Attachment 3353

Planning & Zoning Commission
Hearing Minutes of
February 3, 2014

CONSENT AGENDA

SUB13-00060 / GARDNER PLAZA CONDOMINIUMS
Location: 101 South Capitol Boulevard
PRELIMINARY/FINAL CONDOMINIUM PLAT FOR TWO UNITS (US BANK BUILDING
AND SURROUNDING PROPERTY). THE PROPERTY IS ZONED C-5DDC ON 2.2
ACRES. THE SITE IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NORTH CAPITOL
BOULEVARD AND WEST MAIN STREET.

The applicant is present and is in agreement with the terms and conditions of the project report
and there is no opposition to this item.

SUB13-00059 / BARBERVALLEY TOWNHOMES SUBDIVISION
Location: 3107 East Parkcenter Boulevard
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR 180 RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME LOTS AND
TWO COMMON LOTS. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED SPO2-OMR ON 11.42 ACRES. THE
SITE IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF EAST BARBER VALLEY
DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 1.750 FEET EAST OF EAST PARKCENTER BOULEVARD.


COMMISSION MEMBERS
PRESENT

Steve Bradbury: Chair, Rich Demarest, Douglas Gibson, Milt Gillespie,
Chris Danley

STAFF MEMBERS
PRESENT

Hal Simmons, Cody Riddle, Scott Spjute, David Moser, Todd Tucker,
J osh J ohnson, Dave Abo, Susan Riggs, Pam Baldwin and Mary Watson
(Legal)
Boise City Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
February 3, 2014
Page 2

CUP13-00076 & CVA13-00051 / MCKIBBEN + COOPER ARCHITECTS
Location: 515 W. Hays Street
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ADD TWO UNITS TO A PROPERTY OCCUPIED BY
AN EXISTING DUPLEX. A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE INTERIOR SIDE YARD
SETBACK AND PARKING REDUCTION ARE INCLUDED. THE 0.21 ACRE SITE IS
LOCATED IN AN L-OHD/CD (LIMITED OFFICE WITH HISTORIC DESIGN REVIEW
AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT) ZONE.


CAR13-00022 / ALICE CULVER
Location: 6100 N. Pierce Park Lane
ANNEXATION OF 1.22 ACRES WITH R-1B (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-4.8
DWELLING UNITS/ACRE AND A REZONE OF 3.07 ACRES FROM A-1 (OPEN LAND)
TO R-1B (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-4.8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE). THE
APPLICATION INCLUDES THREE PARCELS.


COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

COMMISSIONER DEMAREST SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

CUP13-00066 / SAGE INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL
Location: 415, 449 and 457 E. Parkcenter Boulevard
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL TO EXPAND INTO
AN APPROXIMATELY 83,000 SQUARE-FOOT EXISTING BUILDING. THE REQUEST
ALSO INCLUDES A NEW 1.13 ACRE PLAYFIELD AREA TO REPLACE A VACANT
BANK BUILDING AND A PORTION OF THE SITES PARKING. THE TOTAL CAMPUS
IS PLANNED FOR 7.72 ACRES LOCATED IN AN L-OD (LIMITED OFFICE WITH
DESIGN REVIEW) ZONE.

Commissioner Bradbury This is a request for reconsideration, as was the case when this
matter came before us last month. I need to recuse myself from any participation so we will
permit Commissioner Demarest to handle this matter.

Commissioner Demarest This is a reconsideration request and the Commission needs to
either approve or deny the request. We need to decide amongst ourselves whether we want to
hear additional information or whether we need to have additional information. Lets have a
discussion about that.

February 3, 2014
Page 3

Commissioner Danley The question I would have before making any motion is to understand
the protocol with regard to content on the web. I would like to ask our staff, as we read through
our project report we apparently have information which was posted on December 24
th
, when the
hearing was on J anuary 6
th
. I would like to simply understand, is it a 14 day period which
information on the web is supposed to be posted. Is that correct?

Josh Johnson We try to post things on the internet as soon as we get them, so ACHDs draft
report came in I believe maybe a day or two before that was posted on the web, at the most, then
we put it on the website, separate from the packet as we get items.

Commissioner Gillespie Im looking through the project report we had on J anuary 6
th
.

Commissioner Demarest While youre doing that let me read into the record, we have
received three letters total, two in opposition and one in favor of the reconsideration. So I want
to make sure we get those into the record. Weve all received them.

Josh Johnson Commissioner Demarest, remember the letters you also received supporting the
reconsideration.

Commissioner Demarest Yes, Rafanelli & Nahas and Spring Hills Suites? Is that correct?

Commissioner Gillespie For our fellow Commissioners, the ACHD draft project report was in
the big pdf file in our packet. Its my understanding the only substantive change between the
project report we saw and what ACHD approved on J anuary 15
th
were some changes in some left
turn lanes. I suppose one could construe this as new information, although, I suspect that
happens quite a bit where ACHD and the City are not in perfect sync, and that ACHD
subsequently might make small changes to the report. I guess the question we have is does that
change constitute new information? The second question is does the ACHD Commissions
statement of J anuary 15
th
serve as a special statement? I didnt really understand why they did it.
Does that constitute as new information because it really wasnt information, it was simply their
opinion? And they kind of recognized in their own hearing that this is kind of weird. Im trying
to figure out does that constitute new information that we would then like to read here?

Commissioner Demarest This would be the selling point.

Commissioner Meyer As I was reading through the documents we got in reconsideration the
only thing I kept coming up against was this body here doesnt really have control over ACHDs
decisions. We make our decisions based on criteria which is in the plan and I believe we did that
with the information we had and I havent seen anything new for consideration that we as a body
actually have any control over.

Commissioner Danley One additional piece of information Im trying to frantically find as
were talking here. Apparently my understanding was there were a series of potential
ramifications from the application that after the action was taken by us it became apparent to
those who are appealing this decision were told pretty definitively in fact, that it was no longer
necessarily an option.
February 3, 2014
Page 4

But it was in fact going to be an action and one of those actions was the potential of an access
point being taken away. So, it wasnt just left turns being affected and U-turns and so forth, that
it was apparently beyond that. It was an actual access point onto Parkcenter from the
development center on the, in this case it would be the east side or north side of the road.

Commissioner Gillespie But that recommendation was struck in the final report and all that
information was available for our hearing. In a sense they had an issue and it was publically
available in our packages. Whats the new part?

Commissioner Danley Im reading verbatim in our packet from one (inaudible) saying;
Pursue of this saying that the day after the P&Z hearing I received a call from Mindy Wallace
with ACHD letting me know the proposed changes for our existing entry into the hotel. Again, I
guess I think of that as being, heres what is sort of a menu of what could happen, and then after
the action was taken the definitive step that was taken. In addition to this I would add one other
piece to this and that is I think were up against a practical side of this which was the information
from ACHD was posted on our website on December 24
th
. I dont think this is necessarily the
time the general public is going to be paying much attention to what occurs on the City website
and I know the application was pending and so forth. I think its a little bit much for us to kind
of expect, honestly. I mean I understand in normal situations maybe theres an exception to that,
but I see this as a difficult point. Furthermore, I would say I wasnt here at that hearing. I was
absent on that day. I know were not rehashing this but I would say this is not a decision. This
land use decision is directly impacting the streets. Yes, ACHD has the authority and so forth
over the streets. But in this situation the action in front of us is having a direct impact on what
their reaction is. To me the applicant, having understanding that the day everything in the packet
was put forth on December 24
th
, a definitive answer given to those folks after our hearing
specifically sighting that an access point was to be denied, which was information that wasnt
necessarily put forth before, does in fact rise to a potential of at least getting those folks who are
now impacted, an opportunity to make a case and come before us again.

Commissioner Gibson J ust a procedural question about the ACHD hearing thats going to be
occurring on the 5
th
, if I understand that. Is that overall going to see over our decision to be
specific to (interrupted by Commissioner Gillespie)

Commissioner Gillespie How to request for reconsideration.

Commissioner Gibson I dont know how that would affect this decision tonight based upon
whats going to (inaudible) ACHD. I dont want to speculate, I just want some clarification.

Commissioner Demarest Let me ask Counsel if she could weigh in on that.

