[1:33] Hi, Preston. How are you?

[2:10] » [clears throat]

[2:13] » I'll call you at least once.

[2:26] » Okay, I've got six o'clock. I would like

[2:28] to first start by welcoming everybody to

[2:30] the city of Nampa planning and zoning

[2:32] commission meeting August 25th, 2026.

[2:36] Um, can we have a roll call, please?

[2:41] >> Chairman Miller

[2:42] >> here.

[2:43] >> Thank you. Vice Chair Garner,

[2:47] absent.

[2:49] Commissioner Kho

[2:51] >> here.

[2:53] Commissioner Daffer

[2:56] absent.

[2:59] Commissioner Morgan

[3:00] >> here.

[3:01] >> Commissioner Copeland

[3:04] absent. Commissioner Kirkman

[3:06] >> here.

[3:08] >> Commissioner Turner

[3:09] >> here.

[3:09] >> Commissioner Fi

[3:10] >> here.

[3:12] >> Thank you.

[3:18] » Looking. I'm looking. Where did he go?

[3:21] >> Who? He's right there behind the TV.

[3:24] >> Oh, [laughter] where did he go? I don't

[3:26] see him back there.

[3:29] >> Uh, Mr. Chair and Commissioners, Rodney

[3:31] Ashby, planning and zoning director. For

[3:32] the record, um, we had four uh, final

[3:36] plats that were approved by city council

[3:40] number two, Spring Hollow Ranch number

[3:42] six, Trestle Creek number one, and

[3:45] Reflections Edge number five. And then

[3:48] we had two public hearings. Uh the first

[3:50] one was for a variance for reduced front

[3:52] yard setback and um reduced landscape

[3:56] buffer requirements at an existing

[4:00] inhome daycare. And that was uh 3424

[4:04] East Greenhurst Road and that was uh

[4:07] approved. Um five in favor, one opposed.

[4:11] The next one was a zoning map amendment

[4:13] from BC to BN and RD

[4:17] uh and a development agreement and

[4:19] subdivision preliminary plat for Spring

[4:21] Shores Commons. Uh you recommended

[4:24] approval

[4:25] uh on J July 14th and the city council

[4:29] approved it on a three to three and then

[4:31] the mayor uh broke the tie and approved

[4:35] it.

[4:37] And that's all I have.

[4:38] >> Okay. Thank you, Ronnie. Appreciate it.

[4:48] » Take a motion.

[4:50] >> Oh, yeah. Sorry, Mr. Chair. I'll make a

[4:52] motion that we approve consent agenda.

[4:55] >> Second.

[4:57] It's been moved by Kirkman, seconded by

[4:58] Fiend to approve the consent agenda. All

[5:01] those in favor?

[5:01] >> I.

[5:02] >> Any opposed?

[5:04] >> Okay.

[5:07] Um, we will go ahead and move right into

[5:09] our public hearing portion of this

[5:12] meeting. Um, so the way it works, if you

[5:15] haven't been here before, uh, we will

[5:17] open the meeting up,

[5:19] uh, call the applicant up. They will

[5:21] have seven minutes to present what their

[5:24] thoughts and plans are to do with the

[5:26] piece of property. We'll then turn the

[5:28] time over to staff. They'll give us a

[5:30] report on facts and findings, and then

[5:33] we will open it up for public testimony.

[5:35] When you come to the mic, we would ask

[5:37] you to speak into the mic and give us

[5:41] your name and address for the record.

[5:43] It's really important uh for the records

[5:46] that we have that information and we

[5:48] don't want to stop you once you start.

[5:50] So, if you could try to remember that,

[5:51] it's it's helpful. Um each person will

[5:56] have three minutes per item. If you'd

[5:58] like to speak on each item, that's fine.

[6:00] You get three minutes each time you come

[6:02] up to the mic and speak. Um, if you just

[6:06] agree with what's already been said, we

[6:08] have no problem with you coming to the

[6:09] mic and saying, "I agree. You know,

[6:12] traffic's bad," whatever your thoughts

[6:14] are. Um, and then sit down and we'll

[6:17] take that to note and it'll be part of

[6:19] the record. So uh with that we will

[6:22] start with item 3-1 annexation and

[6:25] zoning to RD zoning district conditional

[6:27] use permit for duplexes

[6:29] subdivision preliminary plat and plan

[6:31] unit development for southside duplexes

[6:34] subdivision at 1111 Southside Boulevard

[6:38] for KBY Hillbig representing Enoch Amos

[6:41] Living Trust is the applicant

[6:44] >> [snorts]

[6:53] » Good evening um gentlemen of the

[6:56] commission. It's a pleasure to um

[6:58] present today. Uh my name is Mike

[7:00] Washburn with Focus Consulting. My

[7:03] address is 1001 North Rosario uh Sweet

[7:08] 100 in Meridian, Idaho. Um, so we're

[7:12] here today to present the project at

[7:14] 11-11 Southside Boulevard. Uh, this is a

[7:18] coordinated application for annexation,

[7:20] a PUD, a conditional use permit, and

[7:23] preliminary plat. And our goal with this

[7:26] project was to create an appropriate

[7:29] infill

[7:30] um for the property that responds to the

[7:34] uh surrounding neighborhood, the uh

[7:36] city's comprehensive plan and the unique

[7:40] configuration of this site. As you will

[7:42] see, I'm able to scroll on this.

[7:48] Oh

[7:51] fast. There we go. Oh, out again.

[7:57] Um, this property sits along Southside

[8:00] Boulevard between some existing uh

[8:03] residential u neighborhoods on the west

[8:06] and some highdensity uh residential uh

[8:11] use going along Southside Boulevard. And

[8:13] this location is important because we

[8:14] see this property as really as a natural

[8:17] transition between the single family

[8:19] homes located on the west and the

[8:21] already high density uh use that's going

[8:23] along the corridor uh there.

[8:35] Okay. Uh this property is approximately

[8:37] 3.98 acres um of underutilized property

[8:41] which includes an uninhabitable home. Uh currently um

[8:50] the comprehensive plan identifies this

[8:52] as a medium density and um so we're not

[8:56] proposing you know something to um go

[8:59] beyond that at this time. And uh within

[9:02] those we propose a uh a mix of duplexes

[9:05] and six family lots. Like I said,

[9:07] creating a transition between uh both

[9:09] sides where we have single family homes

[9:11] and higher density uh to the east. Um

[9:16] sort of our site plan and um a lot of

[9:20] thought and intentionality went into

[9:23] meeting with the neighbors of um this

[9:26] community and the surrounding uh land

[9:28] owners. Um even so is that they have um

[9:33] provided enough feedback where we

[9:34] actually uh pivoted and and listened to

[9:37] them and changed our initial proposal.

[9:39] Um so we replaced 14 duplexes and now

[9:43] have six single family lots um to match

[9:46] the existing use there on that side. Um

[9:49] we've put all the existing uh or the six

[9:51] family lots on the north side to kind of

[9:54] create a buffer some space there. Uh

[9:56] we've curved uh the public roadway there

[10:00] to you know provide kind of a more

[10:02] residential feel as well as for some

[10:04] traffic calming. Uh as far as parking

[10:07] goes, we are providing five additional

[10:09] than the 59 that were required. So we're

[10:12] not, you know, putting all the um

[10:16] parking on potentially uh the

[10:18] surrounding neighborhood. Uh we even met

[10:20] with a family. they had a a child that

[10:22] loved basketball and so hey we're going

[10:23] to we're going to throw in a basketball

[10:25] hoop in our property as well. Um and

[10:27] then also we've got the open space uh

[10:30] adjacent there to the uh property to the

[10:32] south. And then we're also um looking at

[10:36] those two lots on the west. We actually

[10:39] have a um a variance for those two lots.

[10:42] They're actually above the 8,000 square

[10:44] feet, but we're actually not reducing

[10:46] those lot sizes. We want to make them

[10:48] larger in order to fit with the um

[10:51] single family lots that already exist on

[10:53] the west over there. Um so the

[10:57] comprehensive plan um it's medium

[10:59] density residential. So the R six uh so

[11:03] the RS4 zone uh fits with that. Um the

[11:08] duplexes are supported uh through the

[11:11] conditional use permit process, you

[11:14] know, which gives the city the

[11:15] opportunity uh to evaluate compatibility

[11:17] with the surrounding development. Um and

[11:21] then with the PUD, um we see this as

[11:24] providing uh targeted flexibility for

[11:26] the site because of its unusual uh

[11:28] narrow constraints. you know, it's 130

[11:30] ft wide and it's almost 1500 feet long

[11:34] and uh we're really looking to um find

[11:37] some good use in that. We we feel like

[11:38] we've come up with a uh a great solution

[11:40] here. Um so the requested relief, like I

[11:45] said, it's a very long, very narrow

[11:46] site. So we would like to um have the

[11:49] rear setbacks reduced from 15t to 4T.

[11:52] And this allows the duplexes to sit uh

[11:55] inside uh this property. Uh the parking

[11:58] setback, we would go from 20 to zero to

[12:00] allow for covered parking. And as I

[12:03] mentioned before, the lot size

[12:04] exception. We want those two abuing lots

[12:06] to kind of fit with that uh existing

[12:09] single family neighborhood there to the

[12:10] west.

[12:13] And uh now we just have some some

[12:15] renderings on the next uh few slides. Uh

[12:18] we just didn't want to make sure this

[12:19] was compatible on paper. We wanted to

[12:21] add some beauty and aesthetic to the

[12:23] surrounding neighborhood. Um, so the

[12:25] intent is kind of like a residential

[12:27] streetscape and these duplexes will have

[12:30] variations in colors and textures, uh,

[12:32] covered patios and really a nice

[12:36] emphasis on street presence for that

[12:38] area.

[12:40] Have just a shot there at the front of

[12:43] the duplexes, covered parking.

[12:49] Here's looking at the south side.

[12:55] there.

[13:04] Who doesn't love a nice playground slash

[13:06] basketball hoop?

[13:09] And so, uh, a part of the, um,

[13:13] uh, project here is these duplex, um,

[13:16] the unit design. Uh the the company that

[13:19] designs these is actually based in

[13:21] Caldwell. So we're, you know, we're

[13:22] wanting local uh Idaho in-house uh

[13:26] builders and manufacturers to contribute

[13:28] to the community. Um so steel uh steel

[13:31] structures, fire sprinklers, high

[13:33] efficiency, like I said, that uh

[13:35] appealing street presence.

[13:38] Uh with the staff findings, um

[13:42] we really found this to be in harmony

[13:44] with the the comprehensive plan.

[13:46] Speaking of that medium density

[13:48] residential,

[13:49] um the project also qualifies as infill

[13:52] because it's taking an uninhabitable

[13:54] unusable space and turning it into

[13:56] something for the community. Um police

[13:58] and fire services are readily available

[14:00] as well as sewer, water, and pressure

[14:02] irrigation.

[14:07] And overall, um, we believe this is a,

[14:10] you know, thoughtful infill project that

[14:12] will take a space that is currently, um,

[14:15] underutilized and kind of an eyesore

[14:18] there with the the abandoned house and

[14:20] provide, uh, some housing and some, um,

[14:23] just aesthetic appeal to the

[14:25] neighborhood as well. uh the PUD

[14:27] flexibility is there to not so that we

[14:30] can maximize lots on the site but that

[14:33] we can work with the constraints of this

[14:35] unique site and really make something um

[14:38] viable there for the community. So

[14:41] that is all.

[14:45] >> Thank you.

[14:47] >> We'll call you back up. We have

[14:48] questions a little later. Okay. Thank

[14:50] you,

[14:52] Miss Fry.

[14:54] We're up.

[15:34] Okay. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and

[15:37] commissioners. My name is Candace Fry,

[15:39] associate planner for the city of Nampa.

[15:41] The request before you this evening is

[15:43] an annexation and zoning to RS4 single

[15:47] family residential. The RD was a typo,

[15:50] but we did send out corrected notices,

[15:52] and the sign was corrected as well.

[15:56] Conditional use permit for the duplexes,

[15:58] a subdivision preliminary plat, and a

[16:00] planned unit development for southside

[16:03] duplexes. The original concept is 19

[16:06] residential lots, including six single

[16:08] family detached homes and 13 two-unit

[16:12] dup duplex dwellings with reduced rear

[16:14] yard duplex setbacks to 4 feet and

[16:17] reduced duplex front setback to zero for

[16:21] the garages and the carports.

[16:25] Property details. This parcel is

[16:27] currently under Canyon County

[16:29] jurisdiction. The surrounding zoning to

[16:31] the north is Canyon County. To the south

[16:34] is RD two family residential. To the

[16:37] west is RS6 single family residential

[16:40] and to the east is Canyon County and RML

[16:44] limited multifamily residential.

[16:48] Comprehensive plan designates this area

[16:50] as medium density residential. The

[16:53] surrounding land use designation. The

[16:55] adjacent parcels are currently

[16:57] designated as medium density residential

[17:00] and some commercial to the east. Here

[17:05] is a copy of the preliminary plat

[17:10] and then a lot of applicable

[17:12] regulations. So the first one is for

[17:14] annexation Idaho state code title

[17:17] 50-2225

[17:20] and NA city code title 10 chapter 2 4C

[17:24] outline the requirements for annexation

[17:27] with consent of property owners

[17:29] specifically those four. You have seen

[17:31] them before but they are here again for

[17:33] reference.

[17:36] And then the zoning. So 1023.C

[17:40] conclusions of law pertinent to proposed

[17:43] zoning map amendments. And then NA city

[17:46] code title 10 chapter 8 the RS zoning

[17:49] district single family residential and

[17:52] then chapter 27-1.C

[17:56] which is the subdivision code.

[18:00] even more applicable regulations.

[18:04] This is for the conditional use permit.

[18:06] So, chapter 25 of title 10 talks about

[18:10] the conditional use permit and then the

[18:12] conditional use permit criteria is below

[18:15] for your reference as well.

[18:19] All right. Title 10, chapter 26 is the

[18:22] plan unit development chapter and then

[18:25] they also have under 1026-4.b

[18:29] be the bulk requirements. The bulk

[18:31] requirements that would otherwise be

[18:33] applicable to a project developed in a

[18:36] given zone wherein a PUD is proposed

[18:39] slashallowed may be altered by the

[18:42] commission as a part of the PUD review

[18:44] and approval process. And then at the

[18:47] very bottom it is 1026-4.b.2.

[18:51] Parking space clearance that talks about

[18:54] the garage and carports shall be no

[18:56] closer to the street or alley than 20

[18:58] ft.

[19:01] I think we're done with that one.

[19:02] Correspondence. No public comments were

[19:05] received. The Nampa Fire District does

[19:08] not oppose the application subject to

[19:10] compliance with code requirements and

[19:12] conditions of approval as noted in the

[19:15] attached memo in your staff report.

[19:17] Nampa engineering division engineering

[19:20] provided general water and sewer

[19:22] comments also provided standard comments

[19:24] regarding access and traffic and then

[19:27] their attached memo is in the staff

[19:29] report as well. The Nampa Police

[19:32] Department Nampa PD projects future

[19:34] service needs based on the overall

[19:36] population

[19:40] density and development type. Southside

[19:42] Duplexes is projected to add 77 new

[19:45] residents to the city of Nampa's current

[19:47] population.

[19:49] Therefore, Nampa PD is recommending a

[19:51] commitment to fund 0.1 additional

[19:54] officers and 0.05 additional support

[19:57] staff if this project is approved to

[20:00] maintain current police levels.

[20:04] So, a lot in the staff analysis. So, I

[20:06] will dig in. According to the

[20:09] comprehensive plan, we do have a section

[20:12] for infill development. So, infill

[20:14] development is the process of developing

[20:17] vacant or underused parcels within the

[20:20] city. Infill development allows the

[20:22] utilization of existing community

[20:24] services such as water and sewer rather

[20:27] than constructing new facilities in

[20:30] areas that have not been developed in

[20:32] city limits. police and fire services

[20:35] areas wouldn't need to be extended and

[20:38] in addition infill development can and

[20:40] then I have listed that out here.

[20:46] Oops.

[20:47] And then way down at the bottom is Nampa

[20:50] City Code 1032,

[20:52] which is our land use chart. So in the

[20:55] RS zone, dwelling single family homes is

[20:57] a permitted use in the RS zoning

[20:59] district and then duplexes require a

[21:02] conditional use permit in the RS zoning

[21:04] district.

[21:07] So here 1085-

[21:10] A is the spatial and bulk requirements

[21:12] for principal structures and accessory

[21:14] structures. So I do have the setbacks

[21:18] listed here. So in the front it's 20 to

[21:21] the garage and then 15 to the living

[21:23] area. And then the sides are 5 ft and

[21:26] then the rear setbacks are 15 ft.

[21:30] And then the applicant is requesting

[21:33] those reduced rear yard setbacks. They

[21:35] are requesting to reduce the setback

[21:37] from 15 ft for rear setbacks for st for

[21:41] standard buildable lots to four feet.

[21:44] And then I'd like to also mention that reduced setback is only for the

[21:49] duplex lots. It is not for the single

[21:52] family homes. Those will follow the

[21:54] standard setbacks.

[21:59] 1085.B

[22:00] is the density requirements and lot

[22:03] sizes. So the lot sizes in the RS4 zone

[22:06] range from 4,000 to 8,000 square ft. The

[22:10] lot sizes for this project range from

[22:13] 4,323

[22:15] square ft to 8,817

[22:18] square ft. There are two lots that

[22:21] exceed the 8,000 square ft maximum lot

[22:23] size. Block one, lot three and block

[22:26] one, lot two is included in the

[22:28] exception request. City council will

[22:31] make the final decision for this

[22:33] exception request. And then density.

[22:36] Medium density residential designation

[22:38] has a density range of 2 and 12 to eight

[22:41] dwelling units an acre. This project is

[22:44] proposing a total of 32 residential

[22:47] units on 4 acres. The overall density

[22:50] for this project will be eight dwelling

[22:52] units an acre.

[22:55] And then the parking. So 1022-6

[22:59] talks [clears throat] about the number

[23:00] of spaces required. So single family

[23:03] homes in the RS zone require two parking

[23:05] spots and one of them shall be covered.

[23:08] And then each they mentioned staff staff

[23:12] the applicant mentioned that all of the

[23:14] duplexes will be two bedrooms. So doing

[23:17] the math according to city code they

[23:20] would need a minimum of 71 parking

[23:23] spaces. And after confirming with the

[23:26] applicant there has been a change and

[23:28] it's highlighted here and then later on

[23:31] in the facts for your reference they

[23:33] have clarified that the 70 they are

[23:36] providing 76 parking spaces which is

[23:39] more than the minimum that is required.

[23:42] There was a mention of I believe it was

[23:44] 64 that was for the duplexes only. So,

[23:48] we did add once we did the math again

[23:50] for the single family homes, they were

[23:52] over that minimum requirement.

[23:55] And then parking setback reduction. So,

[23:59] Nampa City Code 10264.B.2

[24:02] requires garages and carports to be no

[24:05] closer than 20 ft to the street.

[24:07] However, the applicant is requesting for

[24:09] the duplex lots to be located directly

[24:12] adjacent to the internal road with no

[24:15] setback.

[24:19] the open space requirements. So 10276N.2

[24:24] developments with a gross acreage of 2

[24:26] to 4.99 acres need to provide at least

[24:30] 10% of the total gross parcel area for

[24:34] qualified open space. This project is

[24:37] proposing to provide 0.48 acres or 12%

[24:41] of qualified open space. And then some

[24:44] of the amenities that they listed in

[24:46] their narrative was a barbecue area, a

[24:49] shaded structure, a tot lot, and then as

[24:51] you heard tonight, a basketball hoop.

[24:54] And then landscaping 1033-4

[24:58] C3.A

[25:00] is the landscape buffer for a single

[25:02] family residential subdivision. So, a

[25:04] 25- foot landscape buffer will be

[25:07] required along Southside Boulevard and a

[25:09] landscape plan will be reviewed to meet

[25:11] code requirements with the building

[25:13] permit.

[25:17] And then I do have here as well as in

[25:20] the staff report the PUD request and the

[25:23] elements. So, I did take all of the

[25:26] information from the PUD code and how it

[25:28] applied to their project and what they

[25:31] were requesting to make it a little

[25:33] easier to read, but I will try and speed

[25:36] through it if I can. So, 10264.b.1

[25:40] B.1 is building separation and it they

[25:44] shall meet current adopted international

[25:46] building code and then the applicant has

[25:48] indicated that all structures will meet

[25:51] building code separation requirements

[25:53] and then staff has no issues. The

[25:55] building department will review each

[25:57] permit for compliance with code. And

[26:00] then 1026-4.b.2

[26:04] is parking space clearance. So that one

[26:06] again talks about the 20 ft for garages

[26:09] and carports. They can't be any closer

[26:12] than the 20 ft. However, the applicant

[26:15] is requesting relief from the 20ft

[26:17] garage/carport

[26:19] setback. And then the covered carports

[26:21] and open parking stalls on the duplex

[26:24] lots are proposed directly adjacent to

[26:26] the internal road with no setback. The

[26:29] single family homes will follow the

[26:31] standard setback requirements for the RS

[26:33] zone. And then city code does require

[26:35] that there will be a 20 foot setback

[26:38] from the front property line. 10264.b3

[26:43] is regarding access. So access to a

[26:45] public street is assured to each and

[26:48] every building lot by direct access. And

[26:52] then the applicant has stated that

[26:53] access to a public street is assured to

[26:56] each building lot by direct frontage on

[26:59] the internal public road. And then

[27:02] 10264.B.4

[27:04] is the height of the buildings. So in

[27:07] the PUB code, you can if you would like

[27:10] request to extend two stories above the

[27:12] limitation of the zone

[27:16] in which it is located only when the

[27:18] zone does not above a single family

[27:20] resident, residential subdivision,

[27:22] residential zoning district or lower

[27:24] medium density residential land use

[27:27] designation on the future land use map.

[27:30] And then the applicant has stated in

[27:32] their narrative that all buildings will

[27:34] be two stories. The building heights

[27:36] will not exceed the RS zone height

[27:38] limitations.

[27:42] And then 1026-4.C.2

[27:48] is the buildable lot size and density

[27:50] requirements. So you may new lots

[27:54] created on or after October 4, 2021 by a

[27:58] lot split or through a subdivision of

[28:00] the land must conform to the minimum and

[28:02] maximum lot size and density

[28:05] requirements established for the zoning

[28:07] district assigned to that parcel or as

[28:09] approved through a PUD in order to be

[28:12] considered a buildable lot. So again,

[28:15] the applicant is requesting an exception

[28:17] to the maximum lot size in the RS zone

[28:20] for block one, lots two and three. The

[28:23] exception request will ultimately be up

[28:25] to city council whether to approve or

[28:28] not. So block one, lot two is only above

[28:32] the maximum lot size requirement by four

[28:35] feet or square feet. And then lot three,

[28:39] block one, is over the 8,000 square foot

[28:42] maximum by 817 square feet.

[28:46] 10264.B

[28:49] talks about the bulk requirements and so

[28:52] that could be setbacks, property depth,

[28:54] property width, building height,

[28:56] density, and street frontage. So they

[28:58] are requesting that reduced rear yard

[29:00] setback. And then the PUB code allows

[29:03] for the commission to allow deviations

[29:05] from the setback lot sizes, property

[29:07] death, so on and so forth with one

[29:11] without one or more variance application

[29:14] permits being required. So that's why

[29:16] they are requesting it through a PUD,

[29:18] not a variance.

[29:20] And then I have at the very bottom 102

[29:23] 1022-6

[29:25] which is the parking. And then I do have

[29:27] that corrected here as well that they

[29:29] are providing 76 parking spaces instead

[29:33] of that 64. So they are above the

[29:36] minimum requirement.

[29:39] So findings for RS4 zoning to RS4

[29:48] and then

[29:50] findings for annexation. So, the

[29:53] proposed zoning map amendment for the

[29:55] parcel listed is in harmony with the

[29:57] comprehensive plan because it proposes a

[30:00] zone of RS that is allowed in the

[30:02] designation of medium density

[30:04] residential on the future land use map

[30:07] and complies with the principles

[30:08] outlined in the comprehensive plan. The

[30:11] future land use map was established

[30:13] after thoroughly analyzing land uses for

[30:16] compatibility. The project provides a

[30:18] set of uses that would be reasonably

[30:20] compatible adjoining property because

[30:23] the existing uses are all proposed are

[30:26] residential and it is in the public's

[30:29] best interest and reasonably necessary

[30:30] because it will extend city utilities.

[30:33] It will install frontage improvements

[30:35] and it is compatible with the

[30:37] surrounding uses and it will comply with

[30:40] adopted city codes.

[30:43] more findings and then even more

[30:46] findings for the conditional use permit.

[30:49] So weighing the facts in department and

[30:51] agency input, the proposed use is again

[30:54] supported by the comprehensive plan. It

[30:56] is near major transportation corridors

[30:59] and it meets the goals and strategies

[31:01] for economic development. The use is

[31:04] making efficient use of vacant parcels

[31:07] and it will not adversely impact the

[31:09] intended character and appearance of the

[31:12] general vicinity through design,

[31:14] construction, operation and maintenance

[31:16] and will not be detrimental to the

[31:18] economic welfare of the community. It

[31:20] will be adding dwelling units to an area

[31:23] adequately served by transportation,

[31:25] jobs, and educational opportunities. The

[31:28] proposed development will not involve

[31:30] activities

[31:32] or processes, materials, equipment, or

[31:34] conditions of operation that will be

[31:36] detrimental to any persons, property, or

[31:38] general welfare by reason of excessive

[31:41] traffic, noise, smoke, fume, glares, or

[31:43] odors because it is it has access to

[31:47] adequate utility and emergency services.

[31:50] It must follow all city codes and

[31:51] standards at the time of development,

[31:54] including building permits, design

[31:57] review, signage, landscaping, all of

[32:00] those.

[32:02] Here are the recommended conditions of

[32:05] approval and any others that the

[32:07] commission wishes to add.

[32:10] Here are your potential motions and I

[32:12] will stand for any questions.

[32:16] » Questions? Yeah, Mr. Chair, make I want

[32:19] to make sure I follow this parking. So,

[32:22] how many parking stalls are required

[32:25] from just the duplexes?

[32:28] >> 52.

[32:32] » That's what my math says.

[32:34] >> And and it wasn't clear to me if guest

[32:38] parking required for duplexes or just

[32:40] multif family like apartments.

[32:48] Mr. Chairman and Commissioner

[32:51] Morgan. So, parking. Well, maybe

[32:55] Christie has something to say.

[32:58] >> Way to hesitate.

[32:59] >> I want to take the spotlight. [laughter]

[33:02] >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, and Mr.

[33:05] Morgan. The um parking chapter outlines

[33:09] a two family development

[33:12] has to have the 2.5 parking spaces. So,

[33:15] anything that includes more than one or

[33:17] two duplexes is considered a

[33:19] development. So, it would have to

[33:21] provide the 2.5 for the duplexes.

[33:23] >> 0.25 per unit. So, we're at 52 + 7. So,

[33:30] that's 59.

[33:33] >> They're providing 64

[33:36] >> 60.

[33:38] Okay.

[33:39] And they're I guess what I was driving

[33:41] at is they're not counting parking in

[33:43] front of the single family residences to

[33:46] meet the requirements for the duplexes.

[33:49] >> Um Commissioner Morgan, not to my

[33:51] knowledge, they're not. They're using

[33:53] the single family homes have their own

[33:55] parking garages, all of that. And then

[33:57] everything else is separated with the

[33:58] duplexes.

[34:00] >> That's what I thought. I just the map

[34:02] wasn't

[34:04] >> not my strong suit.

[34:11] Uh Mr. Yeah. Sorry, one quick question

[34:14] if you know and maybe the applicant

[34:16] would know this, but how much space

[34:18] after the

[34:29] weigh? I mean, how much without the 20

[34:30] foot setback?

[34:32] You know,

[34:36] » Daniel's going to tell us to

[34:40] >> anything that has to [clears throat] do

[34:41] with wheels. Uh, Mr. Chair, Commissioner

[34:44] Kirkman, uh, the way the preliminary

[34:46] plat shows it, they would have and and

[34:48] one of the conditions that we placed on

[34:50] there that there would be a um valley

[34:53] gutter or ribbon curb delineating the

[34:55] public roadway from the parking area. um

[34:59] they would be proposing a zero setback

[35:02] there. And so there would not be between

[35:05] the public roadway and the the parking

[35:07] area. There would not necessarily be any

[35:10] um area. They are proposing to put the

[35:12] public sidewalk in front of those

[35:14] parking areas so that you don't have

[35:16] people walking behind them um when

[35:20] they're trying to pull out. Um, with

[35:22] that being the case, um, it would be

[35:25] similar to, um, some of the angled

[35:28] parking we have downtown. Other than

[35:29] this would be, uh, perpendicular. Um,

[35:33] and so that's that's the way that

[35:35] they've shown it on their preliminary

[35:36] plat.

[35:39] >> So, they [clears throat] were backing

[35:40] out, they'd back in. They'd back up.

[35:42] They'd back out right into the public

[35:44] roadway.

[35:44] >> Just just like any single family

[35:46] residential would do. it would just be

[35:48] their parking location would be there um

[35:51] right next to the roadway rather than

[35:53] separated by a sidewalk. Um but it it

[35:56] would be no different than me pulling

[35:58] out of my driveway at at my house.

[36:01] >> So if I had a vehicle that was bigger

[36:04] than 20 ft, would I be ticketed for

[36:06] parking there?

[36:08] >> Um if if you were overhanging into the

[36:12] roadway, that would be an issue. But I

[36:15] can't back in because then my hitch

[36:16] hangs over the sidewalk. So I'd get a

[36:18] ticket for that.

[36:19] >> So the the size of vehicle may play into

[36:22] who should buy these properties if

[36:24] approved.

[36:25] >> That's what I [clears throat] was going

[36:26] to say.

[36:26] >> Okay.

[36:29] >> Thank you.

[36:32] Other questions?

[36:39] Um,

[36:41] usually I kind of glance over because

[36:44] it's always kind of pretty apparent on

[36:47] the fire turnarounds and what the fire

[36:49] department asked for.

[36:52] Daniel,

[37:05] sorry. Got to get back to Okay. So the

[37:09] this the you would have your access on

[37:12] um southside and then there is a stub

[37:15] street that was in installed with the um

[37:18] Taylor sub or Eagleclaw subdivision

[37:20] Taylor Street that they would connect

[37:22] onto and so there would be no need for a

[37:25] turnaround there. The fire would have

[37:27] fire and the public would have access um

[37:30] in and through through multiple public

[37:32] streets.

[37:34] So this will connect to the existing

[37:36] >> that is the proposal and what what staff

[37:39] has uh that is the purpose of that

[37:42] street being there. Um and so staff has

[37:45] made that recommendation that that that

[37:47] connection is required.

[37:50] >> Okay. Thank you.

[37:56] » Else good right now.

[38:00] Okay. I think that's it.

[38:02] Uh, madam clerk, do we have a signup

[38:04] sheet? Okay,

[38:08] >> thank you. Calling Lenita Canavves.

[38:13] [clears throat]

[38:25] Good evening. My name is Lenita Knavey

[38:28] and I live at 2810 Taylor Court and that

[38:33] piece of property

[38:36] um my backyard would face the single

[38:38] family home area

[38:42] and my concern is

[38:46] um number one that our neighborhood

[38:49] which is just really three streets it's

[38:52] Georgia Taylor and then Taylor port

[38:55] which I live on,

[38:58] they have no sidewalks.

[39:00] So the children because it's such a

[39:03] quiet area, the children play in the

[39:05] streets

[39:07] because there's no sidewalks to walk on.

[39:10] So they're riding their bikes on the

[39:11] streets

[39:13] and they're planning on, if I have this

[39:16] right, sorry I knocked over your

[39:18] [clears throat] gabble.

[39:19] >> You're good. um they're planning on um

[39:23] busting out Taylor Street to go into

[39:26] their area. Correct.

[39:30] And so,

[39:33] um to give you an example, we had one

[39:36] high-speed chase that came through our

[39:38] neighborhood because the weird driver

[39:41] didn't realize he was going to come into

[39:44] a nonac. the police had to chase him.

[39:49] In my piece of property in the front, I

[39:51] have three boulders, you know, or

[39:54] several boulders that are right next to

[39:58] the property.

[40:00] And um the guy knocked one boulder over

[40:04] and

[40:06] matched up his car and kept on going.

[40:08] Anyway, the police finally came back and

[40:12] um wanted to make sure we were all okay.

[40:17] Well, these kind of things scare me

[40:19] because this can happen because now

[40:21] we're going to have access. Well, the

[40:24] other night, I don't know what happened,

[40:27] but Saturday night, somebody came

[40:29] through in the middle of the night,

[40:31] knocked one of those boulders, and I'm

[40:33] kidding, these are big. I couldn't even

[40:35] move it five feet into my front yard,

[40:40] and my neighbor had to push it back for

[40:42] me. So these are the things that worry

[40:45] me about opening that up and the speed.

[40:49] Also what worries me is my property

[40:54] that faces that area. It's all, you

[40:57] know, it's all country back there right

[40:59] now.

[41:01] And on the other side of that skinny

[41:06] place where they're going to put all

[41:07] these houses, on the other side of that

[41:10] is

[41:11] a cow ranch.

[41:14] So I just have

[41:16] a little horse fence, you know, that you

[41:19] can see through. So my request is that

[41:22] there be a wall

[41:25] so no one can see into my property.

[41:29] And that would be my number one request

[41:33] because that would be frightening to me

[41:36] to have all those people and all those

[41:38] duplexes and everything being able to

[41:41] have access to my property.

[41:44] So,

[41:44] >> okay. Thank you.

[41:45] >> Those are my concerns.

[41:48] >> Okay, we'll ask the questions for you.

[41:49] And I'm concerned about the traffic

[41:52] coming through there

[41:54] tonight. Trying to get through onto

[41:57] Southside just from Georgia took me a

[41:59] while because Southside is really busy

[42:02] now because we have the other apartments

[42:04] now.

[42:06] And this is just a Southside's just a

[42:08] little street, you know, it's becoming a

[42:10] highway.

[42:13] So [clears throat] that's something the

[42:15] city needs to think about.

[42:17] >> Thank you. That's your time.

[42:19] Okay, next

[42:22] >> Andre Soliv.

[42:34] » Good evening. My name is Andre Solivi. I

[42:36] live at 1119

[42:38] South Taylor Street.

[42:41] Uh the concerns I have is it's nice that

[42:43] you know my kid wants the basketball

[42:45] court but he's 12 and he doesn't realize

[42:48] the danger of all the traffic like when

[42:51] mentioned before there's no sidewalks.

[42:53] All of our kids just get outside, ride

[42:56] their bikes, play play ball, play

[42:59] basketball right now outside on the

[43:00] streets. So if that street is going to

[43:02] be through street, I mean we're going to

[43:04] get a lot more traffic. Um the home I

[43:07] live in has been in our family since

[43:08] 2007. It's been quiet neighborhood. No

[43:12] extra traffic coming in, coming out. And

[43:14] you know, just now realizing that we

[43:17] cannot let our kids go in the front

[43:19] yard, you know, pretty much just, hey,

[43:22] make sure you play in the backyard. Um,

[43:25] we take our kid to private school every

[43:28] morning and leaving from Georgia Street

[43:30] to southside sometimes can be 3, five

[43:32] minutes wait. There's a lot of school

[43:35] buses stopped right in front of the new

[43:37] um town homes or apartments, whatever

[43:39] there is, and sometimes impossible

[43:42] leaving. So, with that adding an extra

[43:44] street, [clears throat]

[43:45] it's just going to create even more

[43:47] traffic. Um it's going to be disaster

[43:50] because some of those people going to,

[43:51] you know, try to exit the other way

[43:53] whichever they go. So, that's that's our

[43:55] concerns is um safety, traffic. Um like

[44:00] mentioned before, southside has been

[44:02] nothing but like like a highway lately.

[44:05] Um I you know I know sooner or later

[44:09] it's going to have to be built no matter

[44:11] what. But if it gets continued with like

[44:14] sizes we have you know close to half an

[44:15] acre lots under I'm sure you know

[44:17] everybody's going to be fine with that.

[44:20] But on a 4 acre lot I mean if you just

[44:22] going to bring more people that already

[44:25] live in a whole subdivision it's just

[44:27] going to be a disaster.

[44:31] Thank you. Appreciate it.

[44:36] » No one further has submitted public

[44:38] testimony for this topic.

[44:40] >> Okay. Is there anyone else that would

[44:43] like to speak for, against, or undecided

[44:45] on this item?

[44:50] Okay. Mr. Washburn, would you like to

[44:51] come back up

[44:53] answer some questions for us?

[45:23] Mr. Chairman and uh commission members,

[45:26] um firstly, we want to address um I

[45:29] believe it was Anita. Um we're willing

[45:32] to put in a sixoot fence. You know, I

[45:34] think we had plans for that um fence

[45:37] along there uh in our preliminary plat.

[45:40] and um she currently as it sits will be

[45:43] abuing the open space park and there

[45:45] will be lots of uh trees growing into

[45:47] mature trees eventually. So we don't um

[45:51] foresee an issue of privacy there in the

[45:53] long run. And for Andre um

[45:56] uh it says he didn't want a neighbor

[45:58] directly next to him. So we put uh an

[46:01] open space as a buffer um behind his lot

[46:04] as well. And that um

[46:08] yes, that is all I have.

[46:11] >> We have questions.

[46:12] >> Yeah, Mr. Chair. Um the fence, what type

[46:15] of fence?

[46:17] >> You just said a fence. I was just

[46:18] wondering if you could clarify what

[46:19] type.

[46:19] >> Yeah, it will be a vinyl fence.

[46:21] >> Okay. So, a vinyl privacy fence, not a

[46:23] chain link.

[46:24] >> Correct.

[46:24] >> Okay.

[46:24] >> Yes. [laughter]

[46:30] » Anybody else?

[46:33] Okay, I think that's all we have for

[46:35] you. Thank you.

[46:38] >> Motion to close public hearing.

[46:39] >> So moved. [cough]

[46:42] Been moved by Commissioner Kirkman,

[46:45] seconded by Kho to close the public

[46:46] hearing. All those in favor?

[46:48] >> I.

[46:48] >> Any opposed? Okay. Public testimony

[46:51] portions closed.

[46:54] What are our thoughts?

[47:01] My thought is if this passes, I hope

[47:03] they give that abandoned house to the

[47:05] fire department and let the fire

[47:06] department burn it down for training.

[47:09] >> Yeah, no kidding.

[47:11] >> Such an eyesore there.

[47:12] >> Oh,

[47:14] >> I think this is a, you know, it's a very

[47:17] unique piece of land there. Yeah,

[47:20] extremely

[47:21] >> challenging to do something with, but I like the design and I like the

[47:25] accommodations that the applicant has

[47:27] made to some of the concerns that were brought forward. I know it didn't

[47:32] alleviate all of them, but I think

[47:34] they've mitigated um [clears throat]

[47:37] uh most of them with the open space and

[47:40] putting the multifamily the duplexes

[47:43] down at the other end where there's no

[47:46] homes. And anyway, so I I think it's a

[47:48] great infill project for this particular

[47:51] I'm not particularly happy right there

[47:53] at Southside because it that goes right

[47:55] around the corner there and it's almost

[47:56] a blind corner when you have some of

[47:59] that traffic coming out of the

[48:00] apartments and some other developments

[48:02] there. But we just have to drive more

[48:05] carefully, I guess.

[48:11] » Mr. Chair, I got I got a couple of

[48:14] thoughts. And not sure [clears throat]

[48:15] which way I want to go on this, but

[48:19] 4 foot backyards is nothing. And I mean,

[48:24] granted, there's some open space, play

[48:25] areas for the kids, but moms can't be

[48:28] down there constantly with the kids.

[48:30] They've still got to do laundry and

[48:32] dishes and

[48:34] cook meals. And the kids don't have a

[48:37] place to play out back. I mean, four

[48:38] foot. I'm 63 and I would I couldn't even

[48:41] lay down in the stupid thing. So I I I'm

[48:44] really struggling with that 4 foot

[48:45] because that that just there's nothing

[48:48] back there. Typically the town houses

[48:49] don't do much. They don't have much of a

[48:51] backyard anyway, but 4 foot is nothing.

[48:55] And then I I start to have concerns with

[48:58] that property to the south

[49:01] when somebody goes to develop that and

[49:03] they've got a 4 foot

[49:07] >> to a two-story building.

[49:08] >> Yeah. It's going to I know this is a

[49:11] very dis difficult lot to try to do

[49:13] something with because it is so long and

[49:15] skinny and I'd love I'm like Jeff I'd

[49:19] love to see that old

[49:21] thing burned down or tore down or

[49:23] something because I get to drive by it

[49:25] at least twice a day like you do. So it

[49:28] would be nice to see it gone. But I I

[49:30] think that man that 4 foot and it's

[49:33] going to make that south property to the

[49:35] south difficult to do something with

[49:38] down the road. So I that kind of bothers

[49:40] me with what what could happen there.

[49:42] And I think it's saying 4 foot and then

[49:44] you got a two-story building and I think my thought my thought with that

[49:49] is you know yes the 4 foot but then you

[49:52] got no front yard either.

[49:53] >> Yeah. Neither. Yeah. You have no place

[49:55] for

[49:56] >> a sidewalk in front of the place and

[49:57] then a 4 foot.

[49:58] >> Yeah. It's just like if you're the kind

[50:00] of person who has a vehicle longer than

[50:02] 20 foot, maybe you won't live here. And

[50:04] if you're the kind of person that wants

[50:05] a front and backyard, you won't live

[50:06] here either.

[50:07] >> I guess there's some of that, too. It is

[50:09] just a two-bedroom, multiple bedroom.

[50:11] So,

[50:15] » that's my thoughts for now.

[50:20] » Daniel, go ahead. Sorry.

[50:22] >> Sorry. Uh, I agree with both

[50:26] other commissioners that the the lot is

[50:28] extremely unusual.

[50:31] Bowling alley is about the only thing

[50:32] that would fit in here,

[50:35] but uh don't have too many outdoor

[50:36] bowling alleys.

[50:39] And the parking situation

[50:45] doesn't leave a lot to be desired

[50:46] either.

