Madison Lockhorn
From: randialbrechtsen <randi.albrechtsen@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 3:32 PM
To: Mayor McLean; Timothy Keane; ZoningRewrite; zoninginfo; CityCouncil
Subject: [External] delay zoning code rewrite vote
Dear Mayor, City Council and P and Z,
I am requesting that the vote on the zoning rewrite be delayed until the next City Council is elected and seated by geographic district in november 2023.
2 of the 6 members of the current council were not elected by public vote.
The effects of these proposed zoning changes will be significant and permanent. More time for public input is crucial.
Upzoning isn not right for Boise and I reject the code as currently proposed.
Respectfully,
Randi Beth Albrechtsen
1209 E Washington St, Boise, ID 83712
East End Historic District homeowner for 15 years.
COMMENTS & ADDITIONS – from Boise Heights Neighborhood Board
To Planning & Zoning Commission
ADOPTION DRAFT, BOISE CITY ZONING CODE REWRITE - April 13, 2023
Dear Staff and Commissioners: We know the moderniza�on of our City Code is a monumental undertaking. A number of us atended the workshops and appreciate the �me and detailed process of this undertaking.
We support the general direc�on and most of the revised or new standards that allow Boise to grow as a viable and dynamic City. We ask you to consider adop�ng the following sugges�ons to make the modern code the best it can be. Thank you.
Chapter 11-02 ZONING DISTRICTS – Overlay Districts
On page 106, under 11-02-07.3, Sensi�ve Lands Overlay Districts, (e)
Suggested Addi�on - as a rewrite:
“Performance Monitoring”
(e) The Applicant shall monitor the performance of constructed enhancements for a minimum period of 18 months a�er road and infrastructure construc�on is completed on the project’s final phase. Unless otherwise fixed by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
i. If a Subdivision, CUP or PUD project involves a mul�-year buildout, enhancement performance evalua�ons shall be performed 18 months a�er each plat sec�on is submited as Final; or, 18 months a�er an enhancement’s construc�on is complete.
ii. On sensi�ve lands permited on slopes greater than 15 percent, enhancements shall be monitored for two (2) calendar years.
Acceptable performance shall be judged by comparing measured values to standards that were previously agreed upon.
Intent: there are mul� year or mul�-decade projects approved requiring with a buildout horizon of 10, 20 or more years. CUPs, PUDs or subdivisions on subject sensi�ve lands that require mul�ple plats or sequen�al phasing require review of enhancements such as drainage ponds, drain tunnels, open space enhancements, connec�ng trails or walkways, and retaining wall for suitability and successful implementa�on.
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS-O: Hillside Development Overlay
Ques�on on Procedures for Hillside Developments:
On page 117, under 11-02-07, “Hillside Development Permits”
G. (3) under (C), “Category 3 Permits” in which PUDS, Preliminary Plats or grading involving modifica�on of approved topography beyond that allowed under Categories 1 and 2,”
While we understand the steps and procedures for Pre-Project and Concept reviews outlined under 1105-04, “Common Procedures,” as written on page 359 the draft states::
Decisions
(1) Purpose
1. 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. (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
What BHNA board members do not understand in reading both above sections is the use of the word “or” in Type 3 decisions, on page 359: “Unless modified by another provision of this Code, Type 3 applica�ons are reviewed and decisions made by an appointed City Official or Commission.”
Does this mean that an official, such as the Public Works Director or a Planning and Development Services Director, can issue a Category 3 Hillside Permit without the involvement of Planning and Zoning Commissioners. We don’t believe the dra� intends to streamline hillside permits that are mul�ple lot on hillside topography. This also appears to conflict with the Chapter 11-05 administsra�on and decision procedures matrix Table, pages 326-327. Our understanding is that Planning and Zoning Commission always is a required decision maker in Category 3 permits.
On page 118, under sec�on 11-02-07.3.G(5) (“Hillside Development Standards”), the following should be inserted as new subsec�ons A. and B. under Subsec�on (5)(a)(ix), which mandates “pedestrian access to and through the project”:
A. Each subdivision plat shall specify the loca�on and alignment within the project of pedestrian access to and through the project, public pedestrian and/or bicycle trails, and the access corridors to these from public streets or other trail systems. Within six months a�er construc�on is commenced to install any street, sidewalk, sewer or water infrastructure for any project subject to these condi�ons, pedestrian access to and through the project, and public access to trails, and trails themselves, shall be constructed. These trails and connec�ons shall be secured through dedica�on, easement or other binding and permanent mechanism.
B. It is the intent of this condi�on 5(a)(ix)(A) and (B) that all purchasers of lots, dwellings, or other property interests within the project shall have no�ce, by means of the relevant recorded plat, easement or similar instrument, and by means of their physical existence, of
the pedestrian access, trails, pathways, and/or public easements within and connec�ng to the project. Trailheads and access corridors from any public street shall be clearly marked and sufficiently wide to make the access way obvious to pedestrians and to allow their contained pathways to be reasonably separated from any dwelling or other structure on adjacent plated lots.
Suggested addi�on 2:
On page 230, under sec�on 11-04-05.6(5)(b) (“Standards for Trails”), the following should be inserted as new subsec�ons 11-04-05.6(5)(b)(v) and (vi):
v. Each subdivision plat shall specify the loca�on and alignment within the project of pedestrian access to and through the project, public pedestrian and/or bicycle trails, and the access corridors to these from public streets or other trail systems. Within six months a�er construc�on is commenced to install any street, sidewalk, sewer or water infrastructure for any project subject to these condi�ons, pedestrian access to and through the project, and public access to trails, and trails themselves, shall be constructed. These trails and connec�ons shall be secured through dedica�on, easement or other binding and permanent mechanism.
vi. It is the intent of this condi�on 5(b) that all purchasers of lots, dwellings, or other property interests within the project shall have no�ce, by means of the relevant recorded plat, easement or similar instrument, and by means of their physical existence, of the pedestrian access, trails, pathways, and/or public easements within and connec�ng to the project. Trailheads and access corridors from any public street shall be clearly marked and sufficiently wide to make the access way obvious to pedestrians and to allow their contained pathways to be reasonably separated from any dwelling or other structure on adjacent plated lots.
On page 118 and page 123 under Hillside Development Standards, concerning bond and surety agreements, sec�on (5) x.
Suggested Addi�on. Insert, a�er first sentence now ending with … “is required to enable restora�on of the site if the project is not completed as approved.”:
Per (C), Revegeta�on and Erosion Control Standards, the surety performance bond on a Hillside project shall not be released and returned to applicant for hillside revegeta�on performance un�l two years, including two spring-autumn cycles, a�er any plan�ng or revegeta�on effort.
[This intent of this sec�on is to recognize that a minimum of two growing seasons are needed in steep and dry foothills environments to evaluate if a revegeta�on plan succeeds and meets the 80% coverage standard.]
Alternative note, the above language on release of paid performance bonds instead might be inserted on page 122-123 under (h) Inspec�on and Enforcement as a separate sentence referencing revegeta�on.
3.H WUI-O Wildland Urban Interface Overlay page. 127
Overall, Boise Heights supports adding the Wildland Urban Interface Fire code into the City of Boise building code rewrite. Boise Heights has been a Firewise Cer�fied Neighborhood Since 2018. Our neighborhood has avidly par�cipated in the Boise Chipper program and has removed tons of flammable vegeta�on from our neighborhood. The new building code as writen will ensure that all new homes or major remodels will be built and landscaped with Firewise principles thus making the exis�ng neighborhood more fire safe.
However, here are two areas in the WUI overlay code that could use some improvement/clarifica�on/addi�ons concerning fencing and street ligh�ng.
WUI Code Dra� Areas Needing Clarifica�on
Fencing page 127
This sec�on on fencing needs some clarifica�on. We do not think the purpose of this is for areas like Boise Heights or Quail Ridge, that have undeveloped open space, to be required to have 6 � tall fences in backyards. Most homes in both Boise Heights and the adjacent Sommerset neighborhoods do not have backyard fences, or they have short wrought iron type metal fences with wide spacing for open views. These types of fences do not seem to interfere with deer and wildlife habitat in our neighborhoods.
Dra� Code needs clarifica�on. page 127
This section of code, as written, sounds like 6 foot fences are required:
(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.
