Boise City staff propose major zoning policy changes on EV rules, ADUs and airport overlay
Loading...
Summary
City planning staff recommended removing a universal EV-charging mandate in favor of incentive-linked EV-ready parking, easing bike-parking rules, permitting two accessory units on single-family lots, shifting affordability targets (60% AMI to 80% AMI; 25% units to 10%) and allowing higher by-right densities in parts of the airport influence area.
City planning staff on Thursday presented a package of policy updates to Boise City’s zoning code that would change requirements for electric-vehicle charging, bike parking, accessory dwelling units and incentive-driven affordability — and would remove a conditional-use-review requirement for much of the airport influence area.
The changes, presented by Maureen of the Planning and Development Services (PDS) team, would remove a universal EV-charging requirement for all development and instead tie EV-ready parking to the city’s sustainability incentives. "For housing projects with greater than 20 parking spots . . . we would require 5% of those spaces to be EV ready," Maureen told the council. The shift reflects developer feedback that a blanket requirement was creating uncertainty for projects.
Staff also proposed a more flexible approach to bike parking: establish an alternative-compliance review that allows the planning director to approve different locations or designs (including scooter or micro-mobility storage), allow bike parking enclosures within setbacks under existing encroachment exceptions, and reduce the required number of bike spaces to one per housing unit. Maureen said the reduction aligns Boise with median requirements found in comparable cities.
On accessory dwellings, staff recommended allowing a second kitchen inside a single unit — a "junior ADU" — without reclassifying the dwelling as a separate unit, which avoids triggering additional building-code requirements such as fire separation walls. Staff also recommended permitting up to two accessory residential units on a single-family lot (two ADUs, two tiny homes on wheels, or one of each) while flagging that additional refinements will be needed to preserve parity across duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes.
The staff presentation included a revised incentives menu intended to be simpler and more flexible. That proposal would change the city’s affordability targets: shift required income targeting from 60% area median income to 80% AMI, reduce the share of units required from 25% to 10%, and extend the affordability period from 20 to 50 years. Maureen said those shifts were rooted in financial feasibility analyses and conversations with developers.
The most contentious policy proposal was the airport influence area (B1) overlay. Staff recommended removing the conditional-use-permit requirement that has been an extra "ceiling" on density in that overlay, allowing base-zone densities — up to 25 units per acre outside the noise contour and generally 5 units per acre inside the noise contour — without a CUP. Maureen cited recent cases in which developers sought variances under the old rules. Several council members urged caution and broader technical review, noting the airport master plan and safety considerations beyond noise contours.
Council members pressed staff on implementation details. On ADUs and homeowners associations, council member Willits asked whether HOAs could block ADUs; staff said internal ADUs may be allowed while external ADUs can be restricted by HOA covenants and that staff would follow up on state-law constraints. On the airport overlay, multiple council members asked for additional technical analysis and public engagement before making a policy shift that they said could materially increase density in long-established neighborhoods.
Maureen said the package also contains 49 technical edits (not reviewed in the meeting) and laid out a timeline: if council affirms direction, PDS will submit a zoning ordinance amendment application, the planning and zoning commission will hold a public hearing in March, and revised code could go into effect the following spring. The council was invited to affirm direction that evening so staff can file the application and carry the changes through the formal notice and hearing process.
The council and staff emphasized that these are policy-direction recommendations and that further refinements, public-notice steps and technical analyses would follow before any code amendments become final.