[50:50] The answer, I guess, is just

[50:52] don't like it when you look at it, don't

[50:55] rent or buy there and you'd be all

[50:57] right. So,

[50:59] tough choice to make, but I would say I

[51:00] would be in favor of it.

[51:03] But it looks like we have a

[51:06] comment.

[51:07] >> I have a question.

[51:08] >> Question. So, in a situation like this

[51:11] where we are potentially tying into an

[51:15] older older subdivision um with no

[51:18] sidewalks,

[51:20] is there something that the developer

[51:23] could do that the city could do as like

[51:26] a traffic calming?

[51:28] Um there is certainly um

[51:34] that could be a condition that was

[51:35] placed on it that they install traffic

[51:37] calming along Taylor and Georgia. Um if

[51:40] that's a concern, um that would likely

[51:43] look like um speed humps along that. Um

[51:49] typically

[51:51] um when we look at

[51:54] um

[51:56] these types of things, my recommendation

[51:59] would be um that we collect speed data

[52:02] on Georgia and probably not Taylor just

[52:06] because of its length, but on Georgia to

[52:09] prior to the development going in and

[52:12] the condition be placed that those

[52:14] evaluations are done and then say at the

[52:18] point where 50% of the the homes in that

[52:21] development are owner occupi or

[52:23] occupied, we go back and redo that

[52:26] evaluation and that the developer has um

[52:29] designed and bonded for those traffic

[52:32] calming improvements in the other

[52:34] subdivision. But we only do them if if

[52:37] that those speeds um are have now

[52:42] warranted it um more than they did

[52:45] previously. If the if the residents of a

[52:47] existing subdivision are going 25 miles

[52:50] an hour, you know, is their typical

[52:53] speed, the development goes in, that

[52:56] continues to be the same situation. Um,

[52:59] the volumes we would be talking about

[53:01] increasing there um would not warrant

[53:05] that unless the speeds significantly

[53:08] increased.

[53:08] >> Speeds increase to 45, then it's a

[53:10] different conversation.

[53:11] >> Yeah. I mean, even if they increase to

[53:14] 30 at that point, then yes, it's it it's

[53:17] had an impact. Um, if the though if

[53:20] those speeds stay the same as they were

[53:22] pre-development, um, at that point, it

[53:25] probably doesn't warrant putting in um,

[53:27] those. Um, but that's kind of the

[53:29] evaluation. If if that's something

[53:31] you're inclined to place as a condition,

[53:33] my recommendation would be that um, it's

[53:36] a condition that those speeds are

[53:38] evaluated prior to the development. Um

[53:41] and the developer is required to um

[53:45] design and bond for those improvements

[53:48] uh to then be installed say after 50%

[53:52] occupancy and a re-evaluation to

[53:54] determine if it's appropriate.

[53:56] >> Okay.

[53:57] >> That's still not going to account for

[53:58] the guy running from the cops and

[54:00] running

[54:01] >> and those those are outliers that you

[54:03] know as much as I would love to be able

[54:05] to account for those I I don't I don't

[54:07] have a way to do that. I I had the

[54:09] street I grew up in, we had a we had one

[54:13] of the very nice cross drains that um

[54:16] would take out a transmission and we had

[54:18] a guy running from the cops when I was a

[54:20] kid and took out his transmission and

[54:22] had to get out of the car to run from

[54:24] him continually.

[54:25] >> How many transmissions did you lose?

[54:30] » Thank you, Daniel. Appreciate it.

[54:33] >> Any other questions or comments? Go

[54:35] ahead. Um,

[54:37] I like the idea of getting in some

[54:40] housing, um, diversity and continuing to

[54:43] do that in this area. Um, we need

[54:47] continue to have that supply in order to

[54:49] keep prices where we want them.

[54:52] I think this is as good of a design as

[54:54] you can do on this type of a lot.

[54:57] I however am concerned with the 4 foot

[55:00] setback and having a if it was a

[55:03] one-story building maybe I don't think

[55:05] it would bother me as much but having

[55:08] 5 foot tall

[55:10] structure 4t away if I were to make a

[55:13] motion I would approve all of it except

[55:16] for that exemption

[55:18] >> what would you do though

[55:21] the applicant to do building shorter

[55:25] >> well

[55:28] Mr. Chair, in response to Commissioner Morgan's

[55:33] comment, I I agree. I had a nextdoor

[55:35] neighbor who had uh it was probably a

[55:38] six-foot backyard. And when she was

[55:40] building her house, we thought she was

[55:42] nuts to put in

[55:44] uh but she only needed three strips of

[55:46] grass too, saw when she put that in

[55:48] there. Um but it was small. We couldn't

[55:52] believe it was right up next to the in a normal subdivision. I don't know

[55:57] that

[55:59] we can make a decision or at least for

[56:01] me anyways, my opinion can make a

[56:03] decision based on what might be south of

[56:07] this. We'd have to address that when

[56:09] that or if that would ever come up and

[56:12] then make at at that point we could

[56:14] certainly make a look at making

[56:15] conditions like the first this row up

[56:17] against there has to be one story, you

[56:19] know, or something like that. We've done

[56:20] that in other uh in other uh public

[56:23] hearings also. I just don't know. I

[56:25] think we just have to address what is

[56:27] presented to us here rather than

[56:30] assuming down the road what might be

[56:34] because it may not be either

[56:38] owned for duplexes if that helps.

[56:42] one story duplexes,

[56:44] >> two story.

[56:46] >> I guess we're my thought is we're

[56:48] minimizing impact on a neighbor.

[56:52] >> So Rodney, does that create a future

[56:55] problem with a 4ft setback and then the

[56:57] neighbor asks for a

[57:00] rear setback of five feet, then we have

[57:02] nine feet between buildings.

[57:05] I'm I'm kind of looking at the attorney

[57:07] here because we have to evaluate each

[57:09] project on its own merits. Right. So,

[57:13] I'm heading down the right direction. I

[57:15] hope there.

[57:16] >> Yeah. Commissioner, for the record,

[57:17] Preston Ruer. Yes. What Rodney's

[57:19] proposing, we got to take each of these

[57:21] case by case. Though that's relevant for

[57:24] a future one, it's not before you

[57:25] tonight.

[57:26] >> Thank you for the clarification.

[57:28] Appreciate it.

[57:31] >> I think um Mr. Sure.

[57:34] One of my other concerns is that

[57:37] connection through the existing

[57:38] neighborhood um

[57:42] and home values and how that impacts

[57:44] them as far as these it's it's a deadend

[57:48] street. It's not a through street and

[57:53] how people buy what they look for low

[57:56] traffic, etc., etc. That's wiped out

[57:58] now. Um,

[58:01] I'm all for property rights and people

[58:03] be able to do, but now when does that

[58:05] cross the line? When does that start

[58:07] impacting somebody else's also?

[58:13] » So, what are your thoughts then on

[58:16] traffic calming? Does that help ease

[58:18] your mind a little or No, [sighs]

[58:21] >> not really. No, not really. Um,

[58:27] if it were already if it were already a

[58:29] through street, if there was already

[58:31] traffic that could run in multiple

[58:33] directions, then yeah, maybe traffic

[58:36] calming just because you're going to add

[58:37] more traffic that would be accessing

[58:41] that street.

[58:43] um

[58:45] but as as it is right now.

[58:47] >> And I guess my only thought on that is

[58:49] we've got plenty of subdivisions around

[58:51] the valley, not just Nampa, but around

[58:53] the valley that are very similar to this

[58:55] older subdivision have those stub

[58:57] streets. And the reason that there's sub

[58:59] streets is so they can connect. So, you

[59:02] know, if they were trying to purchase a

[59:04] piece of property, take a house out so

[59:06] they could connect through that lot,

[59:08] that's a little different conversation,

[59:09] but it's just connecting a substrate

[59:11] that was intended for connection in the

[59:12] first place. So, that's my thought. I

[59:15] mean, I understand what you're saying,

[59:16] but

[59:18] >> look at what the original thought was.

[59:20] >> Yeah, that's the intent. Otherwise, it

[59:22] wouldn't be wouldn't be developed that

[59:25] way. Uh,

[59:26] >> they would have put a lot there. Made a

[59:28] lot bigger. really would have I mean

[59:29] there would have been a lot of things

[59:30] different but that's the whole intent is

[59:32] for future growth and connection so

[59:36] >> yeah culdeac there at the end of Taylor

[59:38] court one and Taylor court two

[59:46] » back to my setback thing

[59:51] hypothetically if we had both projects

[59:55] before us today

[59:57] it it would make sense to allow the

[1:00:00] exception on this lot

[1:00:04] hardship, you know,

[1:00:07] >> not be quite as lenient on.

[1:00:12] » I think that's where my thought is, too.

[1:00:14] It's the constraints on this piece of

[1:00:16] property are pretty big and it's I think

[1:00:19] they've done a pretty good job designing

[1:00:22] what they have and also speaking with

[1:00:24] the neighbors and trying to accommodate

[1:00:28] as much as they possibly can and and

[1:00:31] still make some money doing it. I mean,

[1:00:34] >> and if I were to I probably wouldn't

[1:00:37] make him go all the way back to 15

[1:00:38] either.

[1:00:43] or is tight.

[1:00:45] >> It is, but I mean, you know, like has

[1:00:48] been stated, maybe people would look at

[1:00:50] it say,

[1:00:51] >> "Yeah,

[1:00:51] >> all I want to put back there is my

[1:00:53] barbecue anyway." So, what difference

[1:00:54] does it make?

[1:00:55] >> No room for barbecue on. [clears throat]

[1:00:58] >> I don't know. Depends how big your

[1:00:59] barbecue is. If you only got two people

[1:01:00] living in the house, all you need is a

[1:01:01] little round guy.

[1:01:04] Anyway,

[1:01:12] » well, Mr. Chair, if there's no further

[1:01:14] comment or discussion,

[1:01:17] >> all right, then I will make a motion

[1:01:18] that we recommend approval of the

[1:01:20] project as stated on the screen with the

[1:01:22] recommended conditions.

[1:01:25] >> Been moved by Kirkman, seconded by Kho

[1:01:28] to recommend approval for this item.

[1:01:30] Madam clerk, can I get a roll call?

[1:01:32] >> Can before Mr. Mr. Chair, before that,

[1:01:35] uh, I just want to make it clear in that

[1:01:36] motion that that does not include any

[1:01:38] traffic mitigation. No, no speed humps

[1:01:40] or bumps or anything like that.

[1:01:42] >> That wasn't included.

[1:01:48] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Garner absent.

[1:01:51] Miller,

[1:01:52] >> hi.

[1:01:54] >> Daffer

[1:01:55] absent. Turner.

[1:01:58] >> Nay.

[1:01:59] >> Kho.

[1:02:00] >> Hi.

[1:02:02] Morgan,

[1:02:05] >> yes.

[1:02:07] >> Kirkman,

[1:02:07] >> hi

[1:02:10] >> Fen.

[1:02:11] >> Hey.

[1:02:14] >> Copeland. Absent.

[1:02:32] Four eyes, one nay.

[1:02:37] » Oh, two, sorry. Four eyes, two nays.

[1:02:40] >> Thank you.

[1:02:43] >> Mr. Chair. Just a quick question. Was

[1:02:45] Wasn't there a conditional use it in

[1:02:48] there that was approved? Does that have

[1:02:50] to be Do you have to read that? I mean,

[1:02:52] does that go along with the conditional

[1:02:54] use permit process?

[1:02:55] >> Chairman, I'll speak to this. Um, this

[1:02:57] one actually is an interesting

[1:02:59] application. and it has a lot of moving

[1:03:00] parts to it because you're lumped in

[1:03:02] there with a cop, a preliminary plat, a

[1:03:06] plan unit development. A cup and a plan

[1:03:09] unit development are usually approved by

[1:03:10] you. However, because this is lumped in

[1:03:12] with an annexation request, it actually

[1:03:15] all becomes one bundled package that you

[1:03:17] recommend up to city council.

[1:03:20] And at that time, they'll need to make

[1:03:22] um first an initial finding on the

[1:03:24] annexation piece, which you've talked on

[1:03:26] tonight. And then if they get through

[1:03:28] that hurdle, then they'll have to see if

[1:03:30] it meets the criteria of a cup and a

[1:03:33] plan unit development. Um, so kind of

[1:03:36] from an academic standpoint, there's a

[1:03:37] lot of parts here, but that's why it

[1:03:39] moves up.

[1:03:40] >> Okay.

[1:03:40] >> Yeah.

[1:03:41] >> Thank you for the clarification.

[1:03:42] Appreciate it.

[1:03:46] » Okay. We will go ahead and move on to

[1:03:48] the next item 3-2.

[1:03:51] Annexation and zoning to an IIL zoning

[1:03:53] district on two parcels addressed as 22

[1:03:56] Happy Valley Road and Zero Happy Valley

[1:03:58] Road for Scott Marshall of Straight Line

[1:04:01] Architects representing Cashing Holdings

[1:04:03] LLC is the applicant here.

[1:04:12] Dennis Durant, 1465

[1:04:15] East Bird Dog Drive, Meridian, Idaho

[1:04:18] 83642.

[1:04:20] I will be representing the applicant

[1:04:22] today. [clears throat]

[1:04:24] I'd like to begin by just giving you a

[1:04:26] brief understanding of what the

[1:04:28] applicant actually does. So, in this

[1:04:31] room, there are three doors that are

[1:04:33] visible. One to the left, one to the

[1:04:35] right, and actually two doors, a double

[1:04:37] door to the rear.

[1:04:40] So those doors are the product that

[1:04:42] Western Specialty supplies and they do

[1:04:46] slight modifications to those products

[1:04:48] as they come in from their suppliers. So

[1:04:51] they'll bring in a blank door and

[1:04:54] they'll bring in frames. And if we were

[1:04:56] using the door to the back as an

[1:04:58] example, you'll notice that there is a

[1:05:01] glass transom above the door. That

[1:05:04] requires a little bit of modification to

[1:05:06] the frame. the glass is going to be

[1:05:08] custom and so they'll put in the

[1:05:10] horizontal seal for that glass and that

[1:05:14] will be their modification that they're

[1:05:16] making to the frame. So what they're

[1:05:19] doing is they're bringing in product

[1:05:21] that is mostly preassembled but then

[1:05:24] they're going to do some finishing work

[1:05:26] inside of their um finished building. So

[1:05:31] if you were to take the door to the left

[1:05:32] over here, it's actually a wood door.

[1:05:35] That door has a steel frame and it has a

[1:05:37] small window unit in it. And so they

[1:05:40] would take a blank door. The door's um

[1:05:43] already probably cut for hinges and the

[1:05:45] lock set, but they need to cut in the

[1:05:47] window frame opening. And so that's what

[1:05:49] they'll do is they'll cut that in in

[1:05:50] their little wood shop and then that

[1:05:52] door would then be delivered to their

[1:05:54] enduse customer.

[1:05:57] I've known Western Specialties for

[1:05:58] approximately 20 years. Um they're

[1:06:00] currently located in Garden City, Idaho.

[1:06:03] Um they started with a very small

[1:06:05] operation about four people total. Um

[1:06:09] currently they have between eight and 10

[1:06:12] employees and their hours of operation

[1:06:15] are Monday through Friday um about 7:30

[1:06:18] to 5:00 p.m.

[1:06:21] Um granted there are emergency

[1:06:23] situations where a customer may need

[1:06:25] something um maybe on a Saturday or

[1:06:27] something where they need a lock set or

[1:06:29] something and and they'll supply those

[1:06:31] products for them on an emergency basis,

[1:06:33] but they're not operating their FAB

[1:06:36] location or doing anything like that.

[1:06:39] um all of the operations that they

[1:06:41] perform are contained within the

[1:06:43] building unit. They do not perform any

[1:06:45] operations outside. They don't store

[1:06:47] things outside. Everything is confined

[1:06:49] inside.

[1:06:51] Um

[1:06:53] [clears throat]

[1:06:54] this building is designed for growth.

[1:06:55] They currently have about 10,000 square

[1:06:58] feet that they're utilizing in one

[1:07:00] location and then they have several

[1:07:02] remote storage locations because their

[1:07:05] current facility is not large enough to stock all the inventory that they do.

[1:07:10] So this building is large enough for um

[1:07:13] growth times two. And what they

[1:07:17] anticipate is as they grow and if they

[1:07:22] were to fully utilize the building um

[1:07:25] they would probably have a total of 14

[1:07:28] employees.

[1:07:30] Currently they receive about one truck

[1:07:33] per day as far as incoming freight as

[1:07:37] far as a semi-truck coming in. Um, they

[1:07:40] might have a delivery from an incidental

[1:07:43] carrier like Amazon or something like

[1:07:45] that to drop something off. And they do

[1:07:48] have a little bit of will call traffic.

[1:07:51] And when we say a little bit, it could

[1:07:53] range from two to three people customers

[1:07:57] stopping to get something in a day or it

[1:07:59] could be five or six. This is not a Home

[1:08:02] Depot operation. And this is um a

[1:08:04] specialty business that caters to

[1:08:08] specifically doors and frames.

[1:08:13] Um

[1:08:15] the building has been designed in the

[1:08:17] lot. Um I just like to speak a little

[1:08:19] bit to the actual application.

[1:08:22] So, we are requesting that we do an

[1:08:25] annexation

[1:08:26] on this piece of property from the

[1:08:28] county into the city and then a reszone

[1:08:32] from the current zoning which is rural

[1:08:34] residential to an IL zone. The IIL zone

[1:08:39] is compatible

[1:08:41] with [clears throat] what our use is

[1:08:43] currently. The surrounding properties

[1:08:45] are to the south is a city-owned

[1:08:48] property which is IIL's own. Properties

[1:08:51] to the west include the airport.

[1:08:54] Um and then to the north is residential

[1:08:59] and to the east is residential.

[1:09:04] Through our planning and discussions

[1:09:06] with the city, we had an opportunity to

[1:09:09] meet with city staff and in that meeting

[1:09:12] we discussed with all the local

[1:09:14] jurisdictions some of the the thought

[1:09:17] and the requirements that would be

[1:09:19] placed upon the property in order to

[1:09:22] develop it in this way.

[1:09:24] The highway district made a proposal

[1:09:27] that uh since there are two lots

[1:09:30] um the existing residential house which

[1:09:33] is on the northwest corner and then um

[1:09:36] the larger lot that there be one

[1:09:40] combined access point to service both

[1:09:43] lots.

[1:09:45] And our our plan shows that combined

[1:09:47] access point. And so the house would um

[1:09:51] would enter with the main entrance and

[1:09:54] then they would turn to the north to

[1:09:56] enter the residence.

[1:09:59] In this application, the residence is

[1:10:03] designed to stay in place as a

[1:10:06] non-conforming use. Um it would be

[1:10:08] reszoned to an IL zone. Um but the

[1:10:12] owners prefer to stay and live in this

[1:10:14] location

[1:10:16] and as long as they're inhabiting the

[1:10:18] house um which is to their discretion

[1:10:22] would be it would remain as a

[1:10:24] residential living um area.

[1:10:30] As you enter the facility, um you'll

[1:10:33] notice that the building is placed the

[1:10:35] large building to the um eastern end of

[1:10:37] the property is placed that we have a

[1:10:41] fire lane around the whole building and

[1:10:42] then landscaping buffering to the north

[1:10:45] and to the east. We have approximately

[1:10:48] 55 ft from the building to the property

[1:10:50] line to the north and about

[1:10:53] um

[1:10:54] 50 60 feet to the east. When it's all

[1:10:57] said and done, we place the truck ramp

[1:11:02] um on the building to be located away

[1:11:05] from any residential areas. It actually

[1:11:09] is h situated to the south property

[1:11:12] which is the ILZ owned city piece.

[1:11:15] All of the unloading of trucks will be

[1:11:18] done at the loading dock and the loading

[1:11:21] dock is is enclosed and uh all of the

[1:11:26] traffic goes is contained within the

[1:11:28] building.

[1:11:30] Additionally, there is a building which

[1:11:32] we call building number two which is

[1:11:34] located on the western side of the

[1:11:37] property.

[1:11:39] This is a flex space building and is

[1:11:42] designed to

[1:11:44] um have contractors of similar nature to

[1:11:48] inhabit the space. And

[1:11:51] I think that ends my seven minutes I

[1:11:54] think. So if there's any questions I can

[1:11:57] answer or I'll sit down.

[1:11:58] >> I have a question.

[1:11:59] >> Yep.

[1:12:00] >> Um looking at your site plan here, are

[1:12:03] those trucks depictions of trucks making

[1:12:05] turns? what what's on those roadways.

[1:12:09] >> Yes. So So what we're depicting is how a

[1:12:12] truck would actually circulate or could

[1:12:15] circulate in the lot. And we're

[1:12:17] depicting that so that we can have the

[1:12:19] proper radius so that as a truck is

[1:12:22] making a corner, they're not driving

[1:12:23] over a landscaping buffer, hitting the

[1:12:26] corner of a building, hitting a car. So

[1:12:28] it's it's just for p space constraints

[1:12:30] for our planning purpose.

[1:12:32] >> Doesn't look like they're running over

[1:12:34] things.

[1:12:36] Um, it appears that they might be, but

[1:12:41] as this is designed, they will not be.

[1:12:44] So,

[1:12:44] >> okay.

[1:12:45] >> Yeah, that's what it's all about. It's

[1:12:46] designed so that we're not running over

[1:12:48] things.

[1:12:48] >> They don't allow to be 54t trucks

[1:12:50] either.

[1:12:51] >> What's that?

[1:12:51] >> They don't all have to be 54 54t trucks

[1:12:54] either.

[1:12:55] >> Uh, 50 64.

[1:12:58] >> Could be.

[1:12:59] >> They could be various sizes.

[1:13:00] >> Could be. Yeah.

[1:13:01] >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:13:05] here.

[1:13:05] >> Yes.

[1:13:07] >> Um,

[1:13:08] what's the what's the height of your

[1:13:10] warehouse and of your flex buildings?

[1:13:13] >> Uh, 32 feet is the finished height of

[1:13:16] the warehouse.

[1:13:19] And then on the flex space building, um,

[1:13:22] less than 20.

[1:13:28] Do you have any landscape plans for the

[1:13:31] north and east sides of the property?

[1:13:34] >> So, the landscaping is we're very open

[1:13:37] to what we can do on the property for

[1:13:39] landscaping. We have a landscaping

[1:13:41] buffer reserved. We're planning on

[1:13:43] fencing which would be compatible with a

[1:13:46] residential

[1:13:47] nature. We don't know if it would be

[1:13:49] best for wood or for vinyl or what that

[1:13:51] would be best served. Um, one of the

[1:13:54] restrictions that we have on the lot is

[1:13:57] a landscaping requirement from the

[1:13:59] airport that the landscaping is not to

[1:14:03] allow wildlife or especially birds, I

[1:14:06] think, is what the overall concept is.

[1:14:08] So,

[1:14:08] >> get those trees that birds don't like.

[1:14:10] >> Yeah. [laughter] Right.

[1:14:13] >> Yeah.

[1:14:14] >> It does make it tough.

[1:14:15] >> Yeah. So, we're willing to do whatever

[1:14:17] is best in that regard, but there's some

[1:14:19] restrictions with what the airport would

[1:14:21] prefer or want to have there.

[1:14:24] >> Thank you,

[1:14:28] » Mr. Chair. This rendering just shows two

[1:14:32] uh loading docks. Is there only going to

[1:14:35] be one?

[1:14:35] >> Um, the render the loading dock is

[1:14:39] actually to the right side of the upper

[1:14:41] building. You can see the curb. Yeah,

[1:14:43] >> those are overhead doors and are not

[1:14:45] loading docks.

[1:14:46] >> Okay, I see.

[1:14:52] » Okay, we'll call you back up.

[1:14:53] >> Okay, thank you.

[1:14:54] >> Thank you.

[1:14:57] >> Okay, Miss Friend.

[1:15:03] [clears throat]

[1:15:10] Good evening, commissioners and um

[1:15:13] chairman. My name is Terry Friend,

[1:15:15] associate planner for the city of Nampa.

[1:15:18] The request before you tonight is

[1:15:20] annexation and zoning to IL or light

[1:15:23] industrial for two parcels along North

[1:15:26] Happy Valley Road, which is in the

[1:15:29] airport overlay zone.

[1:15:35] The application covers two parcels.

[1:15:38] Those total five acres. Um the

[1:15:41] comprehensive plan designation in this

[1:15:44] area is low density residential within

[1:15:47] the airport overlay area. The applica

[1:15:51] the applicant is requesting a stretch of

[1:15:54] the industrial land use designation from

[1:15:57] the city airport area from the west of

[1:16:00] Happy Valley Road.

[1:16:04] The two properties are adjacent to

[1:16:06] parcels that are within the city of

[1:16:08] Nampa. Um, but they are currently um

[1:16:13] under Canyon County jurisdiction. They

[1:16:16] are within an area of rural residential

[1:16:19] under counties zoning definitions and

[1:16:22] their map. Um, the surrounding

[1:16:25] properties have varying zoning. to the

[1:16:27] north and to the east are under county

[1:16:31] count canyon county jurisdiction in an

[1:16:34] area of rural residential. But to the

[1:16:37] west and to the south, those are areas

[1:16:40] that are owned by the city of Nampa and

[1:16:43] they are zoned IL light industrial.

[1:16:48] The applicant is requesting annexation

[1:16:50] and zoning to that light industrial

[1:16:52] designation to match the south and the

[1:16:55] west.

[1:16:56] This is the proposed uh site plan for

[1:16:59] the project. It really complain contains

[1:17:02] three components. The first would be

[1:17:05] that existing residential property to

[1:17:08] the northwest. There is a um house and

[1:17:11] there is a shop structure that are

[1:17:13] intended to remain. And then to the east

[1:17:17] is the 30,000 square foot building for

[1:17:20] Western Specialties. Um, and then and as

[1:17:24] he discussed, that's going to have

[1:17:26] office, shop, and warehouse space. And

[1:17:29] then to the southwest, that portion of

[1:17:31] the property is intended to have a

[1:17:34] 10,000 square f foot multi-tenant flex

[1:17:37] building. Um, right now, as it's drawn,

[1:17:40] they're proposing four tenant spaces.

[1:17:45] Here are the conceptual drawings for the

[1:17:48] two new industrial uh buildings. The

[1:17:51] Western Specialties building is intended

[1:17:54] to be about 30,000 square feet. At the

[1:17:57] front, it's um planned to be 32 square,

[1:18:01] sorry, 32 feet high. It does slope

[1:18:04] towards the back. So, the back was like

[1:18:06] 28.

[1:18:08] Um and then the multi-tenant building is

[1:18:11] going to be singlestory about 16 feet

[1:18:13] high.

[1:18:18] So for our applicable regulations today,

[1:18:20] we're really just talking about

[1:18:21] annexation and zoning. So that's what

[1:18:24] the code we're looking at. Um Idaho

[1:18:27] state code does expressly provide for

[1:18:30] cities to be able to annex lands um

[1:18:32] which are reasonably necessary to assure

[1:18:35] orderly development which allow

[1:18:38] efficient and economical and viable

[1:18:40] provision of municipal services that in

[1:18:44] order enable the orderly development of

[1:18:47] private lands which would benefit from

[1:18:50] those cost-effective municipal services

[1:18:53] and to equitably allocate the cost of

[1:18:56] public services in management of um

[1:19:00] development on the urgent urban fringe.

[1:19:04] The annexation must satisfy four

[1:19:07] requirements uh which are detailed in

[1:19:10] Idaho code section 50-22 and then they

[1:19:15] must also pass a test of reasonleness

[1:19:18] to accept the annexation application.

[1:19:21] It's got to meet those four criterias as

[1:19:23] listed at the top of the slide. And this

[1:19:26] application has been evaluated and

[1:19:29] confirmed to meet each of those

[1:19:30] criteria. For zoning, city code 1023.C

[1:19:36] details three criteria for approval of

[1:19:39] the requested zoning. These are shown on

[1:19:41] the bottom of the slide and will be

[1:19:43] addressed a little later in the

[1:19:44] presentation here.

[1:19:47] As you know, we do send every

[1:19:49] application out to be evaluated by

[1:19:52] various departments and connected

[1:19:54] agencies um in our area. So, here we

[1:19:58] have some comments that have come

[1:19:59] through from the engineering department.

[1:20:02] They do not oppose the application.

[1:20:04] They've provided the comments about the

[1:20:06] availability of domestic water, sewer,

[1:20:09] and pressurized irrigation in the

[1:20:11] vicinity of the project.

[1:20:15] They've also um specified some access

[1:20:18] and layout requirements. They indicated

[1:20:22] that um access to the property is

[1:20:24] provided by Happy North Happy Valley

[1:20:27] Road. That's classified as a minor

[1:20:30] arterial and it has a speed limit of 40

[1:20:32] miles an hour.

[1:20:34] The applicant will be required to

[1:20:36] dedicate 50 feet of rightway along North

[1:20:39] Happy Valley with the annexation and

[1:20:43] they will be responsible for um frontage

[1:20:45] improvements at the time of the property

[1:20:48] development. The two properties will be

[1:20:51] required to um to share one access point

[1:20:56] which they've designed for you in that

[1:20:57] site layout. The existing access points

[1:21:00] will be required to be permanently

[1:21:02] closed.

[1:21:05] A traffic impact study may be required

[1:21:08] at the time of development if the

[1:21:10] project meets the threshold that's

[1:21:12] identified by engineering policy. And

[1:21:15] just two general comments um about

[1:21:19] needing to employ a surveyor to provide

[1:21:21] legal descriptions for the various

[1:21:23] components of this application and that

[1:21:26] any online wells or septic shall be

[1:21:28] abandoned at the time of development.

[1:21:33] Nampa airport did also provide comments.

[1:21:36] Um they indicated that the proposed

[1:21:39] light industrial use would be compatible

[1:21:41] land use for the near the airport. The

[1:21:44] developer will be required to submit um

[1:21:48] an application 7460, which is a notice

[1:21:50] of proposed construction with the FAA

[1:21:54] prior to um building permits so that the

[1:21:58] FAA has an chance to evaluate um any

[1:22:01] conflicts. The developer should use

[1:22:04] landscaping that does not attract

[1:22:06] wildlife such as birds. Um, and then any

[1:22:10] proposed buildings should have finishes

[1:22:12] that are not reflective. And the last

[1:22:14] thing is that all the building and site

[1:22:17] lighting should be focused downward.

[1:22:20] Nampa Highway District did not oppose

[1:22:22] the application subject to theou

[1:22:27] and the fire district provided comments

[1:22:29] indicating that the development is

[1:22:31] approximately 0.9

[1:22:33] miles from fire station number five with

[1:22:36] an approximate response time of 1

[1:22:39] minute. Um they did indicate that all of

[1:22:42] the development plans would be evaluated

[1:22:45] compared to applicable regulations at

[1:22:47] the time of the building permit, but

[1:22:49] specifically noted that based on the

[1:22:52] scope of the project, the um it will

[1:22:55] require a full life safety plan review.

[1:23:01] Couple of public comments received

[1:23:03] regarding this application.

[1:23:07] Uh, Maria, and I'm I'm gonna take a stab

[1:23:11] at it. Cuentes of 28 North Happy Valley

[1:23:15] um Road wrote in. She formally opposes

[1:23:18] the application and the proposed

[1:23:20] industrial development. Maria states

[1:23:22] that she chose her property for its

[1:23:25] rural character, which she believes

[1:23:27] would be compromised by the new

[1:23:29] development due to issues such as

[1:23:31] incompatibility with the surrounding

[1:23:33] area, increased noise, light pollution,

[1:23:36] loss of privacy, heightened traffic and

[1:23:39] safety concerns and potential health

[1:23:42] impacts, and possible depreciation of

[1:23:44] property values.

[1:23:46] Drake, excuse me, Drake Cifuentes, also

[1:23:50] of 28 North Happy Valley Road in. He um

[1:23:55] formally opposes the application and the

[1:23:57] proposed industrial development. Sharing

[1:23:59] a fence with the adjacent parcel near

[1:24:02] the Nampa Municipal Airport, Drake

[1:24:04] expresses concerns about airport

[1:24:07] compatibility, highlighting the risks

[1:24:09] posed by potential air traffic conflict

[1:24:12] created by the development such as

[1:24:15] obstruction of visual light issues and

[1:24:19] wildlife attraction, which could

[1:24:21] jeopardize pilot safety. He emphasizes

[1:24:24] the importance of protecting the

[1:24:26] airport's long-term viability from

[1:24:29] future complaints that could limit its

[1:24:32] operations and supports concerns

[1:24:34] addressed by his mother, Maria Suentes,

[1:24:38] um regarding incompatibility with the

[1:24:40] rural character of the area, noise,

[1:24:43] light pollution, and other negative

[1:24:46] impacts.

[1:24:48] And not included originally in your

[1:24:51] staff report, but um emailed to you

[1:24:53] separately was a comment from Mike

[1:24:56] Heaidman of 30 North Happy Valley Road.

[1:25:00] Uh he opposes zoning for the industrial

[1:25:03] development, having lived in the area

[1:25:05] for over eight years. Hideamman and his

[1:25:07] wife appreciate the quiet private

[1:25:10] atmosphere and scenic views of the

[1:25:12] Wahhees during the day and stars at

[1:25:14] night which influenced their decision to

[1:25:17] purchase their home. Although the

[1:25:19] anticipated um they anticipated future

[1:25:23] um additional residences, Haidman states

[1:25:26] that introduction of two large

[1:25:28] industrial buildings, one reaching 32

[1:25:31] feet in height would significantly

[1:25:34] disrupt their quality of life with

[1:25:36] increased noise, light pilution, and

[1:25:39] potential decreases in property value.

[1:25:41] Haidman has gathered signatures from

[1:25:44] neighbors within a 300 foot radius with

[1:25:47] nearly unanimous opposition to the

[1:25:49] reszoning. Um emphasizing the

[1:25:52] inappropriate nature of industrial

[1:25:55] zoning amidst a residential community.

[1:25:58] Um he urges local authorities to deny

[1:26:02] the reasonzoning request for the parcel.

[1:26:04] And here you see the um the petition

[1:26:08] that went through. This slide shows uh

[1:26:11] the petition that he circulated. The map

[1:26:14] to in the upper right corner I've

[1:26:17] actually pinpointed the addresses that

[1:26:19] are shown on those um to indicate the

[1:26:22] neighbors that we're talking about.

[1:26:28] All right. So proposed findings for

[1:26:30] annexation. Um the property owner is the

[1:26:34] property is contiguous to city limits.

[1:26:36] The property is located in Nampa's

[1:26:38] planning area and has a future land use

[1:26:40] map designation of lowdensity

[1:26:43] residential. The application requests a

[1:26:45] stretch of the industrial airport

[1:26:48] overlay land use designation from the

[1:26:50] property to the west. An annexation of

[1:26:53] roadway um will be subject to the

[1:26:55] revised and other agreements between the

[1:26:58] city of Nampa and Nampa's highway

[1:27:00] district.

[1:27:03] The facts for the reasonzoning have

[1:27:06] mostly been gone over in the rest of my

[1:27:08] presentation. I highlighted a couple of

[1:27:10] important things. Um

[1:27:13] [clears throat]

[1:27:14] on this slide, we've already gone over

[1:27:16] them, but on this slide, I just wanted

[1:27:19] to point out some things because we

[1:27:20] didn't talk very specifically about the

[1:27:23] comprehensive plan. So the project is um

[1:27:27] proposes that the existing residential

[1:27:29] single family dwelling units um on the

[1:27:32] 1acre parcel will remain with their

[1:27:35] residential use to continue. Now

[1:27:38] [clears throat]

[1:27:38] um based on our land use um controls

[1:27:43] chart a single family dwelling is not an

[1:27:46] allowed use in an IL zone. So we are

[1:27:49] technically creating a non-conforming

[1:27:52] use um for that property during the

[1:27:55] duration that it is continues to be

[1:27:57] residential. The comprehensive plan does

[1:28:01] address um public airport facilities

[1:28:05] specifically in chapter 14. The

[1:28:08] objective of the planned land uses need

[1:28:11] to be compatible with the airport. And

[1:28:14] the strategies to do that is to adhere

[1:28:17] to guidelines provided by the airport's

[1:28:20] master plan for land use compatibility,

[1:28:23] to zone for commercial and industrial

[1:28:26] uses in proximity of the airport, and to

[1:28:29] prohibit uses in the airport area such

[1:28:32] um that would attract birds, create

[1:28:34] visual hazards, and emit transmissions

[1:28:37] which might interfere with aviation

[1:28:39] communications or otherwise obstruct or

[1:28:42] conflict with the airport operations.

[1:28:48] And according to the comments provided

[1:28:51] by the airport, um they're satisfied

[1:28:54] that this application can meet all of

[1:28:56] those requirements based on the

[1:28:58] comprehensive plan and the airport's

[1:29:00] master plan.

[1:29:04] And again, three written public comments

[1:29:06] were received. Um, the third written

[1:29:09] comment included a petition indicating

[1:29:11] opposition by 38 residents in the

[1:29:14] immediate area and that uh below

[1:29:17] outlines the things that we've already

[1:29:19] covered for what their concerns were.

[1:29:23] And city codes are written to protect

[1:29:25] the public interest by providing

[1:29:27] guidance for development. Therefore, the

[1:29:29] project is presumed to be in the public

[1:29:33] interest because um any further

[1:29:35] development or redevelopment of the

[1:29:37] property will be required to meet city

[1:29:40] standards for development and shall

[1:29:42] install appropriate site improvements

[1:29:45] upon development.

[1:29:48] This paragraph summarizes everything

[1:29:51] that we just went over and provides a

[1:29:53] potential conclusion for

[1:29:56] um approving IL light industrial zoning.

[1:29:59] This is listed in your staff report in

[1:30:02] the proposed conditions of approval also

[1:30:06] listed in your staff report. Um that

[1:30:08] detail the things that engineering was

[1:30:11] going to require

[1:30:13] that the airport needed to address.

[1:30:20] And uh finally any other additional

[1:30:24] conditions that you wish to apply

[1:30:28] and there are your potential motions.

[1:30:32] What can I answer for you?

[1:30:36] » Any questions?

[1:30:38] >> Mr. [clears throat] Chair, um one of our

[1:30:41] findings says that this is in

[1:30:44] um accordance with our comprehensive

[1:30:46] plan

[1:30:47] is I

[1:30:52] approved zoning for low city

[1:30:54] residential.

[1:30:55] >> No, but our future land use map does

[1:30:59] allow for a land use designation

[1:31:03] to be stretched one parcel deep. So when

[1:31:07] we look at that future land use map,

[1:31:10] sorry, got to click got a number of

[1:31:12] slides,

[1:31:13] you can see that to the west of the

[1:31:16] property

[1:31:22] is to the west and to the south are um

[1:31:26] industrially zoned and it's industrial

[1:31:30] future land use map designation. So they

[1:31:33] would be allowed to stretch that land

[1:31:36] use designation over the two parcels

[1:31:40] because each one is adjacent to that

[1:31:44] aisle

[1:31:46] sorry industrial land use on the future

[1:31:49] land use map.

[1:31:50] >> So it would be more accurate to say

[1:31:51] we're stretching

[1:31:53] land use from adjacent parcels rather

[1:31:55] than it's in accordance with the comp

[1:31:58] plan.

[1:32:00] >> Randy would like to speak to that.

[1:32:02] >> Mr. chair and commissioners. Um I I

[1:32:04] think we need to remember the purpose

[1:32:07] behind a comprehensive plan future land

[1:32:09] use map and there never were intended to

[1:32:11] be exact, right? So those boundaries are

[1:32:15] kind of uh blurry for comprehensive

[1:32:18] plans and um and in this situation

[1:32:22] that's exactly what it is. It's kind of

[1:32:24] in that gray area where you can stretch

[1:32:26] it. We have it specifically stated on

[1:32:28] our comprehensive plan future land use

[1:32:30] map that you can stretch it. And so I

[1:32:32] would say that it is consistent with

[1:32:34] that as that statement on our

[1:32:36] comprehensive plan.

[1:32:38] >> Just didn't want Preston to have

[1:32:40] something that's not accurate in the

[1:32:42] findings.

[1:32:48] » The current the current residents

[1:32:50] residential portion of this property.

[1:32:53] Um, what would it take for them to just

[1:32:56] eliminate that and build another

[1:32:57] building?

[1:33:01] » Once it is zoned to IIL, they would be

[1:33:04] allowed to repurpose either the

[1:33:07] buildings on that property for an

[1:33:09] industrial purpose if it met the

[1:33:12] building requirements. Um or they could

[1:33:16] raise those buildings and build others

[1:33:18] that to meet the industrial

[1:33:20] requirements,

[1:33:22] >> but they couldn't do any redevelopment

[1:33:25] and keep it residential.

[1:33:28] >> Thank you. Um

[1:33:31] very very limited changes would be

[1:33:34] allowed to the property. Um

[1:33:36] >> what about hooking up to city services?

[1:33:39] >> They would be annexed into the proper

[1:33:41] into the city. So they would be able to

[1:33:43] hook up to city services.

[1:33:45] >> That doesn't qualify as a redevelopment.

[1:33:47] Okay.

[1:33:53] Thank you,

[1:33:56] Madam Clerk. Do we have a signup sheet?

[1:33:59] >> Here we do.

[1:34:01] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Calling Mike

[1:34:03] Hydeman.

[1:34:12] Good evening. My name is Mike Heidman.

[1:34:15] My wife and I are the owners and

[1:34:16] residents of 30 North Happy Valley Road,

[1:34:18] which directly borders the parcel being

[1:34:20] discussed tonight, just to the north.

[1:34:22] I've worked from home as a construction

[1:34:24] estimator ever since we purchased the

[1:34:25] home over eight years ago. We chose this

[1:34:28] location because it's outside of the

[1:34:30] city. It's not in a development.

[1:34:32] Surrounding properties are spacious.

[1:34:34] They're residential and they feel

[1:34:36] private. the view of the Aahes during

[1:34:38] the day and the stars at night due to

[1:34:40] minimal light pollution.

[1:34:43] We've always been aware that one day a

[1:34:44] house or two could be built on the

[1:34:46] neighboring parcel since it's zoned for

[1:34:47] residential. Had it been zoned for

[1:34:49] commercial or industrial, we never would

[1:34:51] have purchased it. Not just because it's

[1:34:53] extremely close to the house, but also

[1:34:56] the additional noise, traffic, and light

[1:34:58] pollution.

