number allocation for incidental signs. If the community believes regulation of temporary signs is needed, it can require stickers that identify when the sign was placed to document compliance with any time restrictions. A common issue with sign regulations written before Reed is regulations that limit flags to those with government or institutional symbols. This is content-based (Willson v. City of Bel-Nor (E.D. Mo. 2020)), and any definition of flags should include only their physical description with no limitation to government or other symbols.
Political Signs Political signs fall into two major categories, including traditional handheld political message signs (picketing, panhandling, “save the turtles”) and campaign election signs. Sign codes are traditionally limited to the latter. Political signs are not only a content-based category, but political speech enjoys the highest level of protection in First Amendment case law. Therefore, sign regulation should never target political signs, but rather fold them into incidental and temporary sign allowances. For yard signs, it is advisable to allow additional incidental or temporary signs for a given number of days per year to allow for occasions (such as elections, holidays, or similar times) where additional signs are needed to accommodate speech.
1 The City later amended its sign regulations to a content-neutral allocation of the number and area of temporary signs, which was upheld on appeal. Baldwin Park Free Speech Coal. v. City of Baldwin Park, No. 20-55244 (9th Cir. 2021).
12
© SIGN RESEARCH FOUNDATION
CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN An emerging issue is state preemption of state preemption of political sign regulations. Several states, such as Arizona and Kansas, limit how local governments can regulate political signs during election season. This preemption does not extend to signs that display other forms of speech. How should a local government comply with state law without itself engaging in unconstitutional discrimination between types of speech? At least one federal court case has ruled that the exemption of government signs or signs exempt from state regulation is not content-based (Signs for Jesus v. Town of Pembroke (D.N.H. 2017)). Because local governments typically cannot supersede state law, that type of exemption is not itself content-based but rather a recognition that the local government is powerless to supersede state law. In the context of panhandling, a federal district court found that a local regulation that did not incorporate a content-based exemption for solicitations by municipal employees such as firefighters was not content-based even where the city announced an intention to enforce the regulations consistent with state law (Watkins v. City of Arlington (N.D. Tex. 2015)).
Special Event Signs Some sign codes include special regulations or allowances for signs at special events. If those regulations do not require the signs to advertise the special event or something occurring there, it is arguably content-neutral. However, it is unclear whether that would constitute a user preference. Under the current state of the law, it is likely not to constitute a user preference if a special event itself does not restrict expressive conduct. In Act Now to Stop War & End Racism Coal. v. Dist. of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 2017), the court upheld a regulation allowing signs posted a public lamppost to remain for up to 180 days, but requiring signs for special events to be removed within 30 days. The court held the regulation was content-neutral because it only regulated where some speech may occur and did not distinguish between events by topic, and was narrowly tailored to the government’s interest in controlling clutter. Another court, however, found that an exemption for special and civic event signs (including grand openings) was content-based because one must assess the communicative content of the sign to determine whether the exemption applies (International Outdoor v. City of Troy (E.D. Mich. 2017)). More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court in City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising (discussed below) distinguished regulations that regulated special event signs generally (which are content-neutral) and those that regulate specific kinds of special events (which are content-based).
Human Signs/Sign Walkers Some sign codes attempt to regulate signs carried by persons, i.e., the stereotypical costumed Statue of Liberty advertising a tax preparer. Regulating hand-held signs or costumes does not necessarily trigger content concerns, but raises difficulties in distinguishing things like costumes that advertise (e.g., the omnipresent Statue of Liberty) from those that do not (for example, a Statue of Liberty costume designed to send a political message). This also raises difficulties in defining costuming and hand-held signs in a way that meets First Amendment tests for language precision. A pre-Reed decision invalidated sign walker regulations based on the Central Hudson test (Kitsap County v. Mattress Outlet (Wash. 2005)), and at least one state statute (Arizona) addresses sign walkers. Many post-Reed cases address panhandling, which does not directly involve a sign display but could involve the same principles of content-neutrality.
© SIGN RESEARCH FOUNDATION
13
CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN
Commercial Signs It remains unclear whether strict scrutiny applies to sign regulations that affect only commercial signs. Sign regulations cannot preference commercial over noncommercial speech (Metromedia v. City of San Diego (U.S. 1981)). For regulations that affect only commercial speech, courts have traditionally applied a test announced in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n (1980) that asks (1) whether the speech concerns a lawful activity and is not misleading, (2) whether the government’s interest is substantial, (3) whether the restriction directly and materially serves the asserted interest, and (4) whether the restriction is no more extensive than necessary. While this does not require a compelling interest, the local government has the burden of proof, and bans on speech that target truthful, non-misleading commercial messages are unlikely to survive intermediate scrutiny. As is discussed below in the context of murals and billboards, communities are finding that limits on commercial signs may not survive judicial review if they wander beyond the sign’s physical parameters.
Artwork and Murals Is artwork a sign? Can cities distinguish art and murals from commercial signs? Artwork (including murals) is expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. Several cases have ruled that sign codes that either exempt (Central Radio v. City of Norfolk (4th Cir. 2016)) or regulate (Kersten v. City of Mandan, 389 F.Supp.3d 640 (D. N.D. 2019)) works of art or murals that did not display commercial messages are content-based. Before Reed, courts applied intermediate scrutiny to the regulation of commercial speech based on whether the message conveyed is tied solely to economic benefit of the business and serves no purpose beyond the commercial motive. In Kersten, the court ruled that design guidelines that prohibit murals with commercial messages but allow other murals that are not commercial is content-based and subject to strict scrutiny. See also Complete Angler, LLC v. City of Clearwater (M.D. Fla. 2009)(bait and tackle shop displaying aquatic mural was non-commercial speech, and exemptions for noncommercial works of art and holiday decorations were content-based). In Morris v. City of New Orleans (E.D. La. 2019), the city defined murals separately from signs and prohibited commercial advertising on them.
14
© SIGN RESEARCH FOUNDATION
CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN
A community who wants to regulate murals can consider the following options: •
Remove restrictions that exempt or target artwork, along with limits on commercial advertising. The regulations could consider a restriction on text, if the message is not restricted (for example, limiting the text to the artists’ signature).
•
Consider mural subcategories based on their physical characteristics, such as a “wall sign” or “painted wall sign.” An issue with this approach is that murals often occupy entire building walls, which exceed typical wall sign limits.
•
Consider a review process for murals, such as an arts commission review, that examines the artistic quality of the mural. This approach should involve clear standards, time limits, and an express prohibition on considering the mural’s content.
Applying intermediate scrutiny, the court invalidated the mural regulations, finding that “there is nothing in the record to suggest that commercial messages in artwork are more unsightly than noncommercial messages in artwork.” There is also an emerging issue as to whether artistic embellishments are protected. This could involve signs that are embedded in a building’s architectural features, or regulating a sign’s design elements (such as materials). In Burns v. Town of Palm Beach (11th Cir. 2021), the court rejected a First Amendment challenge to in architectural review commissions denial of a building permit to replace a traditional beachfront mansion with a much larger midcentury modern house. Over a strong dissent, the court declined to decide that architecture is expressive conduct. This leaves open common design controls for signs, such as requiring masonry or materials compatible with the principal building style for monument signs. However, if courts were to apply intermediate or strict scrutiny to those types of regulations, local governments would need to examine the basis and regulatory efficacy of sign design controls.
© SIGN RESEARCH FOUNDATION
15
CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN
On- vs. Off-Premise Signs: Off-premise signs advertise products not located on the same premise as the sign, or direct people to off-premise locations. It is common for local sign regulations and state billboard regulations to distinguish on- from offpremise signs. The federal Highway Beautification Act of 1965 (23 U. S. C. § 131) conditions highway funding on outdoor sign regulation, while exempting on-premise signs (i.e., “signs … advertising the sale or lease of property upon which they are located” and “signs, displays, and devices . . . advertising activities conducted on the property on which they are located”). At least two-thirds of state highway beautification regulations and tens of thousands of local sign codes either ban off-premise signs, or subject them to spacing, permitting, and size requirements. Those regulations do not apply to signs that advertise or communicate a business or activity that occurs on the same premise.2 In Reed, a concurring opinion characterized this type of regulation as contentneutral. This is consistent with Supreme Court precedent upholding off-premise sign regulation (Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1981)).
Both these signs are digital and advertise the same company, but communities are allowed to regulate them differently based on where they are located, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Austin v. Reagan (2022).
Many communities, such as in Austin, TX, prohibit these kinds of digital off-premise signs, or billboards.
Many communities, such as in Austin, TX, allow these kinds of digital on-premise signs, or electronic message centers (EMCs), in the parlance of the on-premises sign industry.
Image Source: Daktronics In response to concerns that off-premise classifications were content-based, after Reed several states revised their outdoor advertising statutes or regulations to replace the premises category with a category for signs that are erected for compensation. See Colorado Rev. Stat. § 43-1-403(1)( “Advertising devices” include signs “for which compensation is directly or indirectly paid or earned in exchange for its erection or existence by any person or entity”); Kentucky Rev. Stat. § 177.830(5)(“advertising device” means a sign “[o]perated or owned by a person or entity who is earning compensation directly or indirectly from a third party or parties for the placement of a message on the device”); Tennessee Code Ann. § 54-21-102(18)(“[o]utdoor advertising device” is “a sign that is operated or owned by a person or entity that is earning compensation directly or indirectly from a third party or parties for the placement of a message on the sign”). A federal district court found the Colorado legislation content-neutral in StreetMediaGroup, LLC v. Stockinger, No. No. 1:20-cv-03602-RBJ (D. Colo. 2021), because the state transportation department “need not be aware of a sign’s content to determine whether compensation was received for its erection.”
2
16
© SIGN RESEARCH FOUNDATION
CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN The United State Supreme Court recently confirmed that off-premise sign regulations subject to intermediate, not strict, scrutiny. In City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising, 142 S.Ct. 1464 (U.S. 2022), the court considered a sign code that prohibited the digitization of off-premise signs. Plaintiffs claimed that off-premise sign categories are content-based because persons (especially regulators) have to read the signs to determine whether the message related to things occurring on-or-off the site. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected this argument, ruling that the distinction relates to the location of signs and is not inherently directed at the sign’s message. Essentially, the court held that the need to read the sign is directed to its location rather than its message. Therefore, off-premise sign regulations that do not preference commercial over non-commercial speech are subject to intermediate rather than strict scrutiny. While off-premise sign regulations are not presumed unconstitutional, they remain subject to First Amendment challenge. In drafting off-premise sign restrictions, local governments should consider the following:
1 2 3 4 3
Reed’s “Need to Read” Test Does Not Apply to Off-Premise Sign Regulations. Austin reasons that conventional off-premise sign categories require “examination of speech only in service of drawing neutral, location-based lines” rather than controlling the sign’s communicative content. However, central to its holding is that the off-premise category did not trigger a specific or substantive category of speech, such as political messages, ideological messages, or directional messages concerning specific events (Austin, at 8). Therefore, off-premise sign categories that regulate specific types of off-premise messages or users could implicate higher scrutiny and jeopardize the regulations in court (see paragraphs 3 and 5, below) because they affect the sign’s topic, idea or message. Billboards versus Off-Premise Signs. While many billboards are off-premise signs, the two concepts are distinct. A billboard is a physical category – typically, a large, freestanding panel sign. By comparison, an off-premise sign can occur in any configuration – including a billboard, a wall sign, or on digital copy. Communities can choose to regulate billboards as physical entities regardless of their message, removing the need to justify distinctions between off-premise commercial messages under intermediate scrutiny. For example, a sign code could define a “billboard” as a panel-type sign mounted on posts or steel frames (see, for example, Westminster, Colorado Sign Code § 11-11-16(D)), or as a freestanding smaller than typical bulletin specifications (672 square feet in area or 14 feet in height). Off-Premise Distinctions that Regulate Non-Commercial Messages May Trigger Strict Scrutiny. The Austin opinion assumed that the sign regulations at issue regulated only commercial speech. Because non-commercial speech receives a higher degree of protection under the First Amendment, regulations that implicate non-commercial messages (such as political campaign or religious messages) will trigger strict scrutiny. However, regulations that affect any offpremise message – whether or not those messages are commercial in nature – will trigger only intermediate scrutiny. Limiting Off-Premise Regulations to Commercial Messages is Subject to Intermediate Scrutiny. Both the majority opinion and dissent in Austin recognized that regulations targeting only commercial speech (i.e., advertising or directing customers to a business) are subject to intermediate, not strict, scrutiny (Austin at 10 [majority opinion], Thomas, dissenting, at 2, note 1).
Austin’s sign regulations, as described in the majority opinion, did not exempt noncommercial speech. Austin at 5, note 3.
© SIGN RESEARCH FOUNDATION
17
CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN
5
Off-Premise Regulations that Regulate Commercial Messages Differently may Fail Intermediate Scrutiny. It is one thing to regulate off-premise advertisements, and another to carve out special treatment for specific businesses. For example, some sign regulations have special permissions for off-premise real estate signs, hospital, or farms. Car dealerships, hospitals, bookstores, or other businesses do not qualify for those exemptions. What government interest justifies not allowing a car dealership to display a sign at an off-premise location while allow that permission for a homebuilder? Why would a general regulation or allowance for off-premise signs – coupled with size, spacing and design restrictions – not promote those interests as effectively? A local government with those categories would need to show how those distinctions are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest.
6
Facially Content-Neutral Off-Premise Sign Regulations Trigger Strict Scrutiny if they have an Impermissible Purpose or Justification. The majority opinion in Austin stated that an impermissible purpose could sink a content-neutral off-premise sign regulation, but gave no examples. One example could include, for example, a regulation that allows for billboards only during election season – where the regulation allows for any form of off-site message, but is designed to favor a particular form of speech (see www.ricardopacheco.com, supra).
In drafting off-premise sign regulations, the most conservative approach legally is to regulate only commercial speech (which triggers only intermediate scrutiny), and at least to ensure that the regulations do not explicitly or implicitly favor commercial over non-commercial speech. In addition, regulating only the billboard structure with no off-premise sign restriction is a viable approach legally, but also potentially exposes more locations to off-premise advertising. However, the Austin decision clarifies that none of these approaches (without more) will trigger strict scrutiny.
Image Source: Watchfire
18
© SIGN RESEARCH FOUNDATION
CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN
Public Forum Local governments retain wider discretion over the display of their own signs and those on their own property than they do for private signs on private property. However, free speech protections apply when the government opens public property to private expression. In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of signs in the public forum. In Shurtleff v. City of Boston, No. 20–1800 (U.S., May 2, 2022), the City routinely allowed the display of flags on a flagpole at City Hall with no guidelines or control over who could display them or their content. The City denied the display of a religious flag based on concerns that it would violate the Establishment Clause by endorsing a set of religious beliefs. The City’s lack of involvement in selecting flags for display at that location meant that the display was private (not public) speech. Therefore, denying permission to display the flag amounted to viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. Local governments should exercise clear control over signs in public spaces where only government speech is allowed, and adopt content-neutral rules for permitted private displays (other than exempt government signs, such as traffic directional signs) in the public forum.
© SIGN RESEARCH FOUNDATION
19
CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN
Reed’s Top 10 Takeaways The Reed decision changed the way communities and courts look at sign regulations, and its impact is still being felt (and litigated) across the nation. Local jurisdictions applying the contentneutrality principles of Reed to their sign code should consider the following:
20
1
While the facts in Reed involve temporary signs, content-neutrality is not limited to temporary signs. The First Amendment protections at issue in Reed apply to any form of communicative content - whether the sign is a cardboard election sign in a yard, a large monument sign at the entry to a shopping center, or a mural subject to design review.
2
If a regulation affects the topic or message conveyed, the regulation is content-based and likely subject to strict scrutiny. This applies whether the regulation appears in a sign code, a zoning ordinance, design guidelines, or some other regulation.
3
A sign code should identify all signs (permanent or temporary) by their structure or design (such as the sign’s materials, configuration, and presentation – i.e., whether or not it has changeable or digital copy, lighting, and similar visual features), rather than what they say.
4
Communities do not usually run into trouble simply because they regulate a sign’s dimensional standards or design features. Instead, sign codes trigger strict scrutiny when they create either: (1) exemptions for preferred categories of speech, or (2) target categories of speech for regulation through their sign code.
5
Communities who want to specifically regulate temporary signs can continue to do so, but should base their regulations on the signs structure type (such as feather signs, windblown signs, or cardboard placards mounted on a metal frame) and uniform event triggers (such as 5 to 10 temporary signs along a frontage for up to 30 days four times a year).
6
Traditionally, courts have given more deference regulation of commercial content through intermediate scrutiny. However, some lower courts have started to apply strict scrutiny to commercial content categories and it is fair to say that the state of the law is unclear.
7
Reed does not require signs to be bigger, cluttered, brighter, or otherwise an obstacle to a community’s aesthetic or traffic safety objectives. It simply advises communities to focus carefully on the physical characteristics of signs that they truly need to regulate, and to avoid interfering with a sign’s message.
© SIGN RESEARCH FOUNDATION
CONTENT-NEUTRAL SIGN CODES AFTER REED AND AUSTIN
8
To control clutter and driver distraction, sign codes can use allocation-based systems that allow persons and property owners to allocate messages as they see fit within the parameters established by the sign code’s dimensional standards.
9
There are other First Amendment requirements and constitutional issues to consider, such as overbreadth, vagueness, and how long it takes to issue a sign permit. Those are beyond the purview of this article but remain important considerations.
10
Distinctions between on- and off-premise signs are sufficient under Austin, if they do not involve other content-based categories (for example, allowing off-premise signs for some messages but not others).
Communities applying these content-neutral principles can develop and implement sign codes that promote community character, traffic safety, and economic development.
About the Author: Mark White is a senior partner with White & Smith, LLC – a multi-disciplinary law firm based in Kansas City and Charleston that specializes in zoning and sign code updates. White & Smith, LLC has led or participated in over 150 zoning and sign code updates in 36 states. Mr. White is a nationally-recognized expert on planning and law presents frequently on sign law and regulations at planning and law conferences, and has spearheaded numerous zoning and sign code updates. Mr. White has over forty publications appearing in books, law journals, and planning literature.
© SIGN RESEARCH FOUNDATION
21
IS YOUR COMMUNITY EXPLORING SIGN CODE CHANGES? CONTACT
signhelp@signs.org FOR COMPLIMENTARY ANSWERS
PUBLISHED BY:
WWW.SIGNRESEARCH.ORG © Sign Research Foundation
Summary of FHWA Study Digital Sign Safety 28 January 2014
On 27 December 2013, the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) released the results of a multiyear research study of driver visual behavior in the presence of digital billboards (CEVMS; “changeable electronic variable message signs” is the preferred FHWA term). This research had been long anticipated, but had been delayed for several years as the report’s release has been contested. Updates from FHWA and USDOT staff at key conferences (TRB, NAHBA, AASHTO R-O-W) have mentioned discussions on the language in the cover memo and an objection raised in the peer review of the raw data. In any event, the study (based on data collected in September 2009 -April 2010) has been released and the authors’ conclusions are consistent with the favorable outcome expected by members of the on-premise sign and outdoor advertising industries. Key Conclusions “The results of the study are consistent with research and theory on the control of gaze behavior in natural environments. The demands of the driving task tend to affect the driver’s self-regulation of gaze behavior.” (emphasis added; pg i) The study attempted to address three research questions:
(1) DO CEVMS ATTRACT DRIVERS’ ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE FORWARD ROADWAY AND OTHER DRIVING RELEVANT STIMULI? “On average, the drivers in this study devoted between 73 and 85 percent of their visual attention to the road ahead for both CEVMS and standard billboards. This range is consistent with earlier field research studies. In the present study, the presence of CEVMS did not appear to be related to a decrease in looking toward the road ahead.” (emphasis added; pg 2)
(2) DO GLANCES TO CEVMS OCCUR THAT WOULD SUGGEST A DECREASE IN SAFETY? “The results did not provide evidence indicating that CEVMS, as deployed and tested in the two selected cities, were associated with unacceptably long glances away from the road. When dwell times longer than the currently accepted threshold of 2,000 ms occurred, the road ahead was still in the driver’s field of view. This was the case for both CEVMS and standard billboards.” (emphasis added; pg 2)
(3) DO DRIVERS LOOK AT CEVMS MORE THAN STANDARD BILLBOARDS? “When a gaze was to an off-premise advertising sign, the drivers were generally more likely to gaze at a CEVMS than at a standard billboard.” (pg 3)
Overall: The present data suggest that the drivers in this study directed the majority of their visual attention to areas of the roadway that were relevant to the task at hand (e.g., the driving task). Furthermore, it is possible, and likely, that in the time that the drivers looked away from the forward roadway, they may have elected to glance at other objects in the surrounding environment (in the absence of billboards) that were not relevant to the driving task. When billboards were present, the drivers in this study sometimes looked at them, but not such that overall attention to the forward roadway decreased. (pg. 4) Details about the Study Itself The need for further study of CEVMS was highlighted in a 2007 FHWA memorandum (that declared digital billboards operating with a message change rate of 4-10 seconds did not violate earlier prohibitions against “flashing”). In 2009, FHWA conducted a literature review (FHWAHRT-09-018) to examine the overall body of research on the subject of safety effects of digital billboards. Following that literature review, this larger study began.
Small Green Dot = Tracked Eye Movement
The researchers (employees of SAIC) conducted field studies in Reading, PA and Richmond, VA. Using a specially equipped test vehicle, drivers followed two specified routes (1 freeway; 1 arterial roads). Each route took 25-35 minutes to drive and was 13-20 miles long. In Reading, 43 drivers ages 18-64 (median age 46-47) were recruited to participate, though only 31 produced useable data (14 night; 17 day). In Richmond, 41 drivers ages 18-64 (median ages 2528) were recruited to participate, though only 24 produced useable data (14 day; 10 night). The participants were not told the purpose of the drive; at the end, they were debriefed with questions about the presence of an in-car navigation system giving audible directions. Key Numbers from the Study Drivers devote 73-85% of visual attention to the roadway Average “fixation” duration to digital billboards were 379ms (335 for standard), “similar to the average fixation duration to the road ahead” Longest fixation to a digital billboard was 1,335ms (1,284ms for standard), well below widely accepted threshold of 2,000ms resulting in higher crash risk. Four (of 55) individuals had billboard dwell (aggregate of consecutive fixations on same object) times in excess of 2,000ms, but three were to standard billboards, and all were positioned close to forward view (drivers still could see road in peripheral vision).
RESEARCH
Night-time Brightness Level Recommendations for On-Premise Electronic Message Centers Updated August 2016
PRODUCED BY:
[Blank inside front cover]
ISA RESEARCH
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
CASE STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 SIX STEPS: EMC BRIGHTNESS LEVELS WITH OPERATIONAL CONTROL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 WITHOUT OPERATIONAL CONTROL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
LEARN MORE ABOUT EMCS The International Sign Association offers an Electronic Message Center (EMC) Resource Center, with resources on: • EMCs and traffic safety • A framework for developing EMC sign code language • The differences between EMCs and digital billboards www.signs.org/local
ADDITIONAL SIGN CODE RESOURCES The International Sign Association has developed numerous tools to help communities develop better sign codes. All are housed at www.signs.org/local, including: • • • •
The Supreme Court ruling, Reed v. Town of Gilbert Model sign codes Best practices in regulating temporary and wayfinding signs The Economic Impact of On-Premise Signs
ISA’s advocacy team is available to provide complimentary assistance on sign codes and sign-related issues. Contact SignHelp@signs.org or 703.836.4012.
© International Sign Association 1
ISA RESEARCH
INTRODUCTION ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTERS (EMCs) Electronic message centers, or EMCs, continue to grow in popularity for business and community use. You may have heard EMCs being referred to as changeable message displays or digital signs. EMCs are not digital billboards, which advertise a good or service that is located away from the sign. Rather, EMCs are digital signs that are located on the premises, and that advertise goods and services that are available at the location.
Electronic Message Center (EMC)/on-premise sign advertising a bank that is located on the same premises as the sign
Digital billboard/off-premise sign advertising an automobile business in another location
There is often confusion regarding on- and off-premise digital signs. However, EMCs and digital billboards have very distinct capabilities and purposes, each targets a specific audience and each has traditionally been treated under separate legal and regulatory regimes, a zoning practice which was noted in the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Reed v. the Town of Gilbert. For the purposes of this publication, we are focusing solely and exclusively on EMCs. EMCs that are too bright at night can be offensive and ineffective. Night-time EMC brightness is an issue where sign users, the sign industry, and local offices have a common goal: ensuring that EMCs are appropriately legible. We know the messages that these signs convey can be rendered unattractive and perhaps even unreadable if they are programmed too bright. That’s why many sign companies recommend to their customers that in order for these signs to be most effective, their brightness be set at such a level to be visible, readable and conspicuous.
2 © International Sign Association
ISA RESEARCH
The International Sign Association (ISA) retained noted lighting expert Dr. Ian Lewin of Lighting Sciences to help the industry develop scientificallyresearched, understandable recommendations for EMC brightness. Dr. Lewin was a past chair of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IES), and was greatly respected within the lighting field. His work for ISA was conducted with the input of experts within the sign industry. As a result of his research, Dr. Lewin recommended two different brightness settings based on whether the EMC was located in an area of high or low ambient light. After field testing and utilizing Dr. Lewin’s recommendations, it was determined that using the more conservative recommendation is appropriate in areas of both low and high ambient light. In order to simplify Dr. Lewin’s recommendations, and to take a more reasonable approach to ensure that EMCs are sufficiently visible but not overly bright, it is recommended that EMCs not exceed 0.3 footcandles over ambient lighting conditions when measured at the recommended distance, based on the EMC size. The research and the recommendations contained in this report pertain only to EMCs, not traditionally internally illuminated signs, such as these channel letter and neon signs below. EMCs use a different lighting technology than most of these types of signs, and as such the scientific approach differs. Community leaders should understand that, while it is recommended that brightness measurements be taken perpendicular to the sign, sign viewers rarely see the sign at that same perpendicular approach. At any viewing point away from or off the forward angle, the apparent brightness will be reduced. In other words, the measurements will capture the recommended brightness levels, but, unless viewers are looking at the sign directly perpendicular, they will not perceive the brightness at the full level. We have provided recommended statutory language and tips to measure brightness with and without control of the EMC. If you need further assistance, feel free to contact ISA, signhelp@signs.org or at (703) 836-4012 to answer any of your EMC questions.
FOOTCANDLES VS. NITS: WHICH MEASUREMENT IS BETTER? This document recommends communities adopt illumination measurements in footcandles as compared to nits. Here are a few reasons why more than 200 localities and many state departments of transportation have adopted the footcandle measurement for EMCs: FOOTCANDLES NITS Measures illuminance Measures luminance Accounts for ambient light conditions Measures only the amount of brightness emitted Luxmeter measuring device $100 Luminance spectrometer (nit gun) - $1,000 “Twilight” measurement possible Does not allow adjustment based on ambient light Measures light impact and appearance Does not measure appearance Works with roadway lighting standards Difficult to measure accurately Easier to check and enforce Difficult to enforce * While the main advantage of using nits as compared to footcandles is that daytime measurement is possible, EMC brightness is typically more of an issue at night. © International Sign Association 3
ISA RESEARCH
CASE STUDY: Columbus, Ohio COMMUNITY . . . . . . . . . . . . POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . LOCATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . SPECIFIC EMC ISSUE. . . . .
Columbus, Ohio 836,000 As Ohio’s largest city and state capitol, Columbus is the country’s 15th largest city. Crafting a reasonable, enforceable code that addresses complaints while preserving the ability for businesses to use what it termed automatic changeable copy signs.
As automatic changing copy signs—as Columbus refers to EMCs—grew in use, so did community complaints. By 2011, city planners began to edit the graphics codes to limit special effects. The goal was to continue to allow for a variety of commercial graphics, “but not at the expense of neighborhoods,” said Lisa Russell, the city’s Planner II who facilitated the code development project. The city had in place certain limits on automatic changing copy signs, aka EMCs, in the graphics code, limiting their use to commercial and manufacturing zoning districts and requiring that only half of the sign could be used for the changeable copy. But signs lacked brightness limits and a hold time. Russell led a team to draft the new code, which incorporated a brightness limit for both on-premise and off-premise signs. The testing method also is included in the code. It was the result of much scientific discussion. “I believe that the best answer is revealed if you have enough information,” Russell said. The committee included a community group leader who was an architect specializing in lighting and representatives from the sign and graphics industry. “When we started exploring brightness, it appeared the footcandle method was the way to go,” Russell said. “However, some group members wanted us to explore the luminance method. ISA believed so strongly that the luminance method was problematic that they brought a demonstration to us.” The demonstration included a field trip to visit a sign to show the impact of the two measurement methods. “They wanted to make sure that we didn’t go down the wrong path. They rented a lift and showed us that with the luminance method you’d have to get up in the lift, raise it and shine the nit gun at the sign. With the footcandle meter, you can stand on the ground.” Russell helped the group to see that the “members of the professional sign and graphics industry are not the same as end-users of signs, such as an owner of a carryout who wants to draw attention to his shop over others. We all had an interest in developing reasonable regulations instead of just banning these signs. We also did not want to take away the rights that businesses had to display electronic signs.” The new code has significantly lessened complaints about sign brightness. And when a complaint is received, the code enforcement officers have a verifiable process for determining whether the sign complies with the code.
4 © International Sign Association
ISA RESEARCH
CASE STUDY: Kitsap County, Washington COMMUNITY . . . . . . . . . . . POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . LOCATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . SPECIFIC EMC ISSUE. . . . .
Kitsap County, Washington 260,000 Across the Puget Sound from Seattle and bordered by rural communities on the west. It is the third most densely populated county in the state. Existing codes did not cover electronic signs.
As a “transition” county between rural Washington and the metropolitan city of Seattle, Kitsap County had the challenges of creating regulations for electronic signs that fit the county’s dual personalities. “The first step was to identify where these signs would be allowed,” said Darren Gurnee, a planner with the county. “We wanted to make sure these were restricted to areas of increased density and primarily non-residential use such as industrial zones and commercial zones within the urban growth area.” Previously, the county had allowed electronic signs “as a matter of interpretation,” Gurnee said. Crafting more defined electronic sign regulations would provide a measure of stability—and help business owners know what was allowed and where. An added bonus: Gurnee felt the signs would be more attractive than the block letters signs that had to be changed manually. While the county wanted to make it easier for businesses to convert existing static monument signs into electronic signs, it also wanted to ensure that the regulations were not written in a way that would allow billboards to convert. “We were able to craft our regulations in a way that required signs be brought into conformance before any change could be made,” Gurnee said. “Billboards were non-conforming, so that would not be an issue.” ISA provided Gurnee with industry standards—contained in this publication—and some background on the technology that today’s electronic signs offer, such as automatic dimming. It also incorporated some of the recommended language on animation, hold times and transitions. “The regulation is written in a way that it would be easy to enforce,” Gurnee said, and easy to understand, without the ambiguities contained in the previous method. The ending code created a perfect fit for both of the community’s personalities.
© International Sign Association 5
ISA RESEARCH
CASE STUDY: SPARKS, NEVADA COMMUNITY . . . . . . . . . . . POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . LOCATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . SPECIFIC EMC ISSUE. . . . .
Sparks, Nevada 93,500 A rapidly growing community, Sparks is located near Lake Tahoe, California, and Reno, Nevada, and is Nevada’s fifth largest city. Existing regulations were difficult to enforce and outdated.
Sparks, Nevada had existing regulations of electronic message centers—or electronic variable signs as the community deemed them. But “it wasn’t very explicit,” said senior planner Karen Melby. “The brightness standards were in lumens, which we didn’t even know how to measure.” The regulations were outdated as well—having been drafted in 2002. Technology had changed dramatically and the costs of EMCs had dropped, putting them in the range of more businesses’ budgets. “We felt we could see more coming and felt that we needed to get a handle on it.” As a first step, planners required that those seeking an EMC permit meet their standards before approval was granted, but nothing was written into the code. That method can create problems. So Melby led the city through the code revision process. She sought out industry expertise from both the planning community and the sign and graphics industry. For industry insight, she turned to ISA. ISA provided feedback on how other communities were regulating electronic message centers, and recommendations on what was working for these communities. One outside group felt strongly that the standards should be regulated in nits, not footcandles. They brought in an expert who opposed the proposed regulations. But Melby held strong on the issue of footcandles. “In my research, it seems like footcandle is what you can see with your eyes while a nit is pinpointing a spot on a sign. When you look at a sign, you’re looking at the whole thing, not just one small spot.” The city adopted the widely recognized standard of 0.3 footcandles above ambient light, using the distance measurements outlined in this publication. Melby took that table, determined the formula and wrote the formula into the code. The community allows smaller signs—those under 32 square feet—to include scrolling, while those larger do not. The result has been a city that has successfully navigated the balance between business interests and community aesthetics. “We’ve had very few complaints,” Melby said. “When we do get a complaint about a sign being too bright, we go out and measure it. When they bring it down to standards, we don’t get complaints.” Being able to use a simple light meter to measure brightness is far easier than simply guessing whether the sign is in compliance, Melby said. “The other method (measuring nits) was really based on opinion. What may seem bright to me may not seem bright to you. Now, we can say, ‘This is what the meter says.’” By having clear standards that are easier to enforce, both community and business win.
6 © International Sign Association
ISA RESEARCH
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ISA ELECTRONIC MESSAGE CENTER NIGHT-TIME BRIGHTNESS RECOMMENDATIONS This summary has been developed with an understanding that EMCs that are unreasonably bright are not effective for the communities or end users. This intends to help communities and stakeholders develop brightness standards for on-premise EMCs. The summary comprises: 1) An overview of the importance of ensuring appropriate brightness, 2) Technology utilized to ensure appropriate brightness, and 3) Recommended brightness standards 1. Overview of the importance of ensuring appropriate night-time brightness. EMCs that are too bright at night can be offensive and ineffective. There are significant advantages to ensuring than an electronic display is not overly bright. These advantages include:
» Conservation of energy » Increased life expectancy of the electronic display components » Building goodwill with the community » Ensuring the legibility of the display It is in the best interest of all stakeholders to ensure that EMCs are sufficiently bright to ensure clear legibility, while at the same time avoiding a display that is overly bright.
3. Recommended night-time brightness standards. Dr. Lewin recommended the development of brightness criteria based on the Illuminating Engineering Society’s (IES) well-established standards pertaining to light trespass, IES Publication TM-11-00. The theory of light trespass is based on the concept of determining the amount of light that can spill over (or “trespass”) into an adjacent area without being offensive. In order to simplify Dr. Lewin’s recommendations, and to take a more reasonable approach to ensure that EMCs are sufficiently visible but not overly bright, it is recommended that EMCs not exceed 0.3 footcandles over ambient lighting conditions when measured at the recommended distance, based on the EMC size. Email signhelp@signs.org to receive Dr. Lewin’s original research.
2. Technology utilized to ensure appropriate brightness. Most EMCs are designed to produce sufficient brightness to ensure clear legibility during daylight hours. However, daytime brightness settings are usually inappropriate for night-time viewing. The following general methods are used to dim an EMC for appropriate night-time viewing: 1. Manual Dimming. Using this method, the sign operator dims the display in response to changing ambient light conditions. 2. Scheduled Dimming. Sunset-sunrise tables allow an EMC to be programmed to dim at the same time that the sun sets and rises. This method is generally acceptable, but is more effective when used as a backup to automatic dimming controls capability, such as photocell technology. 3. Photocell Technology. An EMC that utilizes photocell technology can automatically dim as light conditions change. A photocell sensor alerts the display to adjust brightness according to ambient light conditions.
...it is recommended that EMCs not exceed 0.3 footcandles over ambient lighting conditions when measured at the recommended distance, based on the EMC size.
© International Sign Association 7
ISA RESEARCH
RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE
“
Electronic Message Center (EMC) Criteria: The night-time illumination of an EMC shall conform with the criteria set forth in this section. A. EMC Illumination Measurement Criteria: The illuminance of an EMC shall be measured with an illuminance meter set to measure footcandles accurate to at least two decimals. Illuminance shall be measured with the EMC off, and again with the EMC displaying a white image for a full color-capable EMC, or a solid message for a single-color EMC. All measurements shall be taken as close as practical to a perpendicular plane of the sign at the distance determined by the total square footage of the EMC as set forth in the accompanying Sign Area of a Sign versus Measurement Distance table. B. EMC Illumination Limits: The difference between the off and solid-message measurements using the EMC Measurement Criteria shall not exceed 0.3 footcandles at night.
C. Dimming Capabilities: All permitted EMCs shall be equipped with a sensor or other device that automatically determines the ambient illumination and programmed to automatically dim according to ambient light conditions, or that can be adjusted to comply with the 0.3 footcandle measurements. D. Definition of EMC: A sign that utilizes computer-generated messages or some other electronic means of changing copy. These signs include displays using incandescent lamps, LEDs, LCDs or a flipper matrix.
”
SIGN AREA VERSUS MEASUREMENT DISTANCE AREA OF SIGN sq. ft.
MEASUREMENT (ft.)
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 220 240 260 280 300
32 39 45 50 55 59 63 67 71 74 77 81 84 87 89 92 95 97 100 105 110 114 118 122 126 130 134 138 141 148 155 161 167 173
* For signs with an area in square feet other than those specifically listed in the table (i.e., 12 sq ft, 400 sq ft, etc), the measurement distance may be calculated with the following formula: Measurement Distance = Area of Sign Sq. Ft. x 100
8 © International Sign Association
ISA RESEARCH
HOW TO MEASURE THE NIGHT-TIME BRIGHTNESS OF AN EMC WITH OPERATIONAL CONTROL (Note: This method can be completed by one individual, but requires operational control to shutoff the EMC)
STEP 1
STEP 3
OBTAIN AN ILLUMINANCE METER.
DETERMINE THE MEASUREMENT DISTANCE.
Purchase or otherwise procure an illuminance meter. Most city/county traffic departments have an illuminance meter, which are also referred to as lux or footcandle meters (lux is the metric measure of illuminance; footcandles is the English measure of illuminance). The illuminance meter must have the ability to provide a reading up to two decimal places and must be set to read footcandles. It is preferred to have an illuminance meter with a screw-mount that allows the sensor to be mounted on a tripod. A tripod ensures that the highly sensitive sensor is held perfectly still; otherwise it may be difficult to obtain an accurate reading.
Using the total square footage found in Step 2, look up the measurement distance in the table provided in the Recommended Legislative Language on page 8, to determine the distance to measure the brightness of the EMC. The distance should be measured perpendicular to the EMC sign face. The use of a measuring wheel, laser finder or a smartphone app are the most convenient ways to measure the distance.
STEP 2 DETERMINE SQUARE FOOTAGE. Determine the square footage of the face of the electronic message sign (EMC) by multiplying the height and width of the EMC. This information may be available in a permit application, or can be determined by physically measuring the height and width of the EMC. Do not include the sign face square footage attributable to any additional static signs associated with the EMC (if applicable).
© International Sign Association 9
ISA RESEARCH
STEP 4
STEP 6
PREPARE THE DISPLAY FOR TESTING.
ENSURE THAT THE DISPLAY CAN ADJUST TO DIFFERENT AMBIENT CONDITIONS.
Ensure that the EMC is programmed to alternate between a solid white (or in the case of a monochrome display – the solid color of the display) message and a blank message. The community may require that the sign owner cooperate with testing by programming the EMC for testing upon written notice.
Inspect the sign to ensure that it incorporates a photocell or other technology to ensure that the display can adjust according to ambient lighting conditions.
STEP 5 USE AN ILLUMINANCE METER TO MEASURE THE BRIGHTNESS OF THE EMC. Mount the sensor of your illuminance meter to a tripod and orient the sensor directly towards the face of the EMC at the measurement distance determined in Step 2. Ensure that the illuminance meter is set to measure footcandles up to two decimal places. As the display alternates between a solid white message and an “off” message, note the range of values on the illuminance meter. If the difference between the readings is less than 0.3 footcandles, then the brightness of the display is in compliance. If not, the display will need to be adjusted to a lower brightness level using the manufacturer’s recommended procedures.
As the display alternates between a solid white message and an “off” message, note the range of values on the illuminance meter. If the difference between the readings is less than 0.3 footcandles, then the brightness of the display is in compliance.
10 © International Sign Association
ISA RESEARCH
HOW TO MEASURE THE NIGHT-TIME BRIGHTNESS OF AN EMC—WITHOUT CONTROL OF THE SIGN (Note: This method requires two individuals, but does not require operational control of the EMC.)
There will be instances where the EMC illumination needs to be evaluated to ensure that it does not exceed the brightness levels established in the municipal sign ordinance. If the municipality is unable to obtain access to the sign controls or attempting to take the measurement after business hours, this method should be followed. Unlike the six-step process described previously, this process measures the difference in brightness between the sign in operation and when the sign is completely blocked from the illuminance meter. This procedure is extremely simple and requires only an illuminance meter and a piece of painted cardboard cut to the proper size.
STEP 1
STEP 4 POSITION THE TESTERS. Based on the size of the digital display, the person conducting the test should position themselves as close to directly in front of the digital display as practical, at the appropriate distance (calculated in Step 3). A helper should position themselves about 7 ft. to 10 ft. in front of the light meter and hold up an opaque, black sheet of material that is roughly 12 in. high by 40 in. wide. (Regular cardboard painted matte black works well for this.) The sheet should be positioned so it blocks all light from the EMC, but still allows the remaining ambient light to register on the illuminance meter.
OBTAIN AN ILLUMINANCE METER. (See previous Step 1)
STEP 2 DETERMINE SQUARE FOOTAGE. (See previous Step 2)
STEP 3
This helper should use a cardboard sheet to block the EMC light from the footcandle meter. This will establish the baseline footcandle reading.
DETERMINE THE MEASUREMENT DISTANCE. (See previous Step 3 or use (Area of Sign in Sq. Ft. x 100))
After the cardboard block is held in place, a reading should be taken for the ambient light.
Landscape Lights
House Lights
Commercial Lights Street Lights
Traffic Lights
In this example, various light sources are impacting the photocell measuringLandscape 2.3 Lights Traffic Lights footcandles of ambient light.
House Lights
Commercial Lights Street Lights
This is the baseline for the measurement. Write it down.
© International Sign Association 11
ISA RESEARCH Landscape Lights
House Lights
Commercial Lights Street Lights
Traffic Lights
STEP 5 USE AN ILLUMINANCE METER. The illuminance meter should be held at a height of about 5 ft. (which is approximately eye level) and aimed directly at the EMC. The illuminance meter will account for surrounding sources of light or the absence thereof.
In this case our ambient light reading was 2.3 fc. The new light reading with the LED displaying a full white frame cannot read above 2.6 fc or 2.3 (ambient) + 0.3 (threshold). If a full white frame cannot be arranged, watch the meter to see if any ad exceeds 2.6 fc.
At this point, readings should be taken from the illuminance meter to establish a baseline illumination level. (ISA recommends that the illuminance meter is capable of levels to 2 decimal places 0.00). Once the baseline level is established, add 0.3 footcandles to the baseline level to calculate the max brightness limit. (For example: Baseline reading is 3.15 footcandles. The max brightness level is 3.45 footcandles.)
STEP 6 DETERMINE THE BRIGHTNESS LEVEL. Remove the opaque sheet from blocking the EMC. Watch the footcandle meter for 3 to 5 minutes to see if the max brightness level is exceeded by any of the images on the sign. If the readings do not exceed the max brightness levels, then the EMC illumination is in compliance. If any of readings consistently exceed the max brightness level, the lighting level is not in compliance. In this scenario, the municipality will need to inform the sign owner of noncompliance and take appropriate steps to ensure that the EMC be adjusted to a lower brightness level using the manufacturer’s recommended procedures.
If any of readings consistently exceed the max brightness level, the lighting level is not in compliance. 12 © International Sign Association
[Blank inside back cover]
1001 N. Fairfax Street, Suite 301 Alexandria, VA 22314 703.836.4012 Ph 703.836.8353 Fax www.signs.org
March 22, 2023 Boise Planning & Zoning Commission 150 N. Capitol Blvd Boise, ID 83702 Re: Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Section 11-04-012 Signs, and existing sign regulations Sent via email 3/22/23 Dear Chairperson Schafer: I am contacting you on behalf of the Northwest Sign Council (NWSC) and the International Sign Association (ISA). Both organizations work with jurisdictions throughout the Northwest to assist in the creation of beneficial and enforceable sign regulations. We have several recommendations pertaining to your Zoning Code Rewrite (Section 11-04-012 Signs), as well as existing sign regulations, for your consideration. Most of these comments and recommendations focus on electronic message displays (EMD) and the important issue of content-neutral sign regulations. Our recommendations are in bold italics. 1. 11-04-012.4 A. (6) pg. 310 Prohibited Signs “Works of art containing no form of advertising.” We recommend avoiding content regulation that restricts works of art to no form of advertising. Some content neutral options are in the attached reference “Content-Neutral Sign Codes After Reed and Austin.” * 2. 11-04-012.4 A.B.(2) pg. “Non-illuminated signs temporarily erected during construction to inform the public of the nature of the project that comply with the following standards:” We recommend avoiding content regulation of this nature that indicates the type of information to be displayed on the sign. We recommend time, place, and manner restrictions such as sign height, area, and type with no reference to content. See attached reference “Content-Neutral Sign Codes After Reed and Austin.” 3. 11-04-012.4 (7) (5) pg. 315 Electronic Message Displays This section applies to on-premises and off-premises signs. We recommend that the on-premises and off-premises regulations be in discrete sections for ease of administration. 4. 11-04-012.4 (7) (5) (b) i pg 315 Electronic Message Displays, Standards “Only one EMD is permitted per establishment. For establishments located in
a center, only one EMD is permitted for the center.” We recommend allowing two on-premises EMDs for a corner parcel, the same standard that applies to static signs. This will accommodate users such as Walgreen's, CVS and others that typically utilize two EMDs adjacent to each entrance. 5. 11-04-012.4 (7) (5) (b) iv. Pg. 315 Electronic Message Display Standards “Each message or frame shall be displayed for a minimum of 20 seconds.” We recommend maintaining the existing standard for hold time which is 8 seconds. We are unaware of any reasons causing the City to increase the existing hold time. This change in the hold time will create a disadvantage for new businesses or entities that install an on-premises EMD since they will be required to have a hold time that is more than twice as long as the existing EMDs which will have nonconforming rights to maintain an 8-second hold time. An 8-second hold time is common as it has been adopted by Idaho DOT, Pocatello, and Idaho Falls (6-second hold time). This hold time has shown to be safe according to attached studies, “Statistical Analysis of the Relationship between OnPremise Digital Signage and Traffic Safety”** and the “Summary of the FHWA Digital Sign Safety Study.” The Texas A&M study states that “the results of this study provide scientifically based data that indicate that the installation of digital on-premises signs does not lead to a statistically significant increase in crashes on major roads.” 6. 11-04-012.4 (7) (5) (b) iv. Pg. 315 Electronic Message Display Standards “The brightness or intensity of the EMD shall be factory set not to exceed 5,000 nits on clear days and 500 nits from dawn to dusk. The EMD shall also not exceed 50 percent of its maximum brightness on clear days and 10 percent of maximum brightness from dawn to dusk. Each display shall have a light sensing meter that will adjust the display brightness as the ambient light changes.” We recommend that Boise adopt Dr. Ian Lewin’s EMC night-time brightness levels*** (attached) for on-premises EMDs, which utilize a footcandle approach. The existing brightness standards are conflicting since the 5,000 nits during the day and 500 nits at night will have a different brightness from the 50% during the day and 10% at night. Dr. Lewin’s EMC night-time brightness levels have been adopted by hundreds of states and jurisdictions throughout the country, including Idaho Falls and Pocatello. The current nits standards are outdated and inconsistent. Dr. Lewin’s EMC night-time brightness levels are about 35% less bright that the standards in Boise’s existing code. In addition, Dr. Lewin’s EMC night-time brightness levels are straightforward to enforce while the current standards are very difficult if not impracticable to enforce.
7. 11-04-012.4. 8. F. pg. 319 Alternative Sign Plan “Separate building pads within centers and parks are allowed one monument style sign with a maximum height of six feet and a maximum background sign area of 32 square feet, but shall not exceed the standards in Table 11-04.19.”
We recommend maintaining the existing standard in the code for separate building pads in a Master Sign Plan for monument signs of 8 ft in height rather than 6 ft. This recommendation is due to the diminished visibility of the sign due to other vehicles. As stated in the attached portion of the APA publication Sign Graphics and the Law,**** “If a sign is situated at or below five feet above grade, other vehicles may block the driver's view, and the sign copy will not be legible.” We appreciate your consideration of these recommendations. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or for more information. James B. Carpentier AICP Director State & Local Government Affairs
cc: Boise City Council Tim Keane, Director Planning & Development Services *White, Mark, Content Neutral Sign Codes After Reed and Austin, Sign Research Foundation, Alexandria VA, Nov. 2022. **Hawkins, Gene, Statistical Analysis of the Relationship between On-Premise Digital Signage and Traffic Safety, Sign Research Foundation, Alexandria VA., Dec. 2012. ***International Sign Association, Night-time Brightness Level Recommendations for On-Premise Electronic Message Centers, Alexandria VA., Aug. 2016 ****Mandelker, Daniel, John Baker, Richard Crawford, Street Graphics and the Law, American Planning Association, Sept. 1, 2015.
STREET GRAPHICS AND THE LAW PAS 580, CHAPTER 4
Table 4.5 and Figure 4.6 provide examples of the use of this sign area equation based on different travel speeds and viewer reaction times.
SIGN HEIGHT: MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR VEHICLE-ORIENTED ENVIRONMENTS
Pennsylvania State University .
Typical Low-Mounted Ground Sign
,ylvania
Single-Lane View Blocking
For signs providing roadside information in primarily vehicular-oriented environments, the height above grade of the sign or sign copy has a pronounced effect on an approaching motorist's ability to detect and read the message displayed. As is documented in the research publication, Sign Visibility,
;ity ._
.! -
Effects of Traffic Characteristics and Mounting Height (2003),
the simple presence of other vehicles on the road (i.e., in front, in an adjacent travel lane, or in travel lanes in the opposite direction) can potentially prevent a driver from detecting a sign. If a sign is situated at or below five feet above grade, other vehicles may block the driver's view, and the sign copy will not be legible (Figure 4.7). The aforementioned study used analytical algorithms reflecting known patterns of traffic flow and volume, in conjunction with computer-generated simulation software. The research resulted in predictions of the percentage of times that other vehicles blocked the view of an approaching motorist , thus preventing the driver from detecting a lowmounted sign (five feet or less above grade). The percent of blockage was computed as a function of the traffic flow rate, the position of the subject motorist in the traffic stream, and the position and setback of the sign. Oversize vehicles (such as trucks, buses, and recreational vehicles) were not included in the calculations even though their normal presence in the vehicular mix would have, undoubtedly, increased the percentages noted in the study. The researchers analyzed eight traffic scenarios, based on a four-lane undivided highway and either 35 or 45 miles per hour as the speed of travel. These conditions were chosen to simulate the general characteristics of roadways traversing commercial zones throughout the United States. The signs (assumed to be 10 feet wide) were located at either 10 or 20 feet from the edge of the roadway and on either the right- or left-hand side of the road. The findings clearly establish a quantifiable loss of visibility across the full range of sign placement as traffic flow rates increase. The charts, A through H, document the findings for traffic flow rates ranging from 200 to 1,200 vehicles per hour (Figure 4.8, pp. 36-39). Based on the research, the USSC minimum height standard for copy on signs placed on roads with character-
Two-Lane View Blocking
Visibility Solution: Maintain Sign Design Style; Raise Copy To Viewable Height
Figure 4.7 Sign-blocking scenarios (schematic)
istics as detailed in the charts is no less than five feet above grade. However, the USSC strongly recommends a minimum height standard for sign copy of no less than seven feet above grade in order to ensure adequate visibility and a reasonable viewer reaction time , considering the block- ing potential of other vehicles on the road. The seven-feetabove-grade recommendation is the same as the Federal Highway Administration's standard, as promulgated in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, for the height above grade of official roadside directional and wayfinding signs utilized along urban roadways in the United States. As a related issue, the visibility requirement for ground or monument sign copy placement above seven feet above grade may run counter to community sign code regulation that (1) sets overall low maximum height limits, or (2) computes maximum square footage limits on sign size as the simple product of the total height times the total width of the
www.planning.org ASSOCIATION 35
AM ERICAN PLANNING
Statistical Analysis of the Relationship between On-Premise Digital Signage and Traffic Safety by H. Gene Hawkins, Jr., Ph.D., P.E. Associate Professor and Research Engineer Zachry Department of Civil Engineering Texas A&M University Pei-Fen Kuo Graduate Research Assistant Texas A&M Transportation Institute and Dominique Lord, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Research Engineer Zachry Department of Civil Engineering Texas A&M University
Sponsored by Signage Foundation, Inc. P.O. Box 14392 Washington, DC 20044 Texas Engineering Extension Service The Texas A&M University System College Station, TX 77843
December 17, 2012
i
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation University Transportation Centers Program in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. The U.S. Government and the State of Texas do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to recognize the Signage Foundation, Inc., for providing the funding for this research effort. The authors also wish to acknowledge the sign companies that provided proprietary information regarding the installation of the digital signs that were used to create the databases analyzed in this project. Although they are not recognized by name in order to protect the proprietary nature of the information, their contributions are greatly appreciated.
ii
ABBREVIATIONS
The abbreviations shown below are used in this report. AADT ADT AASHTO AIC ANOVA BIC CEVMS CG DF EB EBB FHWA HSIS HSM LCD LED MS MSE MST RTM SAR SEM SFI SPF SS SSE SST TTI
Annual Average Daily Traffic Average Daily Traffic American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Akaike Information Criterion Analysis of Variance Bayesian Information Criterion Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs Control Group Degrees of Freedom Empirical Bayes Electronic Billboard Federal Highway Administration Highway Safety Information System Highway Safety Manual Liquid Crystal Display Light-Emitting Diode Mean of Sum of Squares Error Mean Square Treatment Mean Square Regression to the Mean Spatial Autoregressive Model Spatial Error Model Signage Foundation, Inc. Safety Performance Function Sum of Squares Sum of Squares for Error Total Sum of Squares Texas A&M Transportation Institute
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Research Approach ................................................................................................................... 1 Description of a Digital Sign .................................................................................................... 1 Research Activities and Report Organization ........................................................................... 2 Chapter 2: Background Information ............................................................................................... 3 On-Premise Digital Signs ......................................................................................................... 3 Off-Premise Digital Signs ......................................................................................................... 4 Safety Effects ...................................................................................................................... 4 Characteristics of the Evaluation Methods Used in Previous Studies ................................ 7 Chapter 3: Study Data ..................................................................................................................... 9 Crash Data ................................................................................................................................. 9 Sign Data ................................................................................................................................. 11 Data-Merging Procedure ......................................................................................................... 12 Chapter 4: Study Methodology ..................................................................................................... 16 A Before-After Study and a Cross-Sectional Study ............................................................... 16 The Before-After Study .................................................................................................... 16 Common Methods for Conducting a Before-After Study....................................................... 18 Naïve Method.................................................................................................................... 18 Control Group Method ...................................................................................................... 19 Empirical Bayes Method................................................................................................... 20 Calculation Procedures and Examples .................................................................................... 21 Chapter 5: Results ......................................................................................................................... 25 Individual and Combined Results ........................................................................................... 25 Results for Crashes Related to Multiple and Single Vehicles ................................................ 28 Results for Crashes Related to Different Types of Signs ....................................................... 29 Impact of Sign Hold Time ...................................................................................................... 32 Chapter 6: Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................................... 34 Chapter 7: References ................................................................................................................... 36 Appendix A: Step-By-Step Instructions for Students to Record Sign Data ................................. 39 Appendix B: Statistical Symbols .................................................................................................. 41
iv
LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Summary of study results ............................................................................................. viii Figure 2. The flow chart for data collection and merging procedure ........................................... 13 Figure 3. Example work table of site data collection.................................................................... 15 Figure 4. A comparison of sample sizes from similar studies ...................................................... 26 Figure 5. The safety effectiveness index and the 95 percent confidence interval for each state (all crash types) ...................................................................................................... 27 Figure 6. The safety effectiveness index and the 95 percent confidence interval for each state (multi-vehicle crashes) .......................................................................................... 28 Figure 7. The safety effectiveness index and the 95 percent confidence interval for each state (single-vehicle crashes) ......................................................................................... 29 Figure 8. The histogram of digital signs for each sign dimension ................................................ 31 Figure 9. Example screenshot of Google Maps ............................................................................ 40 Figure 10. Example screenshot of Google Earth .......................................................................... 40
v
LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Safety effects of off-premise digital signs ........................................................................ 6 Table 2. HSIS crash coverage and roadway length by state ......................................................... 10 Table 3. Coefficients for multi and single-vehicle crash regression model .................................. 22 Table 4. Sign site sample size yield .............................................................................................. 26 Table 5. Results of statistical analysis of before-after crash condition......................................... 27 Table 6. The typical form of a one-way ANOVA table ............................................................... 30 Table 7. Analysis of variance table (color) ................................................................................... 31 Table 8. Analysis of variance table (sign dimension) ................................................................... 32 Table 9. Analysis of variance table (six business types) .............................................................. 32 Table 10. Analysis of variance table (two business types) ........................................................... 32 Table 11. Summary of sign hold times ......................................................................................... 33 Table 12. Example work table of site data collection procedure .................................................. 39
vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The use of digital on-premise signs, which are typically business-related signs that have the ability to change the displayed message, has increased significantly in recent years. On-premise digital signs are located on the same property as the businesses they promote, and some part — or a significant part in some cases — of the sign contains a digital display that can be programmed to change the message at pre-set intervals. Because the use of these signs has increased, jurisdictions have used local sign codes or ordinances to regulate the manner in which digital messages are displayed. Jurisdictions typically justify these regulations by citing traffic safety impacts. However, no comprehensive and scientifically based research efforts have evaluated the relationship between on-premise digital signs and traffic safety. In this study, researchers collected large amounts of sign and crash data in order to conduct a robust statistical analysis of the safety impacts of on-premise digital signs. The statistical tools used the latest safety analysis theory developed for analyzing the impacts of highway safety improvements. The research team acquired the crash data from the Highway Safety Information System, which is a comprehensive database of crash records from several states. One of the advantages of these data is that they also include information about roadway characteristics, such as the number of lanes, speed limit, and other factors. The research team then acquired information about the location of on-premise digital signs from two sign manufacturing companies. Through significant effort by the researchers, these two datasets were merged into a single dataset that represented potential study locations in California, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington. Of the initial set of over 3,000 possible sites, the research team was able to identify 135 sign locations that could be used for the safety analysis. Potential sites were eliminated from consideration due to any of the following factors:
The sign location was not on a roadway that was included in the crash dataset; only major roads were represented in the crash data. The sign location provided by a sign manufacturing company could not be verified through online digital images of the location. Only signs installed in calendar years 2006 or 2007 could be included in order to have adequate amounts of crash data before and after the sign was installed.
The research team then used the empirical Bayes method to perform a before-after statistical analysis of the safety impacts of the on-premise digital signs. In a before-after study, the safety impact of a treatment (in this case, the installation of an on-premise digital sign) is defined by the change in crashes between the periods before and after the treatment was installed. However, simply comparing the crash frequencies (known as a naïve before-after analysis) is not adequate to account for factors such as regression to the mean (a statistical concept that explains why after data can be closer to the mean value than the before data) and to provide a means of controlling for external factors that can also cause a difference in crash frequencies. The empirical Bayes method represents the recommended procedure for evaluating the impacts of safety treatments because it overcomes the deficiencies of the naïve method. The safety impacts are represented by the safety index, which is indicated by the symbol . In simple terms, the safety index represents a ratio of safety in the after period compared to safety in the before period, although it is not as
vii
simple as dividing the crashes in the after period by the crashes in the before period. A safety index greater than 1.0 indicates an increase in crashes in the after period, and a value less than 1.0 indicates a reduction in crashes in the after period. However, because of the variability in the crash data, the analysis must have statistical validity. Statistical variability is established by defining the 95 percent confidence interval for the safety index, which is based on factors such as sample size and the variability of the data. If the 95 percent confidence interval includes the value of 1.0, then there is a 95 percent chance that there is no statistically significant change in crashes between the before and after periods. The results of the statistical analysis are presented in Figure 1. This figure shows that the safety index for all of the states was 1.0 with a 95 percent confidence interval that ranged from 0.93 to 1.07. This indicates that, for the 135 sites included in the analysis, there was no statistically significant change in crashes due to the installation of on-premise digital signs. The same can also be said about the results for each of the four states on an individual basis because the confidence interval for safety index for each state includes 1.0. The larger confidence intervals for some of the states are due to greater variability in the data and/or smaller sample sizes. The researchers also analyzed single-vehicle and multi-vehicle crashes and found the same result of no statistically significant change in crashes. Finally, the researchers performed an analysis of variance for the sign factors of color, size, and type of business and found no statistically significant differences in the mean safety index values for individual factors.
Figure 1. Summary of study results The results of this study provide scientifically based data that indicate that the installation of digital on-premise signs does not lead to a statistically significant increase in crashes on major roads.
viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
For many generations, most signs — including both traffic and business signs — were static. They displayed only one message that did not change with time. Advances in information display technologies in recent years have led to an increase in the use of many types of digital signs, particularly in the area of on-premise and off-premise business signs. On-premise digital signs provide the ability to communicate a wide variety of messages and to change the manner in which the message is presented over time. As such, these digital signs represent a significant advancement in communication technologies and the ability to deliver valuable marketing information to potential customers. However, some groups have raised questions related to the traffic safety aspects of business signs that change messages on a frequent basis. The traffic safety concerns are often related to issues of potential driver distraction from the roadway due to the dynamic nature of these signs. These safety concerns are sometimes addressed through local regulation of these types of signs, which may prohibit or limit the use of on-premise digital signs. These regulations tend to be developed at the local level and do not have a significant level of scientific, nationally based research supporting the regulations. The traffic safety concerns associated with on-premise digital signs have existed for some time, but there has been little research, particularly on a national level, that directly addresses the safety impacts of on-premise digital signs. In part, this is due to the fact that the use of such signs has grown only in the last 5–10 years. The research described in this report was conducted to provide a scientifically based, national analysis of on-premise digital signs so that the traffic safety impacts of such signs can be better understood. RESEARCH APPROACH The basic research method used in this study is a before-after statistical analysis of the change in traffic crashes at locations where digital signs were installed. The research team used digital sign installation information provided by sign manufacturers to identify locations in selected states where digital signs had been installed in the 2006–2007 time frame (this time frame was selected to provide adequate numbers of crashes in both the before and after periods). The analysis locations were limited to California, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington because these states are part of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Safety Information System (HSIS). The HSIS is a database of crash records that includes detailed information about the roadway and crashes, including such factors as the number of lanes, the speed limit, crash severity, and other factors. The researchers then mapped the sign sites to the crash datasets to identify locations with crashes. These locations were then analyzed to compare the crashes before installation of the digital sign to the crashes after installation of the sign using statistical analysis procedures. DESCRIPTION OF A DIGITAL SIGN For the purposes of this study, a digital sign is defined as a sign that uses an electrical display, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD) or light-emitting diode (LED), to provide changeable
1
messages or graphics. There are several types of digital signs, including digital billboards, indoor video advertisements, and street-level advertisements (such as LED signs on bus shelters). For this study, the researchers focused only on on-premise digital signs, which are signs located on the same property as the business with which they are associated. The research effort did not include or address off-premise signs or billboards. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES AND REPORT ORGANIZATION There were five major activities associated with this research effort. The study began by reviewing and evaluating previous research on the safety aspects of digital signs and the statistical methods that other researchers have used to evaluate the safety aspects of signs. Chapter 2 describes the results of the review of background information. The researchers then began to collect information related to digital signs and crash data in the selected states. The sign information included the location and date of installation, and the crash data included the location and date. The researchers then devoted extensive effort to matching the locations and dates of the signs and crash datasets. Chapter 3 describes the sign and crash data and how the two datasets were merged together. Once this was accomplished, the next step was to develop a valid and scientifically based statistical analysis procedure to determine if there were any statistically significant changes in crashes after installation of digital signs. Chapter 4 describes the development of a statistical methodology, including a comparison of the advantages of the different options for conducting the statistical analysis. Finally, the research team used the results of the statistical analysis to define the key study findings, which are described in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 presents the conclusions and recommendations for the research study.
2
CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This chapter provides a review of the literature related to on-premise digital signs and their impacts on traffic safety. The review also includes a summary of statistical methods that can be used for evaluating the safety effects for these types of signs. Although the majority of the work has been related to off-premise digital signs, key studies associated with off-premise signs are nonetheless briefly discussed here. It should be pointed out that compared to other types of roadway-related operational and design features, such as access point density on urban arterials or on-street parking designs, the number of documents that are related to either on- or offpremise signs is relatively small. On-premise signs are signs that are located on the same property as the activity described in the sign, while off-premise signs are located away from the activity identified in the sign. Offpremise signs are also known as third-party signs or outdoor advertising, and the most common example is a billboard. In general, off-premise signs have a larger visible area, which is attributed to the fact that these signs usually have greater surface areas and have higher mounting heights than on-premise signs. Furthermore, off-premise signs have a larger viewership because they are usually located adjacent to freeways and major highways with higher traffic volume. On the other hand, on-premise signs are installed on private property where a company conducts its business, and most are located along urban streets or local roadways. According to The Signage Sourcebook (U.S. Small Business Administration, 2003), the viewing opportunities for outdoor advertising (typically 333,350 cars per day) are much greater than those for an on-premise sign (30,000 cars per day). The literature review is divided into two sections. The first section summarizes studies related to on-premise digital signs. The second section presents the summary of two key studies associated with off-premise digital signs. ON-PREMISE DIGITAL SIGNS This section describes the characteristics of the studies that have examined the relationship between safety and on-premise digital signs. To the knowledge of the authors, only two studies have investigated this relationship. It should be pointed out that the safety relationships identified in these research documents were not based on crash data but more on opinions and hypotheses, which limits their value as a direct measure of on-premise sign safety. The first study was conducted by Mace (2001). This author performed a literature review and listed two hypotheses about how on-premise signs can influence crash risk. The first hypothesis states that on-premise business signs distract drivers’ attention from their primary driving tasks, resulting in higher crash risks. The second hypothesis asserts that on-premise business signs may mask the visibility of regulatory and warning road signs, which also can negatively influence crash risk. On the other hand, Mace (2001) noted positive effects associated with commercial signs. He reported that commercial signs could reduce unnecessary traffic exposure by providing adequate navigation information for drivers, such as providing restaurant information for hungry drivers.
3
However, only measuring the frequency and duration of drivers’ distraction may not represent the safety impacts of on-premise signs because a study published earlier showed that half of the objects that drivers see are not related to driving tasks (Hughes and Cole, 1986). In other words, besides on-premise signs, other roadside features may also distract drivers. The possible solution to minimize the negative effects of an on-premise sign, but still keep its positive effects, is to separate the sign’s content to primary (navigation) and secondary (commercial) information. Although, in the past, on-premise signs and off-premise signs were treated as distinct signage, they are becoming more homogeneous in terms of characteristics. In the second study, Wachtel (2009) mentioned that more roadside businesses, especially those with multiple users (e.g., shopping centers, auto malls, sports complexes, and entertainment places), now install largersized on-premise digital signs because of the lower cost and better performance of the LED display. Wachtel indicated that the largest digital advertising sign in the world is an on-premise sign in New York City. This sign is 90 ft tall and 65 ft wide, and is mounted on a 165-ft-tall steel post on the roof of the warehouse. The visible distance is over 2 miles. Wachtel also suggested that some on-premise signs affect traffic safety more than some off-premise digital signs because the locations and elevations of on-premise signs might be closer to the road users. In addition, the angles of on-premise signs may be out of the cone of vision and require extreme head movements to read. In summary, these two studies showed more research is needed for understanding the relationship between on-premise digital signs and crash risk. OFF-PREMISE DIGITAL SIGNS This section is divided into two parts. The first part describes two key studies that have examined the safety effects of off-premise digital signs. The second part covers methodologies that have been used for estimating these effects. Safety Effects There are two reports that provide reviews of the findings, methods, and key factors related to the safety effects of off-premise digital signs. The first systematic study related to the impacts of off-premise signs was conducted 11 years ago by Farbry et al. (2001). Their study reviewed earlier reports and analyses (including those about electronic billboards and tri-vision signs) and provided the foundation for the second study written by Molino et al. (2009). In the second report, Molino et al. (2009) reviewed 32 related studies, which included those initially reviewed by Farbry et al. (2001), and noted that the majority of studies reported a negative effect between digital billboards and traffic safety. Although the number of studies that showed harmful impacts is five times more than the number of studies that showed no harmful impacts, the authors suggested that this ratio may not be strong evidence to prove the negative effects linked to electronic billboards (EBBs). The individual studies considered by these researchers had very different study methods and statistical powers, which can have a significant effect on the quality and results of the research.