Mary Watson (Legal Counsel) Somebody has got to go first on this and we could bounce back
and forth. The request at ACHD right now is I believe Sage requesting they reconsider their
points they made on their report. To the extent that that impacts your decision here tonight, that
could flavor the discussion a little bit but I dont think it has a great impact.

February 3, 2014
Page 5

Commissioner Gillespie With respect to what was in the original ACHD report, basically had
all of it in there so it was all available both to the Commission, to the applicants and to the
public. They had 6 days plus 12 days to digest it. I understand it was Christmas but they did
have 12 days. I guess more broadly my sense is Parkcenter is designed for high traffic
applications. Thats why we built the darn thing. Thats what it is, its a high traffic corridor and
Im a little confused as to were now into micromanaging ACHDs fine points of how they want
to manage traffic on a street. I dont We can.

Commissioner Danley On that note I would say Parkcenter was a master planned corridor and
this application was never in those master plans. Our land use decision on this, however its
flushed out, has a very different impact from what has been there historically, the way its
situated and designed. Its our land use decision and in this case it has a direct impact on the
configuration and the flow of the intersection in that general vicinity. I dont think, in this case
reference to the Barber Valley and so forth, that was master planned and it took years to come
together. In this situation this is something that we have an existing facility which is now being
proposed for a very dramatic change in use, which therefore changes everything that was
planned in that corridor. I dont want to rehash this and I know that I am. Id love to have other
opinions on this.

Commissioner Demarest May I make a comment which is at some point were going to have
to make a motion on this thing so I would encourage one of you to make a motion. Before you
do that I would like to read from the project report one section to give you some sense of where
Im leaning. The Commissioners approved the Sage application based on a draft ACHD report.
Since then ACHD changed their report to include a special recommendation to Boise City. This
occurred on January 15
th
, 2014 at a Highway District meeting. Some of this new language
added to the report encouraged the City to work with the applicant to find another site for the
school due to the heavy increase in peak hour traffic. I dont think thats insignificant. Its not
my job to make a motion on this one.

COMMISSIONER DANLEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO
RECONSIDER CUP13-00066 TO THE MARCH 3
RD
P&Z COMMISSION HEARING.

COMMISSIONER GIBSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

Commissioner Danley I would speak in support of the motion for numerous reasons. One, in
light of the new information received from ACHD since our previous action, in addition to read
testimony submitted with regard to direct information provided to those folks with regard to
definitive actions, specifically tending by the district which does in fact appear to potentially
impact their development which according to what were supposed to be looking at with
Conditional Use Permits (CUP) one of the requirements is that the CUP does not in fact
minimize impacts to surrounding property owners.

Commissioner Demarest J ust because I sympathize with the confusion when you made the
motion, so a motion to approve this would be to in fact consider the request for reconsideration.
Motion to deny would be to let the original decision we made last month stand.

February 3, 2014
Page 6

Commissioner Danley Correct.

ROLL CALL VOTE

COMMISSIONER DANLEY AYE
COMMISSIONER DEMAREST AYE
COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE NAY
COMMISSIONER GIBSON AYE
COMMISSIONER MEYER NAY

THREE IN FAVOR TWO AGAINST, MOTION CARRIES.

Commissioner Demarest Id like to recognize Commissioner Bradbury back to Chair.

DEFERRAL AGENDA

PUD13-00009 / NORHTSIDE MANAGEMENT
Location: 2705 W. Malad Street
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 14-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT COMPRISED OF DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON 1.28
ACRES LOCATED IN A C-2D (GENERAL COMMERCIAL WITH DESIGN REVIEW)
ZONE. A PARKING REDUCTIOIN IS INCLUDED IN THIS REQUEST.

SUB13-00041 / BELLA VISTA PLACE
Location: 2705 W. Malad Street
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
CONSISTING OF 14 BUILDING AND 4 COMMOM LOT ON 1.28 ACRES IN A C02D
(GENERAL COMMERCIAL WITH DESIGN REVIEW) ZONE. THE SITE IS LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 280 FEET WEST OF VISTA AVENUE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
MALAD.

COMMISSIONER MEYER MOVED TO DEFERRAL ITEMS PUD13-00009 AND
SUB13-00041 TO THE MARCH 3, 2014 P&Z HEARING.


CAR13-00021 / OWYHEE PLACE, LLC.
Location 1109 W. Main Street
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE PARKING OVERLAY ZONE
FROM P-2 TO P-1 FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 1.8 ACRE PARCEL. THE EXPANSION
ENCOMPASSES AN ENTIRE BLOCK, BOUNDED BY MAIN, 11
TH
, GROVE AND 12
TH

STREETS.

February 3, 2014
Page 7

COMMISSIONER DEMAREST MOVED TO DEFER CAR13-00022 TO APRIL 7, 2014.

COMMISSIONER DANLEY SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION

REGULAR AGENDA

CAA13-00163 / BRENT AND HOLLY CLAIBORN / APPEAL
Location: 12663 W. Freedom Drive
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING DIRECTORS APPROVAL OF AN ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT PROPOSED IN AN R-1B (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE.

Todd Tucker (Current Planning) This item is an appeal of the administrative approval of an
accessory dwelling unit. The item was heard by the Commission at your J anuary 6
th
hearing. It
was deferred at that time to allow for a review and analysis of a court judgment presented by the
appellant at that hearing. In 2010 the applicant combined 3 parcels into to one buildable parcel.
The accessory dwelling unit is based on the larger parcel made up of these 3 lots. Items 7 and 8
of the judgment indicate the lots were involved in the consolidation and were not annexed into
and not part of the Lewis & Clark Subdivision. This is correct; those lots were never annexed
into the subdivision and are not subject to the CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions)
of that subdivision. They were however, added onto Lot 17 Block 1 of the Lewis & Clark
Subdivision making a larger parcel. The subject property is a parcel of ground made up of 3
separate lots located in 3 separate subdivisions. This slide shows where the existing structures
are located in relation of the underlying lots on the parcel.

Since the J anuary hearing the applicant has submitted a revised Site Plan which reduces the
overall size of the attached accessory structure. This RV bay and shop have been removed from
the Site Plan and the 2-car garage for the accessory dwelling unit has been made slightly larger.
This slide reflects that. The applicant has removed the large RV storage bay. The size of the
accessory dwelling unit itself has not changed and still conforms to the 600 square foot limit.

The detached accessory structure complies with all required setbacks of the R-1B zone. This
slide shows how the revised elevation shows compatibility with the existing home on the site. In
conclusion, the accessory dwelling unit contained in the detached accessory structure thats over
1,000 square feet is in compliance with the requirements found in Section 11-6-3.1.A and 11-4-
4.01 of the Boise Development Code.

Commissioner Bradbury Is the original applicant, Mr. J ennings, present for his presentation?
(Lyn J ennings indicates he is present) Do you have anything youd like to add to the staff report,
or what you said when you were here last month? This would be your opportunity to do so. We
dont need to have you repeat all that was testified to last time.

Lyn Jennings No, I agree totally with staffs findings.

Brent Claiborn Thank you for your time and for considering our appeal. I appreciate the
effort staff and the Commission has done towards this matter.
February 3, 2014
Page 8

I probably dont have anything additional to say other than if there is any possibility for
additional landscaping in front of this. We would appreciate that consideration.

Commissioner Demarest I actually have a question of Mr. Claiborn. Without putting words
into your mouth, it sounds like you are satisfied with the modifications which have been made?

Brent Claiborn Yes, as far as structurally.

REBUTTAL

Lyn Jennings I salute Mr. Tucker for his excellent documentation and efforts.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL OF CAA13-00163.

COMMISSIONER GIBSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

Commissioner Meyer I want to be clear we are upholding the original approval.

Commissioner Bradbury A yes vote is denial of the appeal and upholding the original
approval.

Commissioner Bradbury Yes, a yes vote is denial of the appeal and upholding, this is staffs
decision.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE STATED HE WOULD LIKE TO AMEND HIS MOTION
TO MOVE TO DENY THE APPEAL AND WE APPROVE THE REVISED PLAN AS
PRESENTED TODAY.

Commissioner Bradbury Does the seconder understand the modification and agree?

Commissioner Gibson Yes.

Commissioner Bradbury We have a motion for denial of the appeal, upholding the staffs
original decision together with the modifications presented to the Commission tonight.

