Boise City Council upholds Design Review approval for six‑story, 212‑unit building at 1505 N. McKinney Lane

Boise City Council on a recorded vote denied an appeal of the Design Review Commission and confirmed approval for a six‑story, 212‑unit multifamily building at 1505 North McKinney Lane, a city‑owned, 1.99‑acre site in the MX‑3 (Mixed Use Active) zone.

The appeal came from residents and the neighborhood association, who raised concerns about height, density, traffic and parking, public safety, and potential property‑value impacts. City planning staff and the applicant, J. Fisher Companies, told council the project complies with Boise City Code and design review guidelines and has been revised after public input to reduce impacts on adjacent properties.

City planner Catherine Bai summarized staff findings and told council, "As outlined in the project report, the project complied with design review findings of approval, city's development code, as well as adopted standards and guidelines." She noted the site is about 200 feet south of Fairview Avenue, in an MX‑3 zone that allows the proposed maximum height of 70 feet and that neighborhood transition standards apply along the south boundary where the project abuts an R‑2 district.

Appellants argued the six‑story height and 212 units are incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood and that the project lacks sufficient parking. Neighbor Larry (last name not specified in the record) said the development "adversely affects" public safety and livability, citing limited on‑street parking, entry conditions on Fairview and the potential for increased emergency response delays. An appellant‑commissioned broker's opinion submitted with the appeal stated nearby unit values could decline as much as $75,000, a claim the applicant disputed as unsupported by demonstrative evidence.

Tony Hill, general counsel for J. Fisher Companies, told council the site was already zoned MX‑3 before the developer engaged, that the team revised the design after the January design review hearing and that staff and the Design Review Commission found the revised design compliant. Hill said the development increased some on‑site amenities and moved the sixth‑floor massing back approximately 15 feet in response to community feedback.

The record shows the project proposes podium parking and 62 on‑site parking stalls for 212 units (about 0.76 stalls per unit). Council members and applicants referenced a city code allowance that can reduce parking minimums (an incentive for projects providing affordable housing); the developer said it took a 40% reduction rather than the full 50% incentive.

Engineering and safety agencies also weighed in. An Ada County Highway District (ACHD) representative said ACHD collected new traffic counts on El Dorado and McKinney Lane in 2024 and did not identify system‑level concerns as described in its staff report. Boise Police Department staff confirmed police had commented that the project would result in fewer on‑site parking spaces than units and that street‑parking enforcement could be a future issue.

Council discussion referenced the 2023 modern zoning code update and Blueprint Boise goals that directed higher‑density development close to transit corridors. Council members who supported denying the appeal cited the code and the Design Review Commission's role in reviewing form and design rather than density. Opponents emphasized neighborhood character, traffic and parking, and potential safety impacts.

The motion to deny the appeal (case DRH24‑253) was made on the record and seconded. The clerk called the roll and the motion carried; the council's action confirms the Design Review Commission approval and allows the applicant to proceed with the project under code conditions and any mitigation to which the project was conditioned.

The council and applicant committed to follow up on details raised in public testimony: the applicant agreed to share data on a rideshare/car‑share program used at another of its properties; staff confirmed commenting agency reports and project conditions are in the council packet; ACHD and police remain available to council and the neighborhood for operational questions.

Votes at a glance: the council made a motion to deny the appeal of DRH24‑253 and confirm the Design Review Commission's approval; the motion passed (roll call recorded ‘‘All in favor, motion carries").