4
Another important finding in the Molino et al. (2009) report is that drivers usually have spare attention capacities, and they can be distracted from their driving tasks by roadside objects (such as EBBs). However, these distractions may be riskier when the driving demands increase, such as in fixed hazard areas (e.g., intersections, interchanges, and sharp curves), in transient risky conditions (e.g., adverse weather, vehicle path intrusions, and slow traffic), or when other important information is processed at the same time (e.g., an official traffic sign). In other words, not only will the sign’s internal characteristics (overall size, legend size, color, contrast, luminance level, etc.) affect crash risk, but so will external environmental factors (type of road, speed, weather conditions, time of day, etc.). Hence, Molino et al. list all possible key factors and suggest further studies to examine how they could influence safety. These factors are categorized into two groups: independent and dependent variables. The independent variables are separated by subject into five subgroups: billboard, roadway, vehicle, driver, and environment. It should be noted that the relationship between EBBs and on-premise signs is discussed in the environment subgroup, and dynamic factors of on-premise signs, such as change rate, motion, video, and sound, are listed as extremely important. The dependent variables are separated into vehicle behavior, driver/vehicle interaction, driver attention/distraction, and crash categories. Since there are hundreds of related key factors, the authors claimed that “No single experiment can provide the solution” and suggested future research programs to address the following topics: (1) determining when distraction caused by commercial electronic variable message signs (CEVMSs) affects safe driving, (2) investigating the relationship between distraction and various CVEMS parameters, and (3) examining the relationship between distraction and safety surrogate measures, such as eye glance and traffic conflicts. Table 1 summarizes the literature review results from these two reports. This table shows that the results of crash studies are not consistent, and most studies have some important weaknesses, such as neglecting biases related to the regression to the mean (RTM) (discussed below) and siteselection effects (using the naïve method), low statistical power, and analysis results based on erroneous assumptions. It should be noted that only post-hoc crash studies are listed here because this study focuses on the change of crash rate caused by on-premise digital signs. As mentioned, Table 1 shows that the results related to the safety effects of off-premise signs are inconsistent. The inconsistencies can be fully or partly attributed to various study limitations. For instance, the studies in the Wachtel and Netherton report (1980) and Wisconsin Department of Transportation report (1994) both used a naïve before-after study methodology (methodology approaches are described in Chapter 4), and they did not account for the RTM bias, which may change their estimates of crash rate and safety effects of signs. The general idea of RTM is that when observations are characterized by very high (or low) values in a given time period and for a specific site (or several sites), it is anticipated that observations occurring in a subsequent time period are more likely to regress toward the long-term mean of a site (Hauer and Persaud, 1983). Also, these studies should provide the variance of estimators (that is the uncertainty associated with the estimator) for judging the statistical significance of their results. Moreover, grouping studies where the objectives or types of signs are different is not appropriate. For example, the goal of the report prepared by Tantala and Tantala (2007) was to study the safety impacts caused by converting traditional billboards to digital billboards, while other studies focused on the safety impacts after installation of new digital billboards. Those are two distinct effects that are examined and should not be grouped together to evaluate the safety effects of on-premise digital
5
signs. Wachtel (2009) also noted other limitations in Tantala and Tantala’s study, such as a lack of adequate before-after and comparison group data; no clear definition and reasonable calculation of the visual range and legibility range of EBBs; and no crash data related to adverse weather, impaired drivers, and interchanges. Table 1. Safety effects of off-premise digital signs Study
Methods
Data Type
Wachtel and Netherton (1980)
Naïve beforeafter study
Crash frequency
Wisconsin Department of Transportation (1994)
Smiley et al. (2005)
Naïve beforeafter study
Before-after study (empirical Bayes) Before-after study (control group)
Crash frequency, Average daily traffic (ADT)
Results
Sample Size
The crash reduction of target area was Tele-Spot Not 10% less than the overall reduction sign, Boston provided (after the installation of the signs) Crash rate (eastbound): all crashes increased 36%, sideswipe crashes increased 8%, and rear-end crashes increased 21% Crash rate (westbound): all crashes increased 21%, sideswipe crashes increased 35%, and rear-end crashes increased 35%
Downtown intersection sites: no Crash frequency, significant change in crash rate ADT, safety (all crashes increased 0.6%, performance injury crashes increased 43%, and function rear-end crashes increased 13%) Crash frequency, ADT, control group
Location
Rural sites: no significant change in crash rate based on most compared sites
Tantala and Naïve beforeTantala (2007) after study
Crash frequency, No significant change in crash rate control group, Tantala and No description ADT No significant change in crash rate Tantala (2009) of the method
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
2
Toronto, Canada
3
Toronto, Canada
1
Cuyahoga, Ohio
7
Cuyahoga, Ohio
7
The second shortcoming in Tantala and Tantala (2007) is that they used a simple correlation analysis between sign density and crash rate to examine safety effects of billboards. Using this approach, they found that the correlation coefficients among the scenarios analyzed were very low (around 0.20), indicating that the installation of billboards did not increase the number of crashes. This may well be true, but they did not use the right analysis tool. For investigating the relationship between sign density and the number of crashes, it is more appropriate to develop one or several regression models since the safety analyst can have a better control over other factors that can influence the number and severity of crashes (Lord and Mannering, 2010). In a regression model, several independent variables can be included, which is better to estimate the variable of interest (such as the installation of digital signs). However, it should be pointed out that the before-after study, as performed in this study, still remains the best methodological approach for estimating the safety effects of an intervention. Among all studies in Table 1, Smiley et al. (2005) provides the more reliable results since they used a before-after method using a control group (CG) and empirical Bayes (EB) approach. The
6
only limitation is related to the small sample size. The authors of the study only evaluated three sites. Even with a small sample size, the EB method can still be successfully used to evaluate the safety effects of an intervention, as was done by Ye et al. (2011). Ye et al. (2011) used the EB method to estimate the safety impacts of gateway monument signs, which can be categorized as one type of off-premise sign. Gateway monuments are roadside structures used to introduce a city or town. These monuments usually have the name of the city or town and are located at the city limits. According to Wachtel et al. (2009) and Farbry, (2001), using crash data might not be a precise method because crashes usually have multiple causal events, which are difficult to extract from crash datasets. For example, they noted that sign internal variables (such as size, brightness, viewing angle, etc.) might play main roles in drivers’ distraction or ignoring of official traffic signs, while other external factors affect conflicts and crash risk. Although those reasons may be legitimate, utilizing crash data is still the best approach for evaluating the safety effects of interventions as well as those associated with operational and design features (Hauer 1997). As stated by Hauer, “It follows that, in the final account, to preserve the ordinary meaning of words, the concept of safety must be linked to accidents.” Furthermore, using crash data have other advantages: lower cost and fewer artificial errors. Firstly, the cost of conducting a before-after crash study is much lower than human-centered methods because the researchers do not need to purchase equipment and hire participants for conducting driving tests. Secondly, crash data are based on crash reports, which can provide a more accurate measure of safety than surrogate measures such as speed, driver behavior, or other measures. Only by conducting a before-after crash study can one provide results that combine multiple casual variables in the real world. Other methods cannot displace the above advantages, which explain why the research team selected the before-after methodology for estimating the safety effects of digital signs. Characteristics of the Evaluation Methods Used in Previous Studies This section describes the characteristics of other methods used in previous studies for examining the safety effects of off-premise digital signs. In addition to a crash before-after study approach, the most common study methods that have been used for examining the safety impacts of off-premise signs include eye fixations, traffic conflicts, headways and speeds, and public surveys. Most studies used one or more of the above methods to examine the impacts of offpremise signs (Molino et al., 2009). For instance, Smiley et al. (2005) used four different methods (eye fixation, conflict study, before-after crash study, and public survey) for examining a video sign located in Toronto. On the other hand, Lee et al. (2007) used eye fixations and a questionnaire for their study. It should be noted that the results from multiple measurements are usually inconsistent. Briefly, the eye fixation study method uses an eye-tracking system to record drivers’ eye movements. The results (e.g., eye glances and durations) can provide direct evidence of where drivers are looking while driving, leading to assumptions as to whether drivers are distracted when they are driving near or toward a sign (or at other roadside features). Traffic conflicts, often referred to as surrogate measures of safety, can be used for identifying risky driving behaviors, such as braking without good reason, inappropriate lateral lane displacement, and delays at the start of the green traffic signal phase. Headways and vehicle speed can be used to
7
assess distracted drivers since those drivers tend to have shorter headways and higher speed variances. Most details about experiment design, such as the participant number, study site size, driving route length, and experiment duration can be found in Appendix B of the report prepared by Molino et al. (2009). In the current study, the researchers focus the discussion on the before-after crash data study method for two reasons. First, Molino et al. (2009) did not provide a detailed experimental design for using crash data, and some studies were criticized for inappropriate methodology (Tantala and Tantala, 2007; 2009). Second, the costs associated with other experimental methods are significant and are greater than the resources that were allocated for the current research study. According to Molino et al. (2009), the budgetary costs to conduct research using other experimental methods vary between $0.4 million and $0.8 million for using on-road instrumented vehicles, $2 million and $4 million for conducting a naturalistic driving study, and $1 million and $3 million for using an unobtrusive observation approach.
8
CHAPTER 3: STUDY DATA
To conduct the safety analysis, the research team had to develop plans for collecting the necessary data, manipulating the data into a format that could be used for the safety analyses, and then conducting the statistical analysis to identify the safety impacts of on-premise digital signs. The success of this project relied upon the ability to acquire two distinct sets of data and the robustness of the individual datasets. The two datasets needed for the analysis included (1) information regarding the location and installation dates for on-premise digital signs, and (2) data regarding crash histories on the roadways in the vicinity of the on-premise digital signs. The latter also included information about operational (e.g., traffic flow and speed limit) and geometric (e.g., functional class and lane width) design features located at and adjacent to the onpremise digital signs. From the beginning of the project, the research team expected to use the HSIS crash data for the crash history dataset. The real challenge of this project was identifying specific information about on-premise digital signs for the states represented in the HSIS, and the researchers encountered numerous challenges in acquiring this information. Once the data for both groups were acquired, the researchers had to overcome differences in the datasets so that the data could be merged into a single dataset for analysis. The activities associated with the acquisition of the crash data, acquisition of the sign data, and the merging of the two datasets are described in this chapter. CRASH DATA The HSIS is operated and maintained by the FHWA, and is widely used for safety research programs that provide input for public policy decisions. The HSIS is a multistate relational database that contains crash, roadway, and vehicle information. Crash information/files contain basic crash information, such as location (based on reference location or mile-point), time of day, lighting condition (e.g., daylight, dark and no lighting, dark and roadway lighting, etc.), weather conditions, crash severity, the number of related vehicles, and the type of crash (e.g., head-on, right angle, sideswipe, etc.). Each row in the spreadsheet file contains crash information for individual crashes and a unique ID number, and each column represents a variable. The roadway information/files provide traffic and geographic information for each roadway segment, such as annual average daily traffic (AADT), speed limit, beginning mile-point, end mile-point, number of lanes, lane and median width, shoulder width and type, rural or urban designation, and functional classification. The vehicle information/files contain driver and vehicle information, such as a crash identification number, driver gender, driver age, contributing factor (possible casual factor), vehicle type, and others. These individual file types can be linked together as a whole dataset. For example, crash files and road files can be linked by their location information (route number and mileage), or crash files and vehicle files can be linked together by their crash identification number. Currently, there are seven states that actively participate in the HSIS: California, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington. However, the HSIS has an upper limit on the amount of data that can be requested by researchers (including the number of states, the request area, and total variables). To maximize the value of the crash data that they could request, the
9
research team held discussions with the research advisory panel to identify the states (from the list of seven HSIS participating states) where there would be higher concentrations of on-premise digital signs. Based on this input, the research team requested HSIS data for California, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington in order to get a maximum number of study sites. All crash datasets were downloaded from the HSIS website and stored in a spreadsheet format. The definitions for the variables in a state’s crash data were found in the HSIS guidebooks. It should be noted that each state has its own guidebook and data record format. In other words, one specific variable might be available for some states, but this variable may have different meanings or category types, or even be unavailable for other states. The inconsistent definitions among different states’ crash datasets can affect the quality of analysis and results when selecting specific variables for identifying target crashes (such as rear-end crash) needed for more advanced analysis. The differences between states also create challenges when trying to merge data into a single dataset for analysis. Although the HSIS dataset provides the most comprehensive crash data from different states, the HSIS has some limitations. First, the HSIS only includes crashes that occur on major roads, such as interstate highways, U.S. highways, and state highways. The HSIS dataset may not include crash-related data for secondary roads in rural areas or city streets in urban areas, including arterial streets that are major roads in a city but are not on the state highway system. Table 2 identifies the level of crash coverage and roadway length for each state selected for the analysis. Table 2. HSIS crash coverage and roadway length by state California
1. More than 500,000 crashes occur each year; HSIS includes about 38% of those crashes. 2. HSIS includes 15,500 miles of mainline (non-ramp) roadways.
North Carolina
1. About 230,000 crashes occur each year; HSIS includes 70% of those crashes. 2. Of the 77,000 miles of roadway on the North Carolina state system, approximately 62,000 miles are included in the database.
Ohio
1. About 380,000 crashes occur each year; HSIS includes 40% of those crashes. 2. In Ohio, about 116,000 miles of highway in total; HSIS includes approximately 19,500 miles of roadway.
Washington
1. 130,000 crashes occur each year; HSIS includes 37% of those crashes. 2. HSIS contains 7,000 miles of mainline (non-ramp) roadway.
Another limitation of the HSIS data is that the dataset is not continuously updated. The HSIS data represent the final crash datasets from each state after the state has processed the crash data. As a result, the HSIS dataset may not include the last several months or more of crash data from a state. Currently, the most updated HSIS crash data are through 2009 (California is updated to 2008), so the most recent one or two years of crashes are not included in the HSIS data. Also, the oldest HSIS crash data extend back only through 2004. Limiting crash data to the period from 2004 to 2009 was a significant consideration in this research project because the large growth of on-premise digital signs is relatively recent, having mostly grown since the mid- to late 2000s. The lack of data for the last two to three years created challenges with respect to developing a robust statistical analysis procedure. For a comparison of safety impacts of a treatment (such as installation of a digital sign) to be meaningful, both the before and after analysis periods need to be about equal and as long as possible. This meant that, to have two-year analysis periods (two years before and two years after) in the safety analysis, on-premise digital signs needed to be
10
installed in either 2006 or 2007. In order to focus the safety analysis on the long-term impacts of on-premise digital signs, the researchers did not include the calendar year of installation of a sign in the analysis. For example, if a sign was installed in 2006, the before period was calendar years 2004 and 2005, and the after period was calendar years 2007 and 2008. An additional limitation of the HSIS crash data is that the crash location within the HSIS is identified to the nearest 0.1 mile (528 ft) on the roadway. This required the safety analysis to be conducted for the tenth of a mile length of roadway that a sign was located within. The level of accuracy is the primary reason that 0.1 miles was chosen as the effective area of the sign. The researchers viewed the limitations mentioned above as minor and ones that had minimal impact on the study results. There are no comparable crash datasets available to researchers that could be used for a similar type of analysis of crashes. The only alternative available to the researchers would have been to try and obtain crash data from individual agencies where onpremise digital signs have been installed. Such an approach may have provided more specific data about individual signs and site characteristics, but would have resulted in an extremely small dataset. The researchers felt that such small sample sizes would not provide sufficient robustness for statistical analysis and that the approach using the HSIS data provided greater scientific validity and robustness, as discussed in the previous chapter. SIGN DATA With the acquisition of the HSIS data, the research team had information to analyze crashes but had no idea about where to conduct the analysis. Determining the location for the crash analysis required information regarding the location of on-premise digital signs. Furthermore, due to the date limitations of the HSIS data, only sign sites where the sign was installed in 2006 or 2007 could be used for the crash analysis. So the research team began the process of identifying locations in California, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington where on-premise digital signs had been installed on major roads in 2006 or 2007. Initial attempts to identify sign locations focused upon getting information from the Signage Foundation, Inc., (SFI) research advisory panel. However, the results did not provide a large enough sample size for a robust statistical analysis. The research team began to contact sign installation companies but encountered challenges in acquiring the large amount of data needed to conduct the research. The primary challenge associated with contacting sign installation companies (which are the same companies that market the signs to individual businesses) was the proprietary nature of the business information the research team was requesting. Another challenge was the large number of individual companies that needed to be contacted to develop a robust sample size. Because of the challenges of working with sign installation companies, the research team shifted the focus to sign-manufacturing companies. Eventually, the research team was able to work with two electronic sign-manufacturing companies to get a list of on-premise digital signs installed in any of the four study states during 2006 or 2007. Each of the two lists was converted into datasets for use in the research effort. The first dataset (dataset #1) contained 2,953 sign sites and 27 variables, which included the characteristics of signs and roads, such as sign order date, sign
11
address (road, county, and state), the nearest cross street and its distance from the sign, the nearby cross street with the highest volume and its distance from the subject intersection, and traffic volume on the subject road. The research team did not use the road information from dataset #1, relying instead upon the road data in the HSIS crash dataset. This ensured consistency in the approach with the different sign datasets. Also, the sign installation date was considered to be the sign order date plus two weeks. This assumption was based on input from the signmanufacturing company. Since the entire year that the sign was installed was excluded from the analysis, this was considered not to be a critical issue. The second dataset (dataset #2) had 63 site addresses and 10 variables. Unlike the first dataset, most variables in dataset #2 were related to product information, such as installation data, sales representative, product name, matrix, color, customer ID (address), and status of signs. For the analysis, these two datasets were combined as one for use in analyzing the crashes by individual state. The combined dataset was further refined by removing all sign locations that were not installed in either 2006 or 2007. The calendar year that a sign was installed was treated as the construction year, and the crashes that occurred in that year were removed from the analysis. The entire calendar year was removed from the analysis due to uncertainty over the actual installation date of the sign since the data provided only the order date for the sign. Removing the entire calendar year associated with installation also eliminated the novelty effect associated with implementing a new feature. The second variable, the sign installation address, was used to select related crashes by the sign’s location and default sign-effective areas. For example, the researchers defined the crashes located within 0.1 miles from the target signs as related crashes. In reality, the effective area could be larger or smaller depending upon the sign size. The procedure used for this analysis did not adjust the effective area based on sign size or other factors. Overall, significant effort was put into ensuring the accuracy of the sign datasets because the quality of the data had a huge impact on the precision and accuracy of the analysis. DATA-MERGING PROCEDURE The previous sections explain how the researchers obtained their study data (the sign dataset and the crash dataset) and the characteristics of each dataset. This section gives more details about the dataset-merging procedure. Several steps were involved in merging the crash and sign location datasets into a single dataset that could be used for statistical analysis. The early steps focused on confirming that the digital sign was still in place and near the road that it is related to. This was needed because a site could have an address on one road but have the sign facing traffic on another road bordering the site property. The later steps focused upon converting the street address of the sign location to a route and milepost value that could be used with the crash dataset. This complex effort was necessary due to the fact that the sign and crash datasets used different location methods. The sign dataset was based on the site address, while the crash database was based on route number and milepost. For example, a location in the sign dataset would record a location with “1234 North Highway 101, Anytown, WA 98584,” but the HSIS would show the same location as “route number = 23101” and “mile post = 335.72.” In order to define the related crashes that were adjusted to the target signs, the researchers needed to transfer sign locations into the HSIS location system. The basic steps are described below and illustrated in Figure 2.
12
Figure 2. The flow chart for data collection and merging procedure 1. For each record of the combined sign dataset (3,016 total records), the research team evaluated the location information (typically a street address) and the sign order date. Records with missing or incomplete location information or with assumed sign installation dates that were not in 2006 or 2007 were deleted from the dataset.
13
2. Research team members then verified the location of the sign using the site address in the sign dataset and taking the steps listed below. Figure 3 shows an example table that the researchers used for the above data collection, including screenshots of Google Maps and Google Earth (Google Earth, 2008). Columns 1–3 are the address information given by the sign companies. Columns 4–7 are determined through Google Maps, and Columns 8–11 are determined through Google Earth. a. The sign was located in Google Maps using the site address. b. Using the Street View feature of Google Maps, a member of the research team identified the sign on the site or deleted the record with a note that the on-premise digital sign could not be identified. There were some challenges associated with finding digital signs using the Street View pictures from Google Maps, including fuzzy pictures with low resolution, which made it difficult to evaluate some signs, and digital signs that were not obvious during the daytime (Street View provides only daytime pictures). c. The screen image of the subject sign was saved, and basic sign characteristics were identified and/or estimated. Examples include sign color, size, and business type. d. An initial determination was made as to whether the sign was located on a major road that would be part of the HSIS crash dataset. If the road was not expected to be a major road, the record was deleted from the dataset. 3. The sign location was entered into Google Earth to determine the county in which the sign was located and the mileage from the county border. This included identifying the county identification code in the appropriate HSIS manual for a given state. This provided the milepost location information needed to relate the sign location to the location information in the crash dataset. Defining the milepost information required doing the following: a. Identifying the neighboring county, which was used to determine in which direction the mileposts were increasing. b. If the county had mileposts restarting at zero at the county borders, determining in which direction they were increasing, based on the number of lanes at the borders. If the direction could not be determined, a general rule of increasing from west to east or south to north was used. c. Using the path tool in Google Earth to measure the distance from the county border to the sign. This distance and the beginning milepost at the county border established the milepost of the sign. An example (using the above procedure) can be founded in Appendix A. After target sign locations were transferred into the HSIS locating system, a statistics software package, “R,” was used to select the related crashes among the whole HSIS dataset.
14
Figure 3. Example work table of site data collection
15
CHAPTER 4: STUDY METHODOLOGY
Evaluating the effects of treatment on the number and severity of crashes is a very important topic in highway safety. For the last 30 years, various methods have been proposed for evaluating safety treatments (Abbess et al., 1981; Danielsson, 1986; Davis, 2000; Hauer, 1980a; Hauer, 1980b; Hauer et al., 1983; Maher and Mountain, 2009; Miranda-Moreno, 2006; Wright et al., 1988). The methods are classified under two categories: the before-after study and the crosssectional study. In a before-after study, the safety impacts of an improvement or treatment at a given location are determined by comparing the change in crashes before and after the improvement/treatment was installed. In a cross-sectional study, crashes or crash rates on two different facilities with similar characteristics except for the improvement of interest are compared. The before-after study is typically more desirable because it provides a more direct evaluation of the safety impacts. Although they have been used by some researchers (Noland, 2003; Tarko et al., 1998), cross-sectional studies are more difficult to conduct because different facilities are rarely identical in all features except the one of interest. Hence, the cross-sectional approach was not used in this research. The before-after type of study can be further divided into several types:
naïve before-after study, before-after study with control group, before-after study using the EB method, and before-after study using the full Bayes approach.
The before-after study using the full Bayes approach is a more recent development in statistical safety analysis, developed and used by several noted safety researchers (Hauer and Persaud, 1983; Hauer et al., 1983; Hauer, 1997; Li et al., 2008; Persaud and Lyon, 2007). The advantages and disadvantages for each of the above before-after methods are described in more detail in this chapter. A BEFORE-AFTER STUDY AND A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY As mentioned previously, observational crash studies can be grouped into two types: the beforeafter study and the cross-sectional study. The selection of the study type is based on the availability of historical crash data, traffic volume, or the comparison group. The following sections provide details about the before-after methodology. The Before-After Study The before-after study is a commonly used method for measuring the safety effects of a single treatment or a combination of treatments in highway safety (Hauer, 1997). Short of a controlled and full randomized study design, this type of study is deemed superior to cross-sectional studies since many attributes linked to the converted sites where the treatment (or change) was implemented remain unchanged. Although not perfect, the before-after study approach offers a
16
better control for estimating the effects of a treatment. In fact, as the name suggests, it implies that a change actually occurred between the “before” and “after” conditions (Hauer, 2005). As described by Hauer (1997), the traditional before-after study can be accomplished using two tasks. The first task consists of predicting the expected number of target crashes for a specific entity (i.e., intersection, segment where an on-premise sign was installed, etc.) or series of entities in the after period, had the safety treatment not been implemented. In other words, the before-after approach described by Hauer compares the expected number of crashes in the after period with the treatment installed to the expected number of crashes in the after period had the treatment not been installed. The calculation for each expected number of crashes is based on numerous factors, including the actual number of crashes in the before condition, the actual number of crashes in the after period, and incorporation of site-specific and statistical considerations. The symbol is used to represent the expected number of crashes in the after period (a summary of all statistical symbols used in this report are presented in Appendix B). The second task consists of estimating the number of target crashes (represented by the symbol ) for the specific entity in the after period. The estimates of and are ̂ and ̂ (the caret or hat represents the estimate of an unknown value). Here, the term “after” means the time period after the implementation of a treatment; correspondingly, the term “before” refers to the time before the implementation of this treatment (an on-premise digital sign in this study). In most practical cases, either ̂ or ̂ can be applied to a composite series of locations (the sum of i’s below) where a similar treatment was implemented at each location. Hauer (1997) proposed a four-step process for estimating the safety effects of a treatment. The process is described as follows (see also Ye and Lord, 2009):
Step 1: For i 1, 2, ..., n , estimate (i ) and (i ) . Then, compute the summation of the estimated and predicted values for each site i, such that ˆ ˆ (i ) and ˆ ˆ (i ) .
Step 2: For i 1, 2, ..., n , estimate the variance for each, Var{ˆ (i )} and Var{ˆ (i )} . For each single location, it is assumed that observed data (e.g., annual crash counts over a long time frame) are Poisson distributed and ˆ (i ) can be approximated by the observed value in the before period. On the other hand, the calculation of Var{ˆ (i )} will depend on the statistical methods adopted for the study (e.g., observed data in naïve studies, method of moments, regression models, or EB technique). Assuming that crash data in the before and after periods are mutually independent, then Var{ˆ} Var{ˆ (i )} and
Var{ˆ} Var{ˆ (i)} .
Step 3: Estimate the parameters and , where ˆ ˆ ˆ (again, referring to estimated values) is defined as the reduction (or increase) in the number of target crashes between the predicted and estimated values, and ˆ ˆ / ˆ is the ratio between these two values. When θ is less than one, the treatment results in an improvement in traffic safety, and when it is larger than one, the treatment has a negative effect on traffic safety. The term has also been referred to in the literature as the index of effectiveness (Persaud et al., 2001). Hauer (1997) suggests that when less than 500 crashes are used in the before-after study, should be corrected to remove the bias caused by the small sample size using 17
the following adjustment factor: 1 /[1 Var{ˆ} / ˆ 2 ] . The total number of crashes was over 500, but the adjustment factor had to be applied when subsets of the data, such as single- or multi-vehicle crashes, were analyzed. Step 4: Estimate the variances Var {ˆ} and Var {ˆ} . These two variances are calculated using the following equations (note: Var {ˆ} is also adjusted for the small sample size): Var {ˆ} Var {ˆ} Var {ˆ } (Eq. 1) ˆ 2 [(Var{ˆ} / ˆ2 ) (Var{ˆ} / ˆ 2 )] (Eq. 2) Var{ˆ} [1 (Var{ˆ} / ˆ 2 )]2
The four-step process provides a simple way for conducting before-after studies. Three common before-after methods will be introduced in the following sections. All three methods use the same four-step process. COMMON METHODS FOR CONDUCTING A BEFORE-AFTER STUDY Having selected the before-after study approach, the research team then needed to decide which specific before-after method would be the most appropriate for analyzing the safety impacts of on-premise digital signs. This section of the report describes the methodologies and data needs associated with three before-after study types: naïve before-after studies, before-after studies with a CG, and the EB method. Naïve Method Among all the before-after methods, the naïve method is the simplest. The estimation of θ is simply equal to the ratio between the number of crashes in the after period and the number of crashes in the before period (which is used to predict the number of crashes in the after period if the treatment was not implemented). Equation 3 illustrates how the index of safety effectiveness is calculated. This method is very straightforward, but it is seldom used in the current safety study because it does not account for the RTM bias. Not including the RTM bias could overestimate the effects of the treatment or underestimate the safety impacts. The naïve method does not account for external factors that occur at the local or regional level, such as changes in weather patterns or economic conditions.
ˆ Nij 2 ˆnaive in1 tj 1 T ˆ Nij1 n
i 1
t
T
(Eq. 3)
j 1
Where ˆ = the estimate of safety effectiveness by using the naïve method, naive
ˆ = the predicted number of crashes for the treatment group in the after period, ̂ = the estimated number of crashes for the treatment group in the after period, n = the sample size,
t = the time period,
18
N ijT1 = the observed response for site i (T = treatment group) and year j (in the before period), and T N ij 2 = the observed response for site i (T = treatment group) and year j (in the after period). The result can be adjusted when the traffic flow and time interval are different between the before and after periods. It is adjusted by modifying the predicted number of crashes as shown in Equation 4:
rd rf i 1 j 1 NijT1 n
t
(Eq. 4)
Where rd = the ratio of the duration between the after and before periods, and rf = the ratio of the traffic flow between the after and before periods. Control Group Method The CG method can be used to help control for external factors. The number of crashes collected at the control sites is defined as µ (before) and ν (after). The adjusting factor, the ratio of ν to µ, is used to remove the effects caused by other external factors from π in the theorem. Equation 5 illustrates how to adjust the naïve estimate. It should be pointed out that the RTM could technically be removed if the characteristics of the control group are exactly the same as those of the treatment group. However, getting control group data with the exact same characteristics may not be possible in practice, as discussed in Kuo and Lord (2012). Collecting control group data usually adds extra cost and time compared to the naïve method since more data needs to be collected. n
ˆCG
ˆ
ˆ ˆ ˆ
t
N i 1 j 1
n
t
n
T ij 2 t
i 1 j 1
i 1 j 1
(Eq. 5)
N ijC2
N N T ij1
C ij1
Where ˆCG = the estimate of safety effectiveness by using the control group method,
̂ = the estimated number of crashes for the treatment group in the after period, ˆ = the predicted number of crashes for the treatment group in the after period,
ˆ = the estimated number of crashes for the control group in the after period,
̂ = the estimated number of crashes for the control group in the before period, N ijT1 , N ijC1 = the observed responses for site i (T = treatment group and C = control group) and year j (in the before period), and T N ij 2 , N ijC2 = the observed responses for site i (T = treatment group and C = control group) and year j (in the after period).
19
Empirical Bayes Method The EB method is recommended in the Highway Safety Manual (HSM), published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and approved for use by the FHWA (AASHTO, 2010). The HSM is a recent document that defines standardized procedures for conducting safety analyses of highway safety improvements. The EB method combines short-term observed crash numbers with crash prediction model data in order to get a more accurate estimation of long-term crash mean. The EB method is used to refine the predicted value by combining information from the site under investigation and the information from sites that have the same characteristics, such as range of traffic flow, number of lanes, lane width, etc. As an illustration, Hauer et al. (2002) use a fictional “Mr. Smith” to illustrate use of the EB method: Mr. Smith is a new driver in a city. He has no crash records during his first year of driving. Based on past crash histories for the city, a new driver in that city has 0.08 accidents per year. Based only on Mr. Smith’s record, it is not reasonable to say that he will have zero accidents or have 0.08 accidents for the next year (based on the average of all new drivers but disregarding Smith’s accident record). A reasonable estimate should be a mixture of these two values. Therefore, when estimating the safety of a specific road segment, the accident counts for this segment and the typical accident frequency of such roads are used together. The index of safety effectiveness is illustrated in Equation 6. With the EB method, the analyst first estimates a regression model or safety performance function (SPF) using the data collected with the control group. Then, the model is applied to the sites where the treatment was implemented to get a preliminary predicted value for the after period. The EB method is then used to refine the estimate to account for the RTM bias and the external factors. It is possible for the EB method to be biased if the characteristics of the treatment and control groups are not the same (Lord and Kuo, 2012).
ˆ Nij 2 ˆEB ni 1 t j 1 T ˆ M ij 1 n
i 1
t
T
(Eq. 6)
j 1
Where ˆEB = the estimate of safety effectiveness based on the EB method; ˆ = the predicted number of crashes for the treatment group in the after period; ̂ = the estimated number of crashes for the treatment group in the after period; M ij1 = the expected responses for site i for the EB method, t
ˆ ) (1 W) ( N ) ; Mij1 W ( ij1 1 j1
W = the weight for sites for the EB method, W
1 ; ˆ 1 1 ˆ
̂1 = the estimate for the average number of crashes of all sites in the before period; and ̂ = the estimate of the dispersion parameter. 20
̂1 and ̂ can be estimated using two different approaches (Hauer, 1997). They can be estimated based on a regression model or the method of moment. Both are calculated using data collected as part of the control group. For this research, the average number of crashes and dispersion parameter were estimated using a regression model. CALCULATION PROCEDURES AND EXAMPLES The EB before-after method was applied to this study with the regression models or SPFs selected from the HSM (AASHTO, 2010), which includes road types from two to five lanes. As for sites located on wider roads (six lanes and eight lanes, which are not covered in the HSM), the researchers used the SPFs from a Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) study (Bonneson and Pratt, 2009). The number of crashes in each year during the before period ( i ) was estimated using the regression model shown in Equation 7: i exp(a bLn( AADTi ) Ln( Li ))
(Eq. 7)
Where i = the estimator for the average number of crashes per year for site i,
a, b = the coefficients in the regression model, AADTi = the average daily traffic volume for site i, Li = the road length for site i, and Ln = natural logarithm. Table 3 shows the regression coefficients (a, b) used in Equation 7 for multi- and single-vehicle crashes. One of the sign sites in Ohio provides an example of the detailed calculation of M i , EB . This site is on an urban 4-lane divided highway segment in Allen County. As shown in Table 3, its intercept is -12.34 for multi-vehicle crashes and -5.05 for single-vehicle crashes, while the coefficients for the AADT are 1.36 and 0.47, respectively. For the analysis used in this report, a multi-vehicle crash is one involving two or more vehicles in the same collision. Using the EB method, the analysis procedure to get the expected number of crashes in the before period has the following steps: 1. Identify the route number and milepost by the site’s address. More specifically, the address of the example site is “1234 ABC St, Name of City, Allen County, OH.” Follow the data analysis procedures discussed in Chapter 3 to identify that the route number is 657676309 and the milepost is 7.58.
21
Table 3. Coefficients for multi and single-vehicle crash regression model Crash Type
Multivehicle
Singlevehicle
Road Type*
Regression Coefficients
Dispersion Parameter (α)
Intercept (a)
AADT (b)
2U
−15.22
1.68
0.84
3T
−12.4
1.41
0.66
4U
−11.63
1.33
1.01
4D
−12.34
1.36
1.32
5T
−9.7
1.17
0.81
2U
−5.47
0.56
0.81
3T
−5.74
0.54
1.37
4U
−7.99
0.81
0.91
4D
−5.05
0.47
0.86
5T −4.82 0.54 0.52 Note: *U = undivided road, T = road with two-way left turn lane, D = divided road.
2. Based on the route number and milepost obtained above, use R statistical software to select the related crashes and road files from the HSIS dataset, which includes (1) the observed crashes near the target sign site, (2) the observed crashes in the control group sites (10 sites, which are adjusted to the target sign site on the same road), and (3) the target road file, such as traffic volume, the number of lanes, and median type. For example, the number of observed crashes at the example site is 1 in 2004, and the crash counts of the related 10 control group sites are 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, and 1. The AADT of the site is 19,753 (vehicles/day), and it has four lanes. 3. Use Equation 9 to predict the crash number of the example site: ˆ 2004 exp( a b ( Ln ( AADT )) Ln ( L ) ˆ exp( 12.34 1.36 Ln(19753) Ln(0.2)) 0.61 2004,multi
ˆ 2004,single exp( 5.05 0.47 Ln (19753) Ln (0.2)) 0.13 ˆ ˆ ˆ 2004 2004,multi 2004,single 0.74 (crashes/year)
The estimated crash counts of the site and its control group sites are 0.74 and 6.64, respectively (the estimated multi-and single crash counts of its control group are 5.36 and 1.28). 4. Due to using the SPFs from the HSM instead of the local SPFs from any existing studies conducted in the same study area, it is necessary to multiply the results by a calibration factor to adjust the prediction value (refer to Appendix A in the HSM for more details). The calibration factor of single-vehicle crashes at the example site in 2004 is 3.13, which is equal to the ratio of observed crashes in the control group divided by the predicted crash number in the control group (3.13 = (1×4+0×6)/1.28). By multiplying the above calibration factor, the final crash number estimation for the example site in 2004 should be 0.42 (=0.13×3.13). A calibration factor was calculated for each site and each year included in the study.
22
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 to get the final prediction crash number for the example site for each year in the before period. By doing so, the estimated multi- and single-vehicle crash counts of the site in 2005 are 4.65 and 0.21, respectively. Using the summary of this prediction crash number and dispersion parameter (obtained from Table 3) results in the weights (W) for this site for the multi- and single-vehicle crashes, which are 0.07 and 0.65, respectively: 1 W ˆ ˆ 1 1
1 1 0.07, 1 (5.43 4.65) 1.32 1 10.08 1.32 1 1 0.65 Wsingle 1 (0.42 0.21) 0.86 1 0.63 0.86 6. Because traffic volume and other explanatory variables may change between the before and after periods, the researchers used one factor to account for this difference. The crash counts of the example site in 2007 and 2008 can be estimated by repeating steps 3 and 4. The estimated multi- and single-vehicle crash counts of the site in the after period are 0.84 and 0.67, respectively. Factors are estimated by: ˆ ˆ r after before Wmulti
ri ,multi (12.76 / 3) / (10.08 / 2) 0.84 ri,single (0.63 / 3) (0.63 / 2) 0.67
Also, if the time periods (Y) of the before and after periods are different, one factor is needed to adjusted it. Here, the before and after period are both two years: ti Yi , after Yi ,before 3 / 2 1.5
7. Using the EB method, the expected total number of crashes that would occur during the after period had the on-premise digital sign not been installed was 2.63: t ˆ ) (1 W) ( N ) r t Mi,EB W ( 1 ij1 i i j1 Mi,multi,EB 0.07 10.08 (1 0.07) 0 0.84 1.5 1.14
Mi,single,EB 0.65 0.63 (1 0.65) 3 0.67 1.5 1.49 Mi,all,EB 1.14 1.49 2.63 8. The variance of the EB estimate at the example site is calculated by: Var(M1,EB ) (1 W) M1, EB ri ti Var(M1,multi,EB ) (1 0.07) 1.14 0.84 1.5 1.31 Var(M1,single,EB ) (1 0.65) 1.49 0.67 1.5 0.54 Var(M1,all,EB ) 1.31 0.54 1.85 9. The safety index of the example site is:
9 ˆ Nij 2 3.43 ˆEB ni 1 t j 1 T ˆ M ij 1 2.63 n
t
i 1
j 1
T
23
10. The 95 percent confidence interval of the example site is given as. ˆ Z 0.25 Var M1, EB 3.43 1.96 1.85 0.76, 6.10 The same method was applied to other locations using the appropriate SPFs. The next chapter provides the final results of the completed safety analysis.
24
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS
The previous chapter explained why the research team chose to use the EB analysis procedure and provided an example of how the EB analysis was conducted. The first section of this chapter provides the results of the before-after study for each state and all the states combined. The second section provides more details about how digital on-premise signs impact traffic safety for multi-vehicle and single-vehicle crashes. The third section provides a description of an analysis of variance of the means of the safety index (θ) among the different sign characteristics such as sign color, sign size, and type of business. INDIVIDUAL AND COMBINED RESULTS As described in Chapter 3, the research team acquired the sign dataset from sign manufacturers. However, many signs were excluded from the analysis because of missing information in the dataset provided by the sign manufacturers or limitations in the HSIS crash dataset. The researchers retained only sign sites satisfying the following conditions: 1. the sign was located in Washington, North Carolina, Ohio, or California; 2. the sign was installed in 2006 or 2007 in order to have adequate time in both the before and after analysis periods to compare crash histories; and 3. the sign was located on a major road because the HSIS crash dataset usually does not include crashes that are located on minor roads or private driveways. Table 4 shows the progression in sample sizes based on sites meeting the conditions identified above. For example, the original dataset for Washington included 413 site addresses that might have an on‐premise digital sign. In order to make sure there was an adequate before‐after crash data period for further analysis, the researchers had to filter these site addresses. The first filter excluded sites where the sign was not installed in 2006 or 2007, which was needed so that there was adequate time before and after the sign was installed to perform the safety analysis. About 40 percent of the Washington sites (159 sites) met this criterion. Then, the research team used the Street View function in Google Maps to double-check whether a digital sign was present at the given addresses and whether the sign was on a major road since the HSIS crash dataset only included crashes on major roads. Only 33 sites fit this criterion. The result was that in Washington, the research team was able to use about 33 of the 400 original sites, giving an 8.0 percent yield on the raw data. Chapter 3 mentions that the main advantage of this study is the large sample size of data and advanced statistical methods that provide more accurate results than in similar studies. Figure 4 shows the sample size of this study in relation to other published papers and reports. This study has 135 sites from four states, a number much higher than the sample size of other similar studies. Hence, the results of this study are more robust and accurate.
25
Table 4. Sign site sample size yield Number of Sites
California
North Carolina
Ohio
Washington
All States
Included in original list from sign manufacturers
86
249
372
413
1,120
Sign installation time between 2006–2007
27
94
178
159
458
Digital signs & located on major roads
6
40
73
34
153
With HSIS crash data (all crashes)
6
33
63
33
135
7.0%
13.3%
16.9%
8.0%
12.1%
With HSIS crash data (multiple-vehicle crashes)
6
31
61
33
131
With HSIS crash data (single-vehicle crashes)
6
32
63
33
134
Data yield rate
Figure 4. A comparison of sample sizes from similar studies Table 5 presents the before-after results from the EB and the naïve statistical analysis methods. The naïve method results are provided only for comparison purposes as the naïve analysis method does not provide as meaningful results as the EB method. The results are also presented graphically in Figure 5. A safety effectiveness index (θ) of 1.0 indicates that there was no change in crashes between the before and after conditions. An index greater than 1.00 indicates that there was an increase in crash frequency in the after condition, while a value less than 1.00 indicates a decrease in crash frequency. The upper and lower bounds indicate the limits of statistical significance. If the value for is between the upper and lower bounds, then the change in crashes is not statistically significant at a 95 percent confidence level. A larger sample size usually leads to a smaller difference between the upper and lower bounds, but this may not always be the case since it is also governed by the variability observed in the data.
26
Table 5. Results of statistical analysis of before-after crash condition EB Method State
Naïve Method
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
California
0.00
1.25
2.53
0.28
0.85
1.41
North Carolina
0.87
1.14
1.41
0.88
1.13
1.39
Ohio
0.89
0.97
1.05
0.95
1.05
1.15
Washington
0.88
1.01
1.15
0.79
0.90
1.01
All states* 0.93 1.00 1.07 0.93 Notes: *“All states” represents the combined data of the four states. Naïve method values provided for comparison purposes only.
1.00
1.07
Figure 5. The safety effectiveness index and the 95 percent confidence interval for each state (all crash types) The overall results show that there is no statistically significant increase in crash frequency after installing the on‐premise digital sign because the safety effectiveness index (θ) for the entire dataset (all states) is 1.00, and the 95 percent confidence interval is 0.93–1.07 (which includes the index value of 1.00). The results for individual states are similar: no statistically significant safety impacts were observed after the installation of digital signs. In addition, one can see the width of the 95 percent confidence interval is largest for the California data. This is due to the variability of the California data and the small size of the sample set (only 6 sites). Comparing the width of the confidence intervals, from the widest to narrowest, the order is California > North Carolina > Washington > Ohio > All States.
27
RESULTS FOR CRASHES RELATED TO MULTIPLE AND SINGLE VEHICLES The next analysis effort evaluated the possible safety impacts of on-premise digital signs on different types of crashes. There are several common methods to group crashes into different categories, such as the number of related vehicles, the injury levels, the collision types, and so on. Such groupings may provide some insight into the safety impacts of specific crash types, but the estimated impacts might not be precise because of a smaller sample size. The additional analysis separated crashes into two subgroups: single- and multi-vehicle crashes. All calculations and notations were the same as used previously. By using the EB method to analyze crash data related to multiple vehicles, the researchers determined that the safety effectiveness index is equal to 1.00 for all states, and the 95 percent confidence interval varies between 0.96 and 1.21. Because the confidence interval of the safety effectiveness includes 1.00, there is no statistically significant change in crash frequency after installing the on-premise digital sign. Figure 6 graphically illustrates the results for multi-vehicle crashes. The 95 percent confidence intervals are slightly larger in this figure than in Figure 5.
Figure 6. The safety effectiveness index and the 95 percent confidence interval for each state (multi-vehicle crashes) The results for single-vehicle crashes are presented in Figure 7. The overall results are the similar: there are no statistically significant safety impacts from digital signs, except for California. The California results for single-vehicle crashes indicate a statistically significant decrease in crash frequency in the after period. Although the before-after results of California show a decrease in the after period, it does not affect the overall result because the low sample
28
size (6 sites) makes it more difficult to establish statistical significance in the analysis results. It is also worth noting that the North Carolina data has the largest confidence interval, due to the variability in the North Carolina single-vehicle crash data.
Figure 7. The safety effectiveness index and the 95 percent confidence interval for each state (single-vehicle crashes) RESULTS FOR CRASHES RELATED TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF SIGNS The research team also conducted an analysis to investigate the impacts of specific on-premise digital sign characteristics on the safety impacts of those signs. Specific sign characteristics that the research team evaluated included color (single or multi-color), size (small, medium, or large), and type of business. The research team used the analysis of variance (ANOVA) analysis method to evaluate whether the means of the safety index (θ) among the different characteristics of signs are equal. An ANOVA is one of the most common statistical methods used to compare two or more means in the analysis of experimental data. In short, ANOVA provides a statistical test of whether or not the means of multiple groups are all equal, while a t-test is suitable only for the two-group case because doing multiple two-sample t-tests would increase the risk of a Type I error (for datasets containing more than 30 observations). In addition, when there are only two means to compare, the t-test and the ANOVA are equivalent. As a result, the research team chose the oneway ANOVA as the study tool to simplify the methodology, although some digital sign characteristics, such as sign color, have only two subgroups (i.e., single color and multi-color).
29
The theory of an ANOVA test is to separate the total variation in the data into a portion due to random error (sum of squares for error [SSE]) and portions due to the treatment (total sum of squares [SST]). Table 6 shows the typical form of a one-way ANOVA table. If the calculated F value (= treatment mean square [MST] / error mean square [MSE]) is significantly larger than F (k-1, N-k), the null hypothesis is rejected. F (k-1, N-k) is the critical value when the means of each group are equal. Most statistic software will also provide the corresponding p-value for researchers making their decisions in different confidence intervals. Table 6. The typical form of a one-way ANOVA table Source
SS
DF
MS
F
Treatments
SST
k-1
SST / (k-1)
MST/MSE
Error
SSE
N-k
SSE / (N-k)
P(>F)
Total (corrected) SS N-1 Notes: SS = sum of squares, DF = degrees of freedom, MS = mean of sum of squares, F = F-distribution (because the test statistic is the ratio of two scaled sums of squares, each of which follows a scaled chisquared distribution), P(>F) = the p-value when the F value (= MST/MSE) is larger than F (k-1, N-k), k = number of treatments, and N = total number of cases.
There are three data assumptions for applying the ANOVA method: 1. Independence: The study data are independently, identically, and normally distributed. 2. Normality: The distributions of the data or the residuals are normal. This assumption is true when the sample size is larger than 30. 3. Homogeneity of variability: Equality of variances — the variance of data between groups — should be the same. If the above conditions do not exist, the ANOVA results may not be reliable. However, if the sample size of each group is similar, one can usually ignore independence and homogeneity problems. Or statisticians may transform data (such as into the logarithmic form) to satisfy these assumptions of the ANOVA. Based on the existing sign dataset, the research team focused on three digital sign characteristics: color (single color or multi-color), sign dimension (small, medium, or large), and business type (restaurants, pharmacies and retail stores, hotels, gas stations, auto shops, or others). The definitions of sign dimension level are based on the balance principle (making the sample size of each group equal). Figure 8 shows the distribution of signs as a function of different dimensions, and the research team defined signs with an area less than 10 ft2 as small signs. The medium sign size had an area of at least 10 ft2 but no more than 15 ft2, and the large sign size had an area greater than 15 ft2. The sign size represents the area of the electronic display, not the overall size of the complete sign. It was estimated from the Street View image in Google Maps and may not be an accurate assessment of the sign dimensions.
30
Figure 8. The histogram of digital signs for each sign dimension Using the ANOVA method to analyze crash data related to specific design characteristics of the sign led to the conclusion that there is no statistically significant difference among the population means of the safety effectiveness index. The following descriptions provide more detail for each of the digital sign characteristics:
Color: According to images obtained from the Street View feature of Google Maps, 89 signs are single-color signs, and 37 signs are multi-colored signs. Table 7 shows the ANOVA results. The test statistic (F value) is 2.07, and its p-value is 0.1527. Because the probability is larger than the critical value (0.05 for 95 percent confidence interval), the null hypothesis of equal population means cannot be rejected. In other words, the ANOVA table shows no significant difference between the mean of safety index (θEB = crash mean in the before period/crash mean in the after period) among signs having a single color or multiple colors. ` Table 7. Analysis of variance table (color) Df
Sum Sq
Mean Sq
F value
Pr(>F)
Group
1
4.464
4.4640
2.0704
0.1527
Residuals
124
267.352
2.1561
Sign dimensions: In the final sign dataset, 36 signs have a sign area less than 10 ft2, 56 signs have a sign area 10–15 ft2, and 34 signs have a sign area greater than 15 ft2. In Table 8, the F value is 0.7767, and its p-value is 0.4622. Because the probability is larger
31
than the critical value (0.05 for 95 percent confidence interval), the null hypothesis of equal population means cannot be rejected. Accordingly, researchers conclude that there is no (statistically) significant difference among the population means. Table 8. Analysis of variance table (sign dimension)
Df
Sum Sq
Mean Sq
F value
Pr(>F)
Group
2
3.39
1.6950
0.7767
0.4622
Residuals
123
268.43
2.1823
Business type: In the final sign dataset, 7 signs are for restaurants, 18 for pharmacies and retail stores, 3 for hotels, 3 for gas stations, 7 for auto shops, and 84 for other business types. Based on Table 9, the F value is 0.5401, and its p-value is 0.7455. As with the above types, the null hypothesis of equal population means cannot be rejected because the p-value is much larger than the critical value (0.05). The sample size of some business type groups is less than 30, so the research team combined all categories of business types with less than 20 samples into one large group, the “other” category. The resulting ANOVA analysis (Table 10) provides similar results: there is no significant difference among the population means. Table 9. Analysis of variance table (six business types) Df
Sum Sq
Mean Sq
F value
Pr(>F)
Group
5
5.983
1.1966
0.5401
0.7455
Residuals
120
265.833
2.2153
Table 10. Analysis of variance table (two business types) Df
Sum Sq
Mean Sq
F value
Pr(>F)
Group
1
0.728
0.7289
0.333
0.5649
Residuals
123
271.088
2.18619
IMPACT OF SIGN HOLD TIME As an additional effort for this research effort, the research team worked with members of the SFI advisory panel to identify the potential impact of hold time on the relationship between onpremise digital signs and traffic safety. One of the advantages of digital signs is the ability to change the displayed message. The minimum length of time that a message must be displayed is often an element of local sign codes because some believe that frequent changing of sign messages can increase driver distraction and lead to increased crashes. Because the researchers were working with a large number of individual sites and crash records for the after period that spanned two years, it was not possible within the available resources of this project to determine what message(s) were displayed at the time of a crash or the hold time used at a particular site at the time of a crash. As a surrogate for including hold times as part of the individual site characteristics, the research team acquired information for the hold time regulations in the jurisdictions where the signs were 32
located. The 135 sign sites were located in 108 jurisdictions. A member of the SFI advisory panel contacted these jurisdictions and was able to identify hold time regulations for 66 of them. The hold time regulations of these 66 jurisdictions are summarized in Table 11. Input from the advisory panel indicated that when a jurisdiction has no statutory language regarding digital sign hold times, it most often means that sign users are able to program their sign to change messages as often as they see fit. In some cases, it could mean that the state standard for digital signs applies, which ranges from 6 to 8 seconds in the four states included in the analysis. Table 11. Summary of sign hold times Minimum Hold Time
Number of Jurisdictions
2–6 seconds
14
7–10 seconds
12
20 seconds
3
1–60 minutes
2
24 hours
2
Variance required*
4
No specific restriction
29
Total 66 * Hold times were established by variance on a case-by-case basis.
33
CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
While there have been significant amounts of research devoted to the safety impacts of geometric design features and other aspects of the publicly owned transportation infrastructure, the same cannot be said about research on the safety impacts of privately owned signs that are directed to users of public roads. This research effort focused on addressing the safety impacts of onpremise digital signs. Previous research by others has documented the safety effects of on- and off-premise digital signs and their potential influence on crash risk to some extent. However, the results of recent crash studies are not consistent, and most studies have some important weaknesses, such as neglecting biases related to the regression-to-the-mean effects, low statistical power, and analysis results based on erroneous assumptions. In addition, Molino et al. (2009) report that the results from these studies are not comparable because of their different study methods, statistical powers, and cares of execution, which affected the quality of the research. The research effort described in this report examined the safety impacts of on-premise digital signs using a large sample size of data and advanced statistical methods that provide more accurate results than previous studies. With the help of sign data provided by sign-manufacturing companies and crash data obtained from the Federal Highway Administration Highway Safety Information System, the research team obtained extensive datasets for signs and crashes in four states. The research team began the safety analysis with 1,120 potential study sites, but only 135 sites were usable due to limitations related to the individual signs or the related crash data. Although the yield of usable data was only 11.3 percent, the final sample size of 135 sites was much higher than the sample size of other published papers and reports related to on- and offpremise signs, indicating the results of this research are more robust and accurate. The research team used the empirical Bayes (EB) statistical analysis method, which is the method recommended in the Highway Safety Manual, to conduct the safety analysis described in this report. The Highway Safety Manual is a recently published document that is recognized within the transportation profession as the authoritative document for analyzing the safety impacts of various transportation improvements or treatments. The EB analysis procedure uses a before-after approach, with the before and after values modified to address local safety characteristics, regression to the mean, and other factors. The EB method reports the safety impacts through the use of a safety index indicator (represented by ). A value greater than 1 indicates an increase in crashes, and a value less than 1 indicates a decrease in crashes from the before to the after period. However, for the results to be statistically significant, the value must be outside the limits of the 95 percentile confidence interval. For the entire sample size of 135 sites, the results from the EB method show that there is no statistically significant change in crash frequency associated with installing on‐premise digital signs because the safety effectiveness index (θ) is determined to be 1.00, and the 95 percent confidence interval is equal to 0.93 to 1.07 (which includes 1.00, indicating no statistically significant change). The research team also conducted the analysis for each of the four individual states and obtained the same results: there are no statistically significant safety impacts from
34
installing on-premise digital signs. In addition, the researchers analyzed the safety impacts related to both single- and multi-vehicle crashes. The results for these analyses were also the same: there is no statistically significant increase in crashes associated with the installation of onpremise digital signs. Chapter 5 includes plots that illustrate the safety index values and confidence intervals for all of these results. As a final analysis, the research team performed an ANOVA to evaluate whether the means of the safety index (θ) varied as a function of sign factors (color, size, and type of business). The color analysis evaluated whether there was a difference in the means of the safety index for single- and multi-colored signs, and the results did not find a difference. The size analysis divided the signs in the study into three categories (<10 ft2, 10–15 ft2, and >15 ft2), and the results did not find a difference. Signs were also categorized by the type of business (restaurants, pharmacies and retail stores, hotels, gas stations, auto shops, and others). Once again, there were no differences in the means. Overall, the ANOVA analysis did not identify any factor that led to an increase or decrease in traffic safety for the subcategories evaluated in the ANOVA. Based on the analysis performed for this research effort, the authors are able to conclude that there is no statistically significant evidence that the installation of on-premise signs at the locations evaluated in this research led to an increase in crashes.
35
CHAPTER 7: REFERENCES AASHTO. 2010. Highway Safety Manual. Washington, D.C. Abbess, C., D. Jarett, and C.C. Wright. 1981. Accidents at Blackspots; Estimating the Effectiveness of Remedial Treatment with Special Reference to the ‘Regression-to-Mean’ Effect. Traffic Engineering and Control, pp. 535–542. Bonneson, J.A., and M.P. Pratt. 2009. Roadway Safety Design Workbook. Research Report 0-4703-P2. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas. Danielsson, S. 1986. A Comparison of Two Methods for Estimating the Effect of a Countermeasure in the Presence of Regression Effects. Accident Analysis and Prevention 18 (1), pp. 13–23. Davis, G.A. 2000. Accident Reduction Factors and Causal Inference in Traffic Safety Studies: A Review. Accident Analysis and Prevention 32 (1), pp. 95–109. Farbry, J., K. Wochinger, T. Shafer, N. Owens, and A. Nedzesky. 2001. Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction. Report No. FHWA-RD-01-071. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Google Earth. 2008. Available at http://www.google.com/earth/index.html [Accessed 31 August 2011]. Hauer, E. 1980a. Bias-by-Selection: Overestimation of the Effectiveness of Safety Countermeasures Caused by the Process of Selection for Treatment. Accident Analysis and Prevention 12 (2), pp. 113–117. Hauer, E. 1980b. Selection for Treatment as a Source of Bias in Before-and-After Studies. Traffic Engineering and Control 21 (8), pp. 419–421. Hauer, E. 1997. Observational Before-After Studies in Road Safety. Elsevier Science Ltd., Oxford. Hauer, E. 2005. The Road Ahead. Journal of Transportation Engineering 131(5), Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., pp. 333–339. Hauer, E., and B. Persaud. 1983. Common Bias in Before-and-After Accident Comparisons and Its Elimination. Transportation Research Record 905, pp. 164–174. Hauer, E., D.W. Harwood, F.M. Council, and M.S. Griffith. 2002. The Empirical Bayes Method for Estimating Safety: A Tutorial. Transportation Research Record 1784, pp. 126–131. Hauer, E., P. Byer, and H. Joksch. 1983. Bias-by-Selection: The Accuracy of an Unbiased Estimator. Accident Analysis and Prevention 15 (5), pp. 323–328. Hughes, P.K., and B.L. Cole. 1986. What Attracts Attention When Driving? Ergonomics 29 (3), pp. 377–391. Kuo, P.-F., and D. Lord. 2012. Accounting for Site-Selection Bias in Before-After Studies for Continuous Distributions: Characteristics and Application Using Speed Data. Paper 12-2070, 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Lee, S.E., M.J. McElheny, and R. Gibbons. 2007. Driving Performance and Digital Billboards. Center for Automotive Safety Research, Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, Blackburg, Virginia. Li, W., A. Carriquiry, M. Pawlovich, and T. Welch. 2008. The Choice of Statistical Models in Road Safety Countermeasure Effectiveness Studies in Iowa. Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (4), pp. 1531–1542.
36
Lord, D., and P.-F. Kuo. 2012. Examining the Effects of Site Selection Criteria for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Traffic Safety Improvement Countermeasures. Accident Analysis and Prevention 42, pp. 52–63. Lord, D., and F. Mannering. 2010. The Statistical Analysis of Crash-Frequency Data: A Review and Assessment of Methodological Alternatives. Transportation Research - Part A 44 (5), pp. 291-305. Mace, D. 2001. Chapter 2: On-Premise Signs and Traffic Safety. In Context-Sensitive Signage Design, American Planning Association, Chicago, Illinois. Maher, M., and L. Mountain. 2009. The Sensitivity of Estimates of Regression to the Mean. Accident Analysis and Prevention 41 (4), pp. 861–868. Miranda-Moreno, L.F. 2006. Statistical Models and Methods for Identifying Hazardous Locations for Safety Improvements. Ph.D. thesis, University of Waterloo. Molino, J.A., J. Wachtel, J.E. Farbry, M.B. Hermosillo, and T.M. Granda. 2009. The Effects of Commercial Electronic Variable Message Signs (CEVMS) on Driver Attention and Distraction: An Update. Report No. FHWA-HRT-09-018. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Noland, R.B. 2003. Traffic Fatalities and Injuries: The Effect of Changes in Infrastructure and Other Trends. Accident Analysis and Prevention 35 (4), pp. 599–611. Persaud, B., and C. Lyon. 2007. Empirical Bayes Before-After Safety Studies: Lessons Learned from Two Decades of Experience and Future Directions. Accident Analysis and Prevention 39 (3), pp. 546–555. Persaud, B.N., R. Retting, P. Garder, and D. Lord. 2001. Observational Before-After Study of U.S. Roundabout Conversions Using the Empirical Bayes Method. Transportation Research Record 1751, pp. 1–8. Quddus, M.A. 2008. Modeling Area-Wide Count Outcomes with Spatial Correlation and Heterogeneity: An Analysis of London Crash Data. Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (4), pp. 1486–1497. Smiley, A., B. Persaud, G. Bahar, C. Mollett, C. Lyon, T. Smahel, and W.L. Kelman. 2005. Traffic Safety Evaluation of Video Advertising Signs. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1937, pp. 105–112. Tantala, A.M., Sr., and M.W. Tantala. 2007. A Study of the Relationship between Digital Billboards and Traffic Safety in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education, Washington, D.C. Tantala, A.M., Sr., and M.W. Tantala. 2009. An Update of a Study of the Relationship between Digital Billboards and Traffic Safety in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education, Washington, D.C. Tarko, A., S. Eranky, and K. Sinha. 1998. Methodological Considerations in the Development and Use of Crash Reduction Factors. Preprint Paper (unpublished) at 77th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. U.S. Small Business Administration. 2003. The Signage Sourcebook: A Signage Handbook. U.S. Small Business Administration, Washington, D.C., and the Signage Foundation for Communication Excellence, Inc., Sherwood, Oregon. Wachtel, J. 2009. Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Display Technology for Outdoor Advertising Signs. Final Report under NCHRP Project 20-7 (256). Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
37
Wachtel, J., and R. Netherton. 1980. Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic Variable-Message Signage. Report No. FHWARD-80-051. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 1994. Milwaukee County Stadium Variable Message Sign Study: Impacts of an Advertising Variable Message Sign on Freeway Traffic. Internal Report (unpublished). District 2, Freeway Operations Unit. Wright, C., C. Abbess, and D. Jarrett. 1988. Estimating the Regression-to-Mean Effect Associated with Road Accident Black Spot Treatment: Towards a More Realistic Approach. Accident Analysis and Prevention 20, pp. 199–214. Ye, Z., and D. Lord. 2009. Estimating the Variance in Before-After Studies. Journal of Safety Research 40 (4), pp. 257–263. Ye, Z., D. Veneziano, and D. Lord. 2011. Safety Impact of Gateway Monuments. Accident Analysis and Prevention 43 (1), pp. 290–300
38
APPENDIX A: STEP-BY-STEP INSTRUCTIONS FOR STUDENTS TO RECORD SIGN DATA
1. Open one SFI sign dataset (e.g., “Washington_2006-2007.xls”). This dataset includes about 150 signs located in the state of Washington during 2006–2007. 2. Input the address information (such as Primary Street Address, City, ZIP Code, County Name, and State) of each sign in Google Maps and use the Street View function to identify the target signs. Please see this link, http://maps.google.com/help/maps/starthere/index.html#streetview&utm_campaign=en& utm_medium=et&utm_source=en-et-na-us-gns-svn&utm_term=gallery, for a demo about how to use the Street View. If you did not find any on-premise digital signs near this site, please make a note in Table 12. Check the characteristics of each sign (including colors, dimensions, and business types) and fill out Table 12. Then, use the “Print Screen” button to copy each sign’s picture, and paste it in this document (such as Figure 9). The different business types are classified as (1) Restaurant, (2) Pharmacy and Retail Store, (3) Hotel, (4) Gas Station, (5) Auto Shop, and (6) Other. Table 12. Example work table of site data collection procedure Google Maps Google Earth Installation Color Address Dimension Business County Route MileDate Picture (Single/ Distance (Estimated) Type ID # post Multi.) 79016 19330 N US 2006/9/15 Fig 2 S 3 ft × 6 ft 6 Mason 101 19.3 335.72 HIGHWAY (23) 101 Shelton 98584 Mason County, WA Sign ID
Note
3. Then, use Google Earth to determine the county and route number, and to measure the distance between the closet county boundaries and sign location along the route (recorded in the distance column). The corresponding ID for county and route number is based on the HSIS data manual (file name: guidebook_WA[1].pdf). Then, estimate the milepost value of the sign by the distance and the milepost of the route in the boundaries (based on the HSIS road file, such as wa04road.xls). Take Figure 10; for example, the end mile point of Highway 101 in the county boundary is 355.18, and the distance between the sign and the county boundary is 19.3; so, the milepost of our sign is 335.72. Generally, the milepost value increases from south to north and from west to east. However, the best way to check it is to compare the value of the milepost of adjusted counties. For example, the milepost of US 101 in Mason County is 313.96~355.18, and the milepost of US 101 in Thurston County (located south of Mason) is 355.18~365.56. So, it is known that the mileposts increase from north to south in Mason County. The above variables will be used in the R software to select target crashes from HSIS crash datasets. 4. Write down any questions or comments in the note column. Feel free to ask us if you have any questions.
39
Figure 9. Example screenshot of Google Maps
Figure 10. Example screenshot of Google Earth
40
APPENDIX B: STATISTICAL SYMBOLS
The following statistical symbols are used throughout this report.
= the safety effectiveness, 0
1 (can be theoretically higher, but not in this study).
n = the sample size. = the dispersion parameter (of the negative binomial model). t = the time period. ˆCS = the estimate of safety effectiveness by using the CS method. ˆ = the estimate of safety effectiveness by using the naïve method. naive
ˆ
CG
= the estimate of safety effectiveness by using the control group method.
ˆEB = the estimate of safety effectiveness by using the EB method.
̂ = the estimated number of crashes for the treatment group in the after period. ˆ = the estimated number of crashes for the treatment group in the before period.
ˆ = the estimated number of crashes for the control group in the after period.
̂ = the estimated number of crashes for the control group in the before period. N ijT1 , N ijC1 = the observed responses for site i (T = treatment group and C = control group) and year j (in the before period). T N ij 2 , N ijC2 = the observed responses for site i (T = treatment group and C = control group) and year j (in the after period). M ij1 = the expected responses for site i for the EB method, t
ˆ ) (1 W) ( N ) Mij1 W ( ij1 1 j1
.
W = the weight for sites for the EB method, W
1 . ˆ 1 1 ˆ
̂1 = the estimate for the average crash rate of all sites in the before period. ̂ = the estimate of the dispersion parameter (from the negative binomial model).
41
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:23 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name James B Carpentier Email james.carpentier@signs.org Address 1001 N Fairfax St, Suite 301, Alexandria, VA 22314 Comment Please see attached documents. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. /media/forms/upload/form_9e949d7c‐a1bc‐422f‐b562‐023f2fc3a54c/6f55d0eb‐6054‐41c0‐af9a‐ 7121dfefe2a1/street_graphics_and_the_law_5__monument__sign_copy_height.pdf I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 1:50 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Susanne Carroll Email Susie.johnson1976@gmail.com Address 1903 E WARM SPRINGS AVE Boise, Idaho 83712 Comment I am in favor of the zoning changes. I believe it is important for property owners have choice related to the land they own. Infill and greater density increases opportunities which leads to prosperity for many. There are already too many barriers to building projects. I personally, as a single woman created a new subdivision on Warm Springs Ave and it was the most difficult thing I have ever done. If the new zoning rules help others fulfill their dreams, I support it fully. I don't believe unsupportive neighbors should have much say. Let owners move forward with projects. Fewer barriers, less expense, more housing. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:35 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Denise Caruzzi Email dcaruzzi@gmail.com Address 1102 N 19th Street Comment Thank you for all the work, and efforts at public comment you have expended for updating the zoning code. Please accept my endorsement of up‐zoning and the creation of denser, more affordable housing in Boise's central corridors. My reservation is that currently affordable housing (and its tenants) must be protected. The code must include additional requirements in the case of demolition and rebuilding of existing housing. (Any expedited processes MUST ensure our community is better for the wide variety of residents who comprise our multi‐generational, multi‐racial, multi‐socioeconomic, and multi‐ability residents.) Thank you for progress AND for equity. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:55 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Ester Ceja Email run_1@hotmail.com Address 3901 N. Cambria Way, Boise, ID 83703 Comment Good afternoon! As someone who has been involved in this process I support the majority of the zoning rewrite. However, I continue to have concerns with the city not increasing the zoning in the Sycamore area of the Collister Neighborhood. It doesn't make sense to propose Transit Oriented Development (TOD) on State and Collister and within 1/8 of a mile go from the highest density to the lowest density in the city. This doesn't make sense. Let's not pick and choose how you zone areas. I agree we need to be mindful of our neighborhood character, but we are a changing city and we need to be innovative in the manner in which we create a walkable and livable community for ALL of our residents. We need to make sure to distance industrial zoning from residential zoning. We need to create walkable neighborhoods with services within walking/biking distance. We need a diversity of housing options (townhouses, apartments, small homes, condos) at AFFORDABLE rates THROUGHOUT THE CITY. Drive‐thru's were added back into the recent draft in certain zones, which is not acceptable. We need to move away from allowing drive‐thru's in neighborhoods, they do not contribute to walkable neighborhoods. The draft is not perfect, but we need to start somewhere. We need to find a balance between neighbors and developers. Lastly, public involvement on neighborhood projects is key, but neighbors and developers must work together to address concerns. We need I will certainly have more input to provide during the public hearing. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Andrea Tuning Monday, March 20, 2023 11:41 AM ZoningRewrite FW: CSIM from Mayor's Office re zoning code
From: Trish Charlton <trishcharlton@outlook.com> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2023 11:43:36 AM (UTC‐07:00) Mountain Time (US & Canada) To: Info <info@cityofboise.org> Subject: [External] Re: Help Shape Our Neighborhoods and Zoning Rewrite My husband and I are Idaho natives who have lived in various Idaho cities throughout our lifetime. We made a very conscious decision after college to remain in Idaho as we desired to raise our family in the same safe and supportive communities that we enjoyed as children. That has been an excellent choice for us until the last few years in Boise. A while back I received a post card saying you would "love to hear from us on how the city can support and enhance our neighborhood". I wanted to write then and call you out on how insincere and hypocritical that felt to the people who fought so hard to keep IFS out of a neighborhood, but I didn't. Now, however, as I read information about some of the proposed changes in your zoning rewrite, I feel compelled to write and voice my opinion. First, the time frame allowed for citizens to review such an important document before finalizing it seems very inadequate. It sends a message that the city is attempting to rush this through before anyone has the opportunity to actually assess how the proposed changes might affect their neighborhood. I see that one of the changes is that the city would be able to approve changes without requiring a CUP hearing. This is very alarming to me as this is the only avenue available to taxpaying citizens to attempt to protect their existing neighborhoods. A recent example of this is the P & Z decision to deny IFS the requested variance. Many people took time off work, cancelled appointments, and missed other engagements to voice their concerns about the incompatibility of placing a low barrier shelter in a neighborhood. They were able to express their very valid concerns about the inherent dangers and problems that accompany IFS, and P & Z listened and agreed. The city, however, chose to blatantly ignore both the neighborhoods concerns and the recommendation of P & Z .... the city's own agency for determining whether or not a variance should be granted. Giving the city control over several variance issues rather than P & Z is taking away the only voice citizens currently have to try and protect their neighborhoods. We have already seen several examples of how the city responds when following the rules and codes it created doesn't suit its purpose, so you can understand why this action in particular raises a big red flag. This is the first time in my entire life that I have felt the need to keep a watchful eye on local elected officials. I am not an activist or a trouble maker; rather, I am a law abiding citizen who desires to protect our city for future generations. Neighborhoods are not just real estate. They are places where lives are lived, children are raised, and lifetime memories are made, and law abiding, taxpaying citizens deserve support and protection from their local governments in their endeavor to keep the character and integrity of their neighborhoods in tact. Please reconsider your time frame on this extremely important issue to allow more time for people to understand and give feedback on how the proposed changes might impact their neighborhoods going forward. Trish Charlton
1
Suezann Yorita
PDS Receptionist Planning and Development Services Office: (208)608-7066 syorita@cityofboise.org cityofboise.org
Creating a city for everyone.
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Sunday, March 19, 2023 12:17 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Trish Charlton Email trishcharlton@outlook.com Address 2736 N. Lakeharbor Ln Comment I find it both disturbing and inappropriate that such a short amount of time has been allotted for citizens to review the proposed rezoning document. This is a far reaching and important issue that will impact the city of Boise for years to come, and a reasonable amount of time for review by interested parties needs to be allowed. Certain updates, changes, and clarifications to the current code are definitely needed and will be beneficial going forward, but other proposed changes will permanently affect the current character and livability of existing neighborhoods. For this important reason, the process should not be rushed through so quickly. Taxpayers deserve a reasonable time frame for review and feedback on something that could affect them so dramatically in the future. Thank you for your consideration of this request and for the work you do on behalf of our city. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 5:52 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Jennifer Christensen Email jchristensen406@gmail.com Address 1703 S. Ridge Point Pl Comment I oppose the proposed upzoning in Boise. New development standards will destabilize existing neighborhoods. Reducing lot sizes in R‐1C and R‐2 encourages lot splits and incompatible infill much denser than existing neighborhoods, destabilizing them and breaking faith with neighbors who believed the neighborhoods they were buying into were stable. Many of these areas are in parts of the city designated as “stable neighborhoods” in Blueprint Boise. Raising the height limit in residential zones will radically change the character of neighborhoods, reducing privacy, sunlight, and vegetation. We moved to Boise because of its "livability" And we have watched that change over the last few years as every spare inch of land is being built on with apartments! I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:29 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Annette Christensen Email archristensen208@gmail.com Address Eagle, ID 83616 Comment “Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Saturday, March 18, 2023 7:48 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Brad D Claiborn Email bradcl@hotmail.com Address 3605 N MOUNTAIN VIEW DR Comment Since the public has not been given adequate time to study, analyze, and comment on the Zoning Code Rewrite, I urge you to extend the timeline so that we have at least 90 days to do so properly given the magnitude of the proposed changes. I understand that Federal guidelines allow for up to 180 days for such to be accomplished. Please extend the timeline. Thank you. Brad & Patrice Claiborn (34 years in our home and neighborhood.) I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:55 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Virgel Clark Email bobc012001@yahoo.com Address 2259 S White Pine Place, Boise, ID 83706 Comment As a Boise resident I vehemently oppose the proposed Boise upzoning/code rewrite. This change to current zoning regulations will greatly and permanently damage the integrity, consistency and livability of Boise neighborhoods. The only beneficiaries to this disaster will be developers, who will be allowed to rampage unbridled in their pursuit of profit throughout our city with no meaningful controls. I cannot understand why the mayor and her city council would inflict this monster upon the residents of our city. She evidently wants to radically increase density to gain more federal dollars for her purposes, clearly not to improve the livability of Boise neighborhoods. This new code is not in the best interest of the citizens of Boise and the residents of its diverse neighborhoods. Negative impacts of the proposed zoning code: 1. Allows intrusive and incompatible uses such as apartments, boarding houses, retail sales, bars, cafes, and bed and breakfasts in the middle of residential neighborhoods. Eliminates requirements and opportunities for public hearings. 2. Increased demand from investors and developers will drive up property and home values, raising taxes and further challenging home affordability. 3. New code will encourage demolishing existing homes with taller, bigger, denser construction with less required parking. Trees and private open space will be lost. 4. By making higher density housing an allowed use by right, the code shuts out neighbors from the proceedings and from being meaningfully heard, circumvents the normal planning and zoning process, and reverses the city's decades‐long commitment to its neighborhoods. 5. My neighborhood was recently able to drive a crime‐ridden wide‐open crack house from our area through use and enforcement of Boise's existing zoning codes. With this new code we would not have that tool available to us to improve the safety and livability of our neighborhood. We would still have the crack house and the mayor would have her "density" goals. This is unacceptable. 6. Infrastructure such as schools, fire, police would become overburdened and require higher taxes from all of us to subsidize the demand.