[1:35:00] All the windows in our living room,

[1:35:02] dining room, and kitchen face this

[1:35:04] neighboring parcel, as does our

[1:35:06] backyard, deck, outdoor seating and

[1:35:08] dining. We spend most evenings in our

[1:35:11] backyard, enjoying the sunset and many

[1:35:13] times the stars afterwards. On weekends,

[1:35:16] we enjoy our morning coffee outside

[1:35:17] before starting the day.

[1:35:20] Now, we're faced with the possibility of

[1:35:21] two industrial zone buildings being

[1:35:23] built right outside our back door in an

[1:35:26] area surrounded by homes on three sides.

[1:35:29] The largest and closest building is

[1:35:31] proposed to stick more than 32 feet in

[1:35:33] the sky above finish grade. Even with a

[1:35:36] six or eight foot fence, it would still

[1:35:37] be visible from both outside and inside

[1:35:39] our home. We're looking at increased

[1:35:42] noise from vehicle traffic, trucks

[1:35:44] navigating through a parking lot and

[1:35:46] idling, backup beepers, forklifts

[1:35:48] loading and unloading material, as well

[1:35:50] as the sound of saws and drills while

[1:35:52] they do their modifications.

[1:35:54] We're also looking at a considerable

[1:35:56] increase in light pollution at night

[1:35:57] from parking lot lights to building

[1:35:59] mounted lighting on every side of the

[1:36:01] buildings. Lastly, the decreased home

[1:36:04] values that are sure to follow.

[1:36:06] Even if the potential new owners say the

[1:36:08] noise and traffic will be minimal,

[1:36:10] that's subjective and it can always

[1:36:12] change once they're there. If they

[1:36:14] decide to sell or lease more of the

[1:36:16] property in the future, what type of

[1:36:17] industrial businesses, noise, traffic,

[1:36:20] and light pollution will that bring to

[1:36:22] all the surrounding homes?

[1:36:24] Um, I brought with me a copy of the

[1:36:26] petition containing signatures from all

[1:36:27] the neighbors within 300 feet who are

[1:36:29] opposed to the reszoning and the

[1:36:31] proposed use of this property. I focused

[1:36:33] on those homes first since that's all

[1:36:35] the city was required to notify.

[1:36:38] I also collected signatures from

[1:36:39] neighbors next to them, including those

[1:36:41] within line of sight.

[1:36:43] Every neighbor I talked with, except for

[1:36:45] one, signed an opposition. The only

[1:36:49] neighbor I didn't talk with is the one

[1:36:50] trying to sell the residential property

[1:36:52] as potential commercial or industrial

[1:36:54] use because it's worth more money.

[1:36:58] The property listing is shown pending

[1:36:59] since at least the beginning of this

[1:37:00] year. It's a safe guess that [snorts]

[1:37:02] that's contingent on the reasonzoning of

[1:37:04] proposed use being approved. Um the

[1:37:07] current view that's up on your screen

[1:37:09] right now is zoomed in. It doesn't show

[1:37:12] how close all the surrounding homes are.

[1:37:17] I ask you to consider

[1:37:20] these issues and ask yourselves, is this

[1:37:23] an appropriate location for industrial

[1:37:25] zoning when all the neighbors who live

[1:37:27] around it are opposed to it? Thank you,

[1:37:34] » Steve Great House.

[1:37:53] I wanted to go back to that screen we

[1:37:55] just had. Have you got control or not?

[1:37:58] [cough]

[1:38:00] >> All right, that works.

[1:38:02] But the laser pointer

[1:38:04] >> doesn't work.

[1:38:05] >> It doesn't work.

[1:38:07] Um, all right.

[1:38:10] The only meeting that was held to

[1:38:12] discuss this

[1:38:13] >> name and address for the record.

[1:38:14] >> Oh, I'm sorry. Steve Greathouse. Uh,

[1:38:17] address is 13 North Campbell Lane,

[1:38:20] Nampa. It's literally

[1:38:23] the right side that they've cut it right

[1:38:26] along my property line and they it's the

[1:38:30] right side of that image.

[1:38:33] Um,

[1:38:36] we were out of town uh when they held

[1:38:38] the meeting on June 27th. So, when the

[1:38:41] first time I was ever really able to see

[1:38:43] what the plan was was when these prints

[1:38:46] were loaded up to the website uh and

[1:38:50] submitted to the planning and zoning. It

[1:38:52] was only then that I found out that the

[1:38:55] size and nature of this monstrosity of

[1:39:00] 32 feet high, 30,000 square foot

[1:39:03] literally becomes my west side of my

[1:39:06] property.

[1:39:08] There is I can't see over it. I can't

[1:39:10] see around it. Everything is a big blank

[1:39:14] wall. There's not even windows in it.

[1:39:16] It's totally shielding me from anything.

[1:39:20] I've never even imagined that something

[1:39:22] like that could happen.

[1:39:25] Um, we have a bounce house

[1:39:28] uh that we use often with kids that or

[1:39:31] grandkids and stuff that come in. Uh,

[1:39:34] they that will be in the shadow when the

[1:39:39] sun goes down. This that building will

[1:39:42] shade shade that it'll shade our house.

[1:39:46] Uh semitrs,

[1:39:49] as you can see, are between my kitchen

[1:39:52] window and the building.

[1:39:56] There's I've only got 16 ft from my

[1:40:00] house to the middle of that property

[1:40:02] lane. And they are putting 40 ft of

[1:40:06] asphalt to get the semis to be able to

[1:40:08] go through there.

[1:40:10] Do you like to have semis driving in

[1:40:12] your backyard?

[1:40:14] Literally within a rock throw everything

[1:40:19] trying to sleep. Our our bedroom windows

[1:40:22] are just straight to the right of of

[1:40:25] where that bottom semi is.

[1:40:28] I I mean we it's intolerable that we

[1:40:32] have to live and think of that in our

[1:40:35] future.

[1:40:37] uh if they if this is a the final

[1:40:42] uh designation of what they're going to

[1:40:44] do, they're going to have some lawsuits.

[1:40:47] I will not put up with that kind of

[1:40:49] thing. This is just ridiculous that you

[1:40:52] would force this just because somebody

[1:40:55] feels that they want to have this

[1:40:57] property which isn't compatible with the

[1:41:01] whole rest of the uh neighborhood.

[1:41:03] You know, when you reszone something

[1:41:05] that's already residential and the

[1:41:07] people around it have uh incorporated

[1:41:11] that as a residential plan in their

[1:41:13] thoughts and you then change that they

[1:41:17] have the person um now assuming the

[1:41:20] ownership has to work with the existing

[1:41:23] people to be able to be integrated into

[1:41:27] them. We have to integrate this into us.

[1:41:31] It won't. This design, this plan does

[1:41:35] not integrate into the whole rest of the

[1:41:37] plans from um Happy Valley Road clear

[1:41:41] over to Robinson.

[1:41:42] >> Mr. Chair,

[1:41:43] >> Victory. No,

[1:41:44] >> thank you.

[1:41:46] >> There's I could go on and on and on, but

[1:41:49] literally

[1:41:51] uh we have nothing in our backyard

[1:41:55] except a monstrous building.

[1:41:57] Unacceptable. Thank you.

[1:42:02] Virginia Great House.

[1:42:10] » Virginia Great House, 13 North Campbell

[1:42:13] Lane, Nampa, Idaho 83687.

[1:42:18] Thank you for this chance to offer our

[1:42:21] opinion on uh this building. I I thought

[1:42:25] the name of the company was Big D

[1:42:28] Builders. That's not the case.

[1:42:30] Apparently, that was on some of the

[1:42:32] paperwork. But nonetheless,

[1:42:35] I'd like to take you all with me for a

[1:42:39] minute and imagine your backyard of your

[1:42:44] house. Now, I know they're probably all

[1:42:47] very different, but visualize those

[1:42:51] backyards

[1:42:53] and what you do in those backyards.

[1:42:56] You relax, you play, you entertain, you

[1:43:01] have children and grandchildren that

[1:43:03] come and they play in the yard.

[1:43:06] Now, think of those fun and entertaining

[1:43:09] moments and the memories that you're

[1:43:11] building

[1:43:12] and the ones that you have planned

[1:43:15] coming up. Think of them with a huge

[1:43:18] industrial building in your backyard.

[1:43:21] Because literally, as my husband said,

[1:43:23] that's what it would be right in our

[1:43:26] backyard.

[1:43:28] And we'll have the increased noise of

[1:43:31] loading docks, backup alarms, semitrs

[1:43:34] with their loud rumbling engines driving

[1:43:37] around the building, emitting diesel

[1:43:40] exhaust and fumes into the air that you

[1:43:44] and your guests and your children,

[1:43:46] grandchildren are breathing in, reducing

[1:43:49] your outdoor enjoyment, all the while you're trying to relax and have

[1:43:55] some happy memories. and be with loved

[1:43:58] ones.

[1:44:00] Along

[1:44:02] with all that noise is the noise that

[1:44:04] will come from the industrial machinery

[1:44:06] itself invading your family time. And

[1:44:09] even before any of that gets rolling,

[1:44:12] there's the noise of the construction of

[1:44:14] such a huge building of property.

[1:44:17] Morning shifts will start. I heard 7:30.

[1:44:20] Some of us are not morning people.

[1:44:23] That's why we like to be out by

[1:44:25] ourselves. And with residential people,

[1:44:29] usually that area is pretty quiet and

[1:44:33] early birds can get up early, late birds

[1:44:35] can sleep in late.

[1:44:38] But if I'm getting up to all those

[1:44:40] machines, worring and buzzing and

[1:44:42] hammering, nobody's going to sleep

[1:44:45] through that. Also, we mentioned the

[1:44:48] dust and concerns for health and safety,

[1:44:51] the light pollution, the ground

[1:44:53] vibrations from the semitrs,

[1:44:56] potential contamination risks and odors

[1:44:59] from the uh occupants garbage which is

[1:45:03] directly

[1:45:05] across from our patio like 30 feet

[1:45:08] maybe. So, um, don't forget, and I don't

[1:45:12] want to forget the negativity of the

[1:45:16] having a huge building and the effect

[1:45:18] that it will have on our property value.

[1:45:21] Please, I ask you to say no to this

[1:45:25] annexation. Leave it residential.

[1:45:28] We're ready for houses to move in behind

[1:45:31] us, but not a big huge building. Thank

[1:45:34] you. Thank you,

[1:45:38] >> Ian Twitchell.

[1:45:43] [clears throat]

[1:45:48] » Good evening, commissioners. Ian

[1:45:49] Twitchell, 4906 East Victory Road here

[1:45:51] in Nampa. I want to thank you guys for

[1:45:53] the opportunity to speak on this matter

[1:45:55] tonight. My wife and I bought our home

[1:45:57] here 10 years ago because it offered the

[1:45:59] best of Nampa. It still felt like the

[1:46:01] quiet, open, old Nampa that we love and

[1:46:03] grew up in while keeping us close to

[1:46:05] services. We'd planned for this to be

[1:46:07] our forever home. We have wonderful

[1:46:08] neighbors, many of whom are here tonight

[1:46:10] to oppose this annexation. Over the last

[1:46:13] decade, rapid expansion has chipped away

[1:46:15] at our community. Um, coming home to the

[1:46:17] valley doesn't feel quite the same as it

[1:46:19] used to. I'm sure a lot of you have felt

[1:46:20] that same way when the residential and

[1:46:23] farming properties that built this

[1:46:25] community are constantly targeted for

[1:46:28] industrial growth. I stand before you

[1:46:30] tonight to respectfully ask that you

[1:46:32] recommend denial of this proposed

[1:46:33] annexation and industrial resoning.

[1:46:35] While there are light commercial uses

[1:46:37] near the airport across the street, this

[1:46:39] proposal introduces critical conflicts.

[1:46:42] The field directly adjacent to the

[1:46:44] property is flagged against future

[1:46:46] development because it falls within the

[1:46:47] designated airport approach zone.

[1:46:49] Because no future industrial expansion

[1:46:51] can ever happen on that adjoining land,

[1:46:53] forcing a single industrial complex on

[1:46:56] this lot creates an isolated,

[1:46:57] incompatible footprint. If development's

[1:46:59] inevitable here, keeping it residential

[1:47:01] creates a logical, safe transition zone

[1:47:04] between the airport restrictions and our

[1:47:06] homes. Our household relies on a shared

[1:47:08] domestic well located on my neighbor's

[1:47:10] property, Mr. Grey House, which directly

[1:47:13] adjoins the subject's site. The wellhead

[1:47:15] is less than 10 feet from the direct

[1:47:18] property line. We also have a very

[1:47:20] shallow well at 35 ft. The applicant's

[1:47:23] proposal mentions the future

[1:47:24] possibilities of connecting to city

[1:47:26] sewer, but currently plans to install a

[1:47:28] commercial septic system. Once

[1:47:30] installed, if there's no enforcement

[1:47:31] mechanism to force a future connection,

[1:47:34] the issue becomes what contamination

[1:47:35] issues possibly lie in that. Has there

[1:47:38] been any geological studies mapping the

[1:47:39] rock layers and fracture angles to

[1:47:41] determine how the affluence going to

[1:47:42] migrate towards our properties? Annexing

[1:47:45] industrial uses without requiring

[1:47:46] immediate connection to the city

[1:47:48] proposes that risk. The applicant claims

[1:47:51] the traffic will be minimal, citing just

[1:47:53] one or two trucks and up to 14

[1:47:54] employees, but that estimate only

[1:47:56] accounts for the warehouse, completely

[1:47:58] ignoring the compounded traffic

[1:47:59] generated by the multi-tenant building.

[1:48:01] Happy Valley is already past its limit.

[1:48:03] Anybody who has driven that in the peak

[1:48:05] times knows that it is extremely busy.

[1:48:07] We've seen multiple accidents less than

[1:48:09] a mile away at airport and Happy Valley

[1:48:11] as well as the street lights at the

[1:48:12] roundabout being knocked over multiple

[1:48:14] times due to this traffic overload.

[1:48:16] Pushing freight delivery vehicles shift

[1:48:18] change traffic to two commercial

[1:48:19] structures creates an additional hazard.

[1:48:22] Nampa's primary light industrial hubs

[1:48:24] are established directly across the

[1:48:26] freeway over by Amazon. That's where the

[1:48:28] industrial buildings are happening.

[1:48:30] That's where these types of things

[1:48:32] should be forced and not into our

[1:48:34] locations. Putting that unwarranted

[1:48:36] industrial parks where they don't

[1:48:38] belong, where they don't fit with it

[1:48:39] being residential. Placing that 30,000t

[1:48:42] warehouse and flex space, loading docks,

[1:48:44] vehicle idling, night security lights

[1:48:46] directly up against established homes

[1:48:48] creates an immediate demunition of value

[1:48:50] for those surrounding residential

[1:48:52] properties. As has been discussed,

[1:48:54] existing homeowners should not be forced

[1:48:55] to absorb that real estate devaluation

[1:48:58] to subsidize spot reszoning that belongs

[1:49:00] in an industrial park. Growth in Nampa

[1:49:03] should be orderly and respecting

[1:49:04] existing homeowners. Please protect our

[1:49:06] water, our roads, our airspace, and our

[1:49:08] neighbors stability by recommending

[1:49:09] denial of this project. Thank you.

[1:49:11] >> Thank you,

[1:49:20] » Clark Krider.

[1:49:30] Evening. Clark Krider, 34 North, Happy

[1:49:32] Valley.

[1:49:34] I wasn't going to speak this evening

[1:49:36] till I saw this. This is the first time

[1:49:38] I've seen this. Here's the things I

[1:49:40] asked all of you to consider.

[1:49:44] 34 North or Happy Valley Road lines up

[1:49:47] with the air airport and the glide path.

[1:49:50] Could you show me that picture, please?

[1:49:53] So, you show a 54 foot truck up there,

[1:49:56] and it's a lot taller than a regular

[1:49:58] vehicle. The other day when I came home,

[1:50:02] the airplane was down low enough to

[1:50:05] where it could have struck a vehicle.

[1:50:09] Other thing I want you to consider is

[1:50:12] what is the manufacturer's noise limits

[1:50:15] going to be? Just as the neighbors

[1:50:17] mentioned earlier today,

[1:50:20] they're going to have vacuums. They're

[1:50:22] going to have all kinds of stuff that's

[1:50:23] outside the building,

[1:50:26] not depicted on that building.

[1:50:29] Okay? So, they're going to have to

[1:50:31] listen to that every day. And also,

[1:50:33] you're going to have the trash

[1:50:36] going to now be increased noise from

[1:50:37] that. So, I would ask that that be

[1:50:39] considered as well for all those people

[1:50:41] that are living around that that

[1:50:43] building.

[1:50:45] The next thing in there is the light

[1:50:49] pollution and then the track vehicles

[1:50:52] that come into this site. Right now is

[1:50:55] they said Monday through Friday.

[1:50:58] I actually work with people that build

[1:51:00] this stuff.

[1:51:02] They're going to be there on Saturday.

[1:51:04] They're going to be there on Sunday. It

[1:51:06] doesn't matter. Doesn't matter what you

[1:51:08] or I say. They're going to show up at

[1:51:10] whatever hour they need to get the job

[1:51:12] done.

[1:51:14] So, please consider that.

[1:51:16] Would ask that the fire department come

[1:51:18] back out and look at that site and make

[1:51:21] sure that it's supported. There's

[1:51:22] nothing that depicts the fire hydrants.

[1:51:25] And I would ask that the fire uh

[1:51:28] protection officer

[1:51:30] that's reviewed those plans go back and

[1:51:32] look at that again, especially the

[1:51:33] radiuses around those vehicles. Thank

[1:51:35] you for your time. Thank you.

[1:51:41] » Paul Flatt.

[1:51:49] » Uh my name is Paul Flat. I live at 12

[1:51:52] North Queen Victoria Court and that's

[1:51:54] located about 400 ft to the right of the

[1:51:57] property line where that property is.

[1:52:00] Been there 24 years and moved there

[1:52:02] because it was residential, light

[1:52:04] residential. And uh as some people I'm opposed to it. Many of the reasons

[1:52:09] people have already said among the

[1:52:11] things this is isolated. The property to

[1:52:14] the south is going to be encroaching on

[1:52:16] the glide path of the airport. Uh last

[1:52:20] year I had an airplane fly so low. I

[1:52:22] reported his end number was like in my

[1:52:24] face. He was that low. And I reported

[1:52:27] that had a call back a few months later

[1:52:29] that he had problems. He made this bank

[1:52:31] turn and it would have been like maybe a

[1:52:34] 100 feet over this building. Probably

[1:52:36] not very good. Uh I ask you to look at

[1:52:39] the bigger picture. [clears throat]

[1:52:40] Several years ago, high school was built

[1:52:42] to the south. Some sidewalks around the

[1:52:45] high school. Great. Nothing extended

[1:52:47] north or south. Roundabout was built

[1:52:50] really nice. Wonderful. Took care of

[1:52:52] traffic a lot. Again, no pedestrian

[1:52:55] access at all. Pedestrians tend to walk

[1:52:58] through that area. Good luck. And every

[1:53:00] day I see pedestrians on the side of

[1:53:02] Happy Valley. Now, Happy Valley is going

[1:53:04] to grow. Understand that. It is a major

[1:53:06] north south road. They already have

[1:53:08] congestion where it intersects with the

[1:53:10] interstate. There's a lot of This is a

[1:53:13] much bigger picture. Looking at this one

[1:53:15] little thing. Oh, it's only small little

[1:53:18] change, but it affects everything around

[1:53:21] it. I oppose it. Please don't do this.

[1:53:24] Thank you.

[1:53:30] Mario DeLeon.

[1:53:38] Uh, good evening. Mario Deleó, 985 West

[1:53:41] Corporate Lane. Uh, I'm here. We believe

[1:53:44] [clears throat] Light Industrial is a

[1:53:46] logical and compatible use for this

[1:53:48] property for several reasons. First, the

[1:53:51] property is contiguous with the

[1:53:52] city-owned property immediately to the

[1:53:54] south, making this a natural extension

[1:53:57] of existing city land and development

[1:53:59] patterns rather than isolated industrial

[1:54:02] use.

[1:54:04] Second, the property sits directly

[1:54:05] across Happy Valley Road from the

[1:54:07] municipal airport. Allowing appropriate

[1:54:10] light industrial development in this

[1:54:12] location can help protect the long-term

[1:54:14] viability of the airport by creating

[1:54:17] compatible uses around it, reducing

[1:54:19] potential for additional residential

[1:54:21] development immediately adjacent to the

[1:54:23] airport operations.

[1:54:25] [snorts] Third, this area of Happy

[1:54:27] Valley Road is already changing between

[1:54:29] Victory Road and Stan Lane. Multiple

[1:54:31] commercial and light industrial

[1:54:32] properties have been built or have been

[1:54:34] approved. This proposal is consistent

[1:54:37] with the direction this corridor is

[1:54:38] already moving in and would complement

[1:54:40] those existing uses. Light industrial

[1:54:43] also provides an opportunity for

[1:54:45] additional business investment

[1:54:47] employment and ex and expansion of NA's

[1:54:50] tax base.

[1:54:52] For those reasons, I believe Light

[1:54:54] Industrial is an appropriate long-term

[1:54:56] use for this property and a good fit for

[1:54:58] the city of Nampa. Thank you.

[1:55:00] >> Thank you.

[1:55:05] Jared Hopson.

[1:55:18] Uh, Mr. Chair, city council, my name is

[1:55:20] Jared Hobson, uh, 10622 West Sandpiper,

[1:55:24] uh, Boisee, Idaho. Uh, I'm actually the

[1:55:26] owner of Western Specialties.

[1:55:28] Um, and I've been looking forward to

[1:55:31] this project for many years as well as

[1:55:32] my employees. Um, we are uh growing

[1:55:35] business. Uh, we are uh maxed out where

[1:55:38] we are currently in Garden City as was

[1:55:40] mentioned earlier and uh this is a

[1:55:43] project that we look forward to for many

[1:55:44] years. Uh hopefully you can see that as

[1:55:47] uh been stated it does not um uh it

[1:55:52] matches adjacent properties and it will

[1:55:55] be a good improvement to that property

[1:55:56] currently. Uh, thank you for your time.

[1:55:59] >> Thank you.

[1:56:02] » And Chairman Miller, if I may, for the

[1:56:04] record, um, just out of a total

[1:56:06] abundance of caution, I do know Mr.

[1:56:08] Hopson. Technically, he is a relative of

[1:56:11] the fifth degree to me. If you want to

[1:56:13] know what that is, that would be my

[1:56:14] wife's cousin's husband. And, uh, Idaho

[1:56:18] law would not require this. There's no

[1:56:20] financial interest I have in it, but

[1:56:22] just an abundance of caution. Um, just

[1:56:24] note that for the record and the legal

[1:56:26] advice I'll give here is as if it was

[1:56:28] another stranger here as an applicant,

[1:56:30] but just an abundance of caution. It's

[1:56:32] good to see you, Jared.

[1:56:34] >> That's assuming we would have figured

[1:56:36] out what fifth degree is. [laughter] I'm

[1:56:38] still trying to Google it.

[1:56:42] » Thank you, Preston.

[1:56:44] >> Thank you. I apologize if I get your

[1:56:47] name wrong. Juliano Seafur.

[1:56:56] » Uh, thank you for letting me speak

[1:56:58] tonight. My name is Juliano. Um, I live

[1:57:00] over at 11 North P Victoria Court, a

[1:57:03] little bit closer than Paul, but uh, I

[1:57:06] had written a whole list of things to

[1:57:08] talk about, but at the end of the day,

[1:57:09] every single one of my neighbors uh, hit

[1:57:11] on each point. Um, it is important, it

[1:57:14] is important to emphasize the amount of

[1:57:15] traffic that'll be increased on Happy

[1:57:17] Valley. I understand it's part of the

[1:57:18] master plan. It'd be one thing if that

[1:57:20] master plan was already in place to the

[1:57:22] point of traffic control, but it's not.

[1:57:25] We've got a roundabout down there that

[1:57:26] was done a few years ago. People have

[1:57:29] hitten that light. I uh I have

[1:57:31] experience as an EMT. I did some medical

[1:57:33] training. I have assisted multiple

[1:57:34] people in accidents along that road,

[1:57:37] including a gentleman who got sideswiped

[1:57:39] on a motorcycle. Um, as a writer myself,

[1:57:42] motorcycles are cautioned in that

[1:57:43] roundabout area just because of the

[1:57:45] severe amount of traffic and people

[1:57:47] generally not knowing how to use a

[1:57:48] roundabout. Um, I'm pretty sure

[1:57:50] everybody here in this room knows that

[1:57:52] one. Um, so traffic is a huge issue. But

[1:57:55] the other thing too is I am a consultant

[1:57:58] for a cleaning company here in the

[1:57:59] valley. We service over 400 customers,

[1:58:02] small businesses. Um, stuff like Western

[1:58:05] Specialties, you know, some of my

[1:58:06] customers today are Greylock, Gem State

[1:58:08] Doors and Millwork Work. I understand

[1:58:10] the work that these gentlemen do. So,

[1:58:11] when somebody tells me that they're

[1:58:13] going to be there from 7:30 to 5, I'm a

[1:58:15] cleaner. I know what time you're there.

[1:58:18] I know when we take your trash. I know

[1:58:19] when to clean your restrooms. And that's

[1:58:21] just a flatout lie. I've been there many

[1:58:23] times in the weekends and have people do

[1:58:24] double shifts and overnight shifts

[1:58:26] because they got big orders. This kind

[1:58:29] of building put into a place where

[1:58:31] there's adjacent to residential

[1:58:32] properties makes me wonder why I bought

[1:58:34] my house in the first place. You know,

[1:58:36] if that's the kind of zoning that'll be.

[1:58:38] I mean, I think everybody in this room

[1:58:39] who lives close by, if you told us that

[1:58:42] you're going to put six or seven homes

[1:58:43] on that property, I'm pretty sure that

[1:58:44] other developer would have loved this

[1:58:45] place, um, I probably wouldn't be

[1:58:48] opposed to it. Probably be a little

[1:58:50] pissed off about eight, nine, 10 homes

[1:58:52] there, right? But this, this is a whole

[1:58:54] different monster. I service so many

[1:58:57] places that look like this that have

[1:58:58] traffic levels

[1:59:01] are just insane. And at the end of the

[1:59:03] day, the numbers that are probably

[1:59:05] given, you know, 14 employees,

[1:59:07] the gentleman from Western Specialty

[1:59:09] said himself, he's a growing company.

[1:59:11] They've already maxed out their space.

[1:59:14] What's to say as time goes on, they

[1:59:15] don't try to fill this space even a

[1:59:17] little bit further, push it a little

[1:59:19] further, store a little bit more? I can

[1:59:21] only imagine the kind of risk it'll put.

[1:59:24] The other thing, too, is I've got a

[1:59:26] wife, four kids, right? We sit in a back

[1:59:29] uh in our backyard. I've got a giant

[1:59:32] covered patio that we look out of. My

[1:59:35] neighbors probably think I'm crazy

[1:59:36] because the kind of patio that I put in,

[1:59:37] but we enjoy it. We look at the Warhawk

[1:59:40] uh shows that they put off in August,

[1:59:42] the Warhawk Roundup, if you all have

[1:59:44] seen it. We enjoy looking outside of our

[1:59:46] backyard. Putting something like this up

[1:59:49] blocks it. The sunsets blocked. Um and

[1:59:53] that's just the comfort side of things.

[1:59:55] Um I'd probably say those are

[1:59:56] insignificant to the safety side of

[1:59:58] things. Again, as somebody who's

[2:00:00] serviced over 400 people in the valley,

[2:00:02] who appreciates the growth, who benefits

[2:00:04] from the growth, I don't think this is

[2:00:06] the right kind of building to put into

[2:00:08] place so close to residential places,

[2:00:11] residential homes that are counter to

[2:00:13] it. Thank you for your time.

[2:00:15] >> Thank you.

[2:00:19] Mr. Chair. No further names

[2:00:21] were submitted for public testimony.

[2:00:24] Is there anyone one else in the audience

[2:00:26] that would like to speak for against or

[2:00:28] undecided on this? Okay, we'll just take

[2:00:30] you one at a time. So, go ahead and come

[2:00:31] on up and give us your name and address.

[2:00:37] [laughter]

[2:00:47] » I'll [cough] bring her with me.

[2:00:48] >> No, you have to speak.

[2:00:50] My name is Chris Avery and I am the

[2:00:53] great housewoman, Virginia's sister. So

[2:00:56] I'm at 13 North Campbell. Her home and

[2:00:59] Steve's home has helped our family. It's

[2:01:02] a large home. They've lived there 13

[2:01:04] years. Um they [cough and clears throat]

[2:01:06] have helped our family many ways. Many

[2:01:09] people have come and stayed and enjoyed

[2:01:11] Christmases there. Uh New Year's there.

[2:01:14] We go out on their deck and you can see

[2:01:17] the valley on the 4th of July. One of

[2:01:21] our favorite things is watching the air

[2:01:23] show this weekend.

[2:01:25] I am greatly opposed to this

[2:01:28] [clears throat]

[2:01:28] and my family that is out of town is

[2:01:32] like you get in there and tell them

[2:01:35] no, we're opposed all of the reasons

[2:01:38] that they have given. And I appreciate,

[2:01:41] you know, owner of Western Specialties.

[2:01:43] I love that he's local. There are many

[2:01:47] places in Nampa that are already

[2:01:50] industrial.

[2:01:51] No reason

[2:01:54] leave it residential and we can work

[2:01:58] with that. But this with the airport

[2:02:00] right there,

[2:02:02] I oppose greatly. Thank you.

[2:02:05] >> Thank you.

[2:02:09] Is there anybody else in the audience

[2:02:10] that' like to speak this evening?

[2:02:15] Nope. Nope. Got to come up.

[2:02:18] Need your name and address for the

[2:02:20] record, please.

[2:02:23] Ryder, 34 North Happy Valley Road. I

[2:02:26] submitted an opposal, an opposed comment

[2:02:30] online and I didn't see it. Does that

[2:02:32] actually make its way to you?

[2:02:34] >> Why don't you just tell us what you

[2:02:37] >> It's pretty much what everyone else

[2:02:38] says. It will severely disrupt the

[2:02:41] nature of our neighborhood. We have

[2:02:44] livestock and most of our neighbors do

[2:02:47] also. So that is a concern the health

[2:02:50] and well-being of our livestock as well

[2:02:52] as our our families. The emissions that

[2:02:56] are going to be in the air.

[2:02:59] The noise is very disruptive to all the

[2:03:03] livestock actually. horses, cows,

[2:03:05] chickens, they get very distressed by

[2:03:08] that type of thing.

[2:03:10] The gist of it is this does not fit in

[2:03:13] this neighborhood. It's a nice quiet

[2:03:15] neighborhood.

[2:03:17] We don't need industrial here. It's

[2:03:19] zoned as residential. I would like to

[2:03:22] see it remain residential.

[2:03:24] >> Thank you.

[2:03:29] Okay. Anybody else?

[2:03:35] Hey, Mr. Durant, come back up answer

[2:03:38] some questions.

[2:03:41] Have questions,

[2:03:51] » comments heard, and then we can

[2:03:53] >> Yeah, you have.

[2:03:56] So, regarding some of the comments, um,

[2:04:00] I'll address a couple of those

[2:04:02] specifically.

[2:04:04] Um, regarding the gentleman who,

[2:04:08] um, referred to Western Specialties as

[2:04:12] maybe being dishonest in how they

[2:04:15] perform their business.

[2:04:17] I would suggest that that he is

[2:04:19] completely incorrect. He may service 400

[2:04:22] other businesses.

[2:04:24] I believe that he services Western

[2:04:26] Specialties so he should not be speaking

[2:04:28] as if he does. The hours represented

[2:04:31] that Western Specialties works is the

[2:04:34] hours that they work. The vehicle trips

[2:04:36] that we discussed are accurate and they

[2:04:40] are they are exactly what we do. Um the

[2:04:46] number of 14 employees would be with

[2:04:50] doubling the size of their current

[2:04:52] operation. Currently they have 8 to 10

[2:04:55] employees.

[2:04:57] I would al also like to just um just

[2:05:00] share with the fact that

[2:05:04] the seller made an um a strategic

[2:05:07] decision in how they proposed to market

[2:05:11] and sell this building. Their choice was

[2:05:13] to go the light industrial route because

[2:05:17] they were going to continue to live in

[2:05:19] this location.

[2:05:21] There were offers available and

[2:05:23] opportunities available for highdensity

[2:05:25] housing which is located just to the

[2:05:27] north of this property across, you know,

[2:05:29] about a half a mile away.

[2:05:31] And if this were to be annexed in and go

[2:05:34] to the high density route, well, you

[2:05:36] would have buildings the same size as

[2:05:38] far as the height. Your vehicle trips

[2:05:41] would be triple or quadruple to what

[2:05:43] we're suggesting that they would be with

[2:05:45] this development.

[2:05:46] The noise pollution would be immense.

[2:05:50] Um

[2:05:52] the uh the pollution that would come

[2:05:54] just from children in neighborhood

[2:05:57] traffic would be incredible. It was

[2:05:59] discussed that uh potentially that the waste from Western specialties could

[2:06:05] be hazardous to the health of the

[2:06:07] neighborhood. Um completely incorrect.

[2:06:11] I I think that the concerns that have

[2:06:14] been addressed

[2:06:17] while emotional

[2:06:19] may not be completely factual

[2:06:22] and I appreciate the emotion.

[2:06:27] is a really really important

[2:06:29] thing.

[2:06:31] One of the guarantees that we have in

[2:06:33] the state of Idaho is the right to use

[2:06:35] our property.

[2:06:37] And as a property owner, I do not have

[2:06:40] to guarantee the visual sighteline of my

[2:06:43] neighbor.

[2:06:45] I have a property that has a wall from

[2:06:48] my neighbor.

[2:06:51] The only way I could control that

[2:06:53] neighborhood property is if I chose to

[2:06:55] buy it. Then I could control that.

[2:07:00] the the property owner has the right to

[2:07:03] use this property in the highest and

[2:07:05] best manner in which they see fit so

[2:07:08] long as it's compatible with the

[2:07:11] comprehensive plan and the codes and

[2:07:13] ordinances that the city imposes.

[2:07:17] The property and the development that

[2:07:20] we're proposing is to annex the property

[2:07:23] light industrial which is contiguous

[2:07:25] across the street to the west and to

[2:07:27] [clears throat] the south.

[2:07:29] We're proposing that we put in a project

[2:07:33] that that may appear large to a

[2:07:37] homeowner but actually is quite small

[2:07:40] when you view it in a light industrial

[2:07:43] application.

[2:07:44] And to find a lot that you can put a

[2:07:47] smaller project on is very challenging

[2:07:50] in the whole Treasure Valley.

[2:07:52] Very, very challenging. And so we're

[2:07:56] proposing this project and we we ask you

[2:07:59] to review it on its merits and to

[2:08:02] approve the annexation.

[2:08:06] » Question.

[2:08:08] >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, I have a question. Um,

[2:08:11] and please don't take this I'm not

[2:08:13] trying to be argumentative, but I just

[2:08:14] wanted to comment on what you said as

[2:08:17] far as compatibility.

[2:08:19] Um, I I don't disagree with you 100%,

[2:08:23] but wouldn't compatibility in that

[2:08:25] context also include the surrounding

[2:08:29] existing residential homes?

[2:08:32] How would how how do you square the

[2:08:34] compatibility of this project with those

[2:08:38] that are literally 20 to 40 feet away?

[2:08:43] [clears throat]

[2:08:43] >> Thank you for the question.

[2:08:45] If I started on Happy Valley Road and I

[2:08:49] was driving from, let's say, Airport

[2:08:53] Road headed south and I was making a

[2:08:56] visual observation

[2:08:58] of the neighborhood and how the

[2:09:00] neighborhood was developing and the

[2:09:02] compatibility of that corridor.

[2:09:07] I would have

[2:09:09] light industrial projects intermixed

[2:09:11] with residential. I would have high high

[2:09:14] density residential and I have an

[2:09:17] airport. And when I'm squaring the

[2:09:20] compatibility in the neighborhood, I'm

[2:09:23] looking at the whole what is it today?

[2:09:26] What is it going to be in five years?

[2:09:28] And where is it going to be in 20?

[2:09:32] I believe that the city has forecasts

[2:09:36] the direction that they want to go by

[2:09:39] approving the light industrial projects

[2:09:41] around Happy Valley that are in close

[2:09:43] proximity to this property.

[2:09:46] I believe that the airport

[2:09:49] has forecast that we want light

[2:09:51] industrial properties to surround the

[2:09:53] airport.

[2:09:54] And so that's how I square my

[2:09:56] compatibility issue.

[2:10:01] I must be

[2:10:03] not remembering,

[2:10:06] but what other light industrial

[2:10:09] properties

[2:10:10] around that area and and other than the

[2:10:14] closer you get to the freeway?

[2:10:19] Are there any other and the airport

[2:10:21] obviously?

[2:10:22] >> Yeah, you got a couple that new new one

[2:10:24] just south of airport on the east side.

[2:10:27] They've got two of the buildings up. I

[2:10:28] think there's one or two more buildings

[2:10:29] going on there.

[2:10:30] >> That's right. You got the brand new one

[2:10:33] on the other side that cleaning company

[2:10:35] that has that great big barbecuer that

[2:10:38] we

[2:10:38] >> There's Oh, yeah. Okay. There's You

[2:10:42] drive that a billion times a day and you

[2:10:44] forget. You just forget all this stuff.

[2:10:46] So, I appreciate that. And then there is

[2:10:48] some down airport or down Victory.

[2:10:51] >> Um,

[2:10:52] >> yeah, there's that new one that's going

[2:10:54] in right as you come around the round

[2:10:55] right there.

[2:10:56] >> All right.

[2:10:57] >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate I

[2:10:58] appreciate the the comments. Thank you.

[2:11:07] » There was there's questions about light

[2:11:09] pollution and noise pollution from not I

[2:11:14] mean I think the truck noise is pretty

[2:11:16] clear. Do you want to speak to what the operational noise like in the shops

[2:11:21] is and then like the lighting?

[2:11:24] >> Yes. So, the operational noise that

[2:11:27] would come from I'll address the 30,000

[2:11:31] square foot building. Um, there's

[2:11:34] several components that are happening

[2:11:36] within that building. You have the weld

[2:11:42] shop where you're going to weld a a

[2:11:44] frame of a of a hollow metal frame door.

[2:11:48] And then you have the wood shop. And the

[2:11:51] wood shop is cutting a like a window

[2:11:55] unit into a an already already developed

[2:12:00] wood slab.

[2:12:03] So within those units there will be um

[2:12:06] there will be dust mitigation controls

[2:12:10] and those dust mitigation controls will

[2:12:12] be housed within the building but bagged

[2:12:16] outside.

[2:12:18] So there will be a hopper that is

[2:12:21] collecting that sawdust or that refined

[2:12:24] dust.

[2:12:26] Um in the shop itself there will be a

[2:12:31] saw to cut and there will be a drill

[2:12:34] that would actually drill a hole for a lock set. And then there would also be

[2:12:43] a welding machine.

[2:12:46] uh the welding machine. I mean, I

[2:12:48] couldn't speak to decibb. I know that

[2:12:50] I've been

[2:12:52] um at the existing location where these

[2:12:54] functions are performed.

[2:12:56] They're inside.

[2:12:59] As a customer outside, I've never

[2:13:01] noticed any noise.

[2:13:03] Um the shops, both shops aren't running,

[2:13:08] I don't think more than six hours per

[2:13:10] day as far as actually time frame. It's

[2:13:13] done during business hours between the

[2:13:16] hours of 8 am and 5:00 pm.

[2:13:20] There could be people home, but I don't think that the noise from inside

[2:13:25] the building would be audible to anybody

[2:13:29] standing at the property line.

[2:13:32] >> What about um loading and unloading

[2:13:33] trucks?

[2:13:34] >> Loading and unloading trucks. Like I

[2:13:36] said earlier, currently there's about

[2:13:39] one truck that comes per day.

[2:13:42] Um, if that were to double and maximize,

[2:13:46] then that would be two truck per day.

[2:13:48] And that would be a semi-truck enclosed

[2:13:50] van.

[2:13:52] Um, it takes approximately from the time

[2:13:55] the truck arrives until he's unloaded,

[2:13:57] it takes approximately an hour, hour and

[2:13:59] a half to do the unload.

[2:14:02] Truck will back up into the loading

[2:14:04] dock. um dock cushions around the the

[2:14:07] truck and then a forklift will go inside

[2:14:10] the loading dock or inside the truck to

[2:14:13] move the material inside into the

[2:14:16] appropriate place or rack storage. Um

[2:14:21] the forklift

[2:14:23] electric or propane,

[2:14:25] it does have a backup sensor. It's it's

[2:14:27] contained inside the building. I again I

[2:14:31] don't know that you would you would hear

[2:14:33] it outside

[2:14:36] have to be

[2:14:37] extremely

[2:14:40] good hearing to hear that. Um the other

[2:14:43] operations inside the shop are just

[2:14:46] office

[2:14:48] far as clerical work and and sales.

[2:14:58] Good.

[2:14:59] Thank you for your time.

[2:15:05] » So, I move to close public hearing.

[2:15:08] >> Second.

[2:15:10] >> Been moved by Commissioner Kirkman,

[2:15:11] seconded by Kho to close the public

[2:15:13] hearing. All those in favor?

[2:15:15] >> I [clears throat] closed. Okay. Public

[2:15:18] testimony portion is closed.

[2:15:24] Uh

[2:15:32] the southern property, Rodney, for the

[2:15:34] city. What are potential develop? Could

[2:15:38] that ever develop into anything?

[2:15:41] >> What's [cough and clears throat] a race

[2:15:42] >> or Daniel?

[2:15:43] >> I think we know this both of us. um

[2:15:46] because it's in that uh uh the

[2:15:51] airport runway protection zone RPZ. Um

[2:15:56] there's really nothing that can be

[2:15:57] developed on that that property.

[2:16:00] >> Okay.