Flammable Fencing – a standard? page 127 – the language or intent may be unclear. Having participated in Firewise Activities, we are familiar with cedar-sided fences or wood rail and other flammable fencing (plus railroad tie walls) turning into a ‘ladder of fire‘ that can rapidly bring destructive wildfire uphill to structures. Some of us have helped fight fires near and under wood fences and railroad tie rear yard walls. It would be wise to prohibit flammable fencing in the WUI.
We note that in proposed Blue Print Boise, there is this commendable goal/standard:
“Goal SHCC1: Minimize the degree of risk to life and property from wildfire.
SHCC1.1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Implement development standards such as a mi�ga�on measures matrix, access standards, noncombus�ble roofs, sprinklers, clear space, and other measures in areas prone to wildfire.” [highlight added.]
We concur with this development standard. We suggest that the words “non-flammable fencing materials” be inserted here and in the Zoning Ordinance so that there is agreement that such fencing becomes a required and suitable ‘other measure’ in the City’s risk areas. (We’re mindful that a Paradise, California type disaster could occur across the Boise front or along Amity Road – high desert WUI area.)
Street Lighting in the WUI - please add a section in the code on Street lighting in the WUI
There should be an additional section on the Wildland Urban Interface Overlay that address proper street lighting for this sensitive area. It is important to have proper streetlights that do not disturb wildlife and that do not cause light trespass to uphill neighbors. In the past, Historic type streetlights were installed in the adjacent Somerset neighborhood and in Somerset Village. For many years they were a problem for neighbors and wildlife until they were changed out. Putting this in code will ensure that problem lights will never get installed in the first place.
11-04
Development and Design Standards, starting on page194
11-04-011 Exterior lighting, page 298
Background: Overall, Boise Heights supports the exterior lighting code included in the Draft Boise City Code Rewrite. Dark Sky Compliant lighting as described in the draft code ensures the health of the wildlife that share our foothills neighborhood as well as preserving the somewhat Dark Sky character that we currently have. Although much of Boise’s dark sky character has been lost in the last 20 years, the draft code will assist in Dark Sky preservation in the future. The Commission and the public should understand that some portions of the Boise foothills are important night flyways (routes) for bird flocks/species that migrate at night.
On p 298, we suggest one change to section 11-04-01: We suggest changing watt language to lumens because wattage is a measure of energy use, not luminary brightness. A 100-watt LED bulb would be very bright. Please adopt the suggestion below:
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 1,600 lumens or less in Residential zoning districts;
11-05-07 VIOLATIONS, ENFORCEMENT and PENALTIES: Code Enforcement – When and How?
Minimum suggested by Boise Heights NA
Background: Boise Heights residents and other foothills neighborhoods have years of experience with Code Compliance regarding un-cut high grasses, invasive weed growth and unmaintained drains in WUI overlay lands. We’re aware of and support the other zoning provisions requiring developments and their successor owners to maintain and repair retaining walls and subdivision drainage features, especially for stormwater runoff.
Under Defini�ons (page 492) regarding untended vegeta�on, the proposed code states:
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;
Our representa�ves have reviewed the related 11-05-07 Sec�on, from pages 435 to 439, concerning Viola�ons, Enforcement and Penal�es. Specifically, we are concerned about the �melines in this sec�on and for future provision for enforcement and penal�es on uncut, high vegeta�ve growth that pose a fire hazard to exis�ng residences and to the City in general. And in our experience, ponds and drains that have not been maintained near us and in other neighborhoods backed up, and became extremely weedy. This high, overgrown vegeta�on later dries out and poses a fire hazard,
Under exis�ng city code, we’ve experienced that the past City viola�on prac�ces have been:
a. Complaint is received or a viola�on is discovered.
b. Subject area is inspected; if a viola�on is found, then the hazard viola�on is writen up, a sign is posted at the site and the landowner by is no�fied via Cer�fied Mail.
c. Landowner had two calendar weeks to remove/abate the nuisance/hazardous grass and weed growth.
d. If the landowner failed to abate, the City would hire a service to cut down the weeds and grasses and bill the landowner for the cost of the service.
This prac�ce effec�vely meant there was no meaningful financial incen�ve to comply with the law in a �mely manner during summer, dry seasons and properly reduce hazards. The City would get the work done but only a�er significant non-compliance, and then simply bill the landowner who was in viola�on. There is currently no penalty for each day past the date given to comply. (Other municipal jurisdic�ons in the U.S. levy significant fines per day for each day of failure to comply.) On some occasions, a landowner claimed a service was coming to do the abatement but was delayed, thus stretching the en�re abatement solu�on out several weeks. The compliance officer believed the landowner and had no method of enforcement.
Commissioners:
The current proposed language for penal�es (page 438) is:
“4 A. General Penalties, Boise Heights Neighborhood Assn, Dra� Zoning Code Ordinance
(3) Any person who violates any provision of this Code shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.”
• The current proposed language is not clear as to whether each day of sequen�al lack of compliance is a separate viola�on.
• Addi�onally, the language of a fine of “not more than” allows for discre�on by the City official.
• We instead suggest minimums be adopted for uncut vegeta�ve fire hazards and other properly no�ced viola�ons in the WUI (or, city-wide). A sugges�on is: at least $300 per day of viola�on, at a minimum.
Zoning Code Compliance Officers – Direc�on, Management, Exper�se needed
Boise Heights NA understands that Code Compliance func�ons were streamlined and moved to the City’s Department of Finance some �me ago. We are unsure this structure had the desired results. We see that there’s many types of needed code compliance or oversight in Boise ranging from downtown noise levels, or day care standards, to stacking of wood pallets on a business property to the sensi�ve foothills /WUI for unabated high weeds or unmaintained drainage ponds and culverts.
We suggest that the City hire more zoning code compliance officers and that a logical division (subset) of them should be based in the Planning Department. These officers would have per�nent subject mater experience, such as plant or soil science knowledge, fire preven�on, planning and zoning or development exper�se. These subject mater specialists could beter inves�gate and enforce code compliance ques�ons. [Other city code officers would have exper�se in health and welfare regula�on for issues such as day care facility licensing.]
Foothills and River/Riparian Exper�se in Public Works and Planning Departments
Similarly, we hope you and the City Council concur that subject mater experts are needed -professionals with backgrounds in foothills development, river system-riparian treatments and soils engineering . These plannerss or engineering staff should be available in both the Planning and Development Services and in the Public Works Departments to review proposed developments. And work with the new interdepartmental mee�ngs that will take place on major applica�ons. Long term (decades long in some cases) and phased developments such as Harris Ranch, Syringa or Somerset Ridge I - II also would benefit from having this kind of staffing in-house.
We appreciate the chance to participate and recommend improvements to this vital update process for Blueprint Boise and for the Zoning Code Rewrite.
Sincerely, Boise Heights Neighborhood Associa�on Board of Directors
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 8:03 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
Lorraine Byerly
Email pokyandgumbi@msn.com
Address Boise ID 83703
Comment
Regardless of which side you are on for how we need to fix Boise’s housing crisis, or otherwise suit the needs of the future, the proposed zoning regulations, take away the right, completely, of individuals to have a voice and say in all future zoning issues. Additionally, building low income high‐rise apartments next to bus stations and homeless shelters is exactly what was the make up of ghettos that people have spent the last 60 years undoing. There are a lot of people moving to Boise, who need places to live but nothing should give them the right to replace the people who have been here and paid taxes for a lifetime. There is nothing wrong with those people moving to more outlying places to live, except it dries up the tax base that Boise wants to up to use for other projects that have nothing to do with zoning homes or homelessness. The proposed change in zoning will make it like the places of Seattle and Portland, because that ideology followed in rezoning Boise came from those places. The rezoning plan gets my resounding no vote because it benefits no one, but the city of Boise government and out‐of‐state developers.
If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
From: cecollins@q.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 2:48 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Boise Upzone
This would ruin alot of our quality of life.
From: hollie.kathleen@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Hollie Conde <hollie.kathleen@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 10:26 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Vote Yes on the Zoning Code Rewrite
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,
I am writing to express my support for the Zoning Code Rewrite. The sustainability, affordability, and open space protections included in the new zoning code rewrite are exactly what Boise needs to plan for and address our rapid growth.
Growth is inevitable, and we need a modern zoning code to ensure we are following the best practices to grow sustainably and responsibly. It has been clear that Boise City Staff have put in the effort to make an inclusive and extensive community input process to develop the zoning code our city needs and deserves.
Specifically, I appreciate that this zoning code protects our green spaces, improves our tree canopy, incentivizes energy and water efficiency, allows for smart and targeted density, removes unnecessary parking space minimums, protects pollinators, and makes our communities more walkable and bikeable.