1
I reject this code as it is currently proposed. The mayor has tried to ram it through. This new code is bad for Boise and all who love our city. I am not a robot
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:31 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Harry and Bee Clark Email beeandhari@gmail.com Address Boise, Idaho 83702 Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, We are asking you to delay sending proposed zoning update to Planning and Zoning and on to the City Council, and give your citizens more time to review this complex document. At 611 pages giving only 21 days for review is a travesty and not an honest move on your part. There is so much change in this document that is just unworkable, and will have the opposite effect of what is needed. More housing is definitely needed but such brutal tactics as no notification of neighbors and no public comment is going to cause a firestorm of protest even for projects that many of us know are needed. Please reconsider and give your public adequate time to review and comment. Asking for the cooperation of your constituents instead of hitting them with a sledgehammer might prove to be a more productive method. Thank you, Harry and Bee Clark If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Tannya Cluff <tcluff@insurancepros.org> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:40 PM ZoningRewrite [External] comments for zoning rewrite
I’d like to state that short term rental and ADU’s should still require the owner to living in one of the units. Also like to comment that more emphasis or focus should be put on basements. Tannya Cluff 10800 W Smoke Ranch Dr. Boise ID 83709 tcluff@outlook.com 208.861.3880
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 1:14 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Philip Coebergh Email pjcoebergh@gmail.com Address 705 N. Bacon Drive Comment Instead of modern as you say on your website it looks draconian to me. And impossible for the average person with 19 plus years of education to understand. It looks like you want to squeeze in more people into already crowded areas and to get single family homes removed to put in four plexes with no parking. People won't walk to a neighborhood store to pay $6 for a loaf of bread that costs $3 at Winco. People don't want to have a convenience store next door in what should be a residential area. I could go on and on but it won't be heard. I suggest you throw all you have done out and start something new with the plan to make it understandable to non‐experts. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 1:17 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Mike Coffey Email coffandbelle@msn.com Address Boise, Idaho 83712 Comment The so called rewrite seems to be rushing towards approval without the vast majority of our citizens even aware of the effort. More time is needed to sift through this cumbersome document prior to moving forward. I’m opposed to the current rewrite due the most certain devastating affects to our single Family neighborhoods. Changing permissible lot size splits, density and building heights to R‐1C and R‐2 zones should not be part of Boise’s vision. Your affordability reasonings don’t make sense to me. Parking and traffic on narrow existing single family neighborhoods is already at the limits. Adding a 3 story 4plex on a 3,500 sq. ft. lot will be a huge burden on quiet R‐1C neighborhoods. Let’s not rush into this “Re‐Write” without extended due process. I’ll also send my comments to the Mayor and City Council. Looking forward to your thoughtful review. Thank you, Mike Coffey, East Boise, Riverview Drive. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 4:15 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Cort Conley Email conleycort@gmail.com Address 2609 N 29th. Boise, Idaho 83703 Comment After reading the relevant sections of the elephantine so‐called "Up‐zone," one needn't be a Jane Jacobs or Lewis Mumford to comprehend its height and density and parking proposals represent a sumptuous platter for developers and realtors, of which Boise already has a surfeit. Nothing in this tome will improve livability for current residents. In fact, the "Up‐zone" is a smorgasbord of obsolescent, bankrupt notions of urban planning. Kindly extend the comment period by at least six months. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 2:04 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Thomas Conn Email xsvpd@mac.com Address 1100 N. Harrison Blvd Boise, Idaho 83702 Comment We concerned people who live in Boise do not want this scam the mayor and her backers want to do to our city. Take your ideas, backers money and leave Idaho. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
THOMAS CONN <xsvpd@mac.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 5:00 PM ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning
This want to do this rezoning is horrifying, ridiculous, stupid beyond all imagination. People that want to do this should be kicked out of town. It’s just insanely indecent, Boise is Boise, IDAHO, it’s not Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland. Leave Boise alone what the heck do you think we moved here for, because it was beautiful. Now you carpet baggers, and then pocket scum Scum are doing hell‐bent your best to destroy it. If I was the king of idaho I put you all in jail and I throw away the key. You all author be ashamed of yourself, your money, hungry money hungry bastards. If you don’t like my verbiage, go back where you came from , because your wanted destruction of this city is not wanted by the real people who’ve been living here forever and love the place. Shame on you, mayor, and shame on all your CoHearts, who want to destroy the place like you do. Sent from my iPad
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 7:30 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Lawrence Conn Email lrconn@me.com Address Boise, ID 83702 Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. I live in a historic home, but it is not in a neighborhood protected by histroric designation. The new zoning code would directly affect me and my immediate neighbors. A delay of some months to allow a thorough review of the proposed changes will be time well spent. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:22 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Marilyn Cosho Email Address Boise, ID 83702 Comment Please give more time for the public to understand the final draft of the Zoning Code before it is sent for approval to Planning & Zoning and then to the City Council. I am not a robot
1
March 17, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: From what I have read, Upzoning isn’t right for Boise and I think you are doing a disservice to the citizens and giving free reign to the developers! This will have a MAJOR impact on the city and it’s residents and should not be taken lightly. Very little Publicity about this Zoning Code Rewrite has been put out to the public. I have not seen any news reports on this subject. It’s as though you don’t want any feedback from your constituents. The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611-page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, David Crawforth 3120 W Hillcrest Ln
Boise, ID 83705
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 5:31 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Jim Culpepper Email pmjc79@msn.com Address 2719 N Lake Harbor Ln Comment As a long time resident of Boise, we are concerned with the growth. This re‐zoning project is very important to the livability of our city. We don't want our city to become another Portland or Seattle! I'm sure you have a lot of very smart people working on it and we thank all of you for your efforts! But with the length of the summary, the deadline to review it is way too short. I would like more time and I'm sure many other concerned citizens would like the same. It's not much to ask for on this important issue. I'm sure there will be public forums for discussions before the final plan is approved. Again, thank you and the team for your time and energy that went into this plan. We look forward to giving our comments. Sincerely, Jim Culpepper If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
wecutshall@gmail.com Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:26 PM ZoningRewrite [External] ZCR comments
Ref: ZOA23‐00001 CPA2300001
I just learned today that today is the last day to submit public comments to be included in the project report. 611 pages in 21 days? Serious public officials don’t pull stunts like that. To say the least, this does not help your credibility. In the ridiculously inadequate window you have allowed, I have found several areas of serious concern. I only have me to briefly touch on one: Your proposed off‐street parking reduc ons WILL cause unsafe condi ons on neighborhood streets. My neighborhood knows well the problems that inadequate off‐street parking cause. We opposed a rezone to commercial at the end of my street on the grounds of lack of zoning‐required off‐street parking. Per ACHD, our street is sub‐standard because of its narrow width and has no sidewalks. Time has proven the neighborhood correct and experts at P&Z wrong. A er at least 2 accidents, and dangerously over‐parked and illegally parked intersec on (cars parked on both side our narrow street; barely room for one car to pass; no firetruck would even a empt passage), it is clear that the “experts” at P&Z ‐and later the City Council on appeal‐ failed my neighborhood. Do NOT reduce zoning‐required off‐street parking. You “hope” ZCR will mean fewer cars and trucks on the roads. Un l there is a credible urban transit system, your “hope” is just a pipe dream – and neighborhoods – especially older neighborhoods like mine will pay a steep price. Other flaws in your plan: No me to elaborate.
The problem with short‐term rentals is bad now and will explode under your plan.
Property taxes, assessed values will rise because of ZCR. Please don’t insult my intelligence by claiming they won’t.
ADUs are a problem now in my neighborhood. You must ghten the restric ons on them. For one, owner‐occupancy must be mandatory – no excep ons.
Your limits on no fica on requirements must change. No fica on requirements must be neighborhood‐wide.
In your slick marke ng campaign, you say your plan speaks to and reflects the “values” of Boiseans. Nice try. In poll a er poll, what people want most is homeownership. Not to live in an apartment, an 8‐bedroom duplex, next to a group home. Your plan does nothing to incen vize homeownership.
Clearly ZCR as it exists now is NOT ready for prime me. 1
William Cutshall
2
March 21, 2023 Greetings, I am writing to express my overall support of the City of Boise’s rewrite of the current zoning code, re: ZOA23-001 & CPA23-0001. I have been a resident of Boise for 23+ years and like most residents I have seen the city grow and change, as cities are a living and dynamic entity. Managing the increased growth, especially that of the last 20-30 years, and the corresponding change that accompanies growth is critical. I’ve noted the frustrations revolving growth, some of which are due to the current code, which along with being dated, has been amended numerous times. My own concerns regarding growth are issues the zoning code doesn’t address specifically, issues like sustainability and future planning for climate impacts, traffic, traffic again, adequate roads, the need to increase public transit as well as safe pedestrian and bicycle routes, housing affordability and availability, accessibility, water limitations, impact fees on builders and whatever else. However, the zoning code can serve as a catalyst to lay the foundation to mitigate the issues that accompany growth. Addressing these issues is why I support the revised zoning code currently being proposed as it can serve as a catalyst to address and solve some of these problems. I support focusing the growth along the current busy corridors, I like the idea of increasing Mixed Use areas to facilitate more community interaction with local businesses (in fact Bown Crossing is one of my favorite areas), the designs standards have the potential to improve the areas where land use is changing, enhancing tree canopy and open space benefits all, safer pedestrian and bike access is needed and it appears as if the proposed draft zoning code will encourage more affordable housing even though defining affordable is tricky. That said there are some issues I’m concerned with. As background, I have been involved in land management for years, primarily involving Federal lands or proposals which involved the integration of people i.e., visitor and community use, as well as enhancing and preserving cultural and natural resources, with a focus on sustainable outcomes. I became interested in what was happening in the city, so I attended Energize sessions (in person and hybrid) and when the opportunity to apply for the Citizens Advisory Committee for the rewrite occurred, I applied and was selected. For the record I do not agree with the some of the negative comments/perceptions of the CAC members being voiced by some in the community. I am not a developer; I had/have no vested interested in this process, other than the seeing a need for a long-term zoning strategy to be written and implemented as its 20+ years overdue.
1
I share this, because as a former CAC member, since September 2020 I attended the CAC meetings routinely, as well as attending most of the public meetings held via zoom or in person by the city. Seeking to understand other perspectives, on the flip side of the city’s process I have attended numerous non-government sponsored meetings, via zoom or FB either live or recorded of independent groups, such as the Homeless Coalition, Vanishing Boise, Boise Renters United, Reject Boise Upzone and various others as well as attending many of my Neighborhood Association meetings. As a result of my overall involvement, my three key concerns that will impact the future implementation of this plan, as well as three suggestions are: First: Clarification in simpler language needs to be stated in response to the statements revolving around the loss of private homes, forcing people out of their homes, and forcing changes in neighborhoods. I’ve flipped the sections of the document back and forth, and I am unable to locate such statements, perhaps they are misinterpretations. These concerns need to be addressed directly and in simpler language to clarify actual intent. Second: Please do not extend the comment period. How long can we kick the can (i.e., the needs of a fast-growing city) down the road? What happens If we don’t update the current code? We’ll face continual spawl, deficient infrastructure and more frustration. Please finalize the document and begin implementation as soon as legally feasible. Third: In its entirety, this is a good plan. Plans are dynamic. The zoning code will never satisfy everyone. Never. There has been some discussion about addressing the plan in parts. Piecemealing a plan isn’t a plan, as it doesn’t address a long-term strategy. The concern for what happens if this plan is implemented and what if part X or part Y fails, then we’re stuck with it is out there. At the January Citizen's Advisory Committee meeting I noted that I didn't expect the plan to be perfect and then asked how do we fix or modify glitches discovered once it's implemented. Paraphrasing the response: The city will make modifications throughout time to refine and address those glitches. Citizens need to understand that glitches can be modified. In conclusion, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is a good plan. It may not be perfect, yet plans are dynamic. Please move forward with the plan once the newest rounds of comments are received, reviewed and the plan modified if necessary. Thank you. Sincerely, Roberta D’Amico Citizen Volunteer 3109 S Crossfield Way Boise, Idaho 83706
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 15, 2023 2:15 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Brian and Kristin Daigle Email B22Daigle@aol.com Address Boise, ID 83709 Comment The new zoning ordinance under proposal should not be passed for several reasons: Removes Affordable Housing, Shuts Out Neighbors, Existing Homes Will Be Demolished, Allows Intrusive and Incompatible Uses, Increases Investor Activity, Upzoning has been shown to drive up property values, property taxes, and rents. Schools, fire, police, and other infrastructure become overburdened by the increased demand from upzoning. Please reject this ordinance rewrite proposal for the sake of quality of life in this city that's already being eroded. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
darsulli (null)f <darsulli@aol.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 5:55 PM ZoningRewrite [External] Please don't Upzone Boise.
No preference to long time tax paying residents seems a poor way to run a city. The beauty and soul of our city will be gone. The once vigorous remodeling and improvements will end. No one wants a 4 story apartment next door. City gardens will vanish . The foxes and nesting hawks will leave the area. Please consider not pushing ahead with changes that will be so devastating to Boise the way we know it. Sent from my iPhone
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Jackie Davidson <jackiedavidsonidaho@protonmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:29 PM ZoningRewrite; Mayor McLean; Holli Woodings; Luci Willits; Jimmy Hallyburton; Patrick Bageant [External] Public Comment on ZOA23-00001 & DPA23-00001 Planning and Zoning Rewrite
Gentlemen/women: I have been doing research on this rewrite. The latest rewrite only came out 22 days ago. At over 600 pages, it is unrealistic that the public can analyze this document in such a short time. Even given until April 24-27, it is unrealistic to expect the public to be able to analyze this document. I am hereby requesting that the public testimony time be put into the future. I would recommend a time period of at least until September 2023. We will be electing Boise City Council members and a mayor. I am in Boise City Council District 2. There is currently no elected representative for my district. I would not be represented by someone who is appointed. This is a very important issue and I would like to be able to communicate with my elected representative. With that in mind, I would recommend that the consideration of this rewrite be postponed until after the mayor and city council are solidified. Idaho has long been known as a rural, conservative state. I have lived here in Boise for 41 years. I have appreciated the low density of Boise. In the last few years there have been drastic changes to our city. The idea of density of atrocious. It will put a burden on the infrastructure and utilities. The bench has nice neighborhoods. Though old, these neighborhoods meet the American way of life. A single residence with a yard. These are homes that are owned by the resident. Taking these single residents out and putting in 3 level 4-plexes or 10-plexes will destroy these neighborhoods. It will take home ownership away. The residents will be renters with no pride of ownership. Also, there will be limited parking. I have seen the results of these types of rental units and the roads are packed with cars. My neighborhood has limited cars that are parked on the street. If Boise City develops rental apartments, the cars parked on the street will cause road congestion and a sore sight. One only needs to look at what is happening on 27th and Stewart in Boise to see the consequences of these density apartments. The only one that wins with these Planning and Zoning rewrites is the developer. With this in mind, it would be my hope that you will postpone this rewrite until after the Mayoral and City Council election is completed. Also, the rewrite should make sure that the neighborhoods are retained with home ownership. Thank you for your time. Jackie Davidson Precinct Committeewoman 1614 8107 W. Canterbury Ct. Boise, ID 83704
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 3:42 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Alexis Davis Email alexhouseofdavis@gmail.com Address 1320 E Warm Springs Ave Comment Boise owes its beauty, peacefulness and livability in large part to thousands of citizens over the course of 150 years who in good faith have vigilantly watched over and intelligently helped city leadership determine how land should best be used and not used. Please be careful in the rush to create quantity and volume that you do not silence those voices. They're not reactionary, they're not unreasonable‐‐Boise neighbors citywide are some of the most intelligent, caring, diligent, balanced, welcoming and civil people you can find anywhere in America. Keep them at the table. Give them just a smidge more power than developers and growth projections data, and the outcomes everyone has to live with for the next hundred fifty years will be superior. Thank you for your hard work on this code. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 10:32 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Gary Davis Email gary.davis@populasfurniture.com Address Boise ID 83712 Comment I am against any zoning rewrites that place multi‐family housing or dense condominiums in any of the neighborhoods that are part of Historic Districts. I feel this development is not compatible with current and past use of the neighborhoods. Furthermore Among my unresolved concerns with the Boise Idaho Zoning Code Rewrite are the following: ‐ Reduced notification requirements for changes in our historic district ‐ High density construction that is inconsistent with historic building practices ‐ Increased demolition of existing homes that are part of our historic district I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:51 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Ann Marie DeBolt Email annmdebolt@gmail.com Address 2032 South Crystal Way Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is to be expected, but poorly designed growth is and will negatively impact Boise citizens. We don't deserve this. We are already being massively impacted by out‐of‐control growth. The current infrastructure simply cannot handle what is already happening. I believe that you need to increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the federally suggested timeframe of 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. I urge that you don't send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:58 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Lisa Denmark Email Largedenmark@gmail.com Address 1510 N 22nd St Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. Thank you. Respectfully, Lisa Denmark I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 4:05 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Diane Email gmpdesigns@hotmail.com Address Boise, Idaho 83705 Comment DON'T UPZONE BOISE! I am retired and on a fixed income. Upzoning Boise will drive property values up, and increase my already outrageous property taxes. Thank you for doing the right thing and rejecting this upzone. Diane If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Intermountain Fair Housing Council Concilio de Vivienda Justa 4696 W. Overland Road, Suite 140 Boise, Idaho 83705 Phone: (208)383-0695 Toll Free: (800)717-0695 Fax: (208) 383-0715 Email: contact@ifhcidaho.org www.ifhcidaho.org
March 22, 2023 Chairman Bob Scheffer and Chairman Meredith Stead Planning and Zoning Commission City of Boise, Planning Department 150 Capital Boulevard Boise, Idaho 83702 Dear Chairman Schaeffer, Chairman Stead, and members of the Planning & Zoning Commission: The Intermountain Fair Housing Council (IFHC), is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to ensure open and inclusive housing for all persons without regard to race, color, sex, religion, national origin, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, a source of income, or disability. The IFHC attempts to eradicate discrimination through, education on the fair housing laws, housing information and referral, housing counseling, and assistance with mediating and or filing fair housing complaints, among other things. The IFHC also provides education and outreach on fair housing laws and practices to housing providers and others. Please accept this letter today in our capacity to offer comment on the proposed new Zoning Code. BOISE’S RACIST HOUSING ORIGINS Zoning originated across America a century ago as a legal basis for racial exclusion, so it is important that today we use zoning as a proactive tool that contributes to providing equitable, affordable and accessible housing across Boise. Here in Boise although there were likely not any explicit federal Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) official redlining maps that we can point to, nevertheless banks still denied people of color access to credit and insurance, the primary purpose of redlining maps. We also know that the concept of redlining encompassed a broad spectrum of discriminatory practices that resulted in the systematic denial of housing services to people of color and that lesser-known redlining happened in Boise via….. • Urban renewal/eminent domain – a dark period in the 1960s and 70s where many cities including Boise, backed by federal money, demolished hundreds of communities of color in
the name of “urban renewal” (in Boise much of it was done under the guise of building a “downtown mall”) • Highway and railroad construction (both went through Boise’s River Street neighborhood) • Intentional neglect/disinvestment in livability amenities like grocery stores, parks, roads, sidewalks, water/sewer, and other public infrastructure, along with the creation of dangers environments via abandoned and neglected buildings. • Racist patterns and practices by real estate agents, appraisers, & property developers via blockbusting, exclusionary zoning, racist covenants via CC&Rs, and other techniques. • Discriminatory zoning laws, most notably in Boise putting incompatible industrial zoning next to communities of color. BSU History professor Dr. Jill Gill had this to say about it: River District - Boise’s "Black Neighborhood" - was “zoned for noise and warehouse and industrial, whereas white neighborhoods were zoned to protect them”. Intentionally harmful policy and public disinvestment created these disparities; it will take intentionally reparative policy and active public investment to reverse them. We would be remise if we didn’t mention the nefarious ways that zoning can be utilized is still happening today: Blue Valley Mobile Home Park – an affordable residential community inexplicably zoned industrial while the City forces incompatible industrial zoning around it via its planned “Gateway” industrial park. In addition, the type of accelerated growth and development Boise is experiencing now causes a growing divide between rich and poor, white and non-white in our city: increasing rents, lower vacancy rates, longer waiting lists for subsidized housing, increasing levels of homelessness, and sdimmense re-development pressure that leads to the demolitioning of our most affordable neighborhoods. With this foundation established, the remainder of our comments will center on issues of how to remedy housing inequities… LAND LIFT AND INCLUSIONARY ZONING It is important to make the distinction between adding new housing and adding housing affordable to Boiseans. Because fundamentally if the new zoning code incentivizes a building boom of high-end, luxury housing, then it is in fact simply a displacement accelerant policy instead. The City must recognize that public investment in infrastructure and housing and zoning policy changes in urban and regional areas generate enormous value, which can and should be shared widely with all Boiseans. We understand that the proposed Zoning Code contains 5 “affordability incentives” - to entice developers with additional density (and or cost savings) if they include a small percentage of incomerestricted units. However, IFHC maintains that these incentives are too limited to have any real effect on affordability and inclusivity, while it also neglects to capture the massive windfall in value and profits of the upzone. Among other things, the zoning code rewrite is a blanket city-wide upzone which provides significant new entitlements to a landowner or speculator. If this is a policy choice the City is making in an attempt to get more housing density to satisfy the intense growth pressures, then the City must also
recognize that the public deserves to capture a portion of that value to truly ensure an equitable city for everyone. Most cities that undertake a blanket upzone, do so IN ORDER TO CAPTURE THE VALUE for the production of affordable housing, also called inclusionary zoning. Seattle called theirs “The Grand Bargain” or Mandatory Housing Affordability, New York’s is Mandatory Inclusionary Housing, and Portland’s is called the Inclusionary Zoning Program. Even noted former supply-sider “just build more” density advocates have backed off the narrative that simply building housing without affordability mandates will lower instead of actually increase housing prices: "If you want to get the rights to create height and density, we are going to make a trade. In order for you to go up, you’re going to make affordable housing. We will trade density for good things a developer will do in order to get the density and height they want, they’ve got to build affordable housing and more inclusive community.”1—Richard Florida, nationally-known urbanist (who was brought to Boise several times to keynote events) "Upzoning is far from the progressive policy tool it has been sold to be. It mainly leads to building highend housing in desirable locations."2 —Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, Professor of Economic Geography at the London School of Economics “If city authorities are going to create many millions of dollars’ worth of new value by the stroke of the pen, adding new density in the hopes of creating more affordable housing, they have the power, the right, and indeed the obligation to – not to just upzone in the hopes of producing affordability – but to insist on it.”3—Patrick Condon, University of British Columbia Urban Planning professor According to https://inclusionaryhousing.org more than 900 jurisdictions across 25 states currently have inclusionary housing programs. IFHC maintains that the City could use its “police and public health and welfare” powers and its considerable legal department to defend any legal challenges to affordability and fair housing mandates. ANTI-DISPLACEMENT MEASURES AND TENANT PROTECTIONS The zoning code should foster economic stability and opportunities for longtime residents and to protect the most vulnerable residents from displacement. In a built-up urban environment, there is finite vacant land so the consequence of new development means re-development and the removal of the existing supply of lower-density housing. Housing that’s older, non-debt-supported and affordable will give way to new, more expensive housing, and as new 1
https://youtu.be/Pc1Ds0G32wo
2
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-09/-build-more-housing-is-no-match-for-inequality
3
https://www.planningreport.com/2022/03/07/patrick-condon-should-cities-now-mandate-affordability-inclusionaryzoning
units that replaced this lost housing, they’re priced considerable higher than even what a low-income or even average wage earner could afford. As property values and rent prices steadily rise, community members are often pushed out of their own neighborhoods and unable to access the new economic, environmental, and health benefits brought to the community. The consequences of displacement are severe and can shake the stable factors of their lives, from employment and shelter to social determinants of health and social environment, it can uproot people from their jobs, disrupts children’s education, increases homelessness, and fosters institutionalization in shelters, hospitals, jail, and congregate settings. Displacement can also trigger the loss of community anchors such as neighbors, churches, and small businesses, which constitute the fabric of an area, culminating in the erasure of community history, culture, and opportunities. This is particularly harmful for older adults as mortality rates for the elderly increase due to displacement as people are forced to live in crowded housing to share the cost burden, which exposes them to less sanitary conditions and greater prevalence of infections and diseases. Studies have shown that displaced residents face exacerbated food insecurity, while those most vulnerable to displacement are more likely to have diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and higher cancer rates. And ultimately, studies have revealed that displacement affects mental health, also called “root shock” which can include depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. IFHC opposes unleashing the forces of the private financial markets by simply promoting more density through upzoning without ALSO including fair housing protective measures for our most vulnerable – renters and low-income homeowners (disproportionately affected are seniors and federally protected classes – disabled community members, families with children, people of color, etc.). Boise should ONLY upzone in tandem with implementing anti-displacement measures and tenant protections. In Idaho, tenants are not protected from drastic rent increases, lack access to legal counsel in eviction proceedings, may face no-cause evictions, and are not protected from retaliation by landlords when asserting their limited rights. Plus, the limited supply of affordable housing forces tenants to live in homes in disrepair and of poor quality by allowing landlords to refrain from upgrading units, making necessary repairs, and ensuring the space is healthy, safe, and stable. The lack of renter protections and supports create a market dynamic that condones aggressive landlord practices that displace those with lower incomes, less wealth, and fewer options. Additionally, low-income homeowners are often met with a rise in property taxes caused by increased demand and rising property values but are unable to pay them due to lack of generational wealth and low and/or fixed income. We believe that without protective measures in place FIRST, the upzone will actually exacerbate the already crisis-level problems of higher housing costs, more inequality, displacement, and homelessness in our community. Here is just a sampling of the many policy protections that the City should enact before an upzone: • Incorporate a Manufactured Home Zone that will cut down on speculation of mobile home parks (MHP) and make it more difficult to redevelop MHP. • Legalize Tiny House's on wheels as mobile ADUs - they just passed one in Portland so we can borrow their language.
• • • • • • •
•
• • • • •
• • •
• • • •
Enact Mandatory Tenant Relocation package if a building is demolitioned and redeveloped Provide free/low cost just public transportation tied to reductions of required parking Provide rental/voucher assistance directly to tenants to avoid Landlords who refuse “government assistance” Limit, regulate, or penalize real estate investors, flippers, and out of state buyers Use city resources to litigate inclusionary zoning up to the Idaho Supreme Court on behalf of all cities in Idaho suffering with affordability issues. Use adjusted AMI for income-restricted determination since it has been significantly driven up recent gentrification of wealthier newcomers displacing low-income Boiseans Adopt a “development without displacement” community-based planning process instead of developer/speculator driven process that shuts Boiseans out of being involved in the growth of their own City (while displacing many of the economically vulnerable residents) Provide MORE community-member-involvement in the planning process not less (no more “by-right” development) as part of the City’s duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Enact Right to Counsel laws for tenants in eviction court Enact the right to just-cause evictions End “Source of Income” discrimination Enact Portland’s rent control workaround: a rent increase over a certain percentage triggers the landlord being required to pay for the tenant’s relocation Enact Portland’s recently passed package of tenant protections: “Fair Access in Renting” tightens up the rental application review process by prioritizing applications by the order they were received, rather than by landlord preference, requires landlords to hold an open application period of at least 72 hours before applications are processed, gives priority for accessible dwelling units to applicants who are mobility disabled, landlords cannot require applicants to have a monthly income more than twice the amount of rent, security deposits must be no more than the price of one month’s rent, and landlords are subject to a more stringent process of accounting for any funds they withhold from the deposit after a tenant moves out, limits how criminal and credit history can be used in the screening process. https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/201911/30.01.086by189580amendmentsexhibita.pdf Get involved in financing Resident-Owned Communities. Create a centralized background check process for renters Create an office of rental housing within the City and require a rental unit registration, business license, and annual inspections to prevent slumlords while also allowing the city to track rental housing inventory Track evictions and identify bad actor landlords and have enforcement against those who repeatedly violate basic rental habitability standards and other flagrant violations Adopt a “Tenant Bill of Rights” as promoted by Mayor McLean in her campaign Pass an ordinance prohibiting discrimination against renters with eviction histories and criminal records Establish more fee and security deposit regulations
•
Enact a Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase Agreement (TOPA) provide tenants (or city or nonprofit) with advance notice that the landlord is planning to sell and provide a right of first refusal to purchase the building • And other policies that help create inclusive communities. AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING Under 42 USC Section 3608 of the Title VIII of Civil Rights Act, known as the Fair Housing Act, cities have a duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing which requires cities and towns that receive federal money for any housing or urban development related purpose to examine whether there are any barriers to fair housing, housing patterns or practices that promote bias based on any protected class under the Fair Housing Act, and most importantly to create a plan for rectifying fair housing barriers. Specifically, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, creating accessible communities and housing, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. IFHC maintains that AAFH extends to environmental justice (including future climate disasters that disproportionally affect people in protected classes), visitability, universal design, public participation, as well as homeownership and generational wealth opportunities. In order to address many of the concerns around equity and inclusion as outlined in this letter, Boise would be wise to take the same path as Boston to incorporate an “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” requirements within its zoning code, and by doing so, codify the city's moral and legal responsibility to affirmatively further fair housing. The zoning amendment, one part of the overall effort to address discriminatory housing practices, requires developers in Boston to take substantial steps to stem displacement and provide further access to housing to those historically discriminated against. Through the analysis and intervention measures that the amendment requires, Boston more effectively guards against displacement while also creating affordable housing in areas that have historically excluded people of color, particularly Black Americans. Under the plan, developers are required to complete both the “Accessibility Checklist”, which considers impacts of people with disabilities, in addition to another AFFH Assessment, guided by a displacement analysis and historical exclusion data. Please refer to the 25-Page ordinance here: https://bpda.app.box.com/s/r59pn90sdmj5kfh5lm7kmr4rstnye9l6 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Nationally and locally, there is a strong relationship between discriminatory land use practices and hazardous environmental exposures like physical or chemical hazards (air, noise & light pollution, lead, pesticides, and mold), Superfund sites, landfills and sewage, industrial development, as well as the disproportionate impacts of climate change. HUD offers several guides on environmental and health justice in housing: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/environmental-justice/ https://www.hud.gov/climate/environmental_justice As we re-write the development rule book, we must ensure that all communities have equal protection from environmental and health hazards while also investing in reversing disparities in health outcomes
and economic opportunity. We are concerned with the implications of the industrial zoning categories within the City's proposed new zoning code. Specifically, the proposed code would collapse 4 industrial zoning designations into just 3, making much of industrial zoning "by-right" uses (meaning that there will be no public hearing or discretionary review - they will just entitle developers without any public process), and by "streamlining" the language, it removes legal protections from the approval conditions - which removes the permitting conditions that protect human health, safety, and welfare as well as the environment. Blue Valley Mobile Home Park is the unfortunate "poster child" for this right now as it is facing a proposed heavily polluting industry next to the neighborhood of 200 affordable homes - which includes a significant population of those in protected classes - disabled (34%) and Hispanics (11%), and other low-income and vulnerable residents. Changes proposed in the City of Boise's new zoning code would not only remove specific and varying categories of industrial development based on the uses and amount and types of pollution they would generate, but also the buffers between residential housing and incompatible polluting industrial uses. This will undoubtedly have a disparate impact on people who are historically discriminated against the worst: low income, people of color, disabled, and families with children. It is no coincidence that industrial zoning is already sited in neighborhoods that house the most lowincome and BIPOC: primarily Bench neighborhoods and Southeast, surrounding Blue Valley – exacerbating historical environmental injustices and disproportionate impacts burdening low-income and/or minority communities. In addition, we know that in other states there would be an environmental regulatory apparatus that would monitor and further regulate these polluting industries; but here in Idaho, the legislature has severely limited the jurisdiction of these agencies, so the burden instead falls to municipalities without specific expertise or access to scientific data. PUBLIC PROCESSES IFHC has concerns about the move towards eliminating public hearings and making much of development by-right. It is a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach to land use policy that fails to recognize or incorporate local flexibility, decision-making, and community input. Community organizers have used zoning and the public process around it as tools to fight gentrification, by either trying to stop projects that would demolition or pollute their homes, to obtain the first ever tenant relocation package for those slated to be displaced, or by using rezoning to incentivize income-restricted housing units in new construction. Although the zoning code has very specific consideration for impact on floodplains and hillsides for example, it has no regard for the impact of development on human beings. By removing public hearings from much of the zoning process, it may save the planning and zoning commissioners and city council from having to hear hours of testimony of people opposing specific development in their neighborhoods, but it also denies renters – those most directly impacted - ANY forum to have a say over their homes, neighborhoods, and lives.
CONCLUSION IFHC believes that conversations around housing and affordability needs to be radically shifted. We need to center the voices of the people who need housing instead of investors and landlords who profit from that need. We believe that it is time that those struggling to build a world with dignified, affordable housing for all set the terms of this conversation. IFHC supports policies that foster inclusive development; stabilizes communities of color and lowincome communities; addresses housing affordability and price increases; and ensures housing supply meets the actual existing need not future projections or people who don’t live here yet. If our concern really is “A Home for Everyone”, our local government should intervene to slow growth down, rather than stoking the flames of rapid growth and institute affordable and fair housing overlays. And what growth does occur should be preceded with mechanisms that prevent removal of existing, lower-priced units, substantial protections for those most impacted and historically discriminated against – renters and low-income households, with mandates not just incentives to get real attainable affordability. Sincerely, /s/ Zoe Ann Olson, IFHC Executive Director /s/ Lori Dicaire, IFHC Investigator
March 23, 2023
Re: ZOA23-0001 & CPA23-0001
Dear Chairman Schaeffer and Stead, and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: Under the city’s proposed new zoning code (aka upzone), developers will be allowed to significantly rachet up the permitted density, scale back parking requirements, reduced setbacks, be allowed to build significantly taller buildings in established neighborhoods, and worst of all: for all intents and purposes, eliminates the opportunity for existing Boise residents to shape the growth of our own neighborhoods while overriding years of collaborative planning between city leadership and residents via their neighborhood associations. Whenever a question of zoning comes up, the issue is not usually approached from the standpoint of what the residents need, its driven by what the speculators and investors desire, which then informs what the city needs to keep up with the growth Ponzi scheme: more rooftop revenue to keep up with the rapid pace of intensified high-density growth and sprawl. In Boise today, controversies about zoning are fundamentally about how the city and its neighborhoods should grow and change. The acrimony between residents and development is what is the best path and vision to accommodate growth in the city. The goal of a new zoning code should be that the new code leverages the explosive growth we are experiencing to enable a more equitable, environmentally sustainable, and economically prosperous city. However, in my examination the proposed zoning code as written falls short on every measure.
ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM There is no acknowledgement of the huge windfall of value to speculators and investors of the significant upzone contained within the proposed zoning code. The upzone green-lights large, private equity-backed corporate developers’ influx into Boise to buy up homes for redevelopment and conversion to rental properties. That is FACT. If this city was approaching this process from a position of equity, they would insist on partially capturing this increase in value for affordable housing construction and public amenities at scale. The city should recognize the "Land Lift" that occurs when land is rezoned for more density (its value rises based on the new entitlement) by doing the following: 1.) Demanding developers include income-restricted units in all buildings over a certain size to even be able to approach the vision of a mixed income community. Without it, the city is causing displacement of our most vulnerable (people of color, disabled, fixed income seniors, single mothers, young people) and perpetuating segregation - making Boise wealthier and whiter in the process.
In Seattle, their upzone was labeled "The Grand Bargain" since the city recognized it was giving away massive new entitlements to developers via the upzone and as a result, negotiated in exchange mandated affordability on behalf of the public good (and an in-lieu fee for nonapartment developers and a linkage fee for commercial developments creating an affordable housing fund for the city). And, If the city believes that developers/the growth industry would push back on mandated affordability, the city should allocate as much money as it spent on taking Martin vs. Boise – an effort to criminalize victims of our housing affordability crisis - all the way to the Supreme Court in its defense. 2) Charge a "Land Lift Fee" (sometimes called an impact or linkage fee or Community Amenity Contribution - CAC) to harness it for social benefit for all residents.1 Instead, it looks like at the 11th hour the city threw some totally voluntary incentives for "affordability" in the code that may not mean even one unit of income-restricted housing gets built. We don’t have to just conjecture that the development industry will be unwilling to sacrifice profits to voluntary help the city with its housing dilemma…. we already know what will happen given the city’s experience with the "Housing Bonus Ordinance" passed in December 2020. Even with the wholly inadequate "affordability" standards set at 100% AMI, based on this Boisedev article2 we know that over 3 years that only 4 developments even utilized it - and 2 were the city itself! Our current takeaways from the city’s experiment with voluntary “affordability incentives” is not good: • •
•
•
Developers aren't willing to trade their extreme profit opportunity for the added hassle of helping the city with its affordable housing problem. It’s not really even an affordability “solution” if there is little to no participation by developers. It is very likely that not even ONE new income-restricted housing unit could get built under this scheme. The devil is in the details. Anything higher than 80% AMI is fake affordability. As the city’s own Housing Needs Assessment states, the 0-60% is the market most underserved by the profit-driven market-priced development industry and are being displaced at the highest rate. It is this population that needs the intervention of the municipality to get anything affordable to them built. Even the city’s attempt to fill the gap with its own land trust model housing (Adare, Franklin and Arthur Street projects) has a very low percentage of income-restricted housing units versus market-based in service to those most in need. Also, AMI is a very flawed method to measure the need since the AMI is constantly driven up by wealthier in-migrants and displacement of the poor.
1
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2022/02/01/Vancouvers-Big-Promising-Affordable-Housing-Step/ https://saanich.ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&clip_id=431&meta_id=26317 2
https://boisedev.com/news/2022/05/24/only-four-projects-take-advantage-of-boises-housingbonus-ordinance-a-little-over-a-year-since-approval/
I share all of this information to provide the context with which I consider the city's affordability incentives incredibly TOO LITTLE AND TOO LIMITED. While the city makes moves to trade away the ability to negotiate on a case-by-case basis with each developer asking for a upzone/CUP/variance/etc for something in the public good (REAL affordability, a public trail, etc) FOREVER, we should at least recognize what a long term loss that will be as this "zoning code rewrite" genie won't ever be able to be put back in the bottle (and developers will sue for a takings if future city leaders even wanted to scale it back). And as usual, the city is selling itself and its legal authority - and by extension, desperate Boiseans clamoring for real affordability, short.
WHO ARE WE BUILDING FOR? The difference between "affordable housing," as a real estate term of art, and "a house I can afford" from a civilian's perspective is significant. The city’s definition of “affordable housing” is far beyond the grasp of the city’s lower-income communities who earn far less than the minimum incomes necessary to qualify for a unit under this plan. The portion of the population that can pony up $1,495 - $1,870 a month for these new “affordable” apartments does not help those most in need of housing: those defined as lowincome and extremely low-income people via HUD (single mothers, people living on Boise salaries – baristas, CNAs, teachers, etc., seniors and people on fixed income, etc.) aka those most precariously housed because of skyrocketing rents. Their growing ranks could never afford the shiny new construction apartments that will replace the buildings where they used to live. The cities use of 80% to 120% of AMI for its various definitions of “affordable” is deeply problematic since 80% is on the upper end of what is defined as low income, and by any standard measure of affordability,100% and 120% are not even included in affordability calculations – this is what the market is supposed to service. According to the cities’ own income guidelines posted on their website, this means it is targeted for incomes of $47,150 @ 80% or $61,257 @100% for one person and $67,350 @80% and $87,500 for a family of four @100%. The cities website doesn’t include 120% numbers. This is very problematic for several reasons: 1) AMI includes homeowners who make enough money that they qualify for mortgages and are not even in the rental market. 2) Boise’s AMI has been driven up significantly in the last few years both by the displacement of poor people by the explosive growth pressures, skyrocketing rents, and shrinking available of housing affordable on Boise wages; coupled with wealthy in-migrants bringing out of state wages or equity from home sales in higher-priced markets, 3) Boise is a tale of two cities with a bi-modal distribution of incomes: locals living on Idaho wages making $35,000 - $50,000 - and more well-heeled people making on average $100,000 a year. The $100,000 a year demographic is already well-served with development industry’s constant production of market-rate new-construction apartments, townhouses, and single family homes. If Boise is to use its’ leverage, it should be for the housing that the market is NOT otherwise producing – for those at 60% AMI and below. We understand that as policy makers, that you are attempting to incentivize rental housing, but in a city where market-rate rentals are
now already range from $1,200 to $2,600 or more a month, we ask who will be suffering the unintended collateral damage by essentially incentivizing the status quo?? 4.) It further untethers the cost of housing from actual local wages which will lead to a crisis situation approaching places like Sun Valley or Jackson Hole where only wealthy primarily white people can afford to thrive – and everyone else is living in substandard housing or sleeping in their car – harming those people and the businesses that rely on them for labor force.
TARGETS LOW-INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS FOR REDEVELOPMENT This targeted upzone puts lower-income neighborhoods in the crosshairs. No one if going to come in and buy a quarter million-dollar home to tear it down and put up an apartment complex or six-plex. It will happen in lower-income, historically disinvested neighborhoods where the bulk of our naturally affordable housing currently exists and where people are already experiencing the economic violence of gentrification and displacement. Since the upzone is inviting mass re-development of properties within the city, that means that there will be lots of DISPLACEMENT of both low-income homeowners and renters. The city has an obligation to recognize this will occur and put in guardrails on the upzone that protect these valuable members of our community – and essential workers - from displacement. The zoning code as written provides no analysis of the impact of redevelopment, no acknowledgement that this will happen, and no method to mitigate the impact such as enacting…. 1) robust program of tenant protections 2) mandatory tenant relocation assistance program 3) anti-displacement measures (rental assistance, stabilization foreclosure assistance, tenant right to counsel, "just cause" evictions) 4) Adopt of a no-net-loss of affordable units for any redevelopment proposals 5) COPA/TOPA- tenant or community, or municipality “Opportunity To Purchase” program – a right of first refusal to buy threatened naturally occurring affordable housing before it goes on the open market. HOMOGENIZED ONE-SIZE-FITS ALL DEVELOPMENT Upzones intentionally disregard those impacted: neighborhoods, tenants, low-income homeowners and the embodied expertise of those with lived experience or on the ground neighborhood knowledge and instead just favor developers, bureaucratic planners looking at GPS maps from their air conditioned offices, and the developers’ highly paid guns. The challenges to increase affordability via housing density citywide are huge and nuanced, requiring a commitment to be neighborhood specific and inclusive, not homogenized as onesize-fits-all unsupported declarations. As we strategize how best to grow, let’s do so respectfully and inclusively. City leaders must recognize that top-down policies, absent public involvement, ignore the unique specific issues and opportunities anchored within our community members and cherished neighborhoods. FLAWED PROCESS
The upzone process was from the start driven by real estate interests and urban density advocates – both of which are too frequently are blind to public values lost through redevelopment and displacement. While we need more housing, we also need our history, our places, and our long-time community members. The city is advancing this proposal without performing one vulnerable community impact study to see how it will disproportionally affect those already living precariously. Instead it used marketing and branding language that supports their predetermined outcome, brushing aside critical economic, infrastructure, civil rights, and human issues. PROPER ROLE OF CITY There is a significant difference between housing that working-class households can afford and what is called “Affordable Housing.” It is important that our efforts reimagine housing solutions to include public and community-owned housing, tenant protections and empowerment, and that we stop looking for solutions in the profit-driven, speculative real estate market. There’s no reason for the city to be engaged in planned gentrification—the market is doing that on its own. The entire city is already attractive to investors. The role of city government should be to regulate an out of control predatory market, build at the bottom since the max-ROI developers don’t, and enact and enforce strong guardrails to ensure that development/re-development doesn’t equal displacement for the thousands of Boiseans who are essentially being priced out of their own town through no fault of their own.
BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD There has been minimal genuine public engagement on this enormous policy change. The final 611-page law came out on February 28th and is cutting off public comments for the Planning & Zoning Commission Project Report only 22 days later - by Wednesday, March 22! It was introduced in early October and the council is trying to get it passed in less than 4 months! Besides an online feedback form, the city has not held one public engagement or neighborhood outreach event now that the code is not a constant moving target and is in its “final” form. The city needs to create an inclusive process that incorporates (and doesn’t just inform) nonindustry stakeholders: tenants unions, neighborhood associations, affordable housing providers, social service providers, and BIPOC groups. The city points to places like Minneapolis, Portland, and Austin as examples of the density they are trying to achieve. All these cities first enacted robust tenant protection, analyzed and modeled how zoning changes would impact vulnerable, lower-income families and existing affordable housing stock, and put strong demolition ordinances in place to protect its critical naturally affordable housing stock. The city should engage vulnerable populations (seniors, disabled, renters) and communities of color who are especially vulnerable (to displacement, gentrification, income inequality, homelessness) while looking holistically at solving the deep disparities that exist in our city. We should not consider enacting such major changes unless we first model the real-world effects. And finally, a blanket upzone of land uses in Boise will yield enormous sums of money and windfall profits for investors and others that stand to gain financially from the growth industry. For comparison sake, in Austin, their entire zoning code overhaul was projected to cost $8.5
million - while unlocking $30 billion in real estate development! Anyone voting on this proposal should disclose any campaign contributions, investments, familial relationships, and/or conflicts of interest; and if any exist, they recuse themselves from voting on this ordinance.
IN CONCLUSION If the city’s concern is really serious about affordable housing, they should instead intervene to slow growth down or at least properly manage it, rather than simply stoking the flames of still more rapid growth through upzones. And what growth does occur should be preceded with mechanisms that prevent removal of existing, lower-priced units and that promote in-fill over demolition. And when this cannot be done, let’s require developers to replace one-for-one what they remove, at comparable price. More proactively, our city should acquire and purchase existing, lower-priced rentals before they are lost to the wrecking ball or before speculation drives rents above low-income thresholds, and transferring these buildings to nonprofit ownership, cooperatives and land trusts. Slowing growth down or at least placing a premium on removal of existing low-cost units (by requiring 1 for 1 replacement at comparable price) will help reduce these speculative pressures on existing units and give public entities more time to do acquire them. Simply unleashing the forces of the market by promoting more density through upzoning will only lead to more displacement, higher housing costs, more inequality and vast human suffering in our community. The size and detail of the new 611-page law requires that Boiseans have sufficient time to understand its implications. Any adoption actions should wait until there is true geographic representation on City Council before enacting a massive measure that effectively rezones much of the city in one fell swoop occurs.
Lori Dicaire (208) 866-9701
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 11:46 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Mike diVittorio Email mike@idahomc.com Address 925 Parkhill Ct Boise, ID 83702 Comment I am in support of the Zoning Code Rewrite because it is an improvement on the old zoning code written more than 60 years ago when the automobile was at the center of American life. I would also advocate for the following additional changes: 1) Affordable housing. Plan for more people, not more automobiles by allowing developers to build zero‐parked housing, especially in R3 zones close to public transit options or the downtown. The new code does not provide enough solution space for developers to build affordable housing. In particular, developing high density housing with onsite parking is very costly (up to $50,000 per parking spot). Consider removing minimum onsite parking mandates on housing and allowing for the same space to be programmed for housing to support those who can't afford or choose not to use the personal automobile as their primary mode of transportation. 2) accommodate for higher density with no onsite parking requirements for residential housing along transit corridors and close to activity centers. Three blocks surrounding these critical pathways and community centers should be zoned R‐3 with no or minimal parking requirements to support affordable housing and alternative transit options (bike, walk, scoot, bus). More of the city should be also be zoned R2, especially close to transit corridors and activity centers. Like the R3 zone, the R2 should allow carry no or minimal parking requirements. 3) Process: I appreciate the streamlining of the approval process which will simplify and shorten the time and expense associated with the entitlement and approval processes. Further simplification with less neighborhood input would be even better by reducing or eliminating the public hearing process for projects that comply with the zoning code and are recommended by city staff 4) Neighborhood Associations: Consider creating uniform bylaws for Neighborhood Associations, provide them training and ensure these associations and their leadership truly represent the interests of their neighborhood (renters and owners alike) and comply with all fair housing and anti‐discrimination laws. 5) ADUs: – These should be allowed not only for owner occupants, but also for investor/owners who are more likely to invest in this type of housing type. There should be no requirement for parking for the production of new ADUs. Thank you! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 4:06 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Kayla Dodson Email civickayla17@gmail.com Address 705 Bacon Dr, Boise, ID 83712 Comment I appreciate that Boise needs more affordable housing and I certainly do not want all the wonderful open space we enjoy turned into housing developments and shopping malls. It is a challenge to create the best plan for continued growth. Thank you for the thoughts and efforts so far. A few things about the plan concern me. One concern is neighbors not having any input in tall buildings that might be built near their homes. 40 feet is very tall if you have a one story house. Another thing is will our mature trees be at risk as developers squeeze every possible building on limited lots? Finally, have you ever tried to drive a car through the North End in the evening when all the people are home and the streets are packed with parked cars? Parking off the street should be a requirement for ALL new homes and apartments. I know we are trying to decrease our car use but I don’t believe that’s really going to happen here. Thank you for your continued work to make the new zoning laws work for our community. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 1:56 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Brock domain Email brock.doma@gmail.com Address Boise Idaho 83705 Comment The fact that upzoning is being discussed is crazy. How about we start with a infrastructure plan, at least 100 million to address the concerns and problems we already face. Boise is already very dense place to live when you take in to account the very little thought going to traffic, basic congestion. Up zoning will only bring in big business, massive construction and greedy rental companies. these companies are going to gut communities, tear down single family homes and destroy the open space and parkland that makes boise what it is. The area surrounding boise is vast to the east and south there is more than enough room for expansion and higher density house away from the city center. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
rdonaly <rdonaly@centurylink.net> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 3:12 PM ZoningRewrite [External] Application no.ZOA23-00001 &CPA23-00001
I am opposed to the Boise Zoning Rewrite. The loosening of requirements in all residential zones will destroy residential areas and create "urban blight " as we see in cities across America. This plan will exclude buyers who don't earn higher incomes. No provisions are made protect existing residential zones. Do not foist high density blight on our city. Ron Donaly 1212 E. Hays Sent from my Galaxy
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Sunday, March 19, 2023 1:09 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Vonna H Donovan Email vonna.is@gmail.com Address 5514 West Lake River Lane Comment I feel your short timeline to review the proposed Zoning Code rewrite is unacceptable to expect citizens to review, research and make informed decisions on such a short notice and there needs to be more communication about the impacts proposed. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Sunday, March 19, 2023 3:51 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Mary Email mary‐and‐paul@hotmail.com Address 1420 east Jefferson street boise Comment Dear city Council, These are the reasons that the new code is bothering me as a 30 year resident of Boise. How about the fact that nonstop construction noise and dust for five years has made my neighborhood almost unlivable? How is constant construction, noise and dirt making Boise a more beautiful livable city? I dislike the way downtown Boise looks now. Cranes and tall buildings at every turn and i yearn for the Boise I moved to in 1993. None of the buildings have made the city more livable or provided any affordable housing for citizens. You are giving Boise away to developers and selling it off to the highest out of state bidders at the expense of us, citizens that make up the community and pay taxes. I also don’t like that new projects would not have to go through a public hearing process. Especially the height limit. It seems too high and would ruin a neighborhood. There are at least 1000 short term rentals in Boise that could be made into longer term housing and only about 20 of those short term rentals even bothered to register with the city. I think the code should include some kind of a policy limiting the amount of short term rentals in neighborhoods. Thanks, Mary Dragone I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Mary Dragone <maryhatsdragone@gmail.com> Sunday, March 19, 2023 4:05 PM ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning code
Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 pageZoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. 1
Sincerely, Mary Dragone Sent from my iPhone
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
shelbydrilling@yahoo.com Sunday, March 19, 2023 12:51 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well‐ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule‐change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Shelby Drilling 30 year Homeowner Sunrise Rim Neighborhood
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 10:38 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Douglas Drinka Email ddrinka@gmail.com Address 3808 N Hawthorne Dr, Boise, ID 83703 Comment Planning and Zoning Commissioners, I would like to express my support for the Zoning Code Rewrite as proposed. I had the opportunity to engage throughout the community feedback lifecycle, and I have been consistently impressed with the degree that Boise staff have engaged with the community, received feedback, and created significant adjustments to the drafts in response. In particular, our neighborhood's concern about the R‐1A large lot zoning being removed, and how that would impact the semi‐rural nature of areas such as the Sycamore Overlay, were received with gracious consideration, and eventually responded to by a change in direction for that zone. The vision to keep a diversity of established neighborhoods intact, without thrusting large scale density and development on them, aligns with my vision and hopes for our neighborhood. At the same time, I'm excited by the opportunities for additional affordable housing created by the incentive structure which would allow greater density, but only paired with affordability. Though I would have liked to see the code go further and require affordability for more aspects of development, I understand that a tightrope is being walked with regard to a realistic, actionable set of policies that work for developers, renters, home owners, and city planners. To me the balance reached is appropriate. Finally, I am excited by the prospects offered by the MX‐4 zoning in the transit node in my neighborhood. If the eventual shape of development in that area is anything like the renderings CCDC has created to cast vision for the space, I think it will be a great fit for our neighborhood, and be an avenue for greater density matched with affordability and accessibility, creating additional value for existing homeowners, attraction to new residents, and amenities to everyone in the area. I request that you deliver a recommendation to City Council to adopt the proposed code as written. Doug Drinka I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 8:48 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Nicholas Dumont Email Gsxr_fast@hotmail.com Address 4104 n mountain view drive Comment This is absolutely ridiculous. The mayor in this town doesn't care one bit when it comes to keeping our neiborhoods the way they have been for years. Packing all of these apartments into small areas has done nothing for boise except create eyesores and massive traffic where there wasn't much traffic before. The only thing these laws are doing is lining the pockets of developers who dont care about our beautiful city. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Edith Easterbrook <ediebrook@msn.com> Saturday, March 18, 2023 5:40 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well‐ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule‐change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline for public comment by at least 90 days. I do not want my pleasant neighborhood ruined! Sincerely,
Edie Easterbrook 1709 S. Butler Street Boise, ID 83705
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:11 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Tony Edmondson Email tojo@ruralnetwork.net Address 598 Pioneer Road Weiser, Idaho 83672 Comment While we do not live in Boise, as the state Capitol for all Idahoans, I care about the quality of cultural and historic resources in your community. As a former County Commissioner, City Councilman, Chairman of the Board of the Idaho State Historical Society, and current a Weiser City Planning & Zoning Commissioner, I'm asking that you extend the public comment period for an additional 5 months. Not only is one month insufficient time for an average citizen to digests a 601 page document prepared by professionals, I suspect there's been inadequate time for the majority of citizens to even know the proposed changes are under consideration. We moved to Idaho 42 years ago from an urban area that much like Boise at the time, was undergoing urban renewal demolition and a wholesale basis. I well recall the vacant lots in downtown Boise when we arrived here. More disturbingly, I well recall the zoning in the historic downtown area of our former community, that in some ways parallels what's being proposed now for Boise, 50 years later. How is that possible? I can show you any number of examples of how that played out and what it does to historic residential neighborhoods. No matter how laudable low income housing goals might be, they shouldn't come at the expense of historic neighborhoods which are often also the enclaves of the most economically challenged. Empty residential lots on blocks which remain mostly intact, should be developed with structures that replicate and respect the traditional values of those neighborhoods. Multistory, high density housing should not be integrated adjacent to one or two story single family homes. This would never be allowed in the foothills or any of the more affluent residential neighborhoods and our older, historic neighborhoods should be given equal respect. Please, what's the rush to pass this proposal? Give it some time and go the extra mile to make sure the public is well educated about the consequences of this proposal and has time to comment. Thank you! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
March 22, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611-page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report.
Sincerely,
Dave and Denise Eikanger 107 N. Jantoni Dr Boise, ID 83712
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 3:01 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Jessica Elizabeth Elkin Email jessica.e.elkin@gmail.com Address 5000 W Wymosa St Comment I am in support of the zoning code rewrite, however, I do not feel that the short time frame to comment on the new ordinance is sufficient. Even as a self‐described fast reader, there is no way I can adequately read and understand 611 pages in 22 days without the review being my full‐time job. Please provide more time for public comment. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Clay Elkin <clay.elkin@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:50 PM ZoningRewrite; Mayor McLean; Patrick Bageant; Jimmy Hallyburton; Luci Willits; Elaine Clegg [External] Zoning re-write comments: ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well‐ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule‐change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. I have commented on many of the zoning code re‐write modules, and have still had a very difficult time following the changes. At this point, it seems like a strategic 'hidden ball game' that City leadership is playing to keep the public from being able to understand and comment appropriately. When I do comment, the items that are a priority to me and MANY other Boise residents are swept under the rug. Please know that this zoning code change will significantly impact Boise's future. The unacceptable upzoning, the increase in by right zoning to prevent public input, the lack of enforceable CUP's, and the clear language that takes public and nearby property owner voices away are all reasons to oppose this zoning code re‐write. It is also noteworthy that this is trying to be quickly pushed through prior to an election this fall where Boise citizens will FINALLY be represented geographically. It is unacceptable for this zoning code to get pushed through before the election. 1
It will be spoken about and questions will be asked at every single political event during the election cycle if this leadership team votes to approve and passes this zoning code re‐write. It is not transparent, it is not best for public input or public safety, and it is not best for the future of Boise, regardless of how anyone tries to spin it. Thank you for your time, ‐‐ Clay Elkin Clay.Elkin@gmail.com 317 590 0630
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9:14 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Robert Elliott Email Relliott249@gmail.com Address 1037 W Hale st. Comment I am in favor of this zoning code rewrite, because I believe it will help make this city more affordable, and more liveable in general. It is also the fiscally conservative thing to do, because the current zoning laws encourage very expensive sprawling development that makes all of our other infrastructure more expensive. For these reasons, and more, I am in favor of the zoning code rewrite. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 7:50 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Angela Enlow Email angelaenlow@gmail.com Address 1307 South Hervey Street Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 5:59 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Erika Email ebudriunas@gmail.com Address 12888 N Schicks ridge rd Boise, ID 83714 Comment Hello. My family does not want any tall buildings in or near our neighborhood. We want to keep Boise neighborhoods quaint and safe. Adding tall buildings will change the landscape and character of Boise. Please do not add tall buildings to our neighborhood. Thank you! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9:13 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Andrew C Erstad Email acerstad@erstadarchitects.com Address 310 N 5th Street Comment The City of Boise along with a very diverse group of community advocates have engaged in the process of updating and rewriting our Zoning Code as we march into the future. The effort was arduous and comprehensive, with multiple perspectives that challenged direction, generating lively discussions and fairly balanced outcomes. While there still remains concern, the foundation of the new ordinance I believe is solid and well thought out. I strongly urge passage of this new Zoning Ordinance. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:01 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Bonnie Y Farber Burry Email burrbs@windermere.com Address 1318 Eastman Boise 83702 Comment The issues at hand are far too complex and dire to push this through so quickly. Please allow more time for public input. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 10, 2023 9:35 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Mary Feeny Email feenymary@gmail.com Address 4305 W Edgemont Street, Boise, Idaho 83706 Comment Zoning “In the next 10 years, if Boise radically overhauls its zoning, Boiseans will no longer recognize their city.” The Opinion piece by Fred Fritchman in the 3/10/2023 Statesman, describes what could happen in Boise if zoning in established neighborhoods is radically changed. Why is the public shut out from the public hearing process and an opportunity to express valid concerns and opposition to the zoning changes? How is it that a few are allowed to decide for the many what they (the few) think is best? Zoning overreach is repugnant and unacceptable. Sincerely, Mary Feeny I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 3:53 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Rory Felton Email roryfelton@gmail.com Address 2909 W Clark St, Boise, ID 83705 Comment Dear City, As a member of the Depoe Bench community, I think it would permanently ruin the neighborhood to allow buildings 5 stories tall to be build inside and next to quaint single‐family home residential that has been around for 60+ years. Specfically the recommendation to allow 5 story tall buildings near Vista Ave and around the street will destroy the community neighborhood of the Depoe Bench. The neighborhood currently comprises midcenutry and classic single‐family homes. Building a 5 story apartment building right in and next to the neighborhood does not make sense. This will increase through traffic on our residential streets. In our little block alone are over 20+ children under 15. We do not want more cars coming through our neighborhood. These types of buildings belong downtown, not in our quaint and quiet neighborhoods. Please do not approve the Vista ave. recommendations through the Bench. They are undesired changes for our community. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:02 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Keslie felton Email kesliefelton@gmail.com Address Boise Idaho 83755 Comment My family does not want tall buildings near or in our neighborhood. Keep the neighborhoods in Boise quaint and safe for our families. NO TALL BUILDINGS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS!!! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 15, 2023 7:35 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Claire Fenton Email cfenton57@gmail.com Address 3891 N Woody Ln Comment I'm very much in favor of high density housing that allows for a range of housing/pricing options within a single neighborhood. I am also in favor of small retail within residential areas to promote walking/cycling for conveniences rather than driving. I'm in favor of encouraging less car ownership and providing affordable & efficient public transportation. Other countries allow for zero set backs when building in residential areas to allow for maximum footprint in small areas. I am in favor of preserving mature trees wherever possible and would like to see accommodations in code to protect mature trees. I would like the City of Boise to consider "green corridors" and multiple "green spaces" so that while allowing for higher density living, we don't eliminate necessary natural green space for our vital eco system to not only survive, but thrive. This is imperative to holistic wellbeing. It doesn't have to be on the ground, it can be on roofs or vertical landscaping on walls. People also thrive when natural green space is within walking distance. Thank you for your consideration. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 10:05 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Claudia Fernsworth Email fernsworth13@gmail.com Address 8088 W Pocono Lane Comment In the democracy that is the state of Idaho, the citizens of Boise need more time to consider the amazingly complex and rule changing zoning code rewrite. Please extend the voting timeline at least until a new city council is seated. Thank you for your time I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
David Finley <wyokath@gmail.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 9:36 PM Mayor McLean CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
I object to this rewrite of the city's zoning code, as it applies to the historic north end. This code rewrite will undo the careful planning that has guided redevelopment in the north end for the past quarter century. It will allow high density development, destroying the character and value of the north end. I strongly oppose this rewrite. Sincerely, David Finley 1510 N 21st Street.
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Kaori Finn <kaorifinn@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 10:11 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Opposition to Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well‐ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule‐change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline for public comment by at least 90 days. Sincerely, Kaori Finn 3376 W Scenic Drive Boise 83703
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 2:17 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Scott Fischer Email scottfischer@att.net Address 1618 N. 17th Street Comment This document is enormous and will take a lot of time for me to review. Since i have a full time job already, this had to be done after work and weekends. It did not and does not work for giving my input. and since this is my town and you work for me, after all, you will give me more time. Thank you I am not a robot
1
Boise negotiated with Micron on expansion under an 18-year-old non-disclosure agreement
9/9/22, 8:58 AM
Business
Boise negotiated with Micron on expansion under an 18-year-old nondisclosure agreement By: Don Day - BoiseDev Editor & Founder September 8, 2022
For months, the City of Boise wouldn’t confirm or deny to BoiseDev that it was holding discussions with Micron Technology about an expansion of its Boise campus. At one point, former City of Boise spokesperson Justin Corr did say the city had sent Boise Mayor Lauren McLean on a “business attraction mission,” but said a non-disclosure agreement prevented the city from talking about it. It turns out, the City of Boise is bound to an NDA it signed with the technology giant in 2004. Micron announced last week that it would build a $15billion new fabrication plant in Boise. The company would again make computer chips in the US, incentivized by the federal government and State of https://boisedev.com/2022/09/08/boise-negotiated-with-micron-on-expansion-under-an-18-year-old-non-disclosure-agreement/
Page 1 of 4
Boise negotiated with Micron on expansion under an 18-year-old non-disclosure agreement
9/9/22, 8:58 AM
Idaho. BoiseDev reported the company was also engaging with city officials, including the mayor, as early as last fall.
2004 agreement BoiseDev obtained the document in a public records request this week. It outlines that the city can take information from Micron but not disclose it to the public. The agreement went into effect in May of 2004. Former Boise Mayor Dave Bieter signed it, as well as the city’s directors of planning and development and fire, as well as the city attorney at the time. Jay Hawkins, then the VP of Operations for Micron signed it for the company. BoiseDev reached out to Bieter to understand why the city signed a non-disclosure agreement with Micron that didn’t expire. We provided the former mayor a copy of the public record. “The City of Boise signed an agreement in 2004 with Micron Technology relating solely to inspections of buildings and facilities,” Bieter said. “It was signed by the fire chief at the time, Renn Ross, the planning director, and me. It only ensures that any information learned during inspections is not given to any other https://boisedev.com/2022/09/08/boise-negotiated-with-micron-on-expansion-under-an-18-year-old-non-disclosure-agreement/
Page 2 of 4
Boise negotiated with Micron on expansion under an 18-year-old non-disclosure agreement
9/9/22, 8:58 AM
parties. It does not relate to economic development, investments in facilities, or any other issues, as is made plain in the language of the agreement. “ The NDA outlines an array of information the company could share with the city that would be protected, including “marketing or business plans.”
City of Boise spokesperson Maria Weeg said she checked with the current city attorney and economic director on the use of the 2004 NDA to negotiate on Micron’s current expansion. “We can’t speak to the intention of the NDA, none of us were around in 2004,” Weeg said. “For the last three and a half years, we have been following the express terms of the NDA. It gives Micron the say on what we can and cannot release.” Weeg noted city attorney Jayme Sullivan started under Bieter 3.5 years ago. McLean was sworn into office just about 2.5 years ago. She said the city’s legal interpretation of the document said it had to ask Micron for permission on what it could and could not release related to the economic development. A Micron official told BoiseDev in August that the process of selecting a site for the new facility “runs best when we are careful about confidentially.”
https://boisedev.com/2022/09/08/boise-negotiated-with-micron-on-expansion-under-an-18-year-old-non-disclosure-agreement/
Page 3 of 4
Boise negotiated with Micron on expansion under an 18-year-old non-disclosure agreement
9/9/22, 8:58 AM
Correction: Weeg said the city has been following the terms of the NDA for the last three and a half years, but a miscommunication led us to adjust this to two and a half years, which has been updated.
https://boisedev.com/2022/09/08/boise-negotiated-with-micron-on-expansion-under-an-18-year-old-non-disclosure-agreement/
Page 4 of 4
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:
Andrea Tuning Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9:05 PM ZoningRewrite FW: [External] Comments on Zoning Code Re-Write- City Has Produced a Terrible Chaos-Based Code Micron Secret Boise negotiated with Micron on expansion under an 18-year-old non-disclosure agreement.pdf
From: katie fite <katiemesa@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:11 PM To: Andrea Tuning <ATuning@cityofboise.org> Cc: Mayor McLean <mayormclean@cityofboise.org>; Jimmy Hallyburton <jhallyburton@cityofboise.org>; Patrick Bageant <pbageant@cityofboise.org>; Holli Woodings <hwoodings@cityofboise.org>; Luci Willits <lwillits@cityofboise.org> Subject: [External] Comments on Zoning Code Re‐Write‐ City Has Produced a Terrible Chaos‐Based Code
Hello, Here are summary concerns regarding the extraordinarily complex and damaging anti‐democratic Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan changes city leaders are trying to impose on Boise residents and neighborhoods. The “code” is now at 600+ pages and there are 300+ pages of Comp. plan changes ‐ totaling over 100 pages. At the outset of a code revision process, Boise residents were told this effort was to simplify the code. I took one of the City’s early “surveys”. That survey was specifically tailored to get the public to say the existing code was too “complicated”. Now, the end result of this canned consultant‐ driven top‐down code re‐write process is a ridiculously complex “code’ that in many ways is equivalent to not having any code at all to regulate orderly development and protect public health, safety and well‐being. Instead what has been produced is a chaotic consultant top down nearly anything‐goes scheme that will de‐stabilize and destroy Boise neighborhoods, green space, quality of life and existing affordable housing as the chaos‐based code drives high end development/gentrification ‐ and results in the demolition of single family and other smaller homes. It also sets it sets up a corrupt closed door system that will result in developers pushing city staff behind closed doors to allow often harmful projects to be rubber‐stamped. This proposed Terrible Code revision is based on: Tyranny. It’s tyrannical for Boise leaders to try to impose a Zoning Code that cuts the public out of development decisions for our Boise neighborhoods. The ZCR’s intensive development scheme 1
will bring high levels of noise and disturbance ‐ disrupting sleep and residents working from home, and interfering with family time and studying. ZCR building heights will block sunlight from homes. The ZCR will greatly shrink undeveloped open space on lots and result in large‐scale loss of soothing healthful green space. High density development in neighborhood streets will create dangerous traffic, increase air pollution, etc. Crucial decisions development that could ultimately could drive us out of our homes or apartments will be made behind closed doors at city hall ‐ with the public's voice silenced. Transparency lost. The ZCR will put decision making processes behind a veil of secrecy. Developers will push projects on planners with no public hearings, increasing potential for corruption. Projects will be set in stone and the public’s only recourse will be expensive Appeals. Yet it is the people who live in the neighborhood who best understand site conditions, what are neighborhood concerns for basic safety and local traffic, how a development will actually impact the area, etc. Teardowns multiplying. Existing affordable housing will be hauled to the landfill as trash, and replaced by new structures with a significant carbon footprint. How not to get to Net Zero … Trees cut down. The City of Trees will become the City of Stumps and harsh bleak Concrete ‐ like the desolate concrete‐scapes CCDC is so adept at producing in downtown URDs. Imagine the harshness of a whole city that looks and feels as barren as the “Central addition” and other recent CCDC endeavors. Temperatures rising. The urban heat island effect will shoot up as green space vanishes. It is critical to understand that much of the City’s claimed tree planting and climate “mitigation” currently relies on smoke and mirrors carbon scamming ‐ for example ‐ planting tiny trees dozens of miles away and claiming that is beneficial to Boise residents. Trauma. The social fabric of our community will get ripped apart as predatory speculators swoop in ‐ turning Boise into a city of transitory renters, where regular people can’t afford a home, and renters live in fear of rents skyrocketing and fees of all kinds. Terrorized. How renters feel when landlords keep raising rents and they must endlessly have to move to survive. How seniors feel when they can no longer stay in their home as tax assessments climb and gentrification engulfs neighborhoods. Taking. Taking from all those who helped build the Boise community over the 60 years that the existing code has served us well. Taking from those who invested their life savings to buy a house in a pleasant place or raise a family in a healthy setting. Taking from neighborhood groups who spent thousands of collective hours crafting neighborhood plans. Taxes going through the roof. Escalating property values as gentrification eats up neighborhoods will force seniors and workers to sell and flee to somewhere more affordable. 2
Traffic ‐ Jammed! Many Boise streets are already bottlenecked, and our public transportation system is minimal and has already fallen far, far behind needs. The ZCR tries to jam parking and other models from Cities that have reasonable public transportation ‐ and drop them down on Boise. Transnational corporations and Wall street speculators running roughshod with this chaos‐based development ‐ and Transferring wealth away from our community. High density apartments and rentals may be owned by corporations from Mumbai or Malyaisa. Money will flow out of Boise. Civic values will suffer as Boise is converted to a city of often transient renters at the mercy of rapacious property managers and distant owners. The “Modern” Code Is A Myth‐Based Misnomer ‐ the Entire Scheme Is Critically Lacking in Basic Hard Look Rational and Scientific Analysis How will this chaos‐based “development on steroids” code affect urban green space? How much will it reduce green and unbuilt space? How much will it reduce Boise urban tree canopy? How much will the ZCR increase the Urban Heat Island effect? How much embodied carbon will be lost in tear‐downs? How much space will there be at the dump to deal with resulting demolitions? What are the carbon costs of the foreseeable amount of new development the code is likely to result in? What will the climate change/greenhouse gas footprint of all the concrete and built space be as Bench and other neighborhoods are transformed into densely built apartments/condos? How much less healthy (both mentally and physically) will this densification and concrete‐i‐ fication of the city make Boise residents? What is the projected ratio of homeowners to renters predicted? How and where will the ZCR run counter to each of Boise's existing Neighborhood Plans ‐ which collectively represent many thousands of hours of volunteer citizen effort and have resulted in civic pride in Boise neighborhoods? How much more polluted will the Boise River be with runoff from hardened and built surfaces? How much worse will air quality be? Is it really “equitable” to locate high density lower income housing right on top off busy streets? How will the ZCR impact Boise’s urban wildlife species and animal populations? 3
Please provide estimates of the above issues/questions/concerns for for 10, 25, and 50 years in the future. Another critical question that must be addressed is: How much more vulnerable will Boise residents be to changed economy situations if the City is transformed into one where housing is dominated by Wall Street speculators apartment owners? Further, the ZCR conversion of more and more of the city to rental units will take place in IDAHO ‐ a state where the legislature is often antagonistic to cities and where renters will have minimal legal protections. the ZCR really sets up a worst‐case scenario for both homeowners and renters. ANY effort to revise the Code should come from a careful hard look and studies of individual neighborhood needs ‐ and be based on the desires and health and safety needs of an area’s residents. Instead, the ZCR is a based on Top Down chaos‐based closed door dealmaking ‐ in essence it is a form of lawlessness ‐ an anti‐code code. I am also very concerned that this effort is in some part driven by factors such as the City leaders secret deal‐making with Micron ‐ and make no mistake ‐ there will be a large amount of NEW toxic air pollution from a Chip making facility. These facilities are notorious for using huge amounts of water and generating pollution See Attached. Note that Idaho has less‐than rigorous air quality controls and oversight ‐ making the combined effects of expanded Micron pollution PLUS densification loss of green space and increased air pollution from unbridled densification and growth causing even more of a serious health concern. I request that the City hold a stand alone public vote on adoption vs. denial of the ZCR. It is our existing code that has made Boise a good place to live. Why do politicians now want to tear up the framework that has resulted in Boise being billed as "the most livable city”??? Why are city leaders and the mayor trying to wreck Boise based on a disproven scheme of “trickle‐ down” housing? instead of making housing more affordable in other cities where efforts like this have been tried, the changes have instead resulted in gentrification and ever‐escalating housing costs. Please enter these concerns into the record for the ZCR please, and please, please, abandon this highly flawed effort. Sincerely, Katie Fite 1006 N. 5th St. Boise, ID 83702 4
5
BOISE ZONING CODE REWRITE LETTER OF SUPPORT TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
March 21, 2023
Thank you for taking the time to read through this letter as well as the myriad responses this code rewrite process has inspired. I respect your time, and endeavor to be brief in summarizing my comments on the new zoning code. Since code issues are inevitably entwined with larger concepts and policies, I welcome follow up questions and discourse. I am unequivocally in support of Boise’s modern zoning as written and plan to testify in support. One area of focus I had during my term as a member of the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) is the destigmatization of neighborhood-scale multi-family housing types like duplexes, small multiplexes, ADUs, and cottage courts. I specifically focused on these housing types because they can offer the kind of naturally-occurring affordability that our community needs, even without the need for deed restrictions and affordability requirements. These housing types can be found in Boise’s most desirable neighborhoods, and are incredibly popular places to live. They provide value-added density, while maintaining neighborhood character. Historically, these housing types were built and converted in the decades prior to our current zoning code—without controversy—successfully addressing the housing needs of the day. A very Boise-esque way to provide more housing while saving some of our most cherished buildings. We can innovate and replicate great development methods like this under our modern code. However, there remain elements of the proposed code that I believe unnecessarily inhibit the kind of housing types our community wants and needs. I have outlined some recommendations to address these issues below: Administrative approval for neighborhood-scale multi-family conversions / adaptive reuse. Consider duplexes and triplexes that are contained within the envelope of a single family-sized structure create no additional impact to the surrounding neighborhood. Duplexes with ADUs on site, and other small multi-family configurations that may be converted from existing single-family housing stock have the best chance at providing naturally-occurring affordable housing, due to the size of units, and the integration of existing infrastructure, without the need for deed restrictions or other entitlements. Consider allowing the same administrative approval process as a single family home or remodel / addition for these conversions. Projects like these are not attractive to large developers and corporate landlords due to land & construction costs, but are ideal for homeowners looking to house relatives, friends and fellow Boiseans.