[2:16:01] >> Turn it into a park.

[2:16:03] >> Excuse me.

[2:16:04] a park

[2:16:07] [clears throat]

[2:16:09] >> um

[2:16:14] in in [clears throat] an industrial zone

[2:16:15] like this, is there any decibel

[2:16:18] limitations?

[2:16:23] » Um Mr. Chairman, again, Rodney Ashby, um

[2:16:27] I mean, this is a subjective question.

[2:16:31] Um I think um you you need to balance

[2:16:36] the needs of the area and the

[2:16:38] compatibility of the area and that's a

[2:16:40] tough decision.

[2:16:42] >> Um we don't have specific decibb listed

[2:16:46] in code for this zone. Um so you'd have

[2:16:50] to think about that. But our code just

[2:16:53] says a nuisance. It shouldn't become a

[2:16:55] nuisance. I I'm I've struggled with that

[2:16:59] language because I don't know what that

[2:17:01] means exactly.

[2:17:02] >> Different for different people.

[2:17:04] >> Yeah. Different for different people. So

[2:17:06] I I think this is a a decision you have

[2:17:08] to make.

[2:17:10] >> While you're there, Rodney, get back. Um

[2:17:12] so the airport manager, whoever is for

[2:17:16] this,

[2:17:18] what what would the airport prefer to

[2:17:20] have close to it? Would they rather have

[2:17:22] industrial or residential? Yeah, this um

[2:17:26] Mr. Chair and Commissioner Turner, um so

[2:17:31] I've had this conversation with the

[2:17:32] airport commission and with the airport

[2:17:35] uh uh superintendent, and both of them

[2:17:38] have said what they prefer is

[2:17:41] industrial. What they don't want is lots

[2:17:44] of people gathered together in

[2:17:48] residences

[2:17:49] that if there was a terrible accident

[2:17:52] that there be a lot of damage done.

[2:17:56] >> So they what they see as less likely to

[2:18:00] cause a problem is is the industrial use

[2:18:03] over the residential.

[2:18:19] Mr. Chair, is that all questions you

[2:18:21] have?

[2:18:22] >> Go ahead.

[2:18:23] >> Okay. I didn't want to interrupt. You

[2:18:25] looked like you were looking for another

[2:18:26] one.

[2:18:26] >> I'm in I'm in thought. Go ahead.

[2:18:28] >> All right. Uh, Daniel,

[2:18:32] you know this was about Happy Valley, so

[2:18:34] you knew this was going to come up.

[2:18:39] the

[2:18:42] you get one car on Happy Valley that's

[2:18:44] traveling south and I don't care if it's

[2:18:46] up by Locust or if it's up by the

[2:18:48] freeway if it wants to turn left and

[2:18:52] it's at 4 or 5:00 it's going to back up

[2:18:57] 50 60 cars. I've been involved with that

[2:19:01] a number of times. You put one big semi

[2:19:05] 52-footer

[2:19:07] that is going to turn left into this

[2:19:09] coming south on Happy Valley, it's just

[2:19:11] going to exacerbate the problem. So,

[2:19:15] what is the possibility of putting a

[2:19:17] turn lane if this project were to move

[2:19:20] forward in that location to at least

[2:19:24] keep some of that traffic moving if a

[2:19:26] truck were there?

[2:19:27] >> That is certainly something that if you

[2:19:29] feel is appropriate, you can place as a

[2:19:31] condition of approval. Is there enough

[2:19:33] space

[2:19:35] >> there? The existing rideway in those

[2:19:37] areas, we have a 50- foot total, so 25

[2:19:40] foot prescriptive on either side of the

[2:19:42] roadway. Um, so that does provide enough

[2:19:45] room that with some widening on either

[2:19:47] side that can provide for a turn lane,

[2:19:52] >> but you're going to have to put one long

[2:19:53] enough to accommodate a 52 54 foot

[2:19:57] truck. Is there enough space that way

[2:19:58] too?

[2:19:59] >> Yes. So, so we have that 50 feet up and

[2:20:02] down the entire length.

[2:20:04] >> Um, and so they would ultimately just

[2:20:06] have to design it such that

[2:20:08] >> that that's has the appropriate tapers

[2:20:11] and storage length and that for that.

[2:20:14] >> Okay.

[2:20:15] >> Can I follow up on that,

[2:20:16] >> please?

[2:20:18] >> I'd like to know the legality of like

[2:20:20] can we require that and can we require

[2:20:22] them to add a turn lane beyond the

[2:20:24] extents of their property or what's how

[2:20:26] does that work?

[2:20:27] >> Is that our road? That's not our road,

[2:20:29] is it? Happy Valley.

[2:20:30] >> Um,

[2:20:31] >> half of it. Anyways,

[2:20:34] >> one second.

[2:20:36] >> The eastern half.

[2:20:37] >> I can wait till

[2:20:39] they know answers that question.

[2:20:40] >> Regardless of whether it's our road or

[2:20:42] not, we would be able to work with the

[2:20:44] highway district to make that happen. If that would not necessarily be a

[2:20:49] hindrance.

[2:20:49] >> Okay.

[2:20:52] >> Yeah. Commissioner, if I may, this gets

[2:20:54] to some constitutional principles. Nolan

[2:20:57] and Nolan are some famous cases that

[2:20:59] talk about where when you put a

[2:21:00] condition on it has to be has to be

[2:21:02] roughly proportionate to what their

[2:21:04] impact is. That's one prong. The other

[2:21:07] one there has to be a nexus, right? It

[2:21:08] has to be related to it. So you can't

[2:21:10] have them put a you know a water tower

[2:21:12] in or amusement park, right? That's not

[2:21:14] related as much as you may want either

[2:21:16] those or not. And so what's being

[2:21:19] requested here if there's a rational if

[2:21:21] there's a nexus connected with the

[2:21:22] project and what is being requested as a

[2:21:25] rough proportionality

[2:21:27] to their impact that's what the law does

[2:21:29] allow you to do. Obviously the condition

[2:21:31] can't render the property entirely you

[2:21:34] know deprive it of all economic use or

[2:21:37] just make it futile. Um so that's that's

[2:21:40] the analysis you want to run Daniel's um

[2:21:43] or the condition that's being discussed

[2:21:45] through is it roughly proportionate and

[2:21:47] is there a nexus connection?

[2:21:57] Well,

[2:21:58] in that light, if the commission were to

[2:22:01] move down that road, no pun intended, I

[2:22:04] think that that definitely would.

[2:22:08] >> There would be a Lexus Nexus. Is that

[2:22:11] what you said?

[2:22:12] >> A Nexus. It's

[2:22:13] >> he he'll get the joke. [laughter]

[2:22:17] » A Nexus and Yeah.

[2:22:19] >> Even just coming out of there to turn

[2:22:20] right and head back north. That road's

[2:22:23] not that wide there. That's

[2:22:25] It would just give them a little more

[2:22:26] room with a semi to be coming out there

[2:22:28] to,

[2:22:30] you know, the ones that are turning

[2:22:32] right at airport there with those blocks

[2:22:34] right on the corner. They got to take up

[2:22:36] both lanes to get around that corner.

[2:22:38] >> They do.

[2:22:40] >> So

[2:22:42] clarify. So nexus would be that it's

[2:22:44] related, which I think a left turn lane

[2:22:46] into it would be related. proportional

[2:22:48] mean

[2:22:50] if it costs $10 million to do something

[2:22:52] and you know what I mean like and the

[2:22:54] property is selling for like is that

[2:22:57] where the proportionality comes in or

[2:22:59] what's proportional mean

[2:23:00] >> chairman so the proportionality is

[2:23:03] really what impact they're anticipated

[2:23:06] and if there's a you know a study

[2:23:07] provided here if there's a traffic

[2:23:08] impact study or other data um it may not

[2:23:12] just hypothetical right it may not be

[2:23:14] proportions required you know a seven

[2:23:17] lane main road coming out of there,

[2:23:19] right? Based off the volume that's

[2:23:20] generated. So, you want whatever is

[2:23:22] there needs to have a rough proportion

[2:23:24] to what they're bringing to the table

[2:23:26] and it needs to have that rough fit, if

[2:23:29] you will. Doesn't have to be exact

[2:23:30] science. It's what the law said. It's a

[2:23:32] rough proportionality.

[2:23:34] >> Thank you.

[2:23:36] >> And then the other test you'll run

[2:23:37] through on these is okay, would this

[2:23:39] condition be arbitrary,

[2:23:42] capricious, or an abuse of the

[2:23:44] discretion? Right? And there's pretty

[2:23:46] the case law says there's pretty vast

[2:23:48] discretion and so those are kind of the

[2:23:50] fail safes so that you know there's not

[2:23:52] you know crazy or ludicrous things that

[2:23:54] are imposed. Um but starting point is

[2:23:57] that nexus and then the rough

[2:23:59] portionality. So, what I'm hearing is we

[2:24:01] don't want to be putting on conditions

[2:24:03] that are making it so hard you just

[2:24:05] can't develop as we want to.

[2:24:10] » If if the conditions were a nexus to it

[2:24:13] and roughly proportionate to their

[2:24:15] impact, the law allows that to be

[2:24:17] imposed.

[2:24:21] [laughter]

[2:24:22] >> Now, just to be clear, the word

[2:24:23] reasonable and [snorts] unreasonable has

[2:24:25] not been used here. It's nexus and rough

[2:24:27] proportionality, right? So, So putting a

[2:24:30] condition

[2:24:32] to add a center lane, a center turn lane

[2:24:34] from victory to airport, it would not be

[2:24:37] com. Yeah, that would not be

[2:24:40] an appropriate condition.

[2:24:43] Um

[2:24:44] I, you know, on another note, I I'm

[2:24:47] struggling a little bit with the

[2:24:49] compatibility of this location. As much

[2:24:53] as I would love to bring business to

[2:24:55] Nampa and steal jobs away from other

[2:24:58] communities in the Treasure Valley, I I really struggle with the location of

[2:25:03] this industrial area

[2:25:06] in the compatibility arena of the

[2:25:09] residences

[2:25:10] that have been there for

[2:25:13] well, as long as I've been around.

[2:25:20] Just throwing that out there.

[2:25:33] Yeah, I understand uh the concern there,

[2:25:36] building height and all those kind of

[2:25:39] things. Um I can also respect property

[2:25:44] rights um for both sides.

[2:25:48] Um, and then I think down the road,

[2:25:51] what's Happy Valley going to look like

[2:25:52] in 10 years, 20 years?

[2:25:56] Looks a lot different now than it did

[2:25:57] when I was a kid. That's for sure.

[2:26:00] >> Oh, there's just more cars on it. It

[2:26:02] doesn't look any different.

[2:26:03] >> It looks quite a bit different.

[2:26:12] But most of that traffic when highway 16

[2:26:14] or not highway 16. I think I asked this

[2:26:16] question at the last hearing or the last

[2:26:19] uh meeting uh

[2:26:21] meeting that we had was was about Happy

[2:26:24] Valley when it came up before and I

[2:26:26] think that the tra the intent is the

[2:26:28] traffic's going to get pushed over to

[2:26:29] Robinson

[2:26:31] >> with um

[2:26:32] >> with Dur but yeah

[2:26:33] >> Dur with Highway 16.

[2:26:36] So there there's no plans

[2:26:40] to widen Happy Valley to a major

[2:26:43] arterial or a connector even though it

[2:26:44] goes straight to the freeway, which I

[2:26:46] still don't understand, Dan. But that

[2:26:48] that's just that's just my not

[2:26:50] understanding.

[2:26:50] >> We're going to let Daniel We're going to

[2:26:52] let Daniel speak to it. So we are

[2:26:54] >> that's the emotion that's coming

[2:26:55] through.

[2:26:57] >> So So when you say there are no plans,

[2:26:59] um that that is not 100% accurate. Oh,

[2:27:03] that's great.

[2:27:03] >> The Happy Happy Valley is planned to

[2:27:06] ultimately be a fivelane facility.

[2:27:08] >> Um I do not have plans for construction

[2:27:12] of that right now. We are currently um

[2:27:17] reddoing our transportation master plan

[2:27:20] that will repprioritize and identify and

[2:27:23] so not knowing what um that that will

[2:27:28] bring. Happy Valley is one of our

[2:27:31] congested corridors and that may the

[2:27:34] priority structure that we have

[2:27:36] currently that may with things that have

[2:27:38] been done that may change those

[2:27:41] priorities and so until we have that

[2:27:43] update in the transportation master plan

[2:27:46] I can't give you a definitive of when

[2:27:48] that will happen but yes there is a the plan for Happy Valley will be

[2:27:53] ultimately a fivelane facility.

[2:27:56] >> Okay.

[2:27:58] at that time. Will they put left turn

[2:28:00] lanes at airport?

[2:28:02] >> Okay.

[2:28:02] >> Yes.

[2:28:03] >> So, so it'll have it'll have left turn

[2:28:06] lane up and down, center turn lane, all

[2:28:08] of that.

[2:28:09] >> Y

[2:28:14] » Rodney or Terry,

[2:28:17] um, is there any other large industrial

[2:28:20] areas that are not developed in this

[2:28:22] area or close by? I know you mentioned

[2:28:24] several which surprised Jeff, but I

[2:28:28] don't I never go out there my entire

[2:28:29] life. I've never been out there. I have

[2:28:30] no idea what's out there.

[2:28:40] » Thank you, Chairman and Commissioner

[2:28:41] Kho. Um so what you see on the screen

[2:28:45] now is the future land use map and you

[2:28:48] can see that that whole southoutheastern

[2:28:52] section is

[2:28:55] future land use map designation of

[2:28:57] industrial.

[2:28:59] So other potential industrial

[2:29:02] development there. I don't know of

[2:29:04] anything specifically that's in the

[2:29:06] works.

[2:29:12] Oh, thank you. And Rodney points out

[2:29:14] that it's also everything north of

[2:29:18] Victory almost all the way up to Kings

[2:29:20] Road. So that whole northeast

[2:29:23] northwest, sorry, section.

[2:29:31] » Well, Mr. Chair, I I think I have the

[2:29:34] same struggle you're having is

[2:29:37] we're pro business. We want to bring

[2:29:40] growing businesses here. I Some people

[2:29:42] have talking about how they'll work

[2:29:44] harder than they say they work. I don't

[2:29:46] know if I that's a bad thing. We want

[2:29:49] hardworking business owners that are

[2:29:51] growing their businesses here in our

[2:29:52] community. Um

[2:29:56] I think if if you look at this map,

[2:30:00] industrial does fit. I mean, we've got

[2:30:02] industrial across the street in both

[2:30:03] directions and then we've got this the

[2:30:06] county residential on the other sides.

[2:30:08] We're at that the borderland where we

[2:30:10] always hit, right? And when we're at at

[2:30:14] these borders between two different

[2:30:16] types of uses, we look at compatibility

[2:30:19] of like are we transitioning?

[2:30:22] And

[2:30:24] this is just such a big building right

[2:30:26] on that edge that it's it's hard to

[2:30:29] transition. I wish that

[2:30:33] I want to support it

[2:30:35] for economic reasons for the city, but

[2:30:38] it is a really big building on that edge

[2:30:41] of that lot.

[2:30:43] And I don't know if there's another way

[2:30:45] to reconfigure that lot to make this

[2:30:47] work so that they're closer to Happy

[2:30:49] Valley. I mean, it gets narrower there.

[2:30:54] I I would just note that the current

[2:30:57] zoning of the city-owned property to the

[2:31:00] south is light industrial,

[2:31:01] >> right?

[2:31:02] >> Um

[2:31:03] >> while the comp plan does show

[2:31:05] [clears throat] it as residential, the

[2:31:06] current zoning of it is industrial,

[2:31:10] >> which is why I say it fits. And it's

[2:31:12] this border. Yeah. It's just this

[2:31:15] kind of no man's land between lower low

[2:31:18] density residential and light

[2:31:20] industrial.

[2:31:22] I wish it was more of a transition like

[2:31:25] if the flex buildings were closer to the

[2:31:27] residential and the larger building was

[2:31:30] closer to the road but the lot doesn't

[2:31:32] >> doesn't work that way

[2:31:33] >> doesn't work for that

[2:31:38] » car. Yeah. Um maybe Rody can answer this

[2:31:43] or that flight path, the red area on

[2:31:46] that slide right there that cuts through

[2:31:50] looks like over 50% of that south lot.

[2:31:55] >> So is that like a no build zone?

[2:31:58] >> Yeah, that's that's a zero zone. So even

[2:32:01] so yes, [clears throat] this lot is

[2:32:06] >> is technically right there and light

[2:32:08] industrial,

[2:32:10] >> but it's pretty much unusable.

[2:32:13] So, you know, you can use that. It's almost

[2:32:18] >> Yeah.

[2:32:30] Miller and commissioners, I just wanted

[2:32:33] to respond just briefly to the concerns

[2:32:36] about height.

[2:32:38] So, if this came into the city and was

[2:32:43] zoned a zoning that matches the

[2:32:46] lowdensity residential land use

[2:32:49] designation, that would put it as RA,

[2:32:52] suburban residential, or an RS zoning

[2:32:56] district. In both of those options,

[2:33:01] the maximum building height for a

[2:33:04] residence is 30 feet

[2:33:08] and it would be a 15 foot rear yard

[2:33:11] setback and 5- foot sideyard setback. So

[2:33:16] the potential for

[2:33:18] a view blocking structure would be there

[2:33:23] whether we choose this industrial zoning

[2:33:26] and their proposed 32 foot high building

[2:33:30] or a residential zoning within the city

[2:33:33] which would allow a 30 foot high

[2:33:36] building maximum

[2:33:37] >> and that's again to the top plate of the

[2:33:40] wall. It's not to the peaked roof. So

[2:33:44] technically you could have a very steep

[2:33:47] roof. You could have a very large house,

[2:33:49] very steep roof,

[2:33:51] wide house, which then can play into how

[2:33:56] high that roof peak can go. So

[2:33:59] potentially you could be another

[2:34:02] easily 18 feet or so potentially

[2:34:07] >> above that 30 foot wall.

[2:34:09] >> I don't think that's true. No,

[2:34:11] >> there's

[2:34:12] >> Chairman Miller and Commissioner Fine, I

[2:34:15] agree that we don't know what that very

[2:34:18] steeped peak roof could be or how long

[2:34:22] their building would be. I just wanted

[2:34:25] to add in that a 30-foot height

[2:34:29] allowance is allowed and the city

[2:34:31] measures to the top plate of a building

[2:34:34] from grade to the top plate without the

[2:34:37] peak involved. What's been proposed here

[2:34:40] is a

[2:34:42] >> to have a very high building to have a

[2:34:44] very high roof line.

[2:34:45] >> Yeah. I mean, you could even 12 foot raptors, you're up to 42

[2:34:49] ft.

[2:34:50] >> I I think to the the thought that the

[2:34:53] setback would be significantly closer. I

[2:34:56] mean, you 15 ft. So,

[2:34:59] >> we're talking

[2:35:00] >> 24T building could be

[2:35:01] >> the east east boundary is the rear

[2:35:04] setback.

[2:35:08] Correct.

[2:35:10] >> We typically determine the front based

[2:35:13] on the addressing of the building. So

[2:35:16] assuming it remained this 4 foot large

[2:35:20] parcel, which doesn't necessarily fit in

[2:35:23] our zoning requirements, um yes, front

[2:35:26] would face Happy Valley and rear would

[2:35:29] be to the east.

[2:35:33] What what are the setbacks industrially

[2:35:35] for side setbacks?

[2:35:40] » This one has 50 feet.

[2:35:41] >> Well, I realize what it says, but my

[2:35:44] question is what are the setbacks?

[2:35:46] >> Yeah, sorry. Christie is quickly looking

[2:35:48] that up for me because it makes a

[2:35:50] difference when it's setting next to um

[2:35:53] residential properties.

[2:35:57] » So, 10 next to residential properties.

[2:36:00] So it could be 10 ft away from those

[2:36:02] homes instead of 50 whatever feet.

[2:36:06] >> They're not going to do that because

[2:36:07] they won't be

[2:36:09] >> No. If if if this wasn't going to be

[2:36:12] built here suburban res.

[2:36:14] >> I think what's important too is if this

[2:36:18] was voted on and passed,

[2:36:23] do we tie it to conceptual plan or do we

[2:36:26] just say it's now light industrial, you

[2:36:27] can build what you want. because then

[2:36:29] they could say, "Oh, well, the setback

[2:36:31] is X. I've just changed my mind and I

[2:36:34] want to move the building even closer to

[2:36:35] the neighbors."

[2:36:36] >> Chairman Miller, that's an excellent um

[2:36:39] observation. And you could recommend to

[2:36:43] city council that they

[2:36:47] require a development agreement and

[2:36:50] things like that could be included in

[2:36:53] the development agreement.

[2:36:58] I mean, because we've we've seen plenty

[2:36:59] of things come before us that they say

[2:37:02] they want to do one thing and then it's

[2:37:05] something totally different. So, that's

[2:37:06] why I like to try to tie it to something

[2:37:10] so we at least have some idea of what we

[2:37:12] said yes to and then what is going to

[2:37:15] happen moving forward. So

[2:37:17] >> I I think Ken, thank you for that

[2:37:19] context of the building heights that

[2:37:21] would be allowed in the residential, but

[2:37:22] I I there's got to be a difference

[2:37:24] between a 32 flat building that's 100 ft

[2:37:28] long versus a a peak.

[2:37:31] It's just a different feel.

[2:37:33] >> Yeah.

[2:37:34] >> Unless there's a series of buildings

[2:37:37] with peaks.

[2:37:39] >> That's what I'm saying. That's less

[2:37:40] obtrusive than one giant.

[2:37:42] >> Oh, I thought you were just talking like

[2:37:44] one building with a peak. I was like, I

[2:37:46] don't think they'd put one there.

[2:37:48] >> Of course.

[2:37:48] >> Yeah.

[2:37:52] » Which would

[2:37:55] >> I mean, even if that was the case, it'd

[2:37:57] still bring a lot more traffic like the

[2:37:58] applicant said, there'd be a lot more

[2:38:00] traffic there with

[2:38:03] >> if it was residential.

[2:38:04] >> Yep.

[2:38:09] » Sorry, I interrupted you.

[2:38:16] Well, Mr. Chair, I think looking at that

[2:38:18] context and what we were just discussing

[2:38:20] in the and and I I think I'm not 100%

[2:38:27] with this industrial going here, but I'd

[2:38:31] rather see a 32 foot building than a 32

[2:38:34] foot building with 12oot peaks and more

[2:38:38] traffic. I think, you know, I think it

[2:38:42] it's stretching a little bit, but I

[2:38:43] think it it does fit here. I mean,

[2:38:45] you've got industrial properties down

[2:38:47] the airport or down Victory. Um,

[2:38:51] and and it's they're not they're not not

[2:38:54] around this area.

[2:38:56] I if I were to move forward with this

[2:38:58] and and agree

[2:39:01] and vote yes, I would want a truck turn

[2:39:04] lane into this property, too, just to

[2:39:06] help alleviate some of that traffic

[2:39:08] that's going to get backed up. It

[2:39:10] already gets backed up at the at the

[2:39:13] roundabout there, Victory in Happy

[2:39:16] Valley.

[2:39:21] And I'm thinking out loud again. Um

[2:39:24] I want and I guess I should ask the

[2:39:26] applicant. I wonder if there's a

[2:39:27] specific reason for the 32 foot height

[2:39:31] um

[2:39:32] >> storage racks.

[2:39:33] >> Yeah. But I mean I visit a lot of

[2:39:36] facilities similar to this and I don't

[2:39:37] think that I've seen any 32 foot high

[2:39:39] storage racks because forklifts can't

[2:39:41] reach that high.

[2:39:42] >> Oh yeah. I mean depending and I guess I

[2:39:45] understand but

[2:39:46] >> we don't do these kinds of buildings but

[2:39:48] 36 clear height's pretty typical in a

[2:39:50] big warehouse you know.

[2:39:52] >> Guess I understand that then. So

[2:40:03] [clears throat]

[2:40:08] I'm not sure if I'm on which way I'd

[2:40:10] vote on a motion. I don't I don't know

[2:40:12] that I could support a motion that had

[2:40:13] that requirement. That requirement makes

[2:40:15] me nervous.

[2:40:16] >> What requirement?

[2:40:18] >> Why?

[2:40:20] >> It's a heavy burden.

[2:40:28] » A fairly high expense.

[2:40:31] >> I like the idea, but I think

[2:40:33] >> but it's not necessarily the expense,

[2:40:35] it's the proportionality.

[2:40:38] >> Correct.

[2:40:39] you

[2:40:40] >> you're listening Jeff [laughter]

[2:40:42] >> Nexus

[2:40:43] >> I see you're in the thick of it right

[2:40:45] now. Um so the proportionality is the

[2:40:49] scope right what the market may or may

[2:40:52] not be on it um would be relevant here

[2:40:56] but really the case law is okay what is

[2:40:59] being asked here and you don't

[2:41:02] necessarily take into consideration

[2:41:03] maybe the cost although that's more of a second analysis the

[2:41:09] first one is is it justified is it

[2:41:10] roughly proportionate with their impact

[2:41:13] and then if so the Second one would be

[2:41:16] yeah do you you believe that would be um

[2:41:19] proper to impose um again the costs can

[2:41:23] come into play but that's not the first

[2:41:25] analysis is is it proportionate

[2:41:27] >> well and I guess I have to I have to

[2:41:28] look at it too um yes this is a specific

[2:41:33] a fairly specific um proposed use but

[2:41:38] what if something were to happen and

[2:41:40] that proposed use went by the wayside

[2:41:42] and it changes and now it's slight

[2:41:44] industrial And instead of one truck a

[2:41:46] day, we get 15. I mean, it's slight

[2:41:48] industrial, so

[2:41:52] I don't know. I mean, I'm struggling.

[2:41:53] >> Well, then you definitely need a turn

[2:41:55] line.

[2:41:55] >> Well, that's that's what I'm saying. I

[2:41:57] understand both ways. And it's it's kind

[2:41:59] of a

[2:42:03] » Could we just make a recommendation to

[2:42:06] city council if we were to move this

[2:42:07] forward that they take a serious look at

[2:42:10] possibly requiring it if they deem

[2:42:13] necessary? Maybe by then Daniel could do

[2:42:16] some a little bit of analysis or

[2:42:18] something on it just to see if it

[2:42:21] instead of us requiring it, putting it

[2:42:24] on there.

[2:42:24] >> Would you be open to a motion that

[2:42:26] requires them to do a traffic impact

[2:42:27] study and

[2:42:30] >> required by the traffic impact study?

[2:42:32] You know,

[2:42:34] I'm I I like the traffic impact studies,

[2:42:37] but I have conducted my own traffic

[2:42:40] impact study about 50,000 times over the

[2:42:43] last few years as Happy Valley has

[2:42:45] become bit busier and busier. And

[2:42:46] especially since they put that

[2:42:48] roundabout in, you go at night or after

[2:42:52] in the afternoon, you can't get through

[2:42:55] there because everybody's coming west.

[2:42:57] And it's the same thing at Amity. It's

[2:42:58] the same thing up at Greenhurst.

[2:43:00] Everybody's coming west. And you sit

[2:43:01] there, you sit there, and you sit there.

[2:43:02] And yes, typically I'm one that's like,

[2:43:04] "Hey, traffic is traffic. We all got to

[2:43:06] deal with it." But you add a truck, a

[2:43:10] 52, 54 foot semi that's sitting in that

[2:43:14] lane to turn left in this because

[2:43:16] there's all this traffic that's headed

[2:43:18] north.

[2:43:20] I That's the You can do your traffic

[2:43:23] impact study, but I've already done one.

[2:43:28] >> I know that's not supposed to play into

[2:43:30] But but it really especially that close

[2:43:33] to the roundabout.

[2:43:35] >> Okay, let me push back on that. I the purpose of the traffic impact study

[2:43:39] would be that we have backing that it's

[2:43:42] got nexus and it's proportional. We

[2:43:44] would we would be able to then establish

[2:43:45] that this property is causing the

[2:43:47] problem, not background traffic. And

[2:43:50] therefore,

[2:43:51] >> I don't I it seems like it protects us,

[2:43:53] >> right? if the traffic impact study was

[2:43:55] done during when the buses are running

[2:43:57] in the morning and when everybody's

[2:43:59] coming home from work. I just I just

[2:44:02] >> it takes the emotion out of it.

[2:44:04] >> And I guess you're I understand that,

[2:44:06] but I think it's kind of pointless. If

[2:44:08] it's one or two trucks a day, I don't

[2:44:09] think it's going to make an impact

[2:44:10] enough that the traffic impact stud is

[2:44:12] going to show anything.

[2:44:13] >> Well, then why should we require them to

[2:44:14] do so?

[2:44:15] >> Exactly.

[2:44:16] But but then my point that if it the use

[2:44:19] were to change from this specific to

[2:44:22] something different

[2:44:24] >> and chairman I may have Daniel come up

[2:44:26] and speak on the traffic effect policy.

[2:44:28] >> So looking at this and the square

[2:44:31] footage and talking to them about the or

[2:44:34] listening to their um employee counts

[2:44:37] and that this is not uh likely to

[2:44:40] trigger the need for a TIS. And so if I would say that if if you are concerned

[2:44:47] about the the turning movements and that

[2:44:52] I would recommend that you just

[2:44:54] recommend that as a condition of

[2:44:55] approval um rather than trying to have

[2:45:00] the expense of a traffic impact study

[2:45:02] that is likely not warranted.

[2:45:05] Chairman, if I may, a cleaner way to if

[2:45:08] that's the route you want to go as a

[2:45:09] condition of approval. Um

[2:45:13] though a DA is not put here in the

[2:45:15] application, this is a recommendation

[2:45:17] that can be included here and then it

[2:45:19] goes up as a package to city council

[2:45:22] that it could be a pretty skinny DA that

[2:45:25] talks about this condition of a traffic

[2:45:26] impact study that that's produced.

[2:45:30] >> So based on the proposed use, is there

[2:45:33] any way that we could limit the amount

[2:45:35] of traffic coming and going from this

[2:45:37] facility?

[2:45:39] I mean that's I know it's

[2:45:40] >> How would you do that?

[2:45:41] >> Well, and I don't know. I mean, that's I have to ask and that's the thing,

[2:45:44] >> right? Because like I said, it's

[2:45:46] proposed that well, it's one truck,

[2:45:47] maybe two a day, but

[2:45:50] >> that's the whole

[2:45:51] >> what if they outgrow and he moves and

[2:45:53] now we have a different company that

[2:45:54] moves in. We got I don't know. I mean,

[2:45:57] I'm playing devil's advocate here, but

[2:45:59] >> being a little

[2:46:01] >> I think we're all here for limited

[2:46:02] government, right? We don't want we

[2:46:04] don't want city people going out there

[2:46:05] counting trucks and then saying

[2:46:06] >> Yeah, exactly.

[2:46:09] You know, I just I'm I'm thinking of up

[2:46:11] on Southside,

[2:46:13] right north or right south of

[2:46:15] Greenhurst, there's a new development

[2:46:18] that went in and they put in a left turn

[2:46:20] lane that's about three and a half ft

[2:46:22] long.

[2:46:23] >> Yeah,

[2:46:24] >> it's four.

[2:46:26] >> And when I saw that go in, I I chuckled

[2:46:28] a little bit. I was like, my gosh,

[2:46:30] there's this is the smallest turn lane

[2:46:32] I've ever seen. But the reason was is

[2:46:34] that there was no other there wasn't

[2:46:36] enough space to put a longer one or

[2:46:38] something like that in. And so that

[2:46:39] that's kind of what I'm looking at is is

[2:46:42] did that require a traffic impact study?

[2:46:44] I don't know. Maybe it did.

[2:46:47] But I you just now you've got these big

[2:46:50] a big truck. Let's just say it's one.

[2:46:53] Again, I know I'm beating this dead

[2:46:55] horse, but that

[2:46:58] a truck heading south, turning right,

[2:47:00] turning left, uh, turning left into that

[2:47:02] property right before that roundabout at

[2:47:05] particular times of the day. I mean, I

[2:47:07] don't I'm not 100% sold on this project

[2:47:10] anyways, but that would sure help me

[2:47:12] move to a

[2:47:15] >> So, this would basically just be I guess

[2:47:18] a DA

[2:47:21] like you said in the skinny

[2:47:23] >> very light skinny, you know, if it was

[2:47:25] an approving motion. Um, you would

[2:47:27] modify that to add a DA in there with

[2:47:30] that condition. It'd be pretty pretty

[2:47:32] basic addition to it. And then council

[2:47:34] would you'd be that' be packaged up and

[2:47:37] given to them to review and they can

[2:47:39] keep it there, strike it, whatever.

[2:47:41] Yeah.

[2:47:41] >> But it needs to be noticed because it's different than what was noticed

[2:47:45] coming into this meeting. It's an

[2:47:46] addition and that'll keep us legally

[2:47:49] compliant and keep this thing moving

[2:47:51] forward.

[2:48:06] Mr. Cherry, any other thoughts or

[2:48:09] discussion before

[2:48:09] >> I like that idea of putting it in the

[2:48:11] >> I just say we throw it out there and

[2:48:14] let the city council

[2:48:17] >> All right. Well, Mr. Chair, if there is

[2:48:19] no other further discussion, I will move

[2:48:21] to recommend approval of the project as

[2:48:23] stated on the screen with the additional

[2:48:25] of a simple DA development agreement

[2:48:30] that would add a truck turn lane into

[2:48:33] the property off of Happy Valley

[2:48:36] >> southbound.

[2:48:37] like one northbound, too. No,

[2:48:40] just southbound.

[2:48:41] >> So, does the DA also lock him into this

[2:48:44] concept

[2:48:45] >> concept of the site plan? sightful.

[2:48:48] >> Yeah.

[2:48:50] And that would be what's already

[2:48:53] >> present

[2:48:53] >> presented. So,

[2:48:57] I'll second that. [clears throat]

[2:48:59] >> It's been moved by Kirkman, seconded by

[2:49:02] Turner to approve the item. Uh, madam

[2:49:05] clerk, can we have a roll call, please?

[2:49:10] » Garner absent. Miller.

[2:49:16] Hi.

[2:49:18] Daffer absent. Turner.

[2:49:20] >> Hi.

[2:49:22] >> Kho.

[2:49:23] >> No.

[2:49:24] >> Morgan.

[2:49:25] >> No.

[2:49:27] >> Kirkman.

[2:49:31] » Yes. Even though I'm hesitating on my

[2:49:33] own motion.

[2:49:35] >> Yes.

[2:49:36] >> Copeland. Absent. Fiend.

[2:49:47] No

[2:49:49] [clears throat] fails.

[2:49:52] >> Thank you. Motion fails.

[2:49:56] » Thank you.

[2:50:01] » We're not done yet.

[2:50:02] >> No, I know. We got to

[2:50:04] >> We got to either figure out how to

[2:50:06] approve this or deny it, but one of the

[2:50:09] >> or recommend. Yeah.

[2:50:14] is I'm not opposed to the annexation and

[2:50:16] zoning to IIL. I'd like them to

[2:50:19] reconfigure the site plan, but I don't

[2:50:21] know how to

[2:50:22] >> I don't think they can with what they're

[2:50:23] trying to do. I don't think they

[2:50:25] >> Well, I think I think it would be

[2:50:27] removal of the existing resident goal. I

[2:50:30] think I they have to get a lot of work

[2:50:32] done.

[2:50:40] So, Mr. Chair, for Commissioner Morgan

[2:50:44] and others, is it is it the is it a

[2:50:46] compatibility?

[2:50:48] >> Yes,

[2:50:50] >> that's what I struggled with also. So,

[2:50:52] it's not the truck turning.

[2:50:55] [laughter]

[2:50:56] >> I don't feel like

[2:50:57] >> a good attempt, but no,

[2:50:59] >> I feel like if we if we were asked being

[2:51:02] asked to change the zoning,

[2:51:04] then it should hit overwhelmingly or

[2:51:08] pretty strong. And there seems to be a

[2:51:11] lot that's kind of in the middle here.

[2:51:14] >> There seems to be more industrial land

[2:51:16] nearby.

[2:51:19] Pick up your pants and move down the

[2:51:21] street.

[2:51:22] >> Well, well, I guess too I I look at it

[2:51:25] this way that you know has been stated

[2:51:28] if this was a residential project, the

[2:51:30] airport would probably be against it

[2:51:35] depending on the size of the residential

[2:51:37] development

[2:51:37] >> and the discussion, you know, the airport,

[2:51:41] we want it to be viable. We want it to

[2:51:43] stay there. It It's great for the city

[2:51:45] of Napa. And if they prefer to have

[2:51:49] industrial around it, so it does protect

[2:51:51] it from the residentials, that's going

[2:51:54] to cause problems, then

[2:51:58] I don't want to see that airport go

[2:52:00] away. I don't want to see the air shows

[2:52:01] go away. And and yeah, if you were to

[2:52:04] turn this into even four houses back

[2:52:08] there, they're only going to be 10 feet

[2:52:09] apart and you're going to have roofs

[2:52:11] like you say that are

[2:52:13] >> they're not going to be 45 ft.

[2:52:15] >> If you're 30 foot to the top sill plate

[2:52:17] and then you put raptors above it.

[2:52:18] >> Nobody that's a threetory building.

[2:52:21] >> Yeah. Nobody

[2:52:22] >> they could but

[2:52:24] >> but even even if you go 20 foot and put

[2:52:26] a a

[2:52:28] >> 12 15 foot raptors, you're going to be

[2:52:30] taller.

[2:52:30] >> 35 ft. You're going to be taller than 13

[2:52:32] and you're only going to have 10 foot

[2:52:33] windows between between structures.

[2:52:36] >> Granted, it's not going to be a big

[2:52:37] wall.

[2:52:38] >> I think it feels different than a big

[2:52:39] two.

[2:52:40] >> It would definitely, but it's you still

[2:52:42] are going to pretty much lose all your

[2:52:44] sight to that direction.

[2:52:48] >> That's why I'm saying I' I'd like to

[2:52:49] zone it to I

[2:52:54] » and there is a lot of coming down Happy

[2:52:57] Valley. So, Happy Valley has definitely

[2:52:59] changed.

[2:53:02] I'm not opposed to that. I I think

[2:53:04] that's the correct

[2:53:06] method for it or the correct

[2:53:09] recommendation for it, but not that lot.

[2:53:12] I think it needs to be moved down the

[2:53:14] road.

[2:53:15] >> Yeah, but this is the property they

[2:53:17] have.

[2:53:17] >> I know.

[2:53:20] >> We've heard that it's going to be that

[2:53:22] the proposed

[2:53:24] five lane for that. We don't know when

[2:53:27] that's going to be.

[2:53:31] So,

[2:53:33] in choosing to pro in choosing to change

[2:53:35] zoning

[2:53:38] with

[2:53:39] if if we had more of a okay, that's a

[2:53:41] five-year plan,

[2:53:46] maybe it makes sense, but with it being

[2:53:50] unknown in the future as of right now,

[2:53:58] is it prudent to chain zoning at this

[2:54:00] time. That that's one thing that we're

[2:54:03] all we're we can always look at when we

[2:54:07] look at annexation.

[2:54:09] Is it appropriate at this time?

[2:54:13] That's part of the latitude as I

[2:54:15] understand that we have. Am I correct

[2:54:17] with that?

[2:54:19] >> Okay.

[2:54:21] >> Yeah. Timing is one of the big things.

[2:54:25] >> Yeah. This is a what you call a

[2:54:27] legislative decision. Uh what that means

[2:54:29] is it's uh pretty wide open on the

[2:54:32] playbook for reasonings for an

[2:54:34] annexation. Uh it's not like a

[2:54:36] conditional use permit where there's

[2:54:38] certain criteria that they meet it or

[2:54:40] they don't. It's and it's looked at more

[2:54:42] scrutin scrutinized. This is timing is

[2:54:45] often an element compatibility. Again,

[2:54:49] you can't go into this abuse of

[2:54:50] discretion arbitrary world. That's not

[2:54:52] allowed. But short of that, um the law

[2:54:56] does give commissions and city councils

[2:54:58] a lot of latitude.

[2:55:00] I mean being often cited among other

[2:55:02] things.

[2:55:20] » I don't think my motion would pass. So

[2:55:32] Um, I move that we approve recommend

[2:55:36] approval of the annexation and zoning to

[2:55:38] an IL zoning district as stated on the

[2:55:42] screen with the condition that the

[2:55:45] um

[2:55:48] that the lot be reconfigured so that the impact to the neighbors is

[2:55:52] minimized.

[2:55:53] the city council can

[2:55:55] interpret that how they will.

[2:55:59] » I like that, but I don't know that ever

[2:56:03] happened that way.

[2:56:05] >> We can do that though.

[2:56:09] >> And if that's the motion again, you'll

[2:56:11] want to package that up in that DA

[2:56:14] version.

[2:56:14] >> Okay. I'll bend my motion to say

[2:56:16] >> Yeah. Amend that.

[2:56:17] >> That would be done through a DA.

[2:56:20] >> That'll be good enough. Yeah.

[2:56:26] With that.

[2:56:31] » Yeah. I got a second.

[2:56:33] >> Okay. It's been moved by Morgan,

[2:56:35] seconded by Kho to approve the item with

[2:56:38] the added DA. We need any clarification.

[2:56:41] Rodney,

[2:56:42] >> can can we just make repeat that motion

[2:56:46] again?

[2:56:46] >> Yeah.

[2:56:47] >> With Okay. move that we um recommend

[2:56:50] approval of annexation and zoning to a

[2:56:52] light industrial zoning district

[2:56:55] with the condition that we add a

[2:56:57] development agreement to

[2:57:00] um

[2:57:02] establish the site plan and a

[2:57:05] recommendation to city council that they

[2:57:12] » consider the impact that consider

[2:57:14] rearranging the site plan to lessen the

[2:57:17] impact on the residential

[2:57:21] >> due to the height of the building.

[2:57:23] >> Due to the due to the bulk of the

[2:57:25] building.

[2:57:25] >> Yeah.

[2:57:29] » Does that work? Right.

[2:57:31] >> That legal that a legal motion.

[2:57:34] >> Yeah. And it may may help to say what

[2:57:36] kind of impact type of visual type of

[2:57:39] traffic noise.