I think there is always room for growth and tweaks within the code, but I strongly encourage the Planning and Zoning Commission to support this zoning code rewrite that staff and residents have spent so much time and effort to shape.
Sincerely, Ms. Hollie Conde 2906 S Abbs Ln Boise, ID 83705‐4198 hollie.kathleen@gmail.com
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 11:35 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
Steve Cozine
Email Cosine222@gmail.com
Address Boise, ID 83704
Comment
Please leave our R1‐C neighborhoods alone. People moved here because Boise was a nice liveable city with beautiful friendly neighborhoods. Not the crowded mess that this code will bring. Do not change the front setback to 20ft. A 30ft setback allows people to park front of their house and not block the sidewalk. 20ft will force cars on the streets. It is a horribly shortsighted to plan for a future that does not include cars. Think to your own experiences of the stress of coming home late and trying to find a parkspot everyday. That is not a lifestyle we should strive to create. Covid showed us the future is not biking to work but investing in your home that you work from. Many citizens recreate outside of city limits there will never be a bus route to support the life style that Idaho offers. The R1‐C rewrite will destroy neighborhoods, irreversibly hamper Boise in future, and benefit only those willing to sell and move onto the next property and eventually city. Not the families investing in a place to raise their family. How can anyone invest in their property when tomorrow they can be flanked on all sides by 4 rentals per lot. We need predictably. These areas are zoned single family dueling for a reason. People need space to breath, relax, and grow roots. I ask again please leave the single family neighborhoods alone. If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 5:55 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
Samuel Dahlin
Email dahlinsm@gmail.com
Address Boise, ID 83703
Comment
I want to express my support for this zoning code rewrite. I think it is important to add density, where appropriate, to our community, to accommodate the additional demand of housing in the area and help keep housing varied and affordable for all.
If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
Madison Lockhorn
From: East End Boise <eastendboise@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 9:08 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Zoning Code Rewrite Letter from EENA
East End Neighborhood Association
Mayor Lauren McLean; Boise City Council; Boise Planning and Zoning Commission
150 North Capital Blvd.
Boise, Idaho 83702
Subject: Zoning Code Rewrite: Adoption Draft
Dear Mayor McLean, Council Members, and Commissioners:
During our monthly meeting on March 28, 2023, the East End Neighborhood Association (EENA) board approved a motion to request additional time and information necessary for reviewing the Boise Zoning Code Rewrite: Adoption Draft.
The board appreciates the time and energy necessary to present the Draft and lay the groundwork for exceptional progress within our city. However, due to both its substantial length and significant changes from previous drafts, we have the following requests in accordance with the adopted East End Neighborhood Plan and the inclusionary nature of its Neighborhood Planning Principle:
1. Additional Draft - given the significant changes between the October 2022 and February 2023 Drafts, the lack of clear effects - if any - to the city’s Historical Preservation Guidelines and the adopted East End Neighborhood Plan, and the omission of changes to the Review and Decision Procedure, the board requests that the city provides an additional Zoning Code Rewrite Draft for public review that provides increased clarity to these areas of concern.
a. Draft Changes - all drafts and changes to them require additional documentation.
i. Change Log - as is customary, the board requests that these changes be highlighted and summarized between all drafts.
ii. Versioning - likewise, the board requests that all drafts include their publication date and version number on each page.
2. 180-Day Review Period - having only just been able to perform Step 2. Neighborhood Meeting due to a lack of accordance with the Boise Code of Ordinances: TITLE 11 DEVELOPMENT CODE - 11-03-04: SPECIFIC PROCEDURES - 11-03.3 Rezone Procedure on 3/29/2023 and given the length of the prospective Draft, the board requests a period of 180 days in order to sufficiently review a document of such magnitude. This time is necessary to allow adequate public participation at the neighborhood level.
. Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing Postponement - a sufficient public Review Period requires rescheduling the Commission’s hearing.
3. Additional Materials - in an effort to increase transparency in the development process, the board requests the documentation of comments on previous drafts - from public and private entities alike - and how the Planning and Zoning Commission has and will include changes to address these concerns in subsequent drafts.
The board thanks you for these considerations as we strive to create a more inclusive rezoning process and, thereby, a more inclusive city. We are encouraged by Council’s vision for responsible development, and EENA will work tirelessly to uphold our responsibilities - both to represent our neighbors and facilitate growth alongside our elected officials.
Sincerely,
Sheila Grisham, President East End Neighborhood AssociationFrom: Paula Forney <pbforney@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 3:34 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Zoning rewrite
I am concerned with many aspects of the zoning rewrite. It seems to me it will not protect existing neighborhoods, it will give priority to new development over the housing that has been in place for years. I am not in favor of limiting notice to nearby neighbors and not allowing for public review and comments.
In my experience, often times public input allows new and different ideas to be considered and often times it make the proposed project better for everyone involved.
I spoke with Timothy Keane and he assured me the Lake Harbor Planned Unit Development will not be impacted by the proposed zoning changes along State Street near our home. However, the ZCR conversion maps show MX‐3 and MX‐4 zoning is being proposed for areas close to our neighborhood. I would request that all PUD ’s throughout the city be clearly identified and show they will be honored and new zoning will not be implemented. I think proper verbiage should also clearly state this in the proposal. I think this could eliminate confusion and would be much more transparent.
Thank you for your consideration. Paula Forney
Sent from Mail for Windows
Madison Lockhorn
From: Andy Hoffman <cody2dog@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 4:09 PM
To: ZoningRewrite; Mayor McLean; Holli Woodings; Patrick Bageant; Jimmy Hallyburton; Luci Willits; Latonia Haney Keith; Colin Nash
Subject: [External] Upzoning
Hello all,
Please do not upzone my neighborhood!
I see absolutely NO benefit to the potential 'upzoning' plan, other than to make developers wealthier, and it would certainly destroy the quality of life of residents near the affected areas. It's been done in many other cities, and there is never a resulting increase in housing affordability, although it does hurt existing property values. In my neighborhood, exceptions were granted in past years to allow splitting of residential lots for the addition of 'skinny' houses, built to replace older homes. I'm sure there was some economic benefit to the original owners of these lots, but it has caused problems with parking and driving the narrow streets in this area.
I don't see anyone walking to the bus stop to get transportation around town, it's getting harder to drive to my house because of on-street parking, and I don't see why anyone should suffer to make developers richer.
I bought my house on Liberty Street with the expectation that I'd be able to move my vehicles, boat and camper, in and out of my property, but I now have to coordinate with my neighbor to park in my driveway, and have him move his vehicles and trailers. The owners of houses on narrow lots find they have inadequate space in the small houses for their possessions, so they fill their garages with stuff, which means they have to park on the street. Since the narrow lots only have very limited curb space, they're cluttering up the curbs in front of standard lots, which has a negative impact on quality of life for the owners of the standard lots, and frequently impacts access to mailboxes and driveways.
Madison Lockhorn
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 2:46 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
LeAnn Hume
Email leann.hume@cushwake.com
Address
422 Bacon Dr., Boise, Idaho 83712
Comment
I have been in commercial retail tenant representation for 25 years and my team represents many retailers who require a drive thru. My team is VERY concerned that the requirements outlined in the proposed code for drive thrus will fatally effect the retail drive thru interest in our city from national retailers. We have countless examples of drive thrus that are severely flawed that contain only a few of the current proposed requirements. Chick Fil A on Broadway and Starbucks on Vista to name two. I don't believe a practical example of a functional and affordable drive thru can be produced using the requirements you have set forth. I believe retail drive thrus would nearly cease to be developed in Boise if this were to pass as it currently is written.
If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.
I am not a robot
From: zoninginfo
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 8:04 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: FW: [External] Written Testimony for Zoning Code Rewrite
Jeff Lowe, AICP, CFM
Senior PlannerPlanning and Development Services
Office: (208)608-7075 jtlowe@cityofboise.org cityofboise.org
Creating a city for everyone.
From: Austin Hurd <austin.wade.hurd@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 5:36 PM
To: zoninginfo <zoninginfo@cityofboise.org>
Subject: [External] Written Testimony for Zoning Code Rewrite
I am submitting the following for written testimony for the Modern Zoning Code (ZOA23-00001 & CPA2300001) meeting.