Byron W. Folwell, Architect LLC. www.byronfolwell.com bfolwell@gmail.com (208) 409-9050
BOISE ZONING CODE REWRITE LETTER OF SUPPORT (con’t) Reduce / eliminate minimum lot sizes in R zones. Lot sizes of 1,000 sqft. have been shown to provide effective naturally-occurring affordability in other cities. Many of these qualifying lots would be a one-time split and thus, qualify as infill. Form-based requirements will ensure that the new home integrates into the neighborhood, and these lots will provide entry-level homes for ownership. Consider long-term deed restrictions tied to affordability requirements as the community benefit, and consider how this will benefit land-trust projects. Remove the 3-year demolition waiting period from strategic infill. Consider all of the ways that this requirement may be circumvented (see Boise’s Historic Preservation districts), and instead consider that affordability & sustainability requirements are significant and valuable community benefits on their own. (See, also, ‘Voluntary Upzoning’ recommendation, as these are related). Many existing structures are unsafe, unhealthy, and poorly-insulated, and should be replaced with new, energy-efficient construction to reduce our city’s carbon footprint. Voluntary upzoning by current property owners. Consider allowing current property owners to voluntarily upzone their qualifying parcel to the next incremental zone (R-1B to R-1C, R-1C to R-2, etc.). Current Boiseans will benefit from this opportunity to participate in providing additional housing on their property, and parcels can be pre-qualified based on adjacency to transit, pathways, and higher density zones. Consider requiring a 2-year waiting period to mitigate displacement, and encourage proper planning. Zero-parking multifamily Consider removing parking requirements for qualifying multifamily housing projects near transit, pathway, and commercial centers. Boiseans who choose to live car-free shouldn’t be required to subsidize the parking conveniences for others, and as a city, we should be providing housing choices for those who wish to live a sustainable life. Please don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions or comments. Thank you, again, for your valuable service to our community. Sincerely,
Byron W. Folwell, AIA
Byron W. Folwell, Architect LLC. www.byronfolwell.com bfolwell@gmail.com (208) 409-9050
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 3:20 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Byron Folwell Email bfolwell@gmail.com Address 23 N. Roosevelt St. Comment See attached comments. Fully in support of the proposed modern zoning code. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. /media/forms/upload/form_9e949d7c‐a1bc‐422f‐b562‐023f2fc3a54c/085821bc‐6904‐4fca‐8d90‐ d438c3d22ecf/bwf_zcr_letter.pdf I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:34 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Pamela A. Fraser Email mfraser8156@gmail.com Address 1005 N. Balsam St. Comment Some thoughts:My neighbors and I deserve a say in what is placed in our neighborhood. The notification process was too hard‐won to abandon. If developers want to build here,they can tolerate our process.Increased density may be necessary, but some imagination would be nice. ADUs are dandy. Infill is being used fairly well. Do not replace affordable housing with anymore high‐end crap. We will eventually will run out of WATER. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:22 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Sheri Freemuth Email freemuths@gmail.com Address 1303 N 24th St Boise ID 83702 Comment As a property owner and resident of Boise since 1987, I appreciate the opportunity to review the current draft of the zoning code. I am pleased to see many complex issues addressed in this draft and respect the extensive staff work that supported the citizen group(s) and outreach efforts necessary to compile this 600‐page document. However, I am concerned that insufficient attention was paid to the neighborhoods that comprise Boise. Much like the natural resources that define our city, the traditional residential neighborhoods, historic commercial districts, older schools, and churches, make Boise unique and authentic. They contribute to our economic development strategies and quality of life. Idaho Code 67‐6511 states that “…zoning districts shall be in accordance with the policies set forth in the adopted comprehensive plan.” I believe the proposed code is not consistent with 2 essential themes established in Blueprint Boise. Theme #3 A COMMUNITY OF STABLE NEIGHBORHOODS AND VIBRANT MIXED‐USE ACTIVITY CENTERS calls for the following: protect stable neighborhoods and emphasize the importance of high‐quality urban design in the built environment. To meet these objectives, I encourage you to consider rethinking the changes to the following development standards in single family zones to retain CURRENT CODE lot coverage, height and open space standards. I would also recommend that you revisit options for maximizing retention of existing buildings by offering EXCEPTIONS to lot coverage, height and open space IF preservation is part of the equation (which is not possible if every development is allowed 100% coverage, 40’ height and reduced open space). While I respect the work of CVI, their expertise is not the urban form. As Blueprint Boise compels you to protect the city’s historic resources (also under Theme #3), I encourage you to spend additional time discussing the ramifications of these amendments to Boise’s older and historic resources with Preservation Idaho and look to recent studies by Main Street America https://www.mainstreet.org/blogs/national‐main‐street‐ center/2022/05/11/main‐spotlight‐a‐new‐report‐on‐the‐state‐of‐housin. Discussions with city planners/preservation staff in PNW cities like Portland and Seattle may also yield insight into the complicated mix required to retain character defining neighborhoods while seeking higher density. Visits to other booming cities, Portland and Nashville TN come to mind, will demonstrate how authentic neighborhoods suffer with the intrusion of large mass structures, that add numbers of units, displace residents, without addressing affordability. Blueprint Boise Theme #1 ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDHIP calls for Boise to promote the use of environmentally friendly development practices. As Boise continues her commitment to taking action to address climate change, “harnessing innovation, and the passion of the next generation” (City website), I recommend a closer look at the provisions to ensure that demolition of existing older and historic buildings is discouraged. Construction is among the leading activities contributing the largest carbon footprint. Boise should be a leader in establishing an enforceable demolition review process and an engaged adaptive reuse program 1
https://www.archdaily.com/979371/the‐most‐sustainable‐building‐is‐the‐one‐that‐is‐already‐built‐multi‐ purpose‐and‐healthy‐spaces This code rewrite should have a focus on what happens when this ordinance is adopted, and construction waste grows exponentially. Provisions for salvage plans as part of the demolition permit, establishing an architectural salvage repository (not unlike Boise's other recycling innovations but on a much larger scale) to serve those remaining historic building owners on maintenance and repair, are two suggested additions to the proposed code. Please consider these and other comments as you prepare a revised document for continued community discussion. Thank you for your consideration. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
CommunityEngagement Friday, March 17, 2023 8:49 AM CSIM; ZoningRewrite FW: [External] New Zoning Code
From: Pete Friedman <pfaicp@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 4:09 PM To: CommunityEngagement <CommunityEngagement@cityofboise.org> Subject: [External] New Zoning Code I think it great that the city will have a presence at Treefort to provide information on the new code. As I travel around the city I notice a well organized campaign in opposition to the code. The city did an admirable job of community engagement during the code development. However, I feel there could have been a more robust effort to tell the story to those who are not close by to the issue. The signs around town will cause confusion at best. With the little time left before the hearing it would be useful to have the city’s narrative out there also. Thanks for all you do. Pete Friedman
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 12:11 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Margie Friend Email magillainfriend@yahoo.com Address 689 n bacon dr boise id 83712 Comment Please postpone the voting for rezoning. I have become more knowledgable in recent weeks and attended one of the mayor's meetings. This will impact Boise negatively as it is written. Delay. Wait for more comment and discussion. I feel this is being rushed to keep citizens out of the loop. The ideogical flowery speeches are just that..but have no logic or plan. This seems likely to be more about following the money to an election. I am not a robot
1
Richard Fritzley Kathleen Fritzley 3807 N Hawthorne Drive Boise, ID 83703 20 March 2023 Boise Planning & Zoning Boise City Council Subject: Public comment regarding the new zoning code ordinance (ZOA23-0001 & CPA23-0001). We are wri ng to vigorously voice our objec on to the new zoning code ordinance as currently proposed. Our comments are not comprehensive as the amount of me allowed for reviewing this document is woefully inadequate given the size, depth and complexity of the rewrite. This seems to reflect the desire of the current Boise city administra on to ram this through as quickly as they possibly can before the next city elec ons with full representa on by district. As we live in the Sycamore Overlay, we are going to make only a few comments regarding how our local neighborhood will be nega vely impacted, and how the views of the vast majority of residents of the Sycamore Overlay are being ignored and run over. We have lived in the Collister Neighborhood since 1989, first on 39th Street, then Collister Drive and for the past 21 years at our current residence on N Hawthorne Drive. We waited pa ently for over a decade for the opportunity to buy a property in the Sycamore Overlay as it provides the type of living opportunity we desire. The proposed zoning ordinance will ul mately totally change the character of the Sycamore Overlay and destroy the features that current residents not only value, but cherish. When the new P&Z director met with residents of the Sycamore Overlay last year, he stated that he agreed that this special neighborhood should not be changed. This was obviously a false statement as the zoning ordinance as proposed will dras cally change the very nature of the Sycamore Overlay, ul mately destroying it. The charm and a rac veness of the overlay is captured by three key features, each of which is required to keep the charm, a rac veness and value of the overlay. Those three features are: (1) large lots, (2) agricultural uses; and (3) single-family residences (w/accessory dwelling units allowed under certain condi ons). While keeping the large lots and agricultural uses, the zoning ordinance fails to protect the third essen al element of the neighborhood of single-family residences. It does this by trea ng the Sycamore Overlay like any other R-1A zoning area which will allow up to a fourplex to be built on the vast majority of the lots. Allowing this in the overlay goes totally against what the new P&Z director stated. The new ordinance may prevent lots from being subdivided and keep the agricultural uses, but it is a dis nc on without a difference when it allows mul family units as large as a fourplex. The nega ve impact this will have on the Sycamore Overlay’s current property owners cannot be overstated. For example, being an open area very close to the foothills, we have an abundance of wildlife in the Sycamore Overlay. We o en have mul ple deer in our back yard, up to as many as 18 at once just this past year. our next-door neighbor and I both have very open backyards with gardens and grass that a ract deer to feed. My neighbor is elderly (well past 80), and the house is very old. Should this property be purchased by someone with no respect for the neighborhood, weI can easily see a fourplex
being built on the property. This will have mul ple impacts. First it will immediately devalue all the surrounding proper es which in essence is an uncompensated taking from the neighboring property owners. Second, it will more than quadruple the traffic to that property on a street with no sidewalks and is a major area for people walking their dogs, not just residents from the Sycamore Overlay, but the surrounding neighborhood. Third, it will destroy the a rac veness of the property for wildlife that currently use it, as a fourplex will u lize most of the current open space for the building footprint, driveways, and parking space. Fourth, it will permanently remove open space that has been u lized for the protected agricultural use that the Sycamore Overlay allows, never to be available again for urban gardening, maintaining livestock and other similar ac vi es. Fi h, a fourplex in place where a singlefamily home once stood will increase density excessively out of balance with the defining characteris cs of the neighborhood. We are not talking about a single, isolated, large lot in an otherwise small lot, densely populated neighborhood. We are talking about destroying one of the most unique areas in Boise. We will lose trees. We will lose open space. It will nega vely impact wildlife. It will increase traffic on streets where walking with pets is a way of life. We will lose the charm, character, livability, and a rac veness of one of the most viable neighborhoods in Boise. There are alterna ves. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) have been allowed previously but have needed approval. This should not change but condi ons allowing them could be less restric ve. However, as wri en the proposed code is too loose and the types of ADUs allowed are too broad. Addi onally, the zoning code should not be using incen ves for “affordable” units to drive density. Either a property is appropriate for the zoned density, or it is not. Whether units are “affordable” or not should have nothing to do with whether the density is appropriate or not. Finally, the city certainly should not be using its supposed clean energy agenda to drive up energy costs for renters or owners by allowing only electricity or geothermal as energy sources. This in itself makes the cost of occupying the unit less affordable. Given adequate me to fully review the proposed ordinance I’m sure we would have many more comments. Please reject this code, start over, and listen to ci zens of the community, not community organizers and non-profits with an agenda.
Richard Fritzley CAPT, CEC, UNS (Ret)
Kathleen Fritzley
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Cathie Galdos <cgaldos1020@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 1, 2023 11:04 AM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-00001,CPA23-00001
Boise Working Together has done a yeoman's labor to read the 560‐page ZCR document, point out problems with the proposed zoning code re‐write, and suggest solutions. Commentary from developer groups, who stand to gain billions, and from city admin, especially Tim Keane, whose re‐write failed in Atlanta, is just "narrative;" the code itself is where "the rubber meets the road." This ZCR, as written, will change the face of Boise as we've known it, without adding to housing affordability or protecting open space. It will impact quality of life for every single person who lives here, some more than others, as certain neighborhoods are targeted for complete density up‐zones in an effort to promote redevelopment. It promises the biggest transfer of wealth in memory at the stroke of a pen. It single‐handedly will change the stats on home‐ ownership, one of Boise's most stabilizing features It dooms an ever‐widening number of people to a lifetime of renting, rather than equity‐building, as investor/developers rush in to scoop up property. It will widen the gap between have and have‐nots in a city that, up to now, has been fairly egalitarian. It changes zoning for open space. It increases by‐right uses of property that formerly were precluded, or at least had to go through an approval process that included public hearings, so adverse impacts to neighboring properties could be examined and challenged, if necessary. This ZCR bypasses public input for projects involving application/approval, including controversial or contested projects. It disguises the nature of some controversial projects it is giving by‐right status, like low‐barrier homeless shelters, with terminology. The ZCR itself, the biggest change to Boise in at least 50 years, is about to become law on the vote of only seven people, two of whom will be by mayoral appointment, not election. That is not democracy in action; it is autocracy. Other cities have gone through this process. Some woke up before it was too late, others didn't. Lawsuits and overturns ensued, in some cases. We, the people, ARE Boise; the biggest gift we can give to our neighbors, ourselves, our children, and our city is to allow more time to get this right, then to put it on a general ballot for vote. We need more opportunity to get educated on this subject, and not just a "narrative‐driven" presentation like the Shelter Better Taskforce. We need to see the matters brought up in the Boise Working Together document addressed with actual changes to the proposed code; not just more "narrative." Trust in city admin is near an all‐time low for good reason. We, Boise, have a right to weigh in on matters of such critical importance that will forever impact life in this city. This re‐ write being steamrolled to approval has effectively cut us out of the process. It is time to hit the "Pause" button, do a better job of educating the public and addressing unintended consequences, then put it on a general ballot; the true test of any proposal. Please vote down the ZCR; it is fatally flawed. Here is the link to Boise Working Together analysis of the ZCR https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid027PmTqZAEiJCPKU3oLYcDbYkhbSEApS9PHckniD139HDdQkQ2bAy V22W3dh7fhdhjl&id=126578778115549&mibextid=Nif5oz Thanks for the time, attention, and diligence you will undoubtedly put into this. Catherine Galdos
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:44 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Becky Email beckygaspar@yahoo.com Address 925 Parkhill Ct Comment I support the zoning code rewrite because it fosters the creation of walkable, bikeable and affordable neighborhoods and will create more affordable housing locally thereby supporting diversity. I don’t want to see Boise become Phoenix , Sacramento, San Jose, or Los Angeles. “I am in support of the Zoning Code Rewrite because it improves the existing code that was based on lifestyles of more than a half century ago. I also advocate for the following additional changes: 1) Affordable housing. Plan for more people, not more automobiles by allowing zero‐parked housing, especially in R3 zones close to public transit options or downtown. The new code does not provide enough solution space for developers to build affordable housing. In particular, developing high density housing with onsite parking is very costly (up to $50,000 per parking spot). This will support those who can't afford or choose not to use the personal automobile as their primary mode of transportation. 2) accommodate for higher density with no onsite parking requirements for residential housing along transit corridors and close to activity centers. Three blocks surrounding these critical pathways and community centers should be zoned R‐3 with no or minimal parking requirements to support affordable housing and alternative transit options (bike, walk, scoot, bus). More of the city should be also be zoned R2, especially close to transit corridors and activity centers. the R2 should carry no or minimal parking requirements. 3) Process: remove community input when applications meet code requirements. 4) Neighborhood Associations: develop uniform bylaws for Neighborhood Associations, provide leadership training and ensure these associations and their leadership truly represent the interests of their neighborhood (renters and owners alike) and comply with all fair housing and anti‐discrimination laws. 5. Auxiliary Dwelling Units: – These should be allowed not only for owner occupants, but also for for renters/investors to improve supply and affordability.. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
kdg1996 <kdg1996@protonmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:42 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfor@cityofboise.org; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
March 21, 2023 Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Kristi L Gee
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 10:47 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Richard and Barbara Geile Email rtgeile@gmail.com Address 2510 W. Bannock St. Comment We are concerned about the reduction of public input opportunities in the development process such as no longer requiring neighborhood meetings and public comment during city meetings such as Planning and Zoning meetings and Design Review meetings. We are also concerned with the proposed changes related to density and building characteristics, such as height and setback. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. /media/forms/upload/form_9e949d7c‐a1bc‐422f‐b562‐023f2fc3a54c/0c4ffa55‐038d‐4a82‐a80b‐ 4abe058b9497/geile_‐_comments_on_boise_city_code_rewrite_2023‐03‐22.docx I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Saturday, March 18, 2023 1:54 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Karen Getusky Email getusky@gmail.com Address 3312 N Tamarack Dr Comment I think the incentive program in this very large plan document is a mistake. It is complex, unmanageable and unenforceable. It allows exceptions to zone density that will likely begin damage to existing older neighborhoods that P&Z claims they want to protect. Initially, the code rewrite was supposed to simplify processes. This enormous document is taking a lot of time to comprehend. It looks like neighborhoods and individuals will have even less opportunities to prevent undesirable changes in their area. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:29 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Nancy Giddens Email nancy.giddens1133@gmail.com Address 1133 Washington St. Boise ID 83712 Comment Please slow down this process. Residents need to be fully informed of the impact if this change. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 3:26 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Michelle Girgis Email mngirgis@gmail.com Address Boise ID 83706 Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Sunday, March 19, 2023 6:04 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Barbara Gordon Email gordbarb@isu.edu Address 2723 N Lakeharbor Lane. Boise, ID 83703 Comment I am writing to request more time to review the proposed changes. I have pending questions such as how the changes relate to HOA CCnRs. Our 21‐home CCnR only permits single family homes on a specific size of acreage. I am trying to understand if a developer could purchase one of the homes and build an apartment building on single‐family home lot. I need more time to read through the original copy of the proposed changes. What I have heard is that developers will pretty much have free reign and the voice of tax payers will be silenced. I am hoping that is not true. I am also trying to figure out if Boise's goal is to turn into a city of apartment buildings, which concerns me because we selected Boise because of the size of the city. Bottom line: It's a long document with a lot of jargon and I need more time to get through it. I appreciate your understanding that those of us without city planning degrees cannot process as quickly as the experts! I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:29 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Suzanne Gore Email 4suzannegore@gmail.com Address 1001 S Owhyee St. Boise, Idaho 83705 Comment While I support affordable housing, I have significant concerns about the implications of the proposed new Zoning Code on historic buildings and neighborhoods and on the potential for demolition of historic buildings that provide affordable housing and support sustainability. I am also concerned about ample notifications in existing neighborhoods where infill is proposed. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
amber grant <ambergrant76@yahoo.com> Friday, March 17, 2023 11:31 AM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite ambergrant76@yahoo.com [External] Zoning Code Rewrite
March 17, 2023
Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23‐00001 & CPA23‐00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well‐ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule‐change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. I encourage you to put yourselves in local resident and homeowners shoes and the impact it will place upon all of us if we Upzone irresponsibly and without all considerations. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report.
Sincerely,
1
Amber Grant
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:28 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Jan E Gurr Email Janegurr@aol.com Address 5510 Round‐up St Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. I am asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Andrea Tuning Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:44 AM ZoningRewrite FW: [External] Comments on Rezoning
From: Gary Hanes <ghanes1965@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2023 8:18 PM To: Mayor McLean <mayormclean@cityofboise.org> Cc: Andrea Tuning <ATuning@cityofboise.org>; Deanna Dupuy <ddupuy@cityofboise.org>; Timothy Keane <tkeane@cityofboise.org> Subject: [External] Comments on Rezoning Please provide these comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The rezoning comment page on the City website has a character limit that this comment exceeds. I am writing to support the City of Boise rezoning proposal. Several years of my 25‐year career at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) were devoted to working on local regulatory reform through the Joint Venture for Affordable Housing. HUD is still drawing on the information gathered from successes around the nation and makes some of this information available through its Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse. Regulatory reform has typically been the focus of Republican administrations. But near the end of Obama’s term, he issued an Executive Order 13777 addressing the need to dial back local regulations to increase housing affordability and production. The last word on the subject came from the Trump administration through a report issued by Ben Carson, his Secretary of HUD. So, remarkably, there is bipartisan, conservative‐liberal agreement on this point. In my own work in the Southwestern states (including California), neighborhood opposition to affordable housing surfaced as the most malignant and effective roadblocks. Typically, this is known as NIMBY – Not In My Backyard but it has many names. My all‐time favorite was BANANA – Build Almost Nothing Anywhere Near Anything. Unfortunately, this was too often bolstered by weak political support for affordable housing and housing production – NIMTOO or Not In My Term of Office! We know where that has gotten us. Nationally, we’re millions of new housing units short of what is needed and nearly every state is suffering from a shortage. Idaho and Boise are uniquely affected by recent emigration trends and growth, erasing any affordability advantage that it once enjoyed. This week the Idaho Asset Building Network announced that the state is short 28,000 units of housing and more than 9,000 units in Ada County alone. Thankfully, the City of Boise through this proposed rezoning is taking steps to reverse this trend here and should offer a more inviting environment to those who would add an ADU to their backyard or a developer that would not otherwise be inclined to take the financial risk of developing housing where neighborhood opposition would be a certainty. This should increase the production of housing, shrink the shortage, and result in a more affordable housing market. By offering entitlements to development, this will help mute the voices of opposition in many cases and reduce the administrative process of bringing housing development from the drawing boards to an onsite reality. 1
The State of Idaho has done much to eliminate affordable housing options that are routinely available to municipalities in neighboring states. Idaho has provided exactly $0 of its own funding for affordable housing and has only reluctantly reallocated recent federal funding for this purpose. Even Ada County has been miserly in its support. The Idaho legislature reaches even deeper to frustrate affordable housing development by eliminating inclusionary zoning, adopting regressive property tax policy for affordable housing, and frustrating mechanisms to raise funds for affordable housing that are available in all surrounding states (taxing ourselves for affordable housing, real estate transfer fees, etc.). Given the unfavorable affordable housing environment created by the State of Idaho, the City of Boise is working with the options left to it. It is looking inward for answers and the City of Boise controls zoning. Zoning can be a powerful impediment or an incentive. I believe the proposed rezoning has reached a good balance. Because the City of Boise is a HUD Entitlement Community and receives Community Development Block Grant and HOME funding directly, it must adopt a Consolidated Plan. This ConPlan requires that the City evaluate the regulatory barriers that exist to block or impede affordable housing and to take corrective actions. The proposed rezoning does this and indicates that the City of Boise is leaning into the challenge rather than shrinking from it…the opposite of NIMTOO! Another attractive goal of the rezoning is that it is intended to curtail (or, at least slow) the sprawl of the City into neighboring agricultural lands. At last year’s Idaho Smart Growth Symposium, a representative of the agricultural community pleaded with the Treasure Valley cities and counties to curtail encroachment on agricultural lands. The rezoning makes development more attractive within the current city boundaries. This not only moderates the expansion of expensive infrastructure and maintenance of roads, water, sewer, power, police, and fire service, etc. but the increasing density along travel corridors makes transit a more feasible option. This will reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. Economic development is sometimes a forgotten benefit of having an adequate supply of housing that is affordable to the people that work in the available jobs. Last year was the first time in my knowledge that Idaho employers appealed to the State of Idaho to do more about affordable housing. While our legislators only had to reluctantly reallocate COVID‐related federal funding to housing, they did it. But this was a one‐time infusion. Boise‐area employers have realized the unmet housing need affects their recruiting and retention. Our two regional medical centers, BSU, and even Micron have felt the pinch that the lack of housing has on their operations. The rezoning will provide a wider range of housing cost options and underpin a strong economy in Boise. I urge you to approve the proposed rezoning in its most recent form as it will keep Boise vibrant and affordable. Gary Hanes 992 E Riverpark Lane Boise, ID 83706
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Melissa Hanson <melissacabriolet@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:53 PM ZoningRewrite [External] Proposed zoning code ordinance ZOA23-0001 and CPA23-001
Dear Zoning Committee Members, Thank you all for your hard work on planning to improve the zoning code in Boise. I appreciate how challenging it is and that your intent is to make the city better for everyone. I’ve been following the modern code rewrite for awhile and reading as much as I can about it. I have to tell you, it is very confusing. Worse than that, I feel it is the most divisive issue I have encountered during my 16 years living here. Since I strongly believe in the importance of transparency and community, I really must agree with Mr. Fritchman’s advice in his recent Idaho Statesman opinion piece. Please, please, slow down, encourage more opportunities for education and discussion, and above all, please don’t make any final decisions until after the newly elected city council with geographic district representation is seated next January. To do so any earlier would look very suspicious, and the opposite of transparent. Again, many thanks for all you have done and for taking public comment seriously. Sincerely, Melissa Hanson 1714 W Franklin St. Boise, ID 83702
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
Andy Hoffman <andrewphoffman@gmail.com> Sunday, March 19, 2023 11:50 AM CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite; Mayor McLean Andy Hoffman [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission:
The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home.
The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well‐ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule‐change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report.
After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage.
Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits.
Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22.
Please extend the timeline for public comment by at least 90 days. 1
Sincerely, Andrew Hoffman 1805 N Liberty St, Boise
To help protect y ou r priv acy , Microsoft Office prev ented auto matic downlo ad o f this picture from the Internet.
Virus-free.www.avg.com
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Stan Hoffman <stanhoffman@mindspring.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:21 AM ZoningRewrite [External] Comment on the proposed zoning code rewrite
I oppose the the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite, Revised March 18, 2023 for the following reason: The process of writing this code has occurred without widespread public input as a top‐down effort, and neighbors have been left in the dark about its impacts. The majority of Boise citizens did not ask for these changes. The City has yet to directly tell the public how dramatically their neighborhoods will change due to the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR). No prototypes showing “worst case” scenarios of infill in neighborhoods have been shown to the public so they may ascertain the impact on their homes. Now, in a very short period of time, the public must decode over 1000 pages of the ZCR and a Comprehensive Plan amendment without any guide to exactly what has changed from the current code. A city council vote on the Zoning Code Rewrite must fully represent the voters instead of using appointed members of the city council. One‐third of the city council will be appointed instead of elected, deciding the fate of the Zoning Code Rewrite a few short months before the November election. Only duly elected representatives should decide what to do about the ZCR. Proceeding to a decision with mayoral appointees is anti‐democratic in principle, especially given the sweeping changes contemplated for a city council decision. Moreover, the final ZCR draft was only recently released. As citizens begin to learn and rush to learn how their neighborhoods will be affected by such a ZCR, the need is clear: this radical zoning change for the entire city requires a vote by everyone affected by the ZCR to decide who should decide the fate of the ZCR. If implemented, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will worsen our lack of affordable housing. 77% of the City’s identified need for additional housing is for those who make 80% of the median income (City of Boise Housing Needs Analysis, 2021) while “affordability” incentives in Boiseʹs largest zone (R1‐C) only provide a small number of homes for those making 120% AMI (Area Median Income). By increasing density allowances, the new code incentivizes the redevelopment of existing affordable housing without any requirement to replace it. The result will be gentrifying existing neighborhoods with market‐rate or above‐ market‐rate multi‐units. Reducing the minimum lot size in R‐2 and R‐1C planning zones will not necessarily contribute to housing diversity nor affordability. High‐density housing does not lead to affordability. If this were true, apartment rents in Boise would all be affordable. Additionally, the proposed fifty‐year deed restriction on maintaining a dwelling unit as affordable is only enforceable if a special compliance office with enforcement authority is established. New development standards will destabilize existing neighborhoods. Reducing lot sizes in R‐1C and R‐2 encourages lot splits and incompatible infill much denser than existing neighborhoods, destabilizing them and breaking faith with neighbors who believed the neighborhoods they were buying into were stable. Many of these areas are in parts of the city designated as “stable neighborhoods” in Blueprint Boise. Raising the height limit in residential zones will radically change the character of neighborhoods, reducing privacy, sunlight, and 1
vegetation. Increasing housing density in the neighborhoods will contribute to increased congestion, traffic, on‐street parking, and safety hazards for children and individuals with accessibility limitations. Changes to the Boise City Zoning Code should be written to protect neighbors rather than to destabilize their neighborhoods. Boise’s R‐2 zone has been re‐conceived as a higher‐density apartment zone similar to today’s R‐3 zone. The East End, the old South Boise neighborhoods off Broadway, most of State Street, the Pleasanton neighborhood west of downtown, and established neighborhoods of the near Bench, among others, are envisioned to transform into highly urban areas with four‐story buildings and no limit on density. These areas are currently single‐family, mixed with duplexes and small apartments. Medium‐density neighborhoods like these now contain many more dwelling units than suburbs, often from ten to 15 dwelling units per acre. Other areas – especially those south of Boise State University ‐‐ also bear a high‐density burden in vehicles, noise, and short‐ term occupancies; the ZCR exacerbates those problems. Neighborhoods near Fairview, State and Vista will become unrecognizable. The proposed code would rezone neighborhoods within 660 feet (about two blocks) of those corridors from R‐1 to R‐2 with 45‐foot height limits and no limit on density, destabilizing modestly scaled interior neighborhoods. Instead, higher‐density development should happen only on the corridors themselves with strict step‐down height standards to the existing neighborhoods. Owner occupancy for homes with ADUs will be removed and allowed ADU size will be increased. Today, a home with an accessory dwelling unit must have owner‐occupancy of at least one of the two units. The new draft eliminates the owner‐occupancy requirement for accessory dwelling units if one of the units is affordable. Boiseans loudly defended owner occupancy in a recent attempt by the City to eliminate it. This change will destabilize neighborhoods by creating de‐facto duplexes in areas where they are not now allowed, de‐incentivize homeownership, increase commercialized short‐term rentals, and promote renting by the room in existing single‐family houses. In addition, increasing the allowable size of an accessory dwelling unit from 700 to 900 square feet reduces livable green space. It essentially allows for building a second house in the backyard of an existing home. Under the current zoning code, ADU applicants must provide proof of owner‐occupancy on the property. However, it does not appear that adequate procedures are in place to ensure that the owner is actually occupying the dwelling. Lack of owner occupancy is widespread now. Why should Boiseans be confident that the City will enforce new standards that require affordability? The ZCR does nothing to incentivize homeownership. Instead, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) should incentivize the sale of individual units of cottage developments and other higher‐density diverse housing (e.g. halves of duplexes, condos rather than apartments, etc.) to encourage owner‐occupied housing and more resilient neighborhoods. The ZCR encourages higher density in historic districts. Except for homes that are currently recorded as “contributing,” redevelopment and or demolition of non‐contributing homes in Historic Districts under the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will encourage higher density units with modern designs that will negatively impact existing homes and damage the historic character of these neighborhoods. The new code lacks objective concrete standards to protect residential neighborhoods. For example: • Industrial uses in the I‐1 district “should” be buffered from adjacent residential, rather than “must.” 2
• Live/work unit standards say “The work activities shall not create adverse noise or operational impacts on adjacent residential properties.” Yet no measurable standards are included to ensure compliance. • In the R‐1B, R‐1C, R‐2, R‐3, MX‐1, and MX‐2 zones, the standards for multifamily buildings state: “Building and site design shall provide for adequate transition into the surrounding neighborhood to ensure compatibility between the development and the context around it. Factors to be considered are setbacks, building height, building materials, bulk, roof design, parking area locations, and landscaped area locations.” The code should provide objective standards to ensure functional transitions. The findings for conditional use permits are entirely subjective and have been loosened, to the detriment of neighbors. The current standards read: “The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions imposed, will not adversely affect other property of the vicinity.” The proposed language says, ”The proposed use will not create any material negative impacts to uses in the surrounding area, or any material negative impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, or the public benefits of the proposed use outweighs any material negative impacts of the proposed use that cannot be mitigated;” (Italics added) Intrusive uses will be allowed without public notice requirements. Uses like retail and neighborhood cafes, including those that sell alcohol, will be allowed by right side‐by‐side with existing single‐family homes in R‐ 1C and R‐2 zones. Operating hours will be between 7 am and 8 pm, with no specified time limit on delivery and maintenance times, which will likely occur before and after open hours. Nothing in the new code specifies that these will be locally owned businesses and that the properties may indeed be owned by large investors purchasing residential housing units to operate commercial businesses. While envisioned as walkable amenities by the code, such businesses will very likely negatively impact neighboring residents’ ability to quietly enjoy their property. The proposed notification requirements need to be revised. The draft Boise City Zoning Code limits the requirements of notification for changes in the use of single‐family/household property to the adjacent property owner and occupants, including properties across the street and alleys. Following the Planning Director’s decision, the notice for appeal is only provided to residents within 300 feet of the proposed change of use. Change of use from single‐family/household use to duplex, triplex, fourplex, or accessory dwelling units concern the entire neighborhood, not just those nearby. Notification requirements must be neighborhood‐wide and include opportunities for comment and appeal prior to the Planning Director’s decision. Proposed parking reductions will shift parking from on‐site to on‐the‐street. To increase affordability, parking requirements have been reduced from two spaces per unit for single‐family homes and duplex units to one space. The new standards do not mandate affordability in return for fewer spaces; the City pins affordability on hope instead of requiring it. This change reduces builders’ costs and increases their profits by pushing parking onto public streets, often already crowded due to existing infill development. In the current code, each building or dwelling requires a specific number of off‐street parking based upon the occupancy and visitation capabilities and expectations based upon the approved uses of the building. Zoning‐required off‐ street parking is necessary to avoid unsafe congestion on the street. It has been shown that on‐street parking congestion is a major contributing factor to pedestrian/vehicle accidents involving young children and individuals with mobility hardships. Only when a serious urban transit system is actually in place will it be realistic to plan for reductions in traffic instead of merely hoping for fewer cars and trucks on the road and parking on neighborhood streets.
3
The highly urban form the new code promotes will reduce non‐built space. This will create significant tree and green space loss, and minimal permeable areas. Other likely results will include reduced wildlife habitat, reduced vegetation to absorb CO2, lower temperatures and buffer climate stress. Public and scientific recognition of the importance of urban greenspace has increased greatly in recent decades. Current parcel zoning and development changes that City bodies are granting already erode greenspace and urban forest canopy in our Boise neighborhoods. As written, the ZCR will accelerate these greenspace losses and rob the public of our right to comment on greenspace‐altering development in the heart of our neighborhoods. The Zoning Code Rewrite will eliminate Boiseʹs power to negotiate with developers on a site‐specific basis. Currently, Idaho law allows cities to require ʹDevelopment Agreementsʹ (DAs) when developers request individual rezones. These DAs are essentially open‐ended negotiations between Boise and developers to provide public benefits that otherwise are not required by city or state ordinance. For example, Boise can negotiate for truly affordable housing, for upholding policies of Blueprint Boise, for requiring access to a trailhead, or for dedication of public open space. However, because the ZCR grants these higher densities with one decision, the city will forever lose this critical power to negotiate. In so doing, the City of Boise will also abdicate most of its future power to respond to site‐specific information and concerns from local residents. The new code picks winners and losers. Increased density and height limits, reduced lot sizes, and more allowed uses will not affect neighborhoods with covenants, conditions, and restrictions mandating only one dwelling unit per existing lot. New rules will primarily affect older neighborhoods often inhabited by residents of modest income, whose only protections from incompatible development come from the Zoning Code and conditional use permits. The new code is a radical plan to eliminate single‐family homes across large areas of Boise. It will displace and disrupt large segments of Boiseʹs at‐risk populations of tenants and senior citizens. The controversy of this proposal will tear Boise apart, creating controversy, resentment, and anger that will linger for decades and affect outcomes at election time. The Boise City Zoning Code Rewrite suffers from overall poor quality of writing and is complex and cumbersome to use. The major terms used throughout the document are not consistently used and the document is full of unexplained terms, which are either not defined in the definition section or are not used in the ways that terms are defined. For example, using the term “Creative Housing Design” is neither a design nor a development standard. Creative housing design, therefore, is not a definable nor enforceable code standard for the design of buildings in R‐2 or R‐1C zones.
4
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Sunday, March 19, 2023 12:10 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name janel holt Email janelholt63@gmail.com Address 616 N Bacon Drive Comment I strongly oppose the Zoning Code Rewrite. The public time frame for comments is too short for a document of 611 pages. The Rewrite robs homeowners of a voice in how their neighborhoods (and property values) are determined. Through vague wording and many loopholes available to developers, the City is trying to steal the esthetic and financial value of Boise's lasting neighborhoods. Let's put citizens over profit, manage taxpayer's money better, and give people a voice in this MAJOR change that Boise leadership is proposing! I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Sunday, March 19, 2023 3:44 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name John Hormaechea Email hoigbasco@outlook.com Address Boise, Idaho 83705 Comment Although no impacts for my family's immediate area, I do know people close to vista where there will be impact. Have those in the zone R‐2 change been alerted via flyer or other mechanism not electronic? It’s not clear those impacted have been communicated with. If the city has been “…working with residents over the last two years to make edits to the conversion map…” I would like more time to be sure they have received communication. Please extend the review 60 more days into May 2023. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 3:41 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Michael Hormaechea Email michael@hdllcboise.com Address 1101 W. River Street, Suite 300 Boise, Idaho 83702 Comment I am in support of the Zoning Code Rewrite because it is a significant improvement on the old zoning code and much better suited to deal with the issues of today. I would add the following recommendations for your consideration. Plan for more people, not more automobiles, by allowing developers to evaluate and build zero‐parked housing, especially in R3 zones close to public transit options or the downtown. Developing medium and high‐density housing with onsite parking is very costly. Consider removing minimum onsite parking mandates on housing and allowing for the same space to be programmed for housing to support those who can't afford or choose not to use the personal automobile as their primary mode of transportation. Consider the same accommodation regarding onsite parking requirements for higher density residential housing along transit corridors and close to activity centers. Three blocks surrounding these critical pathways and community centers should be zoned R‐3 with no or minimal parking requirements to support affordable housing and alternative transit options (bike, walk, scoot, bus). Like the R3 zone, the R2 should carry minimal (if any) parking requirements in areas with similar proximity to transit corridors and activity centers. These changes will allow the private sector to find solutions to create more affordable housing in areas supported by improved public transit options. I fully support the streamlining of the approval process which will reduce costs and improve speed to market. Getting more, less expensive housing product built is the fundamental solution to reaching the City's housing attainability goals. Please consider and adopt all possible simplification efforts such that more housing in desired areas gets built faster. I appreciate the considerable effort the City has put into this code rewrite. I have followed closely the public and private engagement with stakeholders over these past several years. I urge you to pass this code rewrite and begin the next chapter of managing growth in Boise. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 3:15 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Douglas Hughes Email Hughesdouglas63@gmail.com Address Boise, Idaho 83712 Comment I am writing in response to the announcement of the city release of the final zoning code, or a modern zoning code that has been submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a formal recommendation and then onto Boise City Council for final approval. I am bothered by the fact that there has been very little publication of a document that will affect so many people of our community. We all assume that we know what the zoning is in our neighborhood. We feel secure in that stability of a written document. Now I am hearing that the zoning titles are staying the same, but the definitions are changing or expanding to something completely different. Your words from the website state: Together with the community, the City of Boise has developed a modern zoning code to make sure the future design and development of our city protects the character we love and creates more dynamic, walkable space for everyone. The first statement of together with the community seems to be totally lacking in this process. I have heard nothing on the news or radio about this new modern zoning code. Since it is so innovative, I would think that the city council would be holding large press conferences or releases to the public. Yet, I see a limited time to review the 611 page document. I see the document dated Feb 2023, but did not see it available until March 2023. I also note that I have only a month and a half to review the document before public comment and meetings are to be held. And yet my only real information is coming from my neighborhood association. This leads me to assume that you really do not want community input. Again, from the city website: A modern code will protect the character of our unique neighborhoods and create opportunities for small businesses, pathways and homes at Boise prices across our city. From what I have seen of these new developments, it does nothing to protect the character or unique neighborhoods that we love. The new buildings are built up against the sidewalks and fill up every square inch of property with building or concrete for parking, leaving no green space of which the city is so proud to have. The new buildings tower over the single residential home next to it. So instead of having double wide trailer courts, we now have triple or quadruple trailer stacks without trees or grass. How does that preserve our unique neighborhoods? And the statement at Boise prices across our city is really nothing to brag about. The prices are already so high that we see a constant stream of cars coming into town at the beginning of the day and again in the evening. People work here but cannot afford to live here. Time to slowdown and give us time to really review what you are presenting to us before you finalize a document that will have long term effects on our city. I am not a robot 1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:58 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Austin Hurd Email austin.wade.hurd@gmail.com Address 7195 Bluebird Drive, Boise, ID, 83714 Comment I am writing in support of the Zoning Code Rewrite. It is a great start to addressing the city's issues of a lack of housing, increasing congestion, derelict neighborhoods, and encroachment on the Foothills and the Boise River. I believe no neighborhood should experience radical change, but no neighborhood can be exempt from change, and I think the ZCR achieves that. The ZCR allows every neighborhood to change a little bit, and because of that there will be a more even spread of investment across all neighborhoods instead of a flood of investment in any one neighborhood. The Strategic Infill requirements are a great example of balancing increasing housing and neighborhood change. Allowing neighborhood cafés and retail with limited hours and conditions for interior lots is a great example of balancing great neighborhoods and neighborhood change. Ensuring neighborhood transitions between transit orientated development and neighborhoods is a great balancing between decreasing congestion and neighborhood change. Would I like for all residential lots to be rezoned to MX‐1 or above, yes, but maybe that's too much of a change so the current changes will have to do. Thank you for doing an amazing job collecting community input, finding balanced solutions, and so much more. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 6:03 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Daniel J. Hutchison Email pilothutch1@gmail.com Address 102 North Jantoni Dr. Boise, Idaho 83712 Comment DELAY CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION DRAFT OF THE CITY’S ZONING CODE UPDATE: After reviewing the Adoption Draft of the City’s Zoning Code Update, my conclusion is to demand that all further consideration of this very poorly written document be stopped until after a newly elected district‐based City Council is seated in January of 2024. Also, all work on the zoning document, and promotional efforts by the Boise City‐Staff or City‐ hired consultants must also be suspended until firm direction is provided by the newly elected City Council with adequate public involvement. This is very critical! INADEQUATE REVIEW TIME: The very limited, and insulting, 22 days allowed for public review of a 611 page, poorly written document, fully demonstrates the cold‐hearted disregard for the citizens of Boise the current mayor, City Council, and staff have. The draft the document would place into city code the displacement of the diverse middle‐ and lower‐income population from the ability to live and prosper in owner occupied homes. This discrimination is further shown as the proposed code provides preferential treatment for the extreme upper economic population of Boise and the out‐of‐state developers. The Adoption Draft City Zoning Code would come at very high economic and social cost to the average citizen of Boise. Under the proposed development, funds would poor out of Boise into the hands of the out of state investors. The high‐density inappropriate growth would not benefit Boise by circulating investments within the community. Citizen of Boise would be displaced from their homes and offered high density rental homes with ever increasing rents paid to the out‐ of‐state developers. As your planned increase in housing costs drive out some citizens from their homes and city, the diversity of the community will drastically decrease. Yet you lie that you want “affordable housing”? LACK OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: The writing of the Adoption Draft of the City’s Zoning Code Update has occurred without widespread public input as a top‐down effort, favoring input from out‐of‐state developers. The neighborhoods have been left in the dark about its true impacts and true goals. The lofty goals set in the purpose of the code (11‐01‐03) all sound great. However, is only takes a short reading of the actual content to see that this section is all misleading lies and are inserted as a smoke screen to distract the citizens from the actual goals of the Adoption Draft. If the purpose section clearly stated the Purpose of the Adoption Draft City Zoning Code Update is to: destabilize residential neighborhoods; eliminate single‐family owner‐occupied housing; allow out‐of‐state developers to profit on the destruction of neighborhoods; increase crime; increase domestic abuse; reduce safety and security for the children; and contribute to economic hardship and mental challenges for the citizens of Boise, the stated purpose would at least be honest and match the actual policies in the terrible document. Totally inadequate space to write comments. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 10:30 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Maureen Email ingrammaureen46@gmail.com Address 7705 W Mooserun Ct. Comment Why the rush to approve this revised code when the general standard for comment period is 180 days? This tactic reveals more about the revised code than you intended, and is an abuse of the trust that your office requires. You took an oath to uphold the rules, laws, and Constitution of the state of Idaho. This is an egregious disregard for your oath. Honor the oath, and do this the right way ‐ it is your duty. Extend the comment period, please! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
DATE: March 21, 2023 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission, REF: ZOA23-00001; CPA23-0001
zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org
I OPPOSE THE THE BOISE ZONING CODE REWRITE BECAUSE: The process of writing this code has occurred without widespread public input and neighborhoods have been left in the dark about its impacts. The City has yet to directly tell the public how dramatically their neighborhoods will change due to the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite. A city council vote on the Zoning Code Rewrite must fully represent the voters instead of using appointed members of the city council. New development standards will destabilize existing neighborhoods. Reducing lot sizes in R-1C and R-2 encourages lot splits and incompatible infill much denser than existing neighborhoods, destabilizing them and breaking faith with neighbors who believed the neighborhoods they were buying into (and paying unbelievable taxes for) were stable. Raising the height limit in residential zones will radically change the character of neighborhoods, reducing privacy, and vegetation. Increasing housing density in the neighborhoods will contribute to increased congestion, traffic, on-street parking, and safety hazards for children, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc. Changes to the Boise City Zoning Code should be written to protect neighbors rather than to destabilize their neighborhoods. Owner occupancy for homes with ADUs will be removed and allowed ADU size will be increased. Today, a home with an accessory dwelling unit must have owner-occupancy of at least one of the two units. The new draft eliminates the owner-occupancy requirement for accessory dwelling units. This change will destabilize neighborhoods by creating de-facto duplexes in areas where they are not now allowed, de-incentivize homeownership, increase commercialized short-term rentals, and promote renting by the room in existing single-family houses. Proposed parking reductions will shift parking from on-site to on-the-street. This change reduces builders’ costs and increases their profits by pushing parking onto streets, often already crowded. Zoning-required off-street parking is necessary to avoid unsafe congestion on the street. The new code favors some neighborhoods over others. Increased density and height limits, reduced lot sizes, and more allowed uses will not affect neighborhoods with covenants, conditions, and restrictions mandating only one dwelling unit per existing lot. New rules will primarily affect older neighborhoods often inhabited by residents of modest income. The new code is a radical plan to eliminate single-family homes across large areas of Boise. The rewrite benefits developers and investors, is detrimental to homeowners and future homeowners, adds more buildings, cars, noise, and congestion to already crowded neighborhoods. High density apartments (that will never be owned, only rented) should be pursued downtown or in already existing zones, not shoved into old neighborhoods without the proper support for increased concentration. Removing homes that are single-family owned to install multi-units that are owned by absentee investors is a sure disaster for existing neighborhoods as proved in many cities nationwide that have fallen to this kind of profit-driven zoning. Property taxes are so high here we should be seeing something other than the destruction of our neighborhoods for the prices paid.
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:53 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Lari Jane Email ljrumpp@me.com Address Boise, I’d, 83705 Comment Please respect Preservation Idaho! Thank you. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 12:24 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Jennifer Email jenniferjw729@gmail.com Address Comment I want to request that the public be given more time to study the impacts of the zoning plan presently on its way to the planning and zoning board. Without that time, Boiseans may not be able to recognize and identify long term adverse impacts. Thank you! I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Kristen Jensen <jmkristen@msn.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 3:11 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
March 22, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: Although this letter is largely a form letter, it accurately reflects my thoughts and views regarding the proposed zoning code changes in Boise. Bottom line: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611-page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. All of which will have a negative impact on safety and property values. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report.
Respectfully,
1
Kristen Jensen 3775 N Sawgrass Way Boise, ID 83704
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 8:59 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name William Email jjerrems@gmail.com Address 83712 Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. Thank you for your consideration, Jerry Jerrems I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 11:44 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Tom Jewell Email ctjewell5@msn.com Address Boise Idaho 83706 Comment The zoning rewrite is a bad idea.It has been rushed, with very little citizen support, an ill conceived in general.It must be sacked and start over after the november elections If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:05 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name LeeAnn Johnson Berry Email lberry4@mac.com Address 3290 W Catalina Ln Comment I live on the bench. Please do NOT add any more skinny houses to our neighborhoods. Do not remove the old houses to put skinny houses in. It looks trashy. I'd rather we didn't encourage growth of our population in Boise. Let people move to those cities like Meridian/Nampa and Caldwell where there is already a lack of character and put skinny houses in. I used to live in Portland and they took areas like Overland/Vista/Orchard/Latah and made them artistic, walkable/vibrant places to live. Let's go in that direction. Remember, developers are looking for the next place to make money. They don't live in my neighborhood but they will gladly make money ruining it. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 3:13 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Roberta L Johnson Email bobbie6217@gmail.com Address 2948 E HEARTLEAF LN Comment Please extend the timeframe for review of the Zoning Code update from 3 weeks to 180 days (federal timeframe). If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:59 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Karen Jonnard Email karenjonnard@gmail.com Address 621 S 17th St, Boise, ID 83702 Comment Dear Mayor McLean and City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern, such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and Boise deserves better. The ask now is that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ Thank you for all that you do to make this a city for everyone. With more time and a fully “staffed” City Council, hoping as many Boiseans as possible have an opportunity to participate and share their voice in shaping Boise’s future! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Authentisign ID: E9365F44-D5C8-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B
Boise Working Together P.O. Box 7082 Boise, Idaho 83707 March 22, 2023 Boise Planning and Zoning Commission Boise City Hall 150 North Capitol Boulevard Boise, Idaho 83702 Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners, The Board of Boise Working Together has unanimously voted to oppose the Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) in its final draft form released on February 28 of this year. We do not oppose changes to Boise’s zoning code overall, but the ZCR fails broadly as it increases land use impacts while substantially limiting public input. Excluding meaningful public input harms local government process and transparency, and squanders local, site-specific knowledge over Boise’s eighty square-mile expanse. Boise community leaders have long called for encoding more of Blueprint Boise into our Zoning Code, but the ZCR fails to make headway in incorporating the cherished quality of life policies into enforceable code. Failure to encode Blueprint Boise’s policies in the ZCR now while entitling higher land use impacts may forfeit our ability to achieve these public goals in the future, as once private property is entitled, restricting its use may be challenged as a legal taking. For a great many reasons too numerous to list here, the ZCR as currently written will dramatically and suddenly transform Boise’s landscape in ways that will adversely affect the lives of our residents, most of whom will be taken completely by surprise by the scope of change. The way this code is written it targets areas of Boise, populated by those least able to object, with the least remaining housing options available to them. The following are a number of specific reasons for our opposition as specified by input and inclusion from all board members. The process of writing this code has not obtained the widespread public input and awareness as advertised. Many, many neighbors have been left in the dark about its impacts. The majority of Boise citizens did not ask for these changes, most have no idea what is coming. The City has yet to directly tell the public how dramatically their neighborhoods will change due to the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR). No prototypes or housing examples showing “worst case” scenarios of infill in neighborhoods have been publicized to the viewing public. Now, in a very short period of time, the public must decode over 1000 pages of the ZCR and a Comprehensive Plan amendment without any guide to ascertain what has changed from the last version let alone the current code. 1
Authentisign ID: E9365F44-D5C8-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B
A city council vote on the Zoning Code Rewrite must fully represent the voters instead of using appointed members of the city council. Due to unforeseen circumstances one-third of the city council will be appointed instead of elected. Currently three out of six council districts are not represented. Deciding the fate of the Zoning Code Rewrite now, a few short months before the November election is not sound policy and clearly designed to circumvent this important electoral process. The ZCR will forever change how Boise grows and evolves, it is only prudent for it to be enacted by a City Council representing each district of Boise and following the will of the voters they will represent. If implemented, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will not help the supply of “affordable housing”. 77% of the City’s identified need for additional housing is for those who make 80% of the median income (City of Boise Housing Needs Analysis, 2021). Proposed “affordability” incentives will have minimal effect on increasing that supply. However, the numerous incentives to entice redevelopment in Boise older neighborhoods, will significantly increase displacement of Boise’s at-risk populations. It will also cause the removal of Boise’s last remaining naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH), without a comprehensive displacement policy to mitigate those societal issues. The replacement market rate housing will also be significantly more expensive than the housing it replaces. Any incentives offered will not come close to replacing the low-income housing lost. There are numerous examples of this- Arbor Village, 11 th and Ash, 11 th and lee, Travis Apartments, Ridenbaugh Apartments, even Targee and Vista. Is this the community we have we become?
Reducing the minimum lot size in R-2 and R-1C planning zones will not necessarily contribute to housing diversity nor affordability. High-density housing does not lead to affordability. If this were true, apartment rents in Boise would all be affordable. Additionally, the proposed fifty-year deed restriction on maintaining a dwelling unit as affordable is only enforceable if a special compliance office with enforcement authority is established. New development standards will destabilize existing neighborhoods. Significantly reducing lot sizes R1C and R2 zones will encourage demolition of current homes in stable neighborhoods. In some cases, our models show the potential for lot split increases of up to 95% vs 30% by current standards. This defies Blue Print Boise standards of protecting stable neighborhoods. Additionally, the increased height limits ignore compatibility standards. These height standards weren’t an issue before, but with new pressures to redevelop with new uses, new densities, this will be a new issue to overcome. Vast areas across the Boise Bench and West Boise are built with single level homes, split entry and tri-level homes with low pitched roofs. The tallest home in the Vista neighborhood is a full two story with a shallow pitched roof and is only 21 ft at the peak. That is a vast difference from the proposed 40 ft height in R1C. Very few homes are full two-story homes in the targeted area, as opposed to the architecture styles in the North end. This aspect of the current built environment- architecturally, economically, aesthetically is not given adequate thought in this final draft. If it works in the “North End” it should work everywhere, seems to be only standard to achieve. Boise’s R-2 zone has been re-conceived as a higher-density apartment zone similar to today’s R-3 zone. The East End, the old South Boise neighborhoods off Broadway, most of State Street, the Pleasanton neighborhood west of downtown, and established neighborhoods of the near Bench, among others, are envisioned to transform into highly urban areas with four-story buildings and no 2
Authentisign ID: E9365F44-D5C8-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B
limit on density. These areas are currently single-family, mixed with duplexes and small apartments. Medium-density neighborhoods like these now contain many more dwelling units than suburbs, often from ten to 15 dwelling units per acre. Other areas – especially those south of Boise State University -- also bear a high-density burden in vehicles, noise, and short-term occupancies; the ZCR exacerbates those problems. There is a noticeable lack of examples in what a dwelling will look like on a 1500 sq ft lot, 5 stories high (R3) or for R2 on a 2500 sq ft lot 4 stories high. Instead, each of these districts seem to jump beyond what they were originally designed for- transitions from R1C neighborhoods to commercial uses. R2 and R3 are architecturally pushed into high density apartments vs medium density townhome style dwellings. Just pushing these limits does not mean sound, quality architecture and design is automatically achieved. Boise City Council recently approved an RFP for 12 Missing Middle/Zoning Rewrite consultants, not one of their websites illustrates the issues in design and compatibility these increased standards create. Instead, more is always the path pursued, regardless if it actually makes any sense or not. Neighborhoods near Fairview, State and Vista will become unrecognizable. The proposed code would rezone neighborhoods within 660 feet (about two blocks) of those corridors from R-1 to R-2 with 45-foot height limits and no limit on density, destabilizing modestly scaled interior neighborhoods. Instead, higher-density development should happen only on the corridors themselves with strict step-down height standards to the existing neighborhoods of mostly single level homes. Additionally, reaching ¼ mile into surrounding neighborhoods from any MX3 zone will also create havoc in these neighborhoods. The 55 ft wide lot rule in these areas seems to ensure that that the nicest areas are the ones targeted for redevelopment vs the areas that do need it. The 55 ft rule also excludes the majority of housing and neighborhoods designed and built prior to 1950. Prior to 1950 most lots(not all) were configured with a 50 ft wide lot and alley access, equating to 5000 sq ft lot standard. From the 50’s onward, lot and home styles were more car centric, with attached garages, necessitating shallower wider lots. Home styles also changed significantly moving aware from narrow bungalow style homes, to ranch style mid-century modern, which is specifically designed to have a lower height footprint. Mid-century modern styles which are a very favorable design trend in style and consumer demand, seem to be ignored and discredited with this rewrite. Owner occupancy for homes with ADUs will be removed and allowed ADU size will be increased. Today, a home with an accessory dwelling unit must have owner-occupancy of at least one of the two units. The new draft eliminates the owner-occupancy requirement for accessory dwelling units if one of the units is affordable. Boiseans loudly defended owner occupancy in a recent attempt by the City to eliminate it. In addition, increasing the allowable size of an accessory dwelling unit from 700 to 900 square feet reduces livable green space. This increase in size, combined with the minimum open space reduction to 200 sq ft and increased redevelopment across our neighborhoods will drastically reduce our tree canopy and open space, essentially negating any perceived environmental advantage gained with density. Under the current zoning code, ADU applicants must provide proof of owner-occupancy on the property. However, it does not appear that adequate procedures are in place to ensure that the owner is actually occupying the dwelling. Lack of owner occupancy is widespread now. Why should Boiseans be confident that the City will enforce new standards that require affordability? The ZCR does nothing to incentivize homeownership. Instead, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) should incentivize the sale of individual units of pocket neighborhoods and town homes and 3
Authentisign ID: E9365F44-D5C8-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B
condos rather than apartments. The pressure to build rental units vs homes to own will only exacerbate pricing issues in housing to own, far into the future. If we do not build homes to own now, the remaining homes to own will become far more expensive and increase gentrification and economic segregation in Boise, something the ZCR is supposed to reduce not exacerbate. The ZCR encourages higher density in historic districts. Except for homes that are currently recorded as “contributing,” redevelopment and or demolition of non-contributing homes in Historic Districts under the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will encourage higher density units with modern designs that will negatively impact existing homes and damage the historic character of these neighborhoods. The new code lacks objective concrete standards to protect residential neighborhoods. For example: • Industrial uses in the I-1 district “should” be buffered from adjacent residential, rather than “must.” • Live/work unit standards say “The work activities shall not create adverse noise or operational impacts on adjacent residential properties.” Yet no measurable standards are included to ensure compliance. • In the R-1B, R-1C, R-2, R-3, MX-1, and MX-2 zones, the standards for multifamily buildings state: “Building and site design shall provide for adequate transition into the surrounding neighborhood to ensure compatibility between the development and the context around it. Factors to be considered are setbacks, building height, building materials, bulk, roof design, parking area locations, and landscaped area locations.” The code should provide objective standards to ensure functional transitions. The findings for conditional use permits are entirely subjective and have been loosened, to the detriment of neighbors. The current standards read: “The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions imposed, will not adversely affect other property of the vicinity.” The proposed language says, ”The proposed use will not create any material negative impacts to uses in the surrounding area, or any material negative impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, or the public benefits of the proposed use outweighs any material negative impacts of the proposed use that cannot be mitigated;” (Italics added) Intrusive uses will be allowed without public notice requirements. Uses like retail and neighborhood cafes, including those that sell alcohol, will be allowed by right side-by-side with existing singlefamily homes in R-1C and R-2 zones. Operating hours will be between 7 am and 8 pm, with no specified time limit on delivery and maintenance times, which will likely occur before and after open hours. Nothing in the new code specifies that these will be locally owned businesses and that the properties may indeed be owned by large investors purchasing residential housing units to operate commercial businesses. While envisioned as walkable amenities by the code, such businesses will very likely negatively impact neighboring residents’ ability to quietly enjoy their property. While there seems to be a desire for this in our neighborhoods, the details are lacking. This should be a conditional use permit, requiring notification and acceptance by surrounding property owners, who have to live next to them, in front of them and beside them. It should not be a “by right” issue where one entity can intrude into neighborhood, removing local control over how a neighborhood evolves.
4
Authentisign ID: E9365F44-D5C8-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B
The proposed notification requirements need to be revised. The draft Boise City Zoning Code limits the requirements of notification for changes in the use of single-family/household property to the adjacent property owner and occupants, including properties across the street and alleys. Following the Planning Director’s decision, the notice for appeal is only provided to residents within 300 feet of the proposed change of use. Change of use from single-family/household use to duplex, triplex, fourplex, or accessory dwelling units concern the entire neighborhood, not just those nearby. Notification requirements must be neighborhood-wide and include opportunities for comment and appeal prior to the Planning Director’s decision. This is especially true, when duplexes are not required to adhere to any minimum lot area requirements, which is just ridiculous.
Proposed parking reductions will shift parking from on-site to on-the-street. To increase affordability, parking requirements have been reduced from two spaces per unit for single-family homes and duplex units to one space. The new standards do not mandate affordability in return for fewer spaces; the City pins affordability on hope instead of requiring it. This change reduces builders’ costs and increases their profits by pushing parking onto public streets, often already crowded due to existing infill development. In the current code, each building or dwelling requires a specific number of off-street parking based upon the occupancy and visitation capabilities and expectations based upon the approved uses of the building. Zoning-required off-street parking is necessary to avoid unsafe congestion on the street. It has been shown that on-street parking congestion is a major contributing factor to pedestrian/vehicle accidents involving young children and individuals with mobility hardships. Only when a serious urban transit system is actually in place will it be realistic to plan for reductions in traffic instead of merely hoping for fewer cars and trucks on the road and parking on neighborhood streets. People today do not ride transit, because it takes too long, not because they don’t live close to it. The highly urban form the new code promotes will reduce non-built space. This will create significant tree and green space loss, and minimal permeable areas. Minimum open space requirement have been cut in half to 200 sqft while increasing lot coverage standards. Other likely results will include reduced wildlife habitat, reduced vegetation to absorb CO2, lower temperatures and buffer climate stress. Public and scientific recognition of the importance of urban greenspace has increased greatly in recent decades. Current parcel zoning and development changes that City bodies are granting already erode greenspace and urban forest canopy in our Boise neighborhoods. As written, the ZCR will accelerate these greenspace losses and rob the public of our right to comment on greenspace-altering development in the heart of our neighborhoods. Mature trees do not receive adequate protection by the City of Boise. A home or an apartment complex can be built in a relatively short time. A mature tree requires a generation to grow and evolve.
5
Authentisign ID: E9365F44-D5C8-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B
The Zoning Code Rewrite will eliminate Boise's power to negotiate with developers on a site-specific basis. Currently, Idaho law allows cities to require 'Development Agreements' (DAs) when developers request individual rezones. These DAs are essentially open-ended negotiations between Boise and developers to provide public benefits that otherwise are not required by city or state ordinance. For example, Boise can negotiate for truly affordable housing, for upholding policies of Blueprint Boise, for requiring access to a trailhead, or for dedication of public open space. However, because the ZCR grants these higher densities with one decision, the city will forever lose this critical power to negotiate. In so doing, the City of Boise will also abdicate most of its future power to respond to site-specific information and concerns from local residents. The new code picks winners and losers. Increased density and height limits, reduced lot sizes, and more allowed uses will not affect neighborhoods with covenants, conditions, and restrictions mandating only one dwelling unit per existing lot. New rules will primarily affect older neighborhoods often inhabited by residents of modest income, whose only protections from incompatible development come from the Zoning Code and conditional use permits. The new code is a radical plan to eliminate single-family homes across large areas of Boise. It will displace and disrupt large segments of Boise's at-risk populations of tenants and senior citizens. The controversy of this proposal will tear Boise apart, creating controversy, resentment, and anger that will linger for decades. The Boise City Zoning Code Rewrite suffers from overall poor quality of writing and is complex and cumbersome to use. The major terms used throughout the document are not consistently used and the document is full of unexplained terms, which are either not defined in the definition section or are not used in the ways that terms are defined. For example, using the term “Creative Housing Design” is neither a design nor a development standard. Creative housing design, therefore, is not a definable nor enforceable code standard for the design of buildings in R-2 or R-1C zones. The Housing needs analysis is already outdated and questionable in its conclusions. There has not been any analysis of the conclusions made by the Housing Needs Analysis. Which was created in 2021 at the height of the Covid related surge and societal turmoil(riots). The first page of the Atlanta White Paper, summarizing Atlanta Neighborhoods objection to a very similar rewrite in Atlanta, highlight the need to NOT make long term strategic decisions based on a short-term surge or trend. The Nation, the Treasure Vally is currently in a housing and economic recession whose length and severity is unknown. Using data created in a short-term surge is not a sound policy- strategically or economically. Additionally, analysis of the Housing Needs data has not been done or proven out, just taken as “gospel”. The 2021 COMPASS development and permitting report indicates that Boise permits have averaged a little over 1600 units per year from 2014-2021. That number is only 26% of total permits in Ada County for the same time period. The Housing Needs increase to 2773 units per year and 42% of the Ada County permits is very questionable and no data is given to prove those assertions. This is the report that is driving every aspect of the rewrite, why has it not been challenged or analyzed for accuracy and veracity? Transit? A significant commitment is being made when long-term funding is still an issue. Development and increased densities along the key transit corridors- Vista, Fairview and State St is necessary. Many of Boise’s corridors are in need of significant investment/redevelopment as well. But are we ready as a community to sacrifice neighborhood integrity along these same corridors when our state legislature does not recognize or support funding for transit? Should we be forcing residents to 6
Authentisign ID: E9365F44-D5C8-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B
decide NOW, to support transit or support their homes and neighborhoods when transit viability, in Idaho, is questionable? The need is recognized, the long-term funding sources are not. The proposed incentives within ¼ mile of Mixed-Use parcels and within our neighborhoods along corridors and arterials is quite extensive and invasive. Is it all necessary, right now or is it something that should be added later as corridors redevelop and transit funding is secured, if it ever is (the reality in Idaho). Thank you for your attention in this matter of vital concern to our city and all of its residents and neighborhoods for generations to come. It is so vitally important to take the time necessary to get it right the first time. Economic and current housing recession warrant the extra time. Examples from Atlanta, Austin, California and other cities also warrant the extra time. The local political environment and conditions of representation do as well. Boise’s residents, despite efforts to notify and inform them, do not have an understanding of what this ordinance does and will do to their neighborhoods. Or what specific details hidden in this 611-page code take away. We have taken three years to get to this point, why rush it now? Let’s make sure this is what the whole community wants and will accept. The all-encompassing impacts of this ordinance economically, socially, environmentally and physically require active, open debate and discussion which has just begun. S Sincerely,
Dave Kangas, President Boise Working Together
7
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 12:08 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Jay Karamales Email DryCreekHistory@gmail.com Address Boise ID 83714 Comment Greetings Mayor McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth can be good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. I relocated from Fairfax County, Virginia, 12 years ago because of the same mistakes in unbridled growth and little concern for historical continuity I see Boise and Ada County making today. I would like to help our community avoid those mistakes. I am asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Please do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Scott Ki <senorllave@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 14, 2023 12:09 PM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-00001, CPA23-00001
Scott Ki, 1408 N 15th Street, Boise, ID 83702 Members of the City Council, Planning and Zoning Committee, and City Staff, We have very serious concerns with the current version of the City of Boise's upzone plan. We ask first that the City postpone this process to allow more time for public comment on the current draft which exceeds 600 pages and is written unnecessarily in very dense technical language. Overall, the lack of meaningful opportunities to provide public comment on the upzone plan as well as the inability for public comment within the plan itself are contrary to the fundamental building blocks of a functioning democracy, namely transparency and accountability. If this upzone plan passes, there will be no opportunity for neighbors to comment on buildings that may reach 40 feet into the sky and block sunlight from homes and backyards, or to comment on structures that may be occupied by a fourplex, neighborhood cafe, or cellphone towers, among other uses, which would significantly alter the nature of existing residential communities and damage their quality of life. I ask everyone involved in this upzone a simple request: provide one successful example of such a plan that has worked in the United States and did not lead to the further degradation of affordable housing and residential neighborhoods, did not increase noise and air pollution, did not place strains on water, traffic and other infrastructure, and did not significantly reduce parks and greenspace. Many have asked this question before during the City's process, but we have never been provided an adequate answer, perhaps because there are no successful models? We hear that we need more housing to address the lack of supply and increased demand in Boise so that homes can be made affordable for the backbone of our city – seniors, teachers, nurses, firefighters, police, and other service professionals that we depend on to create and sustain a great quality of life. Unfortunately, supply and demand is just one part of a complicated equation that involves investor cash flows and deep pockets from many who don't even live in Boise. More housing is great if you can implement price controls and focus on owner‐occupied developments. Otherwise, Boise is open to any investor in any corner of the world who can buy and hold multiple properties and wait for prices to go up and write out the blank check that the City will provide them if this zoning code passes. Let's face it developers and investors want to maximize profits, that's what they do. They're not in this industry to provide affordable housing and restrict their return on investment if they don't have to. Finally, we are not NIMBY's. My wife and I are parties of record in support of TRICA which is right behind us in the alley and The Franklin House. The folks who run these establishments live in the area and provide the neighborhood a unique charm. I'll also say that many who are opposed to the upzone are also not NIMBY's, but we all do worry about the future of a city that has already grown too fast and driven many who made up the special fabric of our neighborhoods out of town or out of state. For all these reasons, I ask you to postpone the upzone process or to reject the plan as it's currently written. Thank you. 1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 3, 2023 10:42 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Patricia King Email pati_sue@live.com Address 1111 S Berkeley St, Boise Comment I think the majority of the zoning code rewrite is geared toward developers and investors who have the most to gain from the changes. Our downtown corridor of older, more affordable homes will be razed to make way for "affordable" (multi‐family, high rise apartment complexes, skinny houses, ie., incompatible housing) ‐ which STILL isn't affordable for local residents as well as mixed use developments parked next door to existing houses. Our streets, utilities, city services can't manage the traffic increases that will come with these "improvements" to zoning codes. Living in a mid‐century neighborhood, I am frustrated by what is allowable already in heights on additions and remodels around me. Don't allow the pendulum to swing in the opposite direction simply to make Boise attractive to urban developers with zero stake in our community. These Boise "upzones" miss any affordability mandates, anti‐displacement measures, nor any tenant protections ‐ crucial safeguards to ensure we are truly getting the type of housing that makes for a diverse, mixed‐income community moving forward. And, by broadly "upzoning", the city has tied their own hands in terms of developer concessions, the only way to get those who line their pockets to give some of their windfalls to the community they impact! I was a licensed residential Realtor for over sixteen years. Since 2005 this community has been in upheaval, displacing thousands of local residents ‐ workers who serve Boise's economy ‐ west to Canyon County to live and raise their families. No longer is this a Boise issue. While Boise properties have consistently grown unaffordable, the entire Treasure Valley metro area has as well. Even in a significant market downturn, housing is still not affordable for average earning households, and these zoning changes will actually compound the problem! This is short‐sighted and poorly timed in the extreme. The zoning code rewrite needs to be further studied with MUCH MORE input from local residents, groups and agencies. We only have one chance to get this right and we've only to look to Seattle to see what a nightmare over‐development can become: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEJ8tfplZcs&t=301s Sincerely, Patricia King I am not a robot
1
BOISE ZONING CODE REWRITE LETTER OF SUPPORT March 22, 2023
To Whom it May Concern: We, the undersigned board members of the Idaho Access Project, respectfully submit general comments and observations on the recent release of the City of Boise’s Zoning Code Rewrite. We applaud the City’s efforts to create much-needed density to remedy historic barriers to housing equity, and the stated purpose of the Code outlined in 11-01-03—specifically the following high-priority items: 1. Promote the health, safety, and general welfare of present and future residents 2. Bring about coordinated and efficient development that encourages affordable and fair housing, stimulates economic opportunity, and promotes diverse, inclusive communities with a variety of housing choices for residents. 5. Achieve an integrated approach to land use and transportation to provide a safe, efficient, equitable transportation system for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and vehicles. What’s missing in this Statement of Purpose is an express emphasis on ‘mobility, safety, connectivity and accessibility for persons of all abilities in the design and development of housing and community infrastructure that supports welcoming, diverse and stable neighborhoods.’ We encourage elevating this concept in the final version. We also strongly recommend the City create incentives for new residential construction that reflects basic principles of visitability. Every new inaccessible residential unit placed in service represents a ‘disability tax’ on homebuyers or renters with a mobility-related disability—and their family members. See Inclusive Design Gets Customers in the Door for more information on why this simple change in design and construction standards can create stronger neighborhoods and community, increased independence, social capital, and economic opportunity for current and future residents. While not addressing detailed technical aspects of the rewrite, the comments below focus more broadly on the aspirational nature of the code updates, the historic nature of the housing crisis and its impact on protected classes and essential workers, and potential fair housing implications inherent in the unmet demand for housing types and price points that meet the needs of all Boiseans. One often stated goal of Zoning Code Re-write is to create options for increased housing diversity and density within all neighborhoods, including zones typically reserved for detached single-family residential development. This primarily low-density residential development form is by nature exclusionary, resource intensive, and an inefficient use of land and public infrastructure. Like historic redlining, detached single-family residential development patterns have the effect of discrimination based on protected classes like race, disability, familial status, gender (since all women and particularly women of color earn less than white males for comparable employment). Why diverse and distributed density—with conditions that create lasting community and social benefits—are necessary:
• • • •
•
•
•
•
•
The lack of affordable housing in every neighborhood restricts housing choice and equity for people of diverse abilities, needs and incomes. This in turn limits access to the essential community assets and social capital required to pursue economic, educational and employment opportunities. Boise residents with disabilities are often shut out of higher-cost R-1 neighborhoods, as are caregivers all residents depend on for child or elder care, in-home care, rehabilitative care that makes productive, independent living possible for Boiseans. A shortage of local reliable caregivers often results in a family member—almost always a woman—to reduce working hours or leave the workforce, which eliminates a source of household income and has a disparate impact based on gender. The lack of affordability also affects others we identify as the essential workers who serve our community. When those workers are forced to commute long distances or live in overcrowded or substandard housing, that represents a forced subsidy to employers who don’t pay a living wage, and consumers accustomed to low prices for goods and services. Increased housing costs are a significant trigger for wage increases, which contribute to overall inflation. Housing shortages and cost burdens also undermine the recruitment and retention efforts of local employers, forcing some businesses to cut back hours of operation or eliminate services. These ripple effects impact everyone. The shortage of affordable housing has led to high rates of housing displacement, first-time homelessness and social instability that externalizes cost burdens to community resources and taxpayers. Excluding density from R-1 zoning further concentrates density in already dense neighborhoods and areas of disinvestment. This in turn concentrates poverty in those neighborhoods and puts Boise at risk of complaints for failure to affirmatively further fair housing, a requirement of the Fair Housing Act. This failure could ultimately put the city’s federal housing and community development funding at risk. We understand that the City of Boise is working in good faith to preserve and expand housing choice as required under fair housing law, and that some barriers to density and affordability are beyond the direct control of local government. These include limits imposed by the Idaho Legislature, the rapid increase in speculative investment in Boise’s housing stock by outside interests, and the perennial opposition from unelected vocal groups fighting all development and change—whether that involves density, sprawl or repurposing of publicly-owned land for housing, which leaves no options for expanded housing capacity. Unfortunately, we also understand that subsequent fair housing complaints related to the absence of fair housing choice will most likely target the city, while ignoring the primary barriers named above.