[2:57:40] >> I that my big like the noise I think he

[2:57:42] addressed well. I think it's the bulk of

[2:57:46] the building being at the back of the

[2:57:48] lot and the trucks being between the

[2:57:50] bulk of the building and the residential

[2:57:53] which yeah [snorts]

[2:57:57] I think if those concerns accompany the

[2:58:00] recommendation then

[2:58:02] and I would second it.

[2:58:05] >> Okay. So it's been moved by Commissioner

[2:58:07] Morgan, seconded by Commissioner Kho to

[2:58:09] approve the item, recommend approval for

[2:58:11] the item with the added development

[2:58:15] agreement. Madam clerk, can we have a

[2:58:17] roll call?

[2:58:20] >> Garner absent. Miller

[2:58:23] >> I.

[2:58:26] >> Daffer absent. Turner.

[2:58:28] >> No.

[2:58:30] >> Kho.

[2:58:31] >> Hi.

[2:58:33] >> Morgan.

[2:58:34] >> Yes.

[2:58:36] >> Kirkman.

[2:58:37] >> No.

[2:58:40] >> Copeland. Absent. Fine.

[2:58:45] Yes,

[2:58:50] » thank you. The eyes have it.

[2:58:54] >> Thank you.

[2:59:00] » Okay, we will move into item 3-3,

[2:59:03] conditional use permit for a non.

[2:59:06] >> Mr. Chair, can I make a motion to take a

[2:59:09] fiveminute recess?

[2:59:10] >> Take a fiveminute recess. Yes.

[2:59:12] Absolutely. Please.

[2:59:17] » Yeah, I know. Go ahead.

[3:08:01] Okay, we're going to come back to order,

[3:08:05] get started again.

[3:08:07] So we are looking at uh item 3-3

[3:08:10] [clears throat]

[3:08:10] conditional use permit for a non-kennel

[3:08:13] non-commercial kennel license in an RS

[3:08:15] zoning district addressed as 816 7th

[3:08:19] Avenue South

[3:08:21] for Savannah Sloan is the applicant

[3:08:23] here.

[3:08:38] all of any roofing. So,

[3:08:41] um, my name is Savannah. I live at 816

[3:08:44] 7th Avenue South Nampa.

[3:08:48] Yes. Sorry.

[3:08:50] Okay, there we go.

[3:08:55] Okay. Um, I made a PowerPoint. Um, I'm

[3:08:59] here because I'm trying to keep my seven

[3:09:01] dogs. Um, three of which are little

[3:09:04] chihuahua. They're smaller than cats.

[3:09:06] One is a labradooki. One is a husky mix

[3:09:09] and a pitbull. And then I have a lab

[3:09:11] pointer mix that I've had for several

[3:09:14] years and I love them very much.

[3:09:20] Um, so this just kind of shows um what

[3:09:23] I'm trying to do here. Um, everybody

[3:09:25] spayed and knitted. I don't breed. I

[3:09:28] don't house it for people in my home.

[3:09:31] Um, I'm just trying to keep my own dogs.

[3:09:34] Um, I work really hard to take care of

[3:09:37] them. I keep them as safe as I can. Um,

[3:09:40] and I try to keep them from being in

[3:09:42] anybody's way as much as I can as well.

[3:09:46] Um, so I'm a veterinary technician. Um,

[3:09:49] I have been for over 10 years now. Um,

[3:09:52] part of that is how I've ended up with

[3:09:54] all these babies. Um, most of them are

[3:09:56] rescues. Um, they get advanced medical

[3:09:59] care. They get everything that they

[3:10:01] need. They get regular routine care.

[3:10:03] They're already fully licensed with the

[3:10:05] city. They're up to date on vaccines as

[3:10:07] well. They get um laboratory care. Um

[3:10:11] they're also really good citizens where

[3:10:14] we use them for practice when we're

[3:10:16] needing to practice blood draws or teach

[3:10:18] people. When we were shopping for a new

[3:10:20] ultrasound machine, it was my dogs that

[3:10:21] I would bring in that we could practice

[3:10:23] on. Same with my cats. Um, and then, uh,

[3:10:26] Jimothy is actually large enough to be a

[3:10:28] blood donor dog if that's ever needed as

[3:10:30] well.

[3:10:33] Um, so they have mostly been rescued.

[3:10:37] Um, that's little baby Almost and

[3:10:39] Jimothy next to her. Those were the

[3:10:41] first photos that I saw of them. And,

[3:10:44] um, that's kind of what pushed me to

[3:10:46] save them. They are both off euthanasia

[3:10:48] lists. um almost was never going to make

[3:10:51] it to the adoption floor because she was

[3:10:54] just so ill. Um they just they just

[3:10:57] weren't going to be able there's so many

[3:10:58] healthy dogs. They were both pulled out

[3:11:00] of Texas and then Jimmy was actually in

[3:11:03] a kennel and at the shelter for 6

[3:11:05] months. I pulled him um from being

[3:11:08] euthanized about two hours prior to the

[3:11:10] procedure. Um and then uh Pink, you

[3:11:13] can't see her in this photo, but she's

[3:11:15] my Labradooki. Um, she was going to be

[3:11:18] shot by a farmer down in EMTT who didn't

[3:11:20] believe in taking dogs to shelters

[3:11:22] because he didn't want to pay the uh,

[3:11:24] relinquish fee, but he had too many dogs

[3:11:26] due to accidental litters. And so, he

[3:11:28] was just going to shoot her and put him

[3:11:29] down himself. Um, and then the little

[3:11:32] Chihuahua, those are the only ones that

[3:11:34] didn't come to me as direct rescues. Um,

[3:11:37] except one of them. Um, I had the there

[3:11:40] was an accidental litter and I had that

[3:11:42] person reach out to me directly asking

[3:11:44] if I would take her so that she wouldn't

[3:11:45] end up in a bad situation. So, I did.

[3:11:49] Um, and I take them everywhere with me.

[3:11:52] Um, so I work really hard to keep them

[3:11:55] clean. Um, unfortunately my yard is all

[3:11:58] dirt. Um, it turns out it's actually

[3:11:59] really expensive to put in a lawn. Um,

[3:12:02] and also kind of hard when you have the

[3:12:04] dogs. Um, but they get baths. I'm

[3:12:06] constantly cleaning up after them. Um,

[3:12:09] they're a little naughty and they like

[3:12:11] to counter surf and, you know, tear

[3:12:13] things up, but they're living their best

[3:12:14] lives and, you know, mind over matters.

[3:12:17] So, I love them more than I love things.

[3:12:20] Um, I have a 6ft fence all around my

[3:12:23] yard. Um, so they can't escape. Um, they

[3:12:26] still try and they have, but I stand

[3:12:29] outside with them anytime they're

[3:12:30] outside now. Um, to prevent that from

[3:12:33] happening.

[3:12:36] Um, and then this is a little bit of a

[3:12:38] look into our lives. Um, I'm really

[3:12:39] outdoorsy. I'm constantly hiking,

[3:12:42] camping. I do back country, so even

[3:12:44] though we're on trails, they're not

[3:12:45] running up and harassing other people.

[3:12:47] Where I go is way out in the boondocks.

[3:12:50] Um, so that they can kind of run around,

[3:12:52] play wolf. Um, but they're really

[3:12:55] obviously really well behaved and they

[3:12:56] stay with me. And when we're not out

[3:12:58] hiking, we're I call it the pile and

[3:13:00] we're all cuddled in the pile in bed.

[3:13:02] Um, and that's my very favorite place to

[3:13:04] be.

[3:13:07] Um, this was a link to a video. I don't

[3:13:09] know if it'll actually work. Um, but

[3:13:11] it's just a little video of kind of what

[3:13:13] it looks like into our life. For time's

[3:13:14] sake, I'll just skip it. Um, but there's

[3:13:17] just another photo of us kind of out in

[3:13:18] the snow. We do stuff all year round.

[3:13:21] Um, the Wawaas typically stay home when

[3:13:23] the snow is really deep or really cold,

[3:13:25] but they all have jackets and they all

[3:13:26] have sweaters, including the big dogs,

[3:13:28] so that they're taken care of and warm

[3:13:30] and happy. Um, I actually am high

[3:13:33] functioning autism and ADHD. I routinely

[3:13:36] take medication every single day to make

[3:13:38] life easier for me. Um, I don't need to

[3:13:42] take as much medication when I'm with my

[3:13:44] animals. They help regulate me the way

[3:13:46] that the medication was when I'm does

[3:13:48] when I'm not around them. Um, I also

[3:13:51] have really bad PTSD. Um, I've had a lot

[3:13:54] of struggles in my life. I'm a rape

[3:13:56] survivor. I'm a domestic abuse survivor.

[3:13:59] I am a child abuse survivor and um these

[3:14:03] dogs really helped me to get through it.

[3:14:05] Um I also grew up military and when you

[3:14:07] grow up in that kind of environment, you

[3:14:10] aren't living somewhere long enough to

[3:14:12] build super lasting relationships. And

[3:14:15] so as a child, my lasting relationships

[3:14:19] that I could always count on were worth

[3:14:20] my animals. And that's what part of the

[3:14:22] reason I place so much value in them.

[3:14:26] Um, this just goes on a little bit more

[3:14:28] about what they give me, the dopamine

[3:14:30] regulation. Um, and then they help me so

[3:14:32] I don't have to take every medication

[3:14:34] every day or as much medication every

[3:14:37] day.

[3:14:40] Um, and then this is just a comparison

[3:14:42] of care standards of kind of what they

[3:14:44] get in the shelter and what they get in

[3:14:45] typical households versus what they can

[3:14:47] get with me.

[3:14:49] [snorts]

[3:14:51] Um, and then this just goes over the

[3:14:53] youth in Asia statistics. Um, 5.8

[3:14:56] million animal shelter intakes um,

[3:14:59] happen and that's and I don't want to

[3:15:01] contribute to the homeless animal

[3:15:03] situation. Um, I can't save all of them,

[3:15:06] but I can keep these seven safe and

[3:15:08] loved for the rest of their life. Um,

[3:15:11] out of those 5.8 million, 600,000 are

[3:15:15] euthanized. Um, and that's typically

[3:15:18] younger dogs, there's puppies, there's dogs that are perfectly fine um

[3:15:24] to be adopted that don't get to find

[3:15:26] homes.

[3:15:28] And then this just goes over um if you

[3:15:31] can take some of that and you can say

[3:15:34] some of it's for euthanasia or

[3:15:35] behavioral problems. But as you can see

[3:15:38] the euthanasia rate is still it's only

[3:15:41] 390k to 210k

[3:15:43] um that are euthanized due to behavior

[3:15:46] and medical problems.

[3:15:50] And then there's just extra

[3:15:51] vulnerability for certain breeds like

[3:15:53] pit bulls and huskys. I actually think

[3:15:55] almost is mixed with a pitbull as well.

[3:15:59] And then there's part of a look into the

[3:16:01] pile that just goes over cats a little

[3:16:03] bit. Um my my long-term um goal is to

[3:16:08] move. I'm actually in the process of

[3:16:10] doing that now. I've already spoken to

[3:16:12] my boss for the company that I work for.

[3:16:14] We have locations in Kentucky, um which

[3:16:17] is actually pretty far, but I can't

[3:16:19] afford to move out of city here. I can't

[3:16:22] afford to move to Kentucky and be able

[3:16:25] to afford a property that we can all

[3:16:27] exist happily and peacefully on. Um, I'm

[3:16:30] not just asking for permission from you

[3:16:32] guys to keep my dogs. I'm asking for

[3:16:35] your help to help me keep them so that I

[3:16:37] can move to a better place for us. Thank

[3:16:41] you.

[3:16:42] >> Thank you,

[3:16:43] >> Mr. Chair. Quick question.

[3:16:45] >> Yep.

[3:16:46] >> Uh, how you have seven dogs?

[3:16:48] >> I have seven.

[3:16:49] >> How many cats? There's no regulation on

[3:16:51] how many cats, so I'd rather not discuss

[3:16:53] that.

[3:16:59] » Okay. Yep. Thank you.

[3:17:02] >> Thank you.

[3:17:04] >> Okay. Christie.

[3:17:06] >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman and

[3:17:08] commissioners. Christy Watkins,

[3:17:09] principal planner for the city of Nampa.

[3:17:12] The request before you tonight is for

[3:17:13] conditional use permit for a

[3:17:15] non-commercial kennel in an RS6 zoning

[3:17:17] district to keep seven dogs.

[3:17:21] The property is located in the RS6 zone

[3:17:23] and it is completely surrounded by RS6

[3:17:25] zoned properties.

[3:17:29] So according to our animal code um

[3:17:32] potbelly pigs and dogs equate to each

[3:17:35] other. So you are allowed to have two

[3:17:37] dogs or two pigs or one dog and one pig

[3:17:41] um in combination. Anything over that

[3:17:45] requires a conditional use permit for a

[3:17:47] non-commercial kennel. I'm I'm sorry.

[3:17:49] Can you go back to that, Mr. Chair? Just

[3:17:53] uh clarification because right there in

[3:17:54] that first sentence it says in which

[3:17:57] more than two dogs and or cats of at

[3:17:59] least six months. That's why I asked the

[3:18:01] question how many cats she's got seven

[3:18:05] dogs. Wouldn't however many cats come

[3:18:08] into play also because there could be

[3:18:10] more than seven.

[3:18:14] » So that's the definition for a

[3:18:15] non-commercial kennel.

[3:18:18] Um,

[3:18:20] we don't regulate the maximum number in

[3:18:23] chapter 21 for cats.

[3:18:28] And in chapter,

[3:18:30] I guess chapter 3, where it says you

[3:18:32] need a conditional use permit for

[3:18:33] anything over that amount, that's what

[3:18:34] they would be asking for. Um, there's a

[3:18:37] number of other animals that are on the

[3:18:39] property as well that don't fall into

[3:18:41] the need for a conditional use permit

[3:18:43] either. It's either allowed or it isn't.

[3:18:46] So I I'm not quite sure how to defend

[3:18:50] that definition with a cat because cats

[3:18:53] are cats are cats

[3:18:55] >> and it's a but and it's very specific

[3:18:57] and or cats or but anyways that that's

[3:19:00] the reason I asked the question because

[3:19:02] >> that is very specific

[3:19:03] >> includes dogs and cats or cats.

[3:19:07] So [clears throat] if she's if if the

[3:19:09] applicant says seven dogs, I mean,

[3:19:12] however many cats, does it bump it up

[3:19:14] even more beyond that?

[3:19:15] >> Not according to the definition in 1021.

[3:19:21] » X 1021 says,

[3:19:25] » it would certainly be more than two.

[3:19:29] >> Okay, thank you.

[3:19:32] >> Um, as you know, there are four criteria

[3:19:34] for conditional use permit that need to

[3:19:36] be met. However, in this case, two of

[3:19:38] those criteria don't really apply to

[3:19:40] this application. So, we're going to be

[3:19:42] focusing on just two of them.

[3:19:46] Um, the only correspondence that we

[3:19:48] received was from the police department.

[3:19:50] Uh, they opposed the issuance of the

[3:19:51] conditional use permit. They have

[3:19:53] responded to her residence in several

[3:19:55] occasions. Most recent was June of this

[3:19:58] year. On this occasion, she was found to

[3:20:00] be in possession of the following list

[3:20:02] of animals. 12 plus cats is what they

[3:20:05] listed in their letter.

[3:20:06] While at the residence, officers found

[3:20:08] the condition of the home and yard to be

[3:20:10] unsatisfactory for the keeping and

[3:20:12] maintenance of animals. Miss Sloan was

[3:20:14] charged with animal cruelty, and this

[3:20:15] case is currently working its way

[3:20:17] through the court process. Over the last

[3:20:19] couple of years, NPA animal control

[3:20:20] officers have had several concert

[3:20:22] conversations with her regarding the

[3:20:24] number of animals that she keeps and the

[3:20:26] various conditions of her property.

[3:20:30] So, the surrounding land uses are

[3:20:32] primary single family residential. The

[3:20:34] lot is an averagesized lot in the RS6

[3:20:36] district. Um they are kept in the

[3:20:39] backyard in a fenced backyard. That is a

[3:20:42] fact. Um according to chapter 21, the

[3:20:46] left chapter or the left column is what

[3:20:49] is allowed by code to be kept. That can

[3:20:52] all be kept together at in one place. Um

[3:20:55] you can see where in some cases those

[3:20:58] numbers are exceeded.

[3:21:02] This is just a snippet of um the

[3:21:04] information that came from animal

[3:21:06] control um with the number of visits

[3:21:08] that they made to the property.

[3:21:13] These are the names of the seven dogs

[3:21:15] that she's asking for today. In July of

[3:21:18] 2022, she was approved for two dogs and

[3:21:21] two pot belly pigs. in April of 2024,

[3:21:24] that conditional use permit was revoked

[3:21:26] due to the numerous calls by uh law law

[3:21:29] enforcement to that property.

[3:21:32] So, while that conditional use permit

[3:21:34] was revoked due to multiple citations,

[3:21:36] this is a new request for seven dogs and

[3:21:39] no pigs.

[3:21:42] The conditional use permit criteria that

[3:21:45] applies is the design, construction,

[3:21:47] operation, and maintenance of the

[3:21:48] property and project will not adversely

[3:21:50] impact the intended character and

[3:21:51] appearance of the general vicinity. It's

[3:21:54] a residential neighborhood. Um she

[3:21:56] stated that she keeps everything clean.

[3:21:59] Um there's minimal noise impact. Um

[3:22:01] secure containment. Um, and then we've

[3:22:05] got the other side of that coin, um,

[3:22:07] from animal control that says due to the

[3:22:09] number and types of animals, there's

[3:22:10] evidence that the state of this property

[3:22:12] is not aligned with the intended

[3:22:13] character of the residential

[3:22:14] neighborhood.

[3:22:17] Um, and then the other one is the

[3:22:18] proposed use will not involve activities

[3:22:21] um that will be determined to be

[3:22:23] detrimental to persons general welfare,

[3:22:26] causing traffic, noise, and odors, that

[3:22:28] kind of thing. Um, again, she had some

[3:22:31] um

[3:22:33] quotes in her narrative where she talks

[3:22:36] through some of the general welfare and

[3:22:38] the noise and the odors and all of those

[3:22:40] things. Um, and I just go back to the

[3:22:44] numerous visits by law enforcement.

[3:22:48] Um, these are the conditions of

[3:22:49] approval. They kind of are the they are

[3:22:52] the same conditions that were approved

[3:22:54] with the last conditional use permit. Um

[3:22:58] and then also you know coming into

[3:23:00] compliance with the number of the other

[3:23:02] animals so that that meets code.

[3:23:05] These are your potential motions. I

[3:23:07] would ask that when you make your motion

[3:23:09] you give a reason for whatever you

[3:23:13] decide. I need you to come to the

[3:23:16] conclusion on this one.

[3:23:19] I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[3:23:21] >> Got a quick question for if I could sir.

[3:23:23] So, if we were to to deny this,

[3:23:28] does she have would she have a certain

[3:23:30] amount of time to remove all the animals

[3:23:33] that are over the limit or is it we just

[3:23:37] going to keep having to keep send animal

[3:23:39] control over there? Um, Commissioner

[3:23:41] Turner, I imagine that animal control

[3:23:43] would do an initial visit and would set

[3:23:45] up a a plan to be rid of them in a

[3:23:49] certain period of time and then they

[3:23:51] would continue to monitor it.

[3:23:53] >> Okay, thank you.

[3:24:01] questions.

[3:24:28] Um, Commissioner Morgan, that definition in chapter 21 is the one

[3:24:34] that causes the conditional use permit

[3:24:36] to be required. And that's where it

[3:24:38] talks about the two pigs or the two

[3:24:40] dogs. And then the chart itself

[3:24:44] lays out how many in total of the other

[3:24:46] types of animals they can have without a

[3:24:49] conditional use permit. So

[3:24:51] >> what we're talking about today,

[3:24:53] >> seven dogs.

[3:24:55] [snorts]

[3:25:02] Yes.

[3:25:13] Madam clerk, do we have a signup sheet?

[3:25:17] Yes. Calling Gilliano's furl.

[3:25:32] If Mr. S uh Spurl is not present, then

[3:25:37] we have no other uh speaker signed up

[3:25:39] for public testimony.

[3:25:41] >> Okay. Uh is there anyone that would like

[3:25:44] to speak for, against, or undecided on

[3:25:46] this specific item?

[3:25:49] >> Go ahead and come on up. Remember to

[3:25:51] give us your name and address for the

[3:25:53] record, please.

[3:25:55] >> Hi. Uh, my name is Jonathan Doppkins.

[3:25:58] Um, I live at 2770 West Tango Creek

[3:26:02] Drive in Meridian, Idaho. Um, but I am a

[3:26:06] friend and a co-orker of Savannah. Um, I

[3:26:10] have known her for about four or five

[3:26:12] years and um, I've gotten to know her

[3:26:15] with and her animals and her dogs. And I

[3:26:19] have not once um thought that they were

[3:26:23] mistreated in any way. And um I have

[3:26:29] been to her house and they have been

[3:26:31] taken care of. They're wellfed. They're

[3:26:33] in healthy condition. Um and so I asked

[3:26:37] that she would be able to keep her dogs.

[3:26:40] Um and this is this permit is only for

[3:26:43] the dogs. So I don't think the other

[3:26:45] animals would be put into the equation.

[3:26:48] Thank you.

[3:26:52] » Anybody else that would like to speak?

[3:26:58] » My name is Del Oram and I live at 51

[3:27:00] East Blue Heron Lane in Meridian, Idaho.

[3:27:03] Um, I've known Savannah for the past

[3:27:04] three years and she's not only become

[3:27:06] like my best friend, but a sister that I

[3:27:07] didn't have. And the dogs in her are I

[3:27:10] can't imagine her without her dogs. Like

[3:27:12] that is her family. That is her life.

[3:27:13] Um, and they're the things that keep her

[3:27:16] stable. like when she calls me and she's

[3:27:17] having a bad day, she's I know that

[3:27:19] she's in a pile with the animals. Um to

[3:27:22] say that they're like, you know, not

[3:27:23] being taken care of to say that they're

[3:27:24] abused is I think it's a grievous in a

[3:27:27] statement. I think that it it really

[3:27:29] hurts my soul to see the people to know

[3:27:30] that she has people in her quarter that

[3:27:32] support her. We've got lists of over

[3:27:34] like 15 plus letters of recommendation.

[3:27:40] Yeah, that um that just I think I just

[3:27:44] think if you take it away from her like

[3:27:45] I think that it just be be really

[3:27:46] detrimental to her and then to me and I

[3:27:49] don't want to lose my best friend

[3:27:50] because you know stuff we are planning

[3:27:52] to leave here we don't want to be a a

[3:27:55] pain to anybody but um if you want to

[3:27:57] know what real animal abuse looks like

[3:27:58] I'm work the same profession um I have

[3:28:01] seen things that I don't want to speak

[3:28:02] about and this is not abuse um and this

[3:28:06] is they're well cared for um and she

[3:28:09] would not be she would not take these

[3:28:10] animals on if she could not care for

[3:28:12] them

[3:28:14] can take that in consideration.

[3:28:17] >> Thank you.

[3:28:20] Anybody else?

[3:28:27] » Name is Sloan. Do you have anything to

[3:28:28] add? Yep. Go ahead and come back up.

[3:28:32] Yep. Go ahead, please.

[3:28:45] of time before. Um, but all of these

[3:28:48] binders are medical records.

[3:28:51] It's all their blood work and then it's

[3:28:53] letters of character from people

[3:28:56] and then it's not a secret to the four

[3:28:59] of us that we know who's reporting me

[3:29:01] and it's it's not from the neighborhood.

[3:29:04] It's it's a co it's co-workers, which is

[3:29:06] another reason that we're leaving. I've

[3:29:08] also had footprints that have they've

[3:29:10] seen outside my house in my yard that

[3:29:12] aren't mine in the snow. I don't feel

[3:29:14] safe at home. I don't feel safe at work.

[3:29:16] My animals make me feel safe. It's

[3:29:17] another reason I'm trying to move. I

[3:29:19] just want to move. I just want to keep

[3:29:21] my animals and move. That's all I want

[3:29:23] to do. I just want to leave. I've done

[3:29:26] the I bought my house when I was 24. It

[3:29:29] was a fixer upper. It's still a fixer

[3:29:32] upper. When I was 24, I was sleeping on

[3:29:35] my friend's couch. I didn't have a home.

[3:29:37] And I went from that to having a home

[3:29:39] that I thought I could live happily with

[3:29:41] and just have my animals, have my old

[3:29:42] lady dreams, my Disney princess life. I

[3:29:46] don't have internet. I don't watch TV. I

[3:29:48] don't have TV at my house. It's my

[3:29:50] animals. I go home and I'll just play

[3:29:53] with them and stare at them and hiking

[3:29:55] and camping. Like, that's my life.

[3:29:57] That's what we do. I know it's different

[3:29:59] from other people's hobbies, but I'm

[3:30:01] different and I'm really tired of having

[3:30:03] to take medication every day to fit in

[3:30:05] better and I have to do that to feel

[3:30:07] safe at my own home. It's not right. And

[3:30:11] here I am, you know, six, seven years

[3:30:13] later and my house is still a fixer

[3:30:14] upper because

[3:30:16] I don't have the funds to do all that. I

[3:30:19] [snorts] don't I don't especially now

[3:30:21] with how prices have gone up. I wouldn't

[3:30:23] have been able to afford my house as a

[3:30:24] 24 year old if I didn't buy it right in

[3:30:26] 2019 before I before the prices went out

[3:30:29] above and beyond. And that's why I can't

[3:30:31] afford to move out of the city here.

[3:30:33] That's why I have to move out of state.

[3:30:35] When I was 24, I didn't know to look at

[3:30:37] city ordinances. I knew not to live in

[3:30:39] an HOA,

[3:30:41] but I didn't think about city

[3:30:43] ordinances. And I wish that I knew what

[3:30:46] I know now because I would never have

[3:30:48] bought that house. I resent it. I don't

[3:30:51] want to be there anymore. I just want

[3:30:55] permission to exist there until I can

[3:30:57] leave, which is what I'm trying to do.

[3:30:59] It's probably going to be at least

[3:31:00] within the next year. And I did look at

[3:31:03] the ordinances in Kentucky. And it

[3:31:04] doesn't matter if you live in city or

[3:31:05] outside of city. You can have as many

[3:31:07] cats and dogs as you want. I learned

[3:31:09] I've learned.

[3:31:11] So, if you guys want to review medical

[3:31:13] records and review letters, you're

[3:31:15] welcome to. It's an open book. Um I've

[3:31:18] had trouble with the law enforcement. I

[3:31:20] know it doesn't look good and I'm really

[3:31:21] tired of being painted as this horrible

[3:31:23] picture through animal control. My house

[3:31:25] wasn't nice when I bought it. It's not

[3:31:27] because my animals. It's it's just it's

[3:31:30] it smelled bad when I bought it. It

[3:31:32] looked bad when I bought it. It was what

[3:31:34] a 24 year old could afford all on her

[3:31:36] own. And I worked really hard and I was

[3:31:38] really proud of my house until now.

[3:31:43] Okay.

[3:31:46] >> You have questions for

[3:31:48] Guess

[3:31:54] that's all. Thank you.

[3:32:02] » I do have a question. I'm sorry.

[3:32:04] >> Miss Sloan, if you don't mind.

[3:32:12] Um, would you mind speaking to what the current charges and situation in the

[3:32:18] court is just so we have a better idea?

[3:32:20] >> Yeah, absolutely. And I actually I

[3:32:22] didn't bring my phone, but I also was

[3:32:23] just texting with my lawyer yesterday to

[3:32:25] see if there was an update too that I'd

[3:32:26] be happy to share. Um, so when they came

[3:32:28] to my house, um, it was for a welfare

[3:32:31] check on my dogs again and, um, they had

[3:32:35] found Thank you. Um, and they found that

[3:32:38] I had 24 chickens. However, I had they

[3:32:42] were all less than six months old except

[3:32:43] like five because people get chickens.

[3:32:45] You grow them out, you see what's a

[3:32:47] rooster, you see what's not, you keep

[3:32:48] what you want, and you don't you don't

[3:32:50] keep the others. Other people are

[3:32:51] allowed to do that. Um, other people in

[3:32:54] my neighborhood do have roosters, but

[3:32:55] they they um took all my they took all

[3:32:59] my chickens that day. Um, I also had two

[3:33:02] mini ponies in my backyard, which I've

[3:33:04] had there for several years. Um, and

[3:33:06] they told me that I just had to move

[3:33:08] them. So, I moved them. They're

[3:33:10] outboarding with my large horse now. So,

[3:33:12] I moved them. That's fine. They

[3:33:15] confiscated the chickens, which Adele

[3:33:17] went and picked up the very next day cuz

[3:33:20] we were told that if they were picked up

[3:33:22] and just relocated by somebody who

[3:33:24] wasn't me, then there wouldn't be any

[3:33:27] charges. Um, but then, uh, the shelter

[3:33:30] hadn't finished processing them. Um, and

[3:33:34] so Adele had to pick him up the next day

[3:33:36] in which they charged her $700 to bail

[3:33:39] them out of chicken jail. Um, and we

[3:33:41] were not told of those fees. Um, but

[3:33:44] they basically when I asked why they I

[3:33:46] was being charged with cruelty because

[3:33:48] I'm not cruel to the animals. I'm not cruel to them. I even have

[3:33:51] medical records on my chickens of when I

[3:33:53] took them to surgery and um but um I

[3:33:58] asked why I was being charged with

[3:33:59] cruelty and they said it was just the

[3:34:01] category that it falls under and they're

[3:34:03] trying to charge me each for cruelty for

[3:34:05] each individual chicken. So like 24

[3:34:07] counts of cruelty towards each chicken

[3:34:10] and two counts of cruelty towards my

[3:34:11] ponies. And it's very contradicting

[3:34:14] because if the animals safety and I was

[3:34:16] cruel to them was really what they were

[3:34:19] worried about, then why were we allowed

[3:34:21] to get them to get them back so I could

[3:34:23] still have access to them? Why were my

[3:34:25] dogs left at my house if I was being

[3:34:27] cruel to animals? Why were the cats left

[3:34:28] at my house? Why? It's very

[3:34:31] contradicting. Um, and the update that

[3:34:33] my lawyer gave me yesterday was

[3:34:37] um let me scroll down and find it here.

[3:34:45] Um because I did ask him for advice

[3:34:47] about coming here too because I don't

[3:34:49] know if I could afford a lawyer he'd be

[3:34:51] up here with me right now. Um but he

[3:34:53] said where zoning is a civil issue. It

[3:34:55] is outside the scope of my appointment

[3:34:57] and I'm afraid I have a full calendar of

[3:34:59] cases tomorrow. So he wasn't able to

[3:35:01] make it tonight. He says I don't have

[3:35:03] [clears throat] any updates on your case

[3:35:05] currently. The prosecutor handling the

[3:35:06] matter has been away dealing with family

[3:35:09] stuff. I currently have nine other cases

[3:35:11] set for jury trial on the same day or

[3:35:14] prior to your case. I'm hoping the log

[3:35:16] jam of cases work in your favor to

[3:35:18] encourage the prosecutor to dismiss your

[3:35:20] case or maybe at least reduce it from a

[3:35:23] misdemeanor to an infraction. You know,

[3:35:25] because he has actual crimes to be

[3:35:27] concerned with.

[3:35:29] That was his exact quote.

[3:35:41] Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to close

[3:35:42] the public hearing.

[3:35:44] >> Second.

[3:35:45] >> Then moved by Turner, seconded by Kho to

[3:35:48] close the public hearing. All those in

[3:35:49] favor?

[3:35:50] >> I.

[3:35:50] >> Any opposed?

[3:35:53] >> Closed.

[3:35:55] [clears throat]

[3:36:04] What?

[3:36:06] I have some real concerns. We we granted

[3:36:09] her one in July of 2022 and within two

[3:36:11] years she she'd gone way over what was

[3:36:15] allowed with the two potbelly pigs and

[3:36:18] the two dogs at the time where she had

[3:36:22] what horses and goats and wasn't even

[3:36:26] two years and it was revoked.

[3:36:29] I

[3:36:32] countless

[3:36:34] calls to even three calls from her to

[3:36:38] that she had report a lost dog. So

[3:36:43] I I have serious concerns with extending

[3:36:46] this and giving her another chance to

[3:36:48] have seven dogs because if history

[3:36:52] repeats itself, which it usually does,

[3:36:54] the seven dogs are going to turn into

[3:36:57] who knows what else. And

[3:37:01] I I mean at the one time she had

[3:37:07] 46

[3:37:09] animals. I know farms that don't have 46

[3:37:12] animals. [laughter]

[3:37:15] So So uh I I am not for giving

[3:37:22] CU for this.

[3:37:28] I have to agree. I don't know how many

[3:37:31] chances you can get in life, but uh

[3:37:32] she's had a lot more chances to get get

[3:37:34] her act together than I've ever had in

[3:37:36] my life.

[3:37:38] Can't get together now. Hasn't been able

[3:37:41] to in the past. I can't see that she can

[3:37:43] in the future either.

[3:37:45] Probably disregards

[3:37:50] claims that she doesn't know what they

[3:37:52] are, which that's not excusable to me.

[3:37:56] Think about the police department and

[3:37:57] the dollars that they spend

[3:38:00] trying to address just her issue. It's

[3:38:04] expense to the city that we don't need

[3:38:05] to have.

[3:38:09] All right.

[3:38:13] Chairman, if I may, while we're in

[3:38:14] deliberation stage, um as deliberations

[3:38:18] are happening, there's a box here on the

[3:38:19] right that has the two there's

[3:38:21] technically four criteria, but these are

[3:38:23] the two that are gerine to this. the

[3:38:25] other two really don't apply.

[3:38:28] As you make your comments, can you speak

[3:38:30] commissioners to those points of where

[3:38:33] it fits into it? Where this is a quasi

[3:38:36] judicial decision, you got to fit it

[3:38:39] squarely and tightly within those. So,

[3:38:41] as you continue the deliberation, do

[3:38:43] that. Thank you.

[3:38:44] >> Thank you.

[3:38:45] >> Yeah, Mr. Chair. In fact, that's exactly

[3:38:47] what I was just looking at here is the I do not believe that the number of dogs

[3:38:52] and the request at the CUP fits the

[3:38:54] nature of where this location is, where

[3:38:58] the house is in the neighborhood. It's

[3:39:00] not com, you know, it's I think it's

[3:39:02] detrimental to the neighbors, the

[3:39:05] general welfare, not to mention the tra

[3:39:08] traffic. We mention traffic all the

[3:39:10] time. That's why

[3:39:12] [clears throat and laughter]

[3:39:14] not to mention the noise and the odor

[3:39:16] from Seven Dogs um and whatever else

[3:39:20] might be there in the home. Um I just

[3:39:22] don't think that there's I'm not

[3:39:25] convinced that the property is um

[3:39:29] equipped well enough to handle seven

[3:39:32] dogs.

[3:39:34] And it's evident from encounters with

[3:39:37] law enforcement that that has been the

[3:39:39] case. So that's why I am inclined to uh

[3:39:44] deny this.

[3:40:02] I haven't lived as long as Steve has,

[3:40:04] but I've been given more second chances

[3:40:06] than that.

[3:40:08] Um,

[3:40:12] a lot of times on these cups we

[3:40:18] almost better to have them than not

[3:40:20] because then we have some leverage and there's there's motivation for her

[3:40:25] to follow the rules when we have the

[3:40:28] conditional use permit.

[3:40:30] Um,

[3:40:37] I don't know if I have many thoughts

[3:40:38] beyond that, but

[3:40:41] >> I've got a question. So, if we were to

[3:40:44] issue a CUP in this situation,

[3:40:48] um, and let's just say somebody from

[3:40:50] Boyisey called and made a complaint.

[3:40:53] They know her, they don't like her for

[3:40:55] whatever reason, they're not a direct

[3:40:58] neighbor.

[3:40:59] Is that a valid complaint?

[3:41:06] Um, I'm I'm hoping we can look up that

[3:41:09] language in code. I I'll do that in just

[3:41:11] a second here. I think um I think it

[3:41:15] relates to a neighbor within a certain

[3:41:17] distance if if I remember right. So, let

[3:41:21] me let me take a look at that code. If

[3:41:23] there were two complaints from

[3:41:26] neighbors,

[3:41:27] if you issue the cup and the cup is to

[3:41:30] be revoked, I think it has to be two

[3:41:32] neighbors within a certain distance that

[3:41:36] uh complaint. So I if you got that

[3:41:39] >> commissioner or may or chairman, um I

[3:41:42] believe the language is in 102512 on

[3:41:44] revocation. says, "Any citizen complaint

[3:41:47] or city citation related to

[3:41:49] non-compliance with the conditions of

[3:41:50] the CUP shall be investigated by city

[3:41:53] staff."

[3:41:54] Um, again, I don't see any other as I'm

[3:41:58] scanning through it, it appears that

[3:41:59] it's going to be just for citizen

[3:42:00] complaints or city citation.

[3:42:03] And, you know, understanding is a lot of

[3:42:05] these are complaint driven and so they

[3:42:07] kind of come case by case analysis. And

[3:42:11] so, but somebody who's totally remotely,

[3:42:14] you know, from the situation, that's

[3:42:17] going to be a case by case analysis. So,

[3:42:19] >> the planning department has to

[3:42:21] substantiate it, act on it, right?

[3:42:23] >> Uh, I believe so. Yes. It's here

[3:42:25] investigated by city staff and it's in

[3:42:27] title 10 of your code.

[3:42:28] >> Rodney has to do it himself. Um,

[3:42:30] [laughter]

[3:42:31] but I I would I would imagine that the

[3:42:33] intent of the word citizen in there is a

[3:42:35] citizen of

[3:42:37] this jurisdiction. Yeah, that's only

[3:42:40] reasonable interpretation to it. Yeah.

[3:42:46] » Yeah. And the only last thing I would

[3:42:48] add to that is just that um we were just

[3:42:50] looking at the code. It also says found

[3:42:53] to be credible. So yeah, I would have to

[3:42:55] go out, visit it, visit the site, see if

[3:42:58] it's credible, what the complaint is

[3:43:00] about. And it's up a little bit of notch

[3:43:04] as you stated here, a notch up for um

[3:43:08] those who can make that complaint

[3:43:10] against a cup versus just an average

[3:43:14] code compliance issue, anybody could

[3:43:16] call in, right? They could be in Boisey

[3:43:18] and call that in. But for a cup to be

[3:43:20] revoked, it has to come from citizens.

[3:43:25] Rody, along that same line, um

[3:43:29] the police department, they're citizens

[3:43:31] of Nampa. Would that count as a citizen

[3:43:33] or does that count as an official duty

[3:43:35] or a citation?

[3:43:39] » Mr. Chair and commissioners, there's

[3:43:41] also discretion given to us. if there is

[3:43:45] a agency um uh complaint or concern from

[3:43:50] the animal control or whatever, we can

[3:43:53] go out and visit and make that

[3:43:55] determination.

[3:43:56] I typically don't do that unless I get a

[3:43:59] notice from somebody. I I wouldn't just

[3:44:02] go out and visit a a cup issued location

[3:44:07] unless we had the two complaints from

[3:44:09] neighbors or I had um an a staff member

[3:44:14] of the city notifying me there was a

[3:44:16] problem and then I would go out and

[3:44:17] visit.

[3:44:26] Is it possible to put limitation time

[3:44:29] restrictions on a cup?

[3:44:34] » Mr. Chair and commissioners, yes. Um, we

[3:44:36] have done that in the past and we've

[3:44:39] said you can you can have this for a

[3:44:42] certain amount of time and you by this

[3:44:43] date you have to do these things. Um,

[3:44:46] we've done that put conditions but again

[3:44:49] it's the Nolan Dolan Nexus and

[3:44:52] proportionality rule. uh you just need

[3:44:54] to be um it has to relate directly to

[3:44:57] what's being requested

[3:45:02] but you can't make excuse me you can't

[3:45:03] make a condition

[3:45:11] what I'm trying to say but I can't say

[3:45:12] it um

[3:45:16] one of the conditions that that you say

[3:45:19] your time limit is like he's talking

[3:45:20] about you can't say well by January 25th

[3:45:23] that you have to have no compliance

[3:45:26] issues. Every time you have a compliance

[3:45:28] [snorts] issue, that's another another

[3:45:30] citation.

[3:45:34] » You don't you don't give

[3:45:36] >> I think you say

[3:45:37] >> I think I she's trying to move and so

[3:45:40] >> but she

[3:45:42] >> if if we put a time condition on that

[3:45:45] and say okay conditional you use permit

[3:45:49] >> how long you going to get her to move?

[3:45:50] Well, I think I think that's the that's

[3:45:52] the whole point of the conversation is is it six months? Is it a year? And

[3:45:55] then if that time runs out, then she

[3:45:57] would have to come back before us and

[3:45:58] ask

[3:46:00] >> what's to keep her from [clears throat]

[3:46:04] trying for a year and have five

[3:46:06] complaints and then come back next and

[3:46:07] do four complaints and come back five

[3:46:10] more complaints.

[3:46:12] >> Assumptions.

[3:46:13] >> Yeah. And if there are complaints there,

[3:46:14] that is that gives grounds for

[3:46:16] revocation of a of a of the permit.

[3:46:20] Correct.

[3:46:22] >> Yeah.

[3:46:24] I care for her neighbors and I care for

[3:46:25] the city itself. We have laws. We have

[3:46:29] [cough] regulations. We should comply

[3:46:31] with them. If the police department goes

[3:46:33] out there as many times as it has, that

[3:46:35] sufficient for me.

[3:46:44] I guess if that's still out there, um,

[3:46:47] police will investigate for kind of code

[3:46:49] compliance, maybe criminal liability,

[3:46:52] whereas here, this is a, um, land use

[3:46:56] investigation. So Rodney's and his team

[3:46:59] would conduct their own investigation on

[3:47:01] that. And so there would be a different

[3:47:03] investigation when it comes to the cup.