Austin Hurd austin.wade.hurd@gmail.com
7195 Bluebird Dr, Boise, ID 83714 208‐553‐3428
I am in support of the new residential standards, including increasing height maximums, increasing densities, reducing minimum lot sizes, reducing minimum parking, and reducing setback minimums. I think it will help increase the supply of both housing and affordable housing and not destabilize neighborhoods. The additional setback for the 3rd story for R‐1C was a great move. I would prefer no parking requirement, as it both increases affordability and increases safety, but I am happy with the parking reduction.
I am in support of neighborhood cafes and retail as they greatly enhance the walkability and livability of neighborhoods. Kudos for limiting the potential negative neighborhood impacts of cafes and retail by limiting their service hours. I also have no concerns about bed and breakfasts.
I am in support of the affordability and sustainability incentives and strategic infill. I think it does a great job balancing a need for affordability, using already in‐place infrastructure, and not causing too much change to neighborhoods. Special kudos for the strategic infill requirements that eliminate the risk of non‐dilapidated places just being demolished for the strategic infill incentives.
I live by State Street and Gary and am in support of the new mixed use zoning and neighborhood transitions. I look forward to having more access to services while still having a zoning transition to my residential neighborhood.
I am in support of the new/updated Open Land, Wildland Urban Interface, Boise River System Overlay, and annexation policies. I have access to both the Greenbelt and the Foothills and look forward to these new tools helping to maintain these great natural beauties and limit sprawl.
I am in support of updating the zoning code process and procedures. While community input is important, it can also be used to veto any and all development for the benefit of a few and the long term detriment of the community. The ZCR balances community input and development. Thank you for also being flexible with the conditional use permits, doing so will help innovative buildings come about.
Thank you for establishing the Citywide Advisory Committee, hosting many open houses, and having tables at other events to ensure there was widespread public input and that the ZCR was not a top‐down effort.
I would like to convey that doing nothing will just increase the affordability crisis and sprawl. Austin Texas didn’t pass their ZCR and their affordability crisis and sprawl got worse. Vancouver still has loads of Single Family Zoning and too much community input which has made it so the only dense develo pments that get through are on industrial zoned land, so Vancouver still has an affordability crisis and much less industrial zoned land which had better middle class income jobs than commercial zoned land.
From: Vicki Masterson <nd75vicki@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 4:48 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Zoning code rewrite
I do not agree with many of the aspects of the zoning code rewrite. I request that you delay the vote on the zoning code rewrite until the next city council is elected and seated by geographic district.
Thank you
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 9:04 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
Allen McLeod
Email ad.mcleod@yahoo.com
Address
4613 W Castlebar Dr. Boise, ID
Comment
I would like to voice my support for the zoning code rewrite. I would like more mixed‐use walkable neighborhoods in Boise with higher density. Please build more pedestrian and cycling infrastructure to encourage multi‐modal transportation.
If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
Madison Lockhorn
From: annaquinnperry@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Anna Quinn Perry <annaquinnperry@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 4:51 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Vote Yes on the Zoning Code Rewrite
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,
I am writing to express my support for the Zoning Code Rewrite. The sustainability, affordability, and open space protections included in the new zoning code rewrite are exactly what Boise needs to plan for and address our rapid growth.
Growth is inevitable, and we need a modern zoning code to ensure we are following the best practices to grow sustainably and responsibly. It has been clear that Boise City Staff have put in the effort to make an inclusive and extensive community input process to develop the zoning code our city needs and deserves.
Specifically, I appreciate that this zoning code protects our green spaces, improves our tree canopy, incentivizes energy and water efficiency, allows for smart and targeted density, removes unnecessary parking space minimums, protects pollinators, and makes our communities more walkable and bikeable.
I think there is always room for growth and tweaks within the code, but I strongly encourage the Planning and Zoning Commission to support this zoning code rewrite that staff and residents have spent so much time and effort to shape.
Sincerely, Miss Anna Quinn Perry 2921 W Cassia St Boise, ID 83705‐1725 annaquinnperry@gmail.com
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 4:08 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
Shawn Petsch
Email shawn.petsch@gmail.com
Address
13221 W Dahlia Dr, Boise, ID 83713
Comment
As another commenter noted, having "a walkable neighborhood requires somewhere to walk to." Please consider adding the following uses to R‐1A and R‐1B as a conditional use: Neighborhood Cafe, Sidewalk Cafe, Small Retail. If, as the city claims, a goal is to reduce the amount of driven miles within city limits, allowing small cafes, grocers, and appropriate small retailers to locate within residential blocks is essential.
Because traffic relies so heavily on the grid system, and that system is overburdened, traffic along any corridor is crowded and fast moving. As a result, getting anywhere by foot or bike is stressful, hostile, and requires a vehicle to cover even small distances safely and comfortably. Allowing small establishments as conditional uses, and especially on interior lots, would allow residents, both adults and children, to reach desirable locations by bike, foot, or radio flyer, and in a peaceful and safe manner. It would reduce city‐wide traffic, expenditures on gas, and the time cost of reaching basic amenities.
To prevent any "destruction of the neighborhood", restrictions such as limits on operating hours, requirements that the establishment share the architectural features with surrounding residential properties, restrictions on the sale of alcohol, and other restrictions imposed by a neighborhood HOA can ensure the establishment adheres to the expectation of the neighborhood residents.
Thank you!
If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.
I am not a robot
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 7:15 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
Christine Powell
Email cpowell38@gmail.com
Address Boise. ID 83705
Comment
I am NOT in support of the proposed zoning changes.
If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
April 5, 2023
Boise Planning & Zoning Commission
Via email zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org
Attn: Chairperson Bob Schafer
Attn: Co-Chair Chris Danley
Attn: Commissioner Meredith Stead
Attn: Commissioner Chris Blanchard
Attn: Commissioner Janelle Finfrock
Attn: Commissioner Milt Gillespie
Attn: Commissioner Jennifer Mohr
Attn: Commissioner John Mooney
Attn: Commissioner Ashley Squyres
RE: City of Boise Zoning Code Re-Write – Mixed Use Zones
Commissioners,
As a member of the Citizen Advisory Committee for the last 3 years, I would like to offer my thoughts on the proposed Mixed Use zones.
The City has articulated a very clear vision for its desired development of our commercial zones: dense, multi-story development, containing a mix of uses, with active ground floors, limited parking, limited automotive uses, pedestrian friendly scale and access, and integrated open spaces.
I think the proposed code offers improvements to the existing code by allowing for the desired type of dense, mixed use development to occur as Boise grows, when the prior code may have restricted it.
However, I believe there are a few sections of the proposed code that go too far by requiring more density and mixed use than what may be financially viable, which could result in stagnation and/or a heavy volume of applications seeking departures from the code.
Areas of Support
• More Neighborhood Retail – The proposed code adds more commercial opportunities in and near our neighborhoods through an expanded use table for MX1, as well as allowing limited neighborhood retail and cafes in R1-C, R-2, R-3. The prior L-O zone was too restrictive.
• A Mix of Uses Within Zones – The proposed code allows a mix of commercial, residential, and office development within the new MX zones, which allows developers greater flexibility to meet the market’s demands.
• Opportunity for More Density – Increased height limits create the opportunity for more density along our commercial corridors, especially along our best-in-class transit lines This improves our chances of a viable mass transit system.
• Expanded MX5 - I support the expansion of the MX5 zone into the Downtown Planning Areas that were not previously zoned C5.
Concerns / Opportunities for Improvement
• “Allowed Use/Alternative Form” (p. 235 and 385)
o This provision establishes a minimum building height of 4 stories in MX3, MX4, and MX5 for most common commercial uses (as well as a minimum height of 2 stories in MX1, or a minimum of two different uses)
o This provision also caps the number of allowed parking stalls in MX3 to the minimum number of allowed stalls for that use
Background Note: The predominant commercial zone in the current code, C-2, has been split into a more-traditional MX2 zone and a more-intense MX3 zone. The amount of land zoned MX3 has grown in size throughout the re-write process. MX3 was originally mapped only to strategic intersections identified in Blueprint Boise as “Activity Centers”. However, later updates added all properties along Fairview, State Street, Vista, and parts of Parkcenter and Federal Way as MX3, due to their location along transit lines or pathways. MX3 now covers much of the proposed commercial zoning conversion map.
o There are many, many properties in the proposed MX3 zones that are not physically and/or financially viable for 4-story, mixed use development with minimal parking
o A large percentage of these MX3 properties will eventually wind up in front of P&Z seeking a parking increase and/or height reduction through what is called an “Allowed Use, Alternative Form” departure (a process similar to a Conditional Use Permit). These applications will clog the system.
o The criteria for an “Alternative Form” approval at P&Z are very subjective, so the process will result unpredictable outcomes over time.
o Recommendation: I believe this set of height and parking requirements should be removed from the code, but particularly from the MX3 zone. There are other changes throughout the proposed code that will already allow for our corridors to develop with the desired intensity when it is supported by the market These minimum height requirements and parking maximums go too far by requiring intensity immediately regardless of viability.
o Alternative Recommendation: An alternative compromise would be to apply the height minimums to only the MX3 properties that were originally designated as “Activity Centers” in Blueprint Boise.