As the City moves forward, we encourage a continued and expanded emphasis on inclusive planning and design. We look forward to a continued productive partnership with City officials and staff to create a Boise where everyone has a chance to thrive and prosper. Respectfully, Idaho Access Project Dianna Willis | Dana Gover | Jeremy Maxand | Erik Kingston | Carol Baron
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 5:02 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Erik Kingston, PCED for the Idaho Access Project Email erik.kingston@gmail.com Address 1010 E Jefferson Comment Please see attached support for the Zoning Code Rewrite If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. /media/forms/upload/form_9e949d7c‐a1bc‐422f‐b562‐023f2fc3a54c/a4e4cbde‐e753‐4ef4‐a698‐ ac431163fd7f/zoning_code_rewrite_idaho_access_project.doc I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:50 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Elizabeth (Betsy) Klene Email betsyklene@gmail.com Address Boise, ID 83712! Comment This is crucial to the future of Boise and keeping it a growing city and keeping its charm I am not a robot
1
March 22, 2023 To: Planning and Zoning Commission Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 I oppose the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite for the following reasons: The process of writing this code has occurred without widespread public input as a top-down effort, and neighbors have been left in the dark about its impacts. The majority of Boise citizens did not ask for these changes. The city has yet to directly tell the public how dramatically their neighborhoods will change due to the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR). No prototypes showing “worst case” scenarios of infill in neighborhoods have been shown to the public so they may ascertain the impact on their homes. Now, in a very short period of time, the public must decode over 1000 pages of the ZCR and a Comprehensive Plan amendment without any guide to exactly what has changed from the current code. I have specific concerns about the Boise Code Rewrite that include: •
The zoning code rewrite has chosen a city-wide approach to find solutions to their problems. In doing so, city-wide rezoning will affect all of the functioning neighborhoods in the city. These are the neighborhoods that have contributed to Boise being a desirable city to call home. Has the city assessed what the rezoning impacts will be on functioning neighborhoods? Not all neighborhoods will benefit from rezoning, adding density and reducing parking.
•
The zoning rewrite team did not use projected population numbers. Without estimating what our future population is going t be it is impossible to determine if drinking water, sewer capability, trash disposal etc. will be sustainable. The zoning rewrite team said that the new codes are “sustainable” but when asked what is the goal was for a sustainable population in Boise, they said that’s a good question, the team has discussed trying to develop a population number. We live in a desert that is hot in the summer. There is a limit of water, sewer and trash the City of Boise can provide.
•
The incentives to cut parking areas for the addition of solar or other amenities seems to be a poor choice. The tenants will park in front of the neighbor’s house creating additional problems. Perhaps it would be better if those units were required to rent to tenants that don’t have cars.
•
The zoning rewrite has not addressed conservation of existing cooling corridors or zones for the City’s heat accumulation. The year 2022 was the hottest summer on record in Boise. Adding more concrete and density increases the amount of heat the city retains. What is the city rezone doing to protect the areas that naturally cool the Boise. Conserving trees and open spaces are an economical way to use natural cooling in our region. Has the zoning rewrite addressed areas that are presently considered cooling zones. Once development takes over the only choice is to plant more trees, but it will be costly and may not work until 30 years after planting. The rezone will have direct impacts on functioning neighborhoods. It is reasonable to assess and review what these impacts will be on every neighborhood before the rezoning approved. 1
I also have the following concerns with the Zoning Code Rewrite: A city council vote on the Zoning Code Rewrite must fully represent the voters instead of using appointed members of the city council. One-third of the city council will be appointed instead of elected, deciding the fate of the Zoning Code Rewrite a few short months before the November election. Only duly elected representatives should decide what to do about the ZCR. Proceeding to a decision with mayoral appointees is anti-democratic in principle, especially given the sweeping changes contemplated for a city council decision. Moreover, the final ZCR draft was only recently released. As citizens begin to learn and rush to learn how their neighborhoods will be affected by such a ZCR, the need is clear: this radical zoning change for the entire city requires a vote by everyone affected by the ZCR to decide who should decide the fate of the ZCR. The new code picks winners and losers. Increased density and height limits, reduced lot sizes, and more allowed uses will not affect neighborhoods with covenants, conditions, and restrictions mandating only one dwelling unit per existing lot. New rules will primarily affect older neighborhoods often inhabited by residents of modest income, whose only protections from incompatible development come from the Zoning Code and conditional use permits. The new code is a radical plan to eliminate single-family homes across large areas of Boise. It will displace and disrupt large segments of Boise's at-risk populations of tenants and senior citizens. The controversy of this proposal will tear Boise apart, creating controversy, resentment, and anger that will linger for decades and affect outcomes at election time. New development standards will destabilize existing neighborhoods. Reducing lot sizes in R-1C and R-2 encourages lot splits and incompatible infill much denser than existing neighborhoods, destabilizing them and breaking faith with neighbors who believed the neighborhoods they were buying into were stable. Many of these areas are in parts of the city designated as “stable neighborhoods” in Blueprint Boise. Raising the height limit in residential zones will radically change the character of neighborhoods, reducing privacy, sunlight, and vegetation. Increasing housing density in the neighborhoods will contribute to increased congestion, traffic, on-street parking, and safety hazards for children and individuals with accessibility limitations. Changes to the Boise City Zoning Code should be written to protect neighbors rather than to destabilize their neighborhoods. Owner occupancy for homes with ADUs will be removed and allowed ADU size will be increased. Today, a home with an accessory dwelling unit must have owner-occupancy of at least one of the two units. The new draft eliminates the owner-occupancy requirement for accessory dwelling units if one of the units is affordable. Boiseans loudly defended owner occupancy in a recent attempt by the City to eliminate it. This change will destabilize neighborhoods by creating de-facto duplexes in areas where they are not now allowed, de-incentivize homeownership, increase commercialized short-term rentals, and promote renting by the room in existing single-family houses. In addition, increasing the allowable size of an accessory dwelling unit from 700 to 900 square feet reduces livable green space. It essentially allows for building a second house in the backyard of an existing home. Under the current zoning code, ADU applicants must provide proof of owner-occupancy on the property. However, it does not appear that adequate procedures are in place to ensure that the owner is actually occupying the dwelling. Lack of owner occupancy is widespread now. Why should Boiseans be confident that the City will enforce new standards that require affordability? The ZCR does nothing to incentivize homeownership. Instead, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) should incentivize the sale of individual units of cottage developments and other higher-density diverse housing (e.g. halves of duplexes, condos rather than apartments, etc.) to encourage owner-occupied housing and more resilient neighborhoods. 2
The ZCR encourages higher density in historic districts. Except for homes that are currently recorded as “contributing,” redevelopment and or demolition of non-contributing homes in Historic Districts under the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will encourage higher density units with modern designs that will negatively impact existing homes and damage the historic character of these neighborhoods. Proposed parking reductions will shift parking from on-site to on-the-street. To increase affordability, parking requirements have been reduced from two spaces per unit for single-family homes and duplex units to one space. The new standards do not mandate affordability in return for fewer spaces; the City pins affordability on hope instead of requiring it. This change reduces builders’ costs and increases their profits by pushing parking onto public streets, often already crowded due to existing infill development. In the current code, each building or dwelling requires a specific number of off-street parking based upon the occupancy and visitation capabilities and expectations based upon the approved uses of the building. Zoning-required off-street parking is necessary to avoid unsafe congestion on the street. It has been shown that on-street parking congestion is a major contributing factor to pedestrian/vehicle accidents involving young children and individuals with mobility hardships. Only when a serious urban transit system is actually in place will it be realistic to plan for reductions in traffic instead of merely hoping for fewer cars and trucks on the road and parking on neighborhood streets. The highly urban form the new code promotes will reduce non-built space. This will create significant tree and green space loss, and minimal permeable areas. Other likely results will include reduced wildlife habitat, reduced vegetation to absorb CO2, lower temperatures and buffer climate stress. Public and scientific recognition of the importance of urban greenspace has increased greatly in recent decades. Current parcel zoning and development changes that City bodies are granting already erode greenspace and urban forest canopy in our Boise neighborhoods. As written, the ZCR will accelerate these greenspace losses and rob the public of our right to comment on greenspace-altering development in the heart of our neighborhoods. The new code lacks objective concrete standards to protect residential neighborhoods. For example: • Industrial uses in the I-1 district “should” be buffered from adjacent residential, rather than “must.” • Live/work unit standards say “The work activities shall not create adverse noise or operational impacts on adjacent residential properties.” Yet no measurable standards are included to ensure compliance. • In the R-1B, R-1C, R-2, R-3, MX-1, and MX-2 zones, the standards for multifamily buildings state: “Building and site design shall provide for adequate transition into the surrounding neighborhood to ensure compatibility between the development and the context around it. Factors to be considered are setbacks, building height, building materials, bulk, roof design, parking area locations, and landscaped area locations.” The code should provide objective standards to ensure functional transitions. The findings for conditional use permits are entirely subjective and have been loosened, to the detriment of neighbors. The current standards read: “The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions imposed, will not adversely affect other property of the vicinity.” The proposed language says, ”The proposed use will not create any material negative impacts to uses in the surrounding area, or any material negative impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, or the public benefits of 3
the proposed use outweighs any material negative impacts of the proposed use that cannot be mitigated;” (Italics added) Intrusive uses will be allowed without public notice requirements. Uses like retail and neighborhood cafes, including those that sell alcohol, will be allowed by right side-by-side with existing singlefamily homes in R-1C and R-2 zones. Operating hours will be between 7 am and 8 pm, with no specified time limit on delivery and maintenance times, which will likely occur before and after open hours. Nothing in the new code specifies that these will be locally owned businesses and that the properties may indeed be owned by large investors purchasing residential housing units to operate commercial businesses. While envisioned as walkable amenities by the code, such businesses will very likely negatively impact neighboring residents’ ability to quietly enjoy their property. The proposed notification requirements need to be revised. The draft Boise City Zoning Code limits the requirements of notification for changes in the use of single-family/household property to the adjacent property owner and occupants, including properties across the street and alleys. Following the Planning Director’s decision, the notice for appeal is only provided to residents within 300 feet of the proposed change of use. Change of use from single-family/household use to duplex, triplex, fourplex, or accessory dwelling units concern the entire neighborhood, not just those nearby. Notification requirements must be neighborhood-wide and include opportunities for comment and appeal prior to the Planning Director’s decision. The Zoning Code Rewrite will eliminate Boise's power to negotiate with developers on a site-specific basis. Currently, Idaho law allows cities to require 'Development Agreements' (DAs) when developers request individual rezones. These DAs are essentially open-ended negotiations between Boise and developers to provide public benefits that otherwise are not required by city or state ordinance. For example, Boise can negotiate for truly affordable housing, for upholding policies of Blueprint Boise, for requiring access to a trailhead, or for dedication of public open space. However, because the ZCR grants these higher densities with one decision, the city will forever lose this critical power to negotiate. In so doing, the City of Boise will also abdicate most of its future power to respond to site-specific information and concerns from local residents. The new code picks winners and losers. Increased density and height limits, reduced lot sizes, and more allowed uses will not affect neighborhoods with covenants, conditions, and restrictions mandating only one dwelling unit per existing lot. New rules will primarily affect older neighborhoods often inhabited by residents of modest income, whose only protections from incompatible development come from the Zoning Code and conditional use permits. The new code is a radical plan to eliminate single-family homes across large areas of Boise. It will displace and disrupt large segments of Boise's at-risk populations of tenants and senior citizens. The controversy of this proposal will tear Boise apart, creating controversy, resentment, and anger that will linger for decades and affect outcomes at election time. The Boise City Zoning Code Rewrite suffers from overall poor quality of writing and is complex and cumbersome to use. The major terms used throughout the document are not consistently used and the document is full of unexplained terms, which are either not defined in the definition section or are not used in the ways that terms are defined. For example, using the term “Creative Housing Design” is neither a design nor a development standard. Creative housing design, therefore, is not a definable nor enforceable code standard for the design of buildings in R-2 or R-1C zones. If implemented, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will worsen our lack of affordable housing. 77% of the City’s identified need for additional housing is for those who make 80% of the median 4
income (City of Boise Housing Needs Analysis, 2021) while “affordability” incentives in Boise's largest zone (R1-C) only provide a small number of homes for those making 120% AMI (Area Median Income). By increasing density allowances, the new code incentivizes the redevelopment of existing affordable housing without any requirement to replace it. The result will be gentrifying existing neighborhoods with market-rate or above-market-rate multi-units. Reducing the minimum lot size in R-2 and R-1C planning zones will not necessarily contribute to housing diversity nor affordability. High-density housing does not lead to affordability. If this were true, apartment rents in Boise would all be affordable. Additionally, the proposed fifty-year deed restriction on maintaining a dwelling unit as affordable is only enforceable if a special compliance office with enforcement authority is established. Boise’s R-2 zone has been re-conceived as a higher-density apartment zone similar to today’s R-3 zone. The East End, the old South Boise neighborhoods off Broadway, most of State Street, the Pleasanton neighborhood west of downtown, and established neighborhoods of the near Bench, among others, are envisioned to transform into highly urban areas with four-story buildings and no limit on density. These areas are currently single-family, mixed with duplexes and small apartments. Mediumdensity neighborhoods like these now contain many more dwelling units than suburbs, often from ten to 15 dwelling units per acre. Other areas – especially those south of Boise State University -- also bear a high-density burden in vehicles, noise, and short-term occupancies; the ZCR exacerbates those problems. Neighborhoods near Fairview, State and Vista will become unrecognizable. The proposed code would rezone neighborhoods within 660 feet (about two blocks) of those corridors from R-1 to R-2 with 45-foot height limits and no limit on density, destabilizing modestly scaled interior neighborhoods. Instead, higher-density development should happen only on the corridors themselves with strict step-down height standards to the existing neighborhoods.
Sincerely David Kordiyak Boise, Idaho
5
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:
Shelly <32firefly@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 10:07 PM ZoningRewrite [External] comments on zoning rewrite City planning and zoning commission.docx
Please see attached comments Thank you David Kordiyak
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:51 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Don Kostelec Email don.kostelec@gmail.com Address Boise, ID 83706 Comment "The purpose of this act shall be to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the state of Idaho." That statement is contained in the Purpose section of the Idaho's Local Land Use Planning Act. Health. Safety. General Welfare. Those words are what the City uses in its Development Code Purpose: "To promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of present and future residents, and to bring about coordinated and efficient development that encourages affordable and fair housing stimulates economic opportunity, and promotes diverse, inclusive communities with a variety of housing choices for residents." I support the proposed zoning code changes that allow greater density in all residential zones because it will promote improved health, safer streets, and the general welfare for existing and future Boiseans. The proposed zoning code also brings Boise's policies in line with Idaho's and the City's purpose statement. Existing policies have not led to affordable and fair housing in Boise. It is clear here, as researched and proven elsewhere nationwide, that the predominance of single‐family zoning has not led to adequate housing options for people across all income spectrums and housing types. Instead, it is a contributing factor in making Boise less affordable. The current Boise zoning map shows the limited amount of land that allows for multi‐family housing. This policy‐ based restriction has created more intense redevelopment pressure on the already‐limited number of parcels where multi‐family or higher density is allowed or located. This has led to displacement of people who were living in what is often less dense, but still multi‐family units on those properties. The proposed zoning code designating more acreage within the City to allow for greater density, by right, can alleviate these redevelopment pressures on the limited number of existing sites, reducing the pressures on those properties and lead to less displacement. LEVELS OF APPROVAL For zones designated for residential uses I support Type 1 and Type 2 policies denoted in Table 11‐05.02: Permit and Approval Validity, with the exception of "Dwelling, Multiple Family" in R‐1B, and R‐1C. While I feel redevelopment up to a density of fourplexes is suitable in existing single family zones, the redevelopment of properties above that threshold should prompt a Type 3 Approval. PARKING I support parking reduction requirements for all new development. It will help Boise achieve its goals for 1
providing more housing and freedom of transportation choice. It will make streets safer, which aligns with the City's Vision Zero policy. The US Transportation Research Board found, "On‐street parking has the effect of reducing street width, which fosters slower vehicular speeds and reduced accident rates." It can reduce speeds up to 10 mph when parking is utilized on both sides. This is due to the friction created by parking that is more heavily utilized on residential streets than what we see in most single‐family residential areas of Boise. For example, a single‐family home on a 1/4‐acre lot on the Bench typically has 2 garage spaces, 2 driveway spaces, and anywhere between 3 and 6 on‐ street spaces on its frontage. This glut of on‐street parking is why motorists feel they can speed on our residential streets. Further, no one living on a public street has an exclusive right to the on‐street parking in front of their house. TRACKING AFFORDABILITY Is allowing greater density an end‐all solution for affordability? Probably not. It is, however, one tool Boise can control. Therefore, I support a comprehensive, statistically‐valid analysis on how the new zoning code influences affordability 5 years after it goes into effect, in consideration of other externalities that impact affordability but over which the City has no control. This will help Boise test and adjust its policies to ensure outcomes can improve housing affordability and availability. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Kris <krisbiz@digitalstations.org> Monday, March 20, 2023 11:30 AM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-0001
Writing to provide feedback on ZOA23‐00001 and CPA23‐0001 At a recent neighborhood water board meeting, I asked the 40+ people in the room who had heard of the Planning and Zoning proposed changed. These are active, engaged neighbors and yet none had heard of what was being proposed. A few had seen the “don’t up zone Boise” signs but didn’t understand the issues. While I personally tried to investigate the proposed changes, it has been difficult. I am unable to find a document with “track changes” or one that has a table of contents listing the changes or such. Is there a table that lists “old” and “new” side by side for comparison? When new developments build to the maximum of the lot and there are reduced green space requirements, we lose tree canopy, wildlife habitat and increase noise. None of these are good for our city and yet proposed greenspace requirements are reduced. Developers will likely put in small ornamental trees and not large shade trees. When you allow residential buildings to be 45 tall, this blocks sunlight into neighboring homes. A max height of 35 tall should be implemented instead. Lot size has been reduced to 3500 feet. Please increase to 4000. In SW Boise there are no city parks within a 15 minute walk of my house nor plans to build any (the acreage on Overland previously dedicated as park space was sold by the city). Increased housing without safe walking paths, parks or dedicated bike paths are not helpful. We do not feel safe walking 2 feet away from five lanes of cars driving 40+ mph. The idea that you can cram in more housing and people will walk to shops is ludicrous. It is when we have quiet streets, are out walking dogs and biking with kids that we see neighbors outside working in their yard, we stop to chat. This is what makes a good neighborhood. Streets crowded with cars and maxed out with housing change the whole feel of the neighborhood and that’s not the type of city that is good for communities. Please provide more examples of what is changing, do more to educate people and reconsider the proposed changes. Then wait until we all have an elected representative, not one assigned by the mayor, before voting on such major changes. Thank you, 1
Kris
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:19 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name kristal Email kristallin@live.com Address Boise, ID 83705 Comment Hi, we love our neighborhood and our city. My family does not want any tall buildings in or near our neighborhood. We want to keep Boise neighborhoods quaint and safe. No tall buildings in our neighborhoods please! Thank you! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 12:12 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Allyn McCain Krueger Email allynkrueger@msn.com Address 1321 E Warm SPrings Ave Comment The public need a fair amount of time to understand this long and complicated proposal!! PLEASE allow more time for public to peruse the zoning code and understand how it will affect them. PLEASE go back, and allow weeks, not days before the proposed code is sent to P and Z for their approval. I feel this is a rush job and it's very uncomfortable ‐ WHY?? I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Saturday, March 18, 2023 6:43 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Kylei D. Email m.nightmoonstudio@gmail.com Address Boise Idaho 83704 Comment By upzoning Mountain View Drive, you will allow a very safe, established neighborhood to be infiltrated with possible apartment buildings/duplexes. This makes me, my family, and my neighbors feel like our neighborhood livelihood is being threatened. Mountain View Drive has already had an influx of crime with the population increase in our city. We do not want that to increase even more, which is exactly what this plan will do. Please help us save our neighborhood and do not allow this to happen. We love our neighborhood and want to keep it that way. You all know in your hearts what is right, please help us. I am not a robot
1
March 22, 2023 Boise Planning and Zoning Commission Boise City Hall 150 North Capitol Boulevard Boise, Idaho 83702 RE: Comments on Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Dear P&Z Commissioners, I am concerned that the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) is being fast-tracked without thorough review and consideration. The final draft was published and posted on the City’s website on February 27, 2023. As such, only 23 days have been allowed to read and understand 611 pages of the draft ZCR document. Why is a complete overhaul of Boise’s zoning code being fast-tracked, without consideration for public understanding and participation? The current zoning code has previously been, and can continue to be, amended to fix specific codes that need to be adjusted. Since Idaho law now requires cities with a population exceeding 100,000 to elect their city council members from geographic districts, it should be required that this new sweeping overhaul of the Boise zoning code should be understood and approved only by a city council that is duly elected in our city. Currently, two of the six city council members will be appointed by Mayor McLean and as such, may not represent the voters within all of Boise’s geographic districts. It stands to reason that approval of the City’s zoning codes and building laws should be postponed until after the November 2023 election. There are several items within the new draft zoning code that are concerning and have not been addressed, although they were raised during draft public meetings, held by the City. Some land uses will become “by right” in certain residential zones. Retail sales and cafes selling alcohol have the potential to destabilize residential neighborhoods, with noise, traffic, and additional parking. The removal and changes of notification to neighbors and neighborhood associations, causes confusion and uncertainty within a community. These by right developments are a rubber stamp for developers without proper oversight. The reduction of dwelling unit open space, from 375 sf to 200 sf, is also very concerning. For a City that calls themselves the City of Trees, this amount of green space is sadly small. By reducing green space in urban areas, we contribute to the heat island effect and reduce carbon sequestration potential. The ability to split single family lots in the R1-C zone into four units will increase density, but seems to benefit developer’s income potential the most. I’m not convinced that splitting lots in residential neighborhoods will benefit residents in our community. It will likely destabilize single family home areas. Please consider extending the timeline for review and approval of the zoning code rewrite, so that these and other public concerns can be adequately addressed. Thank you, Estee Lafrenz
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
Andrea Tuning Friday, March 10, 2023 9:20 AM ZoningRewrite; suelake007@gmail.com zoninginfo RE: [External] ZCR
Good morning Susan! Thank you for your comments, I am forwarding them onto the zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org email to be considered on the public record by our elected and appointed officials. If you have any future comments, please direct them to zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org. Thank you for you thoughts! Andrea Tuning
Comprehensive Planner Planning and Development Services Office: (208)608-7078 atuning@cityofboise.org cityofboise.org
Creating a city for everyone. We are in the process of rewriting our zoning code. Please visit our website to get involved and receive updates. From: susan lake <suelake007@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 8:25 AM To: zoninginfo <zoninginfo@cityofboise.org> Subject: [External] ZCR
Dear City Council, I have read an abbreviated version of the ZCR and want to give my opinion. Many people residing in Boise came here for its family friendly environment and the smalltown community atmosphere. The natives feel betrayed and unheard. BOISE is changing fast and not in a good direction. These policies promoted by those that do not live here and are not vested here, will result in Urban Sprawl, more crime and for those that pay the majority of taxes a loss of what they invested in. Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely, 1
Susan Lake
2
March 20, 2023 Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council 150 North Capitol Boulevard Boise, Idaho 83702 Dear Mayor McLean and City Council Members, As way of introduction, the Lake Harbor Master Association (LHMA) is a mixed use development of small and medium businesses, and residential in the form of condos, apartment complexes, and single family homes in which 646 families reside. We feel that only a council fully elected geographically can make a decision that truly reflects the interests of all Boiseans on a matter of such far-reaching significance to our city and its various neighborhoods. Accordingly, we request that any city council vote on final adoption of the new Boise zoning code not be made until council elections by geographic district occur this November and a new city council is seated in January 2024. The schedule for approval of the ZCR shows it coming before council in June. At that time, of our six city council members, two—fully one third—will have been appointed by the mayor rather than elected by the voters of their districts. The ZCR as currently drafted treats certain neighborhoods of the city differently than others based on their locations. The LHMA believes that those citizens whose properties will be impacted permanently— and often dramatically—by the proposed zoning changes deserve direct geographic representation before decisions affecting their homes, livelihoods, and happiness are made. Our city is in a state of transition, not only through growth but in governance. While council representation by district was popular with some and opposed by others, it is now state law. This November will mark the first time some citizens of Boise will be able to elect a council member specifically representing their area and its issues. Only through geographic representation can we validate that the ZCR truly reflects the will of the people of Boise. Therefore, we urge you to ensure voters have the representation they deserve before you make a decision affecting them and our city for decades to come. Sincerely,
Jim Harris, President Dave Fujii, Vice President Kelly Hogan, Treasurer Lake Harbor Master Association
Full Service Property Management Specialists 251 E Front Street, Suite 203 • Boise, Idaho 83702 (208) 342-7368 • Fax (208) 342-7325 • www.veritymgt.com
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 3:54 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Jack and Mary Ann Lawford Email m.lawford@lawfordmedia.com Address 5199 Paiute Circle, Boise, ID 83709 Comment 1) I feel that this should not be voted on by Council/Mayor until AFTER the Nov Elections 2) Taking away Neighbor/Neighborhood notifications on permits /plans is WRONG. Neighborhoods deserve to know and to have a say in what is going on. 3) Too many "Allowed Uses" in all zones. and too little clarity as to what exactly is allowed / restrictions etc. 4) I feel this is a plan written so vaguely and without specifics for each zone that you could put virtually anything anywhere. 5) City seems to be purposely misleading the public on this by calling it cute names like "Modern Zoning" when it is really a total disruption of neighborhood across Boise. 6) Most people do NOT want apartments / multi fam / businesses in their neighborhoods. It is a very loud vocal few who are pushing for this high density. People move to a neighborhood because of it's attributes and the govt should not be destroying those values and attributes. 7) The so called 15 min city is just a pipe dream ... it has NOT been put into practice anywhere in the US. It is an Experiment and we do NOT want to be experimented on. 8) Requirements for fewer parking spaces in homes / apts is ridiculous. Just because you want people to drive less does not mean that they will want to or be able to ... it's just not reality. Sooo when there are fewer parking places for people, they park in neighborhoods which causes tension between neighbors. 9) We think the whole thing is a big hot mess waiting to happen... it's not what people want .... you are hiding the actual "features" that will affect people most.... and you give just 22 days to read and comment. 10) Very bad government ... leading to distrust and dislike of government. You cannot just PUSH things on people ... remember the Library ? This is 1000 times worse. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:15 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Sandra Lease Email sandy.lease@gnail.com Address 2011 E Roanoke Dr Comment While I am in agreement that Boise needs to have more dense housing, I am concerned about unintended consequences of the new zoning rules. I ask that we slow down the process and out off voting on these new rules. I’d like to hear more about the potential impact to the character of older neighborhoods, particularly those with historical significance. I a concerned that, without further input and understanding ot the potential visual impact, our neighborhoods will lose the charm that makes Boise so special. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Val Lee <2live4ever7@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 7:18 AM ZoningRewrite [External] Please do not pass new zoning
Idahoans need to vote on any new zoning laws, no one who had not been voted into office should attempt to change our laws. We desire no changes! We are a country by and for the people.
Thank you, Valerie Lee 83643
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:23 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Lois Lenzi Email lois.lenzi@gmail.com Address 244 S. Villa PL. Boise. ID 83712 Comment What are you doing? There is plenty of open spaces on the Bench and off Overland and Orchard that can be "renovated for density". Not the East End or North End or Central area by Morris Hill... Let's fill up these empty apartments before any more high rise apartments are built. I have lived in Berkeley,Seattle, Boston, Cambridge and New Port, RI and Newton, Mass before moving back to Boise in 1976. I lived in the East End in 1995 till I went away to college but I came back...I love Boise and helped start the East End Neighborhood Association...I will fight this absurd move. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 9:03 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Lynne Levine Email lynnelevine@gmail.com Address 909 W Fort Street 83702 Comment It is unacceptable for you and the upstanding citizens and tax payers of Boise that you to offer a mere month to review such an extensive and detailed document of land use proposals and updates. As residents of Boise, you owe us the courtesy of a thoughtful and considerate timeline to read and understand the major proposals that you are suggesting to our beautiful city. I realize that corporate interest and development $$’s are influencing your decisions to move fast, but how short sighted of you!! It’s embarrassing and shameful that you are neglecting and disregarding the thought and intellect of your citizens. I am asking that you extend the review time and public comments on the newly proposed land use zoning code. Not allowing a more extended time would be dishonorable to the fine folks of Boise. I am not a robot
1
The following are largely general statements that could be made by the March 22 deadline for inclusion in the Project Report. They are made with protest that the three weeks provided to read, analyze, and comment on the 611 page final draft of the Zoning Code Rewrite is simply too little, even for a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee for the rewrite. There are major changes between the final draft and the draft released last October, but unfortunately, the final draft contains no heuristic to highlight changes either from existing code, or the last drafts. Earlier drafts contained such heuristics (eg color coding letters to denote new allowed uses), which was extremely helpful. As such, the comments below may not accurately portray the entire document, as document search functions do not always find all entries in the document. First, to note some beneficial changes in this final draft: Trucking terminals – a buffer of 500’ is now required between any residential use (regardless of zoning status) and a new trucking terminal. 500 feet is dramatically better than current code, and would have protected residents in situations like those of the Blue Valley Manufactured Home Community. Generally noise and air pollution decays exponentially with distance – though prevailing wind patterns may complicate the protective qualities of the buffer. However – the distinction between warehouses (both large and small) and trucking terminals is ambiguous in the provided definitions. It must be clarified that any warehouse that also serves as a trucking terminal must also meet the use-specific standards (eg the buffer) – without that clarification, applicants may argue that the use is a ‘warehouse’ even when substantial environmental impacts occur from a subsidiary use as a trucking terminal. Fulfillment Centers – it is well known that current zoning codes are outdated regarding the distinction between traditional warehouses, and large fulfillment centers, leading to environmental justice failures as these fulfillment centers bring high levels of vehicular exhaust, dust, noise, and heat often into neighborhoods with lower incomes (see for example https://grist.org/buildings/a-warehouse-by-any-other-name/). The final draft shows Fulfillment Centers as being only allowed in the Heavy Industrial Zone (I2), which is a critical step in modernizing the zoning code. However – there are two critical caveats to addressing the modern problem of Fulfillment Centers: 1) I cannot find any definition of ‘Fulfillment Center’ – the search function only finds it on two pages (143 – the Table of Allowed Uses, and 257, Parking Requirements). Without a definition, large Fulfillment Centers will likely be classified by an applicant as large Warehouses which is the problem with an outdated zoning code as discussed in the article above. 2) The Allowed Use is given as A*/C* (Conditional Use Permit May Be Required In Some Circumstances Per Use Specific Standards). A major change in the Findings for Approval for a Conditional Use Permit may nullify the current meaning of a CUP. This will be discussed more below, but it may negate the public protections that can result
from successfully mitigating adverse impacts. This is an issue for many other uses – see for example landfills and protecting existing affordable housing along corridors. State Street Multimodal Path – it is excellent to have the requirement for the 12’ multimodal path in the Zoning Ordinance, and critical for any realistic implementation of Transit Oriented Development, especially in NW Boise where bus stops are at 2 mile intervals along the ‘Best in Class’ Transit Line. Protections for Existing Affordable Housing in MX-3, MX-4, MX-5 – the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit for uses that would alter existing affordable housing, manufactured homes, or assisted living and similar convalescent care sites, reflects a very important step forward in tempering the conversion of these uses to market rate housing that is unaffordable to the majority of those that rent. However, it is unclear how the requirement for a CUP will offer protections to current tenants or owner-occupiers of manufactured homes: 1. During the hearings regarding the InterFaith Sanctuary relocation, the view expressed by the applicant was that any adverse impact considered for conditioning by a Conditional Use Permits must affect neighboring properties, and not the guests, tenants, or others that live or work onsite. I don’t recollect a clear decision from the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding this argument. Because the CUP here is clearly intended to allow for conditioning or mitigating onsite impacts, it is inevitable that the use of a CUP to protect existing occupants will be challenged. 2. As noted above and discussed below, changes in the CUP Findings for Approval may further complicate the value of a CUP.
Requirement for an Assured Water Supply – the intent is appropriate and positive for any modernization of our Zoning Code in our arid valley subject to drought and climate change. It is, probably necessarily, a complex process. I have concerns regarding the impacts of the Exemption to local available groundwater – for example, when agricultural uses are replaced by housing or commercial, the initial use of water will generally decrease dramatically, enabling the exemption. However, good agricultural practices beneficially recharge the local aquifer, which is essential to maintaining groundwater that is both ecologically critical in drains, seeps, and other areas that serve as vestiges of the natural Boise River ecosystem before flood control, and as water for the majority of private wells. 1) In the Treasure Valley, irrigation provides the great majority of groundwater recharge: seepage directly from canals is responsible for 48% of the input to area aquifers, while total infiltration from irrigation and precipitation from farmlands provides an additional 46% (see Sukow J. Expansion of Treasure Valley Hydrologic Project groundwater model: Boise, Idaho. 2012; 34. and Bartolino JR. Hydrogeologic framework of the Treasure Valley and surrounding area, Idaho and Oregon. US Geological Survey; 2019. Available: https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20195138)
2) Generally this code rewrite, unlike our Comprehensive Plan (for example, ES3.5: AQUIFER RECHARGE), ignores the importance of this aquifer and traditional source of drinking water. In the future the shallow, locally recharged aquifer may be essential as i) a hedge against private ownership of municipal water systems, ii) as a source of water for naturally occurring trees and other vegetation that mitigates the Urban Heat Island, and iii) as public water storage with recharge effectively under city administration. I, and all of my immediate neighbors, rely on domestic wells tapping this traditional water source.
Preventing Bird Collisions – this is good and essential for a city intending to modernize its code and build higher along a cherished riparian corridor. I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on the mitigation of reflective surfaces, but I trust comments from the Golden Eagle Chapter of the Audubon Society, and others, were meaningfully incorporated. However, I am aware that bird collision deaths are one of the leading causes of bird mortality in the United States, and that, on a square footage basis, the taller the building, the exponentially greater bird mortality. I greatly miss bird species that were common in the area when I grew up – I think of western meadowlark and long-billed curlew especially – which is reflective of the loss of ⅓ of bird populations generally across the United States due to habitat destruction and other causes of mortality. This trend is accelerating.
The Loss of Development Agreements There are certainly other positive changes embedded in the Rewrite, but in the interest of time I will now discuss what I believe to be the fundamental challenge of such an ambitious Zoning Code Rewrite – the loss of the ability for the City, and through the City, the public, to make site specific adjustments, mitigations, or accommodations to maintain or further the public good. These adjustments may uphold policies of the Comprehensive Plan that are not currently codified by ordinance, gain a percentage of affordable units in large projects as feasible per current market conditions, or, for example, require the installation of a traffic signal, pedestrian crossing, or bus stop. Today, the primary power for Idaho municipalities to accomplish these site specific adjustments is through the Development Agreement, an open ended right to negotiate upon granting an upzone. By upzoning thousands of parcels in one simultaneous action, the Zoning Code Rewrite, just to maintain parity with current municipal power, must foresee and propose methods to mitigate on each and all of these parcels, without the benefit of local knowledge brought forth by public comment. We typically hear consternation from the City of Boise that its powers to act on the public behalf are severely and repeatedly restricted by the State of Idaho. The Development Agreement can,
when applicants wish to gain more profitable entitlements, constrain development toward the public benefit. Even where the Zoning Code Rewrite makes progress in codifying policies of the Comprehensive Plan, or other beneficial policy, the City of Boise may still risk losing the ability to enforce these policies. For example, currently proposed legislation may nullify the proposed building code reforms for greater energy efficiency. In large projects that today would require a rezone, at least, the ability to enforce that public good would be retained through Development Agreements. Incentives for affordable housing may also be attacked, and if struck from the code, we will also lose the power to negotiate for this public benefit once units are entitled. The City should consider making the density entitlements that are expressed in the rewrite with affordability and environmental incentives to be conditional on the ability of the City to enforce these policies. If the State takes away the power of the City to enforce, the entitlements should revert to what is currently allowed, much in the same manner as zoning reverts upon failure to uphold a Development Agreement.
Lack of Data All review bodies, and the public, should be provided with local data that would clarify the relationship between the entitlement process and the construction of housing, especially more affordable housing. Much of the rationale for the rewrite is that it will produce more, and more affordable housing. However, the Citizen Advisory Committee was not presented with these data despite repeated requests, so that any local relationship between the entitlement process and the lack of housing construction remains anecdotal. Locally, and anecdotally, only a small fraction of housing is delayed, and even a smaller fraction stopped, by the entitlement process, while many thousands of housing units have been entitled, often for years, without being constructed. The onus is to show that a significant bottleneck for housing supply exists at the permitting rather than construction level. Other data that is essential to making an informed decision is the extent and type of Development Agreements employed during the individual rezone process.
Changes to the Conditional Use Permit Decision-Making Process As noted above, the CUP has inserted crucial wording in the final draft that was not discussed in the Citizen Advisory Committee, or highlighted in any way:
iv. The proposed use will not create any material negative impacts to uses in the surrounding area, or any material negative impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, or the public benefits of the proposed use outweighs any material negative impacts of the proposed use that cannot be mitigated;
While, on the face of it, this clause increases the ability of the City to work in the public benefit, it may well eliminate the ability of the CUP to act as intended – to condition a use with site-specific mitigation if possible, and if not, to deny the permit. Inserting a ‘public benefit’ clause here that entirely changes the intent of a CUP, and opens the process to vast ambiguity and challenge. Almost any project can be claimed to be a benefit to the public, and the decision whether the public benefit outweighs ‘material negative impacts’ will place an extraordinary responsibility on review bodies. At one extreme this clause could reduce the CUP process to a simple restating of summary boilerplate, much as City of Boise Planning Staff currently states projects comply with the Comprehensive Plan in the required Reasons for the Decision. As noted above, this rewrite relies heavily on the CUP as a means to achieve desired policy. By altering the essence of the CUP – that adverse impacts must be mitigated in order to gain approval – we may have given false assurance that harms will be addressed in the public hearing process. For example, landfills are not currently allowed in the City of Boise, but, in the final draft, are allowed as Conditional Uses in I-2 zones. It is not hard to imagine that either the applicant, or Planning Staff, would assert the public benefit of landfills – after all, we as the public generate solid waste, and currently landfilling is the ‘solution’ for most of this waste. The argument might continue – without landfills, or even this proposed landfill, additional harm such as the dumping of waste may occur. On the other hand, the adverse impacts of landfills are well known, and even without this clause, the duty of the review body is difficult. On experts will the City rely upon to determine whether adverse impacts can be mitigated? After all, at the very least, the Ada County Regional Landfill describes landfills as inherently stinky: “Landfills smell. It is their nature. There are a variety of smells at a landfill but most often, the reputation of a landfill is that it stinks.” https://adacounty.id.gov/landfill/landfill-operations/odor-control/). More critically, however, landfills receive hazardous substances mixed into residential waste even when these are banned. Landfills receive, store, and sometimes release substances that are not currently registered as hazardous, but are likely to attain that status in the future. If these are recalcitrant to degradation and are able to escape either in air or water (eg the remaining 13,986 types of ‘forever chemicals’ or PFAS that are still unregulated), then the landfill may become legally hazardous, eg a Superfund site. Because Idaho does not impose any additional requirements beyond federal standards for hazardous waste, other states may take advantage of our lax policy and ship waste they consider hazardous to Boise (see https://calmatters.org/environment/2023/01/california-toxic-waste-dumped-arizona-utah/).
It may already be impossible for the review body to ensure that the additional standards are met for landfills. Additional Standards for both I1 and I2 are appropriate and a much needed safeguard to protect residents and the environment. The second standard (‘All operations shall be free of odor, dust, smoke, cinders, gas, fumes, noise, vibrations, refuse matter, water-carried waste, or other emissions.’) is shared by both I1 and I2, while the first standard that either bans (I1) or conditions (I2) uses ‘that generate, use, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous substances.’ The public, the Planning and Zoning Committee and City Council would greatly benefit from knowing that landfills are not currently allowed in City limits, so that they could consider the impact of this change, but the Zoning Code Rewrite does not provide this information in the final draft. Finally, it may be helpful to consider the history of the novel inclusion of landfills in the final draft from the perspective of a Citizen Advisory Committee member. I noticed, with the help of the color coded font, that ‘sanitary landfills’ were added to the Table of Allowed Uses in the first draft. At that time landfills were allowed uses in both light and heavy industrial zones (I-1 and I-2). Having experienced the Ada County Landfill being sited near my family property as a child, I am intimately familiar with their associated adverse impacts, and raised the issue to the Committee. I was pleased to learn that my concerns had been considered, and that the new use of landfills would be removed. However, for reasons not given to the Committee, landfills retained a new allowance as a Conditional Use in heavy industrial districts (I-2). Certainly this is a vast, and appreciated, improvement over landfills being a new Allowed Use in both I-1 and I-2, but, especially given the changes to the Conditional Use Permit decision making process, any application for a landfill will create difficult choices to the review body. But perhaps more importantly, the underlying rationale for bringing landfills into Boise City limits has remained entirely hidden from the public. In general, the zoning code rewrite encapsulates a multitude of decisions that were made out of sight even from the Citizen Advisory Committee, and may not have been noticed during the short time frame after release of the final draft. I believe that Planning and Zoning should defer the decision on the Rewrite until the public, and the Committee, can more fully grasp the rationales, and the consequences, both intended and unintended, of such a significant rewriting of the laws that govern land use in the City of Boise. Even if we agree that generally allowing more intensive impacts within the City, how we proceed to achieve this will have long lasting repercussions. Sincerely, Richard Llewellyn PhD Biochemistry
(208) 419-7527
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
retrogirl <retrokaran@gmail.com> Saturday, March 18, 2023 6:37 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Extend the timeline to review upzoning, please
March 18, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23‐00001 & CPA23‐00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well‐ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule‐change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Karan and Andrew Lockhart
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 2:57 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name John Lodman Email johnlodman@gmail.com Address 5051 NORTH VILLA RIDGE WAY Comment 11‐03‐03.2.B.8 requires owner occupancy of either the primary structure or accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in order to obtain an ADU building permit. Encumbrance of the property title by deed restriction is required. This provision is impractical, unworkable and possibly illegal. Consider the following scenarios‐ Scenario 1‐ property with ADU is left to heirs in estate. are the heirs left to either occupy the property or sell? the answer is yes under the current and proposed code. Does the City really intend to enforce this provision on the heirs? if so, how? Scenario 2‐ corporate or state owned entities wish to better utilize owed properties by adding ADUs. are these entities unable to obtain permits? the answer is yes under the current and proposed code. This scenario is real‐ BSU has about 30 properties it considers "underutilized" and may want to consider ADUs (source: Drew Alexander, BSU VP of Capital Planning and Space Management) Scenario 3‐ corporate entity wants to develop an ADU and agrees to the deed restriction. The owner LLC simply adds the tenant as a "member" of the LLC with expiring ownership rights. The LLC can still lease to the tenant even as a very fractional owner "member". In any case, under Title 28 Chapter 12 of Idaho code the leasehold may be adequate to consider the tenant an "owner" for the duration of the leasehold. The creation of two classes of owners‐ owner/occupant and owner/investor‐ is likely illegal. Nowhere else in the development code is this found. Sooner or later, this provision will be challenged in court and I expect that the city will lose. Even the heirs under scenario 1 may have standing as the deed restriction will artificially limit the resale market. Planning staff justifies the distinction because development of an ADU is a "privilege"! A privilege for me to use my property exactly as my neighbor uses her's! I recognize that the Code has an exception to this requirement under 11‐04‐03.7 with a commitment for 50 years of sub‐market rent. This commitment is is entirely too long and frankly, this is another unenforceable provision in the Code. How does the City plan to enforce this if the developer agrees? If the city wants to limit short term rentals by this provision then consider an alternative deed restriction on short term rentals. We would agree to this on the entire property, primary structure and ADU. Such a provision would do more to preserve neighborhoods than the owner occupancy deed restriction. Please remove these provisions from the Code. Thank you. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 7:58 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Nancy Lokmor Email nlokmor@gmail.com Address 111 Jantoni Dr., Boise ID 83712 Comment I am writing to request/beg the City Council delay the vote on the rewrite of the zoning code. As a resident of the East end I was only made aware of the 611 page ZCR a few weeks ago. I have a lot of questions and concerns on how this will affect not just my neighborhood but the entire city of Boise. Trying to wade through a document of that size is an unfair burden on most residents. The email I rec'd from the Mayor's office announcing these changes, barely touches on how our residents will be impacted. Please don't bulldoze over our concerns by denying us a fair say in this enormous code rewrite. Nancy Lokmor If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Michael LoPera <michael_lopera@yahoo.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:18 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
3/21/2023 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well‐ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule‐ change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline for public comment by at least 90 days. Sincerely, Michael LoPera 4364 S Trailridge Ave Boise, ID 83716
1
DATE: March 21, 2023 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org REF: ZOA23-00001; CPA23-0001 Mayor Lauren McLean Council Members Holli Woodings, Luci Willits, Jimmy Hallyburton, and Patrick Bageant mayormclean@cityofboise.org hwoodings@cityofboise.org lwillits@cityofboise.org jhallyburton@cityofboise.org pbageant@cityofboise.org I OPPOSE THE BOISE ZONING CODE REWRITE BECAUSE: The process of writing this code has occurred without widespread public input and neighborhoods have been left in the dark about its impacts. The City has yet to directly tell the public how dramatically their neighborhoods will change due to the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite. A city council vote on the Zoning Code Rewrite must fully represent the voters instead of using appointed members of the city council. New development standards will destabilize existing neighborhoods. Reducing lot sizes in R-1C and R-2 encourages lot splits and incompatible infill much denser than existing neighborhoods, destabilizing them and breaking faith with neighbors who believed the neighborhoods they were buying into (and paying unbelievable taxes for) were stable. Raising the height limit in residential zones will radically change the character of neighborhoods, reducing privacy, and vegetation. Increasing housing density in the neighborhoods will contribute to increased congestion, traffic, on-street parking, and safety hazards for children, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc. Changes to the Boise City Zoning Code should be written to protect neighbors rather than to destabilize their neighborhoods. Owner occupancy for homes with ADUs will be removed and allowed ADU size will be increased. Today, a home with an accessory dwelling unit must have owner-occupancy of at least one of the two units. The new draft eliminates the owner-occupancy requirement for accessory dwelling units. This change will destabilize neighborhoods by creating de-facto duplexes in areas where they are not now allowed, de-incentivize homeownership, increase commercialized short-term rentals, and promote renting by the room in existing single-family houses. Proposed parking reductions will shift parking from on-site to on-the-street. This change reduces builders’ costs and increases their profits by pushing parking onto streets, often already crowded. Zoning-required off-street parking is necessary to avoid unsafe congestion on the street. The new code favors some neighborhoods over others. Increased density and height limits, reduced lot sizes, and more allowed uses will not affect neighborhoods with covenants, conditions, and restrictions mandating only one dwelling unit per existing lot. New rules will primarily affect older neighborhoods often inhabited by residents of modest income. The new code is a radical plan to eliminate single-family homes across large areas of Boise. The rewrite benefits developers and investors, is detrimental to homeowners and future homeowners, adds more buildings, cars, noise, and congestion to already crowded neighborhoods. High density apartments (that will never be owned, only rented) should be pursued downtown or in already existing zones, not shoved into old neighborhoods without the proper support for increased concentration. Removing homes that are single-family owned to install multi-units that are owned by absentee investors is a sure disaster for existing neighborhoods as proved in many cities nationwide that have fallen to this kind of profit-driven zoning. Property taxes are so high here we should be seeing something other than the destruction of our neighborhoods for the prices paid.
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 2:29 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Kathi Lyons Email lyonskathi@gmail.com Address 3582 N Hyacinth Ln. Boise Idaho 83703 Comment Please Reject Boise Upzoning If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 1:44 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name cathleen macdonald Email cathleenmacdonald@hotmail.com Address 2123 W. Sunrise Rim Rd Comment Rezoning single family suburban neighborhoods into dense housing draws in builders who can outbid those wanting to be homeowners. Corporate builders are buying up homes, demolishing them, and turning the lots into multiple rental units as corporate builders outbid those wanting to be homeowners. There is enough land on the main thoroughfares & abutting industry for dense apartment housing so there is no need to rezone suburban neighborhoods to accomplish your goal of denser housing. The rewrite as written invades and upends the lovely suburban neighborhoods here on the bench. Build Boise Better by postponing the approval of your zoning rewrite and rewrite the rewrite with consideration given to existing homeowners. Save our lovely Bench neighborhoods before its too late by limiting rezoning to appropriate locations. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
James Maguire <rjunk.cl@outlook.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:59 PM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001
Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. The City released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. For those who are just now reading the proposed code it is an insurmountable task. The earlier structured ‘public process’ meetings are no substitute for meaningful review and comment of the over six hundred pages of code. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite WILL lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, splitting of existing lots in established neighborhoods and the significant expansion of city offices to track compliance with affordability measures proposed in the code. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 180 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, 1
James Maguire
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
James Maguire <jmaguire818@outlook.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:17 PM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001
Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 The process of writing this code has occurred without widespread public input as a top-down effort, and neighbors have been left in the dark about its impacts. The majority of Boise citizens did not ask for these changes. The City has yet to directly tell the public how dramatically their neighborhoods will change due to the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR). No scenarios of infill in neighborhoods have been shown to the public so they may ascertain the impact on their homes and neighborhoods. Now, in a very short period of time, the public must decode over 600 pages of the ZCR and a Comprehensive Plan amendment without any guide to exactly what has changed from the current code. A city council vote on the Zoning Code Rewrite must fully represent the voters instead of using appointed members of the city council. One-third of the city council will be appointed instead of elected, deciding the fate of the Zoning Code Rewrite a few short months before the November election. Only duly elected representatives should decide what to do about the ZCR. Proceeding to a decision with mayoral appointees is anti-democratic in principle, especially given the sweeping changes contemplated for a city council decision. Moreover, the final ZCR draft was only recently released. As citizens begin to learn and rush to learn how their neighborhoods will be affected by such a ZCR, the need is clear: thie complete re-writing of the zoning code for the entire city requires a vote by everyone affected by the ZCR to decide who should decide the fate of the ZCR. If implemented, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will worsen our lack of affordable housing. 77% of the City’s identified need for additional housing is for those who make 80% of the median income (City of Boise Housing Needs Analysis, 2021) while “affordability” incentives in Boise's largest zone (R1-C) only provide a small number of homes for those making 120% AMI (Area Median Income). By increasing density allowances, the new code incentivizes the redevelopment of existing affordable housing without any requirement to replace it. The result will be gentrifying existing neighborhoods with market-rate or above-market-rate multi-units. Reducing the minimum lot size in R-2 and R-1C planning zones will not necessarily contribute to housing diversity nor affordability. High-density housing does not lead to affordability. If this were true, apartment rents in Boise would all be affordable. Additionally, the proposed fifty-year deed restriction on maintaining a dwelling unit as affordable is only enforceable if a special compliance office with enforcement authority is established. New development standards will destabilize existing neighborhoods. Reducing lot sizes in R-1C and R-2 encourages lot splits and incompatible infill much denser than existing neighborhoods, destabilizing 1
them and breaking faith with neighbors who believed the neighborhoods they were buying into were stable. Many of these areas are in parts of the city designated as “stable neighborhoods” in Blueprint Boise. Raising the height limit in residential zones will radically change the character of neighborhoods, reducing privacy, sunlight, and vegetation. Increasing housing density in the neighborhoods will contribute to increased congestion, traffic, on-street parking, and safety hazards for children and individuals with accessibility limitations. Changes to the Boise City Zoning Code should be written to protect neighbors rather than to destabilize their neighborhoods. Boise’s R-2 zone has been re-conceived as a higher-density apartment zone similar to today’s R-3 zone. The East End, the old South Boise neighborhoods off Broadway, most of State Street, the Pleasanton neighborhood west of downtown, and established neighborhoods of the near Bench, among others, are envisioned to transform into highly urban areas with four-story buildings and no limit on density. These areas are currently single-family, mixed with duplexes and small apartments. Mediumdensity neighborhoods like these now contain many more dwelling units than suburbs, often from ten to 15 dwelling units per acre. Other areas – especially those south of Boise State University -- also bear a highdensity burden in vehicles, noise, and short-term occupancies; the ZCR exacerbates those problems. Neighborhoods near Fairview, State and Vista will become unrecognizable. The proposed code would rezone neighborhoods within 660 feet (about two blocks) of those corridors from R-1 to R-2 with 45foot height limits and no limit on density, destabilizing modestly scaled interior neighborhoods. Instead, higher-density development should happen only on the corridors themselves with strict step-down height standards to the existing neighborhoods. Owner occupancy for homes with ADUs will be removed and allowed ADU size will be increased. Today, a home with an accessory dwelling unit must have owner-occupancy of at least one of the two units. The new draft eliminates the owner-occupancy requirement for accessory dwelling units if one of the units is affordable. Boiseans loudly defended owner occupancy in a recent attempt by the City to eliminate it. This change will destabilize neighborhoods by creating de-facto duplexes in areas where they are not now allowed, de-incentivize homeownership, increase commercialized short-term rentals, and promote renting by the room in existing single-family houses. In addition, increasing the allowable size of an accessory dwelling unit from 700 to 900 square feet reduces livable green space. It essentially allows for building a second house in the backyard of an existing home. Under the current zoning code, ADU applicants must provide proof of owner-occupancy on the property. However, it does not appear that adequate procedures are in place to ensure that the owner is actually occupying the dwelling. Lack of owner occupancy is widespread now. Why should Boiseans be confident that the City will enforce new standards that require affordability? The ZCR does nothing to incentivize homeownership. Instead, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) should incentivize the sale of individual units of cottage developments and other higher-density diverse housing (e.g. halves of duplexes, condos rather than apartments, etc.) to encourage owner-occupied housing and more resilient neighborhoods.
2
The ZCR encourages higher density in historic districts. Except for homes that are currently recorded as “contributing,” redevelopment and or demolition of non-contributing homes in Historic Districts under the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will encourage higher density units with modern designs that will negatively impact existing homes and damage the historic character of these neighborhoods. The new code lacks objective concrete standards to protect residential neighborhoods. For example: • Industrial uses in the I-1 district “should” be buffered from adjacent residential, rather than “must.” • Live/work unit standards say “The work activities shall not create adverse noise or operational impacts on adjacent residential properties.” Yet no measurable standards are included to ensure compliance. • In the R-1B, R-1C, R-2, R-3, MX-1, and MX-2 zones, the standards for multifamily buildings state: “Building and site design shall provide for adequate transition into the surrounding neighborhood to ensure compatibility between the development and the context around it. Factors to be considered are setbacks, building height, building materials, bulk, roof design, parking area locations, and landscaped area locations.” The code should provide objective standards to ensure functional transitions. The findings for conditional use permits are entirely subjective and have been loosened, to the detriment of neighbors. The current standards read: “The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions imposed, will not adversely affect other property of the vicinity.” The proposed language says, ”The proposed use will not create any material negative impacts to uses in the surrounding area, or any material negative impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, or the public benefits of the proposed use outweighs any material negative impacts of the proposed use that cannot be mitigated;” (Italics added) Intrusive uses will be allowed without public notice requirements. Uses like retail and neighborhood cafes, including those that sell alcohol, will be allowed by right side-by-side with existing single-family homes in R-1C and R-2 zones. Operating hours will be between 7 am and 8 pm, with no specified time limit on delivery and maintenance times, which will likely occur before and after open hours. Nothing in the new code specifies that these will be locally owned businesses and that the properties may indeed be owned by large investors purchasing residential housing units to operate commercial businesses. While envisioned as walkable amenities by the code, such businesses will very likely negatively impact neighboring residents’ ability to quietly enjoy their property. Proposed parking reductions will shift parking from on-site to on-the-street. To increase affordability, parking requirements have been reduced from two spaces per unit for single-family homes and duplex units to one space. The new standards do not mandate affordability in return for fewer spaces; the City pins affordability on hope instead of requiring it. This change reduces builders’ costs and increases their profits by pushing parking onto public streets, often already crowded due to existing infill development. In the current code, each building or dwelling requires a specific number of off-street parking based upon the occupancy and visitation capabilities and expectations based upon the approved uses of the building. Zoning-required off-street parking is necessary to avoid unsafe congestion on the 3
street. It has been shown that on-street parking congestion is a major contributing factor to pedestrian/vehicle accidents involving young children and individuals with mobility hardships.
The Boise City Zoning Code Rewrite suffers from overall poor quality of writing and is complex and cumbersome to use. The major terms used throughout the document are not consistently used and the document is full of unexplained terms, which are either not defined in the definition section or are not used in the ways that terms are defined. For example, using the term “Creative Housing Design” is neither a design nor a development standard. “Creative housing design” is not a definable nor enforceable code standard for the design of building in R-2 or R-1C zones. Any action by Planning and Zoning Commission must be delayed at lease 90 to 180 days to allow adequate review and comment by the public. Sincerely,
James Maguire Boise ID 83702 Sincerely
4
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Michele Maines <dadspeaches@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:54 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite; Holli Woodings; Luci Willits; Jimmy Hallyburton; Patrick Bageant [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
March 22, 2023 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed 1
changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Michele Maines Michele Maines The naming of the intolerable is itself the hope.
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
Kristiann Mannion <mannion2141@msn.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:14 PM ZoningRewrite Mayor McLean; Holli Woodings; Luci Willits; Jimmy Hallyburton; Patrick Bageant [External] ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001
I am writing to comment on the proposed “up zone” of Boise. I want to address the concerns that directly impact me and my neighborhood, First of all, I want to reiterate that I am a long standing resident of the city, having moved here in 2002 from Nampa. I have owned two homes in the city. The first was in a very protected neighborhood in the foothills where changes in the city only had an indirect impact. Unfortunately, I had to downsize. My second residence, where I currently live, is in a neighborhood that is already being changed in a deleterious way by rezoning and density development and will, undoubtedly, be more seriously harmed if the proposed changes are enacted through up zoning. At least now I have the opportunity to comment on proposed development; with up zoning I, along with my neighbors, will no longer have rights to contribute to the discussion of land use adjacent to our homes. When I purchased my home in a mostly fifteen year old neighborhood, I had a reasonable expectation that the neighborhood I bought into was protected by current zoning and a tradition of semi rural living, enjoyed by families of modest means, retirees, and individuals like myself downsizing into an unpretentious, yet pleasant, subdivision. My experience in the past nine years is that my neighborhood is being rapidly destabilized by changes brought about by rezoning. Within a short period of time, I have suffered the building of two apartment complexes in immediate proximity to my home, made possible by rezoning. Now I am coping with the soon to be developed parcels 1/10th of a mile from my front yard, planned for hundreds of units; and another parcel just across the street from me, with developers waiting for changes in zoning that will allow minimal lot sizes and multiple units on what was, before he property was sold, a single home with pasture for horses. I can only anticipate that nothing good will come from this growth surrounding my home. I know that my lifestyle, which includes road cycling, walks in the neighborhood, and enjoyment of the foothills will be irrevocably changed by more traffic, destruction of wildlife habitat, and the social impact of a transient population and absentee landlords that have no investment in contributing to the overall wellbeing of the surrounding neighborhood. The character of my neighborhood has changed Where once there were single family homes on modest lots, with a few acres still devoted to farming and livestock, there are now multiple story, high density units, and unsightly open parking lots. I see overflow street parking adjacent to my street, and increased traffic and violation of posted speed limits along the corridors that feed State Street from the north. I concur with the opinion that reducing lot sizes in R-1C and R-2 encourages lot splits and incompatible infill much denser than existing neighborhoods, destabilizing them and breaking faith with neighbors who believed the neighborhoods they were buying into were stable. Many of these areas are in parts of the city designated as “stable neighborhoods” in Blueprint Boise. Raising the height limit in residential zones will radically change the character of neighborhoods, reducing privacy, sunlight, and vegetation. Increasing housing density in the neighborhoods will contribute to increased congestion, traffic, onstreet parking, and safety hazards for children and individuals with accessibility limitations. I know for certain that my well being, because I live in a high impact area, is jeopardized. Changes in my neighborhood are due to recent changes in zoning. I can only foresee that future development made easier by codified up zoning in my area, and throughout Boise, will forever change how many residents experience this city. Changes to the Boise City Zoning Code should be written to protect neighbors rather than to destabilize their neighborhoods. Respectfully submitted, Kristiann Mannion 8783 West Sloan Street 1
83714
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
Ethan Mansfield <mansfield.ethan@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 1, 2023 4:25 PM ZoningRewrite Deanna Dupuy [External] Get Rid of Table of Allowed Uses?
All, This is an excerpt from an email conversation between Deanna and me. TL;DR Get rid of the table of allowed uses, or at least allow all residential typologies in every zone. Why not retain flexibility in land use and not give preference to any use types?
Deanna, Thank you for clarifying. Yeah, they totally can [achieve design articulations by going 4-stories and over in an MX-3 zone] , you are correct. And I don’t think you’ll get any pushback from well‐financed multi‐ family developers about that. I am mainly thinking about if a developer wanted to accommodate neighborhood concerns of being too tall in one spot (even though not required to step down by code). It would be very nice to be able to accommodate a 3 story building on some locations on certain sites – even if it is abutting R‐2 or R‐3 in the back ‐‐ while stepping up to 6 stories along the major corridor. But I suppose the intent is to not have to pay attention to those concerns in certain zones anymore! Although, allowing shorter buildings without an Alternative Form PZC permit would allow for bigger sites with multiple buildings to have more diverse building typologies across the site (which is required by the multi‐family use standards). For example, adding a 3‐story townhome product along the back of the site toward the neighborhood might just be … nice. I just get sad seeing us change from being inflexible with our current code toward very dense/tall projects, to being inflexible toward non‐dense/non‐tall project in our current code. Another issue I am concerned about is the disallowance of single‐family homes anywhere above R‐2. I am (obviously) not opposed to allowing unlimited density in this zone, or the allowance of multiple building forms. What I am concerned about is existing neighborhoods that you are turning into non‐conforming uses. I can’t believe I am saying this, but Dave Kangas and the gang are not wrong when they argue that you are making single‐family detached homes illegal here. Here is the main issue: Banks and other lenders have a very low tolerance for risk, and so essentially, when you are trying to get a loan for a non‐conforming product, one question that gets asked (or got asked to me a lot at the City is), what can be built if this structure burns down? Can it be replaced? Does the original structure conform to the current development regulations? If these answers are not in line with their risk tolerance, they may not loan money to the project (people looking to purchase a single‐family home). Some lenders literally cannot lend on non‐conforming uses. I used to get calls all the time at the City, normally about duplexes or tri‐plexes asking, “can this thing be rebuilt if it burns down” and we’d have to tell them, “no, it can’t.” Owners could apply for grandfather rights, but the City would have to issue a letter for each non‐conforming property in the R‐3 zone, and still, it’s ambiguous whether a new single‐family home could be rebuilt on a lot in an R‐3 neighborhood… ever. Unless the rules around non‐conforming uses has been clarified. It may also make it difficult to insure and affects appraisals as well. This means that even selling an existing home to someone who cannot pay cash might be impossible. So, the City is incentivizing the total reconfiguration of R‐3 neighborhoods. That’s the entirety of West Downtown and several blocks of VERY well‐established areas north of Main and Fairview. Don’t get me wrong. I hope that, in time, these neighborhoods are allowed to move toward denser, more urban forms. They should be allowed to move that way to reflect the urbanization of Boise. The whole City should. What I don’t get is, why does the City have to expedite that with such zeal? What is the harm to me, you, the City, the taxpayers to allow all residential typologies in all zones? It doesn’t mean that we don’t let neighborhoods or corridors get more intense over time. They naturally will, as services become available, as fun bakeries and coffee shops move in. We NEED to let that happen. It just means that buyers and sellers get choices. I 1
just have a hard time understanding what the issue with that is. (if we do end up leaving it as is, I recommend removing the reference to “detached” in the R‐3 Lot Area.)