[3:47:04] Think of that as its own little box of

[3:47:06] rules that's governed and administered

[3:47:08] and enforced by a planning and zoning

[3:47:10] department. PD, they still can do as

[3:47:12] they need per calls. There's nothing

[3:47:14] that stops them from that. And the

[3:47:16] conditions you put on here, I mean, it's

[3:47:18] implied in the name. This is a

[3:47:19] conditional use permit. Um, put the

[3:47:22] conditions on that would um meet the

[3:47:27] criteria of our code that's up on your

[3:47:28] screen in the box. And it can be a time

[3:47:31] and it doesn't have to be to the

[3:47:32] property, right? It can be for time and

[3:47:34] limited to the occupant owner as long as

[3:47:37] they're there for a certain period of

[3:47:38] time.

[3:47:54] I understand concerns about

[3:47:57] prior.

[3:47:59] I've also had many second chances in my

[3:48:01] life, too. So,

[3:48:06] I don't know. I think like I've said

[3:48:08] before

[3:48:10] issue you have more control.

[3:48:14] I don't know. Two point

[3:48:54] You done just a good job.

[3:48:57] [clears throat] You've been on point.

[3:49:06] Well, if there's no more discussions or

[3:49:09] anything, I'll make a motion to approve

[3:49:13] the permit as stated on the screen with

[3:49:16] the conditions

[3:49:18] for my um reasons being

[3:49:25] a a time limit

[3:49:27] on the on the permit.

[3:49:33] with with a time limit of one year

[3:49:39] » to the occupant only, not to the

[3:49:42] property.

[3:49:45] >> What I'm hearing you say is to the

[3:49:47] earlier of um occupant no longer owning

[3:49:50] the property or one year, whatever comes

[3:49:53] earlier.

[3:49:53] >> Correct.

[3:49:54] >> Okay.

[3:49:57] » Mr. Chair, I I believe we still need

[3:49:59] some uh reasoning too because how does

[3:50:04] it meet the criteria? [snorts] I think

[3:50:06] we just need a little more clarity

[3:50:08] there.

[3:50:10] If you want to add some analysis or

[3:50:13] reasons based off those two in the box,

[3:50:15] that'd be needed here.

[3:50:20] » I know there's a motion on the table.

[3:50:22] Can we discuss

[3:50:25] a second?

[3:50:26] >> Absolutely. discuss.

[3:50:29] >> I'll hold it. I I don't know if the

[3:50:31] applicant would even be amendable to

[3:50:33] this, but I I wonder if we could

[3:50:35] include, you know, she's already gotten

[3:50:37] rid of the chickens and the ponies, and

[3:50:39] I think that's a good thing if we could

[3:50:40] just enshrine that in the conditions,

[3:50:42] too. That would make

[3:50:45] better

[3:50:47] is that that's kosher, right?

[3:50:50] >> Yeah. If you want

[3:50:51] >> if you want to have them amend the

[3:50:52] motion to include that. Yeah. Um, and

[3:50:56] yes, that would be permitted. Um, it's

[3:50:58] not uncommon we'll see, hey, by a

[3:51:00] certain time you have to be in

[3:51:01] compliance, um, and have certain changes

[3:51:04] happen, whether removed or added to your

[3:51:06] situation. If you fail to do that, then

[3:51:08] the whole thing crumbles, right? Then

[3:51:10] it's revoked. It's almost like an

[3:51:11] automatic revocation.

[3:51:19] I might do two years.

[3:51:24] But those are only suggestions you do.

[3:51:36] I'm looking at the top one and it says

[3:51:39] that the design, construction,

[3:51:40] operation, maintenance of the property

[3:51:42] and project will not adversely impact

[3:51:44] the intended character and appearance of

[3:51:46] the general vicinity.

[3:51:49] They're not necessarily new animals.

[3:51:52] This has been like this.

[3:51:55] I don't see anybody here from the

[3:51:57] neighborhood complaining about it

[3:52:00] changing the neighborhood.

[3:52:04] And if it did adversely affect the

[3:52:06] neighborhood, I would expect someone

[3:52:08] from the neighborhood to be here saying

[3:52:10] so. So, I don't live in that

[3:52:12] neighborhood, so I can't I'm not going

[3:52:14] to speak whether it does or not.

[3:52:17] andows

[3:52:23] us to have these conditions that would

[3:52:42] discuss this. I would I'm okay with

[3:52:44] adding some conditions

[3:52:47] If those are very specific, very

[3:52:49] specific time frame, very specific

[3:52:52] number of dogs and no other animals and

[3:52:57] you know that would be an automatic

[3:52:59] violation or revocation.

[3:53:02] That's what I would be able to.

[3:53:05] I want her to have her dogs, but I don't

[3:53:07] want her to have 17 27 chickens and 14

[3:53:11] cows and all that other kind of stuff at

[3:53:13] our property either because that

[3:53:14] definitely isn't

[3:53:17] the nature of where this location is.

[3:53:22] So, if there are very specific

[3:53:23] conditions in the

[3:53:31] » This might be a lengthy motion then.

[3:53:34] >> [laughter]

[3:53:35] >> Uh so I'll I'll make a motion move to

[3:53:39] approve the conditional use permit

[3:53:42] based on

[3:53:45] 25482

[3:53:48] the lack of

[3:53:51] um neighborhood opposition.

[3:53:55] I will put the conditions on there of

[3:53:59] one year

[3:54:01] either occupant

[3:54:04] or sells

[3:54:07] property

[3:54:09] with the condition of just the dogs

[3:54:14] given the prior

[3:54:16] am

[3:54:20] because of the past amount of other

[3:54:24] animals and other issues that have been

[3:54:27] with Does

[3:54:34] » that work Preston?

[3:54:37] >> I think so. Um maybe one cleanup or

[3:54:41] clarification on the ownership piece. It

[3:54:43] could be if you're again it'll be you to

[3:54:46] propose the amendment, not me. But um

[3:54:50] you know if ownership changes or

[3:54:52] occupant no longer uh or ceases to you

[3:54:56] know reside there that way they move

[3:55:00] sell whatever abandon it it's gone right

[3:55:04] or and then the in the fall fall back

[3:55:06] over this is a hard oneear back stop.

[3:55:11] Can I ask a clarification?

[3:55:14] We said seven dogs, specifically seven

[3:55:16] dogs,

[3:55:18] but what if what about cats? There's

[3:55:22] certainly some additional

[3:55:24] some cats there, too. I don't know how

[3:55:26] many there might or is that included in

[3:55:29] this motion or

[3:55:31] >> seven?

[3:55:32] >> Just seven dogs.

[3:55:33] >> Just to reiterate on the motion, it's

[3:55:36] for seven dogs

[3:55:37] >> because that's what we're talking about.

[3:55:39] and these seven dogs

[3:55:41] >> and these these particular seven dogs

[3:55:43] that have been listed and named in the

[3:55:46] staff report that was

[3:55:48] >> Yeah, I I think you've nailed it. I I

[3:55:51] the request today is not for anything

[3:55:54] but the dogs. So, we have to address

[3:55:57] that.

[3:55:58] >> Yes.

[3:56:02] » Okay. So, the motion's good.

[3:56:04] >> I think so.

[3:56:05] >> We don't need to redo it.

[3:56:06] >> Motion's good. The record's caught it.

[3:56:07] So, yeah.

[3:56:10] a second.

[3:56:10] >> We have a second.

[3:56:13] >> Um

[3:56:14] I I would second I'm a little nervous

[3:56:17] about the one-year timeline. It seems

[3:56:19] optimistic.

[3:56:20] >> And do we want her to have to come back

[3:56:22] every year, pay the fee every year, come

[3:56:25] back and do this permit?

[3:56:28] >> Sounds like you I've already mentioned

[3:56:30] two years.

[3:56:31] >> I mentioned two years. You stuck with

[3:56:33] one year. I if you want to stick with

[3:56:35] one year, that's fine. But that would be

[3:56:36] my suggestion. Then we'll go 18 months.

[3:56:39] How's that? [laughter]

[3:56:42] » It gives her I mean she's she wants to

[3:56:44] be out in a year.

[3:56:46] >> Yes.

[3:56:46] >> Years have been done.

[3:56:47] >> Correct.

[3:56:48] >> And I I just don't want to burden her or

[3:56:50] the planning staff with having to come

[3:56:52] back more than is necessary.

[3:56:58] » Mr. Chair. So the motion

[3:57:01] >> are you amending it?

[3:57:02] >> Motion's amended. And for the second

[3:57:05] >> and I'll just go with Commissioner

[3:57:06] Morgan for two years.

[3:57:10] » I have a second.

[3:57:11] >> Second.

[3:57:12] >> I has been moved by Commissioner Fiend,

[3:57:15] second by Commissioner Morgan to approve

[3:57:18] this item.

[3:57:21] >> Yeah. Can Can you restate the motion?

[3:57:24] [laughter]

[3:57:25] Just so that I'm clear. I think things

[3:57:27] have changed a little bit. Mr. Chair, if

[3:57:29] you could could you read it? Yeah. What

[3:57:30] do you got over there?

[3:57:31] >> Clerk can read it. I I'm pretty sure

[3:57:33] that I have it, but

[3:57:35] >> think I've got it.

[3:57:36] >> Okay,

[3:57:36] >> I'm looking at the clip.

[3:57:37] >> I have been

[3:57:38] >> Christiey's got it right there in her

[3:57:39] notes,

[3:57:40] >> writing seriously.

[3:57:42] >> Okay. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman and

[3:57:44] commissioners. Um, for approval,

[3:57:49] » because of 4 A2, the property has been

[3:57:53] in this condition for some time. There

[3:57:56] are no neighbors in attendance to

[3:57:57] testify that it adversely impacts the

[3:58:00] character and appearance of the general

[3:58:01] vicinity. With the conditions of

[3:58:04] approval that there is a time limit of

[3:58:06] two years for the occupant only or as

[3:58:10] long as the occupant or until the

[3:58:12] occupant no longer resides at the

[3:58:13] property for just these seven dogs and

[3:58:17] not the other animals due to the

[3:58:18] previous citations

[3:58:20] that were listed by animal control.

[3:58:23] So, it's two years or before she moves,

[3:58:26] whichever comes first.

[3:58:27] >> Yep. Yeah.

[3:58:27] >> Two years or she no longer resides at

[3:58:29] the property. Whichever comes first.

[3:58:33] >> That is my motion.

[3:58:36] » Okay. Madam Cler, can we have a roll

[3:58:38] call?

[3:58:42] » Garner absent. Miller,

[3:58:45] >> hi.

[3:58:47] >> Daffer absent.

[3:58:49] Turner.

[3:58:50] >> Nay. [clears throat]

[3:58:52] >> Kho,

[3:58:53] >> no.

[3:58:55] >> Morgan,

[3:58:56] >> yes.

[3:58:58] >> Kirkman,

[3:58:59] >> no.

[3:59:01] >> Copeland, absent. Fine.

[3:59:04] >> Yes.

[3:59:09] » We're at 33. Motion failed.

[3:59:28] situation.

[3:59:32] » I will make a motion that we deny the

[3:59:34] conditional use permit for a

[3:59:36] non-commercial kennel license for seven

[3:59:37] dogs in NRS6 single family residential

[3:59:41] zoning district.

[3:59:43] The reason is because this fails to

[3:59:45] comply with

[3:59:48] 41025

[3:59:50] 4.8.2.

[3:59:52] I know that there's nobody here from

[3:59:54] that is that has been here to testify in

[3:59:57] opposition, but there's plenty of police

[3:59:59] reports that have specifically said this

[4:00:04] is not conducive to this environment, to

[4:00:08] this neighborhood. And there's been

[4:00:10] noise complaints that have there's been

[4:00:13] written

[4:00:14] documentation from animal control about

[4:00:18] the concerns of what the property how

[4:00:20] the the state of the property and how

[4:00:22] the the dogs were taken care of and and

[4:00:25] so that's why I think that in the big

[4:00:31] picture that this fails to comply and

[4:00:34] that's why I make this motion to deny.

[4:00:37] >> Second it.

[4:00:38] It's been moved by Kirkman, second by

[4:00:40] Turner to deny.

[4:00:43] Madam clerk, can we have a roll call?

[4:00:47] >> Garner absent. Miller,

[4:00:49] >> no.

[4:00:52] >> Daffer absent. Turner.

[4:00:54] >> Hi.

[4:00:57] >> Kho.

[4:00:58] >> I

[4:01:01] >> Morgan.

[4:01:02] >> No.

[4:01:04] >> Kirkman.

[4:01:05] >> Hi.

[4:01:08] and Fi

[4:01:09] >> no

[4:01:11] >> and Copeland absent

[4:01:15] [clears throat]

[4:01:15] >> three three motion fails

[4:01:17] >> but people need to show up for these

[4:01:19] hearings

[4:01:26] » I mean to those voting to deny are there

[4:01:29] any conditions that would get you to

[4:01:31] vote for approval

[4:01:35] » I'm not going to say there's not because

[4:01:37] I always think there's I always think

[4:01:40] that there there is we just need to find

[4:01:42] those and I apologize that this was

[4:01:43] running late, but I think it's very

[4:01:45] important I think it's important to the

[4:01:46] applicant to keep these dogs. My concern

[4:01:49] is especially when they've been when

[4:01:52] animal control has been out there and

[4:01:53] it's documented of the state of the

[4:01:56] property that that's in and

[4:02:00] the the dogs and the safety and animal

[4:02:03] cruelty and all that. And I know that's

[4:02:04] still running through the court, but

[4:02:06] that's documented here. And so that's

[4:02:07] why I bring it up.

[4:02:09] Not saying that this is something that

[4:02:11] I'm thinking about. And so I'm I'm

[4:02:14] wondering I I I'm okay with the with the

[4:02:19] time limit. I think two years is too

[4:02:21] much is too long. I think there should

[4:02:23] be I think if there were some spot

[4:02:28] checkins

[4:02:30] >> just already on their radar. [laughter]

[4:02:33] >> That's true. That's true.

[4:02:35] >> They're already checking on

[4:02:40] a year.

[4:02:41] >> Yeah, I think and and I think that just

[4:02:43] it just kind of it just kind of pulls it

[4:02:45] Yeah. Well, I don't want to I don't want

[4:02:46] to

[4:02:47] >> pressure, but does it make it

[4:02:49] >> that it's immediate?

[4:02:52] >> Yeah. that that things are kept clean

[4:02:55] knowing that there's a time frame and if

[4:02:57] she has to come back and get an

[4:03:00] extension on the cup

[4:03:02] then that's a pro that's the process

[4:03:04] that everyone has and everyone is

[4:03:06] afforded to um so

[4:03:09] >> well but I guess at that point if it

[4:03:11] hadn't been revoked would there be a

[4:03:13] reason for us not

[4:03:14] >> no if it hasn't been revoked or if it

[4:03:18] I mean if everything is going the way it

[4:03:20] should be going and there's no re

[4:03:21] there's no violation and it's and it's

[4:03:23] held to that and at one year.

[4:03:28] So I I think there is definitely room

[4:03:30] for compromise. Absolutely. And the two

[4:03:33] years was kind of the thing that I was

[4:03:34] >> That's too long.

[4:03:35] >> Yeah, I think so.

[4:03:38] That was really the only thing that kind

[4:03:39] of

[4:03:39] >> So is it one year or 18 months?

[4:03:42] >> I'm serious. What? [clears throat]

[4:03:47] » Well, I mean, I think 18 months is is

[4:03:50] fine because you're right. if she's

[4:03:51] looking to move

[4:03:53] >> there's a will there's a will there's a

[4:03:55] way out of

[4:03:57] >> going to be a challenge moving and

[4:03:58] finding a place like and I totally get

[4:04:00] that so I'm I'm good with 18 months I I

[4:04:02] just don't want this to drag out

[4:04:04] >> there's always the option though since

[4:04:07] this is a cup for someone in the

[4:04:09] neighborhood who does

[4:04:11] >> find absolutely

[4:04:12] >> a violation to make a complaint

[4:04:15] >> and so that option is always there so I

[4:04:17] think 18 months for me personally I

[4:04:19] think 18 months is better than two

[4:04:21] and not necessarily as quick as one

[4:04:23] minute.

[4:04:27] » Maybe people in the neighborhood haven't

[4:04:28] complained because they think it's being

[4:04:30] taken care of.

[4:04:31] >> Well, that's for them to decide at that

[4:04:32] point.

[4:04:33] >> That's not that's of no concern for me

[4:04:36] right now.

[4:04:38] They got a complaint. They got a there's

[4:04:40] a process to follow.

[4:04:41] >> Redo your motion from the first one. Cut

[4:04:43] it down to 18 months.

[4:04:44] >> I just want you to have the practice.

[4:04:46] >> Thanks. Okay. Just chair. I'll make a

[4:04:49] motion to approve the previous motion

[4:04:52] with the amendment of 18 months

[4:04:57] reduced from the two years.

[4:04:59] >> Second.

[4:05:00] >> Been moved by Commissioner Fi. Second by

[4:05:02] Morgan to approve the item with the

[4:05:04] amendment to the original.

[4:05:08] >> Madam clerk, can you roll call?

[4:05:12] >> Garner absent. Miller

[4:05:14] >> I.

[4:05:16] >> Daffer absent. Turner.

[4:05:18] >> Nay.

[4:05:21] >> Kho.

[4:05:22] >> No.

[4:05:23] >> Morgan,

[4:05:24] >> yes.

[4:05:25] >> Kirkman,

[4:05:26] >> yes.

[4:05:29] >> Copeland, absent. Fiend.

[4:05:31] >> Yes.

[4:05:36] » Four to two. The motion carries.

[4:05:38] >> Okay.

[4:05:41] This cup will become effective 15

[4:05:43] calendar days from the date the written

[4:05:45] decision and reason statement is

[4:05:46] provided to the applicant unless an

[4:05:48] appeal has been filed with the planning

[4:05:49] and zoning department with the

[4:05:51] appropriate fee. No action should be

[4:05:53] taken on this cup until the appeal

[4:05:55] period has concluded. The applicant must

[4:05:57] confirm with planning and zoning staff

[4:05:59] there have been no appeals.

[4:06:04] » Okay, we will move into item 3-4.

[4:06:08] >> Mr. chair. Since it's late, should we

[4:06:10] just push this to the next meeting?

[4:06:12] >> I'm just kidding. I'm [laughter] just

[4:06:14] kidding.

[4:06:15] >> I was going to vote on that.

[4:06:19] [laughter]

[4:06:19] >> Uh annexation and zoning to RS4, RMH,

[4:06:23] and BC zoning districts and a master

[4:06:25] plan community with a potential

[4:06:27] development agreement for Lonear.

[4:06:29] addressed is 000 Smith Avenue, 00 Lonear

[4:06:33] Road for Lonear 110 LLC, Challenge

[4:06:37] Development Incorporated, representing

[4:06:39] Lonear 110, and Corey Barton,

[4:06:42] the applicant here, please.

[4:06:46] >> Good evening. Uh Stephanie Hopkins. I'm

[4:06:48] with KM Engineering. Our address is 5725

[4:06:51] North Discovery Way in Boyisey. I'm very

[4:06:53] excited to be here this evening to talk

[4:06:55] about Lonear with you. This has been a

[4:06:56] really interesting agenda. I've been

[4:06:58] very um the whole wide variety of

[4:07:01] topics. So,

[4:07:03] >> um we're thrilled to be representing uh

[4:07:06] multiple

[4:07:07] property owners and developers on this

[4:07:09] property. Uh we're requesting annexation

[4:07:12] to the city of Nampa with three

[4:07:13] different zoning districts. We're

[4:07:15] including a master plan community

[4:07:17] request uh for Lonear uh plan community

[4:07:21] with a potential development agreement

[4:07:22] as well. We've met with the city to

[4:07:24] understand requirements. We've held a

[4:07:26] neighborhood meeting in March. There are

[4:07:28] three attendees

[4:07:30] uh and have researched the southwest

[4:07:31] Nampa specific area plan in depth um in

[4:07:35] designing what we're going to be showing

[4:07:37] you this evening. We're requesting a

[4:07:38] positive recommendation on the master

[4:07:40] plan community and the annexation and

[4:07:42] zoning. Um our team is very excited to

[4:07:45] support the city's vision in this area.

[4:07:47] As I was listening to all of the

[4:07:48] hearings on the southwest Nampa specific

[4:07:51] area plans, staff did a really great job

[4:07:53] explaining the intent behind the

[4:07:55] specific area plan. And at one point

[4:07:57] they said specific area plans allow for

[4:07:59] the city to be proactive and plan

[4:08:01] slashprepare for growth while giving the

[4:08:03] community and land owners certainty on

[4:08:05] what to expect in the future. And I

[4:08:07] think Lonear perfectly personifies that

[4:08:09] objective the city had with the specific

[4:08:12] area plan in this area.

[4:08:15] I think

[4:08:17] So, this is uh where the propertyy's

[4:08:19] located. It's approximately 149 acres.

[4:08:22] There's several parcels in

[4:08:23] unincorporated Canon County. It's

[4:08:26] located north of uh near the southeast

[4:08:28] corner of Smith Avenue and Midway Road

[4:08:31] in Southwest Nampa. Right across the

[4:08:33] street from Midway Park uh and near

[4:08:36] existing zoned properties. There's RS7,

[4:08:39] RS6, RS 8.5, RS22, and BC districts in

[4:08:44] the nearby area. If approved for

[4:08:47] annexation, this would be the first

[4:08:48] master plan community within the

[4:08:50] southwest Nampa specific area plan. So,

[4:08:52] it's a really great opportunity to have

[4:08:53] a large assemblage of pro property

[4:08:56] brought in uh as the first development

[4:08:58] within the specific area plan. It's

[4:09:01] opportunityly placed near transportation

[4:09:03] corridors. Uh it's near existing

[4:09:06] services, Midway Park, as I mentioned,

[4:09:08] and is in a beautiful part of Nampa, as

[4:09:11] you're all aware.

[4:09:14] Our annexation and zoning request is

[4:09:16] consistent with the comprehensive plan.

[4:09:17] It's in alignment with the specific area

[4:09:19] plan and the future land use map. The

[4:09:21] proposed uses will be designed to be

[4:09:23] compatible with this existing

[4:09:24] development. Right now, we just have a

[4:09:26] concept a conceptual plan that shows you

[4:09:28] a rough road network that I'll show you

[4:09:29] in a little bit with some land uses and

[4:09:32] zonings. We don't have a preliminary

[4:09:33] plat or anything showing layout at this

[4:09:35] point, but we will eventually if this

[4:09:37] annexation's approved. Uh and a reszone

[4:09:40] to the BC, the Community Business

[4:09:42] District, uh RS4 and RMH is consistent

[4:09:45] with the specific area plan.

[4:09:49] We're requesting about 30 acres in the

[4:09:52] community business district, 90.65 in

[4:09:55] the RS4 for the single family. That's

[4:09:57] shown in yellow on the map in front of

[4:09:58] you. And uh the RH district, which is uh

[4:10:02] shown in the brown, is 28.66 acres.

[4:10:06] Overall, the property is 149 acres. And

[4:10:08] we've uh developed this specifically to

[4:10:11] comply with the requirements of the

[4:10:13] specific area plan. So that shows the

[4:10:16] 50%

[4:10:17] it's 5 to 50% multif family with the

[4:10:20] rest is commercial in that area. So the

[4:10:23] southwest Nampa plan was carefully

[4:10:25] developed as you're all aware reviewed

[4:10:27] and revised over last couple of years.

[4:10:30] Uh there were a lot of meetings about it

[4:10:31] and city council approved it last year.

[4:10:34] The plan specifically places low

[4:10:36] density. So one dwelling unit per acre

[4:10:39] and one to two and a half dwelling units

[4:10:41] per acre shown in light yellow here and

[4:10:43] the one unit per acre is or sorry one

[4:10:46] unit per acre is in light green shown on

[4:10:48] the map here adjacent to Lake LOL and

[4:10:50] the wildlife refuge that was placed

[4:10:52] there specifically to preserve those

[4:10:54] areas in uh feed in relation to the

[4:10:57] feedback that was received as part of

[4:10:58] the specific area plan. The plan places

[4:11:00] higher density with a mix of uses near

[4:11:02] existing city infrastructure including

[4:11:04] water, sewer, PI, and community

[4:11:06] amenities such as Midway Park and

[4:11:08] services such as the future Nampa school

[4:11:10] district sites that are shown on this

[4:11:12] site right where Lonear is uh proposed.

[4:11:16] So within the area that we are proposing

[4:11:19] development in, uh it's programmed to

[4:11:22] see five to eight units per acre and 8

[4:11:24] to 12 units per acre.

[4:11:27] Within the community mixed use area,

[4:11:29] we're including um the RH district to

[4:11:32] fulfill the requirement for the 5 to 50%

[4:11:35] multifamily. And then we're requesting a

[4:11:37] density increase of up to 20% within

[4:11:40] that area so that we can build more

[4:11:42] density into what is programmed to be

[4:11:44] more high highdensity housing to keep

[4:11:47] some of our single family less dense and

[4:11:49] to really support the commercial uses

[4:11:52] that are going that are proposed within

[4:11:54] the medium density residential area

[4:11:56] which is on the periphery shown uh in

[4:11:58] the highlight here. Uh we're proposing

[4:12:00] RS4 which has a density range of 5 to

[4:12:02] eight units per acre.

[4:12:07] This is one of the exhibits from the

[4:12:09] specific area plan that shows the mix of

[4:12:11] uses that's anticipated with this area.

[4:12:12] So, as you can see along Midway Road,

[4:12:14] this is the Lonear project outline in

[4:12:16] red. Along uh Midway Road, there is

[4:12:20] commercial and then along a portion of

[4:12:21] Lonear, there's commercial as well. And

[4:12:23] then it uh transitions in density. So

[4:12:26] there's some higher density residential

[4:12:27] right up against the commercial and it

[4:12:28] transitions to more of a single family

[4:12:30] lower in density product

[4:12:34] which is consistent with this diagram as

[4:12:37] well. As you can see the city wants to

[4:12:38] see some mix of uses along major

[4:12:40] transportation corridors in proximity to

[4:12:42] Midway Park and uh future school

[4:12:45] district

[4:12:46] potentially developed but owned

[4:12:48] properties

[4:12:50] and that is consistent with the concept

[4:12:51] plan that we've submitted. So this is

[4:12:54] the concept plan that's in your packet.

[4:12:57] We're showing the BC district in the

[4:12:59] pink color and that's right up against

[4:13:01] Midway Road and on I both sides of

[4:13:04] Lonear Road. And then we have a multif

[4:13:07] family shown right in between the the

[4:13:11] commercial and the single family to

[4:13:12] provide a nice transition within the

[4:13:14] multifamily area. We're proposing 75%

[4:13:17] apartments or multifamily living and

[4:13:20] then um the other 25% will be a town

[4:13:22] home product. So the idea would be to

[4:13:23] transition in density from a more

[4:13:26] intense use on the commercial side to

[4:13:28] kind of a higher density multif family

[4:13:30] and then transition to the single family

[4:13:31] homes as you go further east.

[4:13:35] At this point we're showing some

[4:13:36] connectivity that will occur as the

[4:13:38] phases come in. So right now we're

[4:13:40] showing um you know internal roadway

[4:13:43] network that could occur with every

[4:13:46] preliminary platter final plat that

[4:13:47] comes in. We do have a collector shown

[4:13:49] on our far east boundary as well that

[4:13:51] would extend down to Lonear eventually.

[4:13:54] And because this property does connect

[4:13:56] on both sides of Lonear improvements,

[4:13:58] the whole Lonear section that's shown on

[4:14:01] both sides of our property would be

[4:14:02] improved as well as improvements along

[4:14:04] Midway Road and Smith Avenue on the

[4:14:06] north side. So those improvements would

[4:14:08] be made as each final plaque came come

[4:14:10] in um if the sanexation was approved.

[4:14:14] And then there um is going to be a

[4:14:17] pathway along the canal that's in the

[4:14:18] northeast corner of the site uh in

[4:14:21] alignment with the pathways plan the

[4:14:22] city has.

[4:14:27] So the single family residential area is

[4:14:29] about 90 acres. The density in the uh

[4:14:32] plan is 5 to eight units per acre. We

[4:14:34] don't have a specific number of lots,

[4:14:35] but we would comply with that.

[4:14:38] Multifamily is designed here. These are

[4:14:41] some amenities and some open space areas

[4:14:43] that we would plan on including there.

[4:14:46] And as I mentioned, we're requesting a

[4:14:47] 20% bonus on density there. Commercial

[4:14:51] is about 30 acres and that's compliant

[4:14:53] with the specific area plan. I'm running

[4:14:55] out of time, so I'm trying to go quick,

[4:14:56] but I'm happy to answer questions. Um,

[4:14:58] these are some open space highlights. We

[4:15:01] included some design guidelines with our

[4:15:03] application to include consistent

[4:15:05] compatible design for all of the

[4:15:08] commercial, single family, and

[4:15:09] multifamily components of the project.

[4:15:11] And then there will be a list of project

[4:15:13] benefits, but I think the most important

[4:15:15] thing is the opportunity to partner with

[4:15:18] the developer on the first largecale

[4:15:20] development in this area. It's not often

[4:15:22] that this much property comes in at one

[4:15:23] time and you can really have a

[4:15:25] comprehensive look and try to set forth

[4:15:27] a foundation for what the city envisions

[4:15:29] for growth in an area that has not a lot

[4:15:32] of growth. Um, I think I heard loud and

[4:15:34] clear from all the hearings that the

[4:15:36] city really wants to see commercial in

[4:15:38] this area and that's something that this

[4:15:39] project is really excited to bring. Uh,

[4:15:42] timing it'll be probably 10 to 15 years.

[4:15:45] So, it's going to be an incremental

[4:15:46] process. It's not going to be overnight,

[4:15:48] but um we're all very excited and um I'm

[4:15:50] happy to answer any questions if you

[4:15:52] have them

[4:15:54] >> questions.

[4:15:56] Not right now.

[4:15:58] >> Okay, call you back up.

[4:16:00] >> Thank you. Appreciate it.

[4:16:01] >> Thank you,

[4:16:05] » Mr. Ashby.

[4:16:09] Go ahead.

[4:16:12] Thank you, Jim Cart.

[4:16:14] >> Oh, no.

[4:16:15] >> Oh, I'm sorry. Did I [laughter]

[4:16:18] >> Sorry about that.

[4:16:19] >> You're good.

[4:16:20] >> He's wanting to go home, too.

[4:16:24] [laughter]

[4:16:24] >> It's getting late.

[4:16:26] >> Yeah, I'm getting tired myself. Um,

[4:16:30] okay. So, I'm You've seen where this is

[4:16:32] located near Midway Park. Um, we'll kind

[4:16:36] of move through some of these slides

[4:16:38] pretty quickly. The applicants presented

[4:16:40] their proposal, so I'll skip that there.

[4:16:43] Um,

[4:16:45] I can't see very well, so let me look at

[4:16:48] this. Um, so the Lonear uh master plan

[4:16:51] community is in the Nampa comprehensive

[4:16:53] plan planning area and within the

[4:16:56] Southwest Nampa specific area plan. uh

[4:16:58] you saw the applicant's um justification

[4:17:02] for how they met the specific area plan

[4:17:06] standards and uh I looked at those

[4:17:09] standards as well and found that it was

[4:17:11] really consistent with the specific area

[4:17:14] plan. Um that that plan isn't perfect,

[4:17:17] right? We we took a moment of time and

[4:17:21] there was at that time they were

[4:17:23] considering some um schools u being

[4:17:27] placed there. the levy didn't pass. So,

[4:17:30] some of that is going to be different,

[4:17:32] but overall the principles of the plan

[4:17:35] were followed and the land uses that

[4:17:37] were under those uh those parcels are still applicable here. Um

[4:17:45] the location and size Lonear master plan

[4:17:48] community is in the uh Nampa planning

[4:17:50] area east of Midway Road and between

[4:17:53] Smith Avenue and Lonear Road with a

[4:17:55] smaller portion south of Lonear Road,

[4:17:58] all consisting of five parcels and and

[4:18:01] rideway totaling 149.31 acres. Uh the

[4:18:06] current land uses you've you've already

[4:18:08] seen um some of those. I'm sorry. This

[4:18:11] is the specific area plan map. They've

[4:18:13] already shown that a closer view of

[4:18:16] that.

[4:18:17] Um you can see the the designations

[4:18:20] here. To the uh south is a large lot

[4:18:23] single family homes Kenyon County uh

[4:18:26] farm fields in Kenyon County as well as

[4:18:29] the RS uh I think that says 8.5

[4:18:33] uh designation for a subdivision. And

[4:18:36] then uh

[4:18:39] the uh that's the Sonata Point

[4:18:42] subdivisions

[4:18:44] uh that have been partially developed

[4:18:46] out. It came in as Coronado Point and um

[4:18:50] only partially developed but are under

[4:18:53] consideration still for development.

[4:18:56] Um again to the north the you can see

[4:19:00] the county subdivisions up there and

[4:19:03] some a land and then to the east of

[4:19:06] course is um the ones that I've talked

[4:19:10] about but also a church and some farm

[4:19:12] fields in King County.

[4:19:17] So, I wanted to use this to just

[4:19:19] highlight um some of the uh approvals

[4:19:23] that we've had over the last year. Um

[4:19:27] you can see uh three different

[4:19:29] residential subdivisions and then one

[4:19:31] commercial subdivision out in that that

[4:19:33] area. So, those blue boxes are those

[4:19:35] that have been approved in the past

[4:19:37] year. Um and then on the right hand side

[4:19:40] is is their proposal for how they're

[4:19:43] zoning this. If you go back another

[4:19:45] basically another year, you've got uh 29

[4:19:49] single family homes is Sunnyale North uh

[4:19:52] num or excuse me, Sunnyale number six

[4:19:55] and that is just south of Carter Road

[4:19:58] and then Wagers Dair which is 43 single

[4:20:01] family homes and approximately 34 of a

[4:20:04] mile north of Carter Road. So, in total,

[4:20:08] I think there was likeund I want to say

[4:20:10] 31

[4:20:12] uh units of everything that's been

[4:20:16] approved in the last couple of years

[4:20:19] for this area.

[4:20:23] Uh utilities, you can see those there.

[4:20:25] You saw that in the packet. I'm not

[4:20:27] going to spend a lot of time here, but

[4:20:29] that but oh, one last thing is the just

[4:20:32] the last comment there. City utility

[4:20:34] systems have adequate capacity. to serve

[4:20:36] this property and the project will be

[4:20:38] required to construct utilities to and

[4:20:40] through the property as as all are.

[4:20:45] Okay. So um I wanted to highlight this

[4:20:48] one uh because in our master plan

[4:20:51] community language in our comprehensive

[4:20:54] plan and in the master or in the uh

[4:20:57] specific area plan they highlight the

[4:21:00] need to create some uh connectivity

[4:21:04] in within a master plan community. Um so

[4:21:08] you can see that on the right how

[4:21:10] they're proposing to do that. They've

[4:21:12] got a uh proposed east west route and a

[4:21:16] north south route with um on the far

[4:21:20] east is a collector roadway unnamed um

[4:21:24] but that is a potential there and I I

[4:21:29] have some recommendations on that in the conditions. I'll talk about that.

[4:21:34] But again, you can see all those

[4:21:36] different connections and the different

[4:21:39] um amenities that they're providing.

[4:21:42] Okay, so annexation application

[4:21:45] criteria. This is we just analyze this

[4:21:47] when it comes in to make sure that it

[4:21:49] meets the state code. Um, again, you

[4:21:52] have lots of flexibility since this is a

[4:21:54] legislative action to approve or deny an

[4:21:56] annexation.

[4:21:58] But zoning takes a little more work. Um,

[4:22:02] you have to meet these criteria. And

[4:22:06] this is what you would use if if you

[4:22:10] wanted to annex um and approve the

[4:22:13] zoning, you would use these criteria and

[4:22:15] they have to be met in order to approve

[4:22:17] this project.

[4:22:20] Um so correspondence we've received. So

[4:22:23] NPA uh engineering division uh I've

[4:22:27] asked Daniel to speak about this and

[4:22:30] then um and then I'll jump back up.

[4:22:39] So Rodney asked me to speak a little bit

[4:22:41] about um our comments and um more

[4:22:45] specifically regarding the uh traffic

[4:22:48] analysis. So our our codes require uh

[4:22:53] traffic impact studies to be completed

[4:22:55] at the time of a preliminary plat or a

[4:22:58] building permit that meets certain

[4:23:00] criterias. um they do not require that

[4:23:03] at the time of a master plan community.

[4:23:05] Um mainly um because a master plan

[4:23:10] community without a preliminary plat is

[4:23:13] more of the bubble diagram that we've

[4:23:15] been looking at. It doesn't have the

[4:23:16] specific lot counts. It doesn't have the

[4:23:19] level of information that would be

[4:23:21] typically needed to complete a full

[4:23:23] traffic impact study. um they have um

[4:23:27] had their traffic engineer put together

[4:23:29] a tech tech memo on the traffic for

[4:23:32] that. We received that uh middle of last

[4:23:35] week. Um I've done um a cursory review

[4:23:38] of it. It it scopes out the required

[4:23:42] things that will be studied when the

[4:23:44] they do come forward with a preliminary

[4:23:46] plat as well as looking at um the um

[4:23:52] some general stuff for for that. Um, we

[4:23:55] will have a more complete analysis of

[4:23:58] that when we make it to city council.

[4:24:01] Uh, but the general look that I've done

[4:24:03] at this point, um, it does appear to

[4:24:06] meet the same intent that we've used

[4:24:08] when we've looked at other master plan

[4:24:10] communities to provide that, um, general

[4:24:14] guidance of how we will look at the

[4:24:16] traffic um, when they do come forward

[4:24:18] with preliminary plat. Um, and so if

[4:24:21] there are any questions on that, I'll be

[4:24:23] happy to answer that.

[4:24:30] » Thank you, Daniel. Uh, Nampa Fire

[4:24:32] District, I just I I think the bolded

[4:24:34] section is kind of speaks for itself.

[4:24:36] Approximate response time is four

[4:24:38] minutes, well under what their goal is.

[4:24:42] Um, and then, uh, parks didn't they did

[4:24:46] respond. Um it does comply I mean they

[4:24:50] are going to have to comply with the

[4:24:52] park's requirements for the pathway as

[4:24:55] you've already heard but um we wanted a

[4:24:57] little more detail from them because of

[4:24:59] the proximity of Midway Park and so I've

[4:25:02] asked Mark Stoyer uh senior director of

[4:25:05] development services to speak about his

[4:25:07] interaction with the parks department.

[4:25:11] » Uh good evening uh chair and

[4:25:13] commissioner. So, want to provide some

[4:25:15] more details on on a connection with uh

[4:25:18] with the Nampa facility, I mean rather

[4:25:20] with the parks facility, and that is

[4:25:22] Midway Park. Um, as you can see on the

[4:25:26] map before you uh kind of along Midway

[4:25:28] right there, that northwest corner uh is

[4:25:31] Caddy Corner to the southeast corner of

[4:25:34] Midway Park. Uh you might remember that

[4:25:36] this property was purchased by the city

[4:25:40] u within the unincorporated area but has

[4:25:42] not been able to be annexed by the city

[4:25:44] because there's no contiguous uh

[4:25:46] pathway. Uh if this development was

[4:25:49] approved, there would be a pathway

[4:25:51] because of that caddy corner right there

[4:25:52] that connects to Midway Park and the

[4:25:55] city would be able to annex that to

[4:25:58] within the city limits. Uh some of the

[4:26:00] benefits in doing that are that to this

[4:26:03] point any improvements at Midway Park

[4:26:05] have been under the county permitting

[4:26:07] process. And so for example, the parks

[4:26:10] department wanted to put in some parking

[4:26:11] lot lighting and maybe some various ball

[4:26:14] field lighting also as well, but county

[4:26:16] requirements disallowed us from doing

[4:26:18] that. If it was under the city permit

[4:26:20] process, they would be able to put in

[4:26:22] that lighting to increase safety in the

[4:26:23] parking lot and also for people to

[4:26:26] utilize those ball fields during

[4:26:27] nighttime hours. Uh, another benefit to

[4:26:31] being under the city process, you might

[4:26:33] know that on midway there is a concrete

[4:26:35] barrier there. So that prevents lefthand

[4:26:37] turns into the park and left-hand turns

[4:26:40] out. The city would not require that

[4:26:42] barrier to be there. So ingress and

[4:26:44] egress would be uh would be enhanced

[4:26:47] there at that location. Uh, another

[4:26:49] benefit, as uh, Rodney explained, water

[4:26:52] and sewer would be extended down uh,

[4:26:54] down Midway and that would also provide

[4:26:57] a connection for the park to connect

[4:26:59] their sewer and and water to that system

[4:27:02] also as well. Currently, the park

[4:27:04] utilizes a under capacity septic system.

[4:27:06] So, they're pumping that every 3 to four

[4:27:09] months and they get their water from a

[4:27:11] temporary lease of a water well that's

[4:27:13] on the property. So, that would be

[4:27:15] another benefit if this development was

[4:27:17] approved. Uh lastly, police department

[4:27:20] would be able to respond to calls for

[4:27:22] enforcement at the park. Right now, it's

[4:27:24] under the county and this kind of vague

[4:27:26] on exactly who can respond to calls

[4:27:28] there at that site. So, Nampa would be

[4:27:30] able to provide that enforcement since

[4:27:32] it's within the city limits.

[4:27:35] >> Mr. Chair, can I ask a quick question to

[4:27:37] Mark? Would that be automatically

[4:27:39] annexed in as soon as it touches

[4:27:42] >> uh chair and commission?

[4:27:43] >> Would you have to go through that

[4:27:44] annexation process? Yes, we would have

[4:27:46] to go through the annexation process for

[4:27:48] the park specifically. It's not part of

[4:27:50] this.

[4:27:52] >> So, it's not it was hasn't been future

[4:27:54] annexed.

[4:27:55] >> No.

[4:27:56] >> Okay.