• Complexity, Scope, and Staffing:
o Recommendation: While the new illustrations are helpful, the proposed code remains very long and complicated. I recommend a short form “Citizen’s Guide/Commercial Guide/Owner’s Manual” as a helpful addition to the rollout process.
o Recommendation: The proposed code includes major expansions of Planning staff’s scope and responsibilities throughout the review process. Staff could fall behind quickly if they are not properly supported. This will come at the same time as the adoption of a new building code in the Building Department. I would like to see the Planning Department establish objective turnaround times for processing applications, and publicly track performance against these goals. I would like to see the Mayor’s Office and City Council support the Planning Department to by “staffing to” these public turnaround goals.
I would like to commend Mr. Tim Keane, Ms. Andrea Tuning, and the rest of the City staff for their efforts on the Zoning Code Re-Write. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this process and for your consideration of my feedback.
Sincerely,
Ben Zamzow Chief Operating Officer208 859 5938
bmz@rmcos.com
cc. Tim Keane (via email keane@cityofboise.org)
Andrea Tuning (via email ATuning@cityofboise.org)
Attn: Mayor Lauren McLean (via email LMcLean@cityofboise.org)
Attn: Council President Pro Tem Holli Woodings (hwoodings@cityofboise.org)
Attn: Council Member Patrick Bageant (pbageant@cityofboise.org)
Attn: Council Member Jimmy Hallyburton (jhallyburton@cityofboise.org)
Attn: Council Member Luci Willits (lwillits@cityofboise.org)
From: LindaRytt@everyactioncustom.com on behalf of Linda Rytterager
<LindaRytt@everyactioncustom.com>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 10:46 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Vote Yes on the Zoning Code Rewrite
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission,
I am writing to express my support for the Zoning Code Rewrite. My husband and I have lived on the Boise Bench since 1993 and chose to settle here especially because of the green spaces, tree canopy, and walking/biking opportunities.
When the Bench began to see an increase in infill projects, we were worried about the problems that come with density: more traffic, cars parked along the street, loss of canopy, and more rental units being poorly managed by absentee landlords. To be honest, it was tough when our block changed from 11 single‐family homes, adding 10 new two‐story skinny homes to create a mixed neighborhood of twenty housing units. Our block almost doubled in population and lost over seven large old trees.
We had very little say in the big changes to our block because the codes in place then did little to promote sensible development. After initially opposing the changes, we have reluctantly adjusted. The new construction has been an improvement in most cases from the original single‐family homes (built in the 1940s) that they replaced. And, for the most part, the newer members of the community have been good and thoughtful neighbors.
The sustainability, affordability, and open space protections i ncluded in the new zoning code rewrite are exactly what Boise needs to plan for and address our rapid growth. Growth is inevitable, and we need a modern zoning code to ensure we are following the best practices to grow sustainably and responsibly. Boise City Staff have put in the effort to make an inclusive and extensive community input process to develop the zoning code our city needs and deserves.
Specifically, we appreciate that the proposed zoning code incentivizes energy and water efficiency, allows for smart and targeted density, and prioritizes walkability and bikeability. We recognize that sustainability is vital to ensure a livable future for Boise, and welcome the provisions that include clean energy sources, energy efficiency, and water efficiency.
And we strongly support policies that improve Boise's tree canopy, to lower summer energy costs and combat the urban heat island effect: these include the requirement to increase the diversity of tree species for newly developing sites; new mitigation policies to protect the existing tree canopy; and enhanced requirements for the protection of trees during construction
We know there is always room for growth and tweaks within the code, but we strongly encourage the Planning and Zoning Commission to support this zoning code rewr ite that staff and residents have spent so much time and effort to shape.
Sincerely,
Ms. Linda Rytterager
2006 S Gourley St Boise, ID 83705‐3305
LindaRytt@gmail.com
Madison Lockhorn
From: Erika Schofield <potatopancake@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 3:54 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Fw: Zoning rewrite & Chapter 11 ordinances
Attachments: Ch. 11 - Ordinances.pdf
The following information for Section 11–05–03 of the proposed rewrite was submitted to Mr. Tim Keane on February 13, 2023. Some corrections were made to this recent draft, but problems still exist that need to be corrected for compliance with Idaho Code and other Boise Code.
Please include the attached document with the written comments below, which show the edits for each issue directly on the text in the document submitted in February.
Sincerely,
Erika Schofield Ordinance For Hearing Examiner The draft document does not show the separate ordinance adopted to have a Hearing Examiner as required by Idaho’s enabling legislation, i.e., LLUPA (I.C. 67–6520).
The definition for a Hearing Examiner does not comply with the Idaho Code.
“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.”
Idaho Code states the following:
I.C. 67-6520. HEARING EXAMINERS. (1) Hearing examiners include professionally trained or licensed staff planners, attorneys, engineers, or architects. If authorized by local ordinance adopted, amended, or repealed in accordance with the notice and hearing procedures provided in section 67-6509, Idaho Code, hearing examiners may be appointed by a governing board or zoning or planning and zoning commission for hearing applications for subdivisions, special use permits, variances and requests for rezoning which are in accordance with the plan.
“ a person or firm on contract with the City” is not equivalent to, or can serve as a substitute for, a “staff” member as mandated by Idaho Code.
The legislature has made it simple and very clear in its statutory provision as to who may fulfill the role of a Hearing Examiner by including only four (4) professions and starting this specific list with the term “staff” to indicate that any of these professionally trained or licensed persons are to be part of a city or county’s staff.
There are no provisions in Idaho’s enabling legislation that would authorize a governing board, or its Planning and Zoning Commission, the ability to outsource the requirement of exercising the powers conferred in its land use law to an external entity. I firmly believe a city cannot legally do that.
Furthermore, the ability to ensure compliance with Idaho Code Section 67–6506 prohibiting conflict of interest, and the ability to honor the Code of Ethics in Chapter 1–8 of the Boise City Code, would be impossible if the role of Hearing Examiner was fulfilled by an external “person or firm on contract with the City” because Idaho has no laws requiring a person or private business to publicly release their client lists.
The language used in an ordinance for a Hearing Examiner needs to closely adhere to the language used in Idaho Code, and be the same language included in the proposed zoning code rewrite. The ordinance number should be visibly included in Chapter 11 in order for interested residents and permit applicants to know the City is compliant with Idaho Code, and to be able to request the ordinance by its identifier if needed.
Adopt Ordinance For Design Review Commission
The Design Review Committee has been a sub–committee of the Planning and Zoning Commission, which does not require a separate ordinance per Idaho Code 67–6504(b). The proposed zoning code rewrite shows this entity becoming a commission which will continue to function as a permanent role in the administration of the Boise City Code, therefore an ordinance is required per the following codes:
The responsibilities, duties and authority granted permanent boards or commissions, shall be enumerated by ordinance. (Idaho Code § 50–210)
Any activities, duties or responsibilities delegated by permanent boards or commissions shall be by ordinance and not otherwise. (Boise City Code § 2–1–4)
The language in the current description of the Design Review Committee is being carried over to the proposed zoning code rewrite, but it is in need of additional clarity, consistency, and corrections, therefore the ordinance language should be drafted and set forth for adoption, then include the same language in the proposed zoning code rewrite.
Please visibly include the ordinance number within the first section of the language that will be adopted into Title 2 of the Boise City Code in order for interested residents and permit applicants to know the City is compliant with Idaho Code, and to be able to request the ordinance by its identifier if needed.
Locate Ordinance For Historic Preservation Commission
Title 2 of the Boise City Code does not include the Historic Preservation Commission and Chapter 11 does not specify if this commission has been adopted by ordinance, as required by Idaho Code § 50–210, but there are references to ordinance numbers pertaining to this commission in older versions of Boise Code Chapter 11, such as Supplement 46.
The ordinance for this commission needs to be located and added to Title 2 of the Boise City Code, including its ordinance number in order for interested residents and permit applicants to know the City is compliant with Idaho Code.