To eliminate both of these very real issues, I would recommend a more flexible approach that would allow developers flexibility to work with neighbors and the current rental market to deliver what makes sense within the community. Maybe we build so many apartments in 30 years that prices stagnate (i.e. people no longer want to pay to live in apartments) and renters/buyers want townhomes? Trust me, I’m fully supportive of the height and density allowances, and the implicit recognition that we need more housing to accommodate growth. I’m just going to go on the record and say that the best way to deliver the right amount of housing, with the right product mix that is desired by the community (i.e. people looking to buy/rent houses), in the right places, would be just to be flexible. Allow all residential typologies in every zone. Better yet, get rid of the table of allowed uses and regulate real impacts, not perceived ones. Use form based codes. Let the City grow organically. That has not recently been tried before – we have subsidized sprawl for almost 100 years – and now we are trying to subsidize very dense development. (For multi‐family developers this is the greatest thing since sliced bread!) But what did we get when we actually planned Cities pre‐zoning – mapped out streets, utilities, service routes, etc. and didn’t subsidize anything? We got Downtown Boise, the north end, the east end, etc. We all LOVE those places. Why? Because they are organic. Anyway, I know you’ve heard it from me before, but figured I’d just keep the thought reoccurring. Cheers, Ethan ‐‐
Ethan Mansfield 208-921-4686
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 11:18 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Cay Marquart Email mnimages@hotmail.com Address Boise, Idaho 83712 Comment I have been to a few zoning meetings, and I was very impressed with the information which was given. The committee and city officials have done a very comprehensive, thorough, and professional study of what we need to do to increase affordable housing options and reduce the restrictions for developing these options. I worked with LEAP Housing to develop Windy Court. We have a total of eight affordable homes made of shipping containers‐‐ rooftop solar, Xerophytic plants, and gardens. There is some attention given to environmental concerns in the new zoning ordinance, but I would like to see more‐‐ such as not allowing blue grass to be planted in any new housing development. Overall, the new proposed zoning codes are good and are long overdue. There is no way you are going to please everyone. I urge you to move ahead and not allow the "bullies" to stop you. Thanks to everyone who spent thousands of hours in the research and development of these new codes. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 5:14 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name J.L. Martens Email Grafreek@aol.com Address Boise, Idaho 83705 Comment As a resident of the Boise Bench, I am appalled by what this Zoning Code Rewrite aka Upzoning would do to the character and charm of our neighborhood in the name of greed disguised as progress and psuedo charity. It strips all protective laws from the people in a most Unconstitutional manner where ones property could be seized for "the greater good" communist agenda and is a step into the abyss of a Smart City, which removes all control from the citizens of the city. I am totally AGAINST this new zoning code ordinance (ZOA23‐0001 & CPA23‐0001). If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Bethany Martinez <bethanymartinez714@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:56 PM ZoningRewrite; Mayor McLean; Holli Woodings; Luci Willits; Jimmy Hallyburton; Patrick Bageant [External] Public Comment on Zoning Code Rewrite - ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001
Good Afternoon, My name is Bethany Martinez and I am writing concerning the zoning code rewrite. I am opposed to this rewrite mainly for the reason of it allowing developers to build without any checks and balances. I am a current tenant at 1134 W. River street, the property that was just approved to be rezoned under the CAR22-0034. I am not against the rezone of this property but as a tenant the public hearings were invaluable to me to learn about the fate of the apartment I was living in. Without those hearings I wouldn't have learned the timelines of when my home was going to be demolished and nor do I believe the developers would have reached out to us about the tenant relocation package. To me these city council meetings are a way to ensure that tenants are semi-protected from big developers trying to meet their bottom line of profits. I also believe it will at the very least slow down the gentrification of this neighborhood and the diminishing of truly affordable housing. Here is a little background of my experience as a tenant whose apartments were bought out by a developer that DID have to answer to city council via public hearings: In June we received notice that our local landlord had sold our apartments to a developer. I knew that would mean either our rent was going to increase exponentially (we currently pay $1200/month) or they would be tearing down our homes.This was a very stressful time too because as I'm sure you know in Idaho, renters have very few rights. I knew all the developers are entitled to do is give us 30 days notice. At the beginning of August 2022 we received mail about a new development and our new "neighbors" upon looking at the location we realized those "neighbors" would live where we currently live. The meeting to discuss the proposed rezone application with only the developers and not city council was set for mid August. We were out of town so could not attend but we heard from our neighbor who did attend that the plan was to start construction March-June 2023. That was the last we heard from the developers/property managers until the public hearings. Every month until those public hearings signs appeared I feared and awaited the day we would get the 30 day eviction notice. I was unfortunately unable to make any of the public hearings in person because I always worked during them but I was able to watch online and in January I learned that they weren't planning on demolishing our home in a few months like we thought but that we actually had a year before needing to worry about a new place. It was also at this public hearing that I learned that they were proposing a tenant relocation package - it was the first we had heard about it, even though in the meeting the developer stated he "had already been in contact with most of the residents", which didn't feel true. Unfortunately, 3-4 tenants had already moved out to much more expensive places in worse locations, if we would have received communication earlier that could have been avoided. The public hearings saved us though and held the developers to a higher standard of communicating with us. It was also how I found out who the developer was and how to contact them, which I did. The contractor responded right away about the timeline for demolishing this property but the developer took two weeks and a follow-up email to reach back out to me regarding more information on the tenant relocation package. Also this may just be a coincidence but when I didn't receive a call from the developer I did write an email making public testimony to the city council regarding the CAR22-0034. I got a response the next day from Jesi Lile and then 2 hours after receiving Jesi's email I got a call from the developer. I truly believe I was able to get such responses from the developer because the Boise City Council and Planning and Zoning commission were there to protect me and ensure that at the very least I get the communication I deserve when my affordable home is being torn down. I worry that if you go through with this rezone local residents won't get this bare minimum. This is a way to hold big developers accountable to the very least and to ensure that these projects are actually right for Boise. Also these new apartments that they are building are not affordable, even their "affordable" housing is not truly affordable. If this rezone goes through they will demolish and gentrify our neighborhoods so that nothing is truly affordable. For example, the place my partner and I currently live in is $1200/month for 972sqft and it is 2 bed/1bath, it is naturally occurring affordable housing. Even with the 13 affordable units the CAR22-0034 is proposing we would still have a 45% increase in our rent to $1700 for likely a 50% decrease in the size based off the other units we have seen from this same developer. And to add insult to injury based on our income, my partner and I don't even qualify for this "affordable housing" that we can't even 1
afford. If we wanted to rent at the new Riverline apartments this same developer is currently building behind our home we would have to pay $1990-$2100/month for the same square footage we currently have. Luckily, we have found 2 places that are 2-3 blocks from our current home. They are located on 14th and river and 13th and river. One is at the River terraces apartments and they are offering a 2 bed/1bath and 900sqft for 1150/month. The other place is right off 14th and river and is another local landlord offering a 2bed/2bath 900sqft for 1350/month. These places we very recently open for occupancy and both are naturally occurring affordable rent. However, both of these places are also located in that rezone area. I fear that when we move to one of these we will be dealing with this exact same situation. But if the zoning code rewrite goes through we won't be protected from the developers like we once were with the city council. Even though the city council approved the rezone of our current place it at least afforded us with the communication and time we deserve so that we can find other affordable housing that have yet to be gentrified. But if you allow this gentrification unchecked there won't be any truly affordable housing left in this area. I hope you take this into consideration and I thank you for your time. -Bethany
Bethany Martinez, RN Returned Peace Corps Volunteer - Ukraine Boise State University '14, Idaho State University '20
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 9:06 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Bruce Mastorovich Email b.mastorovich@gmail.com Address Boise, ID 83702 Comment Please pass the zoning code rewrite and allow for more flexibility in construction and development where possible. Please do not water it down. In the current draft, I am a little worried that the restrictions imposed on building new fourplexes or small apartments are more severe than for building a new single‐family home or large apartment complex. I think the no demolitions clause and the number of rent restricted units required for a fourplex to be built on a small lot (50%!) will keep local residents from investing in their communities in ways that most Boiseans might actually find beneficial. Thousands of Boiseans are saving for retirement and the bulk of their retirement plans are typically a single‐ family home plus some money in the stock market. What if we allow citizens to also invest in our community? Triplexes and fourplexes could be great attainable additions to a person's long term financial plan. Locals could build 4 units, live in one, and rent the others. However, for people with working class incomes, the finances at least have to break even on the additional units or a bank will never fund a loan for these types of projects. I am worried that applying the 80% AMI requirements to small apartment projects is prohibitive for the average Boisean that wants to secure their future while providing a little much needed housing in the community. Please relax the requirements for building small apartment projects when one unit will be owner occupied. At least allow the owner occupant to count the unit they occupy towards these affordability requirements. Thank you. Please pass this rewrite and allow density in Boise. I love what we are doing with the new mixed‐use zones and small neighborhood businesses! I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Rosemary McClenahan <rmcc162@gmail.com> Saturday, March 18, 2023 2:58 PM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001
Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed city‐wide zone code rewrite. I believe that a decision of this magnitude should be made by duly elected representatives who are accountable to the voters, rather than appointed members of the city council. It is anti‐democratic to proceed with the Zoning Code Rewrite with mayoral appointees, especially given the sweeping changes contemplated for a city council decision. Moreover, the final ZCR draft was only recently released, and citizens are still rushing to learn how their neighborhoods will be affected by such a ZCR. Therefore, this radical zoning change for the entire city requires a vote by everyone affected by the ZCR to decide who should decide the fate of the ZCR. One of my main concerns is that the proposed code would rezone neighborhoods within 660 feet (about two blocks) of corridors like Fairview, State, and Vista from R‐1 to R‐2 with 45‐foot height limits and no limit on density. This would destabilize modestly scaled interior neighborhoods and make neighborhoods near those corridors unrecognizable. Instead, higher‐density development should happen only on the corridors themselves with strict step‐down height standards to the existing neighborhoods. The ZCR exacerbates problems that are already prevalent in high‐density neighborhoods such as vehicles, noise, and short‐term occupancies. Furthermore, the proposed code would allow intrusive uses without public notice requirements. Retail and neighborhood cafes, including those that sell alcohol, will be allowed by right side‐by‐side with existing single‐family homes in R‐1C and R‐2 zones. Operating hours will be between 7 am and 8 pm, with no specified time limit on delivery and maintenance times, which will likely occur before and after open hours. Nothing in the new code specifies that these will be locally owned businesses and that the properties may indeed be owned by large investors purchasing residential housing units to operate commercial businesses. While envisioned as walkable amenities by the code, such businesses will very likely negatively impact neighboring residents’ ability to quietly enjoy their property. The proposed parking reductions will shift parking from on‐site to on‐the‐street. This change reduces builders’ costs and increases their profits by pushing parking onto public streets, often already crowded due to existing infill development. The new standards do not mandate affordability in return for fewer spaces; the City pins affordability on hope instead of requiring it. In the current code, each building or dwelling requires a specific number of off‐street parking based upon the occupancy and visitation capabilities and expectations based upon the approved uses of the building. Zoning‐ required off‐street parking is necessary to avoid unsafe congestion on the street. It has been shown that on‐street parking congestion is a major contributing factor to pedestrian/vehicle accidents involving young children and individuals with mobility hardships. I urge the P&Z Commissioners to consider these concerns and take appropriate action. I believe that this proposed Zoning Code Rewrite would be detrimental to the well‐being of Boise's neighborhoods and residents. Therefore, I strongly oppose the proposed city‐wide zone code rewrite and urge it be rejected. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Rosemary McClenahan 1
Hawthorne Dr Boise, Idaho
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:38 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name fariss mcgee Email farissmcgee@gmail.com Address 1505 West Wickshire Court Eagle, ID 83616 Comment I would like more time to review the proposed plan. Could you give the public a little more time? If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
March 21, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Malcohm and Jill McGregor
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
zoninginfo Wednesday, March 22, 2023 7:59 AM ZoningRewrite FW: [External] Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 &amp; CPA23-00001
From: Rosemary McClenahan <rmcc162@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2023 6:59 PM To: Mayor McLean <mayormclean@cityofboise.org>; CityCouncil <CityCouncil@cityofboise.org>; Timothy Keane <tkeane@cityofboise.org>; zoninginfo <zoninginfo@cityofboise.org> Subject: [External] Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23‐00001 &amp; CPA23‐00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which is an almost complete replacement of the laws that for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well‐ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule‐change, it iis imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, John and Rosemary McClenahan Boise, Idaho 1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:
Ed McLuskie <emclusk@boisestate.edu> Thursday, March 16, 2023 1:46 PM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001 SENA letter to the City Requesting Delayed Vote on Zoning Code Rewrite.pdf
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission, You are asked to make a recommendation on a massive, city‐changing zoning code. Given the recent fact that the city council, to whom you make recommendations, is no longer a fully duly‐elected body, the principle of democratic representation is reduced by one‐third due to two vacancies filled by appointment instead of election. This puts a cloud over already contested processes. To proceed with ZOA23‐00001 and CPA23‐00001 is inappropriate and, if carried out, becomes further cause for public dismay and division over the massive zoning rewrite. No amount of public input at this stage can justify making recommendations to a partially unelected city council, however well‐intentioned or well‐considered appointments to that body may be. In the interest of a fully democratic process, now is not the time to act on ZOA23‐00001 and CPA23‐00001 except to place the matter on hold until after the city council is the fully elected and seated governance body it is supposed to be. Doing so has the added benefit of the city’s first city council elections by districts next November, thereby enhancing democratic representation, as Idaho’s law intends. Finally, I note that the SouthEast Neighborhood Association, in a letter to the mayor and city council, has formally requested this postponement as well. I attach that letter for your information. Sincerely, Ed McLuskie, PhD 1919 W Verna Lane Boise, ID 83706 Guest Editor, 2022‐23, Javnost‐The Public Special Issue: Critical Research on the Management of Public Engagement Guest Lecturer, 2022, Academy of Arts & Sciences, Slovenia: “Distancing Publics through Managed Engagement"
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:11 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Hannah Email hannahjanemcneely@gmail.com Address Boise, ID 83704 Comment We do not want any tall buildings in our neighborhood. We want to keep Boise neighborhoods quaint and safe. Thank you! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 12:35 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Kevin McNeill Email mcneillkp@yahoo.com Address 1620 E Silverspot Lane Comment Please give us more time to consider the ramifications of the proposed code change, so we can input our opinion that more protection is needed for our historic neighborhoods. Limit the damage greedy developers can do to our fine city!!! Thank you for your consideration. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 13, 2023 1:09 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Teresa Meinburg Email Tkmein@gmail.com Address 1618 W Elder Ct Comment Hi I am requesting a longer period of time for public comments on the final draft of the Zoning Code rewrite. Twenty two days is not enough time to review and respond to the final updates. It is very complex document and difficult for me and my neighbors to navigate, yet it will impact us greatly. Sincerely Teresa Meinburg I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:38 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Jake Melder Email melder.jacob@gmail.com Address Meridian, ID 83642 Comment I want to commend the City of Boise on its efforts to update the zoning code to modern standards. I support this proposed zoning code rewrite. As a young professional who has lived in the Boise area for a decade and been unable to find affordable house to buy for three years, this update offers the promise of a beautiful city where people of all incomes can live safely, build a career, and raise a family. I support the simplification of the code and removing the exclusivity of single family homes throughout the city. This is a Boise solution to an Idaho problem. I wish Boise's surrounding cities, the Legislature, and Executive Agencies were as thoughtful in their own planning efforts. My generation has been advocating for more dense, multi‐use urban options where you can live, work, and play without the need to depend on a personal car to get you from place to place. This rezone unleashes the free market to build such places in Boise while preserving the character of the city we love. I applaud the City's deliberate methods of creating this rezone, its outstanding public engagement, and the tweaks adjusted along the way. While I wish we would have had a completed document earlier, I think the final product is better for the additional effort that went into it. Thank you to the many hands and voices that contributed to this effort. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 13, 2023 9:11 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Robert B. Miller Email journalist1938@gmail.com Address 3860 W. Glendale #101 Boise, ID 83703 Comment I am in strong opposition to Boise's zoning code rewrite. I wish to be designated "a person of record" to be heard on all formal opportunities to submit written and oral testimony. I join with Boise neighborhood associations in registering my opposition to the proposed "upzone of our city zoning code. This outrageous plan eliminates affordable housing, allows for the demo;ition of existing homes and allows intrusive and incompatible use that will serve to damage our quality of life. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 1:48 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Charles Miller Email millerchaz@gmail.com Address 5835 S Rock Rose Pl Comment I am fully in support of the changes proposed and suggest only that the code should be even more aggressive about reducing or abolishing parking minimums. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Saturday, March 18, 2023 10:21 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Terri and Jon Miller Email tmiller3330@gmail.com Address 3330 N. Mountain View Drive Boise Idaho 83704 Comment Eight days is not near enough time to review the 611 pages on a possible change in zoning that could allow a substantial jncrease in the amount of buildings in residential neighborhoods! What is the rush? Why are our citizens being given more time? I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 3:23 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Maria Minicucci Email idmini@protonmail.com Address Boise ID 83702 Comment 1. Mr. Keane supports greasing the skids if developers' proposals match "what we want." Mr. Keane should answer who "we" is? The benevolent City? The Wizard of Oz couldn't have said it better. 2. If the City were dedicated to increasing density, it would not allow any more single family houses to be built outside of existing neighborhoods. All new development be multifamily of at least 3 stories in height. Existing neighborhoods should not be "upzoned" to feed the developer‐induced addiction that permeates City Hall. We existing residents (who have poured our blood, sweat and tears, not to mention our life's savings into our homes and neighborhoods) implore the powers that be: Just Say No to Gentrification. 3. Speaking of gentrification, I could not find that word or any of its derivations anywhere in the new Code. Burying our head in the sand in much easier than doing the tough developer‐unfriendly work of protecting existing neighborhoods. 4. The removal of citizen involvement is a travesty. It's bad enough as it is, with developers huddling with City staff and officials for years before the neighborhood even gets wind of a proposal. Then we get 3 minutes to plead with the City to follow its own Code, Rules, and Policies. I don't know that it matters, since variances are handed out like candy. For instance, the Alturas Heights "PUD" was granted 64 variances ‐ all in one city block across the street from a historic district. The developer said all the right buzzwords and crammed it into the box provided to him by the City. With the new Code, developers won't have to even go through the motions with the neighborhood. NENA was neutered long ago ‐ NAs should not be relied up to provide the voice of the people. Decisions that irrevocably impact neighborhoods should not be left to unelected staff and bureaucrats who are not accountable to the public. 5. The language protecting historic buildings and sites must be made definitive. "Encourage" is a meaningless word in Code. If the City is serious about protecting our heritage it would use words like "required," "must," "shall," etc. Too often the City wrings its hands when a historic building ends up in the landfill because of course there is no Code that forbids its demolition. As someone who physically stopped the demolition of the Ghost Trolley when it was still in Julia Davis Park, we can and must do more to ensure the preservation of our historic buildings and sites. Not everyone can throw themselves down in front of large machinery. The City must put teeth into its historic preservation code and provide ample opportunity for the preservation community to contribute its expertise and assistance. 5. Finally, I would like to ask the Mayor and Council to provide information on the last time urban planners were correct. The profession has bounced around from Robert Moses bulldozing neighborhoods with federal funding to Urban Renewal to New Urbanism to Upzoning. Grids are good, grids are bad, oops grids are good again. Sidewalks good, sidewalks old fashioned, sidewalks good. Strip malls good, strip malls bad, strip malls good. Downtowns good, downtowns bad, downtowns are the only place for public investment. Relining good, relining definitely bad. Participatory planning good, participatory planning is bad, very bad. All the while, residents are tossed in the waves of the latest paradigm of the "experts." Enough already. 1
6. Windows must be required to be bird‐friendly. It's not hard and its not expensive. 7. Light pollution must be eliminated. New buildings are a great place to start. I also propose that we also eliminate street lights. There is no evidence anywhere that they impact safety. They are not needed ‐ after all, we hurdle through the desert at 80 mph without any street lights. An illuminated night environment is not good for any living thing. The City of Boise must do its part to rein in this type of pollution. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 10:27 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name James Moison Email james.moison@gmail.com Address 3604 N. Mountain View Dr. Comment This "up‐zone" proposal is a maniacal idea to pad the pockets of developers. It will totally degrade the neighborhoods we have worked so hard to preserve. Traffic is already a problem and this will only make it worse. I am sure my neighbors on this street would fight this given the opportunity. Of course the city is trying to push this through quietly and not ask the constituents that put them in office their opinion. Typical example of poor democracy in our city. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:54 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Ashley Molloy Email alb8710@gmail.com Address 4103 W. Pasadena Dr. Boise, ID 83705 Comment 1.) Lot coverage: the new zoning code should have lot coverage requirements, especially for R1‐C and R1‐B areas. The previous requirement that lot coverage should not exceed 55% was reasonable. When a city is so built up and has no space for lawns, trees, gardens, or plants it will increase the heat of an area and have negative effects on wildlife. I do not want to live in a concrete jungle. We are the City of Trees and not having a lot coverage amount will move against climate goals. 2.) Historic Preservation: The City must act to preserve its historic buildings and a preservation plan is needed to outline the City's goals. This should have been completed PRIOR to the zoning code rewrite. 3.) Internal Departmental Review: The internal review by the City should always include the City's Historic Preservation Planner who can identify significant resources that are not currently protected in a local district. They can recommend rehabilitation (which also meets the climate goals of the City) and utilize the Federal Tax Incentives for Historic Preservation. 4.) I don't mind adding density, but what I do not support is tearing down perfectly good housing stock to build a triplex. There should be more to preserve existing buildings, as that would help meet the City's climate goals (not sending things to the landfill). Cities and counties in Minnesota have required salvage on buildings built before a particular year (e.g. 1970). This has lead to people choosing to use the existing building stock to meet their project goals. https://www.hennepin.us/climate‐action/what‐hennepin‐is‐doing/building‐materials 5.) Why not require all new construction to include solar panels to meet the City's climate goals. Especially for new commercial construction. If we can require setbacks, we should be able to require solar panels. 6.) Timeframe to review a 600+ page document. A substantial document of this size can not be reviewed and commented on effectively in 30‐days. You asked us to reference pieces and parts of the document to comment on, however your timeframe does not allow for that, hence the format of my comments being very generalized. In general the zoning code is not quite ready for adoption. I think there needs to be a few more critical things addressed prior to its adoption. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Alexandra Monjar <alexandra.monjar@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 3:33 PM ZoningRewrite [External] Comments on proposed zoning code
To whom it may concern, I am writing in support of the City of Boise's new proposed zoning code. I believe this is a strong step forward and support its adoption. And, I encourage the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to consider incorporating even more modern best‐practices and zoning innovation to enhance Boise's future sustainability, economic resilience, diversity, and variety of housing choice and price points. Such actions could include: 1. Moving further towards a true form based code. Remove or simplify the use table and remove unnecessary use regulations attached to missing middle housing options like cottage courts, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. Housing with a form similar to single family should be allowed the same design flexibility as single family homes. 2. Removing parking minimums throughout the city. Allow private development to determine what is necessary based on market and financial demands and not arbitrary assignments less likely to adapt to new technologies and smarter mobility options. 3. Reduce or remove density maximums and minimum lot sizes of the R1‐C zone. Density will be naturally managed by the form of the building that can fit on any given lot cThese minimums are still larger than the dimensions of many lots within the city's most walkable neighborhoods, and density will be naturally managed by the form of the building that can fit on any given lot considering the other parameters that will still apply. 4. Expanding the area included in zones that allow higher density housing. This rewrite continues the exclusionary practice of restricting density to a very low level throughout the majority of the city. Allowing small apartment buildings to be built in every neighborhood will better promote diverse inclusive communities with a variety of housing choices. 5. Removing owner occupancy requirements for renting ADUs. This requirement could keep livable units from being rented simply because an owner is not present on the property. It's better to allow homes to be rented than to keep them empty due to the tenancy status of the household in the main unit. 6. Reducing the affordability term for incentivized triplexes and fourplexes. If the goal is to add more affordable housing, incentives should be sufficiently attractive to encourage the desired development. A term of 50 years is burdensome and could limit resale value which is a critical consideration for most homeowners and developers. A term of 10 years would be much more manageable and aligns more closely with the average time a household lives in one home (approx. 8 years) and the term for which a developer might underwrite a small project (10 years). Thank you for your consideration of these recommendations and your work to ensure Boise provides a home for current and future neighbors. Sincerely, Alexandra Monjar 1
2222 W Kootenai St, Boise, ID 83705
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
John Mosby <jdmosby@acm.org> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 10:20 AM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, John Mosby 1316 E Franklin St Boise, ID 83712 1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:09 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Leanne Moselle Email leannemoselle@gmail.com Address 2936 S GARDEN ST Boise, ID 83705 Comment As a resident of Boise and a participating member of the Hillcrest Neighborhood Assn, I am appalled by what this Zoning Code Rewrite aka Upzoning would do to the character and charm of our neighborhood in the name of greed disguised as progress and psuedo charity. It strips all protective laws from the people in a most Unconstitutional manner where ones property could be seized for "the greater good" communist agenda and is a step into the abyss of a Smart City, which removes all control from the citizens of the city. I am totally AGAINST this new zoning code ordinance (ZOA23‐0001 & CPA23‐0001). If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:10 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Carlie Mount Email carliemount@gmail.com Address 3805 E copper point dr Meridian Idaho 83642 Comment Submit public comment to express that you don’t want tall buildings next to our neighborhood If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 8:53 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Debbie Muggli Email debmuggli@comcast.net Address 19247 N Eaglestone Pl , Boise 83714 Comment “Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ Debbie Muggli I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Michael M <msmuth@icloud.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 6:40 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well‐ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule‐change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Michael Muth
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 6:51 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name peggy neer Email dpneer@aol.com Address 695 e holly st apt 202 Comment “Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ SUBMIT A COMMENT TO THE CITY I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 3:22 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Sylvia Nierling Email slvnrlng972@gmail.com Address 2318 W Sunset Ave Comment Please let us participate in our communities! Thank you! I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:04 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Hayley Noble Email hayleynoble09@gmail.com Address 45 Mesa Vista Dr. Boise, ID 83705 Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, I'm writing to express concerns over the new zoning code being proposed. The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐ density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. As an advocate for historic preservation, my concerns revolve around the historic properties of Boise and future development that may threated our treasured buildings. Many historic neighborhoods do not have any existing legal protections, and there are zoning changes that will encourage demolition of current homes in order to subdivide the lots and/or build multiple units on that same lot. Some of these changes WILL NOT require any notification to current residents nearby and, depending on lot size or the purchase of multiple lots, could result in up to 12‐unit buildings being built in residential neighborhoods next door to single‐story, single‐family homes. Please allow more time for the zoning code update to be reviewed and concerns to be heard. Thank you, Hayley Noble If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 8:09 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Pam Nokkentved Email pnokkentved@gmail.com Address 2812 Grandee Boise, Idaho 83704 Comment Please stop enabling destruction of Boise Our long time culture and values are wrapped up in our history and our beautiful historical structures. Trying to turn Boise into a huge city with multi living spaces is intruding on the basic character of our residential neighborhoods just for financial gain and rapid growth. It is the quality of life I grew up with here that makes Boise special. The precious trees, clean River and, spectacular views of the mountains, nice yards and other spaces for children to play that represent the best quality of life and make Boise different than many cities. These qualities will be threatened by taller buildings that do not blend with surrounding buildings. Develop new subdivisions further out from older developed neighborhoods where taller structures are grouped together and lifestyles are more compatible. We have seen too much destruction of our lovely city already. STOP supporting and enabling developers and rich investors from taking over rental facilities. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 3:11 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Tiffany Oakes Email Oakesfamily7@hotmail.com Address 6031 francis pl, Boise, id 83714 Comment I am really excited about the new ordinance! Please be sure to include lower or middle income hlusing for large families! We would love to live in a walkable bikable neighborhood here in Boise someday! Being car dependant is a huge burden on our family. I hope Boise can make this happen! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 13, 2023 1:30 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name David E. Ogden Email dogden4066@msn.com Address Boise, Idaho, 83706 Comment I and my wife are opposed to short time frame allowed for review of this complicated and far reaching zoning rewrite. As it stands and what we understand now is that the law provides for upcoding of any and all residential properties. We understand the effect can be to allow developers to build multi‐family dwellings (duplex, 4 plex, apartment complexes. etc. on land currently zoned only for single family dwellings. This will change the quality of those areas by increasing population density, more traffic, less provision for parking cars, changing people in rentals so people won't know their neighbors as well. In short destroy suburban neighborhoods as we now know them. The law should include a provision for a vote by all neighborhood residents for approval of any changes to single family dwellings within the area for their neighborhood. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 4:57 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Lynn Oliver Email lynnkoliver@hotmail.com Address 4252 S. Rimview Way Boise ID 83716 Comment March 20, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23‐00001 & CPA23‐00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: I have reviewed the proposed zoning code revisions and believe the public needs substantially more notice and time for review and comment on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite. I currently live in a neighborhood with R1C designation in SE Boise that was built in the late 80s/early 90’s. The smallest lots are 0.16 acres and some are as large as 0.25 acres in size. As I read the new code I believe it is possible for every single lot in are 297 homeowner’s association to be subdivided and have two homes where there was once one. This is a major change and I don’t believe you have adequately notified the public of the scope and scale of the proposed changes. We enjoy living in an older residential area with large lots and room between are neighbors. When we moved to Boise 10 years ago we specifically looked for older neighborhoods of this character and excluded the densely space Harris Ranch type subdivisions. Instead of encouraging affordable housing this backdoor method to higher density will have existing homes being demolished and will completely change the character of are neighborhoods. This is only going to lead to increased property taxes further pushing residents out of Boise. Please better inform the public of the proposed changes and extend the comment period up to 90 days. Thank you, Lynn Oliver 4252 S. Rimview Way Boise, ID 83716 I am not a robot 1
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
Lynn Oliver <lynnkoliver@hotmail.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 5:00 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite Lynn Oliver [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
March 20, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise. org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: I have reviewed the proposed zoning code revisions and believe the public needs substantially more notice and time for review and comment on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite. I currently live in a neighborhood with R1C designation in SE Boise that was built in the late 80s/early 90’s. The smallest lots are 0.16 acres and some are as large as 0.25 acres in size. As I read the new code I believe it is possible for every single lot in are 297 homeowner’s association to be subdivided and have two homes where there was once one. This is a major change and I don’t believe you have adequately notified the public of the scope and scale of the proposed changes. We enjoy living in an older residential area with large lots and room between are neighbors. When we moved to Boise 10 years ago we specifically looked for older neighborhoods of this character and excluded the densely space Harris Ranch type subdivisions. Instead of encouraging affordable housing this backdoor method to higher density will have existing homes being demolished and will completely change the character of are neighborhoods. This is only going to lead to increased property taxes further pushing residents out of Boise. Please better inform the public of the proposed changes and extend the comment period up to 90 days. Thank you, Lynn Oliver 4252 S. Rimview Way Boise, ID 83716
Sent from Mail for Windows
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Nicole <n_puopolo@yahoo.com> Friday, March 10, 2023 6:56 AM ZoningRewrite [External] NO TO ZONING REWRITE
I am a homeowner & lifelong Boise resident. I am NOT in support of the proposed zoning changes. Nicole Olsen Sent from my iPhone
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
Zoe Ann Olson <zolson@ifhcidaho.org> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 10:32 AM ZoningRewrite Lori Dicaire; Monica Fabbi [External] We Oppose The Proposed Zoning Code: ZOA23-0001 & CPA23-0001)
Dear Zoning Rewrite Commission:
The Intermountain Fair Housing Council (IFHC), is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to ensure open and inclusive housing for all persons without regard to race, color, sex, religion, national origin, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, a source of income, or disability. The IFHC attempts to eradicate discrimination through, education on the fair housing laws, housing information and referral, housing counseling, and assistance with mediating and or filing fair housing complaints, among other things. The IFHC also provides education and outreach on fair housing laws and practices to housing providers and others. First, we must object to the short period in which to respond an over 600 page document. This short comment period violates due process and equal protection especially for people with disabilities and people who are LEP. Second, the new mandate further disenfranchises the public from input in the decision‐making process in regard to any land use/zoning decision furthering depriving them of due process and equal protection. This is directly adverse to the City's obligation to affirmatively further fair housing of allowing diverse and inclusive participation to create diverse and inclusive communities under 42 U.S.C. 3608. Third, as we have learned from Richard Rothstein in his book The Color of Law that it has been and still is the government with its private partners that has segregated, discriminated, displaced, gentrified and like to communities through zoning and land use decisions. https://www.segregatedbydesign.com/. We can't undo systemic and historical racism/discrimination without understanding our history and designing inclusive overlays in our land use decisions, designs, and participation. https://www.allianceforhousingjustice.org/post/27‐ways‐racism‐and‐white‐supremacy‐ impact‐housing. Fourth, the zoning rewrite must include a fair, affordable, sustainable, accessible housing overlays in which housing choice and just housing density exists in every neighborhood, not born most heavily by neighborhoods that are already dense/poor/unsafe/etc. and not without doing impact and equity assessments on humans, affordable/accessible housing loss, the environment and animals. The City needs to take Boston's lead and implement these overlays along with Planned Development Agreements to ensure fair Housing compliance: https://www.boston.gov/departments/fair‐ housing‐and‐equity/boston‐fair‐housing‐regulations. See also: https://www.mapc.org/wp‐ content/uploads/2017/09/Fair_Housing_and_Equity_Assessment.pdf and https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/fil e/2020/03/Docket%20%230232.PDF. 1
Lastly, we work at a housing nonprofit. We know residents and renters are suffering from the lack of affordable, accessible, sustainable housing. We have helped address over 20 mass evictions in the past year. We oppose the zoning rewrite without a fair housing overlay and protections. We need fair, affordable, accessible, sustainable housing overlays with inclusive public participation and input. Sincerely, Zoe Ann Olson Executive Director Intermountain Fair Housing Council
Get Outlook for iOS
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:24 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Matt Oman Email m.oman02@gmail.com Address 2714 N Tamarack Drive Boise ID 83703 Comment Reject the rezone and keep Boise green! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 8:38 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Gregg Ostrow Email geo@greggostrow.com Address 201 E. Louisa St. Boise, ID. 83712 Comment Good Morning, I have some commentary supported with graphics on the removal of the lot coverage, height transition, and open requirements for Dwelling, Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex. I do not see where I can add an attachment. Lot Coverage and Height Transition need to be put back in the Modern Zoning Code. It is also concerning that these major changes came with the February Adoption Draft. I am not a robot
1
Item: Section 11-03-04.2 G: Use Regulations for Dwelling, Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex Edits from the October 2022 Draft ZCR in the February 2023 Adoption Draft ZCR include: 1. Removal of the 55% lot coverage requirement (Floor Area Ratios) 2. Removal of the height transition adjacent to single-story residences (The draft did add an additional setback at the 3rd floor when adjacent to a single-story residence) 1. Decreasing the open space requirement from 375 sf. to 200 sf.
Information and Commentary provided by Gregg Ostrow, AIA
208-866-3168
Commentary Removal of the Lot Coverage and Height Transition in the last draft is very concerning. They are in the current zoning code and were included in the July 2022 Draft and October 2022 Drafts There has been no time for discussion on the changes, and the impacts are considerable. It is difficult to understand how such a large changes could occur this late in the process. Lot Coverage Removal The removal provides considerable increases in the unit size. A duplex on my property, which is 60 ft. X 120 ft. with an alley in the R1-C zone increases from 1,966 sf. to 4,467 sf. (See supporting data and graphics). As you will see, the building footprint takes up almost the entire property. The argument for the removal is to provide diversity and density. You will provide diversity in the form of larger units, but without any extra density. You can get the same number of units with the lot coverage. Height Transition Removal Current zoning and the July 2022 and October 2022 had height limitations when adjacent structures were single story in height. This limited the structures adjacent to single-family homes to 2 stories. With the height transition removed, a 3-story structure is allowed. Both 2 and 3 story structures can be 40 ft. tall. Once again, this adds diversity in the form of larger units and taller ceilings, but not density. Reduction of open space from 375 sf. to 200 sf. Current zoning and the July 2022 and October 2022 drafts had open space requirements of 375 sf. with one 15 ft. required dimension and 30% permeability. Of the 3 changes, this concerns me the least. One concern I do have is you cannot plant very many trees in 200 sf.
Recommendations Lot Coverage Put either the Lot Coverage or Height Transition back in. You can exempt basements from the lot coverage if you want more area. I would also stagger the lot coverage for as follows: ▪ Duplex – 55% ( 2- 1,960 sf. units not including garage and basement) ▪ Triplex – 60% (3 – 1,440 sf. units not including garage and basement) ▪ Fourplex – 65% (4 – 1,170 sf. units not including garage and basement) As currently written, the Adoption Draft is encouraging the demolition of good existing single-family homes to obtain density and diversity. This can be achieved without demolishing the existing homes. I live in a structurally sound single-story 1,600 sf. home in the East End that has a “clinker-brick” exterior. With Adaptive Reuse in the current Adoption Draft, I can add 10% floor area, split the house into a duplex and add an Accessory Dwelling Unit for a total of 3 units. The Zoning Code could encourage Adaptive Reuse by allowing me to add a 2 – unit accessory dwelling unit bringing my property up to 4 units. I could also keep my house and have 3-units. Basements should be encouraged since most of them require minimal or no heating and cooling. Designed properly, they can be nice living spaces. Demolition should be discouraged by adding additional requirements. An example of this is that all tear-off demolition projects go through a neighbor notification process. According to the Boise 2021 Housing Report, existing neighborhoods need to increase by 26%, not 400%.
Height Transition
Removing both the Height Transition and Lot Coverage will allow 3-story units next to single-story houses. This is very contentious for the existing residences. Although not required, shutting solar access to existing residences does not seem fair when you can achieve the same goals with a 2 or 2-1/2 story structures. The questions you must asked are: 1. “Do we even care about the impact on current residences?” 2. “Have we studied what type and size of housing is best to create the missing “MiddleHousing?” 3. “Do we need to pass the ZCR before the election in November or we will never get it passed?” 4. “Do we just pass the ZCR now and fix it later?” 5. “Do taller buildings create more density, diversity, affordability, sustainability, and resiliency?”
My recommendation is to put the height transition back in to allow 2-1/2 story structures adjacent to existing single-story structures.
Open Space
Reducing the Open Space requirement creates larger floor plates and reduces opportunities to maintain or plant trees. The supporting data and graphics will reflect this impact. My recommendation is to go back to the 375-sf. open space requirement or at a minimum. add a 10 ft. minimum dimension to the 200-sf. requirement for the open space to be usable and allow for trees to be planted. I understand the need for the City to rewrite the zoning code in response to current growth and cost of housing. But I am not sure demolition of good homes and constructing large units meets the goal. Density by itself does not create affordability. Thoughtful density can. Increase height limits do not increase density. I agree that it creates diversity with larger and taller units. But is it the diversity the city is looking for? “Do the details of the rewrite matter at this time?” We can always fix it later. Do we have any responsibility to the existing homeowners?” Or do we just say, “Boise is changing, and you need to change with it?”
Thanks Gregg D. Ostrow, AIA
201 E. Louisa St. Boise, ID. 83712
208-866-3168
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Commentary No. 1 By Gregg Ostrow, AIA Item: Section 11-03-04.2G: Use Regulations for Dwelling, Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex Comparison Chart Current Code
October 2023 ZCR Draft
February 2023 ZCR Adoption Draft
Lot Coverage
55%
Height Transition
If less than 1-1/2 story homes exist on both sides of the lot, the requirements shall meet the ordinance for a 1-1/2 story construction
If less than 1-1/2 story homes exist on both sides of the lot, the requirements shall meet the requirements of Residential small lots
Height limit is 40 ft. 3rd floor setback increased when adjacent to single story residence
Open Space
375 sf. per unit with one 15ft. min. dimension and 30% permeable
375 sf. per unit with one 15ft. min. dimension and 30% permeable
200 sf. per unit to be usable and 25% permeable
55%
No lot coverage requirement
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Commentary No. 1 By Gregg Ostrow, AIA Item: Section 11-03-04.2G: Use Regulations for Dwelling, Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex Lot Coverage: Based on a 60 ft. X 120 ft. R1-C lot with an alley in the East End October 2023 ZCR Draft
February 2023 ZCR Adoption Draft
DUPLEX (See analysis) (2)- 1.966 sf. units
(2)- 1,966 sf. units
(2)- 4,467 sf. units
TRIPLEX (WITH INCENTIVE) See analysis Not allowed
(3) – 1,311 sf. units
FOURPLEX (WITH INCENTIVE) See analysis Not allowed
(3) – 2,250 sf. to 3,182 sf units
(4) – 983 sf. units
(4) – 1, 725 sf. to 1,830 sf units
Current Code Allowed Unit Size
Neighbor Notification
Yes
No
No
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Commentary No. 1 By Gregg Ostrow, AIA Item: Section 11-03-04.2G: Use Regulations for Dwelling, Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex Height Transition: Based on a 60 ft. wide R1-C property
Current Code
EXISTING
NEW
EXISTING
EXISTING EXISTING
NEW NEW
EXISTING EXISTING
EXISTING
NEW
EXISTING
October 2023 ZCR Draft
February 2023 ZCR Adoption Draft
Elevations based on adjacent homes being 1-1/2 stories or 25 ft. max. height
DUPLEX ANALYSIS
SAME REQUIREMENTS 4,467 SF. UNIT – 3 STORIES
No Lot Coverage requirement
ZCR – OCT. 22
CURRENT CODE SIMILAR REQUIREMENTS
ZCR = FEB. 23
3 stories and 40 ft. height allowed but creates small, difficult floor plans
Elevations based on adjacent homes being 1-1/2 stories or 25 ft. max. height
TRIPLEX ANALYSIS
Not allowed
No Lot Coverage requirement
CURRENT CODE
ZCR – OCT. 22
ZCR = FEB. 23
3 stories and 40 ft. height allowed but creates small, difficult floor plans
Elevations based on adjacent homes being 1-1/2 stories or 25 ft. max. height
FOURPLEX ANALYSIS
Not allowed
55% LOT COVERAGE
No Lot Coverage requirement
CURRENT CODE
ZCR – OCT. 22
ZCR = FEB. 23
3 stories and 40 ft. height allowed but creates small, difficult floor plans
Elevations based on adjacent homes being 1-1/2 stories or 25 ft. max. height
Zoning Code Rewrite Summary By Gregg D. Ostrow, AIA March 20, 2023 Since last July, when the first Zoning Code Rewrite Draft was made public, I have spent countless hours looking at the detail of the code and its effect on the R1-C zone. I am supportive of the goals of the rewrite, but I do not feel the latest Adoption Draft supports many of these goals. I have put together supporting data on the details of the rewrite on the R1-C zone that I hope you will look at. The supporting data provides in-depth information, graphics, table comparisons, questions, and recommendations. I submitted many of the same commentary after the October 2002 draft. Unfortunately, they were not implemented. I was shocked to see that the Adoption Draft went the opposite way with the removal of Lot Coverage and Height Transition removed from the duplex, triplex, and fourplex, creating new concerns at the last minute. I hope it will be different this time. Allowed Use in R1-C •
I support the Allowed Uses being proposed but I have concerns on how the uses are integrated into the R1-C neighborhoods.
•
The rewrite is long and complicated, and I worry that late changes in the Adoption Draft were made without proper analysis of the result.
•
My hope is that the city recognizes that some of the details of the rewrite will go under further review with possible code amendments as a result.
R1-C Lot and Building Standards •
I am supportive of the Lot and Building Standard changes, but I am very concerned about the removal of the Lot Coverage and Height Transition requirements in the Use Specific Standards for duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes.
•
The additional 3rd floor setback for structures adjacent to single-story homes is good, but the Use Specific Standards for side yard articulation for duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes conflicts with it.
Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex (See Item 1 for supporting data) •
The Feb. 2023 Adoption Draft removed lot coverage and height transition that was in the current code and both the previous rewrite drafts. This will allow for larger and taller units in existing neighborhoods creating diversity, but not density.
•
Based on my research of other city’s rewrites, the inclusion of large and tall units has raised property values, removed smaller affordable homes, and priced more people out of the neighborhood.
•
My recommendation is to put the Lot Coverage and Height Transition standards back in the Use Specific Standards for duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes creating a better building mass transition and hopefully more affordable units.
Neighborhood Cafes and Retail Sales, Neighborhood
Page 2 2
•
The inclusion of small cafes and retail shops is a great idea, but the process needs to be looked at. Most of us would love a Roosevelt Market or Bodega within walking distance of our homes.
•
The proposed rewrite allows for no neighbor notification when a café or retail shop is proposed on a corner lot and a Conditional Use Permit is required for these uses on an interior lot.
•
I do not understand the reasoning behind differentiating the corner lot from the interior lot. The impact on neighbors will be the same.
•
The new Development Tracker is a great tool, but it does not replace the current neighbor notification process. If someone gets lucky enough to look to go on to the Tracker at the right time to comment, what is the city’s response to the comments? Will this person receive notice of the approval and have a chance to appeal the decision?
•
The solution here is to require a Conditional Use Permit for these uses on all lots in the R1-C zone. In the 27 years I have been practicing as an architect in Boise, I have processed numerous Conditional Use Permits. If the project being proposed is a good fit, the process is simple. If the project is not a good fit, the process can be cumbersome. But isn’t this why Conditional Use Permits were created?
•
Another option is to create a separate permit for Neighborhood Cafes and Retail Sales, Neighborhood that allows neighbor notification and input but does not need to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval.
•
Like the Bed and Breakfast, these uses should be required to adaptively reuse the existing structure and signage needs to be
restricted like the Dwelling, Live-Work. We need to encourage adaptive reuse. Adaptive Reuse of Existing Homes in R1-C (See Item 2 for supporting data) •
With the Adoption Draft’s latest changes, I can demolish my house and garage in the East End and construct a duplex with unit sizes over 4,000 sf. I cannot add a unit over 700 sf. (proposed to be 900 sf.) since it will be considered an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The same goes for triplexes and fourplexes. I could keep my house and still provide 2, 3, or 4 units, but current language of the rewrite limits my options for this.
•
The problem is the “plex” definition requires that the units have common walls.
•
The solution is to change duplex, triplex, and fourplex to 2-Units, 3Unit, and 4-Units removing the common wall language. Doing this will increase flexibility for adaptive reuse of existing homes creating the diversity and density I feel the 2021 Housing Needs Assessment recommended.
•
The ADU as we know today becomes obsolete with the new code. If you are going to keep the ADU and increase the allowable area of an ADU to 900 sf., then allow a 3-bedroom unit to increase diversity. I am sure there are plenty of renters with families looking for affordable 3-bedroom units. There are also many homes in the R1-C zones today that are under 900 sf.
•
I must respectfully disagree with the 2021 Housing Needs Assessment that promotes demolition to gain density. You can get the same density with smaller affordable units through adaptive reuse and additions. Demolition does not support the city’s desire to become a “Green” city.
•
How about a standard that requires the owner to provide a minimum of 4 units if demolition is proposed. In addition, all demolition proposals should require neighbor and neighborhood association notification with time to comment.
Incentives
Page 3 3
•
The addition of incentives to increase density is a great idea. I was told that Tim Keane said he was “Not going to just give away density”. I feel the incentives will push people toward maintaining or adaptively reusing existing homes, which is a good thing.
•
I would entertain adding a 3-bedroom unit or (2) smaller units on my property if they were allowed, but I cannot since the units would be labeled as an ADU and I am restricted to one.
•
Dwelling, Cottage Village should be added as a use that can quality for an Incentive in R1-C. Without the incentive, I can construct 2 cottages on my property. With the incentive, I can go up to 4 cottages.
Use Specific Standards (See Item 3 for supporting data) •
There are some inconsistencies with the Use Specific Standards. I am also confused about some of the standards. Considering the scale of the rewrite, I can understand how some details could have been overlooked.
•
The side yard setback for duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes are different than the requirements for townhomes and Live-Work units.
•
I was told by city staff that side yard facing front doors were not allowed next to adjacent properties due to the requirement for “Liked-Yards”, although I was unable to find this requirement in the Adoption Draft.
•
My recommendation is to align the side yard setbacks for “plexes” townhomes, and Live-Work units and have the city needs to clarify the “Liked-Yards” requirements.
Neighbor and Neighborhood Association Notification •
Currently the code requires neighbor notification for duplexes and ADU’s in the R1-C zone. The rewrite has removed notifications for all Allowed Use – Allowed Form projects. These include all the allowed uses as follows: o o o o o o o o
Page 4 4
Duplex Triplex Fourplex Single-Family Attached (Townhomes) Cottage Village Bed and Breakfast Neighborhood Café Retail Sales, Neighborhood
•
I have struggled with the removal of notification since the first rewrite draft came out in July 2022 and feel the city needs to reevaluate their stance on this. If I am going to demo my singlestory 1,600 sf. house and construct (2) – 40 ft. tall – 4,000+ sf. units, should I believe as a good neighbor I should notify my neighbors.
•
Although the city’s current neighbor notification can be cumbersome, it has resulted in better projects. I was told that no other cities in the Treasure Valley have these notification requirements so why should we? But do we want to be like other cities? There was a reason that neighbor notification was implemented in Boise. Do we know the answer?
Item 1: Section 11-03-04.2 G: Use Regulations for Dwelling, Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex Changes from the October 2022 Draft ZCR in the February 2023 Adoption Draft ZCR include: 1. Removal of the 55% lot coverage requirement (Floor Area Ratios) 2. Removal of the height transition adjacent to single-story residences (The draft did add an additional setback at the 3rd floor when adjacent to a single-story residence) 1. Decreasing the open space requirement from 375 sf. to 200 sf.
Information and Commentary provided by Gregg Ostrow, AIA
208-866-3168
1
Commentary Removal of the Lot Coverage and Height Transition in the last draft is very concerning. They are in the current zoning code and were included in the July 2022 Draft and October 2022 Drafts There has been no time for discussion on the changes, and the impacts are considerable. It is difficult to understand how such a large changes could occur this late in the process. Lot Coverage Removal The removal provides considerable increases in the unit size. A duplex on my property, which is 60 ft. X 120 ft. with an alley in the R1-C zone increases from 1,311 sf. to 4,467 sf. (See supporting data and graphics). As you will see, the building footprint takes up almost the entire property. The argument for the removal is to provide diversity and density. You will provide diversity in the form of larger units, but without any extra density. You can get the same number of units with the lot coverage. Height Transition Removal Current zoning and the July 2022 and October 2022 had height limitations when adjacent structures were single story in height. This limited the structures adjacent to single-family homes to 2 stories. With the height transition removed, a 3-story structure is allowed. Both 2 and 3 story structures can be 40 ft. tall. Once again, this adds diversity in the form of larger units and taller ceilings, but not density. Reduction of open space from 375 sf. to 200 sf. Current zoning and the July 2022 and October 2022 drafts had open space requirements of 375 sf. with one 15 ft. required dimension and 30% permeability. Of the 3 changes, this concerns me the least. One concern I do have is you cannot plant very many trees in 200 sf.
2
Recommendations Lot Coverage Put either the Lot Coverage or Height Transition back in. You can exempt basements (which typically are exempted) from the lot coverage if you want more area. I would also stagger the lot coverage for as follows: ▪ Duplex – 55% ( 2- 1,960 sf. units not including garage and basement) ▪ Triplex – 60% (3 – 1,440 sf. units not including garage and basement) ▪ Fourplex – 65% (4 – 1,170 sf. units not including garage and basement) As currently written, the Adoption Draft is encouraging the demolition of good existing single-family homes to obtain density and diversity. This can be achieved without demolishing the existing homes. I live in a structurally sound single-story 1,600 sf. home in the East End that has a “clinker-brick” exterior. With Adaptive Reuse in the current Adoption Draft, I can add 10% floor area, split the house into a duplex and add an Accessory Dwelling Unit for a total of 3 units. The Zoning Code could encourage Adaptive Reuse by allowing me to add a 2 – unit accessory dwelling unit bringing my property up to 4 units. If allowed, I could also keep my house and have 3-units. Basements should be encouraged since most of them require minimal or no heating and cooling. Designed properly, they can be nice living spaces. Demolition should be discouraged by adding additional requirements. An example of this is that all tear-off demolition projects go through a demolition permit process requiring neighbor notification process. According to the Boise 2021 Housing Report, existing neighborhoods need to increase by 26%, not 400%.
3
Height Transition
Removing both the Height Transition and Lot Coverage will allow 3-story units next to single-story houses. This is very contentious for the existing residences. Although not required, shutting solar access to existing residences does not seem fair when you can achieve the same goals with a 2 or 21/2 story structures. The questions you must asked are:
1. “Do we even care about the impact on current residences?” 2. “Have we studied what type and size of housing is best to create the missing “Middle-Housing?” 3. “Do we need to pass the ZCR before the election in November or we will never get it passed?” 4. “Do we just pass the ZCR now and fix it later?”
5. “Do taller buildings create more density, diversity, affordability, sustainability, and resiliency?” My recommendation is to put the height transition back in to allow a 30 ft. max. height - 2-1/2 story structures adjacent to existing single-story structures. This will also prevent the “big box” structures next to single-family homes that typically have pitched roofs.
4
Open Space
Reducing the Open Space requirement creates larger floor plates and reduces opportunities to maintain or plant trees. The supporting data and graphics will reflect this impact. In the effort to promote Adaptive Reuse, my recommendation is to go back to the 375-sf. open space when the existing residence is demolished. The 200-sf. requirement for the open space should be allowed if the existing house is incorporated in the design. I understand the need for the City to rewrite the zoning code in response to current growth and cost of housing. But I am not sure demolition of good homes and constructing large units meets that goal. Density by itself does not create affordability. Thoughtful density can. Increase height limits do not increase density. I agree that it creates diversity with larger and taller units. But is this the diversity the city is looking for? “Do the details of the rewrite matter at this time?” We can always fix it later. Do we have any responsibility to the existing homeowners?” Or do we just say, “Boise is changing, and you need to change with it?”
Thanks Gregg D. Ostrow, AIA
201 E. Louisa St. Boise, ID. 83712
208-866-3168
5
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Commentary No. 1 By Gregg Ostrow, AIA Item: Section 11-03-04.2G: Use Regulations for Dwelling, Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex Comparison Chart Current Code
October 2023 ZCR Draft
February 2023 ZCR Adoption Draft
Lot Coverage
55%
Height Transition
If less than 1-1/2 story homes exist on both sides of the lot, the requirements shall meet the ordinance for a 1-1/2 story construction
If less than 1-1/2 story homes exist on both sides of the lot, the requirements shall meet the requirements of Residential small lots
Height limit is 40 ft. 3rd floor setback increased when adjacent to single story residence
Open Space
375 sf. per unit with one 15ft. min. dimension and 30% permeable
375 sf. per unit with one 15ft. min. dimension and 30% permeable
200 sf. per unit to be usable and 25% permeable
55%
No lot coverage requirement
6
7
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Commentary No. 1 By Gregg Ostrow, AIA Item: Section 11-03-04.2G: Use Regulations for Dwelling, Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex Lot Coverage: Based on a 60 ft. X 120 ft. R1-C lot with an alley in the East End October 2023 ZCR Draft
February 2023 ZCR Adoption Draft
DUPLEX (See analysis) (2)- 1.966 sf. units
(2)- 1,966 sf. units
(2)- 4,467 sf. units
TRIPLEX (WITH INCENTIVE) See analysis Not allowed
(3) – 1,311 sf. units
FOURPLEX (WITH INCENTIVE) See analysis Not allowed
(3) – 2,250 sf. to 3,182 sf units
(4) – 983 sf. units
(4) – 1, 725 sf. to 1,830 sf units
Current Code Allowed Unit Size
Neighbor Notification
Yes
No
No
Boise Zoning Code Rewrite Commentary No. 1 By Gregg Ostrow, AIA Item: Section 11-03-04.2G: Use Regulations for Dwelling, Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex
8
Height Transition: Based on a 60 ft. wide R1-C property
Current Code
EXISTING
NEW
EXISTING
EXISTING EXISTING
NEW NEW
EXISTING EXISTING
EXISTING
NEW
EXISTING
October 2023 ZCR Draft
February 2023 ZCR Adoption Draft
Elevations based on adjacent homes being 1-1/2 stories or 25 ft. max. height
DUPLEX ANALYSIS
9
SAME REQUIREMENTS 4,467 SF. UNIT – 3 STORIES
No Lot Coverage requirement
ZCR – OCT. 22
CURRENT CODE SIMILAR REQUIREMENTS
ZCR = FEB. 23
3 stories and 40 ft. height allowed but creates small, difficult floor plans
Elevations based on adjacent homes being 1-1/2 stories or 25 ft. max. height
TRIPLEX ANALYSIS
10
Not allowed
No Lot Coverage requirement
CURRENT CODE
ZCR – OCT. 22
ZCR = FEB. 23
3 stories and 40 ft. height allowed but creates small, difficult floor plans
Elevations based on adjacent homes being 1-1/2 stories or 25 ft. max. height
FOURPLEX ANALYSIS
11
375 SF. OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT WITH (1) 15 FT. DIMENSION
Not allowed
55% LOT COVERAGE
No Lot Coverage requirement
CURRENT CODE
ZCR – OCT. 22
ZCR = FEB. 23
3 stories and 40 ft. height allowed but creates small, difficult floor plans
Elevations based on adjacent homes being 1-1/2 stories or 25 ft. max. height
Item 2: Adaptive Reuse of Existing Homes in the R1-C zone
1
The Adoption Draft promotes demolition. On my property in the East End, I can demolish my house and garage and construct a duplex with units over 4,000 sf. But I cannot add a unit over 700 sf. (proposed to be 900 sf.) unit since it will be considered an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The same goes for triplexes and fourplexes. I can keep my house and still provide 2, 3, or 4 units if the rewrite would allow it. But currently it limits me. See sheets 3 thru 6. The problem is the “plex” definition requires that the units have common walls. The solution is to change duplex, triplex, and fourplex to 2-Units, 3-Unit, and 4-Units removing the common wall language. In addition, the ADU needs to be redefined to match the rewrite. The ADU as we know today becomes obsolete with the new code. If you are going to keep the ADU and increase the allowable area of an ADU to 900 sf., then allow a 3-bedroom unit to increase diversity and provide housing for families.
It does not make sense to “rewrite” the code and use some of the same terminology and definitions.
Information and Commentary provided by Gregg Ostrow, AIA
208-866-3168
2 60 FT. X 120 FT. R1-C PROPERTY WITH ALLEY Qualifies for Incentive 1 Does not qualify for Incentive 2 due to 25% improvement to land value requirement and entire property is not within 300 ft. of Warm Springs Ave.
3
DENSITY INCREASE OPTIONS
ALLEY
Maintain house/garage and add: 1 – 2- BR ADU 2 – 1 BR ADU’s (not allowed) 1 – 3 BR unit (not allowed)
EXISTING 528 SF. ACCESSORY GARAGE
Remodel house into a duplex and add an ADU: Allowed under current code and Rewrite Drafts
EXISTING 1,600 SF. SINGLE-STORY RESIDENCE
Remove house/garage and construct: Duplex with (2) – 2,000 sf. units (2) – 4,467 sf. units Dwelling-Single-Family Attached (Townhomes) with (2)– 4,552 sf. units Triplex with (3) – 1,300 sf. units – requires Incentive 1 (3) – 2,250 to 3,182 sf units Fourplex with (4) – 1,000 sf. units – requires Incentive 1 (4) – 1,725 to 1,830 sf. units Cottage Housing with (2)– 1,000 sf. units Live Work with (2) – 4,000 sf. units (Live Work never had a lot coverage ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE UNITS WITH NO requirement) UNIT SIZES BASED ON 55% LOT COVERAGE
LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT
Based on definition of a “plex”, I can demolish my house and garage and build a (2) – 4,467 sf. units, but I cannot add a unit over the ADU size to the back of my property off the alley.
2-Unit Site Options
ADD 600 SF. ADU (ALLOWED)
SPLIT HOUSE INTO 2-UNITS WITH SMALL ADDITION (ALLOWED)
ADD SECOND UNIT OVER ADU SIZE (NOT ALLOWED)
4
DEMO HOUSE AND GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT DUPLEX (ALLOWED)
Based on definition of a “plex”, I can demolish my house and garage and build a (3) – 2.412 sf. to 3,162 sf. units, but I cannot add (2) Units to the back of my property off the alley.
3-Unit Site Options
SPLIT HOUSE INTO 2-UNITS AND ADD AN ADU (ALLOWED)
SPLIT HOUSE INTO 2-UNITS AND ADD CONTIGUOUS 1-UNIT (Requires Incentive 1) ALLOWED
ADD 2-UNITS TO REAR OF PROPERTY (Requires Incentive 1) NOT ALLOWED
5
DEMO HOUSE AND GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT TRIPLEX (Requires Incentive 1) ALLOWED
4-Unit Site Options
SPLIT HOUSE INTO 2-UNITS AND ADD 2-UNITS (Requires Incentive 1) NOT ALLOWED
Based on definition of a “plex”, I can demolish my house and garage and build a (4) – 1,725 - 1.830 sf. units, but I cannot add split my house into a duplex and add (2) Units to the back of my property off the alley.
DEMO HOUSE AND GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT FOURPLEX (Requires Incentive 1) ALLOWED
6
Item 3: Inconsistent and/or confusing Use Specific Standards in the R1-C zone Duplexes, Triplexes, and Fourplexes have different Use Specific Standards than Dwelling, Single-Family Attached (Townhomes) and Dwelling, Live-Work. The only difference between a “plex” and a townhouse is the addition of a property line between the townhouse units. See sheet 2. Duplexes, Triplexes, and Fourplexes have additional side yard setback requirements than Townhomes. See sheets 3, 4, and 5. I was told by city staff that front doors facing the side yard of adjacent properties was not allowed due to “Liked-Yards” although I was not able to find this requirement in the Adoption Draft. See sheet 6. My recommendation is to align the Use Specific Standards for “plexes”, townhomes, and Live-Work units with Lot Coverage and Height Transition standards put back in. In addition, the city should clarify if side facing entrances are allowed next to adjacent properties side yards.
Information and Commentary provided by Gregg Ostrow, AIA
208-866-3168
1
???
2 What is the difference between a duplex, triplex, fourplex and single-family attached units (townhomes)? Duplexes, Triplexes, and Fourplexes have different Use Specific Standards than Single-Family Attached (Townhomes)
Duplexes are units under same ownership. But what if you change them to condominiums later?
Townhomes have a property separating the units into separate properties
???
3 What is the side yard setback for a duplex, triplex, or fourplex on an interior lot?
Sidewall articulation and setbacks for Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex
All other uses including: Townhomes Live-Work Multifamily, etc.
???
What is the yard setback for a duplex, triplex, or fourplex on an interior lot? Showing 13 ft. Floor to Floor/Roof
There is no restriction mentioned for bay windows, pop-outs, or architectural features
Code does not prevent a 2-story 40 ft. structure
Setbacks for Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex regardless of adjacent structure story
Setback for all other uses including single-family detached, townhomes, and Live-Work
4
??? There is no restriction for bay windows, pop-outs, or architectural features
What is the yard setback for a duplex, triplex, or fourplex on an interior lot?
Setbacks for Duplex, Triplex, and Fourplex regardless of adjacent structure story
Setback for all other uses including single-family detached, townhomes, and Live-Work
5
???
6 Can I orient a duplex, triplex, or fourplex parallel to the street? It is unclear if units oriented parallel to the street with entrances facing the side yard to the street are allowed
Allowed
Not Allowed?
Item 3: Allowable Height in the R1-C zone
1
Someone at the City thought by adding 5 ft. to the current R1-C 35 ft. maximum height limit would provide for more density. This is incorrect. You can still get 3 stories with the current maximum height. See graphics on Sheet 2. What you get are taller structures in predominantly single-story neighborhoods where current house owners are very concerned about loosing solar access. I understand that solar access does not have to be provided by the City, but as an architect, I must respectfully disagree. Especially with the city’s goal of becoming a “green” city. I feel the 3-story maximum was added in the last draft due to the city being told you could do a 4-story structure within he 40 ft. height limit. This appears to be a quick-fix decision without a detailed study of the result. My recommendation to the city is to allow a maximum height limit of 35 ft. to the top of a flat roof and 40 ft. to the top of pitched roof structures. I am having a hard time supporting the extra 5 ft. for a flat roof structure when it does not add density and encourages “box” structures.
Information and Commentary provided by Gregg Ostrow, AIA
208-866-3168
Current zoning 35 ft. Height Limit
3-Story Flat Roof – 11’-8” Floor to Floor
2
2-1/2-Story Steep Pitched Roof
2-1/2-StoryLow Pitched Roof
3-Story Low Pitched Shed Roof
2-1/2-Story Steep Pitched Roof
2-1/2-StoryLow Pitched Roof
3-Story Low Pitched Shed Roof
Rewrite Proposed 40 ft. Height Limit
3-Story Flat Roof – 13’-4” Floor to Floor
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:16 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Jim Otradosky Email jim@basomo.net Address 1384 W. Villa Norte St. Boise, ID 83702 Comment Good afternoon. I am writing to note my support of the proposed rewrite of the Boise City Zoning Ordinance. This rewrite is overdue and needed to support a modern city not tied to the automobile. While not perfect, it is a significant improvement that will allow homeowners, design professionals and developers more flexibility in providing the city with innovative projects that promote walkability and preserve our quality of life as our city continues to grow. I would request consideration in providing more flexibility in parking requirements along transit corridors as well as ADUs when not associated with an owner occupied dwelling. I appreciate the efforts of City staff and volunteers that moved this effort forward and look forward to its implementation. Thank you. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 1:15 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Mary Overstreet Email maryodesign@yahoo.com Address Boise, ID 83709 Comment Please consider these modifications to the zoning code as they have been thoughtfully created by professionals that care about the opportunities for affordable housing in the treasure valley. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 7:54 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Nora Peters Email nlp81@hotmail.com Address 2023 Travertine Way Comment Stop this bill. Boise is not Portland! I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:47 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Mark Phillips Email gmarkphillips@gmail.com Address Boise, Idaho 83705 Comment Please don't upzone Boise! Upzoning Boise will destroy the unique character of our neighborhoods and drive housing costs up for EVERYONE, including families that are currently struggling to make ends meet and elderly residents living on fixed incomes. If you upzone Boise, property values will rise and so will property taxes and rents, as Vancouver's professor / planner Patrick Condon told community leaders at the Livable California Teleconference on Feb 6, 2021. "We have incrementally quadrupled the density of Vancouver, but we haven't seen any decrease in per square foot costs. That evidence is indisputable. We can conclude there is a problem beyond restrictive zoning. No amount of opening zoning or allowing for development will cause prices to go down. We've seen no evidence of that at all. It's not the NIMBY's that are the problem ‐ it's the global increase in land value in urban areas that is the problem." ~Patrick Condon, professor at the University of British Columbia School of Architecture, landscape architect, author, and former city planner. (Source) https://www.livablecalifornia.org/vancouver‐smartest‐planner‐prof‐patrick‐condon‐calls‐california‐upzoning‐a‐ costly‐mistake‐2‐6‐21/ Upzoning Boise will negatively impact EVERYONE who lives here, regardless of whether they own their home or rent. Thank you for doing the right thing and rejecting the proposed Boise upzone. Sincerely, Mark Phillips ~I am a 25‐year Boise resident and 45 year Idaho resident. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Ken Pidjeon <COMMO23@msn.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 2:45 PM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-0001 & CPA23-0001
I request the following comments be entered into the record for ZOA23‐0001 & CPA23‐0001.
Dwelling Unit Density Boise currently allows between 15 to 45 dwelling units per acre, sometimes more, and under the proposed Zoning Code those numbers remain but, in some cases, unlimited density is allowed. Contrast Boise with all five boroughs that comprise New York City ‐ the most densely populated city in the nation. According to the 2020 Census, New York City, overall, has approximately 19 dwelling units per acre. If one looks only at New York County (Manhattan) there are about 63 dwelling units per acre. Either way, Boise’s currently allowed maximum density and proposed maximum density is at least twice that of New York City overall and about two thirds the density of Manhattan. After New York City, San Francisco is the second most densely populated city in the United States. So why is Boise attempting to surpass both New York City and San Francisco in density? Do Boise residents really want to live in the most densely populated city in America? As a 45 plus year Boise resident, who grew up in Philadelphia proper, I don’t think so. It is time to make both rational and realistic decisions about population density. 45 dwelling units per acre is neither rational nor realistic. The same goes for unlimited density. Perhaps a dwelling unit per acre number in the 10 to 12 per acre range would be sufficient. Dwelling units per acre in that range are more than double the 2020 Census reported dwelling unit density for Boise and they are more than sufficient to support a transit system per St. Paul, MN Metropolitan Council guidelines. Thank you for considering these comments. Kenneth L Pidjeon 1829 W Canal St Boise, ID 83705‐4819
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Ken Pidjeon <COMMO23@msn.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:18 PM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-0001 & CPA23-0001
I request the following comments be entered into the record for ZOA23‐0001 & CPA23‐0001.
