## Facts

- A developer sought approval to build River Edge Apartments, a 352,000-square-foot, five-story, multi-family complex near Boise State University.
- The site was zoned Residential Office with a Design Review Overlay (R-OD), where multi-family housing is allowed but buildings over 35 feet require a conditional use permit (CUP).
- The proposed building height (about 59–63 feet) required a CUP and a height variance.
- 917 Lusk, LLC owned adjacent commercial property and received notice as an affected person.
- The Boise Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing, then approved the CUP and variance with multiple conditions.
- Lusk administratively appealed to the Boise City Council, arguing, among other points, that the 622-bedroom, student-oriented project with 280 parking spaces would burden transportation/public facilities and adversely affect nearby property.
- The City Council affirmed the Commission; the district court affirmed on judicial review under LLUPA and IDAPA.

## Issues

1. Whether the City Council/Commission applied the wrong legal standard by treating minimum parking requirements as binding and failing to recognize authority to require more restrictive parking conditions under CUP criteria.
2. Whether that legal error constituted an abuse of discretion warranting reversal under LLUPA and IDAPA review standards.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment affirming the City Council.
- The Court held the Commission (and the City Council by affirming it) applied an incorrect legal standard and therefore abused its discretion.
- The Court remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Under LLUPA and IDAPA, a land-use decision may be reversed if affected by error of law, unlawful procedure, or if arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
- An agency abuses its discretion when it fails to recognize an issue as discretionary, acts outside the bounds of discretion, or applies the wrong legal standard.
- CUP approval requires applying the CUP’s specific standards, including compatibility and whether the use will avoid undue burdens on transportation/public facilities and avoid adverse effects on nearby property.
- Compliance with code-wide minimum requirements (such as parking minimums) is not dispositive of CUP standards when CUP criteria require an impact-based evaluation.
- Where the code authorizes conditions more restrictive than general code requirements, the decision maker must recognize and exercise that discretion when evaluating CUP impacts, including parking-related impacts.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the CUP approval because the City treated parking minimums as controlling and did not apply the CUP’s required analysis of transportation, parking, and adverse impacts, despite having authority to impose more restrictive conditions.


917 Lusk, LLC v. City of Boise, 158 Idaho 12, 343 P.3d 41 (2015)