ROLL CALL VOTE

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE AYE
COMMISSIONER MEYER AYE
COMMISSIONER BRADBURY AYE

ALL IN FAVOR NONE OPPOSED, MOTION CARRIES.

February 3, 2014
Page 9

PUD13-00013 / THE INTEGRA FOUNDATION
Location: 2638 W. Gekeler Lane
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 12-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT. THE 1.75 ACRE SITE IS LOCATED IN AN R-1C (SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL) ZONE.

Susan Riggs (Current Planning Team) The Commissioners heard this item J anuary 6
th
of this
year and directed the applicant to meet with the neighbors to work out solutions and concerns
regarding parking and setbacks. Specifically, the applicant was told to add three to four
additional parking spaces in the southwest corner of the site and increase the setbacks along the
south and east boundaries of the property. Three neighbors, as indicated on the site plan in front
of you, who are most impacted are the Harrisons the Alvords and the J ones. Staff believes the
concerns of the neighbors have been adequately addressed (inaudible) parking spaces are
proposed in the southwest corner of the site. Setbacks to the adjacent homes have been increased
accordingly. The two homes on the east property line have been limited to one-story. A new
fence, per the neighbors specifications, will be constructed on the south and east property line,
as indicated in the revised plan.

In addition, the applicant has also agreed to plant Arborvitae or similar plantings inside the fence
on the developers property to provide screening for the affected neighbors. Additional shrubs
and plantings including evergreens will also be provided in the west end of the garages along
Gekeler. Planning recommends the Commission approve the application. Several recommended
conditions of approval have been included in the project report to assure compliance with the
neighborhood directive. Staff recommends the Commission does modify Condition #7 which
relates to the fencing and Im going to read the whole condition as it would be modified.
Construct a 6-foot tall dog eared number 1 grade kiln dried rather than cedar fence. That would
be a good neighbor fence, 1 by 4 by 6 along the southeast property lines as indicated on the
revised plan. The fence shall be approximately 55 feet east of the driveway on Fall Drive. New
fencing shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the first building permit.

Gary Christensen (Applicant) I did meet with two of the neighbors and representatives of the
neighbors. We have discussed the difference in issues. Their agreement weve reached between
ourselves and neighbors have been well presented by staff in the amended report and I find the
conditions that are of that approval very acceptable.

PUBLIC HEARING

Pete Friedman We are also in agreement with the recommended revised conditions of the
staff report. There is one more word in Condition #7 that we want to add after Kiln Dried before
Red Cedar and that should be Inland species, so Kiln Dried Inland Red Cedar for the fencing.

Commissioner Bradbury Say that word very slowly. I want to make sure I get it.

Pete Friedman Kiln Dried Inland Red Cedar. The only point of bringing that up is thats
consistent with the fencing in the adjacent neighborhood. Other than that, were in agreement
with all the conditions in the staff report.
February 3, 2014
Page 10

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

Barbara Harrison, Debi Alford and Chet Alvord all passed on their testimony.

NO REBUTTAL

PUBLIC TESTIMONY CLOSED.

COMMISSIONER DEMAREST MOVED TO APPROVE PUD13-00013 IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROJECT REPORT AND THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL AS MODIFIED.

COMMISSIONER MEYER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Commissioner Bradbury We have a motion for approval of PUD13-00013 which will be in
accordance with the project report and the conditions of approval as modified tonight.

Commissioner Demarest Yes, I was just going to add that.

Commissioner Meyer Yes and I would like to commend the developer, the neighbors and
staff for getting together and working things out so this is something you are all okay with and
we can approve. It makes everybodys job a lot easier so thank you for taking the time and effort
to do that.

ROLL CALL VOTE


SIX IN FAVOR, NONE OPPOSED, MOTION CARRIES.

PUD13-00014 / CARTER USA
Location: 1570 S. Lusk Street
CONDITONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 126-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING LOCATED ON A 2.9 ACRE PARCEL IN A C-2DC (GENERAL COMMERCIAL
WITH CAPITOL BOULEVARD SPECIAL DESIGN DISTRICT OVERLAY) AND R-3D
(GENERAL COMMERCIAL WITH CAPITOL BOULEVARD SPECIAL DESIGN DISTRICT
OVERLAY) ZONE.

Susan Riggs (Current Planning Team) - The proposal to construct an urban multi-family
apartment building at the edge of the Downtown supports Boises vision of the built environment
by expanding the urban core to promote revitalization of underutilized infill developments.
February 3, 2014
Page 11

The vacant 2.90-acre site is located at the periphery of Downtown, east of Lusk Place, west of
Capitol Boulevard, and north of Crescent Rim Drive and is within the boundaries of the recently
adopted Lusk Street Master Plan Area where higher density development is anticipated and
appropriate.
The proposed 4-story structure is approximately 168,488 square feet (excluding garage). The
building is of Spanish Mission style architecture which reflects elements of the Boise Depot. The
first floor of the building is comprised of 252 vehicular and 133 bicycle parking spaces, a rental
office, maintenance area, mail room, and trash areas. The second floor will contain residential
units and a large clubhouse providing a fitness center, restrooms, study area, media lounge, and
gaming area. In addition, there are exterior deck areas which provide grilling areas, picnic
tables, a J acuzzi, and outdoor gaming area. Floors 3 and 4 contain residential units with a study
lounge on each floor. The building is proposed at the maximum density allowed in the zone and
is comprised of 126 apartments which include 21 studio units, 36 2-bedroom and 69 4-bedroom
units for a total of 369 beds. Although not a required standard, the ratio of beds to parking is
68%. Planning finds the building compatible with the adjacent zoning and mix of uses. West of
the site is the Anniversary Inn & the Marriott Residence Inn, both 3-story buildings and to the
north is the Marriott Suites which is 4-story building.
The multi-family development will be compatible with these uses which are residential in nature,
as well as the general area which is comprised of a number of restaurants, office and commercial
uses, the Greenbelt and Boise State University. The buildings entrance is oriented towards Lusk
Place with one vehicular access point to the at-grade parking garage located beneath the
building. The podium parking screens the parking from street views and the building becomes
the dominant feature on the parcel occupying 54.43% of the site. Due to the hillside of the site,
the building sits up to 50 lower in elevation than Capitol Blvd. and Crescent Rim.
Ada County Highway District (ACHD) estimates the project will generate 847 additional vehicle
trips per day and 78 per hour in the PM peak hours. Additionally, based on the close proximity to
Boise State University (BSU) and convenient access to alternative modes of transportation, the
actual vehicle trips may be lower. BSU provides shuttle service in multiple locations throughout
the area and Valley Ride currently has multiple bus stops which will accommodate the residents
of this development.
All adjacent streets are operating at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS). The Planning
Division has received a letter from Boise State University and the Residence Inn requesting a
traffic study. A traffic study for this area was also discussed at the Commission hearing J anuary
13
th
with regards to the 110 unit multi-family project on LaPointe Street. Typically, a Traffic
Impact Study for a development of this size would be required to determine its impact on the
transportation system; however, a traffic analysis of this area was included as part of the Lusk
Street Master Plan. Since this development plan is consistent with the Master Plan, the Highway
District did not require a traffic study.
February 3, 2014
Page 12

The traffic study indicated the existing and forecast build-out volumes (2016) on Capitol
Boulevard, 9
th
Street, Boise Avenue, Ann Morrison Park Drive, Island Avenue, La Pointe Street,
Royal Boulevard and Sherwood Street during the peak hour are lower than the planning
threshold in the vicinity. As such, the roadway capacity of a majority of the surrounding streets
is sufficient to accommodate the additional vehicles trips per day (VTD) generated by this
development.
University Drive is the one impacted roadway which currently operates above the planning
threshold and will continue to operate at a LOS F with additional trips generated by this and
other recently approved developments in the Lusk Street Master Plan Area. The Capitol
Boulevard and University Drive intersection is currently signalized and operates at a Level of
Service C during the am peak hour and a Level of Service F during the pm peak hour. Based on
the most recent analysis of this intersection, improvements are needed to operate at an acceptable
Level of Service. The Highway District does not have any short term solution for the
intersection and the scope of these long-term improvements is beyond the latitude of this project.
The Lusk Street Master Plan acknowledges this deficiency and has implementation steps to help
alleviate some of the traffic congestion. One suggestion is to extend Royal Boulevard across
Capitol Boulevard to provide more access to the Lusk area. The strategy is being analyzed by
ACHD and is included in their five-year work plan. It is my understanding that public outreach
has already begun.
The site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all required setbacks. The
parking has been exceeded by 50 spaces for a total of 252 spaces. Bicycle parking has been
exceeded with 133 spaces provided within the parking garage (26 required) and 25 guest spaces in
front of the building. The parking plan shows the 126 exterior spaces on the east side of the
building along Capitol Boulevard which would bring the parking up to 285 spaces. These spaces
will be along Capitol Boulevard and will only be provided if deemed necessary. The use will not
adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The structure is not adjacent to single-family
homes where privacy, noise and building height could have a negative impact. It is anticipated
the majority of the tenants will bike or walk to BSU, to neighborhood parks, and the Downtown,
which will help ease some of the traffic concerns.