Transit Density The claim that Boise needs increased dwelling unit density to support transit ridership is completely bogus. As the former Assistant General Manager of Boise Urban Stages (BUS) during the late 1970s, I believe I have both the experience and the expertise to make that statement. BUS was the predecessor to Valley Regional Transit (VRT). Also, since I have attended most of the VRT Board and Executive Board meetings over the past 15 or so years, I believe I am fairly current on VRT operations and transit industry matters generally. On a per capita basis, BUS carried twice as many passengers as the current VRT Boise system. This is according to VRT’s own publicly available information and my personal records. Route structure and the number of buses in service are approximately the same for both systems. So, if BUS could carry twice as many passengers per capita as the current VRT Boise system, with a dwelling unit density much less than the current one, why does Boise believe higher dwelling unit densities will increase transit ridership? The existing allowable dwelling unit densities certainly haven’t increased transit ridership. While I agree there is some correlation between dwelling unit density and transit ridership, I also would argue that the quality of transit service provided has a significantly greater affect on transit ridership than dwelling unit density alone. You can have thousands of people within a quarter mile of a transit line but if transit system service is perceived to be poor those folks aren’t going to ride the system unless they have no other choice. I suggest the current and proposed dwelling unit densities have not and will not impact transit ridership to any significant degree. The existing and proposed dwelling unit densities, especially the unlimited one, greatly exceed those considered minimal by transit planners for a “successful” bus system. The proposed densities are, literally, more than New York City (all five boroughs) ones and are more suitable to subway and commuter rail services ‐ just like those found in New York City ‐ than bus or bus rapid transit (BRT) services. Please do not use the excuse Boise needs even more density to support transit services. That’s simply not true. BUS carried twice as many passengers, on a per capita basis, than the current VRT Boise operation does and BUS carried those passengers on a significantly less dwelling unit density than the current one. Please use dwelling unit density numbers in the 10 to 12 range rather current and proposed density numbers (15 to 45) that far exceed New York City density numbers (17 dwelling units per acre overall). Dwelling units 1
per acre in the 10 to 12 range are more than double the 1980 Census reported dwelling unit density for Boise and are more than sufficient to support transit services. Thank you for considering these comments. Kenneth L Pidjeon 1829 W Canal St Boise, ID 83705‐4819
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:27 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Jennifer Pisano Email jenniferpisano84@gmail.com Address 311 E Parkway Dr Boise, ID 83706 Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:32 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Lisa Pisano Email lisakpisano@gmail.com Address Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens for generations to come and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:50 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name PAULA L PISCA Email ppisca@hotmail.com Address 4010 W. VICTORY RD. 83642 Comment “Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:05 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Diane Plastino Graves Email plastinograves@gmail.com Address 1126 Brightwater Lane Comment 1. The UpZoning proposal should not be addressed by the Council until additional public hearings have been held. The timeframe for comments is too short. 2. The Mayor's stated policy is that Boise should provide availability of housing for anyone that wishes to move here. I have not heard of any other municipality claiming that policy statement. And for good reason: It is unrealistic and is not the job of a city to provide access to housing for tens of thousands of people that may ultimately move here. 3. Building four‐plexes and larger buildings in established single‐family neighborhoods will add an unplanned‐for strain on services, parking, use of parks and green areas, and will damage the character of these older neighborhoods people moved into ‐‐because of that character. While that may not be of importance to you, it is of great importance to those of us living in long‐established neighborhoods. Which brings me to my last and most important point: 4. The proposed policy lacks transparency and due process. To disallow public hearings and public comments in any form to major individual building projects and other changes in individual neighborhoods and in the City as a whole is unacceptable. "To make things easier" for the City by passing this Upzoning does not recommend or justify the Upzoning effort to anyone. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 9:48 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Susan J. Pohl Email susanpohlboise@gmail.com Address 1752 S. Berkeley Lane, Boise, ID 83705 Comment I am aware that zoning codes are being rewritten. I agree that this is reasonable and a good idea; however, I need more information about what exactly the changes are and how they might impact current neighborhoods. Please inform the general public of specifics. Thank you. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 11:06 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Kristen Pooley Email k‐pooley@outlook.com Address 1521 E GRIFFON ST, Meridian, Idaho, 83642 Comment I submitted an additional document with thoughts and recommendations. Thank you for your time If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. /media/forms/upload/form_9e949d7c‐a1bc‐422f‐b562‐023f2fc3a54c/af4a02c1‐4309‐42ae‐8681‐ 8613dcac4449/code_rewrite_commentary.docx I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 7:09 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Beth Popham Email bpop95136@yahoo.com Address 2727 n Lakeharbor lane Comment As an informed and concerned citizen, I unfortunately I don’t have time to review the new 611 page doc & digest or research information presented in the time requested. Citizens need time to review and research information to make informed decisions. These new zoning rules will not help our citizens only support out of state investors with their own agendas. The city must have and maintain affordable housing somehow or we will continue to have homeless people and it lit continuously increase without opportunity for those who only make minimum wage or work less than 40 hrs a week and live paycheck to paycheck. Thank you for your consideration, Beth Popham I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 12:12 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Rick Poplack Email rickpoplack@gmail.com Address 5684 W Drawbridge Drive Comment I want to comment about provisions of the proposed code rewrite which impacts the destruction of historic structures. I just learned about the demolition provisions last week from Preservation Idaho and way too little time exists for me to peruse the entire 611 page document. Along with others, I would request further time to sort through this huge document to examine it closely for concerns which we may have. I live in what the city terms the Collister neighborhood near Pierce Park Lane. From 1977 to 1993 I owned a river rock home on about 2 acres located on Castle Drive about a block and a half east of the James Castle house. I spent 16 years rehabilitating this house, and acreage and I was told by the State Historical Society that the structure qualified for the National Registry of Historical Places. I never applied for a designation because I was divorced and I moved from the house to a Castle Hills house five blocks north of my previous property. But given the thousands of hours which I spent restoring the house I have maintained a keen interest in its preservation. This house is the only river rock house in the city which is still maintained as a residence. Although the present occupants still reside there, it has been sold three times since I left. Because it is still on about two acreages it clearly has development potential as one of the last acreages left between Collister street and Pierce Park Lane. As I read the code rewrite, pages 390 and 391 pertain to the demolition of historic structures. Perhaps there are other pages which appertain, but I don't have time to locate them. The restrictions on demolition do not require that notice be given to the neighborhood before demolition consideration is made by the city, nor does it appear to apply to historic structures outside of historic districts. This is a great fault of the rewrite. Scattered throughout the city are historic structures which are outside of historic districts. The city owns one on Cole Road with a large acreage. One historic structure still exists on Pierce Park Lane and my old house exists on Castle Drive. Other such structures exist in the Collister Neighborhood and I am sure that they exist all over the city. A friend owns such a house near the Broadway Albertson's store. The city's code rewrite does not appear to protect any structure outside of an historic district even if the developer could not meet three of the five requirements in subsection (d)(1) on page 390, which, in the case of my 1928 river rock house, he could not. As best as I can tell, this protection disability applies to every historic structure outside of an historic district. Without a sufficient notice requirement, and without a requirement that individual historic structures throughout the city have the same demolition requirement apply to them as will apply to structures in historic districts, the code rewrite is extremely deficient. It needs modification and the preservation community needs more time to vet such an enormous document. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 12:49 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Melissa Pratt Email melissa.pratt27@gmail.com Address Boise Idaho 83712 Comment I am NOT in support of the new zoning proposals. I do not like the rush you’ve put on citizens to read 600 pages and understand it. I am a strong proponent of protecting historic districts. I think we can all work together but this is not the way. Voting NO on those that support it, I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:57 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Naomi Psalm Email naomipsalm@gmail.com Address 2804 W LEMHI ST Comment I am against upzoning Boise, because it drives up property values and thus property taxes and also destroys the unique quality and character of neighborhoods. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Ernest Puopolo <erniepuopolo@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:53 PM CityCouncil [External] New Zoning laws
I object to most of the proposed changes. You want to create a different Boise than the majority of us want. This need for lower income housing will. Not be met with current proposals. I have checked the new apts being built in Boise and all the one and two bedroom Apts are renting for $1200 to $1600. What makes you thing that pricing will change w the proposed zoning? Ernie Puopolo Sent from my iPhone
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Sunday, March 19, 2023 7:19 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Kris Query Email chimchimchickenbuns@gmail.com Address Boise, Idaho 83705 Comment Why the rush? Please give us 180 days to review and protect historic homes. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:22 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Jen Quick Email wildebarg@gmail.com Address 2943 E Heartleaf Ln Comment I am against the proposed Boise Zoning Code Rewrite. If passed, this could mean redevelopment of Boise’s most affordable neighborhoods. We cannot let existing affordable housing be torn down in the name of building more housing. Demolishing homes just to create higher density housing does not make sense and it is a huge step in the wrong direction. This would mean splitting lots to create bigger, taller, more dense construction and it would detract from a normal neighborhood community as it would remove trees, nature and private open spaces. In addition, it would set a community up for higher crime. Another grave concern is that higher property taxes would become the norm as increased demand from developers and investors comes with higher density housing. Many Boise homeowners have found it increasingly difficult the past few years to afford the skyrocketing property taxes and some are now even losing their homes. Higher property taxes would be disastrous to Boise home owners. It makes no sense to push people out of their existing homes due to rezoning (demolishing) neighborhoods and increasing property taxes. This would surely happen if the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite takes place. While developers indeed would profit from this, the PEOPLE in these areas do not. Neighborhoods belong to us and are a place where we live and gather together. Our sacred spaces. They should be run by the us, the people, not corporations. I understand that affordable housing is a necessity for Boise, however, we must retain the housing we have. I am for true affordable housing and effective anti‐displacement programs and new development must not overburden infrastructure. We must retain our existing neighborhoods instead being lead down this very dystopian path. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
DATE: March 21, 2023 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission, REF: ZOA23-00001; CPA23-0001
zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org
I OPPOSE THE THE BOISE ZONING CODE REWRITE BECAUSE: The process of writing this code has occurred without widespread public input and neighborhoods have been left in the dark about its impacts. The City has yet to directly tell the public how dramatically their neighborhoods will change due to the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite. A city council vote on the Zoning Code Rewrite must fully represent the voters instead of using appointed members of the city council. New development standards will destabilize existing neighborhoods. Reducing lot sizes in R-1C and R-2 encourages lot splits and incompatible infill much denser than existing neighborhoods, destabilizing them and breaking faith with neighbors who believed the neighborhoods they were buying into (and paying unbelievable taxes for) were stable. Raising the height limit in residential zones will radically change the character of neighborhoods, reducing privacy, and vegetation. Increasing housing density in the neighborhoods will contribute to increased congestion, traffic, on-street parking, and safety hazards for children, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc. Changes to the Boise City Zoning Code should be written to protect neighbors rather than to destabilize their neighborhoods. Owner occupancy for homes with ADUs will be removed and allowed ADU size will be increased. Today, a home with an accessory dwelling unit must have owner-occupancy of at least one of the two units. The new draft eliminates the owner-occupancy requirement for accessory dwelling units. This change will destabilize neighborhoods by creating de-facto duplexes in areas where they are not now allowed, de-incentivize homeownership, increase commercialized short-term rentals, and promote renting by the room in existing single-family houses. Proposed parking reductions will shift parking from on-site to on-the-street. This change reduces builders’ costs and increases their profits by pushing parking onto streets, often already crowded. Zoning-required off-street parking is necessary to avoid unsafe congestion on the street. The new code favors some neighborhoods over others. Increased density and height limits, reduced lot sizes, and more allowed uses will not affect neighborhoods with covenants, conditions, and restrictions mandating only one dwelling unit per existing lot. New rules will primarily affect older neighborhoods often inhabited by residents of modest income. The new code is a radical plan to eliminate single-family homes across large areas of Boise. The rewrite benefits developers and investors, is detrimental to homeowners and future homeowners, adds more buildings, cars, noise, and congestion to already crowded neighborhoods. High density apartments (that will never be owned, only rented) should be pursued downtown or in already existing zones, not shoved into old neighborhoods without the proper support for increased concentration. Removing homes that are single-family owned to install multi-units that are owned by absentee investors is a sure disaster for existing neighborhoods as proved in many cities nationwide that have fallen to this kind of profit-driven zoning. Property taxes are so high here we should be seeing something other than the destruction of our neighborhoods for the prices paid. Sincerely, Roger Baumchen 224 N Hot Springs Dr. 83712
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 12:32 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Roberto Rangel Email robert4jc1@gmail.com Address 8993 W Craydon Pl, Boise 83704 Comment I am opposed to the comprehensive zoning plan update for several reasons: 1. The public comment period for a plan that is over 600 pages long is less than 30 days. Federal guidelines for public comment recommend 30‐50 days, and for longer more complex proposals, even longer. This is not the way to promote “transparency” in Boise City government. 2. I am opposed to limiting public input by transferring sole approval for certain projects to a “ministerial” decision maker. 3. I am opposed to the higher density, limited parking spaces and ban on natural gas as “incentives” for builders to turn Boise into a concrete jungle. 4. I am opposed to any consideration by the current city council, which does not represent 50% of voters who are unrepresented because of the way elections were held in 2022. Any complex and controversial proposals should be put off until after the November 2023 elections when ALL Bosiens will have an advocate on the Cuty Council that represents their district and specific wishes. 5. I am opposed to the zoning re‐write in its entirety as it will push residents out of single family residences and in to rent paying apartments for life. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Pat Records <patrecords@icloud.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:45 PM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
I am opposed to the Boise City Zoning Code Rewrite. I have lived in Boise for 70 plus years. I’m witnessing a continued reduction of affordable housing in many areas of the city. Developers are tearing down affordable housing and replacing with higher valued properties. An example is the current development at Ave. H and Logan Street. The previous affordable structures are being replaced with high density units that are not affordable. This code rewrite will only accelerate this type of activity and will continue to deteriorate existing neighborhoods. Please reject this rewrite until after the city elections Regards Patrick & Sandy Records
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Saturday, March 18, 2023 11:02 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Derek Redford Email derek@j2recovery.com Address Boise, Idaho 83706 Comment Opposed to planning and zoning changes which will change our suburban neighborhoods. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 8:12 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Karim Refaey Email karim_refaey@shamrockfoods.com Address 6816 W Morton Dr Comment Please do NOT approve the UPZONE proposal. This is not what we (my wife Kaya and I) would like to see in Boise and our neighborhood. The fact that this is being even considered is a surprise to us. I am FOR growth, but done properly. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:
Karim Refaey <Karim_Refaey@shamrockfoods.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 8:25 AM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite Kaya M. Refaey; bevancho81@gmail.com [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Upzone Reject.docx
March 20, 2023 Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Karim Refaey Kaya Refaey
1
Karim Refaey | Business Resource Manager & Restaurant Consultant 1495 N Hickory Ave, Meridian, Idaho 83642
C 208.860.9548 | karim_refaey@shamrockfoods.com
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 5:47 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Ahmad Rezaii Email ahmad.rezaii@gmail.com Address Boise, ID 83705 Comment I want to voice my strong opposition to the proposed zoning code rewrite. The zoning rewrite would allow buildings that are incompatible with existing neighborhoods without any consideration for existing residents. At least with the current system, neighbors can have some input on what kind of development gets filled into their neighborhoods. The new code encourages the destruction of neighborhoods and existing housing so that developers may increase their profits by avoiding the variance process entirely, all while driving home prices up through bidding wars. Upzoning is not a solution to affordable housing, there is nothing in the zoning rewrite that enforce lower rents or home prices on the whole. The truth is that upzoning will drive prices up because new construction is about 600‐750k in Boise, where existing homes that will be demolished are 300‐400k. Sure, that is great for developers who can sell three 700k houses where one 300k house stood, but it's not good for our city or its residents, not for wildlife, and not for livability. For these reasons and many more, I vehemently object to the proposed zoning code rewrite as it allows for too much density at the cost of evicting neighbors and the demolishing existing neighborhoods to replace them with ugly, expensive structures that are owned by corporations, not residents. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 3:12 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Steve Rinehart Email steverine@gmail.com Address 1709 W Irene Comment 1: Calling this whole proposal a "modern zoning code" is offensive. So, I guess those of us who question the process or the project are by definition against modernizing the code? 2: Granting approval to development projects "by right" instead of by public process shuts out the neighbors and other community members. These are the people who live here and should have the "right" written into law, not the developers/builders/real estate people who are looking to make more money on a fast track. 3: B&Bs and similar lodging businesses in neighborhoods should be subject to review and comment by neighbors and neighborhood associations, and approval by a government agency. My experience is that having a B&B on the block only helps the owners and the guests, not the neighborhood. 4: The principle behind higher density housing along transit corridors only makes sense when or if there is public transit in the corridors or nearby. Anyone who thinks that will happen in any meaningful, sustainable way in Boise is dreaming. So, all this really amounts to is a way to shoe‐horn more apartment buildings into existing neighborhoods that have the misfortune of being within a short distance of State, Vista or the other designated corridors. 5: Despite all the feel‐good talk about "affordable housing," this will take Boise in the opposite direction. Lower value, less attractive, less dense housing is already being torn down to building expensive apartments. The changes in this "modern" zoning proposal will only accelerate that process. 6: Parking reductions make sense only to bike‐riding urban planners and to builders trying to save money or get design breaks. Anyone else, any regular person driving to work or school or grocery shopping, will tell you there is never enough parking. So, under this "modern code" if you build an "affordable" property (for many, not even close to affording), you get by with fewer parking spots. Here's some news: lower‐income people drive like everyone else; they need cars for the same reasons. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:51 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Scott Robertson Email robertsr26@gmail.com Address 605 W Rossi St. Comment I support the zoning code rewrite as it is a much needed modernization of an outdated code. I believe relaxed parking requirements in favor of increased density in urban areas is necessary. I also believe that ADUs should be permitted in a similar fashion, with relaxed or no parking requirements. Finally, anything that can be done to speed the approval process with the city should be considered. Developers are more likely to commit to investment if they know a project can be considered for approval in less than 9 months start to finish ‐ time is money and a shorter approval process provides surety to the investors. Why not increase fees to accommodate more staffing? If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:51 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Scott Robertson Email robertsr26@gmail.com Address 605 W Rossi St. Comment I support the zoning code rewrite as it is a much needed modernization of an outdated code. I believe relaxed parking requirements in favor of increased density in urban areas is necessary. I also believe that ADUs should be permitted in a similar fashion, with relaxed or no parking requirements. Finally, anything that can be done to speed the approval process with the city should be considered. Developers are more likely to commit to investment if they know a project can be considered for approval in less than 9 months start to finish ‐ time is money and a shorter approval process provides surety to the investors. Why not increase fees to accommodate more staffing? If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 15, 2023 8:09 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Barbara Robinson Email barb7780@hotmail.com Address 1630 S Londoner Ave. Comment A native Idahoan, I have lived in Boise for 75 years and have enjoyed the lifstyle that this city offers. I am absolutely opposed to the proposed zoning changes. I have always been skeptical of conditional use permits because most people move into a zoned area thinking it will be compatible with the kind of neighborhood they want to live in. And then, a developer, often from out of state, applies and usually gets a conditional use permit. However, in that case at least the neighbors have a chance to voice their opinion to the city council. I fear this upzone will erase any public input. An example of this occurred on my street. A single‐family residence was purchased for a 14 unit development. He took out the house, cut down an 80 year old sequoia tree, in addition to all the other trees, and now it is a weed filled eyesore that the California developer has apparently no interest in finishing. I fear he is waiting for the upzone so he can build even more units or higher ones. The mayor made the deciding vote to cut the tree down and approve the project. I will NOT be voting for her again. I don't want to say goodbye to the city I love because of development that hurts more people than it helps. In addition, the code rewrite has been vague, secretive, and totally in favor of developers. VOTE NO. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Barbara Robinson <barb7780@hotmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9:17 AM ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: I have lived in Boise almost 80 years and am concerned about the upzone for a number of reasons. The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments. Gary Garrett; 1580 S Londoner Ave. Boise ID 83706 1
2
Authentisign ID: E9365F44-D5C8-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B
Boise Working Together P.O. Box 7082 Boise, Idaho 83707 March 22, 2023 Boise Planning and Zoning Commission Boise City Hall 150 North Capitol Boulevard Boise, Idaho 83702 Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners, The Board of Boise Working Together has unanimously voted to oppose the Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) in its final draft form released on February 28 of this year. We do not oppose changes to Boise’s zoning code overall, but the ZCR fails broadly as it increases land use impacts while substantially limiting public input. Excluding meaningful public input harms local government process and transparency, and squanders local, site-specific knowledge over Boise’s eighty square-mile expanse. Boise community leaders have long called for encoding more of Blueprint Boise into our Zoning Code, but the ZCR fails to make headway in incorporating the cherished quality of life policies into enforceable code. Failure to encode Blueprint Boise’s policies in the ZCR now while entitling higher land use impacts may forfeit our ability to achieve these public goals in the future, as once private property is entitled, restricting its use may be challenged as a legal taking. For a great many reasons too numerous to list here, the ZCR as currently written will dramatically and suddenly transform Boise’s landscape in ways that will adversely affect the lives of our residents, most of whom will be taken completely by surprise by the scope of change. The way this code is written it targets areas of Boise, populated by those least able to object, with the least remaining housing options available to them. The following are a number of specific reasons for our opposition as specified by input and inclusion from all board members. The process of writing this code has not obtained the widespread public input and awareness as advertised. Many, many neighbors have been left in the dark about its impacts. The majority of Boise citizens did not ask for these changes, most have no idea what is coming. The City has yet to directly tell the public how dramatically their neighborhoods will change due to the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR). No prototypes or housing examples showing “worst case” scenarios of infill in neighborhoods have been publicized to the viewing public. Now, in a very short period of time, the public must decode over 1000 pages of the ZCR and a Comprehensive Plan amendment without any guide to ascertain what has changed from the last version let alone the current code. 1
Authentisign ID: E9365F44-D5C8-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B
A city council vote on the Zoning Code Rewrite must fully represent the voters instead of using appointed members of the city council. Due to unforeseen circumstances one-third of the city council will be appointed instead of elected. Currently three out of six council districts are not represented. Deciding the fate of the Zoning Code Rewrite now, a few short months before the November election is not sound policy and clearly designed to circumvent this important electoral process. The ZCR will forever change how Boise grows and evolves, it is only prudent for it to be enacted by a City Council representing each district of Boise and following the will of the voters they will represent. If implemented, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will not help the supply of “affordable housing”. 77% of the City’s identified need for additional housing is for those who make 80% of the median income (City of Boise Housing Needs Analysis, 2021). Proposed “affordability” incentives will have minimal effect on increasing that supply. However, the numerous incentives to entice redevelopment in Boise older neighborhoods, will significantly increase displacement of Boise’s at-risk populations. It will also cause the removal of Boise’s last remaining naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH), without a comprehensive displacement policy to mitigate those societal issues. The replacement market rate housing will also be significantly more expensive than the housing it replaces. Any incentives offered will not come close to replacing the low-income housing lost. There are numerous examples of this- Arbor Village, 11 th and Ash, 11 th and lee, Travis Apartments, Ridenbaugh Apartments, even Targee and Vista. Is this the community we have we become?
Reducing the minimum lot size in R-2 and R-1C planning zones will not necessarily contribute to housing diversity nor affordability. High-density housing does not lead to affordability. If this were true, apartment rents in Boise would all be affordable. Additionally, the proposed fifty-year deed restriction on maintaining a dwelling unit as affordable is only enforceable if a special compliance office with enforcement authority is established. New development standards will destabilize existing neighborhoods. Significantly reducing lot sizes R1C and R2 zones will encourage demolition of current homes in stable neighborhoods. In some cases, our models show the potential for lot split increases of up to 95% vs 30% by current standards. This defies Blue Print Boise standards of protecting stable neighborhoods. Additionally, the increased height limits ignore compatibility standards. These height standards weren’t an issue before, but with new pressures to redevelop with new uses, new densities, this will be a new issue to overcome. Vast areas across the Boise Bench and West Boise are built with single level homes, split entry and tri-level homes with low pitched roofs. The tallest home in the Vista neighborhood is a full two story with a shallow pitched roof and is only 21 ft at the peak. That is a vast difference from the proposed 40 ft height in R1C. Very few homes are full two-story homes in the targeted area, as opposed to the architecture styles in the North end. This aspect of the current built environment- architecturally, economically, aesthetically is not given adequate thought in this final draft. If it works in the “North End” it should work everywhere, seems to be only standard to achieve. Boise’s R-2 zone has been re-conceived as a higher-density apartment zone similar to today’s R-3 zone. The East End, the old South Boise neighborhoods off Broadway, most of State Street, the Pleasanton neighborhood west of downtown, and established neighborhoods of the near Bench, among others, are envisioned to transform into highly urban areas with four-story buildings and no 2
Authentisign ID: E9365F44-D5C8-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B
limit on density. These areas are currently single-family, mixed with duplexes and small apartments. Medium-density neighborhoods like these now contain many more dwelling units than suburbs, often from ten to 15 dwelling units per acre. Other areas – especially those south of Boise State University -- also bear a high-density burden in vehicles, noise, and short-term occupancies; the ZCR exacerbates those problems. There is a noticeable lack of examples in what a dwelling will look like on a 1500 sq ft lot, 5 stories high (R3) or for R2 on a 2500 sq ft lot 4 stories high. Instead, each of these districts seem to jump beyond what they were originally designed for- transitions from R1C neighborhoods to commercial uses. R2 and R3 are architecturally pushed into high density apartments vs medium density townhome style dwellings. Just pushing these limits does not mean sound, quality architecture and design is automatically achieved. Boise City Council recently approved an RFP for 12 Missing Middle/Zoning Rewrite consultants, not one of their websites illustrates the issues in design and compatibility these increased standards create. Instead, more is always the path pursued, regardless if it actually makes any sense or not. Neighborhoods near Fairview, State and Vista will become unrecognizable. The proposed code would rezone neighborhoods within 660 feet (about two blocks) of those corridors from R-1 to R-2 with 45-foot height limits and no limit on density, destabilizing modestly scaled interior neighborhoods. Instead, higher-density development should happen only on the corridors themselves with strict step-down height standards to the existing neighborhoods of mostly single level homes. Additionally, reaching ¼ mile into surrounding neighborhoods from any MX3 zone will also create havoc in these neighborhoods. The 55 ft wide lot rule in these areas seems to ensure that that the nicest areas are the ones targeted for redevelopment vs the areas that do need it. The 55 ft rule also excludes the majority of housing and neighborhoods designed and built prior to 1950. Prior to 1950 most lots(not all) were configured with a 50 ft wide lot and alley access, equating to 5000 sq ft lot standard. From the 50’s onward, lot and home styles were more car centric, with attached garages, necessitating shallower wider lots. Home styles also changed significantly moving aware from narrow bungalow style homes, to ranch style mid-century modern, which is specifically designed to have a lower height footprint. Mid-century modern styles which are a very favorable design trend in style and consumer demand, seem to be ignored and discredited with this rewrite. Owner occupancy for homes with ADUs will be removed and allowed ADU size will be increased. Today, a home with an accessory dwelling unit must have owner-occupancy of at least one of the two units. The new draft eliminates the owner-occupancy requirement for accessory dwelling units if one of the units is affordable. Boiseans loudly defended owner occupancy in a recent attempt by the City to eliminate it. In addition, increasing the allowable size of an accessory dwelling unit from 700 to 900 square feet reduces livable green space. This increase in size, combined with the minimum open space reduction to 200 sq ft and increased redevelopment across our neighborhoods will drastically reduce our tree canopy and open space, essentially negating any perceived environmental advantage gained with density. Under the current zoning code, ADU applicants must provide proof of owner-occupancy on the property. However, it does not appear that adequate procedures are in place to ensure that the owner is actually occupying the dwelling. Lack of owner occupancy is widespread now. Why should Boiseans be confident that the City will enforce new standards that require affordability? The ZCR does nothing to incentivize homeownership. Instead, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) should incentivize the sale of individual units of pocket neighborhoods and town homes and 3
Authentisign ID: E9365F44-D5C8-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B
condos rather than apartments. The pressure to build rental units vs homes to own will only exacerbate pricing issues in housing to own, far into the future. If we do not build homes to own now, the remaining homes to own will become far more expensive and increase gentrification and economic segregation in Boise, something the ZCR is supposed to reduce not exacerbate. The ZCR encourages higher density in historic districts. Except for homes that are currently recorded as “contributing,” redevelopment and or demolition of non-contributing homes in Historic Districts under the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will encourage higher density units with modern designs that will negatively impact existing homes and damage the historic character of these neighborhoods. The new code lacks objective concrete standards to protect residential neighborhoods. For example: • Industrial uses in the I-1 district “should” be buffered from adjacent residential, rather than “must.” • Live/work unit standards say “The work activities shall not create adverse noise or operational impacts on adjacent residential properties.” Yet no measurable standards are included to ensure compliance. • In the R-1B, R-1C, R-2, R-3, MX-1, and MX-2 zones, the standards for multifamily buildings state: “Building and site design shall provide for adequate transition into the surrounding neighborhood to ensure compatibility between the development and the context around it. Factors to be considered are setbacks, building height, building materials, bulk, roof design, parking area locations, and landscaped area locations.” The code should provide objective standards to ensure functional transitions. The findings for conditional use permits are entirely subjective and have been loosened, to the detriment of neighbors. The current standards read: “The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions imposed, will not adversely affect other property of the vicinity.” The proposed language says, ”The proposed use will not create any material negative impacts to uses in the surrounding area, or any material negative impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, or the public benefits of the proposed use outweighs any material negative impacts of the proposed use that cannot be mitigated;” (Italics added) Intrusive uses will be allowed without public notice requirements. Uses like retail and neighborhood cafes, including those that sell alcohol, will be allowed by right side-by-side with existing singlefamily homes in R-1C and R-2 zones. Operating hours will be between 7 am and 8 pm, with no specified time limit on delivery and maintenance times, which will likely occur before and after open hours. Nothing in the new code specifies that these will be locally owned businesses and that the properties may indeed be owned by large investors purchasing residential housing units to operate commercial businesses. While envisioned as walkable amenities by the code, such businesses will very likely negatively impact neighboring residents’ ability to quietly enjoy their property. While there seems to be a desire for this in our neighborhoods, the details are lacking. This should be a conditional use permit, requiring notification and acceptance by surrounding property owners, who have to live next to them, in front of them and beside them. It should not be a “by right” issue where one entity can intrude into neighborhood, removing local control over how a neighborhood evolves.
4
Authentisign ID: E9365F44-D5C8-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B
The proposed notification requirements need to be revised. The draft Boise City Zoning Code limits the requirements of notification for changes in the use of single-family/household property to the adjacent property owner and occupants, including properties across the street and alleys. Following the Planning Director’s decision, the notice for appeal is only provided to residents within 300 feet of the proposed change of use. Change of use from single-family/household use to duplex, triplex, fourplex, or accessory dwelling units concern the entire neighborhood, not just those nearby. Notification requirements must be neighborhood-wide and include opportunities for comment and appeal prior to the Planning Director’s decision. This is especially true, when duplexes are not required to adhere to any minimum lot area requirements, which is just ridiculous.
Proposed parking reductions will shift parking from on-site to on-the-street. To increase affordability, parking requirements have been reduced from two spaces per unit for single-family homes and duplex units to one space. The new standards do not mandate affordability in return for fewer spaces; the City pins affordability on hope instead of requiring it. This change reduces builders’ costs and increases their profits by pushing parking onto public streets, often already crowded due to existing infill development. In the current code, each building or dwelling requires a specific number of off-street parking based upon the occupancy and visitation capabilities and expectations based upon the approved uses of the building. Zoning-required off-street parking is necessary to avoid unsafe congestion on the street. It has been shown that on-street parking congestion is a major contributing factor to pedestrian/vehicle accidents involving young children and individuals with mobility hardships. Only when a serious urban transit system is actually in place will it be realistic to plan for reductions in traffic instead of merely hoping for fewer cars and trucks on the road and parking on neighborhood streets. People today do not ride transit, because it takes too long, not because they don’t live close to it. The highly urban form the new code promotes will reduce non-built space. This will create significant tree and green space loss, and minimal permeable areas. Minimum open space requirement have been cut in half to 200 sqft while increasing lot coverage standards. Other likely results will include reduced wildlife habitat, reduced vegetation to absorb CO2, lower temperatures and buffer climate stress. Public and scientific recognition of the importance of urban greenspace has increased greatly in recent decades. Current parcel zoning and development changes that City bodies are granting already erode greenspace and urban forest canopy in our Boise neighborhoods. As written, the ZCR will accelerate these greenspace losses and rob the public of our right to comment on greenspace-altering development in the heart of our neighborhoods. Mature trees do not receive adequate protection by the City of Boise. A home or an apartment complex can be built in a relatively short time. A mature tree requires a generation to grow and evolve.
5
Authentisign ID: E9365F44-D5C8-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B
The Zoning Code Rewrite will eliminate Boise's power to negotiate with developers on a site-specific basis. Currently, Idaho law allows cities to require 'Development Agreements' (DAs) when developers request individual rezones. These DAs are essentially open-ended negotiations between Boise and developers to provide public benefits that otherwise are not required by city or state ordinance. For example, Boise can negotiate for truly affordable housing, for upholding policies of Blueprint Boise, for requiring access to a trailhead, or for dedication of public open space. However, because the ZCR grants these higher densities with one decision, the city will forever lose this critical power to negotiate. In so doing, the City of Boise will also abdicate most of its future power to respond to site-specific information and concerns from local residents. The new code picks winners and losers. Increased density and height limits, reduced lot sizes, and more allowed uses will not affect neighborhoods with covenants, conditions, and restrictions mandating only one dwelling unit per existing lot. New rules will primarily affect older neighborhoods often inhabited by residents of modest income, whose only protections from incompatible development come from the Zoning Code and conditional use permits. The new code is a radical plan to eliminate single-family homes across large areas of Boise. It will displace and disrupt large segments of Boise's at-risk populations of tenants and senior citizens. The controversy of this proposal will tear Boise apart, creating controversy, resentment, and anger that will linger for decades. The Boise City Zoning Code Rewrite suffers from overall poor quality of writing and is complex and cumbersome to use. The major terms used throughout the document are not consistently used and the document is full of unexplained terms, which are either not defined in the definition section or are not used in the ways that terms are defined. For example, using the term “Creative Housing Design” is neither a design nor a development standard. Creative housing design, therefore, is not a definable nor enforceable code standard for the design of buildings in R-2 or R-1C zones. The Housing needs analysis is already outdated and questionable in its conclusions. There has not been any analysis of the conclusions made by the Housing Needs Analysis. Which was created in 2021 at the height of the Covid related surge and societal turmoil(riots). The first page of the Atlanta White Paper, summarizing Atlanta Neighborhoods objection to a very similar rewrite in Atlanta, highlight the need to NOT make long term strategic decisions based on a short-term surge or trend. The Nation, the Treasure Vally is currently in a housing and economic recession whose length and severity is unknown. Using data created in a short-term surge is not a sound policy- strategically or economically. Additionally, analysis of the Housing Needs data has not been done or proven out, just taken as “gospel”. The 2021 COMPASS development and permitting report indicates that Boise permits have averaged a little over 1600 units per year from 2014-2021. That number is only 26% of total permits in Ada County for the same time period. The Housing Needs increase to 2773 units per year and 42% of the Ada County permits is very questionable and no data is given to prove those assertions. This is the report that is driving every aspect of the rewrite, why has it not been challenged or analyzed for accuracy and veracity? Transit? A significant commitment is being made when long-term funding is still an issue. Development and increased densities along the key transit corridors- Vista, Fairview and State St is necessary. Many of Boise’s corridors are in need of significant investment/redevelopment as well. But are we ready as a community to sacrifice neighborhood integrity along these same corridors when our state legislature does not recognize or support funding for transit? Should we be forcing residents to 6
Authentisign ID: E9365F44-D5C8-ED11-BA77-14CB652F4F5B
decide NOW, to support transit or support their homes and neighborhoods when transit viability, in Idaho, is questionable? The need is recognized, the long-term funding sources are not. The proposed incentives within ¼ mile of Mixed-Use parcels and within our neighborhoods along corridors and arterials is quite extensive and invasive. Is it all necessary, right now or is it something that should be added later as corridors redevelop and transit funding is secured, if it ever is (the reality in Idaho). Thank you for your attention in this matter of vital concern to our city and all of its residents and neighborhoods for generations to come. It is so vitally important to take the time necessary to get it right the first time. Economic and current housing recession warrant the extra time. Examples from Atlanta, Austin, California and other cities also warrant the extra time. The local political environment and conditions of representation do as well. Boise’s residents, despite efforts to notify and inform them, do not have an understanding of what this ordinance does and will do to their neighborhoods. Or what specific details hidden in this 611-page code take away. We have taken three years to get to this point, why rush it now? Let’s make sure this is what the whole community wants and will accept. The all-encompassing impacts of this ordinance economically, socially, environmentally and physically require active, open debate and discussion which has just begun. S Sincerely,
Dave Kangas, President Boise Working Together
7
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
CityCouncil Thursday, March 23, 2023 1:54 PM ZoningRewrite dianeronayne@gmail.com Fw: [External] Zoning Code Rewrite
From: Diane Ronayne <dianeronayne@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:51 PM To: Patrick Bageant <pbageant@cityofboise.org>; Luci Willits <lwillits@cityofboise.org>; Jimmy Hallyburton <jhallyburton@cityofboise.org>; Amanda Brown <ABrown@cityofboise.org>; Holli Woodings <holliwoodings@gmail.com>; Lauren McLean <LMcLean@cityofboise.org> Subject: [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Dear Mayor and Council Members: I'm writing to ask you to allow additional time for public input on the ZCR. There's no reason to rush the public comment period. Our citizens deserve to have time to understand and respond to this fundamental change in how their neighborhoods and community spaces will be affected by new developments. I agree with Preservation Idaho that a 180‐day comment period beginning when you set it would be more fruitful. People I've spoken to recently have only begun to pay attention. When they do, they are concerned about the effects this code would have on established neighborhoods. It encourages the demolition of older but still serviceable buildings that provide affordable housing and allow their owners (often senior citizens) to remain living independently. I once served on P&Z, in the mid‐'90s, when Boise was only the 4th‐fastest‐growing city in the country. Our motto then was "managed growth," and for many years our zoning code accomplished this. I hope the city doesn't lose its management power. Please allow citizens to weigh in on this critical issue. Thank you, Diane "Falling short of perfection is a process that just never stops." - William Shawn, Editor, The New Yorker
Diane Ronayne dianeronayne@gmail.com 208‐336‐2128; cell 208‐685‐9807
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:53 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Diane Ronayne Email dianeronayne@gmail.com Address 746 N Santa Paula Ct, Boise ID 83712 Comment I oppose the Zoning Code Rewrite. It does not support Blueprint Boise; in fact, it would undermine the city’s visions stated therein for “a community of stable neighborhoods,” “a community that values its history,” “a predictable development pattern,” and “environmental stewardship.” Attached are comments submitted today by Boise Working Together, which I support and agree with. Thank you. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. /media/forms/upload/form_9e949d7c‐a1bc‐422f‐b562‐023f2fc3a54c/118a7870‐6266‐492e‐912d‐ fc98624f2e7a/3‐22‐23_ronayne_comments_zcr.docx /media/forms/upload/form_9e949d7c‐a1bc‐422f‐b562‐023f2fc3a54c/308698b3‐a0cb‐4cd2‐9846‐ 71d7a23af897/3‐22‐23_bwt_comments_to_p_z.pdf I am not a robot
1
Diane Ronayne 746 N Santa Paula Ct Boise ID 83712 March 22, 2023 Boise Planning and Zoning Commission 150 N. Capitol Blvd. Boise, ID 83702 Dear Commissioners: I oppose the Zoning Code Rewrite as released on Feb. 28, 2023. It does not support Blueprint Boise; in fact, if enacted it would undermine the city’s visions stated therein for “a community of stable neighborhoods,” “a community that values its history,” “a predictable development pattern,” and “environmental stewardship.” Attached are comments submitted today by Boise Working Together, which I support and agree with. I am especially concerned about the effect this code would have on historic buildings and neighborhoods. It encourages demolition of older but still serviceable buildings that provide affordable housing and allow owners (often senior citizens) to remain living independently. In addition to this letter, I am writing to the City Council and Mayor to request additional time for public input on this critical document. There is no reason to rush the public comment period. Our citizens deserve to have time to understand and respond to this fundamental change in how their neighborhoods and community space will be affected by new developments. Thank you for your service. I, too, once served on P&Z, at a time when Boise was only the 4thfastest-growing city in the country. Our motto then, in the mid-‘90s, was “managed growth.” The zoning code revision before you basically allows unmanaged growth and forbids citizen input on most of it. This isn’t right, and I think Boise can do better. Please help us by rejecting this zoning code revision.
Diane Ronayne dianeronayne@gmail.com Enc.
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Frankie <fannrosera@gmail.com> Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:26 PM ZoningRewrite [External] Boise Zoning Code Rewrite -- ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001
Dear Boise City Council, I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the process of writing the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR). The code has been developed without widespread public input as a top-down effort, and neighbors have been left in the dark about its impacts. The majority of Boise citizens did not ask for these changes, and the City has yet to directly inform the public of how dramatically their neighborhoods will change due to the ZCR. As citizens rush to learn how their neighborhoods will be affected by the ZCR, the need for a vote by everyone affected by the ZCR to decide who should decide the fate of the ZCR is clear. One-third of the city council will be appointed instead of elected, deciding the fate of the Zoning Code Rewrite a few short months before the November election. Only duly elected representatives should decide what to do about the ZCR. Proceeding to a decision with mayoral appointees is anti-democratic in principle, especially given the sweeping changes contemplated for a city council decision. Furthermore, if implemented, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will worsen our lack of affordable housing. The new code incentivizes the redevelopment of existing affordable housing without any requirement to replace it, resulting in gentrifying existing neighborhoods with market-rate or above-market-rate multi-units. High-density housing does not lead to affordability. The proposed fifty-year deed restriction on maintaining a dwelling unit as affordable is only enforceable if a special compliance office with enforcement authority is established. Reducing the minimum lot size in R-2 and R-1C planning zones will not necessarily contribute to housing diversity nor affordability. New development standards will destabilize existing neighborhoods. Reducing lot sizes in R-1C and R-2 encourages lot splits and incompatible infill much denser than existing neighborhoods, destabilizing them and breaking faith with neighbors who believed the neighborhoods they were buying into were stable. Boise’s R-2 zone has been re-conceived as a higher-density apartment zone similar to today’s R-3 zone, which will change the character of neighborhoods, reduce privacy, sunlight, and vegetation. The proposed code would rezone neighborhoods within 660 feet (about two blocks) of corridors from R-1 to R-2 with 45-foot height limits and no limit on density, destabilizing modestly scaled interior neighborhoods. Instead, higher-density development should happen only on the corridors themselves with strict step-down height standards to the existing neighborhoods. Lastly, the removal of owner occupancy for homes with accessory dwelling units (ADUs) will destabilize neighborhoods by creating de-facto duplexes in areas where they are not now allowed, de-incentivize homeownership, increase commercialized short-term rentals, and promote renting by the room in existing single-family houses. Increasing the allowable size of an ADU from 700 to 900 square feet will also reduce livable green space. I implore you to reconsider the Zoning Code Rewrite and work on developing a code that will protect neighbors rather than destabilize their neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, 1
Frances (Frankie) A. Rosera 3660 North 39th Street Boise, ID 83703 (208) 371‐9508
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Frankie <fannrosera@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:50 AM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22.
1
Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Frances (Frankie) A. Rosera 3660 North 39th Street Boise, ID 83703 (208) 371-9508
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Kat Runyan <kat.runyan@yahoo.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 5:46 PM ZoningRewrite [External] comments on ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001
To whom it may concern, Please delay the vote to pass the zoning code rewrite. First, until there is a fair and equal geographic representation of the city by city council in November this is unethical to pass this rewrite. Second, I don't even understand everything that is being proposed and do not know ANYONE in my neighborhood that even knows what's going on with this rewrite or knows about it. Third, and most personally, we would never have bought our home knowing that some person elected only for a few years had the ability to completely turn our neighborhood upside down and drastically change everything that we love about it. We intended to retire here. This would completely change that. This does not have current Boise families in mind it only has people who don't live here and the potential money they could bring in. If that means nothing then delay for the complete unethical way this has been undertaken up to this point-as in the biggest rewrite in 60 years and no one knows about it! If this is so great, then let the citizens vote on it, otherwise this is just more political shadiness that will continue to destabilize any trust the public has in government. Thank you for listening, Kathleen Runyan 606 Brookdale Dr Boise ID 83712
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
C Runyan <chris.runyan01@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 6:37 AM ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Comments - ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,
First, thank you for your public service. As you know, trust in government is a fragile thing. Similar to losing trust in the banking system (i.e. Silicon Valley Bank for example), once citizens lose trust it can be very difficult to regain. Boise’s city government is not immune to this as highlighted recently when the public became aware that accountability of the former Boise Police Chief occurred not when the incident took place but rather only after local news media reported on the story.
Recommending that the City Council pass the Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) is only going to increase the distrust many Boise residents currently have of city government, I am just stating a fact. Almost the entire public outreach of the ZCR was completed during the Covid pandemic, a time when most residents were scrambling to keep their daily lives in order, let alone had time to engage with the city on a massive zoning code rewrite. During this time, the public was only given small sections of the code intermittently (i.e. Module 1 – Districts and Allowed Uses, Module 2 – Design and Development Standards, Model 3 – Process and Procedures) and it wasn’t until February 22 that the city released a final copy of the 611‐page code. Twenty‐two (22) days later, the comment period for the P&Z project report ended. It doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist to conclude that the city is trying to rush this code through before the public is fully engaged and aware of what it truly means for their neighborhood. How could the city reasonably assume that the average Boiseans (let alone P&Z) could 1) review the entire 611‐page document and 2) identify changes between the October and February drafts prior to the April hearing? The public needs more time and the city needs to provide actual examples of how the ZCR is different from the current code.
The proposed ZCR does not align with what the public has been told. It will not provide the “affordable” housing as defined by the average Boisean. It will not deter urban sprawl as it secures no agricultural land in exchange for higher density allowed in Boise. The ZCR increased density is not modest and at an appropriate scale, the number of lots in my R1‐C neighborhood of 212 homes that could now be split will go from 14% to 94%! This means the ZCR will encourage significant demolition of existing affordable homes to make way for less affordable homes. It will usher in the commercialization of our residential neighborhoods by allowing outside investors to purchase residential homes to be turned into retail sales stores, Cafes that serve alcohol, short‐term rentals and “bed and breakfasts”, and live/work units. All without public notice! The public understands who will benefit the most by the ZCR and it's not the current Boise residents.
I urge P&Z to take a step back and not recommend approval of the ZCR to the City Council at this time. Please give the public more time to understand the ZCR and ensure that the public's voice is really heard by delaying the vote until the next City Council is elected by geographic district (it's only 6 months from now!). If the ZCR is truly a good code for Boise 1
as the city advertises, then it can/will pass then. Doing it prior to this is just a political strategy and doesn’t put current Boise residents as first priority.
Sincerely,
Chris Runyan 606 Brookdale Drive Boise, ID 83712
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
(null) (null) <fallon07@yahoo.com> Friday, March 10, 2023 9:35 AM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001
This rewrite takes the power from the people, it feels like a direct response to the huge opposition to interfaith sanctuary moving to state st. I’m sure won’t risk the citizens of Boise fighting for their rights and wasting your time again. Leave these and all important decisions with the people who you work for, the tax paying citizens. Aaron Ruse‐Sullivan
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Renee Sandmeyer <reneesandmeyer@gmail.com> Thursday, March 16, 2023 8:12 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: I have followed the rezone process from the city for about a year now. I have anxiously anticipated the 2/28/23 final draft release so that I could study it and fully understand how the previous drafts might have changed. All I can tell at this point is there are 611 pages to devour and comment upon by 3/22/23! That is just 3 weeks! Are you kidding me? This sounds eerily similar to the last giant omnibus bill forced through congress in December 2022. After rushing to pass that bill, we are daily discovering the harmful nuggets that were hidden within its massive volumes. What is hiding in your final draft you don't want us to know about before the commenting period prematurely ends? If I didn't know better I would assume the city was trying to "pull a fast one". I understand there are Federal guidelines calling for up to 180 days of public comment for rule impacts having a large impact. From the previous draft for rezoning, I know the rezone design was asking for HUGE changes for most current Boise residents. I, and other concerned residents, need more time to fully devour and understand how your latest draft has changed in order to provide meaningful and informed comments. I don't know what's in this proposal, therefore I can't know how it impacts me and my neighbors. I prefer not to speak on a topic until I'm informed. Give me the time to become informed. Please extend the timeline for public comment by at least 90 days. Sincerely, Renee Sandmeyer 1705 W.Canal St. Boise, ID 83705
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Renee Sandmeyer <reneesandmeyer@gmail.com> Saturday, March 18, 2023 8:30 AM ZoningRewrite [External] Rezoning opposition input
At a recent listening session at the Bown Crossing Library the Mayor self disclosed her quest for home‐ownership when she first came to Boise. This was a heartfelt tale. Personally I understand how vital that mission was to her and I want that goal to be obtained by others. My husband and I worked incredibly hard on middle income salaries to save and pay off our home. After 30 years of money and sweat we've transformed our home into the perfect "forever home" for our family, the one we envisioned it could be when we first moved in. Home ownership brings stability, pride and camaraderie to a neighborhood and a city. All of the current developments promoted by the city steer away from home ownership and toward leasing. Outrageously high home prices and rising interest rates deter new home ownership. Astronomical property tax increases are pushing current home owners out as well. I have explored how upzoning has transformed cities like Austin and Portland, I have discovered how large multiplex developments next to single family homes have resulted in increased home values and taxes, dissatisfaction, turmoil and eventual exodus of long term residents. Upzoning has brought about massive negative changes that inevitably destroy the homeowner's once coveted humble and quiet neighborhoods. Where will these people go and how will they afford to get there? Please consider the current homeowner in your quest for upzoning. We matter too. Currently my portion of the Vista neighborhood is plagued with numerous walking, biking and bus access dangers. Adding the proposed 1216 homes (Simunich property development) to the current 710 will nearly‐triple the dwellings in my immediate neighborhood (RR tracks to Vista, Malad to the NY Canal). Adequate time to comprehend the 2/28/23 revisions to the Rezoning proposal has not been allotted. Therefore, referencing the last draft from October 2023, the Rezoning allowances the city is pursuing will exponentially worsen the current unacceptable scenario, discouraging alternative transportation. I only represent one neighborhood. Unique negative impacts will occur citywide. Current neighborhoods need to be upgraded to safe and practical commute routes prior to enacting a huge increase in density. with deep concerns, Renee Sandmeyer 1705 W. Canal St. Boise, ID 83705
1
3/22/2023 Boise City Planning and Development Services Attn: Planning and Zoning Commission and Staff PO Box 500 Boise, ID 83701 RE: ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Amendment of Boise City Code Title 11 Boise City Planning and Zoning, YESCO Outdoor Media is in receipt of a notification of a pending amendment to Boise City Code as referenced above. In regard to specific regulation changes of digital billboards proposed in the draft amendment, YESCO Outdoor Media would like to take the opportunity to voice concern as well as provide reasoning for those concerns. First, on the subject of hold time, the city is proposing a 20 second minimum display time per frame or advertisement. This is unusually long compared to many other cities and counties throughout the US. The Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA), of which YESCO Outdoor Media is a member, recommends an eight second hold time as an industry standard based on data compiled over years of traffic studies. From those studies, a dwell time of eight seconds has proven to be a nonfactor on traffic safety and has largely been adopted throughout the nation. YESCO currently operates a number of digital billboards in and around the Boise area, all of which prescribe to this recommended eight second dwell time for each ad. Not only is it the industry standard, but advertising clients currently pay and set up advertising campaigns with the expectation that their ad will rotate according to that eight second interval. A slight change to this will likely cause needless loss in advertising dollars to YESCO and require extensive contract adjustments to both our local and national clients. As such YESCO respectfully request that an eight second frame or dwell time be adopted by the city. The second item we would like to address relates to the proposed brightness requirements. While we agree that regulating the brightness of any digital sign is appropriate and encouraged, a few simple adjustments may make regulating and implementing those requirements more practical. Simply put, nits measure the brightness of a light at the source and cannot measure with much effect the impact that light has on surrounding areas. OAAA members use footcandle measurement vs nits as footcandles measure the impact a light
YESCO Outdoor Media 866-779-8357 » Phone 1605 S Gramercy Road Salt Lake City, Utah 84104
yesco.com
source has on surrounding area and accounts for ambient light. This is especially important when considering the impact a digital sign has around its location through various lighting conditions. 0.3 footcandles is the standard that has been set, measured from set distances depending on the size of the sign. This number was carefully selected after extensive research aimed at finding an appropriate balance of brightness in digital signage. When contemplating using nits vs footcandles, it is a case of good vs best. It has been the experience of YESCO and many in the sign industry, that footcandles are the best unit to measure light impact. We strongly recommend including the 0.3 footcandle measurement as the standard for Boise rather than nits and percent of a signs maximum brightness as proposed. A signs max brightness level changes with time, making it a constant moving scale of what the proposed 50 percent number actually is. Over time a sign relegated to only 50 percent brightness will only get darker causing an undue burden on sign owners that is easily mitigated by relying on brightness measurements instead. A copy of a OAAA sheet explaining this in more detail is included for your reference. We appreciate your consideration of our concerns as it relates to your proposed ordinance. We anxiously await the final draft and its approval. Please feel free to reach out with any questions that you may have. All the best, Braden Saunders Director of Real Estate YESCO Outdoor Media 801-464-6428
YESCO Outdoor Media 866-779-8357 » Phone 1605 S Gramercy Road Salt Lake City, Utah 84104
yesco.com
Explanation of OAAA Recommended Brightness Guidelines There are at least two ways to evaluate the brightness of a LED digital display. A preferred method uses a footcandle meter to determine the amount of light that reaches various points in front of the digital display. A second method uses a luminance meter (frequently called a nit gun) to determine the amount of light emitted by a light source.
Explanation of Footcandles vs. Nits
A brightness standard measured in nits (candelas/square meter) typically contains a maximum value for daytime and nighttime. The footcandle standard has only one value but is measured from different distances based on display size. An LED sign generates luminance at the source (measured in nits), but this raw source is not what the human eye sees from a distance. The human eye sees illuminance (measured in foot candles) from a point at a certain distance from the LED sign. Illuminance is greatly affected by ambient light and surrounding conditions. As such, it is usually preferred by regulators.
Q: What is the definition of Luminance 1?
lu⋅mi⋅nance/ˈlumənəns/ [loo-muh-nuhns]–noun 1. The state or quality of being luminous. 2. Also called luminosity, the quality or condition of radiating or reflecting light: the blinding luminance of the sun. 3. Optics - The quantitative measure of brightness of a light source or an illuminated surface, equal to luminous flux per unit solid angle emitted per unit projected area of the source or surface.
Q: What is the definition of Illuminance?
/iˈlumənəns/ Compare irradiance E v, Sometimes called: illumination the luminous flux incident on unit area of a surface. It is measured in lux 2
Q: What is a foot candle? n. (Abbr. fc or ft-c) [foot-kan-dl] noun Optics. A unit of illuminance or illumination, equivalent to the illumination produced by a source of one candle at a distance of one foot and equal to one lumen incident per square foot. Abbreviation: FC 3 Also: A unit of illuminance on a surface that is everywhere one foot from a point source of one candle 4 1 Dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/luminance?s=t
2 Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illuminance?s=ts 3 Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/foot+candle?s=t 4 TheFreeDictionary.com http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Footcandle
04/2017
1
Q: What is a nit?
A:
noun Physics. a unit of luminous intensity equal to one candela per square meter. Abbreviation: nt 5 -A unit of illuminative brightness equal to one candle per square meter, measured perpendicular to the rays of the source. 6
5 Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nits?s=t 6 TheFreeDictionary.com http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nit 7 Nit gun readings are most accurate when the readings are taken directly perpendicular from the light source.
As a result, the best place to take Nit gun readings is from a elevated height perpendicular to the digital display. If this is not possible, moving back from the digital display 350' to 500' on the center line will minimize the loss of accuracy. However, the distance away from the digital display cannot cause the nit gun measurement circle to fall outside the lighted digital billboard face.
04/2017
2
-Source: Dr. Ian Lewin, Ph.D. Lighting Sciences, Inc. Digital Billboard Recommendations and Comparisons to Conventional Billboards.
Why use Foot candles over Nits as a unit of measurement? -
Foot candles measure the variance from ambient light. This assures a government that the sign will not be too bright for conditions. At different parts of a day the ambient lighting can be significantly different with clouds or fog. Conversely, the same can be true about nighttime conditions when an adjacent commercial lot turns on or off their parking lot lighting. Regulation using Nits merely sets a maximum and minimum level for day and night time conditions. Using the foot candle standard will not allow the sign to be too bright under a variety of conditions. (See Figure A2)
-
Nits measure the brightness of the light at its source, without regard to ambient light. Establishing a lighting standard that ignores the brightness of the area (ambient light) allows the digital billboard to be too bright in dark environments and too dim in highly illuminated areas. In other words, fixed nit standards can allow the digital to operate at significantly higher luminance than is needed over the course of a 24 hour period.
-
Nits: To measure nits you need to be directly perpendicular to the sign to measure, and get an accurate measurement. This is factored horizontally and vertically. There is a little bit of leeway on angle. Nits are directional in nature and billboard signs are usually aimed directly at the middle of the roadway. This in many cases puts the person performing the measurement in the travel lanes. In addition, due to the height of the average digital billboard a truck with a man-lift may be required. There is no specified distance you must be away from the sign to measure. (See Figure A2)
-
Footcandles: With the footcandle standard you should be as perpendicular to the face as you can, but you do not have to be, to get a valid, accurate measurement. Footcandles can be measured multi directionally. You can take measurements at an angle to the sign face and receive valid measurements. The distance from which to measure is set at 250 ft away from the sign face for 14 x 48 size. This gives a regulator more options on places to stand. This makes the footcandle standard superior in ease of implementation. But even if we assumed they are both different, but similar in this regard, other more important factors tip the scales.
-
• • • • -
The footcandle standard is more restrictive in terms of lighting allowed, in a variety of conditions. As such, is usually preferred by regulators once they are educated on the differences. The industry footcandle standard is tied to a required light sensor and dimming software. Footcandles measure what the driver sees through their windshield in terms of light, where his car is. Nits measure the light emanating from the sign face, typically a few hundred feet away. Not necessarily what the driver is seeing.
It also can benefit a government to use foot-candles instead of Nits as Nit guns are very expensive (estimated cost $3,000.00). Light meters can cost as little as $250.00.
There are 3 necessary components to insure a digital billboard will never be too bright for conditions. 1. Maximum brightness limits incorporating a footcandle standard 2. An ambient light sensor installed on the sign structure 3. Dimming software The ambient light level of a digital billboard will not vary significantly from that of a traditional billboard display and, in many cases it will be less. The light output levels will be set to be appropriate for the surroundings. 04/2017
3
OAAA recognized/member companies utilize a photocell on digital billboards so that the display will easily be seen by motorists under changing light conditions. Sophisticated dimming software constantly changes the brightness of the display in response to changing ambient lighting conditions. This insures a digital billboard will never be too bright for conditions. The range of brightness varies greatly between daytime and nighttime conditions. In bright daylight, the unit must have higher intensity in order to be seen. During darkness conditions, the brightness can be set low and still be easily seen by motorists.
Why was 0.3 Footcandles chosen as the limit?
The 0.3 footcandle maximum illuminance level was carefully derived from a report completed by a former president of the IESNA. 8 The recommended technique is based on accepted IESNA practice for “light trespass.” The Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) commissioned Dr. Ian Lewin, in 2008 a principal at Lighting Sciences, Inc., Scottsdale, AZ, to recommend criteria for brightness levels on digital billboards 9. The standards are designed to minimize the risk of glare or unreasonable driver distraction. Footcandle measurements are commonly used throughout the United States. Footcandle measures are widely used in the lighting industry, photography, film, television, conservation lighting, and construction related engineering and building code regulations10. In addition, footcandles are frequently cited in OSHA regulations. The OAAA believes that these lighting standards reflect the best practices of the Out of Home Industry.
8 IESNA – Illuminating Engineering Society of North America 9 Digital Billboard Recommendations and Comparisons to Conventional Billboards, by Dr. Ian Lewin Ph.D., FIES, L.C. Lighting
Sciences, Inc., 7826 East Evans Road, Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
10 wikipedia.org/wiki/Footcandles
04/2017
4
Appendix OAAA Recommended Brightness Guidelines Criteria #1 - Lighting Standards – Measurements: The industry recommended criteria follows the lighting standards established by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). The OAAA and member companies voluntarily adhere to the following guidance. Recommended regulatory criteria: Lighting levels should not exceed 0.3 foot candles (over ambient levels) as measured using a foot candle meter at a pre-set distance. Pre-set distances to measure the foot candles impact vary with the expected viewing distances of each size sign. Measurements should be taken as close to perpendicular to the face as practical. Measurement distance criteria: Nominal Face Size 12’ x 24’ 10’6 x 36’ 14’ x 48’ 20’ x 60’
Distance to Measure From 150’ 200’ 250’ 350’
Each display must have a light sensing device that will adjust the brightness as ambient light conditions change. Criteria #2 - Alternate Regulatory Criteria The brightness of light emitted from a changeable message sign should not exceed 0.3 foot candles over ambient light levels measured at a distance of one hundred fifty feet (150') feet for those sign faces less than or equal to three hundred square feet (300 sq. ft.), measured at a distance of two hundred feet (200 ft.), for those sign faces greater than three hundred square feet (300 sq. ft.) but less than or equal to three hundred eighty-five square feet (385 sq. ft.), measured at a distance of two hundred fifty feet (250 ft.), for those sign faces greater than three hundred eighty-five square feet (385 sq. ft.) and less than or equal to six hundred eighty square feet (680 sq. ft.), measured at a distance of three hundred fifty feet (350 ft.) for those sign faces greater than six hundred eighty square feet (680 sq. ft.) Or use Alternate Table: Sign Face Size 681-1200 square feet 385-680 square feet 300-385 square feet 200-300 square feet
Distance of Measurement 350 feet 250 feet 200 feet 150 feet
Each display must have a light sensing device that will adjust the brightness as ambient light conditions change.
04/2017
5
Criteria #3 - Optional Regulatory Addendum - (If standardized distances cannot be achieved in compliance with MUTCD roadside work, or if the site conditions will not allow measurements from the previous distances.) In the event it is found not to be practical to measure a digital billboard at the set distances prescribed above, a measurer may opt to measure the sign at any of the alternative measuring distances described in the applicable table set forth below. In the event the sign measurer chooses to measure the sign using an alternative measuring distance, the prescribed footcandle level above ambient light shall not exceed the prescribed level, to be determined based on the alternative measuring distances set forth in the following tables (A), (B), (C), and (D), as applicable: (A) For changeable message signs less than or equal to 300 square feet: Alternative Measuring Distance 100 125 150 200 250 275 300 325 350 400
Prescribed Foot Candle Level 0.68 0.43 0.3 0.17 0.11 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.04
(B) For changeable message signs greater than 300 square feet but less than or equal to 385 square feet: Alternative Measuring Distance 100 125 150 200 250 275 300 325 350 400
04/2017
Prescribed Foot Candle Level 1.2 0.77 0.53 0.3 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.11 0.1 0.08
6
(C) For changeable message signs greater than 385 square feet but less than or equal to 680 square feet: Alternative Measuring Distance 100 125 150 200 250 275 300 325 350 400
Prescribed Foot Candle Level 1.88 1.2 0.83 0.47 0.3 0.25 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.12
(D) For changeable Message Sign greater than 680 square feet: Alternative Measuring Distance: Prescribed Foot Candle Level: Alternative Measuring Distance 100 125 150 200 250 275 300 325 350 400 425 450 500
04/2017
Prescribed Foot Candle Level 3.675 2.35 1.63 0.92 0.59 0.49 0.41 0.35 0.3 0.23 0.2 0.18 0.15
7
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 4:45 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Rochelle Schaetten Email rochelle1031@yahoo.com Address 3700 N Mountain View Dr. Boise, ID 83704 Comment “Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. I have attended every session held at the Library! at Cole and I have many more questions. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Cynthia Schember <cynthia_schember@hotmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:06 AM ZoningRewrite [External] Not Satisfied with Zoning Code Rewrite Process
March 20, 2023
To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org
Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission:
The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home.
The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report.
After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage.
Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits.
Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the 1
weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22.
Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report.
Sincerely,
Jacob Kammer Cynthia Schember
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 7:38 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Sally Schmelzer Email lighthousesally2417@gmail.com Address P O Box 15934 Boise ID 83715 Comment “Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Sally Schmelzer <lighthousesally2417@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:27 PM ZoningRewrite [External] No to zoning law
Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611-page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher-density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ Sally Schmelzer
Sent from my iPhone
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Robin Schoenemann <rnschoenemann@yahoo.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 5:49 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline for public comment by at least 90 days. Kind regards Robin Schoenemann
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
Erika Schofield <potatopancake@hotmail.com> Thursday, March 2, 2023 7:58 PM Andrea Tuning ZoningRewrite; Timothy Keane [External] A citizen request
Hello Andrea, I would like to know if you can provide the public with either a version of this recent release of the zoning rewrite that has new sections either circled in red or highlighted, or some way to make it easier for a citizen to be able to determine what has been added since the October 2022 version? Or even a list saying which pages have new content? I am asking because it is really challenging to start again with a document that is not marked up with red edits, or strikeouts, to figure out what has changed since the October 2022 version. And to do this with 611 pages in 22 days, in time to provide comments for the Project Report. Throughout this process the citizens have not been provided with a marked up copy each time a new version (module) has been released, so someone like myself has to try to compare content between different drafts using two computer screens. This has been an unfair burden on the public's ability to understand this document. Is there anything the Planning Dept. can please provide to help the public with this 5th version of material that is now before us? Sincerely, Erika
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 13, 2023 12:41 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Erika Schofield Email Address Comment 1. Twenty two days from the release of this draft to read, understand, and comment on 600+ pages is an unreasonable expectation. For the most impactful ordinance to our city, a minimum of 60 days should be available for the comment deadline for the Project Report. 2. Any vote on this ordinance should not take place until fair and equal representation of the people has occurred with all council members elected by districts and sworn in next year. 3. Provide an Executive Summary of changes made from the current ordinances, as this document contains more than one ordinance. 4. Provide real modeling examples of the type of buildings that this will allow in the zone changes, including most extreme to least extreme density, height, etc.. The public has asked for this numerous times, the meeting record shows the city saying they are working on this, and still nothing has been presented. 5. Pause and reconsider the turmoil this is causing for Boise citizens. A phased implementation would be a much more palatable approach. I am not a robot
1
December 14, 2022
TO: Planning & Development Services
FOR: Public Comments For Draft Module 3 – Zoning Code Rewrite
FROM: Boise Working Together Board of Directors – Dave Kangas, Estee Lafrenz, Fred Fritchman, Gloria Myhre, Chris Runyon, Erika Schofield, Katie Fite, Richard Llewellyn, Ed McLuskie, Katy Decker The following comments are to clarify and improve sub–sections one and three in Section 11–01 in order for an average person to be able to easily understand the full scope and intent of this chapter. Section 11–01–01(1). Title Chapter 11 contains more than the Local Land Use Planning Act (I.C. 67–65), as it contains provisions from other sections of Idaho law, as shown in Section 11–01–01(2) for Authority. Giving this chapter the title name of “Boise Zoning Code” does not accurately reflect the other provisions of law that are included in this chapter, nor does this title reflect the separate ordinances within the Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA) that are not required to be part of a zoning ordinance; development agreement (I.C. § 67–6511A), subdivision ordinance (I.C. § 67–6513), and hearing examiner (I.C. § 67–6520). Requested Action: We respectfully request that this chapter be renamed, with the following suggested name or a similar name that accurately reflects all of the content in this chapter:
This Chapter 11–01 shall be known as the “Boise Unified Land and Zoning Code” and is referred to in this chapter as the “Code.” (add ordinance number and date)
Section 11–01–01(2). Authority The Idaho Constitution contains a broad, self-executing grant of police power to municipalities, which is to an extent a grant of constitutional home rule powers. We respectfully request that this constitutional principle be included in this chapter, as has been done by other Idaho cities in their code (see attached examples). In addition, there are other provisions of Idaho law that are part of this chapter but are not listed in the Authority section. Requested Action: We respectfully request each of the laws below be included with the suggested text of:
This chapter is adopted pursuant to authority granted by Article 12, Section 2 of the Idaho Constitution; Title 50, Chapter 3 Municipal Corporations – Powers; Title 50, Chapter 2, sections 222–224 – Annexation; Title 50, Chapter 13 Plats and Vacations; Title 67, Chapter 46 Preservation of Historic Sites; and Title 67, Chapter 65 Local Land Use Planning. Requested Action: Please remove the specific reference to section 67–6520 in this section, which is for the hearing examiner. Although this is a new position being added to the procedures section, it is not necessary to highlight it here, as it is part of Title 67, Chapter 65.
1
Section 11–01–03. Purpose The current version of Chapter 11 has a single, brief paragraph to describe the Purpose. This has been insufficient in describing what is carried out in this chapter because it does not accurately reflect the content, which includes other Idaho laws for annexation, subdivision of land, and historic preservation. The proposed rewrite has expanded the Purpose statement with a list of seven (7) items but it remains inadequate against the full content of this chapter, and this becomes very apparent when comparing Boise to other Idaho city codes.
To create a complete Purpose statement that accurately represents all of the purposes of the LLUPA that are to be satisfied, and the other Idaho statutes contained in this chapter, we have researched and reviewed the codes from several neighboring cities (Meridian, Caldwell, and Nampa) as well as other Idaho cities (Pocatello and Twin Falls). Each of these other codes use plain language that covers the full spectrum of the LLUPA and the other laws they are addressing so that an average person can easily understand what is to be carried out in the code.
We have carefully considered these other codes in crafting broad purpose statements for each of the purposes in the LLUPA and in relation to the other relevant laws, and have cross–checked these statements with the content in Chapter 11. For the seven (7) items in this draft, we have proposed revisions to some of the wording and in certain cases, separated out the content to make it easier to comprehend. We have also added statements to make certain the full content in this chapter and the laws that support it are clearly represented, and the importance of property rights in relation to zoning is given its rightful emphasis.
Requested Action: We respectfully request that each of the purpose statements shown in the far right column of the following table be included in Section 11-01–03.
The Purpose for Chapter 11 as shown in the current Boise City Code To promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of present and future residents, and to bring about coordinated and efficient development that encourages affordable and fair housing, stimulates economic opportunity, and promotes diverse, inclusive communities with a variety of housing choices for residents. Proposed Purpose List In Module 3
1. Promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of present and future residents.
PUBLIC COMMENT: “Present” and “future” are unnecessary words. 2. Bring about coordinated and efficient development that encourages affordable and fair housing, stimulates economic opportunity, and promotes diverse, inclusive communities with a variety of housing choices for residents.
LLUPA Purposes & Other Laws
Complete Purpose List
§ 67–6502. The purpose of this act shall be to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the state of Idaho as follows:
Preserve and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.
(a)To protect property rights while making accommodations for other necessary types of development such as low-cost housing and mobile home parks.
NEED TO ADD Protect property rights and ensure the most appropriate use of land to protect property value.
(b) To ensure that adequate public facilities and services are provided to
Provide a process for annexation and for regulating the subdivision of land to ensure orderly growth and
2
PUBLIC COMMENT: Too many subjects in this single statement by mixing annex law with economic promotion, and housing law; needs to be separated for clarity.
Need to address issue of protect property rights and values, which includes the use and quiet enjoyment of land and the economic benefit/prosperity it can provide — quiet enjoyment is specifically stated in the Variance section.
3. Preserve and enhance natural resources, promote the use of environmentally–friendly development practices, and promote energy conservation and alternative energy production. PUBLIC COMMENT: Sustainable and renewable purposes are not prohibited in the LLUPA, and can be included via Idaho Constitution A12, S2. 4. Protect the character of stable residential, institutional, business, employment, and natural areas. PUBLIC COMMENT: The word “stable” is not defined, and is subjective and vague.
Protect character is a direct connection to protecting property value through compatible/suitable uses by classify and regulate with zoning, and by harmonious development (mass, density, etc.) — harmonious is stated in the Design Review duties. 5. Promote an integrated approach to land use and transportation planning to provide a safe and efficient transportation system for pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and vehicles.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Wording is weak and targets “the planning” of this topic, rather than the actual outcome.
the people at reasonable cost.
(c) To ensure that the economy of the state and localities is protected.
(f) To encourage urban and urban-type development within incorporated cities. (l) To allow local school districts to participate in the community planning and development process so as to address public school needs and impacts on an ongoing basis.
Annex. Law § 50–222 to 224 Can annex lands… to assure the orderly development of Idaho's cities in order to allow efficient and economically viable provision of tax-supported and fee- supported municipal services…
Plats & Vacations Law § 50–13 Addresses order and coordination with subdivision, easements, etc. (d) To ensure that the important environmental features of the state and localities are protected. (j) To protect fish, wildlife and recreation resources.
LLUPA § 67–6511 and § 67–6518 for adopt standards.
67–6511 / The zoning districts shall be in accordance with the policies set forth in the adopted comprehensive plan. This is noted in Blueprint Boise on p. 1–5 for Relationship to the Boise City Zoning Ordinance. 67–6535/ Requires the decision to be based on standards and criteria which shall be set forth in the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance or other appropriate ordinance or regulation of the city or county. LLUPA § 67–6518 adopt standards for streets, bicycleways, pedestrian walkways, etc.
development.
Provide coordinated and efficient development to ensure adequate public facilities and services are available and provided at reasonable cost. NEED TO ADD Allow local public school districts to participate in planning and development to address ongoing school needs and impacts.
Ensure a strong economy through growth and development that supports a full range of economic opportunities. Support housing affordability, accommodate the federal Fair Housing Act, and create diverse, inclusive neighborhoods with a variety of housing choices for residents.
Support environmental protection and resilience through the use of sustainable development practices, alternative energy production, and water and energy conservation. Protect and enhance natural and recreation resources, environmental features, and fish and wildlife.
Protect the character of all existing and planned neighborhoods, districts, and areas through compatible development. NEED TO ADD Establish zoning districts by classifying and regulating the location and use of property and structures in accordance with the policies in the adopted comprehensive plan.
Provide standards to regulate orderly growth and development, reduce adverse impacts, and ensure the harmonious development thereof. Promote integration of land use with transportation planning to provide a safe and efficient infrastructure system, which supports a variety of modes of transportation for all abilities.
3
Does not address ADA issues and confuses person/activity (pedestrians) with objects (bicycles and vehicles). 6. Emphasize the importance of high– quality urban design in the built environment. PUBLIC COMMENT: “Emphasizing the importance” does not reinforce the commentary regarding mandating some of the Design Standards stated at top of p. 198. 7. Protect the City’s historic resources and support the development of public spaces that promote community gatherings and cultural events.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Historic preservation needs its own statement.
The comprehensive plan (Blueprint Boise) should be represented in an allencompassing statement, rather than a specific emphasis on one element in this plan.
Additional purposes of the LLUPA that are part of Chapter 11 and need to be specified.
LLUPA § 67–6518 adopt standards for building design, yards, lighting, etc.
Emphasize and ensure high–quality design in the built environment.
Historic relates to LLUPA purpose (d) about protect environmental features.
Promote historic preservation in the public interest.
Historic Preservation § 67-4601 . . . the historical, archeological, architectural and cultural heritage of the state is among the most important environmental assets of the state and hereby declared to be the public policy and in the public interest to engage in a comprehensive program of historic preservation, undertaken at all levels of the government. 67–6507 / The PZC is to implement the comprehensive plan.
(e) To encourage the protection of prime agricultural, forestry and mining lands and land uses for production of food, fiber and minerals, as well as the economic benefits they provide to the community. -----------------------------(g) To avoid undue concentration of population and overcrowding of land.
(k) To avoid undue water and air pollution. -------------------------------(h) To ensure that the development on land is commensurate with the physical characteristics of the land. (i) To protect life and property in areas subject to natural hazards and disasters.
Implement the adopted comprehensive plan and protect the plan against departures.
NEED TO ADD Encourage local agriculture to help meet environmental protection goals and provide economic benefits for the community. ------------------------------Avoid undue concentration of population, the overcrowding of land, and undue water and air pollution.
-----------------------------------Ensure that the development on land is commensurate with the physical characteristics of the land, and protect life and property in areas subject to natural hazards and disasters.
One other LLUPA purpose (m) To protect public airports as essential community facilities that provide safe transportation alternatives and contribute to the economy of the state. - this purpose is covered in the “Other Laws” section on page 4.
