Commission recommends annexation and plat on West Burnett Drive, denies sidewalk variance amid neighbor opposition

The Boise City Planning and Zoning Commission recommended City Council approve the annexation (CAR 25‑28) and preliminary/final plat (SUB 25‑100) for a 1.65‑acre property at 9501 West Burnett Drive and simultaneously denied a variance request (CVA 25‑76) that would have allowed the developer to avoid installing the required 10‑foot detached sidewalk along Victory Road.

Staff told the commission the annexation to R‑1B is consistent with the comprehensive plan and said the subdivision as proposed meets dimensional standards. The planning team recommended denial of the variance because the parcel does not show the unusual hardship required for a variance; staff noted ACHD’s long‑range plan schedules widening of Victory Road between 2031 and 2035 but said that future schedule alone did not justify the variance. Staff recommended approval of the annexation and plat and denial of the sidewalk variance.

Robin Gates, the applicant, said the team intends to build cottage‑style homes, a fourplex and retain the existing single‑family house on the third lot; the applicant said the intent is to landscape a 30‑foot buffer along Victory, create a park‑like frontage, and avoid premature construction that might be torn out when Victory is widened. Builder Tanner Verhooks (Haven Idaho) said the team is not trying to avoid costs but to design a durable sidewalk that will not be ripped out when ACHD widens the road.

Multiple neighbors opposed rezoning to R‑1B and the proposed density, citing narrow Burnett Drive, lack of parking, traffic safety on Victory and Burnett, and a desire to preserve the area’s rural character. Speakers included Susan Barkis, Claire Sponseller, Carol McFadden, Sean Tips and Jim Carson; concerns emphasized that nearby lots are currently larger and that the proposed cottages would create higher density than adjacent neighborhoods.

Commissioner Schaefer moved to recommend approval of the annexation and subdivision with the conditions in the staff report; Commissioner Torres seconded and the motion carried. On the separate variance, Commissioner Schaefer moved to deny CVA 25‑76 (lack of hardship and need for consistency with current code); the commission voted to deny the variance. Commissioners cited the public agencies’ capability to absorb service demand, the need to apply the current code consistently, and uncertainty in ACHD schedules as reasons for denial.

The annexation and subdivision now proceed to City Council for final action; the variance denial stands unless appealed under code procedures.