The project complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Downtown Centers, Corridors and
Neighborhood Principle 1.4 encourage urban building forms which place the structure at the
sidewalk with building entrances to the public street rather than to parking lots. The building is
constructed 10 from the front property line on Lusk Place. Podium parking allows the building
entrance to be oriented to the street and not to the parking lot. Principle DT-CCN1.5 speaks to
avoiding auto-oriented uses in the Downtown. This project is an urban multi-family residential
use geared toward college students who will likely walk or bike to classes and utilizes the public
transportation system.
February 3, 2014
Page 13

It doesnt make sense they would drive their car from this close location and try to find or pay
for a parking space on University Drive when they have parking on campus, or if they dont have
a car they just bike. The site is located within the Capitol Boulevard Special Design District and
subject to specific design standards. A Design Review application has been submitted and the
Design Review Standards will be reviewed in detail with that application, along with proposed
landscaping. Staff recommends approval of the project finding it meets the required findings.

Becky McKay (Applicant Team/Engineering Solutions) Im here with Dave Nelson of the
Carter Group. Well do a two prong type presentation, if thats acceptable to the Commission.

Dave Carter (Carter Group) Im with Carter and I just wanted to say thank you for your time.
Susan did a great job, a very thorough job of going through all the facts and really what I want
to address was the history behind this project. We got interested in this neighborhood
specifically because of its proximity to Boise State, as well as Ann Morrison Park in Downtown
and all the amenities all of that provides and the accessibility for the students to get to all of
those different amenities. The original design of the project was actually modeled more like the
Marriott next door. There was surface parking. It was in an L shaped facing Capitol and after
several months of working with Lusk Street Neighborhood and the Depot Bench Neighborhood
Associations, as well as many individuals we designed a much more attractive design and from a
planning perspective, a more urban and better design for the City. Ill turn it over to Becky to
walk us through some of the specifics.

Becky McKay As Susan indicated this project is located at a very critical location as far as it
is a gateway into the City of Boise along the Capitol Boulevard Corridor. This property is
located on the west side of Capitol Boulevard, just north of Crescent Rim Drive. To the north is
the Marriott Hotel, to the west we have the Anniversary Inn and we also have some multi-family
development in a northwest direction. Over across on the other side of Capitol Boulevard is an
existing mobile home park which has been there for many years.

When we first started looking at this site the architect said they ended up with 20 some different
site plans. One of the things we first looked at were photographs of the Boise Depot. I thought
that as a landmark in the City, its something we need to respect and we need to compliment. In
going through the Capitol Boulevard Design Plan and talking with your staff, this project
evolved over months and months and months. Id like to thank the Depot Bench Neighborhood
Association, the Lusk Association and the neighbors around us. We had multiple group
meetings and then there were multiple individual meetings and staff was patient with us as this
project took form. They looked at a lot of different ideas and by far this is the superior plan we
have before you this evening.

One of the key things we looked at was obviously making sure the parking is not visible from
Capitol Boulevard. That is one of the key things in the Capitol Boulevard Design section of
your overlay of your Ordinance. In order to accomplish this we came up with podium parking.
That is, the building is partially over the top of the parking. We have some open parking. If you
look at this particular site plan you can see it kind of looks like an 8 turned on its side.
February 3, 2014
Page 14

Its open above on the inside of the eight and then on the outside of their structure. One of the
things we also wanted was excellent modulation and articulation of this site so it didnt create a
real bulk look and thats one of the other things encouraged by your Ordinance. What we ended
up with is we have this kind of north and south wing, then a west wing and the clubhouse and
amenities are through the mid-section of this project. If you looked at the Lusk Master Plan, one
of the things talked about was creating a building which is oriented to the street so we get more
urban form, making sure there is visual interest on all sides of the structure and that it, as far as
bearing roof lines, to create that visual interest.

This kind of gives you an idea of the context as far as the Boise Depot. As you can see the
depot is up on the top of that bench. That is approximately 62 higher than the grade of this
property. You can also see where Crescent Rim Drive is located and that kind of shows you
what the height of the building is in relationship to that bench and to the adjoining roadways.

One of the other things the Deport Bench Neighborhood Association president commented is he
would like to see a perspective of what will this development look like from Crescent Rim, even
though were at the edge of that neighborhood, we wanted to make sure we created an
aesthetically pleasing look as far as their perspective was concerned. This slide kind of gives
you an idea.

This rendering shows what the structure looks like from Capitol Boulevard so weve included
that Spanish Mission style. We have varying modulation in the building. The roof lines are
articulated and you can see we maintain the view corridor, which currently exist along Capitol
Boulevard. With Capitol Boulevard being a gateway theres a setback from the edge of right-of-
way. Theres a huge right-of-way there so from that right-of-way we have a 20 setback to this
structure. Theres also a significant amount of existing vegetation along that corridor, a lot of
trees. When we took photographs this summer from both Capitol and Crescent Rim it was hard
to see the property and you just couldnt look through the trees, so obviously we take advantage
of that natural buffering which has already been created.

This structure is 4-stories in height. As Susan has indicated we have about 126 multi-family
dwellings. One of the things we wanted to make sure is that we had studio apartments. We
have 2-bedroom and 4-bedroom that will appeal to different specters. Theyre target market is
obviously the university, but urban professionals would also be combined in this particular
development. There is a clubhouse proposed in the project. I think its about 5,875 square feet.
Theyll have gathering places, recreational opportunities, a fitness center, study lounges, game
rooms, billiards and then theyll have exterior gaming areas which are on the outside deck on the
second level. This gives you the perspective from Lusk and what that will look like. As you
can see weve embraced Lusk Street trying to create a pedestrian friendly neighborhood so it
creates a sense of place. The building is not just set back with the sea of parking you would
typically find when you look at multi-family projects. There will be about 7,400 square feet of
open decking where theyre going to have fire-pits and sitting areas. Obviously, they will be
utilized during the summer, fall and spring months.

Before you this evening, we have the hillside application and its a planned development under a
conditional use, due to the fact that we exceed 20 dwelling units per acre.
February 3, 2014
Page 15

I know there are particular findings the Commission needs to make. Ill go transportation since
there have been multiple comments. With the Lusk Master Plan that has recently been adopted,
I think in December of 2013, there was an extensive traffic analysis done in this area. Since this
area is in kind of a redevelopment type format they wanted to look at the different designations
and what was appropriate from a mixed use perspective so they got a balance of both
commercial, multi-family, office and that this area has a balance in its development. Part of the
Lusk Master Plan was this traffic analysis. They took counts in the spring of 2013. Since there
were other developments which were moving through the process, who submitted traffic studies
the District had the opportunity to review and look at the overall transportation of this area. As
far as system improvements they were identified with that particular Lusk Master Plan and it
was determined they should extend Royal Boulevard and make another vehicular outlet from
this Lusk area to Capitol Boulevard. ACHD informed me a couple of weeks ago that they did
have their kickoff meeting and they are putting that in their 5-year plan for those street
improvements. The other thing the Highway District is looking at is restriping the Capitol
Boulevard/University intersection to improve the capacity of it. Right now it operates at a Level
of Service C in the AM and a Level of Service F in the PM. This is the third project Ive had
over the past couple of years in the Lusk area and one of the things we noticed right up front was
there is a lot of intrusive parking which takes place in this neighborhood. Its an area where
there is no parking district and parking is free so you can sit there and watch the cars coming in,
students parking along the roadway and then walking over to class. Part of the Lusk Master
Plan addressed that issue and said were going to move forward and create a parking district.
We have people who live in this neighborhood and work in this neighborhood who are utilizing
the on-street parking. Obviously, customers to the existing and future businesses, but they want
to stop that intrusive type parking.