4
MERIDIAN, IDAHO — SUBDIVISION & ZONING COMBINED
5
CALDWELL, IDAHO — ZONING ORDINANCE
6
CALDWELL, IDAHO — SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
NAMPA, IDAHO — SUBDIVISIONS
7
NAMPA, IDAHO — COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE
8
POCATELLO, IDAHO — ZONING ORDINANCE
POCATELLO, IDAHO — SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ORDINANCE
9
TWIN FALLS, IDAHO — SUBDIVISION & ZONING COMBINED
10
11
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:29 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name David Scott Email ddlscott@aol.com Address Boise, Idaho 83716 Comment I am requesting that the city increase the time to review the zoning plan. Three weeks is not enough time. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:34 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Scott Email scottenlow76@gmail.com Address 83705 Comment Please extend the time for public comment and review of the new Zoning proposal. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 10, 2023 8:34 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Bonnie Email scudder.bonnie@gmail.com Address 266 S Mobley Ln Comment Please say no to upzoning. Accommodate new housing by reutilizing buildings that have sat empty for years. Explore buildings in strip malls that are vacant. Developing housing in these spaces would be equivalent to multilevel apartment buildings with retail space below. Horizontally instead of vertically. I am thinking of the old KMart store next to Albertsons on Park Center Blvd. Seems like that building has been mostly vacant since Gordman's left in 2017. Please don’t allow development to crowd out our existing neighborhoods. Please preserve our neighborhoods. Thank you, Bonnie Scudder I am not a robot
1
March 8, 2023 Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council 150 North Capitol Boulevard Boise, Idaho 83702 Dear Mayor McLean and City Council Members, The Board of the SouthEast Neighborhood Association (SENA) has voted to request that any city council vote on final adoption of the new Boise zoning code, known familiarly as the Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR), not be made until council elections by geographic district occur this November and a new city council is seated in January 2024. Debate on this subject was spirited at our February meeting, but by a vote of ten to four, the board said that only a council fully elected geographically can make a decision that truly reflects the interests of all Boiseans on a matter of such far-reaching significance to our city and its various neighborhoods. The schedule for approval of the ZCR shows it coming before council in June. At that time, of our six city council members, two—fully one third—will have been appointed by the mayor rather than elected by the voters of their districts. The ZCR as currently drafted treats certain neighborhoods of the city differently than others based on their locations. SENA believes that those citizens whose properties will be impacted permanently—and often dramatically—by the proposed zoning changes deserve direct geographic representation before decisions affecting their homes, livelihoods, and happiness are made. Our city is in a state of transition, not only through growth but in governance. While council representation by district was popular with some and opposed by others, it is now state law. This November will mark the first time some citizens of Boise will be able to elect a council member specifically representing their area and its issues. Only through geographic representation can we know if the ZCR truly reflects the will of the people of Boise. Therefore, we urge you to ensure voters have the representation they deserve before you make a decision affecting them and our city for decades to come. Sincerely, Mark French, President SouthEast Neighborhood Association
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:40 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Judy Shannon Email judeshannon@gmail.com Address 101 N 10th St, #206, Boise, ID 83702 Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ I have personally had a very bad experience due to a failure of the coding zone to notify neighbors regarding development in the neighborhood. I live in a condo overlooking an alley downtown. Three trees were removed from the across the alley and replaced by an incredibly ugly and noisy giant generator. This is the view from my living room now. I had no chance to object . Please allow additional time for public input. Thank you, Judy Shannon If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 6:58 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Tim Shaub Email timshaub@gmail.com Address 205 N Hillview Drive Comment Our family is totally opposed to the UpZone code! It will destroy neighborhoods and have too high of density for our beautiful city of Boise. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 10:16 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Jackie Shellworth Email shellworth1@msn.com Address Boise, Id 83702 Comment I definitely need more information on how this plan will effect the North End. Please give more time and information for the regular residents who work and live here. The North End is now burgeoning with development and the increase in numbers of people are adding various problems and stresses to our our living environment. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 5:04 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Jackie Shellworth Email shellworth1@msn.com Address 1814 Edgecliff Boise, Id 83702 Comment The community has not had a chance to hear and understand your plans. How can we comment when all the details have not been provided. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Dave Shurtleff <dsboise@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 1:48 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zononginfo@cityofboise.org; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Rewrite
March 22, 2023 Dear Mayor, City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission I recognize the difficulty of the task of preserving inviolate the very livable characteristics of a growing city like Boise. Apparently the proposed rewrite protects to some degree the R‐1, Historic and special overlay districts (like the Sycamore overlay neighborhood) from smaller lots, higher density and four story apartments next to single family houses. Those who can't afford those districts and choose to live in single family and duplex areas such as south of State Street, Northwest, South Boise, the bench, etc.which are still "close in" could see their neighborhoods destroyed by the rules of this code rewrite. The changes proposed for the sake of density have the potential of making Boise like other cities with their problems of crime and displacement (Portland and Seattle examples come to mind). These we must guard against by protecting what we are and what we have as a city. The massive 611 page Zoning Code rewrite has the appearance of completely destroying the character that makes Boise such a beautiful, friendly place to live. Given the short timeline I, like most, have not had time for a detailed review of this massive document. Given that federal guidelines call for 180 days of public review and comment for rule changes of such enormous impact, I respectfully request 180 days for review be granted. Thank you for your consideration, David Shurtleff 2609 North 36 Street Boise, Idaho. 83703
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 10:24 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name adelia simplot Email adeliasimplot@hotmail.com Address 1119 E. Warm Springs Avenue Comment Boise has always been known for its family homes. Stop this unnecessary destruction of neighborhoods. and go back to keeping Boise safe and clean. Adelia Simplot I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 5:05 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Carole Skinner Email carole.skinner@gmail.com Address 353 S. Haines St. Comment I feel that Boise residents have not had enough time to scrutinize the proposed zoning changes, please pause. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Bonnie Smith <rbasmith@aol.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 1:20 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
March 21, 2023 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Bonnie Smith rbasmith@aol.com
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Deanna Smith <ctdesmithsmith@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:53 PM ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite public comments
To the Planning and Zoning Commission, As you will or may have heard from a number of other city residents my comments I send today will be brief and without much detail as two weeks is an inadequate amount of time to prepare detailed, thoughtful comments. I do want to voice my general support for the effort this code rewrite makes towards growing a smarter, denser city however I feel this code could and should go further, especially in terms of compatibility through form with existing places, particularly those with historic values. I also would like to see the various incentives for affordable and sustainable housing as well an other structures be strengthened by: ‐ even greater energy efficiency through discouraging large homes ‐ anything over 2500 sq ft should be burdened with addtiional sustainable energy practices ‐ not allowing the removal of trees ‐ not allowing demolition of existing structures but rather remodeling and repurposing all structures unless truly unviable from an engineering perspective. It is possible for development to be successful and sustainable. And it is time Boise realize that those who will say they cannot “afford to do _______,” really just don’t know how to build differently. If we want to make Boise sustainable and resilient we no longer can afford to take baby steps. There are developers that can and will build smaller, highly efficient structures that are more affordable. We simply need to create a code that invites those willing to be creative and take on the challenge to build Boise’s future. I will provide more specifics in testimony at the hearing as by then I will have had enough time to identify where’s specifically in the code these opportunities lay. Thanks for your service to our City. Deanna Smith
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Sunday, March 19, 2023 12:21 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name John C Socia Email johnsocia@gmail.com Address 1092 VINE ST Comment This zoning proposal leaves out the people it most affects those already living in the rezoned neighborhoods. Boise planning and zoning have not even followed the previous reports such as the 2007 State st corridor plan. This rezoning plan will make all of Boise look like 23rd and Stewart congested living, congested transportation routes, infrastructure overload on water and energy ending in a more polluted Treasure Valley. I stand firmly against these destructive new Zoning proposals, they can only lead to a reduced quality life, more crime and homelessness. Don't pass these zoning revisions think about the repercussions over the long term. I've been here long enough to remember when the mayor tried to destroy downtown Boise and build a mall. These zoning proposals are along those same epic failed ideas as a downtown. We've already been there once with Dick Eardley now stop the foolishness with these zoning proposals I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Shawn Socia <shawn.socia@gmail.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 1:59 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] extend the deadline
Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Shawn Socia
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 5:16 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Shawn Socia Email shawn.socia@gmail.com Address 1092 Vine St Comment I have seen huge apartment buildings being built in traditional neighborhoods that loom over pre‐existing holes, Shadowing yards and areas that make it impossible to garden...I mean grow food in your yard. They also limit privacy in ones own yard or home and are being built in areas that do not have the infrastructure to handle the influx of so many inhabitants. This destroys a neighborhood. I am all for smart growth, but that is not what I am seeing. Considering the very poor present state of public transportation in Boise, perhaps it would behoove us to upgrade that system so it is a viable form of transportation to get to work, shop, etc. Thats not happening now. Also, building close to the river is poor idea as it puts too much pressure on such a valuable and sensitive and increasingly endangered resource. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Helen Cheryl <hcspeegle@gmail.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 5:00 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning code rewrite
March 20,2023
To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 pageZoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. 1
Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Helen Speegle
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 9:32 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Patrick Spoutz Email PSPOUTZ@GMAIL.COM Address 753 W Sandstone Ct Comment City of Boise, On behalf of the group, "Neighbors for Boise," I want to voice our strong support for the zoning rewrite. This modern zoning code protects what is special about Boise while also allowing for the city to grow and change in thoughtful ways. We agree with the Mayor that Boise should be a place with a home for everyone. There are many specific features of the code that we are excited about. We are excited about the new mixed use zones. We believe that reducing the parking minimums for many projects will allow residents, property owners, and developers to better match the amount of parking needed. We think that the incentive structures will produce more deeply affordable, deed‐restricted, housing than we've had before. We strongly support the new document as written and look forward to the ways it will shape our city in the years to come. ‐Patrick Spoutz Neighbors for Boise I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 12:01 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Catherine Stanley Email coprfox@yahoo.com Address Nampa, Idaho 83687 Comment Having trouble writing your public comment? We have provided a template below to get you started: “Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 11:26 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Angie Steele Email Angiem404@gmail.com Address 2901 N Norman Drive Comment I have major concerns with the new re‐write of the P&Z regulations. The lot coverage increase, reduced setbacks and height of buildings in historic districts. The proposed does not make it clear what will happen to historic properties that outside of a historic district. I do like that a design review council is added, I have long thought this is a huge missing piece of our planning. Sadly, Boise has suffered GREATLY from the wrecking ball. Large historic neighborhoods and amazing buildings are long gone. What we have left is a finite resource and is precious. This structures are enriching and help tie us to our forefathers. Truly any building built prior to 1970 should be considered a piece of Boise history and great thought should be given to any alterations. My other great concern is the lack of involvement from citizens in the process. I do want Boise to move forward with expansion, but we only have one shot to get this right. Please consider the above and please provide additional time to review this 600 page document. Our future is in your hands. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 1:37 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Stefanie Email TruthDuneSky@icloud.com Address 7083 W Stadium St Eagle Idaho 83616 Comment Boise needs more aesthetically pleasing architecture. It’s starting to get there but overall it’s been boring and unimpressive. And more sidewalks. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:58 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name John Stevens Email Jrstevens3@gmail.com Address 318 E. Highland View Dr., Comment I am in support of the Zoning Code Rewrite. It should aim to be an improvement on the outdated zoning code written more than 60 years ago when the automobile was at the center of American life. Please consider in the commercial portion of the new code, to somehow incorporate and allow for drive‐thru businesses. Many commercial businesses require drive‐thrus (especially post‐Covid), and there should be reasonable ways to allow for this in the new code. Thank you for being proactive in this zoning update. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
T Stewart <tlsgath@hotmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 10:19 PM Mayor McLean CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely,
Todd Stewart P.S. Independent Boise Native. Sent from Mail for Windows
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:27 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Autumn Street Email autumnbeto@gmail.com Address 1415 W Fort Street Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. Historic districts are of particular concern to me as a proud resident of one of the very few historic areas in town, and I do not feel that the new code offers adequate protections for designated historic districts. I am asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion. Your job as elected representatives is to REPRESENT the people you serve, not dictate your own beliefs, priorities, and vision for the future of our city. Thank you. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Matt Stubbs <mkstubbs@gmail.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 5:16 PM Mayor McLean; Holli Woodings; Luci Willits; Jimmy Hallyburton; Patrick Bageant; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 &amp; CPA23-00001
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: I'm writing to express my concern about the proposed changes and rewrites to the Boise Zoning Code. The process of rewriting this code has occurred without widespread public input as a top‐down effort, and neighbors have been left in the dark about its impacts. The majority of Boise citizens did not ask for these changes nor would they likely approve if they had time to review and consider the impact of what is being proposed. Moreover, the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which is an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home, will not help to achieve the desired result. If implemented, the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) will worsen our lack of affordable housing. 77% of the City’s identified need for additional housing is for those who make 80% of the median income (City of Boise Housing Needs Analysis, 2021) while “affordability” incentives in Boise's largest zone (R1‐C) only provide a small number of homes for those making 120% AMI (Area Median Income). By increasing density allowances, the new code incentivizes the redevelopment of existing affordable housing without any requirement to replace it. The result will be gentrifying existing neighborhoods with market‐rate or above‐market‐rate multi‐units. Reducing the minimum lot size in R‐2 and R‐1C planning zones will not necessarily contribute to housing diversity nor affordability. High‐density housing does not lead to affordability. If this were true, apartment rents in Boise would all be affordable. Additionally, the proposed fifty‐year deed restriction on maintaining a dwelling unit as affordable is only enforceable if a special compliance office with enforcement authority is established. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Frankly, I do not want to see any of the proposed changes go into effect, but regardless, residents must be given more time to understand what is being proposed.
1
Please reject this new proposal or at a minimum give citizens the opportunity to understand what is being proposed and to make their voices heard. Sincerely, Matt Stubbs
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Rita Sturiale <collector_girl@hotmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:14 PM ZoningRewrite [External] New zoning code ordinance
Please, please, please give more time for the public to understand the final draft of the Zoning Code before it is sent for approval to Planning & Zoning and then to the City Council. We mustn't allow the existing neighborhood atmosphere, which we all cherish and love to be permanently changed and damaged by encouraging and allowing multi units in a single family home area. What are you thinking?? Look around at other cities and it doesn't take long to see the big disadvantage of packing in more and more people per square mile. The denser the population, the more crime, more trash, more conflict. Please remember why so many people like Boise and realize it’s a standard worth keeping. Rita Sturiale
Sent from Mail for Windows
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:11 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Rita Sturiale Email collector_girl@hotmail.com Address 621 N 18th St Comment Please, please, please give more time for the public to understand the final draft of the Zoning Code before it is sent for approval to Planning & Zoning and then to the City Council. We mustn't allow the existing neighborhood atmosphere, which we all cherish and love to be permanently changed and damaged by encouraging and allowing multi units in a single family home area. What are you thinking?? Look around at other cities and it doesn't take long to see the big disadvantage of packing in more and more people per square mile. The denser the population, the more crime, more trash, more conflict. Please remember why so many people like Boise and realize it’s a standard worth keeping! If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 12:54 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Vicki Sullivan Email vicktee@gmail.com Address 3601 S. Shortleaf Ave Boise ID 83716 Comment I am not in favor of the proposed zoning changes. It is too large in scope and seems as though it is being rushed through before there is ample time for the public to understand the scope of the changes. It appears that our historic and traditional neighborhoods could be at risk. There are zoning changes that will encourage demolition of current homes in order to subdivide the lots and/or build multiple units on that same lot. Some of these changes WILL NOT require any notification to current residents nearby and, depending on lot size or the purchase of multiple lots, could result in up to 12‐unit buildings being built in residential neighborhoods next door to single‐story, single‐family homes. Yes, there has been a huge influx of people moving to Boise and there is a need for affordable housing. I think the growth will continue but at a slower pace. It's very important to grow and develop a beautiful city for all to enjoy , let's slow down this poorly developed zoning change and consider zoning changes as requested by the residents of the City of Boise instead of allowing developers to ravage our beautiful city. Sincerely, Vicki Sullivan I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
tsull61342@aol.com Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:38 AM ZoningRewrite; Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo [External] Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend.. Nonetheless, that is all the time they well have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, T. J. Sullivan M.D.
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Dan Sutton <dsutton704@gmail.com> Sunday, March 19, 2023 12:58 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which to me, seem to be an almost complete replacement of the current (50 year old?) zoning laws that have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public can have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Since you released the document on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022, this timeline has put citizens at an extraordinary disadvantage. I understand that Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have such a large impact. It seems to me that the proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite will lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Dan Sutton
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 5:46 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Ann Swanson Email swansonalc@gmail.com Address 7111 McMullen St., Boise, ID 83709 Comment Historic neighborhoods and their crazy inconsistencies add character and a unique spirit to every city. To force them into a modern mold kills the essence and unique signature of a city. Please preserve our historic neighborhoods as they are with their quirky scale, set‐back and materials. We already have enough in‐fill and dense housing. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:
Jennifer Szwec <JenniferMiller99@hotmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:03 AM CityCouncil [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Reject 3.22.23.docx
To whom it may concern, Please see my attached letter. Thanks, Jennifer Szwec
1
March 22, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Citizen, Jennifer Szwec of Ada County, Boise, Idaho
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 1:57 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Diane Lori Talboy Email loritalboy@gmail.com Address 1414 East Warm Springs Avenue 83712 Comment Dear Mayor, I have recently heard that the City of Boise is planning to re‐ write zoning codes. I ask that you increase the timeframe for review from three weeks to 180 days. You must allow the residents of this beautiful city an opportunity to voice their concerns, and give input. Please do not send this draft to Planning and Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion from the very people it will impact. Kind regards, Lori Talboy I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 5:40 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Joan Tandrow Email jotanmail@yahoo.com Address Boise, ID 83713 Comment Dear Mayor McLean and Boise City Council, we've lived in Boise for 17 years, and "so far so good," but we're worried about the lovely historic homes disappearing without a long enough timeframe for info to be publicized. Please, slow down the process so that everyone affected will understand the outcomes! Yes, growth is good, but it needs to be designed so that we all see good things happening, not a rush to high density that negatively affects all Boise citizens. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 6:21 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name LYNN M THAYER Email lynnth@msn.com Address 13398 W Fig St Comment Regarding zoning changes....please proceed carefully, allowing more public input. I'm particularly concerned about 'automatic' approvals to remove existing buildings without public hearing. And I think there should notification of neighbors about new builiding permits issued in close proximity to current neighbors that have significant impact on those in close proximity. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
david thelen <awedjazz@pacbell.net> Monday, March 20, 2023 5:40 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; tkeake@cityofboise.org; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org
March 20, 2023 Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: Please note: Our personal experience of betrayal in this hastily rushed rezoning process is noted in the last paragraph of this email. The city should not treat disabled, fixed income, elderly citizens in the way you are attempting to do to us. Letting an administrator act without meaningful input at the time of a propsal to develop and require a zoning change then, denies us the right to protect our neighborhoods. Your proposed massive rezoning effort is aimed at the elderly people in established neighborhoods. Why pick on the elderly and, in my case, the disabled like this? Your proposed rezoning is not needed and denies existing citizens’ rights to have input while denying them the right to select the stable neighborhood they chose to live in. The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released 1
in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Furthermore, we recently bought a home here in Boise. As part of our due diligence before buying I called the City Planning Department and asked if there was anything that is pending or contemplated about changing the property status, including things that would affect the value of the property in terms of development, assessments or anything else. The planner told me words to the effect that nothing was pending or contemplated. I just recently found out that this rushed, massive zoning changes was part of planning in the city since 2019. I feel lied too and deliberately misled. As a disabled elderly person on a fixed income, it is not right to do this to us. We need a voice in potential changes to our neighborhood whereas you are reducing that for no good reason. Sincerely, David And Jocelyn Thelen Sent from my iPad
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:39 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Paige Thomas Email tuffentiny@gmail.com Address Boise Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for the review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe of closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made to protect Boise's citizens. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then to City Council without further discussion. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
christine thomas <bonitacreativespace@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 6:01 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite; Timothy Keane [External] Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611‐page Zoning Code Rewrite, which is an almost complete replacement of the laws that for the last half‐century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline ‐ the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. The City only released its final version of the Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023. of 2022. The document does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens like ourselves that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. This Zoning Rewrite seems to qualify for that. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes ‐ rules that range from new allowances for alcohol‐serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, to tall apartment buildings next to single‐ family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Neighbors being informed, and welcomed into a conversation with developers, both parties communicating, and or compromising regarding the changes that directly affect the homes in the project area are essential. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23. it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Christine & Jeffrey Thomas Boise, ID
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:37 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Sarah Thompson Email sarahlynnt@hotmail.com Address Boise, Id 83705 Comment Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the proposed Zoning Code update, which spans 611 pages. The proposed code contains many elements that are of great concern to me, including the removal of notification for neighbors regarding many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. While growth is undoubtedly good for Boise, poorly designed growth will have negative impacts on citizens, and we deserve better. We urge you to reconsider the proposed document's current timeline, set at just three weeks. Instead, we suggest increasing the timeframe to the Federally suggested timeframe of closer to 180 days. This extended period will allow for further discussion and modifications that will protect the citizens of Boise. Please do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then to the City Council without further discussion. Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 4:44 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Marshall Thompson Email marshall.thompson@veolia.com Address Boise, ID 83709 Comment Dear Planning and Zoning Commission, City Staff, and Elected Officials, Thank you for giving Veolia Water Idaho the opportunity to review and comment on the soon‐to‐be‐finalized planning and zoning update. We are filing this letter to have our input included in the staff report to the Planning and Zoning Commission. We plan to send additional information before April 20 after taking more time to digest the many implications this rewrite might have. I can say wholeheartedly, we support the city’s initiatives to promote water conservation, a core value shared by Veolia and its employees. We have many unanswered questions on the modern zoning code’s section 11‐04‐010 Assured Water Supply. While Veolia is the state's largest drinking water utility, we are not the only provider operating within Boise’s city limits. Safe drinking water is provided to the community from a variety of systems and developments of all sizes. Any of these operations could meet requirements to be a “designated water provider” under the city’s new planning and zoning definition. We are also curious as to how section 11‐04‐010 would be administered and enforced, and how that overlaps with the authority of Idaho Department of Water Resources, Idaho Public Utilities Commission, and other established state agencies. The proposed ordinance raises concerns regarding Idaho Code section 42‐201(7) which delegates exclusive authority over the appropriation of the public surface and ground waters of the state to the Idaho Department of Water Resources. It states that “no other agency, department, county, city, municipal corporation or other instrumentality or political subdivision of the state shall enact any rule or ordinance or take any other action to prohibit, restrict or regulate the appropriation of the public surface or ground waters of the state, and any such action shall be null and void.” Our customers must come first as we evaluate the proposed changes to code. It is imperative that any potential conflicts of interest in regulatory authority and increases to service costs are settled before any new rules have the potential to adversely affect Treasure Valley residents. We look forward to working with you to address these outstanding questions. 1
Sincerely, Marshall Thompson V.P. & General Manager Veolia Water Idaho If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. /media/forms/upload/form_9e949d7c‐a1bc‐422f‐b562‐023f2fc3a54c/87a4735a‐7839‐4405‐b362‐ 84fa27eaeb82/veoliacomments.pdf I am not a robot
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
tracythompson.idaho@gmail.com Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:51 PM ZoningRewrite [External] Boise Zoning Code
To whom it may concern, I believe this is a very important issue and requires a deeper look. Remember the decisions of today impact tomorrow, and should be well thought out for a posi ve future.
Tracy Thompson | Associate Broker Windermere Powerhouse Group 208‐867‐3595 | tracythompson@windermere.com tracyt.withwre.com
Help prevent wire fraud. It’s critical that you call your escrow team prior to wiring funds to verbally confirm wire instructions.
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it by unauthorized persons, is strictly prohibited.
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Mary Toews <mestoews@gmail.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 3:57 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Up-Zoning
Dear City Council and Mayor, I am totally opposed to the upzoning proposal that will be reviewed this week. There has not been enough time for the public to respond to the issues it represents. Please extend the timeline for comment by at least 90 days. Sincerely, Mary Toews 208-866-4478
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Mary Toews <mestoews@gmail.com> Monday, March 20, 2023 3:51 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External]
TODAY’S DATE To: Zoning code Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely,
Mary Toews 208-866-4478
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Rick Toews <arlovinski@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:57 PM ZoningRewrite [External] ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
The City of Boise has drafted a ‘rewrite of the zoning code’ citywide, and have allowed citizen’s very little time for its review. In the opposition’s view, the proposed draft promotes higher density which severely reverses the decades long commitment to its neighborhoods, removes affordable housing, allows existing homes to be demolished, leading to taller, denser construction even in designated historic zones, allows intrusive and incompatible uses, such as apartment buildings, and generally increases investor activity. Many rightfully believe the drafted proposal is entirely unfair to the cities public. The residents voices, as a whole, have been left out. Do you think the city has the right to make big changes to the neighborhood in which you live, without your knowledge or input? I don’t think it should. Allow public comments! Allow a larger review window for public review! Thank You, East Ender Rick Toews Sent from my iPad
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 2:25 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Tony Torres Email cyricvt@gmail.com Address Boise, ID 83705 Comment It is very important that the zoning code update passes. Boise needs more housing to keep up with the demand and to increase affordability. This zoning code rewrite proposal does a great job of providing that while also incorporating the concerns of opponents. In addition, improving access for bike/ped and public transportation users is an important goal and this plan helps to achieve that by improving the ability of all Boiseans to get around the city. With the housing shortage, affordability crisis, climate change, and traffic issues all facing our city, Boise needs to pass a new zoning code that prepares us for the future we are facing and doesn't keep us stuck in the 1960s when this city, this state, this country, and this world were far different places. I urge you to pass this zoning code ordinance so that we can begin addressing these very real problems that our city faces. It is essential to do so if we really do want to be and to create a city for everyone and not just those who already have housing because they were lucky enough to buy it when prices were lower. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 5:58 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Annabelle Travis Email annabelle11_3@yahoo.com Address 1068 E. Greenwood Circle, Boise,ID 83706 Comment “Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ Sincerely, Annabelle Travis If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 12:19 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Suzanne M Troje Email cybersuze@gmail.com Address 1408 N. 15th Street Comment To Members of the City Council, Planning and Zoning Committee, and City Staff: I am extremely concerned with the lack of transparency and accountability inherent in the development and publication of the "Final Adoption Draft" of the plan to upzone Boise. I am not a professional planner or developer but as an interested and concerned Boise citizen I have been following the development of the new Zoning Code (ZOA23‐0001). I have participated in discussions and provided written comments. To date there has been little clarity with respect to the disposition of the public comments received and whether and how they have been incorporated in the "Adoption Draft" which has only recently been issued with comments due by March 22. I have not seen any summaries on the City's website. My letter to Director Keane requesting any such summaries, should they exist, be made available to assist the public in formulating a reaction to the current draft has gone unanswered. This type of assistance from the government would be useful for the citizens of Boise and provide some accountability for the disposition of comments already received, and could spare staff from hearing a repeat of comments and concerns if they have already been addressed. The assumption that the City can determine the type and number of houses Boise needs is deeply flawed, lacks context and the consideration of necessary infrastructure. More discussion is needed, and more needs to be done to assist Boiseans who already invested in the community and/or are, or will be, falling through its cracks. Please do not adopt this Code without further discussion and accountability. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Teresa Troy <teresatroy24@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9:12 PM ZoningRewrite [External] zoning code ordinance (ZOA23-0001 & CPA23-0001)
To whom it may concern, I am writing in regard to the proposed Boise Zoning Code Rewrite. I am a 65 year old woman who was raised in the North End of Boise. I moved to Seattle when I was in my 20's but moved back to Boise to raise a family and my children and grandchildren also reside here. One reason I love this town is because it has personality and character and our residents have pride in their neighborhoods. This is what sets us apart from most other large cities. I don't want to see 3 story apartments in a neighborhood with homes for individual families. I feel that airbnb's hurt established neighborhoods and first time home buyers. I am so disappointed that (I am guessing because of the money to be made by developers and investors) this zoning ordinance is being rushed before Boiseans have an opportunity to give input. I understand this code will circumvent the normal planning and zoning process. I believe the final decision should not be made until we have an opportunity to elect our City Council members by geographic district and a new Council has been seated. Sincerely, Teresa Troy 10127 W. Springdale Ct. Boise, ID 83704
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Thursday, March 16, 2023 11:43 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Peter W Van Dorne Email peterv@tpchousing.com Address 4106 N. Whitehead Street Comment “Dear Mayor Lauren McLean and Boise City Council, The timeframe for reviewing the complex 611‐page Zoning Code update is unrealistic, especially as the proposed code includes many elements that are of great concern to me such as the removal of notification for neighbors for many types of new higher‐density development in existing neighborhoods. Growth is good but poorly designed growth will negatively impact Boise citizens and we deserve better. We are asking that you increase the timeframe for review of the proposed document from 3 weeks to the Federally suggested timeframe closer to 180 days. There is much that needs to be further discussed and modifications that need to be made that will protect the citizens of Boise. Do not send this draft to Planning & Zoning and then onto City Council without further discussion.“ I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:21 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Kathy Velasquez Email kathy.velasquez@icloud.com Address 7129 W Snohomish St Comment “Hello. My family does not want any tall buildings in or near our neighborhood. We want to keep Boise neighborhoods quaint and safe. No tall buildings in our neighborhoods! Thank you” If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 15, 2023 2:05 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Julie Vick Email vickjules@gmail.com Address 4748 Willow Lane Comment As it relates to the new planning and zoning codes, I object to eliminating public hearings as part of the approval process for development in our neighborhoods. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:26 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Grant Walden Email Grantwalden@hotmail.com Address 3310 N MOUNTAIN VIEW DR Comment When people move to Idaho, The comment is Don't Change Idaho, Have Idaho Change you. This whole process is to change Idaho. What will happen to Neighhoods like Harrison Boulevard, Warm Sprinds, and Mountain View Drive? With your new codes try 3,500 sq foot lots, 25 foot. wide lots. Please Protect Neighhoods, Protect the people that have lived here for 15 , 20 or more years. This whole new code is to add more people to the city, NOT protect the present Citizens. Please reject this process. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 15, 2023 4:16 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Jane Wallace Email janers.wallace@gmail.com Address 4512 W Kootenai St, Boise, ID 83705 Comment I can understand out a growing city needs more density. But I have 2 suggestions. First, require every project to include playground equipment for young children, to enable families to take kids out for some close and quick exercise. Second, please require some percentage of units to be condos or townhouses. Citizens need to be able to own homes and pay them off before retirement. Moving toward a renter economy puts future retiring seniors at risk. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Saturday, March 18, 2023 2:20 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Joan Wallace Email joanlesliewallace@gmail.com Address 4023 N Delmonte Dr, Boise, ID 83704 Comment I live in the West Bench neighborhood. I am concerned about the new zoning code ordinance and the impact it could have on neighborhoods that lack a historic designation. I think we need to slow down the approval of this change for a number of reasons. We need more time for review of this 600 page document. I have tried to find an expert on this document who could provide analysis and have been unable to do so. While I recognize the need to review and revise our outdated code, I believe we need to wait until after the election in November to ensure that all neighborhoods have a voice. I live in one of the city districts without a representative. There are several other districts in the same position. Most of our current city council members live in the north end and lack an in depth understanding of the issues we have in West Boise. Please allow the time necessary to ensure we end up with a plan that works for all of our neighborhoods. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 13, 2023 12:02 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Nancy Ward Email nancyward722@gmail.com Address 864 E HEARTHSTONE DR Comment Please reject the upzoning proposal for the city of Boise. If upzoning were to be implemented it would have a particularly detrimental effect on older neighborhoods. Congestion on the narrow north end streets is already an issue. Creating more density will only make the problem worse and affect those who currently own homes there. To create a situation in which multi‐story apartments can be constructed next to existing one or two story residences will severely impact property values. Reduction in the minimum lot size will further erode neighborhoods. Why has this recently become an issue? Why do we need to create this change? The upzoning concept has come from outside, not from those who live and own properties in the heart of Boise. For the sake of the character and soul of Boise, please DO NOT approve and implement upzoning. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Barbara <bawarfield@aol.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9:43 PM Mayor McLean; citycounil@cityofboise.org; Timothy Keane; ZoningRewrite; zoninginfo [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
March 21, 2023
Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23‐00001 & CPA23‐00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well‐ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule‐change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline for public comment by at least 90 days. Sincerely, YOUR NAME YOUR ADDRESS
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 10, 2023 12:06 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Christi Warhurst Email burstdesignsllc@gmail.com Address 3718 N Pepperwood Dr Comment Please do not move forward until after this years election. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Friday, March 17, 2023 12:30 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Christi Warhurst Email burstdesignsllc@gmail.com Address 3718 N Pepperwood Dr Comment Dear Madam Mayor Council Members and Planning and Zoning Committee, I am against this new zoning re‐write. I have seen the Don’t Upzone Boise signs, and quit honestly, have not seen anything from the city of Boise regarding the proposed zoning re‐write. I’ve followed along for about 3 weeks now and the proposed zoning code changes is like 600 pages long. Also, we have two current Council members that stepped down and the Mayor is appointing two new ones. These appointed Councilmen will not be elected by the people. Also, current districts 2, 3 and 4 do not have representation since the new districting of Boise city. I live in a mid‐century modern neighborhood and this really concerns me regarding aesthetics of my neighborhood. This style is very trendy and many of my neighbors have gone all out with the theme. I cannot see, how a lot, in an established neighborhood could really think a midcentury modern home would look appealing next to a 20th century modern style home that are being built now. Not to mention, an investor or developer can buy a single family lot, knock down the house and then build a tri‐plex on it OR, buy two lots and knock those houses down and build a 12 unit building right next to an old style home. This is a really large scale feet and seems as though it is being rushed through before there is ample time for the public to understand the scope of the changes. Let alone before the Mayoral and Councilman election in November. It blows my mind that a small group of concerned citizens have gotten the word out better than the city. Are you getting the word out to EVERYONE or a select few that agrees with this? I think the growth will continue but at a slower pace. It's very important to grow and develop a beautiful city for ALL to enjoy, let's slow down this poorly developed zoning change and consider zoning changes as requested by the residents of the City of Boise. The natives of Boise should not be priced out or taxed out of their homes and witness their neighborhoods turn into a sea of infill homes and large apartments without any unique architectural style like I have been seeing lately. Sincerely, Christi Warhurst I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Norman Weinstein <nweinstein25@gmail.com> Sunday, March 19, 2023 5:13 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code
March 19, 2023 Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Norman Weinstein
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 14, 2023 1:02 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name William Weppner Email weppnerw@gmail.com Address Boise, ID 83702 Comment I appreciate the fact that the City of Boise is updating the P&Z code with climate change in mind. As a primary care physician and health services researcher, I am concerned about the health harms of climate change on our community, and will continue to advocate or creative and purposeful solutions that help community health and individual health at the same time ("co‐benefits"). Access to safe paths for biking and walking to recreate and commute is a perfect example. In addition, seeking solutions that address drivers of climate change with impacts such as carbon capture through shade providing trees will be increasingly important as we grapple with longer and more deadly heatwaves. I would encourage consideration of safe gray water systems, water conservation measures and energy efficient design for new homes and buildings. Finally, applying a filter to make sure such projects don't widen existing gaps between people who have sociodemographic characteristics that put them at increased risk from climate change (e.g. extremes of age, lower SES status, residence in areas that have limited shade/access to safe paths/parks, neighborhoods adjacent to industry or transportation that puts them at risk) will also be important. If not already being used, consider using the Justice 40 GIS system (https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/en/#3/33.47/‐97.5) to better understand what communities might be at increased risk, better support appropriate apportionment of resources, and align this with federal efforts. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Bryan Wewers <bryanbronco@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 12:16 PM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 &amp; CPA23-00001
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: I am very concerned about the Zoning Code Rewrite being proposed. Without having much time to review all 611 pages of the proposed ZCR, I feel that this is being pushed through without adequate input and approval of your constituents. I am also concerned about the lack of public input that will be allowed if it is approved as proposed. Individuals have purchased property knowing the zoning designations surrounding them, and this ZCR will allow it to be changed without public hearings and public testimony. I also understand that this will expedite the approval process for developers and I question what assurances or benefits are we getting from developers in return. There are no assurances that their developments will be compatible to a neighborhood or for that matter affordable. Has there been any consideration of increasing the Development Impact Fee to offset some of the increased costs for development? When was the last time developers saw an increase in the Development Impact Fee? I was a member of the Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee for the City of Boise several years ago and know what impact development have on our city's parks, fire and police. At that time development fees were well below the national average and Boise was considered a bargain. I hope fees have been increased to a more equitable level, but if not that is a consideration that should be considered with or without the impact of ZCR. Growth (development) should pay for itself and not on the back of existing citizens. I agree with the form letter comments provided below and respectfully request that you consider the publics input on this very important issue that can have a dramatic negative impact on our community and our trust in our elected officials. 1. The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well‐ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule‐change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. 2. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. 3. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the 1
week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Public input should be welcomed and considered in your decisions. Sincerely, Bryan Wewers bryanbronco@gmail.com 208‐861‐6143
2
WHITE-LEASURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
March 9, 2023 Mr. Tim Keane Planning Director City of Boise Via email to tkeane@cityofboise.org RE: City of Boise Zoning Code Rewrite version February 2023 Dear Tim, Thank you for taking the time to meet with me along with the other members of the ACHD Developer Advisory Committee on January 12, 2023. I appreciate the immense amount time and energy that you and your staff have committed to the Zoning Code Rewrite. This is quite the colossal task. I have had the opportunity during my career to develop mainly retail oriented projects throughout the communities in Idaho and throughout the northwest, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and California. From large greenfield, 30 acre shopping centers, down to single tenant infill developments. So, I have seen a wide variety of city codes, from simple and intuitive to complex, tedious and confusing. Having grown up here in Boise, it is exciting to see where this community can go while appreciating the progress from busted up downtown sidewalks and downtown railyard that were here when I was a kid. Knowing full well that you are getting input from every angle, I feel it is best to stay in my lane and focus mainly on the commercial/retail/mixed use area. I am concerned that the Zoning code rewrite has a bit of a one size fits all feel to it as it relates to the “MX” zoning conversion from our current “C” zones. My main concerns relate to parking, setbacks, mandatory multi-story buildings and drive throughs as seen through the eyes of a retail user; having dealt with many of them over the years. Reflecting on the struggles that we all faced during the pandemic, I believe we should take a bit of a pause on adding too many boxes to check in the rubric of how detailed the various specifics of site and building designs should be. I think we could simplify a lot of the requirements into guidelines and allow the architects, builders, and engineers to be creative with their site and building layouts. I believe the requirement of multistory development for new projects in MX zones is a serious mistake that will hamper growth in the near term. Allowing for higher density is great for the future of our city but it should not be a requirement in the here and now. The market will evolve to allow for more density in different areas and at different times. The rewrite should allow for this not mandate it. We simply don’t know what we don’t know about the future and allowing for development to occur to support future needs and demands should be at the root of this rewrite. One theme of the rewrite that I would like to comment on is the push for affordability. I don’t believe that anything in the rewrite will help affordability based upon the increase in requirements of sites and buildings, sidewalks, bicycle racks, windows and accompanying bird safety devices, etc. And not to mention the additional staff that the city will need to hire to keep up with applications, variations, and conditional uses. Please consider simplifying the code to allow for more autonomy for the public to develop and use their properties the way they see fit and minimize the amount of input needed from city staff. The following are my comments to specific portions of the rewrite, I decided to use two columns in order to fit the snipped portions of the code I am referring to for ease of reference.
If it is unlawful to be out of compliance with the code and there is no allowance for nuisances, who then decides what is attractive and public nuisance?
Not inconsistent seems like a double negative, may need to be looked at. This seems like the code could be undermined by bureaucratic policies being adopted without public debate or input.
Consider giving more time for compliance given the time and expense it takes formulating a concept and preparation to get to the submittal point and the time it takes to get through the permitting process.
Please remove all maximum setbacks this is very impractical for development. Look around at all the properties that this will be overlayed upon and see how many would be in compliance with a maximum 20’ setback, it is staggeringly low. Why are we trying to buck the way that properties have been developed since the beginning of time. Allowing for denser growth should be the goal but not inhibiting the current way in which properties are used today and in the near future.
This should be removed; it is a security risk placing parking behind the buildings where the parking can’t be seen by passing law enforcement or concerned citizen, as well as the inconvenience of not have the parking at the storefront which faces the street.
Please remove maximum setbacks this is very impractical for development. Look around at all the properties that this will be overlayed upon and see how many would be in compliance with a maximum 20’ setback, it is staggeringly low. Why are we trying to buck the way that properties have been developed since the beginning of time. Allowing for denser growth should be the goal but not inhibiting the current way in which properties are used today and in the near future.
This should be removed; it is a security risk placing parking behind the buildings where the parking can’t be seen by passing law enforcement or concerned citizen, as well as the inconvenience of not have the parking at the storefront which faces the street.
Please remove maximum setbacks this is very impractical for development. Look around at all of the properties that this will be overlayed upon and see how many would be in compliance with a maximum 20’ setback, it is staggeringly low. That being said why are we trying to buck the way that properties have been developed since the beginning of time. Allowing for denser growth should be the goal but not inhibiting the current way in which properties are used today and in the near future.
Shouldn’t we be trying to simplify the code to allow for properties to be developed with less box checking by the planners? This seems like an over reach to try and figure out how to check all of the boxes when simply having properties connect pedestrians to right of ways should be the goal and let the owners figure out how to get there rather than wasting planners time checking all the fine details that try to apply
ideas in text to real world applications. 10” sidewalks seem to be a bit more than necessary and an undue expense for that much extra material.
This should be removed; it is a security risk placing parking behind the buildings where the parking can’t be seen by by passing law enforcement or concerned citizen, as well as the inconvenience of and also inconvenient to not have the parking at the storefront which faces the street.
Please remove this, allow for development as the owner sees fit to allow them to place the building where they want, with an entrance that fits their building. What if people inside the building don’t want their activities viewed? Allow for the desired density but make it available for transition from now until then.
I have seen the intermodal type zoning in other municipalities that are much more advanced in their density cycle and I understand the need for it but wonder if there is a less heavy handed way to go about this that allows for current development but reserves the ability into the future. I also think automotive uses make sense in these areas as the personal vehicle may be a part of overall solution, ie carpooling. Is this even legal to outlaw private property from competing with public property for parking? Screening parking is a security risk as people using the parking stalls at night cannot be seen by passing traffic that may be able to react if a crime is being committed.
It seems to me that given most of the intense commercial properties are being converted from C-2 to MX-3 most of the intensive vehicle uses should be allowed in MX-3. Considering EV charging is allowed everywhere I think we need to allow for the chance that people continue to drive internal combustion engines for a while into the future and allow for them to be refueled and repaired and the inevitable evolution of the service station.
Consider removing the hours of operation, or possibly a closing time if noise is the concern, or at a minimum, an earlier operating time of maybe 5am to allow the businesses to accommodate early customers.
Placing the drive through lanes and windows behind the building is very poor design and unsafe. It is far more efficient and safe to have the drive through aisle go around the building leaving parking and pedestrian traffic to the interior side of the building separating the two. Five feet in a planting strip does not seem like much but in infill sites every inch matters at times. The Drive through lanes generally have a curb around them so the safety concern should be minimized as an inattentive fast food goer would run up against the curb first. Below are two examples showing the difference between the two Chick-Fil-A’s on Broadway and on Franklin
Please remove the restrictions as they relate to residential use, residential zoning is fine but the use could overstep the entitlement of the commercial zoning and put undo burdens on the businesses.
These are very different parcels to begin with, one rather square the other a long rectangle. But we can see with the Broadway location that there is a conflict where the pedestrians walking from their parked cars have to walk through the drive through aisle. Additionally the drive through aisle conflicts with parking stalls and drive aisles at all times whereas the Franklin location would only see parking and drive aisle conflict only when extremely busy in the drive through and less than half of its stalls at those times. I don’t understand why the city is trying to discourage and limit drive through businesses from existing. Look at the number of restaurants that closed during the madness of the pandemic and then look at how many of those that closed had drive throughs. Very few drive through restaurants closed during this time and in fact, actually thrived due to the fact that dining rooms were forced to close. Restaurants with drive throughs employ more people as they do more business than standard restaurants. Many fast food restaurants are young people’s first jobs and teach hard work, scheduling, and accountability, why are we doing away with them? The City should not be allowed to limit the hours of operation! The businesses need to be open when the customer demand is there.
Please don’t limit the number of pumps, the business can make up its own business decision regarding the demand of the market, the dispensers are not cheap and will not be installed unless there is a market for it. Placing everything behind buildings is anit business; the pumps need to be seen from the public streets to indicate to the consumer that there is fuel for sale there. Besides the security and safety standpoint that a police officer driving by cannot see into the business to see if there is a crime being committed.
There should be no maximum building setback. Every site is unique and needs to be able to be developed to fit the needs and desires of the community, business, and owner.
and is substantially more expensive and does not take into account whether or not the specific market will support this type of development. This will also take away the opportunity to own and develop real estate for the vast majority of people given the complexity and cost. We will end up with only large conglomerats owning all of the commercial real estate in town. Also once again mandating no parking in the front of the building is overeaching for planning and should be removed.
I personally don’t care about gated communities but I believe this should be up to the market to determine if they want gates or not; considering elderly folks may want the extra sense of security.
I believe I understand this, all new developments and redevelopments in the MX zones are to have a multi story height requirement. Allowing for and encouraging multistory development is great but to require it is absolutely uneconomic. This should be drafted to allow or encourage future density but not jumping through hoops for variances to build single story buildings. This will actually stifle development as multistory development requires more land area
Regarding alley access for MX zoning this should not be applicable as alleys are far too narrow for two way traffic and would cause more congestion gettting in and out of the property. Regarding circular driveways, why is the city getting this deep into the weeds on people’s private properties. Assuming this is a residential application it generally shouldn’t matter if there are dual curb cuts on a residential street.
on neighboring parcels that get their parking poached due to the limited number of stalls. Office, Multi Family, and Retail all suffer from not being able to park and access the real estate. Allow the person investing in the building to decide what their future needs will be.
And to add insult to injury to the parking undersupply, 20% of the spaces need to go towards EV cars, which according to the Energy department (https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10962) There were 3,500 EVs in June of 2022 in the entire state of Idaho. This is an overreach and should be removed altogether. 10% of the total project cost is a ridiculously high number as it relates to a project and has zero return for it. If the city wants to add some incentive for EV stations go ahead but there is no reason this should be a green subsidy forced onto a private land owner. The talk throughout the Code Rewrite about making things more affordable, this is far from it.
Parking maximums should be removed altogether, has anyone on staff interviewed any end user of retail and restaurant type users on their parking needs. The cap on dental clinic probably doesn’t even cover the number of employees. This is irresponsible to limit a businesses ability to serve customers because they have nowhere to park. This can also put undo burden
An additional 10% doesn’t even come close to helping the debacle that is being proposed.
The number of bicycle parking requirements are far overreaching to begin with, but, asking to accommodate cargo bikes and trailer bikes is an overeach.
Can this be limited and exempt up to a threshold so that IDWR, Veolia Water, and planners are not inundated with approval letters for every new project on undeveloped land?
I believe more thought should be put into the formula for calculating how much signage is allowed for larger shopping centers to allow for more area and more than 1 EMD if it’s a larger cetner. Also 20 seconds is much too long for multiple users on a site, it should be much shorter but not so short that it is distracting to vehicular transporters. Surely there is some science on this subject.
Things like this do not make anything more affordable, and has anyone talked to Idaho Power about how they feel about landscaping growing close to their transformers?
I think the distance from predominantly single family is very subjective and should be removed, if the property is zoned it needs to have a clear direction of entitlement of allowed use. I think the distance from predominantly single family is very subjective and should be removed, if the property is zoned it needs to have a clear direction of entitlement of allowed use. Here in the definitions of drive through facility it states the issue I previously talked about with the Chick-Fil-A aerials with having the parking and drive through aisle on the same side of the building, it is poor design and not safe. Remove the requirement to not have any paved surfaces on the frontage of MX lots.
Shouldn’t materials be stored in yards that are required?
Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns for the future of Boise. I would enjoy the opportunity to get together again with you and your team to discuss possible solutions. Best regards,
Jason White Cc
Boise City Council (via email) Attn: Mayor Mclean lmclean@cityofboise.org Attn: Council Member Woodings hwoodings@cityofboise.org Attn: Council Member Bageant pbageant@cityofboise.org Attn: Council Member Hallyburton jhallyburton@cityofboise.org Attn: Council Member Willits lwillits@cityofboise.org
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 11:49 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Jana Dea Wickham Email janaallan48@gmail.com Address Boise, Idaho 83714 Comment If the City Council is going to re‐write the general plan, I vote that the City Council be disbanded and all zoning issues be submitted to the public for a vote. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 5:03 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Jeffrey Wilhelm Email jwilhelm@boisestate.edu Address 219 North Mobley Drive Comment I am writing in reference to applications ZOA23‐00001 and CPA23‐00001. I very much object to the very limited time given to the review of this project, particularly given the significant effects it will have on the complexion and livability of Boise. My understanding is that the time given to public comment and review has been greatly reduced in this case. The document is very long and difficult to read, and as an English professor, i must say that it is opaque and poorly written ‐ leading me to wonder if the writers do not want it to be understood. For example, The major terms used throughout the document are not consistently used and the document is full of unexplained terms, which are either not defined in the definition section or are not used in the ways that terms are defined. For example, using the term “Creative Housing Design” is neither a design nor a development standard. Creative housing design, therefore, is not a definable nor enforceable code standard for the design of buildings in R‐2 or R‐1C zones. It's distressing enough to live in the state of Idaho, where policies make war on our families and on diversity and where my own vote and voice counts for nothing in statewide elections. But Boise has also felt different to me . . . this ZCR, at least as I understand it in the very limited time given to me ‐ feels like it is being authoritatively imposed on me without any consideration for my concerns, values, hopes and commitments. I have grave concerns about intrusive uses, the rights of homeowners of modest means, the rights of the voters to be consulted and heard, and about who will benefit (developers?) and who will lose (those living in traditional neighborhoods). If this proposal is justifiable, then give it time to be discussed and justified. In Areopagitica, John Milton wrote that "truth was never bested by a bad argument, unless all arguments were not heard." Please do not shut down our democratic right to engage in dialogue about the issues that effect our everyday lives! I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 2:36 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Laura Williams Email lauraaprilwilliams@gmail.com Address Boise, ID 83706 Comment I'm writing in general support of the zoning code changes. I don't have time to dig through the hundreds of pages of proposed new code changes, but I know that the experts who have prepared it are doing it in the best interests of the city. I support increasing mixed use neighborhood hubs and increasing density in the right places which will increase housing supply. These changes are what will continue to make Boise a great place to live. We need a diversity of housing types to support housing attainability, and increasing density in infill neighborhoods will allow more of our citizens to easily get around by walking or on bike/scooter/etc... without causing vehicle congestion. I would love to see more small coffee shops, restaurants, grocery bodegas, etc around our neighborhood hubs. Thank you for the work you have all done to bring us into the current century for zoning! I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 8:50 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Barbara Winston‐Powell Email natash1016@aol.com Address 1010 N 17th St. Comment Mayor McLean & City Councilors: I am concerned with the Zoning Code Rewrite for a plethora of reasons. It will cause serious issues throughout the neighborhoods of Boise. Citizens will not be notified of allowed usages, height limitation for new structures will be removed from duplex, triplex, & fourplexes, and lot coverage limiting the size will be removed from duplex, triplex, and fourplex allowing units over 4,000sq. ft. What will become of our lovely neighborhoods? I have seen first hand what up‐zoning has done in larger cities. Historic bungalows have been torn down to make room for massive, unattractive structures that overshadow the neighboring homes. These are a few of the reasons I do not support the up‐zoning code rewrite. It will be a sad day in Boise if this up‐zoning code is approved. The charm of Boise will be lost. While there is a need for more affordable housing, this is not the answer. It seems to favor developers and not homeowners and renters. Yes renters!! Will affordable apartments even be built? Will a larger percentage of apartments be set aside for affordable housing? Right now streets in established neighborhoods are crowded with cars. Boise does not have the infrastructure to support the new code. In the last five years there has been a huge uptick in traffic. The solution of biking and using the city bus does not work for every citizen. Established, older neighborhoods already have parking issues. Where are all of these people going to park? This up‐zone code rewrite will damage this lovely city. A vast number of Boiseans are not supportive of the code, another vast number of Boiseans have no idea about it! Before this code is decided on, City Hall must do more to share all 600 pages about the code. Explain how this rewrite will impact neighborhoods: the negatives ‐ traffic, noise, & the feeling of being squeezed, as well as the positives ‐ affordable homes for all. Boiseans need more time to read through the code, be included in more discussions, and have questions answered. Be transparent. Too much is at large to rush the code rewrite decision. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, B. W. Powell If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 5:01 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Dinu Mistry Wolf Email dgmw5@hotmail.com Address 825 E Warm Springs Ave Comment Please extend the deadline for consideration of the new recommendations. This large document contains changes that will impact Historic neighborhoods like the one I live in. I understand that we must allow for growth, but we must work together to grow in such a way that we do not destroy the very things that have made Boise the desirable city that it is. Please allow more time for citizen input so we can build a livable Boise. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 13, 2023 8:18 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Megan Wong Dock Email meganwongdock@gmail.com Address 701 Bacon Drive Comment Hello, I strongly oppose any upzoning and code changes that the city is trying to push forward. Our little single family neighborhoods are what make this city so appealing. It would be detrimental to the quality of life for those of us in these neighborhoods to have a giant 4 story building peering down in our yards. In addition to this the public needs more time to read the documents you have presented. A minimum of 60 days. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Laura Woodall <lauranwoodall@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9:55 AM CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite; Mayor McLean [External] Reject Boise Upzoning
Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Laura Woodall 520 S Sierra Dr Boise ID 83705
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:12 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Sean Yingling Email syingling@gmail.com Address 1433 E Warm Springs Avenue, Boise, ID 83712 Comment The Warm Springs Historic District Association understands the need for updating City of Boise zoning policies. We believe that this must be done in a way that preserves our historic heritage and our grand neighborhood of Warm Springs. Among our unresolved concerns with the Boise Idaho Zoning Code Rewrite are the following: ‐ Reduced notification requirements for changes in our historic district ‐ High density construction that is inconsistent with historic building practices ‐ Increased demolition of existing homes that are part of our historic district Our board requests that an additional 60 days be made available for public review and comment on the latest version of this 600 page document. Please help address our concerns so that we can support this zoning policy update effort. Motion passed 9‐0 on 03/22/2023 by the The Warm Springs Historic District Association board Thank you, Sean Yingling, WSHDA President If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Wednesday, March 22, 2023 12:12 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Sean Yingling Email syingling@gmail.com Address 1433 E Warm Springs Avenue, Boise, ID 83712 Comment The Warm Springs Historic District Association understands the need for updating City of Boise zoning policies. We believe that this must be done in a way that preserves our historic heritage and our grand neighborhood of Warm Springs. Among our unresolved concerns with the Boise Idaho Zoning Code Rewrite are the following: ‐ Reduced notification requirements for changes in our historic district ‐ High density construction that is inconsistent with historic building practices ‐ Increased demolition of existing homes that are part of our historic district Our board requests that an additional 60 days be made available for public review and comment on the latest version of this 600 page document. Please help address our concerns so that we can support this zoning policy update effort. Motion passed 9‐0 on 03/22/2023 by the The Warm Springs Historic District Association board Thank you, Sean Yingling, WSHDA President If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 13, 2023 8:19 AM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Michael S. Young Email youngtractorbeam@gmail.com Address 416 W. O'Farrell Street Comment 22 days is an inadequate period of time to review this over 600 page document. This whole process seems rushed and a lot like an agressive PR campaign. The public notification efforts in this whole process seem lacking and less than above board and transparent. The City of Boise makes a lot of PR type claims about the Zoning Code Rewrite with few specifics to back up their statements. They say the've been listening to Boiseans for "3 years" on the "City of Boise" zoning‐code‐rewrite website. Other than a 20 person committee that was formed to provide input, they give few details (like dates they met with citizens) about this process in which they created the code rewrite that they are now sending to Planning and Zoning for a hearing. Sending this full color promo PR flyer with our City Utility bill, also seems pretty manipulative. I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Monday, March 20, 2023 2:05 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Richard M Young Email bkrafchuk8@gmail.com Address 3321 W Tucker Rd, Boise, Id 83703 Comment The proposed new zoning code for Boise is flawed and unfair. Boise has much to recommend it and increasing density, allowing bigger, higher construction while not protecting historic districts will certainly make our city less desirable! The list of flaws in this code rewrite is lengthy and allowing a comment period of only 22 days for public comment is unconscionable for such an impactful and complicated document. What is the hurry?!! I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Jeff Young <jyoung@yesco.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 4:18 PM ZoningRewrite [External] Input on Sign Ordinance: ZOA23-00001, and CPA23-00001
Good afternoon, My name is Jeff Young. We own and operate Young Electric Sign Company (known as YESCO). We have recently celebrated our 100th year of being in business and we have been in Boise for many decades. We have served thousands of customers in Boise and want to issue our support for the input given to you by James Carpentier of the International Sign Association. Here are some points I'd like to make:
Many of the small businesses and large businesses we support are struggling through this post Covid economy. Virtually all the businesses we know are struggling to obtain the necessary materials and goods to satisfy their customers Every business we talk to are having trouble finding qualified workers ‐ and have had to adjust services, products, and working hours. We are all very concerned about the potential of foreign conflict, and instability in the banking industry. We are all experiencing significant pressure with inflation. This is the worst possible time to apply more restrictions to the business community. We should be working to do whatever we can to support the local economy and HELP businesses, not HINDER them.
Additional thoughts:
Most of the concerns people have about electronic signs relate to brightness. If you were to adopt the .3 footcandle rule, and not adopt the conflicting brightness rules using NITs, it would make this code significantly easier to enforce. Hundreds of communities have adopted the .3 footcandle approach. There is no reason at all to force hold times of 20 seconds. MANY if not MOST of the communities we serve allow full animation for on premise signs. Everyone in the country supports 8 seconds for billboards. The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute has established rules for safe driving which emphasizes the safety threshold of TWO seconds. In other words, a driver shouldn't be looking away from the road for more than two seconds. Distracted driving is defined as a driver looking away from the road for more than two seconds. A federal study studied glance times at signs. While electronic signs had more views (got more attention) no glances in that study exceeded 2 seconds. It makes no sense to us and it will make no sense to virtually all our customers to restrict the number of electronic signs to one sign. Our customers invest in this technology, because it works ‐ and they need every tool to reach out and attract customers.
We look forward to spending more time in person discussing these important points, with hopes we can show our support for our economy and local businesses in Boise. Respectfully, Jeff Young 1
To help pr priv acy , M prev ented download from the In
Jeffrey S. Young 2401 South Foothill Drive Salt Lake City, UT 84109 801‐464‐4600 PHONE 801‐493‐7324 DIRECT #YESCO100
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Andrea Tuning Friday, March 10, 2023 2:33 PM ZoningRewrite; dszamzow@gmail.com FW: CSIM re Opposes Modern Zoning Code
Thank you for your comments, I am forwarding them onto the zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org email to be considered on the public record by our elected and appointed officials. If you have any future comments, please direct them to zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org. Thank you for your thoughts! From: Doug Zamzow <dszamzow@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 7:51 PM To: CommunityEngagement <CommunityEngagement@cityofboise.org> Subject: [External] Re: A modern zoning code for a resilient Boise I hate these zoning codes ‐ not good for long time residents. Get it together for US Boisiens! Not Happy Resident since 1951.
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
zarbdja@aol.com Tuesday, March 21, 2023 9:47 AM Mayor McLean; CityCouncil; Timothy Keane; zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001
March 21, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo @cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor McLean, City Council Members, and Planning and Zoning Commission: As a 42 year resident of this beautiful and unique "City of Trees," I finally feel enough frustration and angst to express concern to those of you in a decision making space about the Zone Code Rewrite Project. Please listen with your heart and ears to truly hear us... the public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which (as has been quickly explained to me) is an almost complete replacement of the codes that established Boise as a highly desirable place to live. I resent not having adequate time to peruse and comment thoughtfully on the code rewrite. I need more time to investigate and digest the impacts (large and small) contained within the document. Reportedly, only three weeks has been allowed by the City of Boise to submit comments that will used to inform the Project Report. As I understand it, the Project Report will contain staff analysis and be given to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In this incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative and ethically just that the public be able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens who have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. A timeline which feels as if it is limiting input (intentionally or unintentionally). Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – for example, rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for 1
tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. This is a daunting consideration. One that begs thoughtful consideration. Given the enormity of the decision ,and importance of the Project review document coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over a weekend. Under the current situation/timeline, that is all the time they will have for those public comments; ones that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline for public comment by no fewer than 90 days and preferably 180 days suggested by Federal guidelines. Sincerely, Dr. Julia A. Zarbnisky 3603 Mountain View Dr. Boise, ID 83704
2
My name is Gary Zimmerman and my family’s property is directly and negatively impacted by the proposed changes in the Zoning Code Rewrite. Below are my initial comments regarding the ZCR (ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001). When first hearing about the Zoning Code Rewrite (ZCR) a couple of years ago, I was hopeful that it would be beneficial to our neighborhood, our neighbors and our property. I was also hopeful that the City’s efforts to explain the ZCR to its residents would clearly explain what has changed, what the potential negatives and positives are of those changes, and why each of those changes are being sought. But instead, the City crafted far reaching changes with significant negative impacts for numerous property owners, and then went on what effectively was just a marketing campaign to push those changes through. A marketing campaign complete with scripted sessions with little room for honest, meaningful dialog; ads in our trash bills; and emails from the mayor. And now using all of this “window dressing” to say there was great resident participation. Not true. When new drafts were released, there was never a published list of what changed and why it changed relative to the prior Zoning Code and the prior draft. In fact, the City explicitly said in one of the drafts that it wouldn’t provide “differences”. Without this it is completely impractical for residents to understand the changes in a new Zoning Code and an updated Comprehensive Plan. Instead of just a marketing campaign, the city should be transparent about key changes that are beneficial to city planners and developers, but that they knew would likely be quite controversial outside of that small group. The City knows that when properties are bought, that those buying them rely upon the zoning to guide them in their purchase. The debacle the ZCR is creating is obviously damaging the value my family places in our property and the neighborhood. At a minimum, the City should individually talk with property owners who they know (or should know) have a high potential for negative impact from the changes in the ZCR. Avoiding these types of honest and frank discussions only goes to support one of Clarion’s early findings which was that the City has a trust problem – and that the City’s actions are further eroding trust. The best way to handle this complex of a change is to have the citizens involved in a voting capacity. First to determine how a zoning code rewrite will be done, and then to get alignment and visibility on key changes (sort of like school district residents voting to spend more for their schools). Requested Actions: • Please work with the public to have the ZCR be by the people for the people. Do this by being more transparent, and by reaching out to those who would be most impacted (work with Neighborhood Associations to do this). • Hold city-wide votes over the procedure for the ZCR and for its key changes. • Consider ways to implement over time to adjust for issues and the unanticipated. With this ZCR, what we now have in front of us is a revised Zoning Code that: • Strips power from the City’s residents • Punishes numerous Boise residents twice: first by upzoning their property (and more importantly that of their neighbors), and then expands what is allowed in that new zone. • Has rules for areas of upzone, but implements them arbitrarily
Zoning Code Rewrite Comments – Zimmerman – March 14, 2023
Page 1
•
Incents overbuilding (and in fact the Planning Director once said regarding overbuilding, for example, along the State Street Corridor, that he thought it was a good thing).
11-01-03.4 of the latest draft has one of the purposes of the Zoning Code to be: “Protect the character of residential, institutional, business, employment, and natural areas” Yet, I see our family’s property, and our neighborhood, not being protected at all. In fact, our neighbors could become Neighborhood Café’s that serve alcohol! Or maybe a prison release halfway house, or perhaps a transit facility. That isn’t protecting the residential character of our current R-1C zoning! And, the current 5,000 sq.ft. minimum R-1C lot will become just 2,500 sq.ft. as it is upzoned to R-2 and not only that, as upzoned to R-2 there is no longer any density maximum! And our new R-2 neighbors can be 45 feet tall and 4 stories high!! This isn’t protecting the residential character of our residential neighborhood either. Then consider the new MX-3 zone along State Street directly abutting the now upzoned R-1C (to R-2) single family, mostly single level homes. These wonderful neighbors of ours may now find themselves with a 70-foot-high building next to them. And with only a 5-foot setback! This is because R-1A/B/C properties up-zoned to R-2 no longer are protected at all by the latest draft’s provisions for Neighborhood Transition Standards” (section 11-04-03.5) because they have now been made R-2. Stop this madness! Requested Actions: • Apply “Neighborhood Transition Standards” to not only adjacent to R-1A/B/C zones but also adjacent to previously zoned R-1A/B/C properties which the ZCR upzones to R-2. • Ensure these Neighborhood Transition Standards have the practical effect of limiting height increase between Mixed Use, Industrial, and Open Land zoned properties, and the R-1A/B/C and newly upzoned R-2, to a maximum one-story step-up between properties. Meaning a single level home on a residential lot cannot have a 3 or 4 story building built next to it. And a 2-story home cannot have a 4-story building next to it, etc.
And to explain the upzone from R-1C to R-2 the City said in a previous draft that only R-1A/B/C properties “Within 1/8 mile of centerline from a Best-in- Class Transit Route” would be included in the proposed upzone to R-2. But the proposed ZCR isn’t even abiding by this. For example, our R-1C lot only partially touches that 1/8 mile designation as does two of our adjacent neighbors. Yet, the City is forcing all of these into R-2. And, without a specific hearing for these errors and inconsistencies. This arbitrary application of the 1/8 mile zone for up-zoning can be seen clearly in the following graphic which shows how the SW side of State only applies the up-zone to properties fully within the 1/8 mile zone, but that those on the NE side are arbitrarily added to the up-zone while others that are fully within the zone are not included.
Zoning Code Rewrite Comments – Zimmerman – March 14, 2023
Page 2
Requested Action: While not upzoning any R-1 properties to R-2 is a preferred path forward, please, at a minimum, remove the three starred properties in the above graphic from the R-2 up-zone. Also consistently implement all upzones whether R-1 to R-2, or upzones to MX-3 or MX-4, etc. These inconsistencies have already been called to the attention of the Planning Director.
And while not fitting the traditional definition of a taking, the City surely understands that they are taking intrinsic value residents derive from the current character of their neighborhood by upzoning properties. In turn they are encouraging uses which today would be considered incompatible and not allowed. Over time, this will ultimately force our family and our neighbors out of our properties as developers decide to displace the actual “traditional residential” uses with everything from recovery residences to food trucks to mausoleums. This will result in many lower income residents being displaced.
So, the latest draft, which doesn’t even follow the City’s own rationale and guide for upzoning residential properties to R-2, now seeks to give a double whammy to those residents who shouldn’t even be upzoned by forcing them into a denser and more permissive zone, and by then making that zone itself still denser, taller, and more permissive!
Zoning Code Rewrite Comments – Zimmerman – March 14, 2023
Page 3
Although many of these new permitted uses in residential zones, that developers may be salivating over, require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), it should be obvious that the City has made it very easy for CUPs to be approved. They can simply claim the approvals are for the public benefit. And, the latest draft even twists what a Conditional Use is by saying (emphasis added): “Conditional Use Permit application is evaluated as to its potential to have a positive effect on adjacent properties and surrounding areas, among other factors, and may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on the findings of the decision-making body” This description is misleading at best as it is clear the uses are conditional because they are likely to have negative impacts and incompatibilities with properties in the vicinity. And while its admirable for a conditional use to strive to have a positive impact upon surrounding properties, it is totally unclear how this is measured, other than by showing a negative impact. Requested Action: Change the language in 11-03-01(3)(C) to transparently describe that a Conditional Use Permit is about whether negative impacts may be mitigated and by what conditions, if any.
Once a resident’s neighbors are upzoned to R-2 per the proposed ZCR, in addition to most R-1C uses, their property may now, as R-2, be developed into the following uses that are not permitted in even the new more permissive versions of R-1A/B/C, either as allowed by right or by conditional use: Previous R-1C neighbors who are now R-2 can by right, with simple administrative approval and little ability for public input, create the following: • • • • • • • •
A 45’ high, 4 story apartment building Accessory food truck Neighborhood Café serving alcohol Sidewalk Café Boarding House Park & Ride Facility Transit Facility Retail Sales less than 2,000 sq.ft.
And with a Conditional Use permit the following: • Adult or Child Day Care Center of 13-25 persons • Mortuary or Mausoleum • Assisted Living Facility • Continuing Care Retirement Facility • Convalescent or Nursing Home • Fraternity or Sorority House • Recovery Residence (which broadly could include mental health facility, drug recovery, prison release, domestic violence shelter, etc.).
Zoning Code Rewrite Comments – Zimmerman – March 14, 2023
Page 4
Most, if not all of these uses, would be deemed by residents as inconsistent with neighborhood character and negatively impactful to their use and enjoyment of their property. As highlighted before, this latest draft says, as a purpose, this new code is to “Protect the character of residential, institutional, business, employment, and natural areas” It is hard to see how having a frat house, a prison release halfway house, or neighborhood café serving alcohol, would preserve the character of previously R-1C zoned residential areas, or any other residential area. Nor how 45-foot-high apartments on small 2,500 sq. ft. lots will protect the residential character either. And as mentioned, this latest draft makes it very easy for these Conditional Uses, or modifications to them, to be approved. It consolidates power in only a few people within the City, while limiting the Public’s ability to be heard, and to challenge what is built around them. In reading Chapter 11-05 on procedures in the latest draft, it is striking just how much power the City has in making these decisions on Conditional Uses. In 11-05-05.3(C)(3)(a), which discusses requirements for approving a CUP, softens previous language requiring compatibility with existing uses in the general neighborhood, and instead uses vague language that would be hard to disprove such as “the location is uniquely suited to accommodate the proposed use”. I fear that Applicant’s will simply say this is the case, and if the City wants the project to be approved, they will simply agree! Additionally, language which used to be fairly straightforward that a use will not adversely impact other property in the vicinity is now very watered down (emphasis added): “The proposed use will not create any material negative impacts to uses in the surrounding area, or any material negative impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable, or the public benefits of the proposed use outweigh any material negative impacts of the proposed use that cannot be mitigated;” This allows a use that has large negative impacts on properties in the surrounding area to be approved by mitigating those impacts only to “the maximum extent practicable” (which can include consideration of economic impact to the Applicant of mitigating impacts), or by the City simply saying the “public benefits” of the use are bigger than some neighbors or a neighborhood, etc., being impacted. And guess who gets to decide what is “public benefit” in these cases, the Planning Director. This is a clear abuse of power. Requested Action: Restore the language in current code criteria for approving a CUP.
Also, in the latest draft it is completely up to the Planning Director to determine what is a Minor Modification or Major Modification to a CUP. The Planning Director can unilaterally decide that a very impactful change to a CUP is a minor modification, and that determination cannot be appealed. See 1105-04.7(B)(1)(b)(i)(A)(vi) which allows the Planning Director to unilaterally determine what constitutes a Minor Modification, and 11-05-04.7(B)(1)(c)(iii) which further states that the Planning Director’s decision
Zoning Code Rewrite Comments – Zimmerman – March 14, 2023
Page 5
on what is a Minor Modification is not appealable. And, of course, according to 11-05-04.7(B)(1)(a)(iii) the Planning Director also gets to decide approval. And I am further concerned that the ZCR still doesn’t address that a CUP Applicant can go to Design Review and submit plans that should be considered a Major Expansion without that aspect of the CUP ever being considered simply because the Applicant themselves did not raise to Planning and Zoning (or other appropriate body) that they were increasing the footprint, etc., to that degree. Requested Action: • There needs to be greater oversight of the Planning Director’s decision-making authority. Perhaps by allowing appeals to council of determination of Major vs Minor Modification (and its approval). • Design Review must not be used as an adhoc way to push through Major Expansions. It must be Planning and Zoning’s and the Director’s duty to catch those situations and have them go through the Major Expansion process. And failure to do so, should be appealable in all procedures (such as Design Review) to PZC and/or City Council.
As previously mentioned, public input has been severely limited. Previously the Neighborhood Association would typically have the same amount of time as the Applicant to present at a Hearing, but now that is potentially limited to only 5 minutes! Requested Action: Restore Neighborhood Association presentation time at a hearing to be at least as long as the Applicant’s presentation time at the same hearing.
With all these issues, I am extremely concerned that the City’s push to adopt the ZCR bypasses the rights of residents to have a reasonable and fair process which explicitly involves each of the impacted citizens including their chance for an independent hearing on zoning changes to their properties. The City is neither being transparent nor fully honest with its residents in their push for approval and their assertion of level of meaningful public involvement. Further the ZCR creates dramatic and potentially damaging changes for thousands of residents, without those changes being explicitly and clearly raised to the potentially impacted parties. When residents, such as myself and family, purchase property, we do so taking in good faith that the property’s zoning and that of neighboring properties defines how those properties can be used. And, in doing so, determine that it will be a reasonable fit for one’s quiet enjoyment. This ZCR destroys that faith and trust, along with residents expectations for quiet enjoyment of their properties Please, please stop the clock on this process and take real, meaningful steps to make this a Zoning Code by the People and for the People. Allow the citizens to vote on key process for changing the Code as well as key provisions that new Code will change. Further look to how Code changes can be implemented over time such that the City and its residents can better adjust and adapt as issues are discovered. Thank you.
Zoning Code Rewrite Comments – Zimmerman – March 14, 2023
Page 6
Best Regards, Gary Zimmerman Plum St, Boise, ID 83703
Zoning Code Rewrite Comments – Zimmerman – March 14, 2023
Page 7
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:
Gary Zimmerman <gary@z.to> Tuesday, March 14, 2023 4:04 PM zoninginfo; ZoningRewrite [External] Comments on Zoning Code Rewrite (ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001) ZCR Zimmerman Comments on Adoption Draft 14mar2023.pdf
Dear Planning and Zoning, Attached are my comments on the latest adoption draft of the Zoning Code Rewrite (ZOA23-00001 and CPA23-00001). I appreciate your time in reviewing these comments as well as the many other you are likely to receive. Best Regards, Gary Zimmerman Plum St, Boise
1
March 21, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The goals of this document reads as if this rewrite will improve the life of everyone who lives in Boise and anyone who wants to live in Boise. Goal 2. Bring about coordinated and efficient development that encourages affordable and fair housing, stimulates economic opportunity, and promotes diverse, inclusive communities with a variety of housing choices for residents; As long has Boise still includes areas divided into with large areas of small lots and even larger areas of large lots, they are not promoting diverse inclusive communities. Boise will still be segregated into the “large lot” people and the “small lot” people. A modern zoning code should not continue to cause segregation by promoting the old-time idea of living in a neighborhood where all your neighbors have single family homes on the same size lots, with the same green lawn and are all of the same financial status. These are not diverse, inclusive communities. The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611-page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written
testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report.
Sincerely,
Denise Zimmerman
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 5:47 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Denise B Zimmerman Email dez_1958@yahoo.com Address 4375 W PLUM ST Comment The goals of this document reads as if this rewrite will improve the life of everyone who lives in Boise and anyone who wants to live in Boise. Goal 2. Bring about coordinated and efficient development that encourages affordable and fair housing, stimulates economic opportunity, and promotes diverse, inclusive communities with a variety of housing choices for residents; As long has Boise still includes areas divided into with large areas of small lots and even larger areas of large lots, they are not promoting diverse inclusive communities. Boise will still be segregated into the “large lot” people and the “small lot” people. A modern zoning code should not continue to cause segregation by promoting the old‐time idea of living in a neighborhood where all your neighbors have single family homes on the same size lots, with the same green lawn and are all of the same financial status. These are not diverse, inclusive communities. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. /media/forms/upload/form_9e949d7c‐a1bc‐422f‐b562‐023f2fc3a54c/7e8d1405‐ecd6‐4438‐8201‐ 2aa4f7fe75a8/zimmermanzoningcomments.pdf I am not a robot
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
noreply@cityofboise.org Tuesday, March 21, 2023 2:50 PM ZoningRewrite A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted: Name Larry Zitelli Email Address Comment March 21, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23‐00001 & CPA23‐00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well‐ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule‐change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. 1
Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report.
Sincerely,
Larry Zitelli If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
2
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Larry Zitelli <zitellillc@gmail.com> Wednesday, March 22, 2023 8:50 AM ZoningRewrite Re: Automatic reply: [External] Zoning Code Rewrite
I believe that our appointed and elected public servants are just that. Public servants that are paid to work for the public. However, do most of our elected and appointed public servants put the official label" on themselves while working for investors and developers? That is what I see from their decisions.
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 2:49 PM ZoningRewrite <ZoningRewrite@cityofboise.org> wrote: Thank you for emailing the City of Boise about the new zoning code ordinance (ZOA23‐0001 & CPA23‐0001). Your message has been added to the public record for our appointed and elected officials to review. For more information visit cityofboise.org/zoning‐code‐rewrite
1
Andrea Tuning From: Sent: To: Subject:
Larry Zitelli <zitellillc@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 21, 2023 2:49 PM ZoningRewrite [External] Zoning Code Rewrite
March 21, 2023 To: mayormclean@cityofboise.org, citycouncil@cityofboise.org, tkeane@cityofboise.org, zoninginfo@cityofboise.org, zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org Re: Zoning Code Rewrite Public Comment for ZOA23-00001 & CPA23-00001 Dear Mayor, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission: The public has not been given adequate time to read, analyze, and comment meaningfully on the 611 page Zoning Code Rewrite, which are an almost complete replacement of the laws that, for the last half century, have established Boise as a highly desirable place to call home. The City of Boise is allowing only three weeks to submit comments by the March 22 deadline – the date that must be met for public testimony to be included in the Project Report. The Project Report will contain the staff analysis, and be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their review well-ahead of the later public hearings. In an incredibly complex rule-change, it is imperative that the public is able to have their comments included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. After all, the City only released its final version of its Zoning Code Rewrite on February 28, 2023 – a document that does not show the numerous changes from the last draft released in October of 2022. This timeline has even put citizens that have carefully followed the process at an extraordinary disadvantage. Federal guidelines call for up to 180 days of public comment for rule changes that may have a large impact. The proposed changes to the Zoning Code Rewrite may lead to the most significant impacts many Boise residents will ever experience near their homes – rules that range from new allowances for alcohol serving commercial establishments within residential zoning districts, for tall apartment buildings next to single family homes, and even landfills within city limits. Given the enormity of the decision coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the week of April 23, it is essential that these volunteer public servants are able to consider written testimony for more than a few days over the weekend. Nonetheless, that is all the time they will have for those public comments that simply cannot be meaningfully submitted by the extremely short deadline of March 22. Please extend the timeline so that the public has at least 90 days to read, analyze, and write comments that will be included in the Zoning Code Rewrite Project Report. Sincerely, Larry Zitelli
1