In closing, to reduce opportunity for conflicting language in the Definitions section of the proposed rewrite, the various governing bodies and City staff positions responsible for the administration of the Code should be listed by name and indicate “see Section 11–05–03 of this Code”, rather than unnecessarily repeat the lengthy definitions or risk using language different from the ordinances and Section 11–05–03.
Amend Title 2 – Boise City Code: Planning & Zoning Commission
Section 2–4–3 of the Boise City Code for the Planning and Zoning Commission is not in compliance with three (3) items in Idaho Code Sections 67–6504(a) and (b). The attached document identifies the issues to be amended and some additional minor clarifications.
In the amending process, please visibly include the ordinance number in Section 2-4-1 of Boise City Code in order for interested residents and permit applicants to know the City is compliant with Idaho Code, and to be able to request the ordinance by its identifier if needed.
Once amended, Section 2–4–3 needs to be included in the proposed zoning code rewrite. In addition, the duties of this commission shown in Section 2–4–6 need to be included in Chapter 11. These officially adopted duties are what alleviates the Council of the burden of exercising many of the requirements in Idaho’s land use law, and including these duties in Chapter 11 will improve the public’s understanding of the commission’s activities and overall scope of responsibility.
Madison Lockhorn
From: Erika Schofield <potatopancake@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 4:00 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Fw: ZCR - Safety Facility – under Temporary Uses
The following comments were submitted to the City in February but the problems remain in this recent draft .
From: Erika Schofield
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 10:14 PM
To: Andrea Tuning <atuning@cityofboise.org>; ZoningRewrite <zoningrewrite@cityofboise.org>; Deanna Dupuy <ddupuy@cityofboise.org>
Cc: tkeane@cityofboise.org <tkeane@cityofboise.org>
Subject: ZCR ‐ Safety Facility – under Temporary Uses
The July 2022 draft added the new term “Safety Facility” as a temporary use in the Table of Allowed Uses, with a definition combining annexation, natural disaster, emergency circumstances, and homeless services. This definition is not reasonable, cannot be justified, and is not feasible.
A definition such as this cannot be founded upon sound reason when the Code does not scramble together other similar but dissimilar uses into one name and use. For example – all types of uses that involve consumption of items by drinking and eating are not placed under one broad name of “Eating & Drinking Facility” with the expectation that this should suffice for the unique differences that can occur between variations of this use.
The definition’s inclusion of protecting public safety on a temporary basis following annexation of land cannot be justified and is not feasible based on the following reasons:
The Table of Allowed Uses shows “Safety Facility” in the MX–2 through MX–5 zoning districts, which are not anywhere near the remaining lands in Boise’s Area of City Impact (AOCI) that would be considered for annexation.
Areas to be annexed in the AOCI are far from the city center which means they would most likely be classified as residential zoning, and the Table of Allowed Uses shows all “R” zoning districts as a conditional use for a Fire, Police, or Public Safety Facility. The current and proposed Code indicate that uses requiring Planning and Zoning Commission approval if they are a principal or accessory use in a district “shall not be considered for temporary approval’, which would make this type of use – a temporary use certificate for a fire, police or public safety facility – prohibited per the Code.
It is impossible to build a fire station, police station, or ambulance facility to provide these types of required services to an annexed area in the timeframe specified for a temporary use certificate, which “shall not exceed 180 consecutive days.”
Annexation is to occur only if Boise can provide urban level services that are in “substantial compliance with the level‐of‐service standards identified in Table 3” of the Boise City Comprehensive Plan, as
indicated in public policy PDP3.2. The City is well aware of Idaho’s annexation laws and that the Level of Service standard for fire response in Table 3 is from two documents adopted into the comprehensive plan; ordinance 5517 (Boise Fire Department Master Siting Plan) and the impact fee study, which uses the adopted level of service standard in the methodology for calculating and collecting fire impact fees.
Tax–and–(impact) fee funded public safety services are not to be provided from a temporary facility because fire and police impact fees use a methodology for calculating these fees based on long–term assets (10+ years), not temporary facilities.
Annexation without the ability to provide public safety services at the required Level of Service standard from permanent facilities could appear to be annexing solely for more tax revenue, which the Supreme Court ruled against long ago (Forbes et al. v. Mayor, etc. of City of Meridian, Supreme Court of Mississippi, (1905), and as discussed in Boise City v. Boise City Development Company, Supreme Court of Idaho, (1925)).
Emergency/Disaster Facility
The designation of a facility or an area to provide temporary protection and safety in a natural disaster or emergency circumstance is reasonable and justifiable, but should have a clear and specific name such as “Emergency/Disaster Facility”. This type of temporary use also needs to be allowed in all zoning districts since it is an unpredictable use. A definition for this type of temporary use could be stated as:
A facility or an area of land that is designated for providing protection and safety to the public on a temporary basis in times of natural disaster or emergency circumstances, which may include areas for the staging and use of fire protection and police protection equipment, or facilities to provide overnight accommodations to people and animals displaced by a natural disaster or emergency, or to provide services related to the administration or management of such temporary provisions.
Warming/Cooling Day Shelter
When citizens asked Mr. Keane about this new term, he explained that “Safety Facility” was added to address the warming and cooling shelters the City has set up for those experiencing homelessness. If that is the case, why hide behind a convoluted definition? The City needs to be transparent with the public, especially in light of the ongoing Interfaith Sanctuary Shelter issue, and to demonstrate that Mayor McLean’s campaign message to improve transparency is supported by the City’s actions, rather than made worse by them.
Name this type of use what it is, “Warming/Cooling Day Shelter”.
Locate this use to be in the MX–5 zoning district to be in accordance with the comprehensive plan’s policies for location of social services to be downtown Boise.
Include specific standards for operation, which should be easy to determine since the City has chosen to provide this type of temporary use for many years.
Without specific standards for this type of seasonal use, the opportunity to abuse the Code can occur, where a temporary approval becomes an ongoing overnight shelter, as has occurred with the Interfaith Sanctuary Shelter on River Street; the record shows a conditional use permit was never applied for or approved.
The two different circumstances that justify a temporary facility for public safety–related issues need to have separate names with clear, objective definitions, and each needs to be added to the list in the Table of Contents and the relevant sections of this Code; Table of Allowed Uses, Use–Specific Standards, Parking, and Definitions.
Madison Lockhorn
From: Erika Schofield <potatopancake@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 4:07 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Public Comments - Table of Allowed Uses
Resubmitting comments for the record that were provided on February 2, 2023 for this rewrite.
From: Erika Schofield
Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2023 5:13 PM
To: Andrea Tuning <ATuning@cityofboise.org>; ZoningRewrite <ZoningRewrite@cityofboise.org>
Cc: ddupuy@cityofboise.org <ddupuy@cityofboise.org>
Subject: Public Comments ‐ Draft Module 3 ‐ Table of Allowed Uses
A quick reply to this email to confirm you received this will be greatly appreciated.
Public Comments For Zoning Code Rewrite: Consolidated Draft (October 2022) / Section 11–03.1: Table of Allowed Uses
Hello Zoning Rewrite Team,
Please accept another public comment submission for this draft, as it is taking a great amount of time for a citizen to read and comprehend what is being proposed in a technical 562-page document, while comparing it to the current version of the code and other municipal codes. I chose not to submit detailed comments such as this earlier in this process, because the document was constantly morphing, which discourages putting forth time and effort on the front end. But it is crucially important that language used in a governing body’s zoning ordinance be specific to its comprehensive plan because a zoning ordinance has a nexus to the policies in the comprehensive plan (I.C. § 67–6511(1), and serves as a principal regulation for the implementation of the comprehensive plan.
My intention it to provide meaningful input using thoughtful analysis and constructive suggestions from the viewpoint of an average citizen.
I hope the City’s request for citizen input continues to be welcomed, as it is not uncommon for those deeply involved in a project to fall prey to believing accurate language has been used, and not recognize that may not be the case, when having read a document dozens or even hundreds of times.
As the code is drafted so far, there remains room for clarity and improvement.
Sincerely,
ErikaThe following written comments apply to the general Use Categories and specific Use Types in the Table of Allowed Uses. They are also attached as a Word document.
GENERAL USE CATEGORIES
Current code Public/Institutional Uses
This classification name has been given the new name of Public, Institutional and Civic Uses, which is not consistent with the language used in the Boise City Comprehensive Plan, herein referred to as the Plan. The Plan does not
include the term “civic” in conjunction with public and institutional land use as shown in Chapter 3 Community Structure and Design:
Public/Institutional Areas (p. 3–37)
Three types of Public/Institutional Areas are identified on the Land Use Map: Public/Quasi-Public, Airport, and Education.