In this particular project we have 252 parking spaces in our podium area. Thats a 6.8 parking
ratio when you look at it from a bed perspective. We want to encourage alternative modes of
transportation. This area is close to the university. Its close to Downtown, to parks and the
Greenbelt.

Theres a BSU shuttle that runs through this area and is running through about every 15 minutes
like clockwork and you can sit out there and watch it come through and pick up students. Bus
services are readily available along the Capitol Boulevard Corridor so when we look at the
alternative modes of traffic, as I said before on the record, I have never had a project in an area
which had more alternative modes of transportation than this area. You can use the Greenbelt
and bike, you can walk, you can bus, you can shuttle and you can drive. This area is perfect for
this type of urban design. I did look at the letters from Marriott and Boise State talking about a
traffic study.

I had a lengthy discussion with ACHD when we first started this and their very words were,
Were not going to require a traffic study because it will not tell us anything we dont already
know, and weve already evaluated this area as far as the future land uses and what system
improvements need to be made. Therefore it would be just an exercise in futility. If you look
at Ada County Highway Districts policy manual under Section 7 it states its at the discretion of
the Ada County Highway District whether a traffic study is necessary or not. Traffic studies are
utilized if youre evaluating turn lanes and impact on intersections.
February 3, 2014
Page 16

As far as this type of density being designated for multi-family in the Lusk Master Plan, this
density has already been factored in to that transportation analysis in 2013. Theyre obviously
the traffic expert. One of the other criteria they look at is, do we hit that threshold of 100
vehicle trips per peak hour, a thousand vehicle trips per day, and we are under both of those
factors.

Commissioner Gibson I have a couple of specific questions starting with you Dave. What
building construction type are you guys going to do this in?

Dave Nelson Thats a good question. Its a four-story building and is going to be wood frame.
Im not sure what type of wood that is. Ill have to ask our construction guys that question.

Commissioner Gibson This is a specific question and staff may be able to provide input but
looking at the distance between your structure and the adjacent Marriott, how did the Fire
Department come up with the findings specific to projecting the structure relative to, it really
only has one frontage at grade. Has there been any conversation with the Boise City Fire
Department that you could elaborate on?

Dave Nelson Yes.

Becky McKay Yes, Ive been working with Romeo Gervais with the Boise City Fire
Department on the emergency access. One of the things which was critical is Lusk Place
currently dead-ends. Theres no turnaround so with this particular project we will build what
they consider an alternative turnaround, but it meets the radius of Boise Fire. They were
comfortable with that. We do have a fire access lane which comes around the south end of the
building. What the Fire Department looks at is where they would park their fire truck, then they
will allow up to a 300 pull from each direction. So say there was a fire in a structure on the
north end. They would park on Lusk, bring their hoses around that north end of the building and
stretch it for 300. We have a gap in there thats about 92 and the architects will have to
provide additional stand pipes, certain materials and firewalls in order to satisfy Boise Fire.

Susan and I have had this conversation that approval of this project is subject to Boise City Fire
Departments approval and satisfaction. This is a sprinklered building but it is up against the
bench. One of the things we talked about if it was a huge fire, you could shoot water cannons
from Capitol Boulevard? Obviously, they said that would not be preferred because of the slope
but if they had to that would be a different situation. Were working with Romeo to get our Ts
crossed and our Is dotted so hes happy.

Commissioner Gibson I have one more question. Specific to your presentation includes a
significant amount of bike parking and youre assuming residents would be able to take
S. Lusk northward. Has there been any consideration to connectivity between Capitol back
towards the east side of the structure? The Site Plans are still schematic so I cant tell if you
guys are addressing that.

February 3, 2014
Page 17

Becky McKay Yes, we did look at that. We took aerial photos and looked at what is the
shortest route? Right now the shortest pedestrian or bicycle route is along Capitol Boulevard to
Dale Street directly north out of the northeast corner of the building. So we do have an entrance
there. We will have a sidewalk which will connect to the existing asphalt apron. It used to be
an old drive. I believe it ran just below the bench and came back to this property and it is still
there. In Susans project report I think she had some photographs of that and its my
understanding in my conversations with Andrea Tuning, who worked closely with the Lusk
Master Plan, that Boise City eventually would like to get some type of grant to go ahead and
replace that and put in an actual pathway, but its in good shape and will be the shortest route
and we will be connecting to that.

Commissioner Danley I have a couple of quick questions and more for clarity. I thought I
heard, Susan, did you say the bike spaces being for rent? Is that right?

Susan Riggs No, there are 25 guest parking spaces in front of the building, in addition to the
153 in the basement and I believe 127 potential parking spaces along the Capitol Boulevard
frontage.

Commissioner Danley Beating myself up, I meant to look this up before tonight. The BSU
circulator, weve kind of talked about that it in fact does access the Lusk Street area, correct?
With 15 minute headways, does that sound all accurate?

Becky McKay Yes, it makes that loop. It goes through the whole area picking up students. I
think they went through (inaudible) we counted like 70 cars which were student cars along this
roadway. Yes, there are quite a few students in this area.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY

Shawn Tallant (Representative of the Lusk Street Neighborhood Association) On J anuary
28
th
we met with Lusk District Neighborhood Association and we voted to oppose this project.
There are a number of reasons, the first of which is traffic. If we talk about traffic in the area,
pedestrian safety, driver convenience and conflict, currently the only way to go north from the
Lusk neighborhood is by making a left hand turn on Ann Morrison Park Drive onto Capitol.
Thats for all of the buildings anywhere in the area. You can no longer cut through Ann
Morrison Park, something nobody would like to do, but it makes life difficult if you need to go
north, or going to BSU or if youre going to just about anywhere. Most people are going to
make a north turn. In order to make that turn from most of Lusk Street area, you can either take
a left hand turn on Lusk Street or you can make a right hand turn from Lois Avenue. These
apartments would be built towards the Lusk side which requires you to take Lois Avenue to get
to the intersection. Lusk gets cut-off by some apartments so you drive down Lusk Place, take a
right, take another left onto Lois and then you eventually take a right onto Ann Morrison Park
before taking a left onto Capitol. Its a difficult turn. First of all you have to cut over two lanes
of traffic in order to get to the left hand turn lane and if there are cars piled up in the normal,
especially at peak hours, you have to wait two or three lights for somebody to allow you to cut
over those two lanes of traffic in order to get to the left turn lane. If you go right here, this lot is
where they are proposing to do the building.
February 3, 2014
Page 18

You have to drive down Lusk Place here, turn onto Dale over to Lois and then just hope there
isnt a line of cars. Lots of hours of the day youre going to find a line of cars and youre not
going to be able to get anywhere. One of the problems this creates for pedestrians and for
drivers is when youre looking left to see who is coming. The pedestrians crossing on the right
is our concern. What is going to happen to all of these people who live in the apartments that
have been built in the area recently, when they have a driver who is trying to get somewhere
quick and is looking left, frustrated because theyve had to miss two lights already and they
cant make that turn. So thats a concern we need to see addressed. The only way this can be
addressed is by building another outlet for traffic in the area.

The last traffic study completed by ACHD was done in April of 2011. Since then there have
been three major developments of student housing proposed and accepted in the area. Between
those 3 thats 1,497 rooms which are being built. This will be another 369 rooms. Theres no
ACHD study on the impact of this new traffic and we know this intersection is currently
operating with an F rating so it cant get any worse. Thats that good news. Rather than
resolving the problem if were just planning on getting more people in and thats not going to
help us resolve it in the future. ACHD has proposed an extension of Royal Boulevard to turn
south onto Capitol but thats not going to be built until 2016. How bad are we going to make
the problem before 2016 and do we know if this new construction, new intersection will be
adequate to handle the traffic being created. Nobody knows, nobody has done the study and that
needs to be done.