[4:28:02] » All right. So then if we move into our

[4:28:04] public comments, again just a reminder,

[4:28:06] we did receive some additional comments

[4:28:09] that were provided to you um that

[4:28:11] weren't didn't make the staff packet,

[4:28:13] but um these were the ones that did. So

[4:28:16] Maria Lyman um opposed to apartments due

[4:28:20] to existing uh traffic in the area. Um

[4:28:24] Jamie Vander, I'm sorry. I'm gonna move

[4:28:28] my screen so I can see what I'm looking

[4:28:30] at. There we go. Um Jamie Vanderhoff,

[4:28:34] I'm sorry about that. Uh was a resident

[4:28:37] nearby was opposed due to the following

[4:28:39] concerns. The density is too high. It

[4:28:42] will provide large-scale commercial that

[4:28:44] is not justified by the market and will

[4:28:46] make existing commercial no longer

[4:28:47] viable. Uh the development will be

[4:28:50] incompatible with existing large acre

[4:28:52] rural residences, existing and added

[4:28:55] traffic due to cutthrough trips to

[4:28:57] bypass Carter Road. And then Tony Engel,

[4:29:03] I hope that's right. Opposed because of

[4:29:05] the high number of units impacting

[4:29:07] quality of life, traffic, utilities,

[4:29:09] noise, and cost of services. Again,

[4:29:11] they're their specific uh language that

[4:29:14] they wrote is in your packet. This is

[4:29:16] just a real quick summary. Um Tasha

[4:29:19] Sweeney uh opposed because of the

[4:29:22] existing traffic congestion and

[4:29:24] concerns, infrastructure is not in place

[4:29:26] to handle more growth.

[4:29:39] Go. Uh Shannon Jones was another

[4:29:42] resident nearby opposed um for loss of

[4:29:46] rural lifestyle, traffic congestion and

[4:29:49] lack of capacity on roadways, loss of

[4:29:51] farmland, dwindling water supply, belief

[4:29:54] that residents are overt taxed and

[4:29:56] developers pay nothing. assumption of

[4:29:58] elected and appointed officials greed.

[4:30:01] Uh Cheryl Hickley uh opposed due to the

[4:30:05] to traffic congestion claimed that

[4:30:08] existing and future uh

[4:30:12] traffic concerns weren't considered uh

[4:30:16] and all the approvals of developments

[4:30:18] along Carter Road weren't considered. Um

[4:30:21] density seems too high for the area. uh

[4:30:25] it will provide large-scale commercial

[4:30:26] that is not justified by the market and

[4:30:29] then loss of rural character of the

[4:30:31] area. And then just other general

[4:30:33] concerns from comments that I received

[4:30:35] the need to preserve farmland, the

[4:30:37] desire to maintain a rural field with

[4:30:39] large lot single family residential. Uh

[4:30:42] belief that the adopted plans don't

[4:30:44] address the desires of those who live

[4:30:46] nearby and then belief that utilities

[4:30:49] can support the can't support the new

[4:30:51] development.

[4:30:53] Uh again, we did receive late comments

[4:30:55] that were uploaded to the project record

[4:30:57] for your review.

[4:31:00] And then um staff analysis. So

[4:31:04] um

[4:31:08] it so much of what comments seem to

[4:31:13] imply or have concerns about are because

[4:31:17] there's not the detail yet that we would

[4:31:20] get at a preliminary plat. So, I I just

[4:31:23] want to emphasize that um

[4:31:28] the this proposal that they gave you,

[4:31:32] this one here, um show several qualified

[4:31:36] open space amenities, but those aren't

[4:31:39] going to be really all of the amenities

[4:31:42] or all of the open space um analysis

[4:31:45] until we get to the plat stage. So, I

[4:31:48] just want to make sure that's clear. Um

[4:31:50] in the northwest area they show open

[4:31:52] grassy areas, trees, bike friendly

[4:31:54] trails and kids play zone. Uh the

[4:31:57] northeast area shows open grassy areas,

[4:31:59] tree pedestrian paths and activity play,

[4:32:03] a sports court. Uh and then southeast

[4:32:06] area shows open grassy areas, trees, an

[4:32:09] interactive play area for kids and

[4:32:11] sports courts, two pickle ball courts

[4:32:13] and a basketball court. And then they

[4:32:16] don't show anything for multifamily, but

[4:32:19] that is a requirement that they will

[4:32:21] need to address when they go and develop

[4:32:24] that.

[4:32:27] Again, that's the concept conceptual

[4:32:29] site plan. Uh a traffic impact study.

[4:32:33] The last thing, just the note at the

[4:32:35] bottom there is my thoughts here.

[4:32:37] Traffic impact studies evaluate the

[4:32:39] existing traffic as well as the

[4:32:41] estimated traffic based on all

[4:32:43] jurisdictional land uses use approvals.

[4:32:46] Traffic mitigation and fees are assessed

[4:32:49] to address the impact of the new

[4:32:50] development on the system to maintain a

[4:32:53] council adopted level of service. So

[4:32:56] again, traffic impact studies are not

[4:32:58] necessarily an opportunity for you to

[4:33:00] say or for any elected official or

[4:33:03] appointed official to say we don't agree

[4:33:06] with the engineering that was done to

[4:33:10] produce this traffic impact study.

[4:33:12] Really, that's in the way that a traffic

[4:33:15] impact study is set up from the very

[4:33:18] start. So if you don't agree with the

[4:33:22] traffic impact study, that's different

[4:33:24] than what's the the results of that

[4:33:27] traffic impact study you're saying. Um

[4:33:30] so at some point we have to say well it may feel really difficult to put

[4:33:38] additional traffic onto these roadways.

[4:33:41] But at some point we have to step back

[4:33:44] and say, do can we trust the engineering

[4:33:48] that's done to produce these traffic

[4:33:51] impact studies? And I know that's

[4:33:53] challenging. Um, but

[4:33:56] that's kind of the the situation we're

[4:34:00] in. um we go through those processes and have a result that comes back to you

[4:34:06] for for your consideration, but they

[4:34:09] will be applied regardless of whether

[4:34:13] you analyze these or not. These

[4:34:15] conditions will be applied to uh any

[4:34:18] project.

[4:34:21] Um okay, so criteria for evaluating a

[4:34:25] community, a master plan community,

[4:34:27] these are all of them. Um there's it's

[4:34:30] pretty extensive.

[4:34:32] Um you want to look in more detail than

[4:34:35] just a a typical subdivision. You want

[4:34:38] to see how it feels in a larger scale.

[4:34:41] Is it connected? Is it providing the

[4:34:44] appropriate landscaping, a theme or

[4:34:46] character? Um is it providing a mix of

[4:34:49] land uses?

[4:34:51] Um so I think you can look at that

[4:34:56] yourself. But those were all the things

[4:34:58] that I found in code.

[4:35:00] Um again this is in code sorry that was

[4:35:04] in our our uh comprehensive plan and

[4:35:06] this is in code and very similar um up

[4:35:09] to 30% of the area may be zoned a

[4:35:12] district not permitted by the the future

[4:35:14] land use map. Um in addition they've

[4:35:17] already uh talked about this. They are

[4:35:20] requesting a 20% uh increase in density.

[4:35:24] Um and that requires approval from uh

[4:35:27] city council and uh you can recommend

[4:35:30] that or or recommend denial of that.

[4:35:34] Um at least 15% of qualified open space

[4:35:38] is required. That's pretty standard for

[4:35:40] any commercial or any uh development.

[4:35:43] And then uh it has to be greater than

[4:35:45] 50% commercial

[4:35:48] uh in the uh CMU designation on the comp

[4:35:52] plan future land use map and at least 5%

[4:35:55] as a high density residential or light

[4:35:59] industrial.

[4:36:02] Um, the applicant is requesting an

[4:36:04] increased density from the limit of 12

[4:36:07] dwelling units per acre placed on the CMU area or the community mixeduse

[4:36:14] area in the southwest Nampa specific

[4:36:16] area plan. So, the comprehensive plan

[4:36:19] says CMU and that doesn't have a density

[4:36:23] max, but the the Southwest Nampa

[4:36:28] specific area plan limits that density

[4:36:30] and provides a max. So, that's what

[4:36:33] they're asking for is a an extension of

[4:36:37] 20% above what the specific area plan uh

[4:36:41] requires or max the max limit of the

[4:36:45] density.

[4:36:49] um staff analysis. So, here's some city

[4:36:52] boundaries. Um you can't see it maybe

[4:36:55] all that well, but Caldwell is all in

[4:36:58] gray and ours is just the colored areas.

[4:37:01] And I wanted to point out some specific

[4:37:03] desk destinations in this area. Midway

[4:37:06] Park, of course, uh no specific order

[4:37:09] here. uh commercial. A lot of people

[4:37:12] travel to the this commercial area and

[4:37:15] to get on to I 84.

[4:37:18] Uh you've got Lake LOL that people are

[4:37:20] traveling to.

[4:37:22] Uh this is the site of the new LDS

[4:37:25] temple. So that's kind of out in this

[4:37:27] area.

[4:37:31] And um then if

[4:37:35] my point here is that if the priority

[4:37:37] goal is to preserve farmland in an area

[4:37:39] then a no growth approach could

[4:37:41] accomplish that goal for a while unless

[4:37:44] other communities in the county approve

[4:37:46] development in the area. So if that's

[4:37:48] the goal to preserve farmland, you take

[4:37:52] a no growth policy. uh approving large

[4:37:55] lot single family residential consumes

[4:37:58] more farmland per unit than a mixed

[4:38:00] density does. So this approach does not

[4:38:04] preserve farmland. There was some a

[4:38:07] little bit of inconsistency in some of

[4:38:08] the comments that I read just saying hey

[4:38:11] we want to preserve farmland we should

[4:38:13] approve densities of lower than three

[4:38:17] units per acre. Well, that those do two

[4:38:21] opposite things.

[4:38:26] And here's the Caldwell zoning. Um I I

[4:38:30] put on the right here I just a a brief

[4:38:33] analysis of their zoning code found that

[4:38:35] the RS7 zone which appears to be what uh

[4:38:39] we're butdding up against here in this

[4:38:40] area um is similar to our RS7 or excuse

[4:38:45] me their R1 similar to our RS7. However,

[4:38:50] they allow duplexes and town houses in

[4:38:53] the RS7 zone, which we don't.

[4:38:59] So, the last part of this is if the

[4:39:02] priority goal is to maintain a rural

[4:39:04] feel, then a city should plan for

[4:39:06] density transitioning and consider the

[4:39:09] market demand and need for each type of

[4:39:11] development. I've drawn some circles

[4:39:13] around these just to try to give you

[4:39:16] that feel. So, you start out with pretty

[4:39:18] dense um commercial and and higher

[4:39:22] density residential. As you move away,

[4:39:25] you get to five to eight dwelling units

[4:39:28] per acre. And then beyond that, it's

[4:39:30] potentially eight uh or excuse me, um

[4:39:34] 2.5 to five dwelling units per acre. And

[4:39:38] then you get beyond that and you're

[4:39:40] going to one to 2.5 dwelling units per

[4:39:42] acre. And then beyond that is even one

[4:39:45] or less dwelling units per acre. And

[4:39:48] that is what the specific area plan

[4:39:50] tried to do is trying to make a

[4:39:53] transition as we move away from these

[4:39:56] core centers of commercial development.

[4:39:59] try to transition away from those so

[4:40:02] that we're not um negatively impacting

[4:40:07] all new development in the future for uh

[4:40:10] and creating incompatibility.

[4:40:13] We also require that when you're up

[4:40:16] against a residential development

[4:40:19] um a subdivision that you have buffering

[4:40:22] to that subdivision. So the lot sizes on

[4:40:25] the the edges have to be larger. So

[4:40:28] that's another way that we try to buffer

[4:40:30] these developments, the new development

[4:40:34] and the existing larger lot

[4:40:36] subdivisions.

[4:40:40] Here are the proposed conditions. These

[4:40:41] are all right from the staff

[4:40:44] communications from engineering. And

[4:40:46] then I added this one. uh property

[4:40:48] owners shall enter into the development

[4:40:50] agreement with the city of Nampa and um

[4:40:54] to en ensure compliance with the

[4:40:57] proposed major roadway alignments. Um

[4:41:00] major roadway

[4:41:02] um being roadways being lined with

[4:41:06] significant landscaping and trees. Uh

[4:41:09] the depiction of the type of amenities

[4:41:12] that they showed on their landscape

[4:41:14] plan. uh the depiction of pathways. Uh

[4:41:18] that was critical in the master plan

[4:41:20] community um requirements and that the

[4:41:24] owner applicant provide any multif

[4:41:26] family or commercial design standard as

[4:41:28] amenities that exceed the requirements

[4:41:30] in city code for review by council as

[4:41:33] part of the development agreement

[4:41:35] approval. If there's anything beyond

[4:41:37] what they are, you know, just following

[4:41:41] uh city code, um then we need to address

[4:41:44] those in here. And and the reason I say

[4:41:47] that is because the master plan

[4:41:48] community in the comp plan and in the

[4:41:50] code calls for higher design standards.

[4:41:54] So, we're just trying to see how how

[4:41:57] does that play out with this project.

[4:42:00] and then uh a phasing plan if there is

[4:42:02] one and then uh the BC zoned property

[4:42:06] shall not be developed as residential.

[4:42:09] Um we have that ability to get a cup in

[4:42:13] a BC zone and so we're saying because

[4:42:15] it's in community mixed use and at least

[4:42:17] 50% have to be commercial, we don't want

[4:42:20] that to be an option for them to go to a

[4:42:23] cup for multifamily.

[4:42:28] Here are the findings. Uh the and

[4:42:30] conclusion is the proposed reszone is in

[4:42:32] harmony with the city's compl

[4:42:34] comprehensive plan um because the

[4:42:36] development is located on the future

[4:42:38] land use map designation of MDR and CMU

[4:42:42] and the development also provides

[4:42:44] essential housing options as described

[4:42:46] in the plan. The proposed zoning dep

[4:42:50] district districts comply with the

[4:42:51] designation shown on the future land use

[4:42:53] map with the allowance of variance

[4:42:55] variations through a master plan

[4:42:57] community as noted in the legend on the

[4:42:59] map.

[4:43:01] Uh then uh this is the second one. The

[4:43:04] proposed land uses are in harmony with

[4:43:07] the surrounding properties because of

[4:43:08] conformance with the comp plan uh map

[4:43:11] and text. The comp plan is the city's

[4:43:14] established policy for creating

[4:43:16] compatibility.

[4:43:17] The existing land uses are agriculture,

[4:43:21] residential, and church in the immediate

[4:43:23] area. These are common neighbors and

[4:43:25] growing communities. Though the proposed

[4:43:27] land use doesn't match exactly the

[4:43:29] existing land uses, the fact that there

[4:43:31] is compatibility built into future plans

[4:43:34] for the area and the fact that these

[4:43:36] land uses are frequently neighbors in

[4:43:38] growing community. The result is that

[4:43:40] the proposal is found to be compatible.

[4:43:43] >> Also education land in there, isn't

[4:43:45] there?

[4:43:46] >> Yeah.

[4:43:46] >> that's correct.

[4:43:48] [clears throat] And again, those those

[4:43:50] properties are still owned by the school

[4:43:53] district, but they don't have the money

[4:43:55] to develop them.

[4:43:57] >> I can't speak to when that would happen.

[4:43:59] I just know that at some point in the

[4:44:01] future, as this area develops out,

[4:44:04] there's going to be that need.

[4:44:07] And then the last uh the last one is the

[4:44:10] proposed amendment is our or would be in

[4:44:12] the interest of the public and

[4:44:13] reasonably necessary because the

[4:44:14] proposed project is in line with the

[4:44:16] city's comp plan which outlines the

[4:44:18] public interest for future development

[4:44:20] that provides a diversity of housing

[4:44:22] options and commercial services that are

[4:44:24] needed for community to function. That

[4:44:26] was a run-on sentence.

[4:44:29] And there is a couple of motions for

[4:44:31] your consideration and I'd be happy to

[4:44:33] answer any questions.

[4:44:36] Ronnie, when I was looking at the staff

[4:44:38] report yesterday, I noticed how close

[4:44:41] this application is to Midway Park and

[4:44:44] Midway Park has got lots of open space.

[4:44:46] Is can a developer say, "Hey, since it's

[4:44:49] I'm right next door to this, can I do

[4:44:50] this instead of open space or can I do

[4:44:54] can they trade or bargain with you on

[4:44:55] that?"

[4:44:57] >> Um, so they a lot of times what we

[4:45:00] encourage people to do is to contribute

[4:45:03] land. Um, so that yeah, you don't have

[4:45:06] to necessarily have it in your

[4:45:08] subdivision, but if you dedicated

[4:45:11] property to the city to expand a park or

[4:45:14] something, then that's possible. But

[4:45:16] just having a park nearby, you don't

[4:45:19] have the ability to count that as your

[4:45:21] >> What can they get though? What what can

[4:45:23] they trade for?

[4:45:25] >> They they can't. They They would have to

[4:45:28] dedicate land for City Park,

[4:45:31] >> but they get nothing in return for that.

[4:45:33] they would count that towards their

[4:45:35] qualified open space.

[4:45:37] >> Maybe we could get them to build a high

[4:45:38] school out there on that.

[4:45:39] >> Yeah.

[4:45:42] >> Thank you.

[4:45:42] >> Yeah.

[4:45:45] >> Thank you, Rod.

[4:45:48] Have a signup sheet.

[4:45:54] Calling Jim Carr.

[4:45:59] » You think it's [clears throat] about

[4:46:00] time? Morning. [laughter]

[4:46:03] >> Wake up.

[4:46:05] >> Close.

[4:46:07] >> My name is Jim Mar and I live at 1471

[4:46:10] Wooley Drive which is Office Smith,

[4:46:14] which this proposal is just across the

[4:46:17] road from us. I do oppose the proposal

[4:46:21] pretty much what everybody uh wrote in

[4:46:23] for, but my main concern and you

[4:46:27] represent Corey Barton. Is that correct?

[4:46:31] Okay. But Corey Barton's one has this.

[4:46:34] [clears throat]

[4:46:36] >> You got

[4:46:36] >> Sir, please direct your comments.

[4:46:38] >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I just got I just

[4:46:40] got to straighten something up. So, this

[4:46:44] piece of ground has a ditch running

[4:46:47] right through them through it. It goes

[4:46:50] from Lonear

[4:46:52] north to Smith. That ditch is an

[4:46:56] irrigation ditch that provides our

[4:46:59] irrigation water into our subdivision,

[4:47:02] which the last two years we've had

[4:47:04] issues with trying to get water through

[4:47:06] that because the farmer

[4:47:09] has always in the past has kept that

[4:47:12] ditch clean. This year that hasn't

[4:47:14] happened.

[4:47:15] My question,

[4:47:17] I don't know if I can direct it to you

[4:47:19] or to them.

[4:47:20] >> Please do. If this development goes

[4:47:23] through, are they going to tile that

[4:47:26] ditch for us so we can still get our

[4:47:28] irrigation water? They can't fill it in,

[4:47:31] can they?

[4:47:31] >> No.

[4:47:33] >> 100%.

[4:47:34] >> So, you're 100% going to say to me that will be tiled.

[4:47:40] >> Uh, they,

[4:47:42] as far as I understand, they just have

[4:47:44] to they just have to make sure that you

[4:47:45] are able to get your water.

[4:47:47] >> Okay.

[4:47:48] >> They can't take your water away.

[4:47:50] >> Okay. because it runs about

[4:47:51] >> how how it looks

[4:47:53] could be a hund different ways but they

[4:47:56] have I don't care how

[4:47:56] >> you have to maintain they have to

[4:47:58] maintain your ability to get your water

[4:47:59] >> the way it runs now it comes to Smith

[4:48:02] goes underneath the road and it goes

[4:48:04] underneath the Phyllis canal and then

[4:48:07] comes up into our ditch that feeds our

[4:48:09] subdivision. So that was my main concern

[4:48:12] is about the irrigation ditch

[4:48:15] but [snorts] we're okay with they won't

[4:48:18] fill it in. Y

[4:48:19] >> we can we can ask them what they're

[4:48:20] intending to do, but one way or the

[4:48:22] other they're they have to preserve it.

[4:48:24] >> Okay, that was that was my uh that's my

[4:48:27] main concern. So, thank you.

[4:48:29] >> Thank you. Appreciate it.

[4:48:34] » Stephen Reed.

[4:48:48] Evening, Mr. Chairman and uh

[4:48:51] commissioners. Uh I reside at Oh, I

[4:48:55] guess I didn't I should say my name,

[4:48:56] shouldn't I? Steven Reed called, so I

[4:49:00] responded. I live at 14

[4:49:03] 328 Red River Avenue in Nampa. I'm I'm

[4:49:09] one of the people just to the west of

[4:49:13] this project. Uh, I confess to you that

[4:49:17] I wish I'd been able to memorize this

[4:49:20] 65page

[4:49:22] staff report, which I did my best to

[4:49:25] learn, but I didn't. [clears throat] But

[4:49:27] I do have some questions. I want to join

[4:49:30] with

[4:49:31] the numerous written com uh comments

[4:49:34] that you received about the density

[4:49:36] proposals. Uh my math is way in the uh

[4:49:42] rear vision rear view mirror tonight,

[4:49:45] but if I calculate correctly of the

[4:49:49] allocation of five to eight houses uh

[4:49:53] per acre that the developer proposed

[4:49:56] earlier this evening, that's those are

[4:49:59] lots that are somewhere between

[4:50:02] [clears throat]

[4:50:03] 5,500 and about 8,600 square F feet.

[4:50:07] Those are tiny lots. Those are the same

[4:50:11] size lots, at least to my eye, as in old

[4:50:16] uh Nampa. They are you you heard you

[4:50:21] heard testimony and talked about quite a

[4:50:23] bit earlier this evening with regard to

[4:50:26] Southside

[4:50:28] uh about front yards of the the duplexes

[4:50:31] that we're going to have four four foot

[4:50:33] backyards and roughly equal four uh

[4:50:37] front yards. Well, that's what that

[4:50:39] that's what you're going to get with

[4:50:41] five five to eight uh par lots, excuse

[4:50:46] me, buildings uh per acre. Unless the

[4:50:49] houses are going to be just tiny houses,

[4:50:51] in which case uh they probably would

[4:50:54] have larger yards, but they're going to

[4:50:58] be considerably less desirable for the

[4:51:01] whole neighborhood. people that that

[4:51:03] commented on density, I think, were

[4:51:05] worried about the fact that we were

[4:51:07] going to end up with a very compact

[4:51:10] bunch of houses in this in this area.

[4:51:13] And that's probably borne out by the

[4:51:16] proposal for all the green area uh that

[4:51:20] is shown on their maps. We also have no

[4:51:23] information whatsoever

[4:51:25] uh how what

[4:51:28] density is going to be in multifamily.

[4:51:31] Uh we're told that some will be uh

[4:51:34] condominiums or owner owner uh property

[4:51:39] or they're going to be rental. Well, how

[4:51:41] many uh how tall? We don't have any of

[4:51:44] that information. Once again, that's the

[4:51:47] density that the people wrote into you

[4:51:49] and that I have concern about. And then

[4:51:52] honestly, the commercial area is uh to

[4:51:57] me a big red flag. First of all, I don't

[4:52:00] think we need it. I live in the area. I

[4:52:03] certainly don't find myself worrying

[4:52:06] about or or missing out on uh uh place

[4:52:10] to shop or supplies. Now, I see that the

[4:52:14] uh clock has exhausted my time, so I'll

[4:52:17] quit. But I'll just tell you that I the opening paragraph of this report

[4:52:24] says that tonight you are going to

[4:52:27] approve an application for annexation

[4:52:30] and zoning. Good. That's terrific for a

[4:52:34] master plan community with a development

[4:52:38] agreement. I didn't find a development

[4:52:40] agreement in here. Now, I'll grant you I

[4:52:42] read it awfully fast and it's if it's in

[4:52:45] there, it's hidden. I didn't see it.

[4:52:47] Maybe uh Mr. Ashby can tell me where I

[4:52:50] can find it, but at least as of this

[4:52:53] moment, I don't know where it is. And I

[4:52:55] would urge you not to approve tonight an

[4:53:00] a proposal that obligates you to an

[4:53:04] open-ended

[4:53:06] uh development agreement. Thank you for

[4:53:08] paying attention to me.

[4:53:10] >> Thank you, sir.

[4:53:14] Bob Williams.

[4:53:21] » My name is Bob Williams. I live at 12220

[4:53:25] Apple Roseway in Nampa. Um, I bought a

[4:53:30] house just a couple of months ago just

[4:53:33] north of the park and now I find that

[4:53:36] Midway, which my house borders on, is

[4:53:39] going to have a whole ton more traffic.

[4:53:42] Now, it's obvious that this is a

[4:53:44] foregone conclusion and we're not going

[4:53:46] to be able to stop it or slow it down.

[4:53:50] But one of the things I've noticed since

[4:53:52] living here in Nampa is that, you know,

[4:53:55] driving up Middleton, uh, Midland,

[4:53:59] uh, the developments there that have

[4:54:02] gone in get all these nice, beautiful

[4:54:04] setbacks and vinyl fences and privacy

[4:54:08] and noise abatement and everything from

[4:54:10] all the traffic. But those of us that

[4:54:12] have existing houses get screwed.

[4:54:15] And Midway is going to take 75 90% of

[4:54:19] the traffic from this development, which

[4:54:22] is going to have to turn that into a

[4:54:23] four-lane road. So, I'm going to lose

[4:54:26] property that I just purchased. The

[4:54:30] traffic is going to be closer to my

[4:54:31] bedroom window. And I plan on next

[4:54:36] spring putting in a a living hedge to

[4:54:39] try to get rid of some of the traffic

[4:54:41] noise and create privacy from the

[4:54:44] existing midway. Well, that's all going

[4:54:46] to get pulled out and cost me several

[4:54:48] thousand dollars of lost lost u uh

[4:54:52] landscaping.

[4:54:54] So, I I guess what I'm asking is what can be done for those of us that

[4:55:00] aren't in the development

[4:55:03] but are affected by the development?

[4:55:08] » Thank you for your question,

[4:55:15] » Lynn Hodgeges.

[4:55:25] Uh Lynn Hodgeges, 11455 Lonear Road. I'm

[4:55:30] just south of the property that is in

[4:55:33] question. Uh it's also it's the old

[4:55:36] Lonear School, former Hope House

[4:55:38] Children's Home. Uh I've been there for

[4:55:41] 23 years. Worked my fingers to the bone

[4:55:44] fixing that place up. It was a mess. Uh

[4:55:47] I oppose this uh this subdivision going

[4:55:50] in. Uh and as I had a little bit of time

[4:55:54] tonight to play with numbers from things

[4:55:56] I've seen from the previous

[4:55:58] presentations and also from online

[4:56:01] resources, I wanted to share some

[4:56:02] numbers. So they're they're allowed 1,69

[4:56:07] dwellings. They're asking for 20% more.

[4:56:10] That takes it to,282

[4:56:12] dwellings.

[4:56:14] City of Nampa uses 2.76 people per

[4:56:17] dwelling. That's 3538 people. Uh from

[4:56:22] one of the slides I gathered that uh

[4:56:24] police cost, and I did some math, that's

[4:56:27] going to cost the police department

[4:56:28] about $44,000.

[4:56:31] Hopefully I didn't do the math wrong. Uh

[4:56:34] Sonata Point West, which is directly

[4:56:36] next to me, uh when they got their

[4:56:38] proposal turned in, they used 9.44 44

[4:56:41] vehicle trips per day per dwelling. That

[4:56:45] equals 12,100

[4:56:48] trips per day. And those roads out there

[4:56:52] will not handle 12,100. You would have

[4:56:54] to widen roads all the way out to every

[4:56:58] collector everywhere. Uh so the density

[4:57:02] uh that they're proposing very dense a

[4:57:06] lot of apartments a lot of town homes

[4:57:08] and RS4 they could have 4,000 square

[4:57:11] foot lots and uh

[4:57:16] I don't see much mix there. It's all

[4:57:18] very high density. Let's pack as much in

[4:57:20] as we can. Uh, one note from one of the

[4:57:24] staff comments that that they brought up

[4:57:26] was, uh, there was ballpark 140ome homes

[4:57:31] approved out there in the last couple

[4:57:33] years. This development, one development

[4:57:36] is over 10 times that size. So it is a

[4:57:41] massive massive impact not only to us

[4:57:46] that have been out there for a long time

[4:57:48] but that entire area uh will be dwarfed

[4:57:52] with traffic with people uh and so I I

[4:57:56] oppose this and I would urge you to uh

[4:58:00] do the same. Thank you. Thank you,

[4:58:08] » Cheryl Higgley.

[4:58:18] Good evening, Mr. Chairman and

[4:58:20] Commissioners.

[4:58:22] I'm Cheryl Higgley at 12441 South Abbott

[4:58:25] Downing Way here in Nampa. I want to

[4:58:28] express my strong opposition to the

[4:58:31] application for Lonear master plan

[4:58:33] community. No preliminary plat was

[4:58:36] provided. However, based on the density

[4:58:38] shown in the specific area plan plus a

[4:58:40] 20% increase in density allowed, it

[4:58:43] could be over,00

[4:58:46] excuse me, dwelling units. Here are my

[4:58:48] reasons why commercial and residential

[4:58:50] development should be limited. First,

[4:58:53] just as the train poses an issue to

[4:58:56] southeast Nampa, this area has unique

[4:59:00] geographic factors and infrastructure

[4:59:02] challenges, too. It is lake locked on

[4:59:05] two sides, to the south and the west.

[4:59:07] Therefore, traffic has to go north and

[4:59:10] east to highway 84 where most jobs,

[4:59:12] goods, and services are located. The

[4:59:15] traffic will funnel funnel directly into

[4:59:17] one of the most problematic interchanges

[4:59:19] at Carter, Coldwell Boulevard, and

[4:59:22] Highway 84. Even though the road is

[4:59:25] being widened, the traffic will never

[4:59:27] flow well. With six signals in the one

[4:59:29] and a half miles from Middleton Road to

[4:59:31] Costco,

[4:59:32] it will remain a tangled knot of

[4:59:34] congestion. To avoid the congestion on

[4:59:36] Carter, residents will seek alternate

[4:59:38] routes and head east all the way through

[4:59:40] Nampa to get to the freeway. I know

[4:59:43] because I do that now. This will cause

[4:59:46] increased traffic congestion throughout

[4:59:48] the city due to the insufficient road

[4:59:50] capacity of the two-lane roads to handle

[4:59:52] the volume of vehicles. Second,

[4:59:55] regarding the anticipated residential

[4:59:57] growth, the proposed density seems way

[4:59:59] too high for this rural area. Apartments

[5:00:02] in tiny 4,000 foot lots are incompatible

[5:00:05] with the adjacent rural residences and

[5:00:08] the nearby subdivisions.

[5:00:10] In addition, per the email from the

[5:00:13] engineering department, both Midway and

[5:00:15] Lone Lonear roads are classified as

[5:00:18] minor arterial two-lane rural rural

[5:00:22] roads. And last year at the area of

[5:00:24] impact public hearing before the board

[5:00:26] of county commissioners, Crystal Craig

[5:00:28] testified that there are currently no

[5:00:30] road improvement projects planned for

[5:00:33] Midway Road. Code section 10-12-1

[5:00:37] regarding RH states that it is intended

[5:00:40] to be situated near major commerce

[5:00:43] areas, campus locations, and major

[5:00:47] thoroughfare intersections and around

[5:00:49] the downtown districts. This location is

[5:00:52] the exact opposite of that description.

[5:00:54] And to put an RH zone here is a

[5:00:57] contradiction to our city's code,

[5:01:00] especially an RH zone with the 20% bonus

[5:01:04] increase in density, which I believe

[5:01:06] will have the highest density of

[5:01:08] dwelling units per acre in the city.

[5:01:11] Rodney can correct me if I'm wrong

[5:01:12] there, but it's the highest I've heard

[5:01:14] of.

[5:01:15] Third, regarding the anticipated

[5:01:18] commercial growth, 30 acres of

[5:01:20] commercial does not seem condu conducive

[5:01:22] to this area. That's the size of the

[5:01:25] entire shopping center where Hobby Lobby

[5:01:28] is located. From Sportsman Warehouse to

[5:01:31] TJ Maxx, Burlington out to Midland down

[5:01:34] to Cracker Barrel. That's 31 acres

[5:01:37] there. This would be 30 um or yeah,

[5:01:43] especially for the 34 acres of

[5:01:45] commercial has already been approved in

[5:01:47] the nearby developments of Adera and the

[5:01:49] Charles at Carter, which are within one

[5:01:52] and a half miles and have already broken

[5:01:54] ground. The truth is that if there was

[5:01:57] ever an area in Nampa that needs to be

[5:01:59] kept rural and very low density, this is

[5:02:02] it. Due to its unique geographic factors

[5:02:05] and infrastructure challenges,

[5:02:07] development should be limited.

[5:02:10] >> Please consider this before you make

[5:02:12] your decision and please deny the

[5:02:14] recommend or have a recommendation of

[5:02:17] denial. Thank you.

[5:02:18] >> Thank you,

[5:02:27] » Mr. Chair. We have uh received no

[5:02:30] further requests to speak under public

[5:02:33] testimony.

[5:02:41] » Good evening. My name's uh Ted Jones. I

[5:02:44] live at [clears throat] 11855,

[5:02:48] excuse me, West Patt

[5:02:50] uh Drive in Nampa. Formerly, I lived uh

[5:02:54] in the Arbor Landing subdivision, which

[5:02:57] is just to the west of Midway Park,

[5:03:01] right off of Smith. There was uh 16

[5:03:04] parcels, one acre. Uh everybody in our

[5:03:08] entire HOA was opposed to this because

[5:03:12] the density is just too aggressive, I

[5:03:14] think. And everybody in the neighborhood

[5:03:16] felt the same way. We were all in a

[5:03:18] rural area surrounded by farms and now

[5:03:22] what you're proposing [clears throat]

[5:03:25] to go to take it

[5:03:28] what you have plus another 20% just

[5:03:30] doesn't make any sense. Um the traffic

[5:03:35] as it is now is just has been a fiasco.

[5:03:38] I lived there for four years and I just

[5:03:40] moved about a year ago. Uh because

[5:03:45] there's just no infrastructure

[5:03:47] and just to go to Costco from Midway and

[5:03:51] Smith was a complete disaster and the

[5:03:54] roadway is still a mess as you as you

[5:03:57] guys know. Um the other thing on the BC

[5:04:00] zoning,

[5:04:02] my concern is on that I don't see enough

[5:04:05] demand for it. Number one. Number two, I

[5:04:09] think you're going to actually rob

[5:04:11] potentially downtown and some of the

[5:04:14] other areas um from um commerce. And I

[5:04:21] think it's important that you guys keep

[5:04:23] the downtown uh vitalized and all the

[5:04:27] other current areas.

[5:04:29] Um

[5:04:32] right now with the economy the way it

[5:04:34] is, it is very difficult for retailers

[5:04:39] and by carving up more space for uh

[5:04:43] commercial.

[5:04:44] I think you're going to dilute

[5:04:48] um and that's going to create more

[5:04:50] problems. So those are my only comments.

[5:04:52] I would just ask that you deny it and if

[5:04:56] you are going to pass it for sure do not

[5:04:58] allow the 20% increase. Thank you.

[5:05:02] >> Thank you.

[5:05:05] There anybody else who would like to

[5:05:07] speak for against or undecided?

[5:05:14] » Okay, you guys want to come back up

[5:05:16] answer some questions?

[5:05:21] » Thank you, Mr. chair, members of the

[5:05:23] commission, Rodney, I don't know if we

[5:05:24] can put our slide back up because I have

[5:05:26] a couple things on traffic in there.

[5:05:30] So, really appreciate all the written

[5:05:31] testimony and then folks sticking around

[5:05:33] to provide their spoken testimony, too.

[5:05:35] It's really good to have feedback. Um,

[5:05:38] we let's see

[5:05:40] uh on the density stuff. So the 20%

[5:05:44] density bonus we're requesting is just

[5:05:46] for the RH district and the intent

[5:05:48] behind that is that we can provide more

[5:05:51] of a variety of housing within that

[5:05:52] area. So 12 units per acre is pretty

[5:05:55] limiting. It doesn't allow for uh

[5:05:58] apartments essentially. So if you uh any

[5:06:02] So a 20% bonus on the 12 would get us to

[5:06:05] 14.4 units an acre which would allow us

[5:06:07] to do a twotory apartment building

[5:06:09] basically with some town homes fixed in.

[5:06:11] So it really increases the variety of

[5:06:13] housing product that's there. It allows

[5:06:15] us to transition the density from the

[5:06:18] intense commercial to more high density

[5:06:21] to less density to the single family

[5:06:23] residential. So that's the intent behind

[5:06:24] that request. Uh looking at our zoning

[5:06:29] district um requests, uh the gentleman

[5:06:33] that had all of the math um that he

[5:06:37] provided was really great. I think what

[5:06:39] we're envisioning because this is a

[5:06:41] master plan community there's required

[5:06:42] to be 15% open space throughout the

[5:06:44] entire development which is um it's

[5:06:48] difficult to get density with that

[5:06:50] amount of open space. So realistically

[5:06:52] in the single family area we've been

[5:06:54] looking at five units per acre and

[5:06:56] that's what our traffic impact uh study

[5:06:59] analysis contemplated. So we'd probably

[5:07:01] be more at with 90 acres probably more

[5:07:04] around 450 to maybe 500 units within the

[5:07:08] RS4 area. The RH area if we went up to

[5:07:12] the 14 units per acre at around 28 29

[5:07:16] acres that'd be around 400 units which

[5:07:18] is a typical size for a multifamily

[5:07:21] development. So, that's what we envision

[5:07:24] and I think we'd be comfortable with a

[5:07:26] condition that maybe stated something

[5:07:28] along those lines if that's how the

[5:07:30] commission feels they'd like to make a

[5:07:32] recommendation.

[5:07:33] Um,

[5:07:35] the gentleman that brought up the ditch,

[5:07:38] we are required to comply with state

[5:07:40] code 42-12

[5:07:42] requires that we maintain water that's

[5:07:45] being delivered to adjacent properties.

[5:07:46] And at this point, we haven't done a

[5:07:48] whole lot of engineering uh on this

[5:07:50] property, but it's likely that we'll be

[5:07:52] tiling that because I think the one that

[5:07:53] he's talking about goes straight through

[5:07:54] the middle of the site where we have

[5:07:56] some roadways and some other things

[5:07:57] planned. But we will make sure that we

[5:07:59] work with him to make sure that's

[5:08:01] delivered to his property.

[5:08:05] » Quick question on that while you're

[5:08:07] Yeah, while you're there. So, it sounds

[5:08:09] like the farmer hasn't been doing

[5:08:11] anything this last year, so the weeds

[5:08:13] probably grew up and it was slowing down

[5:08:15] the the water flow. If this did get

[5:08:18] approved, could the developer keep that

[5:08:20] clean until he gets to the point where

[5:08:22] he does tile it so that they the one to

[5:08:24] the north does get their water without

[5:08:26] an issue?

[5:08:27] >> Mr. Chair, Commissioner, I can say that

[5:08:28] we'd be comfortable committing to that.

[5:08:30] Yeah,

[5:08:30] >> thank you.

[5:08:31] >> We'll make sure that we com coordinate

[5:08:32] that with our client.

[5:08:37] Uh, another thing that's really

[5:08:39] important, I think, for folks to

[5:08:40] recognize when they're talking about the

[5:08:42] density and maybe the size of lots

[5:08:44] within this development is that this

[5:08:45] will all be incrementally phased

[5:08:47] throughout the development. So, it is a

[5:08:49] large swath of ground, but

[5:08:51] realistically, you know, the northwest

[5:08:53] corner, I'm trying to show you pictures

[5:08:55] and I'm forgetting where they are in my

[5:08:56] slide deck, but the northwest corner is

[5:08:59] probably going to be where we would

[5:09:00] first go and then all of the yellow is

[5:09:02] probably what would be developing first

[5:09:05] because we need the rooftops to support

[5:09:08] the commercial. So, it's likely that the

[5:09:10] yellow would develop first and then some

[5:09:12] of the multif family may kind of be

[5:09:13] sprinkled in there or may develop uh

[5:09:16] second. A preliminary plat would be

[5:09:18] proposed at some point showing probably

[5:09:20] the entire property boundary with lots

[5:09:23] within the single family area and then

[5:09:24] we'd probably lot out the multif family

[5:09:26] area and then maybe show some commercial

[5:09:28] lots with conceptual plans for

[5:09:30] commercial uses. So over a period of 10

[5:09:33] to 15 years the preliminary plat for the

[5:09:36] single family and the multif family

[5:09:37] would be developed and then commercial

[5:09:39] would come in when the market supports

[5:09:40] it. So the intention is not for this to

[5:09:43] be a huge commercial area. 30 acres

[5:09:46] sounds like a lot. Um, this is kind of

[5:09:49] in relation to Cheryl's comments. Uh, it

[5:09:52] sounds like a lot, but really we're

[5:09:54] looking at more of a like a smaller

[5:09:57] market or a smaller like maybe an

[5:09:59] Albertson's uh like a neighborhood

[5:10:01] market type of store supported by other

[5:10:04] retailers, restaurants, fast casual

[5:10:06] dining stuff. uh maybe like a coffee

[5:10:08] shop, stuff that people can really walk

[5:10:10] to so that they're not accessing Midway

[5:10:12] Road or Lonear to go over to Carter uh

[5:10:16] to get to a store. So, the idea is

[5:10:20] really to try to alleviate traffic by

[5:10:22] having services close by where a lot of

[5:10:24] folks will be living eventually.

[5:10:28] So, traffic, uh speaking of traffic, um

[5:10:31] is always a big concern. We have uh

[5:10:33] we've been working with KDson

[5:10:35] Associates. they've been coordinating

[5:10:36] with the city on scoping this project

[5:10:39] out and one of the largest benefits I

[5:10:42] think that we've found with the master

[5:10:43] plan communities is it provides them an

[5:10:45] opportunity to have an overarching view

[5:10:47] of traffic for the entire area and then

[5:10:50] when the preliminary plaque comes in

[5:10:51] they have to do a more detailed analysis

[5:10:53] and city staff reviews it to make sure

[5:10:55] that the mitigations conform with what

[5:10:58] they think should be required. So, there

[5:11:00] were a lot of roadway segments that were

[5:11:03] reviewed and part of the scoping area.

[5:11:06] That's all outlined in black here. You

[5:11:08] can see where our site is. It's in

[5:11:10] green. So, that it's pretty expansive.