Public/Institutional Land Use Categories (p. 3–38)
The common definition for civic is “of a city, citizens, or citizenship.” In the Plan, the term civic is primarily used when referring to the desired outcome for downtown Boise; to be the civic, cultural, and employment center. By inserting the term civic into this general land use classification name, this presents as the City assuming all of the uses listed in this section would be downtown.
The Plan also indicates something as a civic use or civic space, which is often just a fancy way of saying a “municipal space” or “public use” to make it appear more educated or enlightened. And the Plan uses “civic” to describe actions related to other things. For example, on page 2–60 a policy indicates ongoing civic support related to arts and culture, which equates to saying have the city support arts and culture. Or the policy on page 2–65 indicating make schools available for civic functions, which equates to saying allow school property for the use of city or citizen events.
The three terms that are now in this proposed name are referring to similar things, which make for redundancy in this classification name. For the term “Institution”, a Thesaurus will suggest community, shared, municipal, communal, unrestricted, free, or open, which are all similar to the term “Public”. The current name of Public/Institutional Uses serves the classification purpose without the need to add “civic” and essentially duplicate the other two terms.
REQUESTED ACTION: Please retain the current name Public/Institutional Uses in order to ensure consistency between Public/Institutional Land Use referred to in the Plan and its nexus to land use in the Zoning Ordinance; and to eliminate redundancy.
SPECIFIC USE TYPES
Current code Community Service
This classification name has been given the new name of Community and Cultural Facilities, containing a large and unrelated mix of uses, which combines publicly funded services with privately funded entities.
An average or reasonable person’s understanding of a Community Service generally means a public benefit provided through the taxes and fees paid (e.g. property taxes, impact fees, income taxes, etc.). Many of the uses listed in this section would not be considered a community service by an average citizen, and the inclusion of “cultural facility” as a classification name is overreach when only one use within the eleven line items would legitimately be considered a cultural facility; a museum.
Please see additional explanation under #4 related to cultural facility.
1. REQUESTED ACTION: Please retain the current name but in its plural form, Community Services, to provide a distinct separation for publicly funded land uses that provide a direct resident benefit.
2. REQUESTED ACTION: Cemetery, Mausoleum, and Mortuary are end of life services that are not publicly funded, which creates a conflict with the functional characteristics and type of activities generally understood to be a publicly funded Community Service. Please relocate these three uses to Commercial Uses or consider a new way of listing as Health Care and End of Life Services.
The following reasons support this request:
Cemetery — This type of use is most commonly a private enterprise that imposes fees for a plot and pays property taxes at the commercial rate.
Although our Boise City property levy/tax pays for the Parks and Recreation Department to maintain the grounds of Boise’s three publicly–owned cemeteries, the two that have available plot and mausoleum space are not free. Fees for burial service and interment are involved, making this land use transactional and not a direct resident benefit.
The City’s record acknowledges that expanding the three cemeteries or adding new cemeteries is not in its best interest, therefore there is no longer a need for Cemetery to be proposed as a conditional use in the O–2 zoning district (municipal uses), or the O–3 zoning district (managed open space). Furthermore, the possibility of publicly owned land within Boise’s Area of City Impact being selected for a future government owned cemetery is highly unlikely, thus the need for Cemetery in the Community Service section of the Table has become outdated and no longer relevant in a growing urban environment. These factors limit this use to a private landowner in the R-1A and O–1 zoning districts
Mausoleum — This type of use is a structure for burial chambers or interment space that is primarily privately owned, charges a large fee, and is taxed at the commercial rate. The mausoleum facilities at the two publicly owned cemeteries are not free or a direct resident benefit, and the City’s record indicates additional cemeteries with this type of use will not be pursued.
Mortuary — This type of use is also known as a Funeral Home, which charges fees to care for and prepare a body for burial or cremation, making this a profit-based commercial business. The City of Boise’s website does not show it owns or operates any mortuaries for a direct resident benefit.
3. REQUESTED ACTION: Please separate the classification of Art Gallery and Museum from Library and relocate Library back to its legally appropriate section Education; and relocate Art Gallery and Museum to be with the performing arts cultural venues of Auditorium and Theater, plus revise the name under Commercial Uses to be Culture, Entertainment, and Recreation.
The following reasons support this request:
First and foremost, Library has been consistently listed under the use classification of Education because Education is the section of Idaho Code that authorizes a city to establish a tax–supported library with the stated purpose to be the provision of public education for all ages (I.C. 33–26):
33-2601. POLICY. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the state of Idaho, as a part of the provisions for public education, to promote the establishment and development of free library service for all the people in Idaho. It is the purpose of this act to assure an informed electorate by enabling the provision of free local library service, in the present and in the future, to children in their formative years and to adults for their continuing education.
33-2603. CITIES MAY ESTABLISH TAX SUPPORTED LIBRARIES. The city council of every city shall have power to establish a public library, and for such purpose may annually levy and cause to be collected a tax up to but not exceeding one-tenth percent (.10%) of market value for assessment purposes or fund a library out of allocations from the city's general fund. All such moneys shall be kept by the city treasurer separate and apart from other moneys of the city and be used exclusively for library purposes . . .
The City keeps the operations of the Library as its own department of the City, rather than combined with its Arts & History Department, to be in compliance with Section 33–2603.
The City is not statutorily required to provide art galleries or museums, as that would be competition with the private sector, therefore it is not appropriate to include these uses under the classification of Community Service.
The City has chosen to support arts, history, and culture as indicated by policies in the Comprehensive Plan, but these policies direct the City to provide leadership, promotion, supplemental funding, etc. and do not indicate outright ownership and/or operation of an “art gallery” or “museum”.
An example: The Boise Art Museum (BAM) located on the grounds of Julia Davis Park is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that leases the building from the City for its operations and the artwork is owned by BAM. Up until recently, the lease was for $1.00 a year but the City has finally standardized the leasing of its public property and has moved toward market rate rents. There is not, and never has been, a direct resident benefit to compensate for subsidizing this museum with taxpayer funds.
An Art Gallery is a place that sells art, making it a transactional activity that belongs under Commercial Uses.
Culture, Entertainment, and Recreation are the three promotional themes used for attracting visitors and business interests to Boise; list them together for consistency in use.
4. REQUESTED ACTION: Please add Government Building/Facility, cultural under Community Services to have a provision for future acquisitions similar to the Boise Depot, James Castle House, and Erma Hayman House. These are cultural facilities, not art galleries or museums, and each provides a direct resident benefit (free admission).
The following reasons support this request:
The statutory requirement of comprehensive planning includes the component of Special Areas or Sites, which encompasses structures of historical, archeological, or architectural significance (I.C. 67–6508(k) and the City is authorized to spend its revenue on the use and conservation of historic property under Idaho Code 67–46. The operation of such sites as cultural facilities is granted per Section 50–303 of state code, therefore the specific term “cultural” for the use of a government owned building or facility is necessary to align with state law when determining specific types of land and building uses.
This use classification will correctly align with policy CEA3.5 in the Plan, which addresses public cultural facilities, and will provide a clear distinction between a building or facility that provides a direct resident benefit, from a building or facility that does not.
5. REQUESTED ACTION: Please add back in the use of a Government Building/Facility, non-industrial under Community Service. Ada County might seek to expand the courthouse facilities using nearby parking lots, or there may be a need for a post office or other political subdivision building(s) as Boise annexes its Area of City Impact.
6. REQUESTED ACTION: Please add Government Building/Facility, industrial to be prepared for the City’s plans to relocate several of its operations from the downtown area out near the airport.
7. REQUESTED ACTION: Please remove Religious Institution under Community Service and combine with education as explained below.
8. REQUESTED ACTION: Please remove Food Kitchen and Shelter Home under Community Service and relocate these uses to the correct classification of being Social Services. Additional explanation for this request is provided below.
Current code Education
Current code Health Care
These two classification names have been given the combined new name of Education and Health, which is not appropriate as they are not land uses grouped together in the Plan. Education is grouped with culture, arts and
history, while health care is grouped with medical, mental health and social services. In addition, this combination does not come up when researching other cities naming classifications for land uses.
REQUESTED ACTION: Please combine Education and Religion, which is a more appropriate combination considering some religious institutions also have schools. With the exception of one proposed zoning district (MX–U), these both have the same allowed and conditional designations.