Additionally, when you look at the density were putting into the area. Theres only one
northbound exit to the whole neighborhood. How many people are you going to try to put in the
area before you talk about getting people out of that area? These are things which need to be
addressed before we do major, major developments. Theres been a lot proposed and approved
already. Pedestrian safety and driver convenience are not certified for this development at this
time without a better understanding of the impact they will have on traffic in the neighborhood.

When we talk about parking, a lot of these new developments everybody is talking about how
great that students are going to live there. They are going to bike or walk to class and I think
most of them will bike and walk to class. The problem is how are they going to get to the
grocery store to buy groceries, or when they want to go Downtown, or if they want to go up to
Bogus? They might have a bike but theyre probably going to have a car as well, so if theyre
biking to class, wheres their car throughout the day? Is it on one of those streets or in the
parking lot? The thing with multi-family housing, if you talk multi-family housing you have
two adults and one, two or three kids. You have two people that drive and maybe theres one
car between them. When you talk about four-bedroom student housing, thats four people who
are eligible to drive. Four of them probably want to have a car, its likely three of them do and
thats assuming youve only got one person per bedroom. When youre a student you might not
have a job, you have very little money. Students tend to fit more than one person in a bedroom,
in many cases, in order to help reduce costs.

Additionally, bicycles for a lot of people are recreational vehicles. Its something you do for
fun. Cars are needed from point A to point B when its important. You have 369 beds. If we
only have a person in each room, verses 252 parking spaces.
February 3, 2014
Page 19

That potentially means 117 additional cars parking on the streets in the Lusk Street District and
inside Ann Morrison Park. Thats in addition to all those 2C people who come and park and
take up parking. If we looked at one of the last two housing projects approved and actually built
and has been operating in the area, the Morrison Park Apartments on Dale Street were required
to be built at 1.16 parking spaces per room and the property owners today acknowledge that is
not sufficient and they have parking problems up and down Dale Street. Part of this is students
who come in, and part of that is students who live in the area. Carter USA itself included 73.5%
parking for the La Pointe development which was approved at the last P&Z meeting. Many
members of the association were excited about the improvements in planning to reduce the
number of four bedroom units, include podium parking and increase the number of spaces per
beds, but many are still wary of the realities of student housing. Everyone tells you these are
idealistic graduate students and professionals. They have a lot of money, yet no desire to own a
car. The end result is price of student housing is going to be more students living in less rooms
and more cars on the street. That is going to lead to parking congestion and nightmare which is
not going to be conducive to thriving businesses, increased property values or resident
convenience in the area. J ared Everett, our Neighborhood Association President, has a long
personal history of working with student parking. He is currently the Executive Director of Real
Estate and Business Development with BSU and hes commented to a (inaudible) student
housing should be parked at a minimum of 75%, as most of the recent developments have been.
Thats something we as a neighborhood association would like to see. In the area is a constant
75% in all of the projects which get approved.

The proposed parking is inadequate and needs to be reviewed before it further adds to the
neighborhood parking shortages. There are a lot of possible solutions. A big one from our
perspective would be getting the traffic study done. If we knew what it was actually going to do
or how this proposed new intersection is going to help ease the situation, a lot of businesses and
residents would be happier with this proposed project. If we really want to get people in there
that arent going to own a car, we could ask the owners or the developers to include monthly bus
passes as part of the rent, or a yearlong Boise Bicycle Project membership so people are actually
fixing bikes, working on them and are active in biking everywhere, or a percentage of housing
dedicated specifically to the neighborhood place. People who will walk everywhere they go and
will have no need of a car to live there. Or, if were concerned about where students are going
to shop, dedicated space for a weekly Farmers Market so they dont have to own a car in order
to get to Albertsons. Or if we want to review that traffic or that pedestrian (inaudible) under
Capitol where it all goes up into the trailer park and allows students to move easily and out that
way. There are a lot of things which could potentially be done that arent being looked at. The
Lusk Neighborhood Association urges the Commission to bus them if all else fails biking
students. Sixty eight percent parking and an X number of trips that nobody knows through the
Capitol/University intersection is going to create an additional strain on the neighborhoods
parking and traffic infrastructure. We hope you would demand a traffic study before approving
this project to give the developer time to consider and incorporate additional solutions like bus
passes for residents to alleviate the neighborhood parking and traffic problems.

February 3, 2014
Page 20

Commissioner Meyer As a point of clarification, and staff might be the one to answer this.
Im hearing a conflict here. Im hearing you say theres not been a traffic study done since 2011
and Im hearing a traffic study was done for the Lusk Street Master Plan in the spring of 2013,
so which is it?

Shawn Tallant Here are the results of the traffic assessment they did, if youd like to see it.
They have a whole bunch of things that are new buildings that are zero parked or... Thats a
copy of the last, the 2000 traffic study they did. Its not much of a study. There are a lot of
errors in the study, a lot of stuff which generates zero traffic or negative review (inaudible) of
traffic, as opposed to actual traffic, so wed like to see one like I read it with written comments
about findings. This is just the data base (inaudible).

Commissioner Meyer Im wondering if Mr. Tallant wanted to put this into the record. It
looks like your personal copy. Its got notes on it and stuff.

Shawn Tallant Its not mine but, Eileen, should we put that into the record?

Eileen Barber Its up to you.

Shawn Tallant Yes, we would like to.

Commissioner Meyer I didnt get an answer from staff on if the last actual study was done in
2011 or 2013.

Susan Riggs As mentioned, there were traffic studies for this area completed 2012 and 2013.
ACHD did new traffic counts at the intersection in spring of 2013. The information compiled
by these entities didnt find resolution regarding the transportation network in the area.

Commissioner Gillespie I have a question for staff. At the last meeting we approved new
parking minimums guidelines and it was based on the number of units that were one-bedroom,
two-bedrooms and three-bedrooms. How would this proposal fit with those new parking
guidelines? Does it meet, exceed or fall short of

Susan Riggs Our Parking Standards are based on 1.5 parking spaces per unit. This is parked
at 68% of the beds that are there.

Commissioner Gillespie Didnt we just vote and approve, and I know it maybe hasnt been
written into an Ordinance, so the new way to calculate this number. Im wondering how this
application fits with that new way we want to move to.

Commissioner Gillespie The future code would require 25 less spaces than current code so
the current code requires 202 and the future code requires 173, and were at 252.

Steve Rich Im the general manager of the Residence Inn by Marriott at 1401 S. Lusk. Thank
you for your time.

February 3, 2014
Page 21

I wanted to reiterate some of the comments I submitted in my letter to you all. Basically, the
Residence Inn, as owners and management we dont oppose the development, we oppose the
timing of this development in relation to the traffic and the already congested area that weve
talked about in great length here this evening. The area is really congested, its unsafe and I just
hope we would eventually address traffic and pedestrian safety issues prior to approving further
development, further congestion and further hazards to people walking, biking or driving in the
area. As the Lusk Area Neighborhood Association was talking about the intersection of Lois
and Ann Morrison where youre trying to get out onto Capitol Boulevard to go north, and youre
waiting for the lines of traffic coming from wrapped around Pizza Hut coming onto Ann
Morrison and youre there waiting for them to go. So youre looking for a spot where you can
jump across two lanes of traffic and make the light or get in line for the next light. There can be
10 to 15 pedestrians walking at a time in front of you not paying attention. It seems like there
should be something done prior to adding additional pedestrian, bikers, traffic and maybe Im
wrong. I thought the traffic study was done in 2011. Im hearing 2013 but it seems to me were
just pushing these projects through and were not addressing already congested and pedestrian
safety concerns.