[5:11:12] It looked at Smith Avenue from Midway

[5:11:14] Road all the way to Nampa Calwell

[5:11:16] Boulevard, Orchard Avenue, Lonear Road,

[5:11:19] uh Midway Road from Lake to Moss, and

[5:11:22] then Middleton Road from Orchard Avenue

[5:11:24] to Nampa Caldwell Boulevard. Um, and

[5:11:28] they're at this point the findings. So

[5:11:32] they're they're basing these trip, you

[5:11:34] know, the potential trips off of

[5:11:37] potential densities, right? So we don't

[5:11:38] have a layout that they can really look

[5:11:40] at in a detailed way, but this is all um

[5:11:43] stuff that they're stipulating based on

[5:11:45] potential densities. So the overall

[5:11:48] traffic um will be substantial for the

[5:11:53] whole project, but as each phase

[5:11:55] develops, they'll be required to make

[5:11:57] improvements to roadways. So they'll

[5:11:58] widen Lonear, they'll widen Midway, and

[5:12:01] then there will be traffic signals

[5:12:02] required. Um one thing I found

[5:12:05] interesting in the analysis is it's

[5:12:06] actually there are several intersections

[5:12:07] and several roadways that need to be

[5:12:09] improved just now with background

[5:12:11] traffic. So it's not necessarily like

[5:12:13] this development is going to trigger

[5:12:15] those improvements. it would help to pay

[5:12:16] for them if um if they came in but it

[5:12:20] wouldn't you know require it on its own.

[5:12:22] So um I think

[5:12:31] then with each you know final plat you'd

[5:12:33] get impact fees and that's what helps to

[5:12:35] pay for improvements as you all know.

[5:12:39] >> What else am I missing?

[5:12:42] We really appreciate your consideration

[5:12:43] and um I'm in agreement with the staff

[5:12:46] report the conditions of approval. So

[5:12:48] I'm happy to answer any other questions

[5:12:50] you may have.

[5:12:53] » Questions, Mr. Chair?

[5:12:55] >> Yes. Um you touched on the phasing of

[5:12:57] the project. Do you have any idea what

[5:12:59] the timeline would be like? Are we

[5:13:03] >> uh Mr. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Morgan,

[5:13:05] we I don't have a defined timeline, but

[5:13:08] if this annexation were to be approved,

[5:13:10] our client wants to move forward with

[5:13:11] the premier plat as soon as we can. So,

[5:13:13] that typically takes, you know, through

[5:13:14] the entitlement process, probably six

[5:13:17] months, and then we would uh pursue a

[5:13:20] final plat for the first phase, you

[5:13:22] know, probably soon after that. So maybe

[5:13:25] that's usually I'm going to guesstimate

[5:13:27] um you know a year from design to

[5:13:29] approval of construction plans and then

[5:13:32] um construction would occur. So I'm

[5:13:34] going to guess probably two to three

[5:13:36] years out.

[5:13:37] >> Okay. And then how what percentage rough

[5:13:41] real rough ballpark of the project would

[5:13:44] that be? And then how how long until the

[5:13:46] next phases follow after that or is it

[5:13:49] all just going to be continuous? So, if

[5:13:52] we had four to 450 units, my guess is

[5:13:55] they'd probably do under 100 for each

[5:13:58] phase. I'm going to call it five phases

[5:14:00] just to make it simple. But, um, if we

[5:14:03] were to do the first phase, say the

[5:14:05] first phase is constructed and they have

[5:14:07] a final plat recorded in two years,

[5:14:09] that's pretty aggressive. But, I'm just

[5:14:11] using example. I think that they would

[5:14:13] probably sequentially go through each

[5:14:15] phase within a year after that. So, it'

[5:14:17] probably be a phase a year. So, two

[5:14:19] years to start and then maybe seven

[5:14:22] after seven years. I I'm not holding you

[5:14:24] to anything. Yeah. No, because we're

[5:14:25] gonna we're gonna ask Daniel we're gonna

[5:14:27] ask Daniel how

[5:14:29] >> soon roadways are going to get improved.

[5:14:31] Sure.

[5:14:31] >> You know, and so having a rough idea.

[5:14:34] >> I think what we been planning on is

[5:14:36] around 10 years, but seven would be I'm

[5:14:39] sure you know

[5:14:41] >> and that's just the RS4.

[5:14:43] >> Yeah, that would just be the single

[5:14:44] family residential and then the

[5:14:45] multifamily will be market dependent. So

[5:14:48] if there's a developer that wants to

[5:14:49] come in and do that, I think, you know,

[5:14:51] they would certainly be amendable to

[5:14:53] doing that earlier.

[5:14:57] » Thank you,

[5:14:58] >> Mr. Chair. Kind of a followup to that.

[5:15:01] I've always been curious. I mean, this

[5:15:02] is a huge

[5:15:04] project. I would I would imagine one of

[5:15:07] the biggest that we've seen in the city,

[5:15:10] you know, but well, maybe not. So, but

[5:15:12] it's a big one and it's going to have a

[5:15:14] big footprint. Yeah. if it gets

[5:15:16] approved.

[5:15:18] >> Um what what kind of market analysis or

[5:15:24] do you do to consider let's move forward

[5:15:28] with reaching out to NA and see if

[5:15:30] they'll if they'll be acceptable to a

[5:15:32] project this big. I mean population

[5:15:35] growth trends all that kind of stuff. I

[5:15:38] mean is it

[5:15:39] >> uh Mr. Chair, Commissioner Kirkman

[5:15:41] >> without divulging any proprietary

[5:15:44] >> I think I mean so [laughter]

[5:15:46] I work at an engineering firm or a

[5:15:47] consultant for developers who do this

[5:15:49] kind of work all the time and so I think

[5:15:51] a lot of times it's sometimes they just

[5:15:53] know and one of the property owners in

[5:15:56] this is a real estate broker so they

[5:15:57] have a really good feel for you know

[5:16:00] what the uh market is calling for what

[5:16:02] the current trends are and then I think

[5:16:04] a lot of them are really involved with

[5:16:06] planning processes and understand what

[5:16:08] decisions are made and and from those

[5:16:10] decisions a lot of times land uses are

[5:16:12] determined so um I might be a bit above

[5:16:16] my abilities or pay grade to understand

[5:16:18] exactly what decisions go into that.

[5:16:20] That's a question I get a lot of people

[5:16:23] just asking why why so many developments

[5:16:25] I mean and it is there's concerns with

[5:16:27] the comments that we've seen of you know

[5:16:29] do we have the infrastructure to support

[5:16:31] it and

[5:16:32] >> does it does growth pay for itself and

[5:16:35] we all know that that you know the

[5:16:36] answer to that and

[5:16:37] >> sure

[5:16:38] >> it doesn't pay for itself no it does not

[5:16:43] >> it helps

[5:16:43] >> be a little careful

[5:16:44] >> but it doesn't pay for itself

[5:16:48] um but we just see all and I I think

[5:16:50] there's some legitimate concerns with a

[5:16:53] lot of especially with a lot of these

[5:16:54] big

[5:16:56] um developments going in.

[5:16:59] >> So anyway, it's more of a curiosity

[5:17:00] question than anything else because

[5:17:03] and along with that the the commercial

[5:17:06] node at the center of this is

[5:17:09] >> do you anticipate

[5:17:11] probably seeing more like box stores or

[5:17:14] more of a village feel or something to

[5:17:16] that?

[5:17:17] >> Mr. Chair Commissioner Kirkman um to

[5:17:20] comment on the size of the project just

[5:17:22] really quick. So this isund what is it

[5:17:25] 130 acres? I can't remember offh hand.

[5:17:27] So that's roughly I mean most of the

[5:17:29] subdivisions around 40 to 80 acres. So

[5:17:31] it's not huge but it is a good

[5:17:33] collection of property I think to make a

[5:17:35] comprehensively planned project which is

[5:17:37] a cool opportunity. Um

[5:17:39] >> the commercial component they really

[5:17:41] envision being similar to the

[5:17:43] Albertson's that's over off of Amity and

[5:17:45] Eagle. So, kind of a, you know, that's a

[5:17:48] really great amenity for folks over

[5:17:49] there that didn't have any commercial

[5:17:51] really options. Um, and it's not huge,

[5:17:54] but they do have some other kind of

[5:17:56] ancillary

[5:17:57] uh retail and some smaller restaurants.

[5:18:00] That's what they're envisioning here.

[5:18:01] And we did include some design

[5:18:03] guidelines in our um application that

[5:18:05] they'd be held to. So, some different

[5:18:07] architectural stylings and color, you

[5:18:09] know, schemes that uh will give it its

[5:18:12] own unique feel. And the idea was to try

[5:18:15] to, you know, embrace the heritage of

[5:18:18] Damp in this area recognizing it's an

[5:18:20] important area for the T for city. So,

[5:18:23] >> okay. Thank you.

[5:18:25] [clears throat]

[5:18:30] » Good.

[5:18:32] Okay.

[5:18:33] >> Thank you.

[5:18:34] >> You have something to add, Rodney,

[5:18:36] please.

[5:18:37] >> Mr. Jared, I just had two questions that

[5:18:40] were from the um the public. Will they

[5:18:44] tile Oh, I guess we talked about the

[5:18:46] tiling. Uh development agreement.

[5:18:49] >> Do you want me to respond to that one,

[5:18:51] >> please?

[5:18:52] >> Um so, a development agreement in most

[5:18:54] cases is developed as we have this

[5:18:57] discussion in a public hearing. Um it

[5:19:00] will be a decision by city council as

[5:19:03] well. So you can recommend a development

[5:19:05] agreement and you can include certain

[5:19:08] conditions to be placed in that

[5:19:10] development agreement. We don't have a

[5:19:12] development agreement developed yet.

[5:19:14] It's part of this process. Um but I did

[5:19:18] put in the staff report a list of

[5:19:20] conditions that I would recommend we

[5:19:22] place in that development agreement. And

[5:19:24] then we have a standard template that we

[5:19:25] use for legal ease.

[5:19:29] >> Thank you for the clarification, Rodney.

[5:19:32] Close

[5:19:36] the public hearing.

[5:19:37] >> Second.

[5:19:38] >> Been moved by Commissioner Morgan,

[5:19:40] second by Kirkman to close the public

[5:19:41] hearing. All those in favor?

[5:19:43] >> I.

[5:19:43] >> Any opposed?

[5:19:45] Okay. Public hearing is closed.

[5:19:49] >> Yes.

[5:19:51] >> Rodney and friends. Um

[5:19:54] [laughter]

[5:19:55] you guys you guys showed us a really

[5:19:57] cool tool a couple weeks ago about um

[5:20:03] Kirkham's bold statement that growth

[5:20:05] does not pay for growth.

[5:20:08] >> No, I didn't say I said

[5:20:12] >> go back. Rewind the tape.

[5:20:16] » Can we see that? Why why don't we have

[5:20:18] that yet? It's not ready.

[5:20:20] >> We It's not quite ready. Um,

[5:20:22] >> this would be a great

[5:20:24] >> It would be great. Um, and we don't want

[5:20:28] to release something unless we're really

[5:20:31] certain it's accurate. We don't want,

[5:20:35] you know, we don't want council

[5:20:38] um debating whether this is um an

[5:20:42] accurate tool and some people siding on

[5:20:46] one side saying, "Yeah, it looks good

[5:20:48] because it gets what I want or the other

[5:20:52] side and saying, hey, this this is wrong

[5:20:55] because

[5:20:56] um

[5:20:57] >> I don't agree.

[5:20:58] with the process or the

[5:20:59] methodology." So, we're trying to refine

[5:21:02] it enough to make sure that we poked all

[5:21:05] the holes in it and made sure that it's solid. So, we um we're considering

[5:21:12] right now maybe even having like a third

[5:21:16] party just look at it and say, "What did

[5:21:18] we miss?" You know, did um one of the

[5:21:21] things

[5:21:22] >> Can I pause you for a second? I jumped

[5:21:23] in there. For those who don't know,

[5:21:25] there was a meeting last week, city

[5:21:28] council, an early morning meeting where

[5:21:30] the city's budget department presented a

[5:21:32] tool they're developing that helps

[5:21:34] analyze developments more accurately

[5:21:38] like the costs of the development to the

[5:21:40] city and the re not rewards isn't the

[5:21:44] right word, the revenue.

[5:21:45] >> The revenue cost. Yeah.

[5:21:47] >> And and basically

[5:21:49] >> what's the balance is does it pay for

[5:21:51] itself or does it not? And

[5:21:53] >> the answer depends a lot on the

[5:21:54] variables you punch in.

[5:21:56] >> Absolutely. Yeah. And we were really conservative in all the

[5:22:01] assumptions we put in there. Um but you

[5:22:05] know when we start refining those

[5:22:08] assumptions and saying well this isn't

[5:22:10] quite accurate then we need to refine

[5:22:12] more assumptions and it it gets a little

[5:22:15] bit tricky. So what amount of

[5:22:18] specificity are we comfortable with? And

[5:22:21] that's that's what we're working on

[5:22:22] right now.

[5:22:23] >> So that you're not comfortable enough in

[5:22:24] the tool to

[5:22:26] >> to release it. No, we we also want to do

[5:22:28] a test run of a development and maybe

[5:22:32] even do one that's existed that we've

[5:22:34] already um developed and then it kind of

[5:22:37] gives us a sense of did it actually

[5:22:41] estimate. Well, so thank you.

[5:22:46] >> I have the floor. Can I call Daniel up

[5:22:48] please?

[5:22:48] >> Please. And would you speak to any

[5:22:51] roadway improvements that are already

[5:22:52] planned for this area, please?

[5:22:58] » So, we don't have anything in the

[5:23:01] five-year plan for for Midway at this

[5:23:04] point. Um there are a number of

[5:23:06] developments that are proposed out there

[5:23:09] that will ultimately do traffic impact

[5:23:12] studies that may trigger improvements

[5:23:15] um if they are approved and um go

[5:23:17] forward just like this development.

[5:23:19] We'll have to do those analysis and

[5:23:21] would likely trigger um improvements

[5:23:23] associated with it as well. Um but as

[5:23:26] for a

[5:23:28] wholesale, we're widening midway to five

[5:23:31] lanes. um that that's not something

[5:23:34] that's in the in the five-year plan at

[5:23:36] this point. Again, we are working on our

[5:23:38] transportation master plan that will go

[5:23:41] through and do those analyses and and

[5:23:44] identify where the priority corridors

[5:23:46] are and and re um set our our projects

[5:23:51] list.

[5:23:53] >> Well, can I get something from Daniel

[5:23:56] really quick? Um, can you address the

[5:23:58] one property owner that lives just north

[5:24:00] of the park on Midway and what we could

[5:24:04] possibly do to address the noise and

[5:24:06] mitigate for him, I believe he's in the

[5:24:09] county, so there's not a whole lot we

[5:24:11] can do. So, so until we are doing actual

[5:24:14] design um plans and looking at project

[5:24:17] property specific uh when we do do those

[5:24:21] designs, we are looking at how do we

[5:24:25] minimize our impacts to existing

[5:24:27] property owners. Um not I did not pull

[5:24:31] up that address so I don't know um

[5:24:33] specifically what the situation is.

[5:24:36] There are times where the um

[5:24:41] depending on the vintage of the

[5:24:42] development that they are in, what those

[5:24:45] setbacks were required to be can be

[5:24:48] challenging on that. Um I'm happy to

[5:24:50] talk with him and and talk over where um

[5:24:53] we would anticipate those rideway lines

[5:24:56] are. So if he's putting improvements in

[5:24:58] that he's not putting in pro

[5:25:00] improvements that we then have to go

[5:25:02] purchase in the future um to to minimize

[5:25:06] those impacts. Um but ultimately um

[5:25:10] those are those are things we do on

[5:25:12] every single project on a mile or half

[5:25:15] mile section road when we go to

[5:25:18] transform it from a rural two-lane

[5:25:21] section to an you know the urban urban

[5:25:24] section that it ultimately needs to be.

[5:25:26] >> Thanks.

[5:25:29] Why are you there? [laughter]

[5:25:32] >> Um, there was something about there was

[5:25:35] a project about a month and a half ago

[5:25:37] or so and Midway was brought up and the

[5:25:42] redoing of it and if they wanted to do

[5:25:46] improvements, they had to go

[5:25:47] underground. Will that be over or is

[5:25:50] this even in in that area where Midway

[5:25:52] was improved?

[5:25:55] >> I'm not remembering that. Um, the only

[5:26:00] things we've had out on Midway recently

[5:26:04] have been the proposal for the Grace

[5:26:06] Bible Church.

[5:26:07] >> I believe that was it. And there and for

[5:26:09] them to get their utilities, they

[5:26:11] everything had to be underground.

[5:26:13] >> So there was

[5:26:14] >> because of an improvement to Midway up

[5:26:16] to a certain point.

[5:26:17] >> There was a comment from someone asking

[5:26:21] whether or not they would we would

[5:26:24] require the power lines to be put

[5:26:26] underground. if I remember correctly and

[5:26:28] that is not something that the city

[5:26:30] dictates. Um so aerial power is fine. Um

[5:26:35] obviously the other utilities and stuff

[5:26:38] pretty much everybody but power goes

[5:26:40] underground. I'm just I'm recalling

[5:26:42] something about the repaving of it and

[5:26:44] since it was done

[5:26:46] >> so [snorts] okay so that um there was

[5:26:51] work done by uh canyon for highway

[5:26:55] district number four um when those

[5:26:58] properties come into the city um we we

[5:27:02] have jurisdiction over those their codes

[5:27:05] require a four fiveyear moratorum

[5:27:09] um on on things our codes do not have

[5:27:12] that. Uh we do have patch requirements

[5:27:14] and those types of things for that. Um

[5:27:17] but no, that that's not something that's

[5:27:19] in city code.

[5:27:33] » Well, you guys, you're all running

[5:27:34] around the mouth. Um, you know, let let

[5:27:38] >> I got a I I mean, the city the staff

[5:27:42] were did a lot of outreach to develop

[5:27:44] these specific area plans and reached

[5:27:47] out to the communities, had a lot of

[5:27:48] community input and stuff on them. This

[5:27:51] one, the other ones around Highway 16

[5:27:53] and Eustic and stuff. And I if I

[5:27:56] remember right, there was a lot of

[5:27:57] comments from people that wanted

[5:28:01] some business centers, some shopping and

[5:28:03] stuff down there because they had to

[5:28:05] drive so far. So, and it's not going to

[5:28:08] happen until the rooftops get there. But

[5:28:11] it would be nice. I mean, there's no

[5:28:12] store or anything down that area. If you

[5:28:14] could get a local grocery store and few

[5:28:17] restaurants and stuff, they wouldn't

[5:28:19] have to drive forever. But there was a,

[5:28:21] if I remember right, there was quite a

[5:28:23] few comments of people wanting

[5:28:25] some business in the area so they didn't

[5:28:27] have to drive clear across town,

[5:28:29] >> especially the car.

[5:28:31] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[5:28:32] >> Well, I think the comments, the negative

[5:28:34] comments about commercial, um, a lot of

[5:28:36] people just don't understand what

[5:28:37] commercial would do.

[5:28:41] Um, and they assume that it will

[5:28:44] increase traffic when actually it does

[5:28:46] just the opposite because people that

[5:28:48] live in the area tend to travel less

[5:28:50] distance to that said commercial

[5:28:52] property. So there isn't the effect on

[5:28:55] the entire city that there is if there's

[5:28:57] not that

[5:28:59] >> and there there plan to do the

[5:29:01] commercial and the real high high

[5:29:03] density up against it and then pays that

[5:29:05] down to town homes and then go to the

[5:29:08] single family. I like the plan. I think

[5:29:11] it's what we're trying to get these

[5:29:12] areas to do. But

[5:29:15] I think they did a good job addressing

[5:29:16] what our

[5:29:18] scope of that area that plan was for.

[5:29:21] And I think they've done a good job at

[5:29:22] addressing it. But

[5:29:23] >> well, I think it took a lot of time

[5:29:25] putting this area plan together. I mean,

[5:29:27] it was

[5:29:27] >> it did was quite a while. If I remember

[5:29:30] right, staff worked on it. So,

[5:29:32] >> but

[5:29:34] I'm I'm I like it. I'm for it. But and

[5:29:38] it's it's not happening over the next

[5:29:40] two years. It's they'll be still

[5:29:42] building there seven, eight years from

[5:29:44] now. So,

[5:29:45] >> or more.

[5:29:47] >> Yeah. Or more. [clears throat]

[5:29:50] Um, I agree with all

[5:30:02] [clears throat]

[5:30:04] » 11:30. Give me a break.

[5:30:07] >> Um, I agree with all chairman Turner

[5:30:11] sentiments. However, I feel like I have

[5:30:14] a hard time with these kinds of plans

[5:30:17] because

[5:30:20] like has been stated, annexation and

[5:30:22] zoning is our when we have the most

[5:30:24] discretion,

[5:30:25] but we have the least amount of

[5:30:27] information. You know what I mean? Like

[5:30:29] when we don't we don't know. We we think

[5:30:31] they're going to put the bigger lots

[5:30:33] next to the existing residential, but we

[5:30:35] don't know that. And by the time the

[5:30:36] plaque comes, we have less

[5:30:39] discretion, I would say.

[5:30:42] >> And

[5:30:45] go ahead.

[5:30:46] >> Maybe I'm out of turn. He's gonna

[5:30:47] correct me. Go ahead.

[5:30:49] >> Actually, I'm just going to ask a

[5:30:50] question. Are you talking about the lock

[5:30:54] compatibility requirements we have in

[5:30:56] code?

[5:30:57] >> I'm just I'm just saying like it's a big

[5:30:59] blob of RS4, which could be a lot of

[5:31:02] things. And I don't know, do we still

[5:31:05] have

[5:31:08] what I understand is this is our this is

[5:31:10] our moment of greatest discretion.

[5:31:18] So, our code specifically addresses

[5:31:20] compatibility when it's adjacent to a

[5:31:23] previously platted subdivision.

[5:31:25] >> So, where the RS4 is on the west side

[5:31:29] against the existing uh residential

[5:31:32] lots,

[5:31:32] >> yeah,

[5:31:33] >> there may be some compatibility

[5:31:34] requirements on that side.

[5:31:36] >> That's a really good example.

[5:31:37] >> Yeah. And so I think that if memory

[5:31:40] serves me correctly, the RS4

[5:31:42] compatibility requirement is 8,000

[5:31:44] square feet.

[5:31:46] >> Okay, that's and that's what I'm getting

[5:31:47] at is maybe even 8,000 is a little too

[5:31:50] small

[5:31:50] >> for you know and and so maybe some more

[5:31:54] um

[5:31:56] granularity a word, right?

[5:31:58] >> I think you know you know you know what

[5:32:01] I'm trying to say.

[5:32:02] >> Since this is a master plan community,

[5:32:03] you have some flexibility in

[5:32:07] um in lot sizes and what you would

[5:32:09] approve. That's the definition of the

[5:32:12] master plan community is that you have

[5:32:13] that flexibility. So in your development

[5:32:16] agreement, you could outline that the

[5:32:19] properties on the west have to be a

[5:32:20] certain size or maybe even

[5:32:24] I don't know just um the setbacks might

[5:32:27] be larger. There might be a landscape

[5:32:29] buffer or there might be you know some

[5:32:31] different things that might transition

[5:32:32] better to those lot sizes that you would

[5:32:34] prefer. Those are all conditions you can

[5:32:37] put in the in the development agreement.

[5:32:38] >> We just talk a lot about diversity of

[5:32:40] housing types and this looks like this

[5:32:43] looks to me like two housing types. I'm

[5:32:45] not sure I'm sure that it'll be more

[5:32:47] than that, but we can't see that at this

[5:32:50] point. And so when it comes to their

[5:32:52] preliminary plat and if if I'm sitting

[5:32:55] up here and I say this is not enough

[5:32:58] housing diversity,

[5:33:00] is there anything I can do at that point

[5:33:02] or is it just quasi judicial and they meet code and you're done.

[5:33:09] >> So there was a lot there. Sorry. Um Mr.

[5:33:13] Chair and commissioner, I I um

[5:33:16] [clears throat] a couple of things.

[5:33:18] First of all, maybe we need to address

[5:33:20] some of the type of housing that they're

[5:33:22] proposing. I saw on their slide that

[5:33:25] they're proposing um some attached and

[5:33:28] some detached.

[5:33:30] And so that's one difference that you

[5:33:33] could see in diversity of housing. Um,

[5:33:36] but then yeah, you can put if you want a

[5:33:40] principle in there to use against the

[5:33:42] preliminary plat, you can put that in

[5:33:45] the DA so that [clears throat] when the

[5:33:47] preliminary plaque comes forward, you

[5:33:49] say, "Yeah, we put that statement in

[5:33:51] there because we wanted to see this and

[5:33:54] you don't quite match what we're we were

[5:33:57] saying." you know, you have some

[5:33:59] discretion to to approve or deny that

[5:34:02] based on its compatibility or uh

[5:34:06] compliance with the development

[5:34:07] agreement.

[5:34:11] » Thank you. That answers my

[5:34:14] >> And my question for the group then, I

[5:34:16] guess, do you guys have any concerns

[5:34:18] with that 20% increase that they're

[5:34:21] asking for? No, because like I don't

[5:34:24] because like she was saying they want to

[5:34:25] try to increase the from what I the way

[5:34:28] I understood it the multif family up

[5:34:31] next to the commercial and then phase it

[5:34:33] down as she goes out towards the single

[5:34:35] family. So I think that's where she's

[5:34:37] trying if I understood her correctly

[5:34:39] that's where they're trying to get add

[5:34:41] that higher density is up against the

[5:34:43] commercial and work out from it. So

[5:34:45] couldn't So would the average over the

[5:34:47] whole thing still be at 12?

[5:34:52] » That makes sense what I'm saying.

[5:34:54] >> Mr. Chair, I I think I need to jump in

[5:34:56] here because I I heard a couple of

[5:34:58] comments like that in uh the public

[5:35:01] presentations. We need to make sure that

[5:35:03] this is very clear. They are only

[5:35:05] requesting a 20% increase to their

[5:35:08] highdensity residential designation. So

[5:35:11] that goes to 14 dwelling units per acre.

[5:35:15] Is that right? 20

[5:35:17] >> 14.4.

[5:35:18] >> Yeah, 14.4. Um, so that's the only one.

[5:35:23] And then yeah, you could you could put

[5:35:25] restrictions on, hey, it up against

[5:35:28] those lots that are a large lot, single

[5:35:32] family. You could put restrictions on

[5:35:34] those to say, hey, it has to be a

[5:35:36] certain size lot. From

[5:35:38] >> what I understood when she was

[5:35:40] explaining it, that's what they were

[5:35:42] going to do. And then as they got out

[5:35:43] towards the single family, they were

[5:35:44] going to even do some town homes. So

[5:35:47] they're they're stepping down,

[5:35:49] >> which is what we want them to do.

[5:35:51] >> Okay.

[5:35:52] >> Yeah. And I think if they're developing

[5:35:55] the whole thing, they're going to want

[5:35:56] to do that to make it compatible. If you

[5:35:58] go from the high density apartments down

[5:36:00] to transition down to town homes and

[5:36:02] then the single family, it's it's nice

[5:36:05] gradual transition instead of the

[5:36:07] apartments right up against the single

[5:36:09] family. So I guess if we're looking at

[5:36:11] the highdensity housing, when we say

[5:36:13] we're giving them the 20% increase, does

[5:36:16] that mean that's the maximum density in

[5:36:18] that area or the average density over

[5:36:21] the whole thing or is that the same or

[5:36:23] you looking at that as the same thing?

[5:36:26] >> That do you do you don't understand the

[5:36:27] difference of what I'm asking?

[5:36:28] >> I think so. But are you saying for the

[5:36:31] whole development the average or just

[5:36:34] multifamily?

[5:36:35] >> Just the Yeah, multif family part.

[5:36:38] So yeah, the

[5:36:39] >> So do you analyze it all as one big

[5:36:41] thing?

[5:36:42] >> We do.

[5:36:44] >> So all this gray area,

[5:36:46] >> the multif family, if it came in, we

[5:36:48] would look at the density that they

[5:36:49] provided

[5:36:50] >> on just because they're not they're

[5:36:52] probably not going to develop all that

[5:36:53] gray at once, right?

[5:36:55] >> Correct. Yeah.

[5:36:57] >> So each individual

[5:37:00] application that comes in

[5:37:02] >> Yeah.

[5:37:02] >> could be as high as 14.4.

[5:37:07] Correct.

[5:37:08] >> Okay. So, so really that whole gray the

[5:37:10] potentially could be 14.4.

[5:37:12] >> Correct. Yeah.

[5:37:15] >> But we could also at this point like I

[5:37:17] say put in the development agreement

[5:37:18] that as it transitions towards the

[5:37:22] single family detached homes that has to

[5:37:25] transition to town to town home style

[5:37:28] duplexes or something.

[5:37:29] >> We we want to see some transition.

[5:37:31] >> Transition. Yeah.

[5:37:34] >> Yeah. From west to east. West. Yes.

[5:37:37] >> And can we say that in the RS4? Do we

[5:37:40] want to see that same kind of step down

[5:37:42] as we move west to east or

[5:37:45] >> I think in the single family I think

[5:37:47] they need to make sure that the lots

[5:37:49] around the exterior against the other

[5:37:51] lots are compatible.

[5:37:53] >> I think that's I think that's the more

[5:37:55] important thing is saying that the

[5:37:57] >> the lots the current residential lots

[5:38:00] that but the RS4 need to be more

[5:38:02] compatible than

[5:38:06] You mind going back to the specific area

[5:38:08] plan?

[5:38:16] You have one that's got this one

[5:38:17] highlighted

[5:38:19] or is that in the other presentation?

[5:38:24] » Sorry.

[5:38:33] Well, he's finding that I have a I just

[5:38:35] had a comment or a thought. If if we're

[5:38:39] a if we're agreeing to the 20% increase

[5:38:43] and they do transition,

[5:38:45] do we have to go with RS4

[5:38:50] six

[5:38:52] neighboring is 7 8.5

[5:38:57] etc.

[5:39:00] I don't know.

[5:39:02] Or is that

[5:39:05] I know it has to pencil out. I get it.

[5:39:06] >> Yeah, that's a good one right there.

[5:39:10] >> What happened there? That's a good one.

[5:39:17] » I got to do the math to invert it

[5:39:19] because I got to go from units per acre

[5:39:21] to square feet.

[5:39:27] Yeah, correct. So the tricky part about

[5:39:31] this uh is that we are looking with a

[5:39:35] specific area plan. We're looking at a

[5:39:36] really big area beyond just this

[5:39:39] development and how it transitions. So

[5:39:43] this five to eight dwelling units per

[5:39:45] acre, we're kind of stuck there.

[5:39:48] >> That's just and that's RS4.

[5:39:49] >> Yeah, that's RS4.

[5:39:51] So if you go beyond that then it starts

[5:39:54] getting to the you know less than that

[5:39:57] 2.5 to five dwelling units per acre on

[5:40:00] the southern side of that

[5:40:02] and then even on the as you transition

[5:40:05] back over to the west it's 2.5 to five

[5:40:09] dwelling units per acre but the area

[5:40:12] that we're talking about is the higher part of that medium

[5:40:17] density residential

[5:40:19] >> I think and I'm comfortable able with

[5:40:21] that. I think I would like to arc the

[5:40:24] compatibility and I'll take your guys'

[5:40:26] input compatibility to allow it to go

[5:40:28] beyond that 8,000 because it's it's up

[5:40:30] against like acre lots, right?

[5:40:35] >> I don't know.

[5:40:36] >> So, in our code, RS6 and RS7 max out at

[5:40:39] 10,000 square feet.

[5:40:44] » That's as much as they could go.

[5:40:46] That's as much as they're required to go

[5:40:49] >> or 80% of whatever they're next to. So

[5:40:53] >> I like I like something like that. I I

[5:40:55] was going to throw out 50% of what

[5:40:57] they're next to, but

[5:40:58] >> 80% is the lower if it's

[5:41:01] >> Oh, that's the lower bound.

[5:41:03] >> Whatever.

[5:41:04] >> The other one you just said is the upper

[5:41:06] bound.

[5:41:06] >> Yeah.

[5:41:07] >> So yeah, exactly. It would max out at

[5:41:10] 10,000.

[5:41:12] [snorts]

[5:41:15] » Is anybody as concerned as I am.

[5:41:19] >> But that is that what's in the code?

[5:41:22] >> The code. So the code would be 8,000.

[5:41:24] The ones along the edge abuing

[5:41:27] >> the existing residential would be 8,000.

[5:41:29] >> 8,000 max.

[5:41:30] >> It's still pretty small compared to

[5:41:32] what's there.

[5:41:34] >> But you have the flexibility with an MPC

[5:41:36] to make that condition bigger.

[5:41:39] >> Only up to 10 though.

[5:41:40] >> No, I'm just giving you an example. RS6

[5:41:42] and RS7 go to 10,000. So

[5:41:45] >> bigger.

[5:41:46] >> Sorry, I'm just I'm just throwing out

[5:41:47] the numbers that we have in code just to

[5:41:49] give you an idea.

[5:41:50] >> So we could require those along the

[5:41:52] existing county

[5:41:55] lots to maybe go 70% of the lot width

[5:42:01] that they but up to. So they' be close

[5:42:04] 70 75%. So you wouldn't have to match

[5:42:07] them completely, but the width that they

[5:42:09] would be button up to would be darn

[5:42:11] close to what's already there. Something

[5:42:12] like that. my mind is just do like a

[5:42:14] percentage or something. Yeah, like

[5:42:15] >> I don't know

[5:42:18] >> that could start cutting into the the

[5:42:21] required densities

[5:42:24] >> specific area plan.

[5:42:28] I

[5:42:29] >> I to

[5:42:31] >> Yeah.

[5:42:32] >> kind of what you want

[5:42:33] >> because that's where we always run into

[5:42:34] a problem with these these larger lots

[5:42:37] county subdivisions when something comes

[5:42:39] along that people you know they're

[5:42:41] looking at getting four lots across the

[5:42:43] back property line and and that just

[5:42:45] isn't compatible most of the time. So if

[5:42:47] we could say that they have to be

[5:42:49] at least 75% of the width of the

[5:42:52] >> even 50% I think

[5:42:54] >> or something so of those lots that

[5:42:57] they're going to butt up against

[5:42:59] >> and then I guess we need to look at

[5:43:04] » like this this is impacting such a small

[5:43:06] portion of this

[5:43:09] but I think it's an important part.

[5:43:10] Yeah, there's not a lot of lots.

[5:43:11] >> If that's required though, how much how

[5:43:13] much are you going to have to change on

[5:43:16] the interior? I mean, they have to

[5:43:18] reback. Are they going to have to go

[5:43:19] back and redo the whole

[5:43:20] >> They haven't planned any of it out yet.

[5:43:22] >> Oh, they got a pretty good idea.

[5:43:25] >> They don't have lots laid out.

[5:43:27] >> Well, they're not even an acre.

[5:43:29] [laughter]

[5:43:30] >> They're 3/4 of an acre.

[5:43:32] >> They're pretty wide. So,

[5:43:33] >> those are even like the chairman said,

[5:43:36] you know, if we make them 50%. So, but

[5:43:39] isn't that a ditch

[5:43:40] >> that divides them?

[5:43:43] >> There's a canal there.

[5:43:44] >> So, they actually aren't even a budding.

[5:43:47] >> So, yeah, there's a

[5:43:48] >> there's a there's already a buffer. So,

[5:43:51] you could do a landscape buffer to get

[5:43:53] them even further away.

[5:43:56] >> Changing the

[5:43:57] >> the lot sizes.

[5:44:00] >> That's a pretty good size canal though.

[5:44:04] Right away,

[5:44:06] >> Mr. chair and commissioners, it looks to

[5:44:07] me like um the even though there is a

[5:44:10] ditch there, the uh properties extend to

[5:44:14] the center line of the ditch on both

[5:44:17] sides. And so you are abudding those

[5:44:20] properties. So you'd still have that

[5:44:22] requirement that's already built into

[5:44:25] code, but you could increase that. I'm a

[5:44:28] little bit nervous about giving a

[5:44:30] percentage because um some of these

[5:44:34] properties if they're budding up against

[5:44:37] two of these properties and it's a

[5:44:39] percentage it's going to be really

[5:44:41] challenging for me to figure out what I

[5:44:43] should do. Right? So I would prefer

[5:44:47] since these are about a 3/4 of an acre.

[5:44:49] That one that I'm kind of pointing at

[5:44:51] here is 2 acres but that's kind of an

[5:44:54] outlier for that subdivision. Um I would

[5:44:58] recommend we do some exact number. So

[5:45:01] that's you have to have

[5:45:05] you know from this range maybe um 10 to

[5:45:09] 12,000 square feet or something like

[5:45:12] that.

[5:45:12] >> Good numbers

[5:45:15] >> but two that what do you got there? You

[5:45:17] got 20 foot on each side of that canal.

[5:45:19] That's probably

[5:45:20] >> that's actually the Phillis canal. So

[5:45:22] it's a not

[5:45:24] >> Yeah. Uh, so then you got 20 feet on

[5:45:26] each side of it, right, for the

[5:45:27] rightway. So, I mean, you're not even

[5:45:29] going to be buttoning up to them come

[5:45:30] to, you know, when you look at it. So, I

[5:45:33] think if we just leave it the way code

[5:45:34] says, then I think we'd be good.

[5:45:36] >> Okay.

[5:45:38] >> I mean, they're long going to be a long

[5:45:39] ways apart.

[5:45:40] >> 8,000

[5:45:42] >> feet bigger. Yeah. As we get what code

[5:45:45] and I think they'll work on it and do

[5:45:46] their best to make make it compatible.

[5:45:48] You're Yeah. Phyllis Canals. How wide is

[5:45:50] that thing? 12 15 feet something like

[5:45:53] that. maybe bigger. So, you're going to

[5:45:55] be over half a football field apart

[5:45:58] anyway from the prop line where you know

[5:46:01] >> what if we just said

[5:46:04] there's no 8,000 limit

[5:46:08] as compatible as they

[5:46:11] >> sounds perfect. Go for it.

[5:46:15] Could

[5:46:17] we say [laughter]

[5:46:18] but

[5:46:22] » from the person who has to review the

[5:46:24] preliminary plat

[5:46:26] >> that's too loose.

[5:46:26] >> Yeah. It would be really hard to just

[5:46:28] look at it and be like it's close

[5:46:29] enough.

[5:46:32] >> Could do that. [laughter]

[5:46:34] >> If you word it like that I could do

[5:46:36] that.

[5:46:36] >> They're not they're not incentivized to

[5:46:38] make those huge lots. And if they did,

[5:46:44] » but if you're good with 8,000, they'll

[5:46:46] probably

[5:46:46] >> I don't know that I am.

[5:46:47] >> Okay.

[5:46:49] >> We just leave it up to what's in code.

[5:46:50] So

[5:46:50] >> do a range. Well, 8,000 is what's in

[5:46:52] code to So if you're not good with that,

[5:46:54] then

[5:46:55] >> I'd like to see 10 or more there.

[5:46:59] >> 10 to 12. 10 to 12.

[5:47:00] >> Okay.

[5:47:02] >> There you go.

[5:47:03] >> Is that a motion?

[5:47:04] >> Since that's what time it is.

[5:47:06] >> 10 to [laughter] 12.

[5:47:11] that a motion.

[5:47:12] >> Okay.

[5:47:13] >> Anything else?

[5:47:14] >> No, just got to get the the motion back

[5:47:16] up there so you can get it made.

[5:47:18] >> Um,

[5:47:22] » to most people are is everybody How's

[5:47:25] everybody feeling? I heard Steve say he

[5:47:26] doesn't like the 20% increase, but

[5:47:29] sounds like everybody else is okay with

[5:47:30] >> Oh, I have I don't have a problem with

[5:47:32] the 20% increase.

[5:47:34] >> You're going from 12 to 14 year. You

[5:47:36] feel better? I just like the fact that

[5:47:39] you get a little going to give the 20%

[5:47:42] then give a little bit more on the

[5:47:44] single family side

[5:47:46] >> and

[5:47:49] [snorts]

[5:47:49] >> Okay.

[5:47:50] Go for I'll move to recommend

[5:47:52] approval of the project as stated on

[5:47:54] screen with remen

[5:47:56] with recommended conditions and proposed

[5:47:58] findings

[5:48:01] with the additional

[5:48:05] understanding because I kind of want to

[5:48:07] put this into a development we go.

[5:48:10] >> Okay.

[5:48:13] with a development agreement. Can I just

[5:48:15] say that that incorporates

[5:48:18] the principles of transitioning the

[5:48:21] density of the multifamily housing at

[5:48:25] moving for decreasing from west to east

[5:48:28] and lots that are abuing existing homes

[5:48:35] are 10,000 to 12,000 square feet in lie

[5:48:39] of the

[5:48:41] 8,000 currently.

[5:48:45] Second.

[5:48:48] >> Okay. It's been moved by Commissioner

[5:48:49] Morgan, second by Commissioner Turner to

[5:48:51] approve the item with the development

[5:48:54] agreement.

[5:48:56] We

[5:48:56] >> have a roll call, please.

[5:48:59] >> Garner absent. Miller,

[5:49:02] >> yes.

[5:49:03] >> Daffer, absent. Turner,

[5:49:05] >> hi.

[5:49:07] >> Kho,

[5:49:08] >> I

[5:49:09] >> Morgan,

[5:49:11] >> yes.

[5:49:12] Kirkman,

[5:49:13] >> yes.

[5:49:15] >> Copeland, absent. Fiend,

[5:49:17] >> yes.

[5:49:19] >> Okay, motion passes.

[5:49:23] » Motion to adjurnn.

[5:49:25] >> Second. Been moved by Commissioner

[5:49:28] Morgan, second by Commissioner Turn to

[5:49:31] all those in favor?

[5:49:32] >> I. Any opposed?

[5:49:33] >> I

[5:49:36] That's how we do it.

[5:49:37] >> Thank you all. Appreciate it.

[5:49:39] >> I could have made it to midnight, but

[5:49:40] whatever. What's up to you guys? Thanks

[5:49:43] for sticking it out.

[5:49:45] >> Maybe my wife. [laughter]

[5:49:48] >> What's up to you guys?

August 25, 2026 - Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

Transcript