REQUESTED ACTION: Please retain the current, separate name Health Care and add Government Medical Facility for uses such as facilities at the V.A. Medical Center Complex. Also see #2 above suggesting a name of Health Care and End of Life Services to include cemetery, mausoleum, and mortuary.
Current code Social Care
This classification name has been eliminated, which is problematic for several reasons.
Social services are a long–standing land use policy in decades of Boise’s Comprehensive Plans, with these types of services stated in public policies going back at least as far as 1963 in the Comprehensive General Plan produced by Atkinson Associates.
The Plans land use policies have consistently indicated a condition of social services to be located in downtown Boise, as that provides the means to maximize resources that receive public funding, and the current goals and policies indicate the same (Goal SHCC15 [which should be 14], and policies SHCC14.3, DT–CCN 1.3, DT–NC 3.2).
Policies in a comprehensive plan are to have a nexus to zoning districts as required by Section 67–6511(1) of the Idaho code:
The zoning districts shall be in accordance with the policies set forth in the adopted comprehensive plan.
Idaho’s land use law expressly makes the adoption of a comprehensive plan a condition precedent to the validity of a zoning ordinance (I.C. §§ 67–6507 through –6511) and courts have made it clear that the comprehensive plan is the essence of zoning. The policies in a comprehensive plan describe the anticipated land uses for different areas of a city, which determine the types of zoning districts, followed by prescribing regulations for the use of land, buildings, and structures within the districts. The City uses the Table of Allowed Uses as the instrument to illustrate its compliance with the legislative requirement to establish standards to regulate and restrict . . . the location and use of building and structures (I.C. § 67–6511(1)(a).
The resolution adopting the Boise City Comprehensive Plan declares policies to be used as a guide by public officials in the adoption of pertinent laws and ordinances (RES. No. 21500), but the policies are not “just guides” for the zoning ordinance when state law provides a clear directive that zoning districts “shall” be in accordance with the policies; in other words, they are to be grounded upon the adopted policies in the comprehensive plan. To ensure this outcome, the terminology used in the Table of Allowed Uses should accord with the language in the policies of the Plan.
Although social services are not a statutory requirement for Idaho cities, Boise has stated its intention in its Plan to recognize and support the need for providers of these types of services that address social issues. The City demonstrates its commitment to social service providers through many quasi–public arrangements involving public funding for operations and the provision of support services, which has created and expanded a strong social service network in the downtown Boise area. The common understanding of the functional characteristics, type of activities, and the type of customers served by such quasi–public entities is known by the general public to be social services and are referred to as such.
Social Services are not the same as Community Services. They are not something the majority of the population hopes to use regardless of any public funding, they are not intended (or allowed?) for use of an employed person who has secure housing but just wants to give it a try, and most importantly, pertaining to land use regulations, they are specifically called Social Services in the policies of the Plan and should be consistently referred to in the same way in the zoning ordinance.
By eliminating this classification name, the City creates a major disconnect between its land use policies in its Plan and the naming classification for uses in the zoning districts.
1. REQUESTED ACTION: Please add the descriptive name Social Services as used in the Boise City Comprehensive Plan for consistent terminology; to ensure the zoning districts and the legislated use classifications conform to language in the land use policies of the Plan; and to minimize confusion, misinterpretation, and misrepresentation between governing documents when permit applications come forth.
2. REQUESTED ACTION: Please relocate Food Kitchen and Shelter Facility (see name explanation below) to be under Social Services for correct alignment to the related policies in the Plan.
Homeless Shelter & Shelter Home
The term “Homeless Shelter” is in the definitions section of the Plan, while the term “Shelter Home” is used in Chapter 11 of the City’s code. The use of two different terms needs to be corrected otherwise we will continue to have confusion and misunderstanding with the public, as well as mismatched language when referencing governing documents, and instances where the applicant misinterprets this use.
REQUESTED ACTION: Please seriously consider replacing both Homeless Shelter and Shelter Home with the plain term Shelter Facility in the City’s governing documents.
This change would remove the stigma of a derogatory label and correct the misinterpretation and misrepresentation of this type of facility serving as “a home”. Removing the word “home” is appropriate because this word is commonly understood to be a residential use and permanent occupancy, whereas this type of shelter is not intended to be a permanent place to reside. Furthermore, a facility for those experiencing homelessness is not regulated under Residential Uses in the code.
HERE IS WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS SECTION OF THE TABLE WOULD LOOK LIKE — since government buildings serve many functions, but the functions may not be suitable for all zoning districts, there is a need for individual listings.
Public & Institutional Uses
Adult or Child Day Care
Not generally a free or publicly funded service, should be under Commercial Uses, unless they receive public funding, making them a Quasi–Public Use?
Community Services
Government, non–industrial Government, industrial
Government, public safety
Government, cultural Municipal Community/Recreation Center
Park, Playground, or Sports Field Forest Reserve or Recreation Area
Jail or Detention Facility
Education & Religion
School, including Trade or Vocational College or University
Library
Place of Religious or Faith–Based Assembly
Health Care & End of Life Services
Medical or Mental Health Hospital
Government Medical Facility
Mortuary or Funeral Home
Mausoleum
Cemetery
Social Services
Food Kitchen or Pantry Shelter Facility
I have far fewer comments for the other General Use categories in this draft.
COMMERCIAL USES
Agricultural and Animal Uses— no need to indicate “uses” again
Current code Visitor Accommodations
This classification name has been given the new name of Lodging while including the land use of a Recreation Vehicle Park. A “Recreation Vehicle Park” is not “Lodging”. A Recreation Vehicle Park is intended to accommodate recreational vehicles, and it is the vehicle that provides the lodging.
REQUESTED ACTION: Please retain the current name Visitor Accommodations.
Culture, Entertainment & Recreation
Art Gallery or Museum
Auditorium or Theater, Indoor Auditorium or Theater, Outdoor — need to add this use?
Firing Range, Indoor Firing Range, Outdoor — need to add this use?
Sexually Oriented Business — does not need a classification name and use type that are redundant, and should be the last line item in the Culture, Entertainment, and Recreation classification because many consider this to be just another form of entertainment. Why put the spotlight on it by giving it its own section?
INDUSTRIAL USES
Utility Uses – no need to indicate “uses” again
In closing, there are many other terms and language in the rewrite of Chapter 11 that cross–over and affect terms used in the Boise City Comprehensive Plan that will need to be updated and revised. This will be necessary to minimize conflicting information, misinterpretation, and misrepresentation between these governing documents.
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 3:46 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
Address Comment
The definitions section of this rewrite still needs a lot of work to comply with the recommendation in the Clarion Diagnostic Report of, “While often an afterthought, a good definitions chapter is key to the transparency, efficiency, and predictability of any development code.”
Specific problems include:
"Regulatory text should be taken out of the use definitions and instead listed in zone district, development, or design standards." As written, some standards are embedded in the definitions while not being in the body text of this document.
“All definitions in the Code should appear in Chapter 11‐02.” The phrase Permanent Supportive Housing does not show up anywhere in this document except in the middle of the definition for Dwelling, Multifamily Housing. This type of use is very specific and needs its own definition, as well as inclusion in the standards of the body of the code. In addition, this type of use is often funded through federal HUD monies and should match the definition used by the federal government.
If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here. I am not a robot
From: noreply@cityofboise.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 11:48 PM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: A Zoning Code Rewrite formal comment has been submitted
The following information was submitted:
Name
George H Solverson
Email lcesfire@yahoo.com
Address Boise, Id 83704
Comment
As long as federal, state, and city government policies promote unsustainable growth there will be housing concerns. Blueprint Boise focus on increased density is simply repeating the unsuccessful strategy of many other growing cities in decline. The main goal needs to be to protect and maintain the quality of living for current residents and provide for measured, sustainable growth. To be responsive to the desires of Boiseans, sustainable neighborhoods and quality of living for those who call Boise their home must be the priority for proposed zoning code changes. A modern building code should reflect lessons learn from the contemporary failures of modern density city planning.
If you have additional comments that exceed the comment box limit, upload them here.
I am not a robot
From: Phil Toomey <patoomey@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 11:09 AM
To: ZoningRewrite
Subject: [External] Zoning code rewrite
I do not wish to see any more high rise apartments near existing houses. Phil Toomey
351 S. Pierce Pl.
Boise, Idaho 83712
March 9, 2023
Mr. Tim Keane Planning Director City of BoiseVia 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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 WhiteCc 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