Eileen Barber To clarify a couple of things. As a neighborhood association we agree the
design is a great design. Carter has come in and theyve made a lot of progress on the project
which was first presented to us as a neighborhood association back in October. It may have
been the end of September the beginning of October. They have done some great stuff with it. I
think our number one worry is still traffic. I know theyre still talking about doing that Royal
punch-out in 2016. Its great for that to be on their schedule, but weve had no information from
ACHD as to what they are going to do about the actual intersection, the Ann Morrison/Capitol
intersection. Theyve mentioned they could do some restriping and get 10% relief, 10% better
efficiency. I heard that in one master planning meeting we did during the year when we had the
Lusk Master stuff. To not really know what theyre going to do to alleviate and help with that
intersection and for student safety, I think is our biggest concern. For me Im not opposed to the
project, we just need to see some of the traffic stuff figured out. Again, this is just a plug.
I dont think there is anything you can do about this tonight but I keep hearing and I agree this
has the potential to be a really cool urban incredible neighborhood between these parks, right
next to the university and not far at all from Downtown. Now its being called Downtown, but
we need Downtown infrastructure so having all these massive projects going to the
neighborhood we need as a community to have this awareness so theres nothing to be asked
tonight about that, but just know we need structures. Parking structures like Downtown has. Id
love to see the power lines buried. Id love for that neighborhood really redeveloped and reach
its full potential.

Commissioner Danley Before you leave Ms. Barber Id wanted to pay you a compliment, not
from necessarily tonight, though you did a great job. However, at the previous hearing you
provided information on parking requirements for the Commission to consider. I thought that
was unbelievable for a citizen to take it upon themselves to do that and youre to be
commended. I wish more people would most certainly take the time to do things like that, so
thank you.

February 3, 2014
Page 22

Commissioner Bradbury Before you go Ive been reminded we should make mention of the
fact that the Lusk Area Neighborhood Association submitted a letter which has been marked as
an Exhibit and will be included as a partner record. A copy has been handed out to the
Commission.

Exhibit #2 handed in a letter from the Lusk Area Neighborhood Association.

REBUTTAL

Becky McKay This particular area, as Ms. Barber indicated, is part of the Downtown core.
Its obviously an area which has been underutilized for many, many years. Theres been some
development out there but its kind of been slow to take shape. Part of that Lusk Master Plan
approved by the Council in December 2013 is a guiding document for development in this area.
They have identified the problems associated with the parking that is going on. In fact, it talks
about the need to preserve and restore on-street parking for the existing businesses and future
and existing residential uses. That implementation of a parking district and a parking strategy
discusses in the Lusk Master Plan, is imperative. It is my understanding in discussion with the
Boise City Planning staff that that is moving forward as we speak; that particular
implementation of that plan. As any area develops there are growing pains. It seems like we
dont build the five-lane arterial, the seven-lane arterial intersection until development is there.
Development drives improvements. Ive never done a project where everything was absolutely
constructed to total build out before one home or one business went in. Its just not how
development works. This particular area, they are encouraging multi-mobile transportation.
Another project I had in this area, my comment to Council if alternative transportation isnt
going to work in this area, it wont work anywhere because there are so many opportunities. Its
close to Downtown, its by Boise State, there are restaurants, offices and businesses. This area
we can use as a model of how to do urban development and how to encourage alternative modes
of transportation. I thought our goals was to get people out of their cars, get them on their bikes
and get them walking and make it more convenient to bike or walk than drive. This is the goal
for the Lusk Master Plan. It talks about encouraging and supporting parking reductions based
on proximity on walkable destinations and services and staggered hours of operation. Were not
asking for any parking reduction. In fact, we have maximized our parking with the design of the
building and the podium parking. Initially, with surface parking we were significantly less but
we focused on maximizing the parking, but yet promoting alternative modes of transportation.
The bicycle parking we started off with had 75 bicycle spaces. Weve added 25 guest spaces. I
think were up to 142 covered spaces. We have 126 bike spaces on the east side of the building
that we will construct if the need arises. We have already made that commitment, that promise.
We want to get people walking, biking, riding shuttles and riding the bus instead of driving.
ACHD has told me, we are implementing those improvement plans to increase capacity in this
area and allow this Lusk Neighborhood to grow. As far as the vision in this Lusk Master Plan,
this project meets that vision. Its what they want to see at this location. Were providing a
mixture. We dont have straight 4-bedroom units. We have studio, 2-bedroom, we have 4-
bedroom. I think I asked Dave, do you just allow a bunch kids, 3 kids to a room and the answer
is no, they do not. This is a significant investment in this area and the responsibility is upon
them to make this work and make a viable project. Theyre the experts in student housing. I ask
the Commission to approve this.
February 3, 2014
Page 23

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE MOVED TO APPROVE PUD13-00014 ALONG WITH
THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS STATED IN THE
PROJECT REPORT.


Commissioner Gillespie I will say I think the analysis is correct and we have since voted to
approve the Lusk Street Master Plan and the associated zoning. The guidelines laid down
indicated we approve this type of project. It certainly complies with the Lusk Street Master
Plan, as I understand it and as an editorial I know I would simply say if theyd come with less
parking I would have liked it even better.

Commissioner Meyer This is something we see in front of us often, parking issues and traffic
issues. We really dont have a lot of control over that. We can deny things, but really the body
you need to be presenting your concerns to is ACHD because theyre the ones who will
ultimately make decisions to those neighborhoods and what the traffic patterns are. I agree that
its usually once we get into that situation it forces the change. It doesnt have an organic
language wed like to see. Thats just the way things are. I think the development is a good
development and I think its in the right area. Im hoping the developer will continue to work
with the neighbors and the neighbors will continue to voice their concerns to the organization
which could actually help with some of those issues with the traffic and the traffic flow.

Commissioner Danley I will speak in favor of the motion for some of the points which have
already been made. A couple of other things worth noting is, number one; Boise State students,
if presuming that most of the folks who live in there would be students. They do get a bus pass
as part of being a student so that was one thing I wanted to make sure is clear. Another thing is
this area, lets not forget it is about to be metered and I think once that happens well see a very
different feel and whats occurring there. I think frankly an entity that is going to need to do
some things is Boise State. They are the beneficiary of this housing. Lets not kid ourselves and
they have a circulator. They can increase the frequency of that circulator route. They can
increase the capacity of the buses that serve the area which would help mitigate a lot of these
concerns. One last point is to the neighborhood associations point being a .75 standard, verses
whats being proposed. The difference would be about 24 spaces which is about 9% of whats
being proposed and I would say, again, the applicant is proposing a substantial more number of
spaces that are required by our code. Maybe not quite to that level, but its pretty close so I
would again speak in favor of the motion.

ROLL CALL VOTE

February 3, 2014
Page 24



CAR13-00023 / MODERN VISION HOMES
Location: 1713 and 1717 W. J efferson Street
REZONE OF 0.28 ACRES FROM R-1MD (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH
MODULAR LOTTING AND DESIGN REVIEW) TO R-3D (MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL WITH DESIGN REVIEW).

CUP13-00077 & CVA13-00053 / MODERN VISION HOMES
Location: 1713 W. J efferson Street
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PARKING REDUCTION OF ONE SPACE FOR A
FOUR-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTAL BUILDING ON A 0.14 ACRE PARCEL
LOCATED IN A PROPOSED R-3D (MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH DESIGN
REVIEW) ZONE. A VARIANCE IS ALSO REQUESTED FOR SIDE YARD PARKING
AND BUILDING SETBACKS.

Commissioner Demarest I have a procedural question for you. Why can you put Items 5 and
6 together, as opposed to some other applications that could be put together?

Commissioner Bradbury My view is were going to hear these together but were going to
take separate motions. I think were going to take a vote on the rezone and then a separate vote
on the CUP and the variance, although, we could divide those up too if somebody wanted to.

Susan Riggs (Current Planning) Yes that is correct, there are 3 applications before you this
evening; a rezone, parking reduction and a variance and therefore 3 motions will be required.
The rezone will be a recommendation to the City Council. All 3 applications were approved by
the Commission in 2008; however, the applications expired. The new applications are similar to
the original.
Planning has heard from two neighbors voicing concern with the parking reduction. Their
concern is that parking is already limited on their street. There does not appear to be opposition
to the variance or rezone. The West Downtown Neighborhood Association submitted a letter on
stating general support for the project. The Neighborhood Association does have some
reservation regarding the parking; however, they stated they are maintaining a wait and see
approach.
The applicant is requesting a rezone of 0.28 acres located at 1713 and 1717 W. J efferson Street
from R-1M to R-2D. The existing tri-plex at 1717 J efferson will remain intact while the eastern
most parcel is supporting new development.
February 3, 2014
Page 25

These properties were originally zoned R-3D; however, in 2007 these lots were rezoned to R-1M
to accommodate a 5-lot subdivision consisting of attached townhomes. The plat was never
recorded. The Land Use Map designates the properties as Mixed Use. The R-3D designation is
an allowed zone and consistent with zoning in the immediate and surrounding neighborhoods.
Planning finds the rezone is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan which encourages
creating thriving Downtown neighborhoods at the periphery of the Central Business District.
ACHD indicated the rezone will not place an undue burden on transportation in the vicinity. The
acceptable planning threshold for a local street is 2,000 average daily trips. Both J efferson and
18
th
streets are operating within these thresholds while 17
th
Street has higher traffic counts
(4,380). The higher trips are somewhat anticipated given the fact the property was historically
zoned for a higher density. Also, the well-established street grid provides numerous alternative
travel routes. The properties proximity to transit, commercial businesses, and the Downtown
helps mitigate the increase in vehicle trips on 17
th
. The rezone will maintain compatibility of
surrounding zoning and development. The site abuts R-3D zoning and the surrounding
neighborhoods are also zoned R-3D. The neighborhood is comprised of a mix of single and
multi-family homes and office uses. Three to six dwelling units in one building is an allowed
use in the R-3 zone. However, a parking reduction requires conditional use approval. The
applicant is requesting a parking reduction of one space. With the exception of the adjacent
apartment building to the east which has a 52 space lot, parking for the residences in the
neighborhood is provided as both off-street (garages or parking pads accessed off the alley) and
on-street parking.

The applicant conducted a site survey which focused on the availability of on-street parking as
well as the usage associated with the adjacent apartment complex. The survey included the
surrounding blocks at three different times of the day (morning, mid-day, and evenings) on three
separate days. The result of the study indicated there is available on-street parking and a
reduction of one space would not negatively impact the neighborhood. Scott Tagg of the West
Downtown Neighborhood Association has discussed submitting an application for signed 2-hour
parking on J efferson Street between 17
th
& 18
th
. In my discussion with Tyler J ohnson, Parking
Services Manager, this request would need to go before the Council for approval. He seemed to
think restricted parking in this neighborhood would be a real possibility and help mitigate the on-
street parking concerns. The sites close proximity to Downtown also supports a parking
reduction. This higher density residential use complies with the Comprehensive Plan as it is
within of the bus stop located at 17
th
and State Streets.

There are two variances requested; one for the interior side yard setbacks along the alley for
parking and the other for the interior side yard setbacks for the third story of the building, which
includes the wall plane and deck. Planning believes there is an exceptional circumstance
associated with the intended use of the property which supports both variances. The variance on
the west property boundary abuts 1717 J efferson, the owner of whom is a co-applicant for the
rezone. The variance on the east abuts a parking lot and apartment complex. This lot and
neighborhood were developed prior to the creation of the Zoning Ordinance; as such parking
requirements and setbacks were not in place. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a
14 setback for the east and west wall of the third story. They are also proposing uncovered
decks on this same level which will encroach 6 into the required setback.

February 3, 2014
Page 26

The stepped design of the building will help mitigate any impact at the third story and reduce the
overall building mass making the variance negligible. Although, the deck encroaches 6 into the
setback, it is not covered and is the same height as the second story. This means no additional
massing is pulled out to the 9 setback line and minimizes impact on the adjacent uses.
Planning believes there are unique circumstance based on the constraints of the 50-foot lot and
the desire to provide a higher density product close to the Downtown which is encouraged by the
Blueprint Boise. With conditions imposed current planning supports the requests and
recommends approval of the applications.

Mike Graklanoff (Applicant) I dont need much time. I agree with everything in the project
report.

PUBLIC TESTIMONY

Scott Tagg (President of the West Downtown Neighborhood Association) Ive lived at my
current residence for 14 years and have been a resident of Boise for 30 years. For those
unfamiliar with our neighborhood association, we are one of the smallest in the City and our
boundaries are 16
th
to the east, 19
th
to the west, State to the north and Main to the south, with
about 110 parcels. We also would like to consider ourselves one of the most diverse
neighborhoods in the City because we have about one of everything you would have in a
neighborhood and we are also buffered between the Downtown core and the Veterans Park
Neighborhood Association. We have a mix of commercial business uses, a mix of rental
properties, a host of single-family homes converted to multi-family homes and also single-
family homes. We have a mix and since weve become a neighborhood association weve been
very fortunate in maintaining the mix and we would like to thank City staff and also the
Commission to help us maintain this balance because we dont want to see it converted over to
previous neighborhoods similar to those by St. Lukes and over by the Federal Building and
things of that nature. Again, we have a nice mix in our neighborhood. As a demonstration of
this, over the years weve received over $50,000 worth of Neighborhood Reinvestment Grants
from the City of Boise.

Also weve had a lot of housing turnover where young people have moved into our area. Since
becoming a neighborhood association weve had at least 22 children born in our neighborhood
that were aware of, so you can see we have old housing stock. Our newest single-family home
was built in 1953, so over the years weve had these homes turnover and being rehabbed. So
again, we have that nice mix.

Concerning this project, we did meet with the applicant. We received two comments, or
complaints, from our residents of our neighborhood association. They would have preferred a
single-family arts and crafts style home, but again, our position as a neighborhood association, is
neutral on this because we did not have overwhelming support or complaints about this project.
Our main concern is dealing with parking. We have no difficulty with the parking reduction.
This project was proposed back in 2008 and again, we agreed reducing the parking to 5 spaces
was suitable. Our concern is, and we want to make sure were on record of how we see the
inevitable, as things continue to grow to the west and into our neighborhood.

February 3, 2014
Page 27

We also want to see if ACHDs plans within the next 5 years, to convert J efferson to a 2-way
street will lead to a reduction in parking spaces. Our concern is mainly around the area between
15
th
and 16
th.
Will this squeeze the balloon and push additional parking into our neighborhood?
J efferson Street is 1 block south of State; youve got the businesses on the street with strip malls
and the restaurants. We are maintaining a wait-and-see approach to all of this. If this project
goes forward we will have a better understanding of the parking use and how it affects the
neighborhood. Weve worked with the City and we may have to go with the residential permit
which will again squeeze the parking probably to the next block. Again, well just have to look
to address this.

NO REBUTTAL

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE MOVED TO APPROVE CAR13-00023.

COMMISSIONER MEYER SECONDED AND STATED THIS MOTION IS ALSO A
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. CORRECT?

Commissioner Gillespie Correct, I move to recommend approval of CAR13-00023 to City
Council, along with the conditions stated in the project report. This is someone of in the past
who has taken a rather hard line on the exceptional circumstance that must be present in a
variance and since I think we should discuss this all in one, otherwise I think it would be very
confusing. I want to approve this because I think its a good project for the neighborhood, its
infill, its close and its what the City wants. I think the variances wont impose any hardship on
anybody.

ROLL CALL VOTE


ALL IN FAVOR NOE OPPOSED, MOTION CARRIES.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE MOVED TO APPROVE CUP13-00077 FOR REASONS
STATED IN THE PROJECT REPORT AND WITH THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL THERE IN.


February 3, 2014
Page 28

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE MOVED TO APPROVE CVA13-00053 FOR THE
REASONS STATED IN THE PROJECT REPORT AND WITH THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL THEREIN.


Commissioner Bradbury I want to follow up with what Commissioner Gillespie said a
moment ago. I like the project. I think it will probably be a great addition to the neighborhood.
It presents us once again with one of those projects I think we generally like but were required
to get the variance and the strict requirements of our code make that difficult to do. Id like to
suggest that perhaps staff consider seeing if the City can amend the Ordinance to allow for
setback exceptions to be handled through a Conditional Use Permit process. I assume that isnt
available to us today but I think the State Statute passed a couple of years ago would permit this
and it could solve these problems for us.

ROLL CALL VOTE



Commissioner Bradbury We have some minutes from our December 2, 2013 hearing.

COMMISSIONER DEMAREST MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM
DECEMBER 2, 2013.

COMMISSIONER GILLESPIE SECONDED THE MOTION AND THE MOTION

Hearing adjourned.

Approved:

__________________________________
Steve Bradbury, Chairman
Boise City Planning & Zoning Commission

Date: ______________________________

Attachment 3353

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Attachment 3353

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Planning & Zoning Commission

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi