Hi, Preston. How are you?
» [clears throat]
» I'll call you at least once.
» Okay, I've got six o'clock. I would like
to first start by welcoming everybody to
the city of Nampa planning and zoning
commission meeting August 25th, 2026.
Um, can we have a roll call, please?
>> Chairman Miller
>> here.
>> Thank you. Vice Chair Garner,
absent.
Commissioner Kho
>> here.
Commissioner Daffer
absent.
Commissioner Morgan
>> here.
>> Commissioner Copeland
absent. Commissioner Kirkman
>> here.
>> Commissioner Turner
>> here.
>> Commissioner Fi
>> here.
>> Thank you.
» Looking. I'm looking. Where did he go?
>> Who? He's right there behind the TV.
>> Oh, [laughter] where did he go? I don't
see him back there.
>> Uh, Mr. Chair and Commissioners, Rodney
Ashby, planning and zoning director. For
the record, um, we had four uh, final
plats that were approved by city council
number two, Spring Hollow Ranch number
six, Trestle Creek number one, and
Reflections Edge number five. And then
we had two public hearings. Uh the first
one was for a variance for reduced front
yard setback and um reduced landscape
buffer requirements at an existing
inhome daycare. And that was uh 3424
East Greenhurst Road and that was uh
approved. Um five in favor, one opposed.
The next one was a zoning map amendment
from BC to BN and RD
uh and a development agreement and
subdivision preliminary plat for Spring
Shores Commons. Uh you recommended
approval
uh on J July 14th and the city council
approved it on a three to three and then
the mayor uh broke the tie and approved
it.
And that's all I have.
>> Okay. Thank you, Ronnie. Appreciate it.
» Take a motion.
>> Oh, yeah. Sorry, Mr. Chair. I'll make a
motion that we approve consent agenda.
>> Second.
It's been moved by Kirkman, seconded by
Fiend to approve the consent agenda. All
those in favor?
>> I.
>> Any opposed?
>> Okay.
Um, we will go ahead and move right into
our public hearing portion of this
meeting. Um, so the way it works, if you
haven't been here before, uh, we will
open the meeting up,
uh, call the applicant up. They will
have seven minutes to present what their
thoughts and plans are to do with the
piece of property. We'll then turn the
time over to staff. They'll give us a
report on facts and findings, and then
we will open it up for public testimony.
When you come to the mic, we would ask
you to speak into the mic and give us
your name and address for the record.
It's really important uh for the records
that we have that information and we
don't want to stop you once you start.
So, if you could try to remember that,
it's it's helpful. Um each person will
have three minutes per item. If you'd
like to speak on each item, that's fine.
You get three minutes each time you come
up to the mic and speak. Um, if you just
agree with what's already been said, we
have no problem with you coming to the
mic and saying, "I agree. You know,
traffic's bad," whatever your thoughts
are. Um, and then sit down and we'll
take that to note and it'll be part of
the record. So uh with that we will
start with item 3-1 annexation and
zoning to RD zoning district conditional
use permit for duplexes
subdivision preliminary plat and plan
unit development for southside duplexes
subdivision at 1111 Southside Boulevard
for KBY Hillbig representing Enoch Amos
Living Trust is the applicant
>> [snorts]
» Good evening um gentlemen of the
commission. It's a pleasure to um
present today. Uh my name is Mike
Washburn with Focus Consulting. My
address is 1001 North Rosario uh Sweet
100 in Meridian, Idaho. Um, so we're
here today to present the project at
11-11 Southside Boulevard. Uh, this is a
coordinated application for annexation,
a PUD, a conditional use permit, and
preliminary plat. And our goal with this
project was to create an appropriate
infill
um for the property that responds to the
uh surrounding neighborhood, the uh
city's comprehensive plan and the unique
configuration of this site. As you will
see, I'm able to scroll on this.
Oh
fast. There we go. Oh, out again.
Um, this property sits along Southside
Boulevard between some existing uh
residential u neighborhoods on the west
and some highdensity uh residential uh
use going along Southside Boulevard. And
this location is important because we
see this property as really as a natural
transition between the single family
homes located on the west and the
already high density uh use that's going
along the corridor uh there.
Okay. Uh this property is approximately
3.98 acres um of underutilized property
which includes an uninhabitable home. Uh currently um
the comprehensive plan identifies this
as a medium density and um so we're not
proposing you know something to um go
beyond that at this time. And uh within
those we propose a uh a mix of duplexes
and six family lots. Like I said,
creating a transition between uh both
sides where we have single family homes
and higher density uh to the east. Um
sort of our site plan and um a lot of
thought and intentionality went into
meeting with the neighbors of um this
community and the surrounding uh land
owners. Um even so is that they have um
provided enough feedback where we
actually uh pivoted and and listened to
them and changed our initial proposal.
Um so we replaced 14 duplexes and now
have six single family lots um to match
the existing use there on that side. Um
we've put all the existing uh or the six
family lots on the north side to kind of
create a buffer some space there. Uh
we've curved uh the public roadway there
to you know provide kind of a more
residential feel as well as for some
traffic calming. Uh as far as parking
goes, we are providing five additional
than the 59 that were required. So we're
not, you know, putting all the um
parking on potentially uh the
surrounding neighborhood. Uh we even met
with a family. they had a a child that
loved basketball and so hey we're going
to we're going to throw in a basketball
hoop in our property as well. Um and
then also we've got the open space uh
adjacent there to the uh property to the
south. And then we're also um looking at
those two lots on the west. We actually
have a um a variance for those two lots.
They're actually above the 8,000 square
feet, but we're actually not reducing
those lot sizes. We want to make them
larger in order to fit with the um
single family lots that already exist on
the west over there. Um so the
comprehensive plan um it's medium
density residential. So the R six uh so
the RS4 zone uh fits with that. Um the
duplexes are supported uh through the
conditional use permit process, you
know, which gives the city the
opportunity uh to evaluate compatibility
with the surrounding development. Um and
then with the PUD, um we see this as
providing uh targeted flexibility for
the site because of its unusual uh
narrow constraints. you know, it's 130
ft wide and it's almost 1500 feet long
and uh we're really looking to um find
some good use in that. We we feel like
we've come up with a uh a great solution
here. Um so the requested relief, like I
said, it's a very long, very narrow
site. So we would like to um have the
rear setbacks reduced from 15t to 4T.
And this allows the duplexes to sit uh
inside uh this property. Uh the parking
setback, we would go from 20 to zero to
allow for covered parking. And as I
mentioned before, the lot size
exception. We want those two abuing lots
to kind of fit with that uh existing
single family neighborhood there to the
west.
And uh now we just have some some
renderings on the next uh few slides. Uh
we just didn't want to make sure this
was compatible on paper. We wanted to
add some beauty and aesthetic to the
surrounding neighborhood. Um, so the
intent is kind of like a residential
streetscape and these duplexes will have
variations in colors and textures, uh,
covered patios and really a nice
emphasis on street presence for that
area.
Have just a shot there at the front of
the duplexes, covered parking.
Here's looking at the south side.
there.
Who doesn't love a nice playground slash
basketball hoop?
And so, uh, a part of the, um,
uh, project here is these duplex, um,
the unit design. Uh the the company that
designs these is actually based in
Caldwell. So we're, you know, we're
wanting local uh Idaho in-house uh
builders and manufacturers to contribute
to the community. Um so steel uh steel
structures, fire sprinklers, high
efficiency, like I said, that uh
appealing street presence.
Uh with the staff findings, um
we really found this to be in harmony
with the the comprehensive plan.
Speaking of that medium density
residential,
um the project also qualifies as infill
because it's taking an uninhabitable
unusable space and turning it into
something for the community. Um police
and fire services are readily available
as well as sewer, water, and pressure
irrigation.
And overall, um, we believe this is a,
you know, thoughtful infill project that
will take a space that is currently, um,
underutilized and kind of an eyesore
there with the the abandoned house and
provide, uh, some housing and some, um,
just aesthetic appeal to the
neighborhood as well. uh the PUD
flexibility is there to not so that we
can maximize lots on the site but that
we can work with the constraints of this
unique site and really make something um
viable there for the community. So
that is all.
>> Thank you.
>> We'll call you back up. We have
questions a little later. Okay. Thank
you,
Miss Fry.
We're up.
Okay. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and
commissioners. My name is Candace Fry,
associate planner for the city of Nampa.
The request before you this evening is
an annexation and zoning to RS4 single
family residential. The RD was a typo,
but we did send out corrected notices,
and the sign was corrected as well.
Conditional use permit for the duplexes,
a subdivision preliminary plat, and a
planned unit development for southside
duplexes. The original concept is 19
residential lots, including six single
family detached homes and 13 two-unit
dup duplex dwellings with reduced rear
yard duplex setbacks to 4 feet and
reduced duplex front setback to zero for
the garages and the carports.
Property details. This parcel is
currently under Canyon County
jurisdiction. The surrounding zoning to
the north is Canyon County. To the south
is RD two family residential. To the
west is RS6 single family residential
and to the east is Canyon County and RML
limited multifamily residential.
Comprehensive plan designates this area
as medium density residential. The
surrounding land use designation. The
adjacent parcels are currently
designated as medium density residential
and some commercial to the east. Here
is a copy of the preliminary plat
and then a lot of applicable
regulations. So the first one is for
annexation Idaho state code title
50-2225
and NA city code title 10 chapter 2 4C
outline the requirements for annexation
with consent of property owners
specifically those four. You have seen
them before but they are here again for
reference.
And then the zoning. So 1023.C
conclusions of law pertinent to proposed
zoning map amendments. And then NA city
code title 10 chapter 8 the RS zoning
district single family residential and
then chapter 27-1.C
which is the subdivision code.
even more applicable regulations.
This is for the conditional use permit.
So, chapter 25 of title 10 talks about
the conditional use permit and then the
conditional use permit criteria is below
for your reference as well.
All right. Title 10, chapter 26 is the
plan unit development chapter and then
they also have under 1026-4.b
be the bulk requirements. The bulk
requirements that would otherwise be
applicable to a project developed in a
given zone wherein a PUD is proposed
slashallowed may be altered by the
commission as a part of the PUD review
and approval process. And then at the
very bottom it is 1026-4.b.2.
Parking space clearance that talks about
the garage and carports shall be no
closer to the street or alley than 20
ft.
I think we're done with that one.
Correspondence. No public comments were
received. The Nampa Fire District does
not oppose the application subject to
compliance with code requirements and
conditions of approval as noted in the
attached memo in your staff report.
Nampa engineering division engineering
provided general water and sewer
comments also provided standard comments
regarding access and traffic and then
their attached memo is in the staff
report as well. The Nampa Police
Department Nampa PD projects future
service needs based on the overall
population
density and development type. Southside
Duplexes is projected to add 77 new
residents to the city of Nampa's current
population.
Therefore, Nampa PD is recommending a
commitment to fund 0.1 additional
officers and 0.05 additional support
staff if this project is approved to
maintain current police levels.
So, a lot in the staff analysis. So, I
will dig in. According to the
comprehensive plan, we do have a section
for infill development. So, infill
development is the process of developing
vacant or underused parcels within the
city. Infill development allows the
utilization of existing community
services such as water and sewer rather
than constructing new facilities in
areas that have not been developed in
city limits. police and fire services
areas wouldn't need to be extended and
in addition infill development can and
then I have listed that out here.
Oops.
And then way down at the bottom is Nampa
City Code 1032,
which is our land use chart. So in the
RS zone, dwelling single family homes is
a permitted use in the RS zoning
district and then duplexes require a
conditional use permit in the RS zoning
district.
So here 1085-
A is the spatial and bulk requirements
for principal structures and accessory
structures. So I do have the setbacks
listed here. So in the front it's 20 to
the garage and then 15 to the living
area. And then the sides are 5 ft and
then the rear setbacks are 15 ft.
And then the applicant is requesting
those reduced rear yard setbacks. They
are requesting to reduce the setback
from 15 ft for rear setbacks for st for
standard buildable lots to four feet.
And then I'd like to also mention that reduced setback is only for the
duplex lots. It is not for the single
family homes. Those will follow the
standard setbacks.
1085.B
is the density requirements and lot
sizes. So the lot sizes in the RS4 zone
range from 4,000 to 8,000 square ft. The
lot sizes for this project range from
4,323
square ft to 8,817
square ft. There are two lots that
exceed the 8,000 square ft maximum lot
size. Block one, lot three and block
one, lot two is included in the
exception request. City council will
make the final decision for this
exception request. And then density.
Medium density residential designation
has a density range of 2 and 12 to eight
dwelling units an acre. This project is
proposing a total of 32 residential
units on 4 acres. The overall density
for this project will be eight dwelling
units an acre.
And then the parking. So 1022-6
talks [clears throat] about the number
of spaces required. So single family
homes in the RS zone require two parking
spots and one of them shall be covered.
And then each they mentioned staff staff
the applicant mentioned that all of the
duplexes will be two bedrooms. So doing
the math according to city code they
would need a minimum of 71 parking
spaces. And after confirming with the
applicant there has been a change and
it's highlighted here and then later on
in the facts for your reference they
have clarified that the 70 they are
providing 76 parking spaces which is
more than the minimum that is required.
There was a mention of I believe it was
64 that was for the duplexes only. So,
we did add once we did the math again
for the single family homes, they were
over that minimum requirement.
And then parking setback reduction. So,
Nampa City Code 10264.B.2
requires garages and carports to be no
closer than 20 ft to the street.
However, the applicant is requesting for
the duplex lots to be located directly
adjacent to the internal road with no
setback.
the open space requirements. So 10276N.2
developments with a gross acreage of 2
to 4.99 acres need to provide at least
10% of the total gross parcel area for
qualified open space. This project is
proposing to provide 0.48 acres or 12%
of qualified open space. And then some
of the amenities that they listed in
their narrative was a barbecue area, a
shaded structure, a tot lot, and then as
you heard tonight, a basketball hoop.
And then landscaping 1033-4
C3.A
is the landscape buffer for a single
family residential subdivision. So, a
25- foot landscape buffer will be
required along Southside Boulevard and a
landscape plan will be reviewed to meet
code requirements with the building
permit.
And then I do have here as well as in
the staff report the PUD request and the
elements. So, I did take all of the
information from the PUD code and how it
applied to their project and what they
were requesting to make it a little
easier to read, but I will try and speed
through it if I can. So, 10264.b.1
B.1 is building separation and it they
shall meet current adopted international
building code and then the applicant has
indicated that all structures will meet
building code separation requirements
and then staff has no issues. The
building department will review each
permit for compliance with code. And
then 1026-4.b.2
is parking space clearance. So that one
again talks about the 20 ft for garages
and carports. They can't be any closer
than the 20 ft. However, the applicant
is requesting relief from the 20ft
garage/carport
setback. And then the covered carports
and open parking stalls on the duplex
lots are proposed directly adjacent to
the internal road with no setback. The
single family homes will follow the
standard setback requirements for the RS
zone. And then city code does require
that there will be a 20 foot setback
from the front property line. 10264.b3
is regarding access. So access to a
public street is assured to each and
every building lot by direct access. And
then the applicant has stated that
access to a public street is assured to
each building lot by direct frontage on
the internal public road. And then
10264.B.4
is the height of the buildings. So in
the PUB code, you can if you would like
request to extend two stories above the
limitation of the zone
in which it is located only when the
zone does not above a single family
resident, residential subdivision,
residential zoning district or lower
medium density residential land use
designation on the future land use map.
And then the applicant has stated in
their narrative that all buildings will
be two stories. The building heights
will not exceed the RS zone height
limitations.
And then 1026-4.C.2
is the buildable lot size and density
requirements. So you may new lots
created on or after October 4, 2021 by a
lot split or through a subdivision of
the land must conform to the minimum and
maximum lot size and density
requirements established for the zoning
district assigned to that parcel or as
approved through a PUD in order to be
considered a buildable lot. So again,
the applicant is requesting an exception
to the maximum lot size in the RS zone
for block one, lots two and three. The
exception request will ultimately be up
to city council whether to approve or
not. So block one, lot two is only above
the maximum lot size requirement by four
feet or square feet. And then lot three,
block one, is over the 8,000 square foot
maximum by 817 square feet.
10264.B
talks about the bulk requirements and so
that could be setbacks, property depth,
property width, building height,
density, and street frontage. So they
are requesting that reduced rear yard
setback. And then the PUB code allows
for the commission to allow deviations
from the setback lot sizes, property
death, so on and so forth with one
without one or more variance application
permits being required. So that's why
they are requesting it through a PUD,
not a variance.
And then I have at the very bottom 102
1022-6
which is the parking. And then I do have
that corrected here as well that they
are providing 76 parking spaces instead
of that 64. So they are above the
minimum requirement.
So findings for RS4 zoning to RS4
and then
findings for annexation. So, the
proposed zoning map amendment for the
parcel listed is in harmony with the
comprehensive plan because it proposes a
zone of RS that is allowed in the
designation of medium density
residential on the future land use map
and complies with the principles
outlined in the comprehensive plan. The
future land use map was established
after thoroughly analyzing land uses for
compatibility. The project provides a
set of uses that would be reasonably
compatible adjoining property because
the existing uses are all proposed are
residential and it is in the public's
best interest and reasonably necessary
because it will extend city utilities.
It will install frontage improvements
and it is compatible with the
surrounding uses and it will comply with
adopted city codes.
more findings and then even more
findings for the conditional use permit.
So weighing the facts in department and
agency input, the proposed use is again
supported by the comprehensive plan. It
is near major transportation corridors
and it meets the goals and strategies
for economic development. The use is
making efficient use of vacant parcels
and it will not adversely impact the
intended character and appearance of the
general vicinity through design,
construction, operation and maintenance
and will not be detrimental to the
economic welfare of the community. It
will be adding dwelling units to an area
adequately served by transportation,
jobs, and educational opportunities. The
proposed development will not involve
activities
or processes, materials, equipment, or
conditions of operation that will be
detrimental to any persons, property, or
general welfare by reason of excessive
traffic, noise, smoke, fume, glares, or
odors because it is it has access to
adequate utility and emergency services.
It must follow all city codes and
standards at the time of development,
including building permits, design
review, signage, landscaping, all of
those.
Here are the recommended conditions of
approval and any others that the
commission wishes to add.
Here are your potential motions and I
will stand for any questions.
» Questions? Yeah, Mr. Chair, make I want
to make sure I follow this parking. So,
how many parking stalls are required
from just the duplexes?
>> 52.
» That's what my math says.
>> And and it wasn't clear to me if guest
parking required for duplexes or just
multif family like apartments.
Mr. Chairman and Commissioner
Morgan. So, parking. Well, maybe
Christie has something to say.
>> Way to hesitate.
>> I want to take the spotlight. [laughter]
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, and Mr.
Morgan. The um parking chapter outlines
a two family development
has to have the 2.5 parking spaces. So,
anything that includes more than one or
two duplexes is considered a
development. So, it would have to
provide the 2.5 for the duplexes.
>> 0.25 per unit. So, we're at 52 + 7. So,
that's 59.
>> They're providing 64
>> 60.
Okay.
And they're I guess what I was driving
at is they're not counting parking in
front of the single family residences to
meet the requirements for the duplexes.
>> Um Commissioner Morgan, not to my
knowledge, they're not. They're using
the single family homes have their own
parking garages, all of that. And then
everything else is separated with the
duplexes.
>> That's what I thought. I just the map
wasn't
>> not my strong suit.
Uh Mr. Yeah. Sorry, one quick question
if you know and maybe the applicant
would know this, but how much space
after the
weigh? I mean, how much without the 20
foot setback?
You know,
» Daniel's going to tell us to
>> anything that has to [clears throat] do
with wheels. Uh, Mr. Chair, Commissioner
Kirkman, uh, the way the preliminary
plat shows it, they would have and and
one of the conditions that we placed on
there that there would be a um valley
gutter or ribbon curb delineating the
public roadway from the parking area. um
they would be proposing a zero setback
there. And so there would not be between
the public roadway and the the parking
area. There would not necessarily be any
um area. They are proposing to put the
public sidewalk in front of those
parking areas so that you don't have
people walking behind them um when
they're trying to pull out. Um, with
that being the case, um, it would be
similar to, um, some of the angled
parking we have downtown. Other than
this would be, uh, perpendicular. Um,
and so that's that's the way that
they've shown it on their preliminary
plat.
>> So, they [clears throat] were backing
out, they'd back in. They'd back up.
They'd back out right into the public
roadway.
>> Just just like any single family
residential would do. it would just be
their parking location would be there um
right next to the roadway rather than
separated by a sidewalk. Um but it it
would be no different than me pulling
out of my driveway at at my house.
>> So if I had a vehicle that was bigger
than 20 ft, would I be ticketed for
parking there?
>> Um if if you were overhanging into the
roadway, that would be an issue. But I
can't back in because then my hitch
hangs over the sidewalk. So I'd get a
ticket for that.
>> So the the size of vehicle may play into
who should buy these properties if
approved.
>> That's what I [clears throat] was going
to say.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you.
Other questions?
Um,
usually I kind of glance over because
it's always kind of pretty apparent on
the fire turnarounds and what the fire
department asked for.
Daniel,
sorry. Got to get back to Okay. So the
this the you would have your access on
um southside and then there is a stub
street that was in installed with the um
Taylor sub or Eagleclaw subdivision
Taylor Street that they would connect
onto and so there would be no need for a
turnaround there. The fire would have
fire and the public would have access um
in and through through multiple public
streets.
So this will connect to the existing
>> that is the proposal and what what staff
has uh that is the purpose of that
street being there. Um and so staff has
made that recommendation that that that
connection is required.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Else good right now.
Okay. I think that's it.
Uh, madam clerk, do we have a signup
sheet? Okay,
>> thank you. Calling Lenita Canavves.
[clears throat]
Good evening. My name is Lenita Knavey
and I live at 2810 Taylor Court and that
piece of property
um my backyard would face the single
family home area
and my concern is
um number one that our neighborhood
which is just really three streets it's
Georgia Taylor and then Taylor port
which I live on,
they have no sidewalks.
So the children because it's such a
quiet area, the children play in the
streets
because there's no sidewalks to walk on.
So they're riding their bikes on the
streets
and they're planning on, if I have this
right, sorry I knocked over your
[clears throat] gabble.
>> You're good. um they're planning on um
busting out Taylor Street to go into
their area. Correct.
And so,
um to give you an example, we had one
high-speed chase that came through our
neighborhood because the weird driver
didn't realize he was going to come into
a nonac. the police had to chase him.
In my piece of property in the front, I
have three boulders, you know, or
several boulders that are right next to
the property.
And um the guy knocked one boulder over
and
matched up his car and kept on going.
Anyway, the police finally came back and
um wanted to make sure we were all okay.
Well, these kind of things scare me
because this can happen because now
we're going to have access. Well, the
other night, I don't know what happened,
but Saturday night, somebody came
through in the middle of the night,
knocked one of those boulders, and I'm
kidding, these are big. I couldn't even
move it five feet into my front yard,
and my neighbor had to push it back for
me. So these are the things that worry
me about opening that up and the speed.
Also what worries me is my property
that faces that area. It's all, you
know, it's all country back there right
now.
And on the other side of that skinny
place where they're going to put all
these houses, on the other side of that
is
a cow ranch.
So I just have
a little horse fence, you know, that you
can see through. So my request is that
there be a wall
so no one can see into my property.
And that would be my number one request
because that would be frightening to me
to have all those people and all those
duplexes and everything being able to
have access to my property.
So,
>> okay. Thank you.
>> Those are my concerns.
>> Okay, we'll ask the questions for you.
And I'm concerned about the traffic
coming through there
tonight. Trying to get through onto
Southside just from Georgia took me a
while because Southside is really busy
now because we have the other apartments
now.
And this is just a Southside's just a
little street, you know, it's becoming a
highway.
So [clears throat] that's something the
city needs to think about.
>> Thank you. That's your time.
Okay, next
>> Andre Soliv.
» Good evening. My name is Andre Solivi. I
live at 1119
South Taylor Street.
Uh the concerns I have is it's nice that
you know my kid wants the basketball
court but he's 12 and he doesn't realize
the danger of all the traffic like when
mentioned before there's no sidewalks.
All of our kids just get outside, ride
their bikes, play play ball, play
basketball right now outside on the
streets. So if that street is going to
be through street, I mean we're going to
get a lot more traffic. Um the home I
live in has been in our family since
2007. It's been quiet neighborhood. No
extra traffic coming in, coming out. And
you know, just now realizing that we
cannot let our kids go in the front
yard, you know, pretty much just, hey,
make sure you play in the backyard. Um,
we take our kid to private school every
morning and leaving from Georgia Street
to southside sometimes can be 3, five
minutes wait. There's a lot of school
buses stopped right in front of the new
um town homes or apartments, whatever
there is, and sometimes impossible
leaving. So, with that adding an extra
street, [clears throat]
it's just going to create even more
traffic. Um it's going to be disaster
because some of those people going to,
you know, try to exit the other way
whichever they go. So, that's that's our
concerns is um safety, traffic. Um like
mentioned before, southside has been
nothing but like like a highway lately.
Um I you know I know sooner or later
it's going to have to be built no matter
what. But if it gets continued with like
sizes we have you know close to half an
acre lots under I'm sure you know
everybody's going to be fine with that.
But on a 4 acre lot I mean if you just
going to bring more people that already
live in a whole subdivision it's just
going to be a disaster.
Thank you. Appreciate it.
» No one further has submitted public
testimony for this topic.
>> Okay. Is there anyone else that would
like to speak for, against, or undecided
on this item?
Okay. Mr. Washburn, would you like to
come back up
answer some questions for us?
Mr. Chairman and uh commission members,
um firstly, we want to address um I
believe it was Anita. Um we're willing
to put in a sixoot fence. You know, I
think we had plans for that um fence
along there uh in our preliminary plat.
and um she currently as it sits will be
abuing the open space park and there
will be lots of uh trees growing into
mature trees eventually. So we don't um
foresee an issue of privacy there in the
long run. And for Andre um
uh it says he didn't want a neighbor
directly next to him. So we put uh an
open space as a buffer um behind his lot
as well. And that um
yes, that is all I have.
>> We have questions.
>> Yeah, Mr. Chair. Um the fence, what type
of fence?
>> You just said a fence. I was just
wondering if you could clarify what
type.
>> Yeah, it will be a vinyl fence.
>> Okay. So, a vinyl privacy fence, not a
chain link.
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
>> Yes. [laughter]
» Anybody else?
Okay, I think that's all we have for
you. Thank you.
>> Motion to close public hearing.
>> So moved. [cough]
Been moved by Commissioner Kirkman,
seconded by Kho to close the public
hearing. All those in favor?
>> I.
>> Any opposed? Okay. Public testimony
portions closed.
What are our thoughts?
My thought is if this passes, I hope
they give that abandoned house to the
fire department and let the fire
department burn it down for training.
>> Yeah, no kidding.
>> Such an eyesore there.
>> Oh,
>> I think this is a, you know, it's a very
unique piece of land there. Yeah,
extremely
>> challenging to do something with, but I like the design and I like the
accommodations that the applicant has
made to some of the concerns that were brought forward. I know it didn't
alleviate all of them, but I think
they've mitigated um [clears throat]
uh most of them with the open space and
putting the multifamily the duplexes
down at the other end where there's no
homes. And anyway, so I I think it's a
great infill project for this particular
I'm not particularly happy right there
at Southside because it that goes right
around the corner there and it's almost
a blind corner when you have some of
that traffic coming out of the
apartments and some other developments
there. But we just have to drive more
carefully, I guess.
» Mr. Chair, I got I got a couple of
thoughts. And not sure [clears throat]
which way I want to go on this, but
4 foot backyards is nothing. And I mean,
granted, there's some open space, play
areas for the kids, but moms can't be
down there constantly with the kids.
They've still got to do laundry and
dishes and
cook meals. And the kids don't have a
place to play out back. I mean, four
foot. I'm 63 and I would I couldn't even
lay down in the stupid thing. So I I I'm
really struggling with that 4 foot
because that that just there's nothing
back there. Typically the town houses
don't do much. They don't have much of a
backyard anyway, but 4 foot is nothing.
And then I I start to have concerns with
that property to the south
when somebody goes to develop that and
they've got a 4 foot
>> to a two-story building.
>> Yeah. It's going to I know this is a
very dis difficult lot to try to do
something with because it is so long and
skinny and I'd love I'm like Jeff I'd
love to see that old
thing burned down or tore down or
something because I get to drive by it
at least twice a day like you do. So it
would be nice to see it gone. But I I
think that man that 4 foot and it's
going to make that south property to the
south difficult to do something with
down the road. So I that kind of bothers
me with what what could happen there.
And I think it's saying 4 foot and then
you got a two-story building and I think my thought my thought with that
is you know yes the 4 foot but then you
got no front yard either.
>> Yeah. Neither. Yeah. You have no place
for
>> a sidewalk in front of the place and
then a 4 foot.
>> Yeah. It's just like if you're the kind
of person who has a vehicle longer than
20 foot, maybe you won't live here. And
if you're the kind of person that wants
a front and backyard, you won't live
here either.
>> I guess there's some of that, too. It is
just a two-bedroom, multiple bedroom.
So,
» that's my thoughts for now.
» Daniel, go ahead. Sorry.
>> Sorry. Uh, I agree with both
other commissioners that the the lot is
extremely unusual.
Bowling alley is about the only thing
that would fit in here,
but uh don't have too many outdoor
bowling alleys.
And the parking situation
doesn't leave a lot to be desired
either.
The answer, I guess, is just
don't like it when you look at it, don't
rent or buy there and you'd be all
right. So,
tough choice to make, but I would say I
would be in favor of it.
But it looks like we have a
comment.
>> I have a question.
>> Question. So, in a situation like this
where we are potentially tying into an
older older subdivision um with no
sidewalks,
is there something that the developer
could do that the city could do as like
a traffic calming?
Um there is certainly um
that could be a condition that was
placed on it that they install traffic
calming along Taylor and Georgia. Um if
that's a concern, um that would likely
look like um speed humps along that. Um
typically
um when we look at
um
these types of things, my recommendation
would be um that we collect speed data
on Georgia and probably not Taylor just
because of its length, but on Georgia to
prior to the development going in and
the condition be placed that those
evaluations are done and then say at the
point where 50% of the the homes in that
development are owner occupi or
occupied, we go back and redo that
evaluation and that the developer has um
designed and bonded for those traffic
calming improvements in the other
subdivision. But we only do them if if
that those speeds um are have now
warranted it um more than they did
previously. If the if the residents of a
existing subdivision are going 25 miles
an hour, you know, is their typical
speed, the development goes in, that
continues to be the same situation. Um,
the volumes we would be talking about
increasing there um would not warrant
that unless the speeds significantly
increased.
>> Speeds increase to 45, then it's a
different conversation.
>> Yeah. I mean, even if they increase to
30 at that point, then yes, it's it it's
had an impact. Um, if the though if
those speeds stay the same as they were
pre-development, um, at that point, it
probably doesn't warrant putting in um,
those. Um, but that's kind of the
evaluation. If if that's something
you're inclined to place as a condition,
my recommendation would be that um, it's
a condition that those speeds are
evaluated prior to the development. Um
and the developer is required to um
design and bond for those improvements
uh to then be installed say after 50%
occupancy and a re-evaluation to
determine if it's appropriate.
>> Okay.
>> That's still not going to account for
the guy running from the cops and
running
>> and those those are outliers that you
know as much as I would love to be able
to account for those I I don't I don't
have a way to do that. I I had the
street I grew up in, we had a we had one
of the very nice cross drains that um
would take out a transmission and we had
a guy running from the cops when I was a
kid and took out his transmission and
had to get out of the car to run from
him continually.
>> How many transmissions did you lose?
» Thank you, Daniel. Appreciate it.
>> Any other questions or comments? Go
ahead. Um,
I like the idea of getting in some
housing, um, diversity and continuing to
do that in this area. Um, we need
continue to have that supply in order to
keep prices where we want them.
I think this is as good of a design as
you can do on this type of a lot.
I however am concerned with the 4 foot
setback and having a if it was a
one-story building maybe I don't think
it would bother me as much but having
5 foot tall
structure 4t away if I were to make a
motion I would approve all of it except
for that exemption
>> what would you do though
the applicant to do building shorter
>> well
Mr. Chair, in response to Commissioner Morgan's
comment, I I agree. I had a nextdoor
neighbor who had uh it was probably a
six-foot backyard. And when she was
building her house, we thought she was
nuts to put in
uh but she only needed three strips of
grass too, saw when she put that in
there. Um but it was small. We couldn't
believe it was right up next to the in a normal subdivision. I don't know
that
we can make a decision or at least for
me anyways, my opinion can make a
decision based on what might be south of
this. We'd have to address that when
that or if that would ever come up and
then make at at that point we could
certainly make a look at making
conditions like the first this row up
against there has to be one story, you
know, or something like that. We've done
that in other uh in other uh public
hearings also. I just don't know. I
think we just have to address what is
presented to us here rather than
assuming down the road what might be
because it may not be either
owned for duplexes if that helps.
one story duplexes,
>> two story.
>> I guess we're my thought is we're
minimizing impact on a neighbor.
>> So Rodney, does that create a future
problem with a 4ft setback and then the
neighbor asks for a
rear setback of five feet, then we have
nine feet between buildings.
I'm I'm kind of looking at the attorney
here because we have to evaluate each
project on its own merits. Right. So,
I'm heading down the right direction. I
hope there.
>> Yeah. Commissioner, for the record,
Preston Ruer. Yes. What Rodney's
proposing, we got to take each of these
case by case. Though that's relevant for
a future one, it's not before you
tonight.
>> Thank you for the clarification.
Appreciate it.
>> I think um Mr. Sure.
One of my other concerns is that
connection through the existing
neighborhood um
and home values and how that impacts
them as far as these it's it's a deadend
street. It's not a through street and
how people buy what they look for low
traffic, etc., etc. That's wiped out
now. Um,
I'm all for property rights and people
be able to do, but now when does that
cross the line? When does that start
impacting somebody else's also?
» So, what are your thoughts then on
traffic calming? Does that help ease
your mind a little or No, [sighs]
>> not really. No, not really. Um,
if it were already if it were already a
through street, if there was already
traffic that could run in multiple
directions, then yeah, maybe traffic
calming just because you're going to add
more traffic that would be accessing
that street.
um
but as as it is right now.
>> And I guess my only thought on that is
we've got plenty of subdivisions around
the valley, not just Nampa, but around
the valley that are very similar to this
older subdivision have those stub
streets. And the reason that there's sub
streets is so they can connect. So, you
know, if they were trying to purchase a
piece of property, take a house out so
they could connect through that lot,
that's a little different conversation,
but it's just connecting a substrate
that was intended for connection in the
first place. So, that's my thought. I
mean, I understand what you're saying,
but
>> look at what the original thought was.
>> Yeah, that's the intent. Otherwise, it
wouldn't be wouldn't be developed that
way. Uh,
>> they would have put a lot there. Made a
lot bigger. really would have I mean
there would have been a lot of things
different but that's the whole intent is
for future growth and connection so
>> yeah culdeac there at the end of Taylor
court one and Taylor court two
» back to my setback thing
hypothetically if we had both projects
before us today
it it would make sense to allow the
exception on this lot
hardship, you know,
>> not be quite as lenient on.
» I think that's where my thought is, too.
It's the constraints on this piece of
property are pretty big and it's I think
they've done a pretty good job designing
what they have and also speaking with
the neighbors and trying to accommodate
as much as they possibly can and and
still make some money doing it. I mean,
>> and if I were to I probably wouldn't
make him go all the way back to 15
either.
or is tight.
>> It is, but I mean, you know, like has
been stated, maybe people would look at
it say,
>> "Yeah,
>> all I want to put back there is my
barbecue anyway." So, what difference
does it make?
>> No room for barbecue on. [clears throat]
>> I don't know. Depends how big your
barbecue is. If you only got two people
living in the house, all you need is a
little round guy.
Anyway,
» well, Mr. Chair, if there's no further
comment or discussion,
>> all right, then I will make a motion
that we recommend approval of the
project as stated on the screen with the
recommended conditions.
>> Been moved by Kirkman, seconded by Kho
to recommend approval for this item.
Madam clerk, can I get a roll call?
>> Can before Mr. Mr. Chair, before that,
uh, I just want to make it clear in that
motion that that does not include any
traffic mitigation. No, no speed humps
or bumps or anything like that.
>> That wasn't included.
» Thank you, Mr. Chair. Garner absent.
Miller,
>> hi.
>> Daffer
absent. Turner.
>> Nay.
>> Kho.
>> Hi.
Morgan,
>> yes.
>> Kirkman,
>> hi
>> Fen.
>> Hey.
>> Copeland. Absent.
Four eyes, one nay.
» Oh, two, sorry. Four eyes, two nays.
>> Thank you.
>> Mr. Chair. Just a quick question. Was
Wasn't there a conditional use it in
there that was approved? Does that have
to be Do you have to read that? I mean,
does that go along with the conditional
use permit process?
>> Chairman, I'll speak to this. Um, this
one actually is an interesting
application. and it has a lot of moving
parts to it because you're lumped in
there with a cop, a preliminary plat, a
plan unit development. A cup and a plan
unit development are usually approved by
you. However, because this is lumped in
with an annexation request, it actually
all becomes one bundled package that you
recommend up to city council.
And at that time, they'll need to make
um first an initial finding on the
annexation piece, which you've talked on
tonight. And then if they get through
that hurdle, then they'll have to see if
it meets the criteria of a cup and a
plan unit development. Um, so kind of
from an academic standpoint, there's a
lot of parts here, but that's why it
moves up.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Thank you for the clarification.
Appreciate it.
» Okay. We will go ahead and move on to
the next item 3-2.
Annexation and zoning to an IIL zoning
district on two parcels addressed as 22
Happy Valley Road and Zero Happy Valley
Road for Scott Marshall of Straight Line
Architects representing Cashing Holdings
LLC is the applicant here.
Dennis Durant, 1465
East Bird Dog Drive, Meridian, Idaho
83642.
I will be representing the applicant
today. [clears throat]
I'd like to begin by just giving you a
brief understanding of what the
applicant actually does. So, in this
room, there are three doors that are
visible. One to the left, one to the
right, and actually two doors, a double
door to the rear.
So those doors are the product that
Western Specialty supplies and they do
slight modifications to those products
as they come in from their suppliers. So
they'll bring in a blank door and
they'll bring in frames. And if we were
using the door to the back as an
example, you'll notice that there is a
glass transom above the door. That
requires a little bit of modification to
the frame. the glass is going to be
custom and so they'll put in the
horizontal seal for that glass and that
will be their modification that they're
making to the frame. So what they're
doing is they're bringing in product
that is mostly preassembled but then
they're going to do some finishing work
inside of their um finished building. So
if you were to take the door to the left
over here, it's actually a wood door.
That door has a steel frame and it has a
small window unit in it. And so they
would take a blank door. The door's um
already probably cut for hinges and the
lock set, but they need to cut in the
window frame opening. And so that's what
they'll do is they'll cut that in in
their little wood shop and then that
door would then be delivered to their
enduse customer.
I've known Western Specialties for
approximately 20 years. Um they're
currently located in Garden City, Idaho.
Um they started with a very small
operation about four people total. Um
currently they have between eight and 10
employees and their hours of operation
are Monday through Friday um about 7:30
to 5:00 p.m.
Um granted there are emergency
situations where a customer may need
something um maybe on a Saturday or
something where they need a lock set or
something and and they'll supply those
products for them on an emergency basis,
but they're not operating their FAB
location or doing anything like that.
um all of the operations that they
perform are contained within the
building unit. They do not perform any
operations outside. They don't store
things outside. Everything is confined
inside.
Um
[clears throat]
this building is designed for growth.
They currently have about 10,000 square
feet that they're utilizing in one
location and then they have several
remote storage locations because their
current facility is not large enough to stock all the inventory that they do.
So this building is large enough for um
growth times two. And what they
anticipate is as they grow and if they
were to fully utilize the building um
they would probably have a total of 14
employees.
Currently they receive about one truck
per day as far as incoming freight as
far as a semi-truck coming in. Um, they
might have a delivery from an incidental
carrier like Amazon or something like
that to drop something off. And they do
have a little bit of will call traffic.
And when we say a little bit, it could
range from two to three people customers
stopping to get something in a day or it
could be five or six. This is not a Home
Depot operation. And this is um a
specialty business that caters to
specifically doors and frames.
Um
the building has been designed in the
lot. Um I just like to speak a little
bit to the actual application.
So, we are requesting that we do an
annexation
on this piece of property from the
county into the city and then a reszone
from the current zoning which is rural
residential to an IL zone. The IIL zone
is compatible
with [clears throat] what our use is
currently. The surrounding properties
are to the south is a city-owned
property which is IIL's own. Properties
to the west include the airport.
Um and then to the north is residential
and to the east is residential.
Through our planning and discussions
with the city, we had an opportunity to
meet with city staff and in that meeting
we discussed with all the local
jurisdictions some of the the thought
and the requirements that would be
placed upon the property in order to
develop it in this way.
The highway district made a proposal
that uh since there are two lots
um the existing residential house which
is on the northwest corner and then um
the larger lot that there be one
combined access point to service both
lots.
And our our plan shows that combined
access point. And so the house would um
would enter with the main entrance and
then they would turn to the north to
enter the residence.
In this application, the residence is
designed to stay in place as a
non-conforming use. Um it would be
reszoned to an IL zone. Um but the
owners prefer to stay and live in this
location
and as long as they're inhabiting the
house um which is to their discretion
would be it would remain as a
residential living um area.
As you enter the facility, um you'll
notice that the building is placed the
large building to the um eastern end of
the property is placed that we have a
fire lane around the whole building and
then landscaping buffering to the north
and to the east. We have approximately
55 ft from the building to the property
line to the north and about
um
50 60 feet to the east. When it's all
said and done, we place the truck ramp
um on the building to be located away
from any residential areas. It actually
is h situated to the south property
which is the ILZ owned city piece.
All of the unloading of trucks will be
done at the loading dock and the loading
dock is is enclosed and uh all of the
traffic goes is contained within the
building.
Additionally, there is a building which
we call building number two which is
located on the western side of the
property.
This is a flex space building and is
designed to
um have contractors of similar nature to
inhabit the space. And
I think that ends my seven minutes I
think. So if there's any questions I can
answer or I'll sit down.
>> I have a question.
>> Yep.
>> Um looking at your site plan here, are
those trucks depictions of trucks making
turns? what what's on those roadways.
>> Yes. So So what we're depicting is how a
truck would actually circulate or could
circulate in the lot. And we're
depicting that so that we can have the
proper radius so that as a truck is
making a corner, they're not driving
over a landscaping buffer, hitting the
corner of a building, hitting a car. So
it's it's just for p space constraints
for our planning purpose.
>> Doesn't look like they're running over
things.
Um, it appears that they might be, but
as this is designed, they will not be.
So,
>> okay.
>> Yeah, that's what it's all about. It's
designed so that we're not running over
things.
>> They don't allow to be 54t trucks
either.
>> What's that?
>> They don't all have to be 54 54t trucks
either.
>> Uh, 50 64.
>> Could be.
>> They could be various sizes.
>> Could be. Yeah.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
here.
>> Yes.
>> Um,
what's the what's the height of your
warehouse and of your flex buildings?
>> Uh, 32 feet is the finished height of
the warehouse.
And then on the flex space building, um,
less than 20.
Do you have any landscape plans for the
north and east sides of the property?
>> So, the landscaping is we're very open
to what we can do on the property for
landscaping. We have a landscaping
buffer reserved. We're planning on
fencing which would be compatible with a
residential
nature. We don't know if it would be
best for wood or for vinyl or what that
would be best served. Um, one of the
restrictions that we have on the lot is
a landscaping requirement from the
airport that the landscaping is not to
allow wildlife or especially birds, I
think, is what the overall concept is.
So,
>> get those trees that birds don't like.
>> Yeah. [laughter] Right.
>> Yeah.
>> It does make it tough.
>> Yeah. So, we're willing to do whatever
is best in that regard, but there's some
restrictions with what the airport would
prefer or want to have there.
>> Thank you,
» Mr. Chair. This rendering just shows two
uh loading docks. Is there only going to
be one?
>> Um, the render the loading dock is
actually to the right side of the upper
building. You can see the curb. Yeah,
>> those are overhead doors and are not
loading docks.
>> Okay, I see.
» Okay, we'll call you back up.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay, Miss Friend.
[clears throat]
Good evening, commissioners and um
chairman. My name is Terry Friend,
associate planner for the city of Nampa.
The request before you tonight is
annexation and zoning to IL or light
industrial for two parcels along North
Happy Valley Road, which is in the
airport overlay zone.
The application covers two parcels.
Those total five acres. Um the
comprehensive plan designation in this
area is low density residential within
the airport overlay area. The applica
the applicant is requesting a stretch of
the industrial land use designation from
the city airport area from the west of
Happy Valley Road.
The two properties are adjacent to
parcels that are within the city of
Nampa. Um, but they are currently um
under Canyon County jurisdiction. They
are within an area of rural residential
under counties zoning definitions and
their map. Um, the surrounding
properties have varying zoning. to the
north and to the east are under county
count canyon county jurisdiction in an
area of rural residential. But to the
west and to the south, those are areas
that are owned by the city of Nampa and
they are zoned IL light industrial.
The applicant is requesting annexation
and zoning to that light industrial
designation to match the south and the
west.
This is the proposed uh site plan for
the project. It really complain contains
three components. The first would be
that existing residential property to
the northwest. There is a um house and
there is a shop structure that are
intended to remain. And then to the east
is the 30,000 square foot building for
Western Specialties. Um, and then and as
he discussed, that's going to have
office, shop, and warehouse space. And
then to the southwest, that portion of
the property is intended to have a
10,000 square f foot multi-tenant flex
building. Um, right now, as it's drawn,
they're proposing four tenant spaces.
Here are the conceptual drawings for the
two new industrial uh buildings. The
Western Specialties building is intended
to be about 30,000 square feet. At the
front, it's um planned to be 32 square,
sorry, 32 feet high. It does slope
towards the back. So, the back was like
28.
Um and then the multi-tenant building is
going to be singlestory about 16 feet
high.
So for our applicable regulations today,
we're really just talking about
annexation and zoning. So that's what
the code we're looking at. Um Idaho
state code does expressly provide for
cities to be able to annex lands um
which are reasonably necessary to assure
orderly development which allow
efficient and economical and viable
provision of municipal services that in
order enable the orderly development of
private lands which would benefit from
those cost-effective municipal services
and to equitably allocate the cost of
public services in management of um
development on the urgent urban fringe.
The annexation must satisfy four
requirements uh which are detailed in
Idaho code section 50-22 and then they
must also pass a test of reasonleness
to accept the annexation application.
It's got to meet those four criterias as
listed at the top of the slide. And this
application has been evaluated and
confirmed to meet each of those
criteria. For zoning, city code 1023.C
details three criteria for approval of
the requested zoning. These are shown on
the bottom of the slide and will be
addressed a little later in the
presentation here.
As you know, we do send every
application out to be evaluated by
various departments and connected
agencies um in our area. So, here we
have some comments that have come
through from the engineering department.
They do not oppose the application.
They've provided the comments about the
availability of domestic water, sewer,
and pressurized irrigation in the
vicinity of the project.
They've also um specified some access
and layout requirements. They indicated
that um access to the property is
provided by Happy North Happy Valley
Road. That's classified as a minor
arterial and it has a speed limit of 40
miles an hour.
The applicant will be required to
dedicate 50 feet of rightway along North
Happy Valley with the annexation and
they will be responsible for um frontage
improvements at the time of the property
development. The two properties will be
required to um to share one access point
which they've designed for you in that
site layout. The existing access points
will be required to be permanently
closed.
A traffic impact study may be required
at the time of development if the
project meets the threshold that's
identified by engineering policy. And
just two general comments um about
needing to employ a surveyor to provide
legal descriptions for the various
components of this application and that
any online wells or septic shall be
abandoned at the time of development.
Nampa airport did also provide comments.
Um they indicated that the proposed
light industrial use would be compatible
land use for the near the airport. The
developer will be required to submit um
an application 7460, which is a notice
of proposed construction with the FAA
prior to um building permits so that the
FAA has an chance to evaluate um any
conflicts. The developer should use
landscaping that does not attract
wildlife such as birds. Um, and then any
proposed buildings should have finishes
that are not reflective. And the last
thing is that all the building and site
lighting should be focused downward.
Nampa Highway District did not oppose
the application subject to theou
and the fire district provided comments
indicating that the development is
approximately 0.9
miles from fire station number five with
an approximate response time of 1
minute. Um they did indicate that all of
the development plans would be evaluated
compared to applicable regulations at
the time of the building permit, but
specifically noted that based on the
scope of the project, the um it will
require a full life safety plan review.
Couple of public comments received
regarding this application.
Uh, Maria, and I'm I'm gonna take a stab
at it. Cuentes of 28 North Happy Valley
um Road wrote in. She formally opposes
the application and the proposed
industrial development. Maria states
that she chose her property for its
rural character, which she believes
would be compromised by the new
development due to issues such as
incompatibility with the surrounding
area, increased noise, light pollution,
loss of privacy, heightened traffic and
safety concerns and potential health
impacts, and possible depreciation of
property values.
Drake, excuse me, Drake Cifuentes, also
of 28 North Happy Valley Road in. He um
formally opposes the application and the
proposed industrial development. Sharing
a fence with the adjacent parcel near
the Nampa Municipal Airport, Drake
expresses concerns about airport
compatibility, highlighting the risks
posed by potential air traffic conflict
created by the development such as
obstruction of visual light issues and
wildlife attraction, which could
jeopardize pilot safety. He emphasizes
the importance of protecting the
airport's long-term viability from
future complaints that could limit its
operations and supports concerns
addressed by his mother, Maria Suentes,
um regarding incompatibility with the
rural character of the area, noise,
light pollution, and other negative
impacts.
And not included originally in your
staff report, but um emailed to you
separately was a comment from Mike
Heaidman of 30 North Happy Valley Road.
Uh he opposes zoning for the industrial
development, having lived in the area
for over eight years. Hideamman and his
wife appreciate the quiet private
atmosphere and scenic views of the
Wahhees during the day and stars at
night which influenced their decision to
purchase their home. Although the
anticipated um they anticipated future
um additional residences, Haidman states
that introduction of two large
industrial buildings, one reaching 32
feet in height would significantly
disrupt their quality of life with
increased noise, light pilution, and
potential decreases in property value.
Haidman has gathered signatures from
neighbors within a 300 foot radius with
nearly unanimous opposition to the
reszoning. Um emphasizing the
inappropriate nature of industrial
zoning amidst a residential community.
Um he urges local authorities to deny
the reasonzoning request for the parcel.
And here you see the um the petition
that went through. This slide shows uh
the petition that he circulated. The map
to in the upper right corner I've
actually pinpointed the addresses that
are shown on those um to indicate the
neighbors that we're talking about.
All right. So proposed findings for
annexation. Um the property owner is the
property is contiguous to city limits.
The property is located in Nampa's
planning area and has a future land use
map designation of lowdensity
residential. The application requests a
stretch of the industrial airport
overlay land use designation from the
property to the west. An annexation of
roadway um will be subject to the
revised and other agreements between the
city of Nampa and Nampa's highway
district.
The facts for the reasonzoning have
mostly been gone over in the rest of my
presentation. I highlighted a couple of
important things. Um
[clears throat]
on this slide, we've already gone over
them, but on this slide, I just wanted
to point out some things because we
didn't talk very specifically about the
comprehensive plan. So the project is um
proposes that the existing residential
single family dwelling units um on the
1acre parcel will remain with their
residential use to continue. Now
[clears throat]
um based on our land use um controls
chart a single family dwelling is not an
allowed use in an IL zone. So we are
technically creating a non-conforming
use um for that property during the
duration that it is continues to be
residential. The comprehensive plan does
address um public airport facilities
specifically in chapter 14. The
objective of the planned land uses need
to be compatible with the airport. And
the strategies to do that is to adhere
to guidelines provided by the airport's
master plan for land use compatibility,
to zone for commercial and industrial
uses in proximity of the airport, and to
prohibit uses in the airport area such
um that would attract birds, create
visual hazards, and emit transmissions
which might interfere with aviation
communications or otherwise obstruct or
conflict with the airport operations.
And according to the comments provided
by the airport, um they're satisfied
that this application can meet all of
those requirements based on the
comprehensive plan and the airport's
master plan.
And again, three written public comments
were received. Um, the third written
comment included a petition indicating
opposition by 38 residents in the
immediate area and that uh below
outlines the things that we've already
covered for what their concerns were.
And city codes are written to protect
the public interest by providing
guidance for development. Therefore, the
project is presumed to be in the public
interest because um any further
development or redevelopment of the
property will be required to meet city
standards for development and shall
install appropriate site improvements
upon development.
This paragraph summarizes everything
that we just went over and provides a
potential conclusion for
um approving IL light industrial zoning.
This is listed in your staff report in
the proposed conditions of approval also
listed in your staff report. Um that
detail the things that engineering was
going to require
that the airport needed to address.
And uh finally any other additional
conditions that you wish to apply
and there are your potential motions.
What can I answer for you?
» Any questions?
>> Mr. [clears throat] Chair, um one of our
findings says that this is in
um accordance with our comprehensive
plan
is I
approved zoning for low city
residential.
>> No, but our future land use map does
allow for a land use designation
to be stretched one parcel deep. So when
we look at that future land use map,
sorry, got to click got a number of
slides,
you can see that to the west of the
property
is to the west and to the south are um
industrially zoned and it's industrial
future land use map designation. So they
would be allowed to stretch that land
use designation over the two parcels
because each one is adjacent to that
aisle
sorry industrial land use on the future
land use map.
>> So it would be more accurate to say
we're stretching
land use from adjacent parcels rather
than it's in accordance with the comp
plan.
>> Randy would like to speak to that.
>> Mr. chair and commissioners. Um I I
think we need to remember the purpose
behind a comprehensive plan future land
use map and there never were intended to
be exact, right? So those boundaries are
kind of uh blurry for comprehensive
plans and um and in this situation
that's exactly what it is. It's kind of
in that gray area where you can stretch
it. We have it specifically stated on
our comprehensive plan future land use
map that you can stretch it. And so I
would say that it is consistent with
that as that statement on our
comprehensive plan.
>> Just didn't want Preston to have
something that's not accurate in the
findings.
» The current the current residents
residential portion of this property.
Um, what would it take for them to just
eliminate that and build another
building?
» Once it is zoned to IIL, they would be
allowed to repurpose either the
buildings on that property for an
industrial purpose if it met the
building requirements. Um or they could
raise those buildings and build others
that to meet the industrial
requirements,
>> but they couldn't do any redevelopment
and keep it residential.
>> Thank you. Um
very very limited changes would be
allowed to the property. Um
>> what about hooking up to city services?
>> They would be annexed into the proper
into the city. So they would be able to
hook up to city services.
>> That doesn't qualify as a redevelopment.
Okay.
Thank you,
Madam Clerk. Do we have a signup sheet?
>> Here we do.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Calling Mike
Hydeman.
Good evening. My name is Mike Heidman.
My wife and I are the owners and
residents of 30 North Happy Valley Road,
which directly borders the parcel being
discussed tonight, just to the north.
I've worked from home as a construction
estimator ever since we purchased the
home over eight years ago. We chose this
location because it's outside of the
city. It's not in a development.
Surrounding properties are spacious.
They're residential and they feel
private. the view of the Aahes during
the day and the stars at night due to
minimal light pollution.
We've always been aware that one day a
house or two could be built on the
neighboring parcel since it's zoned for
residential. Had it been zoned for
commercial or industrial, we never would
have purchased it. Not just because it's
extremely close to the house, but also
the additional noise, traffic, and light
pollution.
All the windows in our living room,
dining room, and kitchen face this
neighboring parcel, as does our
backyard, deck, outdoor seating and
dining. We spend most evenings in our
backyard, enjoying the sunset and many
times the stars afterwards. On weekends,
we enjoy our morning coffee outside
before starting the day.
Now, we're faced with the possibility of
two industrial zone buildings being
built right outside our back door in an
area surrounded by homes on three sides.
The largest and closest building is
proposed to stick more than 32 feet in
the sky above finish grade. Even with a
six or eight foot fence, it would still
be visible from both outside and inside
our home. We're looking at increased
noise from vehicle traffic, trucks
navigating through a parking lot and
idling, backup beepers, forklifts
loading and unloading material, as well
as the sound of saws and drills while
they do their modifications.
We're also looking at a considerable
increase in light pollution at night
from parking lot lights to building
mounted lighting on every side of the
buildings. Lastly, the decreased home
values that are sure to follow.
Even if the potential new owners say the
noise and traffic will be minimal,
that's subjective and it can always
change once they're there. If they
decide to sell or lease more of the
property in the future, what type of
industrial businesses, noise, traffic,
and light pollution will that bring to
all the surrounding homes?
Um, I brought with me a copy of the
petition containing signatures from all
the neighbors within 300 feet who are
opposed to the reszoning and the
proposed use of this property. I focused
on those homes first since that's all
the city was required to notify.
I also collected signatures from
neighbors next to them, including those
within line of sight.
Every neighbor I talked with, except for
one, signed an opposition. The only
neighbor I didn't talk with is the one
trying to sell the residential property
as potential commercial or industrial
use because it's worth more money.
The property listing is shown pending
since at least the beginning of this
year. It's a safe guess that [snorts]
that's contingent on the reasonzoning of
proposed use being approved. Um the
current view that's up on your screen
right now is zoomed in. It doesn't show
how close all the surrounding homes are.
I ask you to consider
these issues and ask yourselves, is this
an appropriate location for industrial
zoning when all the neighbors who live
around it are opposed to it? Thank you,
» Steve Great House.
I wanted to go back to that screen we
just had. Have you got control or not?
[cough]
>> All right, that works.
But the laser pointer
>> doesn't work.
>> It doesn't work.
Um, all right.
The only meeting that was held to
discuss this
>> name and address for the record.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Steve Greathouse. Uh,
address is 13 North Campbell Lane,
Nampa. It's literally
the right side that they've cut it right
along my property line and they it's the
right side of that image.
Um,
we were out of town uh when they held
the meeting on June 27th. So, when the
first time I was ever really able to see
what the plan was was when these prints
were loaded up to the website uh and
submitted to the planning and zoning. It
was only then that I found out that the
size and nature of this monstrosity of
32 feet high, 30,000 square foot
literally becomes my west side of my
property.
There is I can't see over it. I can't
see around it. Everything is a big blank
wall. There's not even windows in it.
It's totally shielding me from anything.
I've never even imagined that something
like that could happen.
Um, we have a bounce house
uh that we use often with kids that or
grandkids and stuff that come in. Uh,
they that will be in the shadow when the
sun goes down. This that building will
shade shade that it'll shade our house.
Uh semitrs,
as you can see, are between my kitchen
window and the building.
There's I've only got 16 ft from my
house to the middle of that property
lane. And they are putting 40 ft of
asphalt to get the semis to be able to
go through there.
Do you like to have semis driving in
your backyard?
Literally within a rock throw everything
trying to sleep. Our our bedroom windows
are just straight to the right of of
where that bottom semi is.
I I mean we it's intolerable that we
have to live and think of that in our
future.
uh if they if this is a the final
uh designation of what they're going to
do, they're going to have some lawsuits.
I will not put up with that kind of
thing. This is just ridiculous that you
would force this just because somebody
feels that they want to have this
property which isn't compatible with the
whole rest of the uh neighborhood.
You know, when you reszone something
that's already residential and the
people around it have uh incorporated
that as a residential plan in their
thoughts and you then change that they
have the person um now assuming the
ownership has to work with the existing
people to be able to be integrated into
them. We have to integrate this into us.
It won't. This design, this plan does
not integrate into the whole rest of the
plans from um Happy Valley Road clear
over to Robinson.
>> Mr. Chair,
>> Victory. No,
>> thank you.
>> There's I could go on and on and on, but
literally
uh we have nothing in our backyard
except a monstrous building.
Unacceptable. Thank you.
Virginia Great House.
» Virginia Great House, 13 North Campbell
Lane, Nampa, Idaho 83687.
Thank you for this chance to offer our
opinion on uh this building. I I thought
the name of the company was Big D
Builders. That's not the case.
Apparently, that was on some of the
paperwork. But nonetheless,
I'd like to take you all with me for a
minute and imagine your backyard of your
house. Now, I know they're probably all
very different, but visualize those
backyards
and what you do in those backyards.
You relax, you play, you entertain, you
have children and grandchildren that
come and they play in the yard.
Now, think of those fun and entertaining
moments and the memories that you're
building
and the ones that you have planned
coming up. Think of them with a huge
industrial building in your backyard.
Because literally, as my husband said,
that's what it would be right in our
backyard.
And we'll have the increased noise of
loading docks, backup alarms, semitrs
with their loud rumbling engines driving
around the building, emitting diesel
exhaust and fumes into the air that you
and your guests and your children,
grandchildren are breathing in, reducing
your outdoor enjoyment, all the while you're trying to relax and have
some happy memories. and be with loved
ones.
Along
with all that noise is the noise that
will come from the industrial machinery
itself invading your family time. And
even before any of that gets rolling,
there's the noise of the construction of
such a huge building of property.
Morning shifts will start. I heard 7:30.
Some of us are not morning people.
That's why we like to be out by
ourselves. And with residential people,
usually that area is pretty quiet and
early birds can get up early, late birds
can sleep in late.
But if I'm getting up to all those
machines, worring and buzzing and
hammering, nobody's going to sleep
through that. Also, we mentioned the
dust and concerns for health and safety,
the light pollution, the ground
vibrations from the semitrs,
potential contamination risks and odors
from the uh occupants garbage which is
directly
across from our patio like 30 feet
maybe. So, um, don't forget, and I don't
want to forget the negativity of the
having a huge building and the effect
that it will have on our property value.
Please, I ask you to say no to this
annexation. Leave it residential.
We're ready for houses to move in behind
us, but not a big huge building. Thank
you. Thank you,
>> Ian Twitchell.
[clears throat]
» Good evening, commissioners. Ian
Twitchell, 4906 East Victory Road here
in Nampa. I want to thank you guys for
the opportunity to speak on this matter
tonight. My wife and I bought our home
here 10 years ago because it offered the
best of Nampa. It still felt like the
quiet, open, old Nampa that we love and
grew up in while keeping us close to
services. We'd planned for this to be
our forever home. We have wonderful
neighbors, many of whom are here tonight
to oppose this annexation. Over the last
decade, rapid expansion has chipped away
at our community. Um, coming home to the
valley doesn't feel quite the same as it
used to. I'm sure a lot of you have felt
that same way when the residential and
farming properties that built this
community are constantly targeted for
industrial growth. I stand before you
tonight to respectfully ask that you
recommend denial of this proposed
annexation and industrial resoning.
While there are light commercial uses
near the airport across the street, this
proposal introduces critical conflicts.
The field directly adjacent to the
property is flagged against future
development because it falls within the
designated airport approach zone.
Because no future industrial expansion
can ever happen on that adjoining land,
forcing a single industrial complex on
this lot creates an isolated,
incompatible footprint. If development's
inevitable here, keeping it residential
creates a logical, safe transition zone
between the airport restrictions and our
homes. Our household relies on a shared
domestic well located on my neighbor's
property, Mr. Grey House, which directly
adjoins the subject's site. The wellhead
is less than 10 feet from the direct
property line. We also have a very
shallow well at 35 ft. The applicant's
proposal mentions the future
possibilities of connecting to city
sewer, but currently plans to install a
commercial septic system. Once
installed, if there's no enforcement
mechanism to force a future connection,
the issue becomes what contamination
issues possibly lie in that. Has there
been any geological studies mapping the
rock layers and fracture angles to
determine how the affluence going to
migrate towards our properties? Annexing
industrial uses without requiring
immediate connection to the city
proposes that risk. The applicant claims
the traffic will be minimal, citing just
one or two trucks and up to 14
employees, but that estimate only
accounts for the warehouse, completely
ignoring the compounded traffic
generated by the multi-tenant building.
Happy Valley is already past its limit.
Anybody who has driven that in the peak
times knows that it is extremely busy.
We've seen multiple accidents less than
a mile away at airport and Happy Valley
as well as the street lights at the
roundabout being knocked over multiple
times due to this traffic overload.
Pushing freight delivery vehicles shift
change traffic to two commercial
structures creates an additional hazard.
Nampa's primary light industrial hubs
are established directly across the
freeway over by Amazon. That's where the
industrial buildings are happening.
That's where these types of things
should be forced and not into our
locations. Putting that unwarranted
industrial parks where they don't
belong, where they don't fit with it
being residential. Placing that 30,000t
warehouse and flex space, loading docks,
vehicle idling, night security lights
directly up against established homes
creates an immediate demunition of value
for those surrounding residential
properties. As has been discussed,
existing homeowners should not be forced
to absorb that real estate devaluation
to subsidize spot reszoning that belongs
in an industrial park. Growth in Nampa
should be orderly and respecting
existing homeowners. Please protect our
water, our roads, our airspace, and our
neighbors stability by recommending
denial of this project. Thank you.
>> Thank you,
» Clark Krider.
Evening. Clark Krider, 34 North, Happy
Valley.
I wasn't going to speak this evening
till I saw this. This is the first time
I've seen this. Here's the things I
asked all of you to consider.
34 North or Happy Valley Road lines up
with the air airport and the glide path.
Could you show me that picture, please?
So, you show a 54 foot truck up there,
and it's a lot taller than a regular
vehicle. The other day when I came home,
the airplane was down low enough to
where it could have struck a vehicle.
Other thing I want you to consider is
what is the manufacturer's noise limits
going to be? Just as the neighbors
mentioned earlier today,
they're going to have vacuums. They're
going to have all kinds of stuff that's
outside the building,
not depicted on that building.
Okay? So, they're going to have to
listen to that every day. And also,
you're going to have the trash
going to now be increased noise from
that. So, I would ask that that be
considered as well for all those people
that are living around that that
building.
The next thing in there is the light
pollution and then the track vehicles
that come into this site. Right now is
they said Monday through Friday.
I actually work with people that build
this stuff.
They're going to be there on Saturday.
They're going to be there on Sunday. It
doesn't matter. Doesn't matter what you
or I say. They're going to show up at
whatever hour they need to get the job
done.
So, please consider that.
Would ask that the fire department come
back out and look at that site and make
sure that it's supported. There's
nothing that depicts the fire hydrants.
And I would ask that the fire uh
protection officer
that's reviewed those plans go back and
look at that again, especially the
radiuses around those vehicles. Thank
you for your time. Thank you.
» Paul Flatt.
» Uh my name is Paul Flat. I live at 12
North Queen Victoria Court and that's
located about 400 ft to the right of the
property line where that property is.
Been there 24 years and moved there
because it was residential, light
residential. And uh as some people I'm opposed to it. Many of the reasons
people have already said among the
things this is isolated. The property to
the south is going to be encroaching on
the glide path of the airport. Uh last
year I had an airplane fly so low. I
reported his end number was like in my
face. He was that low. And I reported
that had a call back a few months later
that he had problems. He made this bank
turn and it would have been like maybe a
100 feet over this building. Probably
not very good. Uh I ask you to look at
the bigger picture. [clears throat]
Several years ago, high school was built
to the south. Some sidewalks around the
high school. Great. Nothing extended
north or south. Roundabout was built
really nice. Wonderful. Took care of
traffic a lot. Again, no pedestrian
access at all. Pedestrians tend to walk
through that area. Good luck. And every
day I see pedestrians on the side of
Happy Valley. Now, Happy Valley is going
to grow. Understand that. It is a major
north south road. They already have
congestion where it intersects with the
interstate. There's a lot of This is a
much bigger picture. Looking at this one
little thing. Oh, it's only small little
change, but it affects everything around
it. I oppose it. Please don't do this.
Thank you.
Mario DeLeon.
Uh, good evening. Mario Deleó, 985 West
Corporate Lane. Uh, I'm here. We believe
[clears throat] Light Industrial is a
logical and compatible use for this
property for several reasons. First, the
property is contiguous with the
city-owned property immediately to the
south, making this a natural extension
of existing city land and development
patterns rather than isolated industrial
use.
Second, the property sits directly
across Happy Valley Road from the
municipal airport. Allowing appropriate
light industrial development in this
location can help protect the long-term
viability of the airport by creating
compatible uses around it, reducing
potential for additional residential
development immediately adjacent to the
airport operations.
[snorts] Third, this area of Happy
Valley Road is already changing between
Victory Road and Stan Lane. Multiple
commercial and light industrial
properties have been built or have been
approved. This proposal is consistent
with the direction this corridor is
already moving in and would complement
those existing uses. Light industrial
also provides an opportunity for
additional business investment
employment and ex and expansion of NA's
tax base.
For those reasons, I believe Light
Industrial is an appropriate long-term
use for this property and a good fit for
the city of Nampa. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Jared Hopson.
Uh, Mr. Chair, city council, my name is
Jared Hobson, uh, 10622 West Sandpiper,
uh, Boisee, Idaho. Uh, I'm actually the
owner of Western Specialties.
Um, and I've been looking forward to
this project for many years as well as
my employees. Um, we are uh growing
business. Uh, we are uh maxed out where
we are currently in Garden City as was
mentioned earlier and uh this is a
project that we look forward to for many
years. Uh hopefully you can see that as
uh been stated it does not um uh it
matches adjacent properties and it will
be a good improvement to that property
currently. Uh, thank you for your time.
>> Thank you.
» And Chairman Miller, if I may, for the
record, um, just out of a total
abundance of caution, I do know Mr.
Hopson. Technically, he is a relative of
the fifth degree to me. If you want to
know what that is, that would be my
wife's cousin's husband. And, uh, Idaho
law would not require this. There's no
financial interest I have in it, but
just an abundance of caution. Um, just
note that for the record and the legal
advice I'll give here is as if it was
another stranger here as an applicant,
but just an abundance of caution. It's
good to see you, Jared.
>> That's assuming we would have figured
out what fifth degree is. [laughter] I'm
still trying to Google it.
» Thank you, Preston.
>> Thank you. I apologize if I get your
name wrong. Juliano Seafur.
» Uh, thank you for letting me speak
tonight. My name is Juliano. Um, I live
over at 11 North P Victoria Court, a
little bit closer than Paul, but uh, I
had written a whole list of things to
talk about, but at the end of the day,
every single one of my neighbors uh, hit
on each point. Um, it is important, it
is important to emphasize the amount of
traffic that'll be increased on Happy
Valley. I understand it's part of the
master plan. It'd be one thing if that
master plan was already in place to the
point of traffic control, but it's not.
We've got a roundabout down there that
was done a few years ago. People have
hitten that light. I uh I have
experience as an EMT. I did some medical
training. I have assisted multiple
people in accidents along that road,
including a gentleman who got sideswiped
on a motorcycle. Um, as a writer myself,
motorcycles are cautioned in that
roundabout area just because of the
severe amount of traffic and people
generally not knowing how to use a
roundabout. Um, I'm pretty sure
everybody here in this room knows that
one. Um, so traffic is a huge issue. But
the other thing too is I am a consultant
for a cleaning company here in the
valley. We service over 400 customers,
small businesses. Um, stuff like Western
Specialties, you know, some of my
customers today are Greylock, Gem State
Doors and Millwork Work. I understand
the work that these gentlemen do. So,
when somebody tells me that they're
going to be there from 7:30 to 5, I'm a
cleaner. I know what time you're there.
I know when we take your trash. I know
when to clean your restrooms. And that's
just a flatout lie. I've been there many
times in the weekends and have people do
double shifts and overnight shifts
because they got big orders. This kind
of building put into a place where
there's adjacent to residential
properties makes me wonder why I bought
my house in the first place. You know,
if that's the kind of zoning that'll be.
I mean, I think everybody in this room
who lives close by, if you told us that
you're going to put six or seven homes
on that property, I'm pretty sure that
other developer would have loved this
place, um, I probably wouldn't be
opposed to it. Probably be a little
pissed off about eight, nine, 10 homes
there, right? But this, this is a whole
different monster. I service so many
places that look like this that have
traffic levels
are just insane. And at the end of the
day, the numbers that are probably
given, you know, 14 employees,
the gentleman from Western Specialty
said himself, he's a growing company.
They've already maxed out their space.
What's to say as time goes on, they
don't try to fill this space even a
little bit further, push it a little
further, store a little bit more? I can
only imagine the kind of risk it'll put.
The other thing, too, is I've got a
wife, four kids, right? We sit in a back
uh in our backyard. I've got a giant
covered patio that we look out of. My
neighbors probably think I'm crazy
because the kind of patio that I put in,
but we enjoy it. We look at the Warhawk
uh shows that they put off in August,
the Warhawk Roundup, if you all have
seen it. We enjoy looking outside of our
backyard. Putting something like this up
blocks it. The sunsets blocked. Um and
that's just the comfort side of things.
Um I'd probably say those are
insignificant to the safety side of
things. Again, as somebody who's
serviced over 400 people in the valley,
who appreciates the growth, who benefits
from the growth, I don't think this is
the right kind of building to put into
place so close to residential places,
residential homes that are counter to
it. Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you.
Mr. Chair. No further names
were submitted for public testimony.
Is there anyone one else in the audience
that would like to speak for against or
undecided on this? Okay, we'll just take
you one at a time. So, go ahead and come
on up and give us your name and address.
[laughter]
» I'll [cough] bring her with me.
>> No, you have to speak.
My name is Chris Avery and I am the
great housewoman, Virginia's sister. So
I'm at 13 North Campbell. Her home and
Steve's home has helped our family. It's
a large home. They've lived there 13
years. Um they [cough and clears throat]
have helped our family many ways. Many
people have come and stayed and enjoyed
Christmases there. Uh New Year's there.
We go out on their deck and you can see
the valley on the 4th of July. One of
our favorite things is watching the air
show this weekend.
I am greatly opposed to this
[clears throat]
and my family that is out of town is
like you get in there and tell them
no, we're opposed all of the reasons
that they have given. And I appreciate,
you know, owner of Western Specialties.
I love that he's local. There are many
places in Nampa that are already
industrial.
No reason
leave it residential and we can work
with that. But this with the airport
right there,
I oppose greatly. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Is there anybody else in the audience
that' like to speak this evening?
Nope. Nope. Got to come up.
Need your name and address for the
record, please.
Ryder, 34 North Happy Valley Road. I
submitted an opposal, an opposed comment
online and I didn't see it. Does that
actually make its way to you?
>> Why don't you just tell us what you
>> It's pretty much what everyone else
says. It will severely disrupt the
nature of our neighborhood. We have
livestock and most of our neighbors do
also. So that is a concern the health
and well-being of our livestock as well
as our our families. The emissions that
are going to be in the air.
The noise is very disruptive to all the
livestock actually. horses, cows,
chickens, they get very distressed by
that type of thing.
The gist of it is this does not fit in
this neighborhood. It's a nice quiet
neighborhood.
We don't need industrial here. It's
zoned as residential. I would like to
see it remain residential.
>> Thank you.
Okay. Anybody else?
Hey, Mr. Durant, come back up answer
some questions.
Have questions,
» comments heard, and then we can
>> Yeah, you have.
So, regarding some of the comments, um,
I'll address a couple of those
specifically.
Um, regarding the gentleman who,
um, referred to Western Specialties as
maybe being dishonest in how they
perform their business.
I would suggest that that he is
completely incorrect. He may service 400
other businesses.
I believe that he services Western
Specialties so he should not be speaking
as if he does. The hours represented
that Western Specialties works is the
hours that they work. The vehicle trips
that we discussed are accurate and they
are they are exactly what we do. Um the
number of 14 employees would be with
doubling the size of their current
operation. Currently they have 8 to 10
employees.
I would al also like to just um just
share with the fact that
the seller made an um a strategic
decision in how they proposed to market
and sell this building. Their choice was
to go the light industrial route because
they were going to continue to live in
this location.
There were offers available and
opportunities available for highdensity
housing which is located just to the
north of this property across, you know,
about a half a mile away.
And if this were to be annexed in and go
to the high density route, well, you
would have buildings the same size as
far as the height. Your vehicle trips
would be triple or quadruple to what
we're suggesting that they would be with
this development.
The noise pollution would be immense.
Um
the uh the pollution that would come
just from children in neighborhood
traffic would be incredible. It was
discussed that uh potentially that the waste from Western specialties could
be hazardous to the health of the
neighborhood. Um completely incorrect.
I I think that the concerns that have
been addressed
while emotional
may not be completely factual
and I appreciate the emotion.
is a really really important
thing.
One of the guarantees that we have in
the state of Idaho is the right to use
our property.
And as a property owner, I do not have
to guarantee the visual sighteline of my
neighbor.
I have a property that has a wall from
my neighbor.
The only way I could control that
neighborhood property is if I chose to
buy it. Then I could control that.
the the property owner has the right to
use this property in the highest and
best manner in which they see fit so
long as it's compatible with the
comprehensive plan and the codes and
ordinances that the city imposes.
The property and the development that
we're proposing is to annex the property
light industrial which is contiguous
across the street to the west and to
[clears throat] the south.
We're proposing that we put in a project
that that may appear large to a
homeowner but actually is quite small
when you view it in a light industrial
application.
And to find a lot that you can put a
smaller project on is very challenging
in the whole Treasure Valley.
Very, very challenging. And so we're
proposing this project and we we ask you
to review it on its merits and to
approve the annexation.
» Question.
>> Yeah, Mr. Chair, I have a question. Um,
and please don't take this I'm not
trying to be argumentative, but I just
wanted to comment on what you said as
far as compatibility.
Um, I I don't disagree with you 100%,
but wouldn't compatibility in that
context also include the surrounding
existing residential homes?
How would how how do you square the
compatibility of this project with those
that are literally 20 to 40 feet away?
[clears throat]
>> Thank you for the question.
If I started on Happy Valley Road and I
was driving from, let's say, Airport
Road headed south and I was making a
visual observation
of the neighborhood and how the
neighborhood was developing and the
compatibility of that corridor.
I would have
light industrial projects intermixed
with residential. I would have high high
density residential and I have an
airport. And when I'm squaring the
compatibility in the neighborhood, I'm
looking at the whole what is it today?
What is it going to be in five years?
And where is it going to be in 20?
I believe that the city has forecasts
the direction that they want to go by
approving the light industrial projects
around Happy Valley that are in close
proximity to this property.
I believe that the airport
has forecast that we want light
industrial properties to surround the
airport.
And so that's how I square my
compatibility issue.
I must be
not remembering,
but what other light industrial
properties
around that area and and other than the
closer you get to the freeway?
Are there any other and the airport
obviously?
>> Yeah, you got a couple that new new one
just south of airport on the east side.
They've got two of the buildings up. I
think there's one or two more buildings
going on there.
>> That's right. You got the brand new one
on the other side that cleaning company
that has that great big barbecuer that
we
>> There's Oh, yeah. Okay. There's You
drive that a billion times a day and you
forget. You just forget all this stuff.
So, I appreciate that. And then there is
some down airport or down Victory.
>> Um,
>> yeah, there's that new one that's going
in right as you come around the round
right there.
>> All right.
>> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate I
appreciate the the comments. Thank you.
» There was there's questions about light
pollution and noise pollution from not I
mean I think the truck noise is pretty
clear. Do you want to speak to what the operational noise like in the shops
is and then like the lighting?
>> Yes. So, the operational noise that
would come from I'll address the 30,000
square foot building. Um, there's
several components that are happening
within that building. You have the weld
shop where you're going to weld a a
frame of a of a hollow metal frame door.
And then you have the wood shop. And the
wood shop is cutting a like a window
unit into a an already already developed
wood slab.
So within those units there will be um
there will be dust mitigation controls
and those dust mitigation controls will
be housed within the building but bagged
outside.
So there will be a hopper that is
collecting that sawdust or that refined
dust.
Um in the shop itself there will be a
saw to cut and there will be a drill
that would actually drill a hole for a lock set. And then there would also be
a welding machine.
uh the welding machine. I mean, I
couldn't speak to decibb. I know that
I've been
um at the existing location where these
functions are performed.
They're inside.
As a customer outside, I've never
noticed any noise.
Um the shops, both shops aren't running,
I don't think more than six hours per
day as far as actually time frame. It's
done during business hours between the
hours of 8 am and 5:00 pm.
There could be people home, but I don't think that the noise from inside
the building would be audible to anybody
standing at the property line.
>> What about um loading and unloading
trucks?
>> Loading and unloading trucks. Like I
said earlier, currently there's about
one truck that comes per day.
Um, if that were to double and maximize,
then that would be two truck per day.
And that would be a semi-truck enclosed
van.
Um, it takes approximately from the time
the truck arrives until he's unloaded,
it takes approximately an hour, hour and
a half to do the unload.
Truck will back up into the loading
dock. um dock cushions around the the
truck and then a forklift will go inside
the loading dock or inside the truck to
move the material inside into the
appropriate place or rack storage. Um
the forklift
electric or propane,
it does have a backup sensor. It's it's
contained inside the building. I again I
don't know that you would you would hear
it outside
have to be
extremely
good hearing to hear that. Um the other
operations inside the shop are just
office
far as clerical work and and sales.
Good.
Thank you for your time.
» So, I move to close public hearing.
>> Second.
>> Been moved by Commissioner Kirkman,
seconded by Kho to close the public
hearing. All those in favor?
>> I [clears throat] closed. Okay. Public
testimony portion is closed.
Uh
the southern property, Rodney, for the
city. What are potential develop? Could
that ever develop into anything?
>> What's [cough and clears throat] a race
>> or Daniel?
>> I think we know this both of us. um
because it's in that uh uh the
airport runway protection zone RPZ. Um
there's really nothing that can be
developed on that that property.
>> Okay.
>> Turn it into a park.
>> Excuse me.
a park
[clears throat]
>> um
in in [clears throat] an industrial zone
like this, is there any decibel
limitations?
» Um Mr. Chairman, again, Rodney Ashby, um
I mean, this is a subjective question.
Um I think um you you need to balance
the needs of the area and the
compatibility of the area and that's a
tough decision.
>> Um we don't have specific decibb listed
in code for this zone. Um so you'd have
to think about that. But our code just
says a nuisance. It shouldn't become a
nuisance. I I'm I've struggled with that
language because I don't know what that
means exactly.
>> Different for different people.
>> Yeah. Different for different people. So
I I think this is a a decision you have
to make.
>> While you're there, Rodney, get back. Um
so the airport manager, whoever is for
this,
what what would the airport prefer to
have close to it? Would they rather have
industrial or residential? Yeah, this um
Mr. Chair and Commissioner Turner, um so
I've had this conversation with the
airport commission and with the airport
uh uh superintendent, and both of them
have said what they prefer is
industrial. What they don't want is lots
of people gathered together in
residences
that if there was a terrible accident
that there be a lot of damage done.
>> So they what they see as less likely to
cause a problem is is the industrial use
over the residential.
Mr. Chair, is that all questions you
have?
>> Go ahead.
>> Okay. I didn't want to interrupt. You
looked like you were looking for another
one.
>> I'm in I'm in thought. Go ahead.
>> All right. Uh, Daniel,
you know this was about Happy Valley, so
you knew this was going to come up.
the
you get one car on Happy Valley that's
traveling south and I don't care if it's
up by Locust or if it's up by the
freeway if it wants to turn left and
it's at 4 or 5:00 it's going to back up
50 60 cars. I've been involved with that
a number of times. You put one big semi
52-footer
that is going to turn left into this
coming south on Happy Valley, it's just
going to exacerbate the problem. So,
what is the possibility of putting a
turn lane if this project were to move
forward in that location to at least
keep some of that traffic moving if a
truck were there?
>> That is certainly something that if you
feel is appropriate, you can place as a
condition of approval. Is there enough
space
>> there? The existing rideway in those
areas, we have a 50- foot total, so 25
foot prescriptive on either side of the
roadway. Um, so that does provide enough
room that with some widening on either
side that can provide for a turn lane,
>> but you're going to have to put one long
enough to accommodate a 52 54 foot
truck. Is there enough space that way
too?
>> Yes. So, so we have that 50 feet up and
down the entire length.
>> Um, and so they would ultimately just
have to design it such that
>> that that's has the appropriate tapers
and storage length and that for that.
>> Okay.
>> Can I follow up on that,
>> please?
>> I'd like to know the legality of like
can we require that and can we require
them to add a turn lane beyond the
extents of their property or what's how
does that work?
>> Is that our road? That's not our road,
is it? Happy Valley.
>> Um,
>> half of it. Anyways,
>> one second.
>> The eastern half.
>> I can wait till
they know answers that question.
>> Regardless of whether it's our road or
not, we would be able to work with the
highway district to make that happen. If that would not necessarily be a
hindrance.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. Commissioner, if I may, this gets
to some constitutional principles. Nolan
and Nolan are some famous cases that
talk about where when you put a
condition on it has to be has to be
roughly proportionate to what their
impact is. That's one prong. The other
one there has to be a nexus, right? It
has to be related to it. So you can't
have them put a you know a water tower
in or amusement park, right? That's not
related as much as you may want either
those or not. And so what's being
requested here if there's a rational if
there's a nexus connected with the
project and what is being requested as a
rough proportionality
to their impact that's what the law does
allow you to do. Obviously the condition
can't render the property entirely you
know deprive it of all economic use or
just make it futile. Um so that's that's
the analysis you want to run Daniel's um
or the condition that's being discussed
through is it roughly proportionate and
is there a nexus connection?
Well,
in that light, if the commission were to
move down that road, no pun intended, I
think that that definitely would.
>> There would be a Lexus Nexus. Is that
what you said?
>> A Nexus. It's
>> he he'll get the joke. [laughter]
» A Nexus and Yeah.
>> Even just coming out of there to turn
right and head back north. That road's
not that wide there. That's
It would just give them a little more
room with a semi to be coming out there
to,
you know, the ones that are turning
right at airport there with those blocks
right on the corner. They got to take up
both lanes to get around that corner.
>> They do.
>> So
clarify. So nexus would be that it's
related, which I think a left turn lane
into it would be related. proportional
mean
if it costs $10 million to do something
and you know what I mean like and the
property is selling for like is that
where the proportionality comes in or
what's proportional mean
>> chairman so the proportionality is
really what impact they're anticipated
and if there's a you know a study
provided here if there's a traffic
impact study or other data um it may not
just hypothetical right it may not be
proportions required you know a seven
lane main road coming out of there,
right? Based off the volume that's
generated. So, you want whatever is
there needs to have a rough proportion
to what they're bringing to the table
and it needs to have that rough fit, if
you will. Doesn't have to be exact
science. It's what the law said. It's a
rough proportionality.
>> Thank you.
>> And then the other test you'll run
through on these is okay, would this
condition be arbitrary,
capricious, or an abuse of the
discretion? Right? And there's pretty
the case law says there's pretty vast
discretion and so those are kind of the
fail safes so that you know there's not
you know crazy or ludicrous things that
are imposed. Um but starting point is
that nexus and then the rough
portionality. So, what I'm hearing is we
don't want to be putting on conditions
that are making it so hard you just
can't develop as we want to.
» If if the conditions were a nexus to it
and roughly proportionate to their
impact, the law allows that to be
imposed.
[laughter]
>> Now, just to be clear, the word
reasonable and [snorts] unreasonable has
not been used here. It's nexus and rough
proportionality, right? So, So putting a
condition
to add a center lane, a center turn lane
from victory to airport, it would not be
com. Yeah, that would not be
an appropriate condition.
Um
I, you know, on another note, I I'm
struggling a little bit with the
compatibility of this location. As much
as I would love to bring business to
Nampa and steal jobs away from other
communities in the Treasure Valley, I I really struggle with the location of
this industrial area
in the compatibility arena of the
residences
that have been there for
well, as long as I've been around.
Just throwing that out there.
Yeah, I understand uh the concern there,
building height and all those kind of
things. Um I can also respect property
rights um for both sides.
Um, and then I think down the road,
what's Happy Valley going to look like
in 10 years, 20 years?
Looks a lot different now than it did
when I was a kid. That's for sure.
>> Oh, there's just more cars on it. It
doesn't look any different.
>> It looks quite a bit different.
But most of that traffic when highway 16
or not highway 16. I think I asked this
question at the last hearing or the last
uh meeting uh
meeting that we had was was about Happy
Valley when it came up before and I
think that the tra the intent is the
traffic's going to get pushed over to
Robinson
>> with um
>> with Dur but yeah
>> Dur with Highway 16.
So there there's no plans
to widen Happy Valley to a major
arterial or a connector even though it
goes straight to the freeway, which I
still don't understand, Dan. But that
that's just that's just my not
understanding.
>> We're going to let Daniel We're going to
let Daniel speak to it. So we are
>> that's the emotion that's coming
through.
>> So So when you say there are no plans,
um that that is not 100% accurate. Oh,
that's great.
>> The Happy Happy Valley is planned to
ultimately be a fivelane facility.
>> Um I do not have plans for construction
of that right now. We are currently um
reddoing our transportation master plan
that will repprioritize and identify and
so not knowing what um that that will
bring. Happy Valley is one of our
congested corridors and that may the
priority structure that we have
currently that may with things that have
been done that may change those
priorities and so until we have that
update in the transportation master plan
I can't give you a definitive of when
that will happen but yes there is a the plan for Happy Valley will be
ultimately a fivelane facility.
>> Okay.
at that time. Will they put left turn
lanes at airport?
>> Okay.
>> Yes.
>> So, so it'll have it'll have left turn
lane up and down, center turn lane, all
of that.
>> Y
» Rodney or Terry,
um, is there any other large industrial
areas that are not developed in this
area or close by? I know you mentioned
several which surprised Jeff, but I
don't I never go out there my entire
life. I've never been out there. I have
no idea what's out there.
» Thank you, Chairman and Commissioner
Kho. Um so what you see on the screen
now is the future land use map and you
can see that that whole southoutheastern
section is
future land use map designation of
industrial.
So other potential industrial
development there. I don't know of
anything specifically that's in the
works.
Oh, thank you. And Rodney points out
that it's also everything north of
Victory almost all the way up to Kings
Road. So that whole northeast
northwest, sorry, section.
» Well, Mr. Chair, I I think I have the
same struggle you're having is
we're pro business. We want to bring
growing businesses here. I Some people
have talking about how they'll work
harder than they say they work. I don't
know if I that's a bad thing. We want
hardworking business owners that are
growing their businesses here in our
community. Um
I think if if you look at this map,
industrial does fit. I mean, we've got
industrial across the street in both
directions and then we've got this the
county residential on the other sides.
We're at that the borderland where we
always hit, right? And when we're at at
these borders between two different
types of uses, we look at compatibility
of like are we transitioning?
And
this is just such a big building right
on that edge that it's it's hard to
transition. I wish that
I want to support it
for economic reasons for the city, but
it is a really big building on that edge
of that lot.
And I don't know if there's another way
to reconfigure that lot to make this
work so that they're closer to Happy
Valley. I mean, it gets narrower there.
I I would just note that the current
zoning of the city-owned property to the
south is light industrial,
>> right?
>> Um
>> while the comp plan does show
[clears throat] it as residential, the
current zoning of it is industrial,
>> which is why I say it fits. And it's
this border. Yeah. It's just this
kind of no man's land between lower low
density residential and light
industrial.
I wish it was more of a transition like
if the flex buildings were closer to the
residential and the larger building was
closer to the road but the lot doesn't
>> doesn't work that way
>> doesn't work for that
» car. Yeah. Um maybe Rody can answer this
or that flight path, the red area on
that slide right there that cuts through
looks like over 50% of that south lot.
>> So is that like a no build zone?
>> Yeah, that's that's a zero zone. So even
so yes, [clears throat] this lot is
>> is technically right there and light
industrial,
>> but it's pretty much unusable.
So, you know, you can use that. It's almost
>> Yeah.
Miller and commissioners, I just wanted
to respond just briefly to the concerns
about height.
So, if this came into the city and was
zoned a zoning that matches the
lowdensity residential land use
designation, that would put it as RA,
suburban residential, or an RS zoning
district. In both of those options,
the maximum building height for a
residence is 30 feet
and it would be a 15 foot rear yard
setback and 5- foot sideyard setback. So
the potential for
a view blocking structure would be there
whether we choose this industrial zoning
and their proposed 32 foot high building
or a residential zoning within the city
which would allow a 30 foot high
building maximum
>> and that's again to the top plate of the
wall. It's not to the peaked roof. So
technically you could have a very steep
roof. You could have a very large house,
very steep roof,
wide house, which then can play into how
high that roof peak can go. So
potentially you could be another
easily 18 feet or so potentially
>> above that 30 foot wall.
>> I don't think that's true. No,
>> there's
>> Chairman Miller and Commissioner Fine, I
agree that we don't know what that very
steeped peak roof could be or how long
their building would be. I just wanted
to add in that a 30-foot height
allowance is allowed and the city
measures to the top plate of a building
from grade to the top plate without the
peak involved. What's been proposed here
is a
>> to have a very high building to have a
very high roof line.
>> Yeah. I mean, you could even 12 foot raptors, you're up to 42
ft.
>> I I think to the the thought that the
setback would be significantly closer. I
mean, you 15 ft. So,
>> we're talking
>> 24T building could be
>> the east east boundary is the rear
setback.
Correct.
>> We typically determine the front based
on the addressing of the building. So
assuming it remained this 4 foot large
parcel, which doesn't necessarily fit in
our zoning requirements, um yes, front
would face Happy Valley and rear would
be to the east.
What what are the setbacks industrially
for side setbacks?
» This one has 50 feet.
>> Well, I realize what it says, but my
question is what are the setbacks?
>> Yeah, sorry. Christie is quickly looking
that up for me because it makes a
difference when it's setting next to um
residential properties.
» So, 10 next to residential properties.
So it could be 10 ft away from those
homes instead of 50 whatever feet.
>> They're not going to do that because
they won't be
>> No. If if if this wasn't going to be
built here suburban res.
>> I think what's important too is if this
was voted on and passed,
do we tie it to conceptual plan or do we
just say it's now light industrial, you
can build what you want. because then
they could say, "Oh, well, the setback
is X. I've just changed my mind and I
want to move the building even closer to
the neighbors."
>> Chairman Miller, that's an excellent um
observation. And you could recommend to
city council that they
require a development agreement and
things like that could be included in
the development agreement.
I mean, because we've we've seen plenty
of things come before us that they say
they want to do one thing and then it's
something totally different. So, that's
why I like to try to tie it to something
so we at least have some idea of what we
said yes to and then what is going to
happen moving forward. So
>> I I think Ken, thank you for that
context of the building heights that
would be allowed in the residential, but
I I there's got to be a difference
between a 32 flat building that's 100 ft
long versus a a peak.
It's just a different feel.
>> Yeah.
>> Unless there's a series of buildings
with peaks.
>> That's what I'm saying. That's less
obtrusive than one giant.
>> Oh, I thought you were just talking like
one building with a peak. I was like, I
don't think they'd put one there.
>> Of course.
>> Yeah.
» Which would
>> I mean, even if that was the case, it'd
still bring a lot more traffic like the
applicant said, there'd be a lot more
traffic there with
>> if it was residential.
>> Yep.
» Sorry, I interrupted you.
Well, Mr. Chair, I think looking at that
context and what we were just discussing
in the and and I I think I'm not 100%
with this industrial going here, but I'd
rather see a 32 foot building than a 32
foot building with 12oot peaks and more
traffic. I think, you know, I think it
it's stretching a little bit, but I
think it it does fit here. I mean,
you've got industrial properties down
the airport or down Victory. Um,
and and it's they're not they're not not
around this area.
I if I were to move forward with this
and and agree
and vote yes, I would want a truck turn
lane into this property, too, just to
help alleviate some of that traffic
that's going to get backed up. It
already gets backed up at the at the
roundabout there, Victory in Happy
Valley.
And I'm thinking out loud again. Um
I want and I guess I should ask the
applicant. I wonder if there's a
specific reason for the 32 foot height
um
>> storage racks.
>> Yeah. But I mean I visit a lot of
facilities similar to this and I don't
think that I've seen any 32 foot high
storage racks because forklifts can't
reach that high.
>> Oh yeah. I mean depending and I guess I
understand but
>> we don't do these kinds of buildings but
36 clear height's pretty typical in a
big warehouse you know.
>> Guess I understand that then. So
[clears throat]
I'm not sure if I'm on which way I'd
vote on a motion. I don't I don't know
that I could support a motion that had
that requirement. That requirement makes
me nervous.
>> What requirement?
>> Why?
>> It's a heavy burden.
» A fairly high expense.
>> I like the idea, but I think
>> but it's not necessarily the expense,
it's the proportionality.
>> Correct.
you
>> you're listening Jeff [laughter]
>> Nexus
>> I see you're in the thick of it right
now. Um so the proportionality is the
scope right what the market may or may
not be on it um would be relevant here
but really the case law is okay what is
being asked here and you don't
necessarily take into consideration
maybe the cost although that's more of a second analysis the
first one is is it justified is it
roughly proportionate with their impact
and then if so the Second one would be
yeah do you you believe that would be um
proper to impose um again the costs can
come into play but that's not the first
analysis is is it proportionate
>> well and I guess I have to I have to
look at it too um yes this is a specific
a fairly specific um proposed use but
what if something were to happen and
that proposed use went by the wayside
and it changes and now it's slight
industrial And instead of one truck a
day, we get 15. I mean, it's slight
industrial, so
I don't know. I mean, I'm struggling.
>> Well, then you definitely need a turn
line.
>> Well, that's that's what I'm saying. I
understand both ways. And it's it's kind
of a
» Could we just make a recommendation to
city council if we were to move this
forward that they take a serious look at
possibly requiring it if they deem
necessary? Maybe by then Daniel could do
some a little bit of analysis or
something on it just to see if it
instead of us requiring it, putting it
on there.
>> Would you be open to a motion that
requires them to do a traffic impact
study and
>> required by the traffic impact study?
You know,
I'm I I like the traffic impact studies,
but I have conducted my own traffic
impact study about 50,000 times over the
last few years as Happy Valley has
become bit busier and busier. And
especially since they put that
roundabout in, you go at night or after
in the afternoon, you can't get through
there because everybody's coming west.
And it's the same thing at Amity. It's
the same thing up at Greenhurst.
Everybody's coming west. And you sit
there, you sit there, and you sit there.
And yes, typically I'm one that's like,
"Hey, traffic is traffic. We all got to
deal with it." But you add a truck, a
52, 54 foot semi that's sitting in that
lane to turn left in this because
there's all this traffic that's headed
north.
I That's the You can do your traffic
impact study, but I've already done one.
>> I know that's not supposed to play into
But but it really especially that close
to the roundabout.
>> Okay, let me push back on that. I the purpose of the traffic impact study
would be that we have backing that it's
got nexus and it's proportional. We
would we would be able to then establish
that this property is causing the
problem, not background traffic. And
therefore,
>> I don't I it seems like it protects us,
>> right? if the traffic impact study was
done during when the buses are running
in the morning and when everybody's
coming home from work. I just I just
>> it takes the emotion out of it.
>> And I guess you're I understand that,
but I think it's kind of pointless. If
it's one or two trucks a day, I don't
think it's going to make an impact
enough that the traffic impact stud is
going to show anything.
>> Well, then why should we require them to
do so?
>> Exactly.
But but then my point that if it the use
were to change from this specific to
something different
>> and chairman I may have Daniel come up
and speak on the traffic effect policy.
>> So looking at this and the square
footage and talking to them about the or
listening to their um employee counts
and that this is not uh likely to
trigger the need for a TIS. And so if I would say that if if you are concerned
about the the turning movements and that
I would recommend that you just
recommend that as a condition of
approval um rather than trying to have
the expense of a traffic impact study
that is likely not warranted.
Chairman, if I may, a cleaner way to if
that's the route you want to go as a
condition of approval. Um
though a DA is not put here in the
application, this is a recommendation
that can be included here and then it
goes up as a package to city council
that it could be a pretty skinny DA that
talks about this condition of a traffic
impact study that that's produced.
>> So based on the proposed use, is there
any way that we could limit the amount
of traffic coming and going from this
facility?
I mean that's I know it's
>> How would you do that?
>> Well, and I don't know. I mean, that's I have to ask and that's the thing,
>> right? Because like I said, it's
proposed that well, it's one truck,
maybe two a day, but
>> that's the whole
>> what if they outgrow and he moves and
now we have a different company that
moves in. We got I don't know. I mean,
I'm playing devil's advocate here, but
>> being a little
>> I think we're all here for limited
government, right? We don't want we
don't want city people going out there
counting trucks and then saying
>> Yeah, exactly.
You know, I just I'm I'm thinking of up
on Southside,
right north or right south of
Greenhurst, there's a new development
that went in and they put in a left turn
lane that's about three and a half ft
long.
>> Yeah,
>> it's four.
>> And when I saw that go in, I I chuckled
a little bit. I was like, my gosh,
there's this is the smallest turn lane
I've ever seen. But the reason was is
that there was no other there wasn't
enough space to put a longer one or
something like that in. And so that
that's kind of what I'm looking at is is
did that require a traffic impact study?
I don't know. Maybe it did.
But I you just now you've got these big
a big truck. Let's just say it's one.
Again, I know I'm beating this dead
horse, but that
a truck heading south, turning right,
turning left, uh, turning left into that
property right before that roundabout at
particular times of the day. I mean, I
don't I'm not 100% sold on this project
anyways, but that would sure help me
move to a
>> So, this would basically just be I guess
a DA
like you said in the skinny
>> very light skinny, you know, if it was
an approving motion. Um, you would
modify that to add a DA in there with
that condition. It'd be pretty pretty
basic addition to it. And then council
would you'd be that' be packaged up and
given to them to review and they can
keep it there, strike it, whatever.
Yeah.
>> But it needs to be noticed because it's different than what was noticed
coming into this meeting. It's an
addition and that'll keep us legally
compliant and keep this thing moving
forward.
Mr. Cherry, any other thoughts or
discussion before
>> I like that idea of putting it in the
>> I just say we throw it out there and
let the city council
>> All right. Well, Mr. Chair, if there is
no other further discussion, I will move
to recommend approval of the project as
stated on the screen with the additional
of a simple DA development agreement
that would add a truck turn lane into
the property off of Happy Valley
>> southbound.
like one northbound, too. No,
just southbound.
>> So, does the DA also lock him into this
concept
>> concept of the site plan? sightful.
>> Yeah.
And that would be what's already
>> present
>> presented. So,
I'll second that. [clears throat]
>> It's been moved by Kirkman, seconded by
Turner to approve the item. Uh, madam
clerk, can we have a roll call, please?
» Garner absent. Miller.
Hi.
Daffer absent. Turner.
>> Hi.
>> Kho.
>> No.
>> Morgan.
>> No.
>> Kirkman.
» Yes. Even though I'm hesitating on my
own motion.
>> Yes.
>> Copeland. Absent. Fiend.
No
[clears throat] fails.
>> Thank you. Motion fails.
» Thank you.
» We're not done yet.
>> No, I know. We got to
>> We got to either figure out how to
approve this or deny it, but one of the
>> or recommend. Yeah.
is I'm not opposed to the annexation and
zoning to IIL. I'd like them to
reconfigure the site plan, but I don't
know how to
>> I don't think they can with what they're
trying to do. I don't think they
>> Well, I think I think it would be
removal of the existing resident goal. I
think I they have to get a lot of work
done.
So, Mr. Chair, for Commissioner Morgan
and others, is it is it the is it a
compatibility?
>> Yes,
>> that's what I struggled with also. So,
it's not the truck turning.
[laughter]
>> I don't feel like
>> a good attempt, but no,
>> I feel like if we if we were asked being
asked to change the zoning,
then it should hit overwhelmingly or
pretty strong. And there seems to be a
lot that's kind of in the middle here.
>> There seems to be more industrial land
nearby.
Pick up your pants and move down the
street.
>> Well, well, I guess too I I look at it
this way that you know has been stated
if this was a residential project, the
airport would probably be against it
depending on the size of the residential
development
>> and the discussion, you know, the airport,
we want it to be viable. We want it to
stay there. It It's great for the city
of Napa. And if they prefer to have
industrial around it, so it does protect
it from the residentials, that's going
to cause problems, then
I don't want to see that airport go
away. I don't want to see the air shows
go away. And and yeah, if you were to
turn this into even four houses back
there, they're only going to be 10 feet
apart and you're going to have roofs
like you say that are
>> they're not going to be 45 ft.
>> If you're 30 foot to the top sill plate
and then you put raptors above it.
>> Nobody that's a threetory building.
>> Yeah. Nobody
>> they could but
>> but even even if you go 20 foot and put
a a
>> 12 15 foot raptors, you're going to be
taller.
>> 35 ft. You're going to be taller than 13
and you're only going to have 10 foot
windows between between structures.
>> Granted, it's not going to be a big
wall.
>> I think it feels different than a big
two.
>> It would definitely, but it's you still
are going to pretty much lose all your
sight to that direction.
>> That's why I'm saying I' I'd like to
zone it to I
» and there is a lot of coming down Happy
Valley. So, Happy Valley has definitely
changed.
I'm not opposed to that. I I think
that's the correct
method for it or the correct
recommendation for it, but not that lot.
I think it needs to be moved down the
road.
>> Yeah, but this is the property they
have.
>> I know.
>> We've heard that it's going to be that
the proposed
five lane for that. We don't know when
that's going to be.
So,
in choosing to pro in choosing to change
zoning
with
if if we had more of a okay, that's a
five-year plan,
maybe it makes sense, but with it being
unknown in the future as of right now,
is it prudent to chain zoning at this
time. That that's one thing that we're
all we're we can always look at when we
look at annexation.
Is it appropriate at this time?
That's part of the latitude as I
understand that we have. Am I correct
with that?
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. Timing is one of the big things.
>> Yeah. This is a what you call a
legislative decision. Uh what that means
is it's uh pretty wide open on the
playbook for reasonings for an
annexation. Uh it's not like a
conditional use permit where there's
certain criteria that they meet it or
they don't. It's and it's looked at more
scrutin scrutinized. This is timing is
often an element compatibility. Again,
you can't go into this abuse of
discretion arbitrary world. That's not
allowed. But short of that, um the law
does give commissions and city councils
a lot of latitude.
I mean being often cited among other
things.
» I don't think my motion would pass. So
Um, I move that we approve recommend
approval of the annexation and zoning to
an IL zoning district as stated on the
screen with the condition that the
um
that the lot be reconfigured so that the impact to the neighbors is
minimized.
the city council can
interpret that how they will.
» I like that, but I don't know that ever
happened that way.
>> We can do that though.
>> And if that's the motion again, you'll
want to package that up in that DA
version.
>> Okay. I'll bend my motion to say
>> Yeah. Amend that.
>> That would be done through a DA.
>> That'll be good enough. Yeah.
With that.
» Yeah. I got a second.
>> Okay. It's been moved by Morgan,
seconded by Kho to approve the item with
the added DA. We need any clarification.
Rodney,
>> can can we just make repeat that motion
again?
>> Yeah.
>> With Okay. move that we um recommend
approval of annexation and zoning to a
light industrial zoning district
with the condition that we add a
development agreement to
um
establish the site plan and a
recommendation to city council that they
» consider the impact that consider
rearranging the site plan to lessen the
impact on the residential
>> due to the height of the building.
>> Due to the due to the bulk of the
building.
>> Yeah.
» Does that work? Right.
>> That legal that a legal motion.
>> Yeah. And it may may help to say what
kind of impact type of visual type of
traffic noise.
>> I that my big like the noise I think he
addressed well. I think it's the bulk of
the building being at the back of the
lot and the trucks being between the
bulk of the building and the residential
which yeah [snorts]
I think if those concerns accompany the
recommendation then
and I would second it.
>> Okay. So it's been moved by Commissioner
Morgan, seconded by Commissioner Kho to
approve the item, recommend approval for
the item with the added development
agreement. Madam clerk, can we have a
roll call?
>> Garner absent. Miller
>> I.
>> Daffer absent. Turner.
>> No.
>> Kho.
>> Hi.
>> Morgan.
>> Yes.
>> Kirkman.
>> No.
>> Copeland. Absent. Fine.
Yes,
» thank you. The eyes have it.
>> Thank you.
» Okay, we will move into item 3-3,
conditional use permit for a non.
>> Mr. Chair, can I make a motion to take a
fiveminute recess?
>> Take a fiveminute recess. Yes.
Absolutely. Please.
» Yeah, I know. Go ahead.
Okay, we're going to come back to order,
get started again.
So we are looking at uh item 3-3
[clears throat]
conditional use permit for a non-kennel
non-commercial kennel license in an RS
zoning district addressed as 816 7th
Avenue South
for Savannah Sloan is the applicant
here.
all of any roofing. So,
um, my name is Savannah. I live at 816
7th Avenue South Nampa.
Yes. Sorry.
Okay, there we go.
Okay. Um, I made a PowerPoint. Um, I'm
here because I'm trying to keep my seven
dogs. Um, three of which are little
chihuahua. They're smaller than cats.
One is a labradooki. One is a husky mix
and a pitbull. And then I have a lab
pointer mix that I've had for several
years and I love them very much.
Um, so this just kind of shows um what
I'm trying to do here. Um, everybody
spayed and knitted. I don't breed. I
don't house it for people in my home.
Um, I'm just trying to keep my own dogs.
Um, I work really hard to take care of
them. I keep them as safe as I can. Um,
and I try to keep them from being in
anybody's way as much as I can as well.
Um, so I'm a veterinary technician. Um,
I have been for over 10 years now. Um,
part of that is how I've ended up with
all these babies. Um, most of them are
rescues. Um, they get advanced medical
care. They get everything that they
need. They get regular routine care.
They're already fully licensed with the
city. They're up to date on vaccines as
well. They get um laboratory care. Um
they're also really good citizens where
we use them for practice when we're
needing to practice blood draws or teach
people. When we were shopping for a new
ultrasound machine, it was my dogs that
I would bring in that we could practice
on. Same with my cats. Um, and then, uh,
Jimothy is actually large enough to be a
blood donor dog if that's ever needed as
well.
Um, so they have mostly been rescued.
Um, that's little baby Almost and
Jimothy next to her. Those were the
first photos that I saw of them. And,
um, that's kind of what pushed me to
save them. They are both off euthanasia
lists. um almost was never going to make
it to the adoption floor because she was
just so ill. Um they just they just
weren't going to be able there's so many
healthy dogs. They were both pulled out
of Texas and then Jimmy was actually in
a kennel and at the shelter for 6
months. I pulled him um from being
euthanized about two hours prior to the
procedure. Um and then uh Pink, you
can't see her in this photo, but she's
my Labradooki. Um, she was going to be
shot by a farmer down in EMTT who didn't
believe in taking dogs to shelters
because he didn't want to pay the uh,
relinquish fee, but he had too many dogs
due to accidental litters. And so, he
was just going to shoot her and put him
down himself. Um, and then the little
Chihuahua, those are the only ones that
didn't come to me as direct rescues. Um,
except one of them. Um, I had the there
was an accidental litter and I had that
person reach out to me directly asking
if I would take her so that she wouldn't
end up in a bad situation. So, I did.
Um, and I take them everywhere with me.
Um, so I work really hard to keep them
clean. Um, unfortunately my yard is all
dirt. Um, it turns out it's actually
really expensive to put in a lawn. Um,
and also kind of hard when you have the
dogs. Um, but they get baths. I'm
constantly cleaning up after them. Um,
they're a little naughty and they like
to counter surf and, you know, tear
things up, but they're living their best
lives and, you know, mind over matters.
So, I love them more than I love things.
Um, I have a 6ft fence all around my
yard. Um, so they can't escape. Um, they
still try and they have, but I stand
outside with them anytime they're
outside now. Um, to prevent that from
happening.
Um, and then this is a little bit of a
look into our lives. Um, I'm really
outdoorsy. I'm constantly hiking,
camping. I do back country, so even
though we're on trails, they're not
running up and harassing other people.
Where I go is way out in the boondocks.
Um, so that they can kind of run around,
play wolf. Um, but they're really
obviously really well behaved and they
stay with me. And when we're not out
hiking, we're I call it the pile and
we're all cuddled in the pile in bed.
Um, and that's my very favorite place to
be.
Um, this was a link to a video. I don't
know if it'll actually work. Um, but
it's just a little video of kind of what
it looks like into our life. For time's
sake, I'll just skip it. Um, but there's
just another photo of us kind of out in
the snow. We do stuff all year round.
Um, the Wawaas typically stay home when
the snow is really deep or really cold,
but they all have jackets and they all
have sweaters, including the big dogs,
so that they're taken care of and warm
and happy. Um, I actually am high
functioning autism and ADHD. I routinely
take medication every single day to make
life easier for me. Um, I don't need to
take as much medication when I'm with my
animals. They help regulate me the way
that the medication was when I'm does
when I'm not around them. Um, I also
have really bad PTSD. Um, I've had a lot
of struggles in my life. I'm a rape
survivor. I'm a domestic abuse survivor.
I am a child abuse survivor and um these
dogs really helped me to get through it.
Um I also grew up military and when you
grow up in that kind of environment, you
aren't living somewhere long enough to
build super lasting relationships. And
so as a child, my lasting relationships
that I could always count on were worth
my animals. And that's what part of the
reason I place so much value in them.
Um, this just goes on a little bit more
about what they give me, the dopamine
regulation. Um, and then they help me so
I don't have to take every medication
every day or as much medication every
day.
Um, and then this is just a comparison
of care standards of kind of what they
get in the shelter and what they get in
typical households versus what they can
get with me.
[snorts]
Um, and then this just goes over the
youth in Asia statistics. Um, 5.8
million animal shelter intakes um,
happen and that's and I don't want to
contribute to the homeless animal
situation. Um, I can't save all of them,
but I can keep these seven safe and
loved for the rest of their life. Um,
out of those 5.8 million, 600,000 are
euthanized. Um, and that's typically
younger dogs, there's puppies, there's dogs that are perfectly fine um
to be adopted that don't get to find
homes.
And then this just goes over um if you
can take some of that and you can say
some of it's for euthanasia or
behavioral problems. But as you can see
the euthanasia rate is still it's only
390k to 210k
um that are euthanized due to behavior
and medical problems.
And then there's just extra
vulnerability for certain breeds like
pit bulls and huskys. I actually think
almost is mixed with a pitbull as well.
And then there's part of a look into the
pile that just goes over cats a little
bit. Um my my long-term um goal is to
move. I'm actually in the process of
doing that now. I've already spoken to
my boss for the company that I work for.
We have locations in Kentucky, um which
is actually pretty far, but I can't
afford to move out of city here. I can't
afford to move to Kentucky and be able
to afford a property that we can all
exist happily and peacefully on. Um, I'm
not just asking for permission from you
guys to keep my dogs. I'm asking for
your help to help me keep them so that I
can move to a better place for us. Thank
you.
>> Thank you,
>> Mr. Chair. Quick question.
>> Yep.
>> Uh, how you have seven dogs?
>> I have seven.
>> How many cats? There's no regulation on
how many cats, so I'd rather not discuss
that.
» Okay. Yep. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Christie.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
commissioners. Christy Watkins,
principal planner for the city of Nampa.
The request before you tonight is for
conditional use permit for a
non-commercial kennel in an RS6 zoning
district to keep seven dogs.
The property is located in the RS6 zone
and it is completely surrounded by RS6
zoned properties.
So according to our animal code um
potbelly pigs and dogs equate to each
other. So you are allowed to have two
dogs or two pigs or one dog and one pig
um in combination. Anything over that
requires a conditional use permit for a
non-commercial kennel. I'm I'm sorry.
Can you go back to that, Mr. Chair? Just
uh clarification because right there in
that first sentence it says in which
more than two dogs and or cats of at
least six months. That's why I asked the
question how many cats she's got seven
dogs. Wouldn't however many cats come
into play also because there could be
more than seven.
» So that's the definition for a
non-commercial kennel.
Um,
we don't regulate the maximum number in
chapter 21 for cats.
And in chapter,
I guess chapter 3, where it says you
need a conditional use permit for
anything over that amount, that's what
they would be asking for. Um, there's a
number of other animals that are on the
property as well that don't fall into
the need for a conditional use permit
either. It's either allowed or it isn't.
So I I'm not quite sure how to defend
that definition with a cat because cats
are cats are cats
>> and it's a but and it's very specific
and or cats or but anyways that that's
the reason I asked the question because
>> that is very specific
>> includes dogs and cats or cats.
So [clears throat] if she's if if the
applicant says seven dogs, I mean,
however many cats, does it bump it up
even more beyond that?
>> Not according to the definition in 1021.
» X 1021 says,
» it would certainly be more than two.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> Um, as you know, there are four criteria
for conditional use permit that need to
be met. However, in this case, two of
those criteria don't really apply to
this application. So, we're going to be
focusing on just two of them.
Um, the only correspondence that we
received was from the police department.
Uh, they opposed the issuance of the
conditional use permit. They have
responded to her residence in several
occasions. Most recent was June of this
year. On this occasion, she was found to
be in possession of the following list
of animals. 12 plus cats is what they
listed in their letter.
While at the residence, officers found
the condition of the home and yard to be
unsatisfactory for the keeping and
maintenance of animals. Miss Sloan was
charged with animal cruelty, and this
case is currently working its way
through the court process. Over the last
couple of years, NPA animal control
officers have had several concert
conversations with her regarding the
number of animals that she keeps and the
various conditions of her property.
So, the surrounding land uses are
primary single family residential. The
lot is an averagesized lot in the RS6
district. Um they are kept in the
backyard in a fenced backyard. That is a
fact. Um according to chapter 21, the
left chapter or the left column is what
is allowed by code to be kept. That can
all be kept together at in one place. Um
you can see where in some cases those
numbers are exceeded.
This is just a snippet of um the
information that came from animal
control um with the number of visits
that they made to the property.
These are the names of the seven dogs
that she's asking for today. In July of
2022, she was approved for two dogs and
two pot belly pigs. in April of 2024,
that conditional use permit was revoked
due to the numerous calls by uh law law
enforcement to that property.
So, while that conditional use permit
was revoked due to multiple citations,
this is a new request for seven dogs and
no pigs.
The conditional use permit criteria that
applies is the design, construction,
operation, and maintenance of the
property and project will not adversely
impact the intended character and
appearance of the general vicinity. It's
a residential neighborhood. Um she
stated that she keeps everything clean.
Um there's minimal noise impact. Um
secure containment. Um, and then we've
got the other side of that coin, um,
from animal control that says due to the
number and types of animals, there's
evidence that the state of this property
is not aligned with the intended
character of the residential
neighborhood.
Um, and then the other one is the
proposed use will not involve activities
um that will be determined to be
detrimental to persons general welfare,
causing traffic, noise, and odors, that
kind of thing. Um, again, she had some
um
quotes in her narrative where she talks
through some of the general welfare and
the noise and the odors and all of those
things. Um, and I just go back to the
numerous visits by law enforcement.
Um, these are the conditions of
approval. They kind of are the they are
the same conditions that were approved
with the last conditional use permit. Um
and then also you know coming into
compliance with the number of the other
animals so that that meets code.
These are your potential motions. I
would ask that when you make your motion
you give a reason for whatever you
decide. I need you to come to the
conclusion on this one.
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
>> Got a quick question for if I could sir.
So, if we were to to deny this,
does she have would she have a certain
amount of time to remove all the animals
that are over the limit or is it we just
going to keep having to keep send animal
control over there? Um, Commissioner
Turner, I imagine that animal control
would do an initial visit and would set
up a a plan to be rid of them in a
certain period of time and then they
would continue to monitor it.
>> Okay, thank you.
questions.
Um, Commissioner Morgan, that definition in chapter 21 is the one
that causes the conditional use permit
to be required. And that's where it
talks about the two pigs or the two
dogs. And then the chart itself
lays out how many in total of the other
types of animals they can have without a
conditional use permit. So
>> what we're talking about today,
>> seven dogs.
[snorts]
Yes.
Madam clerk, do we have a signup sheet?
Yes. Calling Gilliano's furl.
If Mr. S uh Spurl is not present, then
we have no other uh speaker signed up
for public testimony.
>> Okay. Uh is there anyone that would like
to speak for, against, or undecided on
this specific item?
>> Go ahead and come on up. Remember to
give us your name and address for the
record, please.
>> Hi. Uh, my name is Jonathan Doppkins.
Um, I live at 2770 West Tango Creek
Drive in Meridian, Idaho. Um, but I am a
friend and a co-orker of Savannah. Um, I
have known her for about four or five
years and um, I've gotten to know her
with and her animals and her dogs. And I
have not once um thought that they were
mistreated in any way. And um I have
been to her house and they have been
taken care of. They're wellfed. They're
in healthy condition. Um and so I asked
that she would be able to keep her dogs.
Um and this is this permit is only for
the dogs. So I don't think the other
animals would be put into the equation.
Thank you.
» Anybody else that would like to speak?
» My name is Del Oram and I live at 51
East Blue Heron Lane in Meridian, Idaho.
Um, I've known Savannah for the past
three years and she's not only become
like my best friend, but a sister that I
didn't have. And the dogs in her are I
can't imagine her without her dogs. Like
that is her family. That is her life.
Um, and they're the things that keep her
stable. like when she calls me and she's
having a bad day, she's I know that
she's in a pile with the animals. Um to
say that they're like, you know, not
being taken care of to say that they're
abused is I think it's a grievous in a
statement. I think that it it really
hurts my soul to see the people to know
that she has people in her quarter that
support her. We've got lists of over
like 15 plus letters of recommendation.
Yeah, that um that just I think I just
think if you take it away from her like
I think that it just be be really
detrimental to her and then to me and I
don't want to lose my best friend
because you know stuff we are planning
to leave here we don't want to be a a
pain to anybody but um if you want to
know what real animal abuse looks like
I'm work the same profession um I have
seen things that I don't want to speak
about and this is not abuse um and this
is they're well cared for um and she
would not be she would not take these
animals on if she could not care for
them
can take that in consideration.
>> Thank you.
Anybody else?
» Name is Sloan. Do you have anything to
add? Yep. Go ahead and come back up.
Yep. Go ahead, please.
of time before. Um, but all of these
binders are medical records.
It's all their blood work and then it's
letters of character from people
and then it's not a secret to the four
of us that we know who's reporting me
and it's it's not from the neighborhood.
It's it's a co it's co-workers, which is
another reason that we're leaving. I've
also had footprints that have they've
seen outside my house in my yard that
aren't mine in the snow. I don't feel
safe at home. I don't feel safe at work.
My animals make me feel safe. It's
another reason I'm trying to move. I
just want to move. I just want to keep
my animals and move. That's all I want
to do. I just want to leave. I've done
the I bought my house when I was 24. It
was a fixer upper. It's still a fixer
upper. When I was 24, I was sleeping on
my friend's couch. I didn't have a home.
And I went from that to having a home
that I thought I could live happily with
and just have my animals, have my old
lady dreams, my Disney princess life. I
don't have internet. I don't watch TV. I
don't have TV at my house. It's my
animals. I go home and I'll just play
with them and stare at them and hiking
and camping. Like, that's my life.
That's what we do. I know it's different
from other people's hobbies, but I'm
different and I'm really tired of having
to take medication every day to fit in
better and I have to do that to feel
safe at my own home. It's not right. And
here I am, you know, six, seven years
later and my house is still a fixer
upper because
I don't have the funds to do all that. I
[snorts] don't I don't especially now
with how prices have gone up. I wouldn't
have been able to afford my house as a
24 year old if I didn't buy it right in
2019 before I before the prices went out
above and beyond. And that's why I can't
afford to move out of the city here.
That's why I have to move out of state.
When I was 24, I didn't know to look at
city ordinances. I knew not to live in
an HOA,
but I didn't think about city
ordinances. And I wish that I knew what
I know now because I would never have
bought that house. I resent it. I don't
want to be there anymore. I just want
permission to exist there until I can
leave, which is what I'm trying to do.
It's probably going to be at least
within the next year. And I did look at
the ordinances in Kentucky. And it
doesn't matter if you live in city or
outside of city. You can have as many
cats and dogs as you want. I learned
I've learned.
So, if you guys want to review medical
records and review letters, you're
welcome to. It's an open book. Um I've
had trouble with the law enforcement. I
know it doesn't look good and I'm really
tired of being painted as this horrible
picture through animal control. My house
wasn't nice when I bought it. It's not
because my animals. It's it's just it's
it smelled bad when I bought it. It
looked bad when I bought it. It was what
a 24 year old could afford all on her
own. And I worked really hard and I was
really proud of my house until now.
Okay.
>> You have questions for
Guess
that's all. Thank you.
» I do have a question. I'm sorry.
>> Miss Sloan, if you don't mind.
Um, would you mind speaking to what the current charges and situation in the
court is just so we have a better idea?
>> Yeah, absolutely. And I actually I
didn't bring my phone, but I also was
just texting with my lawyer yesterday to
see if there was an update too that I'd
be happy to share. Um, so when they came
to my house, um, it was for a welfare
check on my dogs again and, um, they had
found Thank you. Um, and they found that
I had 24 chickens. However, I had they
were all less than six months old except
like five because people get chickens.
You grow them out, you see what's a
rooster, you see what's not, you keep
what you want, and you don't you don't
keep the others. Other people are
allowed to do that. Um, other people in
my neighborhood do have roosters, but
they they um took all my they took all
my chickens that day. Um, I also had two
mini ponies in my backyard, which I've
had there for several years. Um, and
they told me that I just had to move
them. So, I moved them. They're
outboarding with my large horse now. So,
I moved them. That's fine. They
confiscated the chickens, which Adele
went and picked up the very next day cuz
we were told that if they were picked up
and just relocated by somebody who
wasn't me, then there wouldn't be any
charges. Um, but then, uh, the shelter
hadn't finished processing them. Um, and
so Adele had to pick him up the next day
in which they charged her $700 to bail
them out of chicken jail. Um, and we
were not told of those fees. Um, but
they basically when I asked why they I
was being charged with cruelty because
I'm not cruel to the animals. I'm not cruel to them. I even have
medical records on my chickens of when I
took them to surgery and um but um I
asked why I was being charged with
cruelty and they said it was just the
category that it falls under and they're
trying to charge me each for cruelty for
each individual chicken. So like 24
counts of cruelty towards each chicken
and two counts of cruelty towards my
ponies. And it's very contradicting
because if the animals safety and I was
cruel to them was really what they were
worried about, then why were we allowed
to get them to get them back so I could
still have access to them? Why were my
dogs left at my house if I was being
cruel to animals? Why were the cats left
at my house? Why? It's very
contradicting. Um, and the update that
my lawyer gave me yesterday was
um let me scroll down and find it here.
Um because I did ask him for advice
about coming here too because I don't
know if I could afford a lawyer he'd be
up here with me right now. Um but he
said where zoning is a civil issue. It
is outside the scope of my appointment
and I'm afraid I have a full calendar of
cases tomorrow. So he wasn't able to
make it tonight. He says I don't have
[clears throat] any updates on your case
currently. The prosecutor handling the
matter has been away dealing with family
stuff. I currently have nine other cases
set for jury trial on the same day or
prior to your case. I'm hoping the log
jam of cases work in your favor to
encourage the prosecutor to dismiss your
case or maybe at least reduce it from a
misdemeanor to an infraction. You know,
because he has actual crimes to be
concerned with.
That was his exact quote.
Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to close
the public hearing.
>> Second.
>> Then moved by Turner, seconded by Kho to
close the public hearing. All those in
favor?
>> I.
>> Any opposed?
>> Closed.
[clears throat]
What?
I have some real concerns. We we granted
her one in July of 2022 and within two
years she she'd gone way over what was
allowed with the two potbelly pigs and
the two dogs at the time where she had
what horses and goats and wasn't even
two years and it was revoked.
I
countless
calls to even three calls from her to
that she had report a lost dog. So
I I have serious concerns with extending
this and giving her another chance to
have seven dogs because if history
repeats itself, which it usually does,
the seven dogs are going to turn into
who knows what else. And
I I mean at the one time she had
46
animals. I know farms that don't have 46
animals. [laughter]
So So uh I I am not for giving
CU for this.
I have to agree. I don't know how many
chances you can get in life, but uh
she's had a lot more chances to get get
her act together than I've ever had in
my life.
Can't get together now. Hasn't been able
to in the past. I can't see that she can
in the future either.
Probably disregards
claims that she doesn't know what they
are, which that's not excusable to me.
Think about the police department and
the dollars that they spend
trying to address just her issue. It's
expense to the city that we don't need
to have.
All right.
Chairman, if I may, while we're in
deliberation stage, um as deliberations
are happening, there's a box here on the
right that has the two there's
technically four criteria, but these are
the two that are gerine to this. the
other two really don't apply.
As you make your comments, can you speak
commissioners to those points of where
it fits into it? Where this is a quasi
judicial decision, you got to fit it
squarely and tightly within those. So,
as you continue the deliberation, do
that. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Yeah, Mr. Chair. In fact, that's exactly
what I was just looking at here is the I do not believe that the number of dogs
and the request at the CUP fits the
nature of where this location is, where
the house is in the neighborhood. It's
not com, you know, it's I think it's
detrimental to the neighbors, the
general welfare, not to mention the tra
traffic. We mention traffic all the
time. That's why
[clears throat and laughter]
not to mention the noise and the odor
from Seven Dogs um and whatever else
might be there in the home. Um I just
don't think that there's I'm not
convinced that the property is um
equipped well enough to handle seven
dogs.
And it's evident from encounters with
law enforcement that that has been the
case. So that's why I am inclined to uh
deny this.
I haven't lived as long as Steve has,
but I've been given more second chances
than that.
Um,
a lot of times on these cups we
almost better to have them than not
because then we have some leverage and there's there's motivation for her
to follow the rules when we have the
conditional use permit.
Um,
I don't know if I have many thoughts
beyond that, but
>> I've got a question. So, if we were to
issue a CUP in this situation,
um, and let's just say somebody from
Boyisey called and made a complaint.
They know her, they don't like her for
whatever reason, they're not a direct
neighbor.
Is that a valid complaint?
Um, I'm I'm hoping we can look up that
language in code. I I'll do that in just
a second here. I think um I think it
relates to a neighbor within a certain
distance if if I remember right. So, let
me let me take a look at that code. If
there were two complaints from
neighbors,
if you issue the cup and the cup is to
be revoked, I think it has to be two
neighbors within a certain distance that
uh complaint. So I if you got that
>> commissioner or may or chairman, um I
believe the language is in 102512 on
revocation. says, "Any citizen complaint
or city citation related to
non-compliance with the conditions of
the CUP shall be investigated by city
staff."
Um, again, I don't see any other as I'm
scanning through it, it appears that
it's going to be just for citizen
complaints or city citation.
And, you know, understanding is a lot of
these are complaint driven and so they
kind of come case by case analysis. And
so, but somebody who's totally remotely,
you know, from the situation, that's
going to be a case by case analysis. So,
>> the planning department has to
substantiate it, act on it, right?
>> Uh, I believe so. Yes. It's here
investigated by city staff and it's in
title 10 of your code.
>> Rodney has to do it himself. Um,
[laughter]
but I I would I would imagine that the
intent of the word citizen in there is a
citizen of
this jurisdiction. Yeah, that's only
reasonable interpretation to it. Yeah.
» Yeah. And the only last thing I would
add to that is just that um we were just
looking at the code. It also says found
to be credible. So yeah, I would have to
go out, visit it, visit the site, see if
it's credible, what the complaint is
about. And it's up a little bit of notch
as you stated here, a notch up for um
those who can make that complaint
against a cup versus just an average
code compliance issue, anybody could
call in, right? They could be in Boisey
and call that in. But for a cup to be
revoked, it has to come from citizens.
Rody, along that same line, um
the police department, they're citizens
of Nampa. Would that count as a citizen
or does that count as an official duty
or a citation?
» Mr. Chair and commissioners, there's
also discretion given to us. if there is
a agency um uh complaint or concern from
the animal control or whatever, we can
go out and visit and make that
determination.
I typically don't do that unless I get a
notice from somebody. I I wouldn't just
go out and visit a a cup issued location
unless we had the two complaints from
neighbors or I had um an a staff member
of the city notifying me there was a
problem and then I would go out and
visit.
Is it possible to put limitation time
restrictions on a cup?
» Mr. Chair and commissioners, yes. Um, we
have done that in the past and we've
said you can you can have this for a
certain amount of time and you by this
date you have to do these things. Um,
we've done that put conditions but again
it's the Nolan Dolan Nexus and
proportionality rule. uh you just need
to be um it has to relate directly to
what's being requested
but you can't make excuse me you can't
make a condition
what I'm trying to say but I can't say
it um
one of the conditions that that you say
your time limit is like he's talking
about you can't say well by January 25th
that you have to have no compliance
issues. Every time you have a compliance
[snorts] issue, that's another another
citation.
» You don't you don't give
>> I think you say
>> I think I she's trying to move and so
>> but she
>> if if we put a time condition on that
and say okay conditional you use permit
>> how long you going to get her to move?
Well, I think I think that's the that's
the whole point of the conversation is is it six months? Is it a year? And
then if that time runs out, then she
would have to come back before us and
ask
>> what's to keep her from [clears throat]
trying for a year and have five
complaints and then come back next and
do four complaints and come back five
more complaints.
>> Assumptions.
>> Yeah. And if there are complaints there,
that is that gives grounds for
revocation of a of a of the permit.
Correct.
>> Yeah.
I care for her neighbors and I care for
the city itself. We have laws. We have
[cough] regulations. We should comply
with them. If the police department goes
out there as many times as it has, that
sufficient for me.
I guess if that's still out there, um,
police will investigate for kind of code
compliance, maybe criminal liability,
whereas here, this is a, um, land use
investigation. So Rodney's and his team
would conduct their own investigation on
that. And so there would be a different
investigation when it comes to the cup.
Think of that as its own little box of
rules that's governed and administered
and enforced by a planning and zoning
department. PD, they still can do as
they need per calls. There's nothing
that stops them from that. And the
conditions you put on here, I mean, it's
implied in the name. This is a
conditional use permit. Um, put the
conditions on that would um meet the
criteria of our code that's up on your
screen in the box. And it can be a time
and it doesn't have to be to the
property, right? It can be for time and
limited to the occupant owner as long as
they're there for a certain period of
time.
I understand concerns about
prior.
I've also had many second chances in my
life, too. So,
I don't know. I think like I've said
before
issue you have more control.
I don't know. Two point
You done just a good job.
[clears throat] You've been on point.
Well, if there's no more discussions or
anything, I'll make a motion to approve
the permit as stated on the screen with
the conditions
for my um reasons being
a a time limit
on the on the permit.
with with a time limit of one year
» to the occupant only, not to the
property.
>> What I'm hearing you say is to the
earlier of um occupant no longer owning
the property or one year, whatever comes
earlier.
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
» Mr. Chair, I I believe we still need
some uh reasoning too because how does
it meet the criteria? [snorts] I think
we just need a little more clarity
there.
If you want to add some analysis or
reasons based off those two in the box,
that'd be needed here.
» I know there's a motion on the table.
Can we discuss
a second?
>> Absolutely. discuss.
>> I'll hold it. I I don't know if the
applicant would even be amendable to
this, but I I wonder if we could
include, you know, she's already gotten
rid of the chickens and the ponies, and
I think that's a good thing if we could
just enshrine that in the conditions,
too. That would make
better
is that that's kosher, right?
>> Yeah. If you want
>> if you want to have them amend the
motion to include that. Yeah. Um, and
yes, that would be permitted. Um, it's
not uncommon we'll see, hey, by a
certain time you have to be in
compliance, um, and have certain changes
happen, whether removed or added to your
situation. If you fail to do that, then
the whole thing crumbles, right? Then
it's revoked. It's almost like an
automatic revocation.
I might do two years.
But those are only suggestions you do.
I'm looking at the top one and it says
that the design, construction,
operation, maintenance of the property
and project will not adversely impact
the intended character and appearance of
the general vicinity.
They're not necessarily new animals.
This has been like this.
I don't see anybody here from the
neighborhood complaining about it
changing the neighborhood.
And if it did adversely affect the
neighborhood, I would expect someone
from the neighborhood to be here saying
so. So, I don't live in that
neighborhood, so I can't I'm not going
to speak whether it does or not.
andows
us to have these conditions that would
discuss this. I would I'm okay with
adding some conditions
If those are very specific, very
specific time frame, very specific
number of dogs and no other animals and
you know that would be an automatic
violation or revocation.
That's what I would be able to.
I want her to have her dogs, but I don't
want her to have 17 27 chickens and 14
cows and all that other kind of stuff at
our property either because that
definitely isn't
the nature of where this location is.
So, if there are very specific
conditions in the
» This might be a lengthy motion then.
>> [laughter]
>> Uh so I'll I'll make a motion move to
approve the conditional use permit
based on
25482
the lack of
um neighborhood opposition.
I will put the conditions on there of
one year
either occupant
or sells
property
with the condition of just the dogs
given the prior
am
because of the past amount of other
animals and other issues that have been
with Does
» that work Preston?
>> I think so. Um maybe one cleanup or
clarification on the ownership piece. It
could be if you're again it'll be you to
propose the amendment, not me. But um
you know if ownership changes or
occupant no longer uh or ceases to you
know reside there that way they move
sell whatever abandon it it's gone right
or and then the in the fall fall back
over this is a hard oneear back stop.
Can I ask a clarification?
We said seven dogs, specifically seven
dogs,
but what if what about cats? There's
certainly some additional
some cats there, too. I don't know how
many there might or is that included in
this motion or
>> seven?
>> Just seven dogs.
>> Just to reiterate on the motion, it's
for seven dogs
>> because that's what we're talking about.
and these seven dogs
>> and these these particular seven dogs
that have been listed and named in the
staff report that was
>> Yeah, I I think you've nailed it. I I
the request today is not for anything
but the dogs. So, we have to address
that.
>> Yes.
» Okay. So, the motion's good.
>> I think so.
>> We don't need to redo it.
>> Motion's good. The record's caught it.
So, yeah.
a second.
>> We have a second.
>> Um
I I would second I'm a little nervous
about the one-year timeline. It seems
optimistic.
>> And do we want her to have to come back
every year, pay the fee every year, come
back and do this permit?
>> Sounds like you I've already mentioned
two years.
>> I mentioned two years. You stuck with
one year. I if you want to stick with
one year, that's fine. But that would be
my suggestion. Then we'll go 18 months.
How's that? [laughter]
» It gives her I mean she's she wants to
be out in a year.
>> Yes.
>> Years have been done.
>> Correct.
>> And I I just don't want to burden her or
the planning staff with having to come
back more than is necessary.
» Mr. Chair. So the motion
>> are you amending it?
>> Motion's amended. And for the second
>> and I'll just go with Commissioner
Morgan for two years.
» I have a second.
>> Second.
>> I has been moved by Commissioner Fiend,
second by Commissioner Morgan to approve
this item.
>> Yeah. Can Can you restate the motion?
[laughter]
Just so that I'm clear. I think things
have changed a little bit. Mr. Chair, if
you could could you read it? Yeah. What
do you got over there?
>> Clerk can read it. I I'm pretty sure
that I have it, but
>> think I've got it.
>> Okay,
>> I'm looking at the clip.
>> I have been
>> Christiey's got it right there in her
notes,
>> writing seriously.
>> Okay. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman and
commissioners. Um, for approval,
» because of 4 A2, the property has been
in this condition for some time. There
are no neighbors in attendance to
testify that it adversely impacts the
character and appearance of the general
vicinity. With the conditions of
approval that there is a time limit of
two years for the occupant only or as
long as the occupant or until the
occupant no longer resides at the
property for just these seven dogs and
not the other animals due to the
previous citations
that were listed by animal control.
So, it's two years or before she moves,
whichever comes first.
>> Yep. Yeah.
>> Two years or she no longer resides at
the property. Whichever comes first.
>> That is my motion.
» Okay. Madam Cler, can we have a roll
call?
» Garner absent. Miller,
>> hi.
>> Daffer absent.
Turner.
>> Nay. [clears throat]
>> Kho,
>> no.
>> Morgan,
>> yes.
>> Kirkman,
>> no.
>> Copeland, absent. Fine.
>> Yes.
» We're at 33. Motion failed.
situation.
» I will make a motion that we deny the
conditional use permit for a
non-commercial kennel license for seven
dogs in NRS6 single family residential
zoning district.
The reason is because this fails to
comply with
41025
4.8.2.
I know that there's nobody here from
that is that has been here to testify in
opposition, but there's plenty of police
reports that have specifically said this
is not conducive to this environment, to
this neighborhood. And there's been
noise complaints that have there's been
written
documentation from animal control about
the concerns of what the property how
the the state of the property and how
the the dogs were taken care of and and
so that's why I think that in the big
picture that this fails to comply and
that's why I make this motion to deny.
>> Second it.
It's been moved by Kirkman, second by
Turner to deny.
Madam clerk, can we have a roll call?
>> Garner absent. Miller,
>> no.
>> Daffer absent. Turner.
>> Hi.
>> Kho.
>> I
>> Morgan.
>> No.
>> Kirkman.
>> Hi.
and Fi
>> no
>> and Copeland absent
[clears throat]
>> three three motion fails
>> but people need to show up for these
hearings
» I mean to those voting to deny are there
any conditions that would get you to
vote for approval
» I'm not going to say there's not because
I always think there's I always think
that there there is we just need to find
those and I apologize that this was
running late, but I think it's very
important I think it's important to the
applicant to keep these dogs. My concern
is especially when they've been when
animal control has been out there and
it's documented of the state of the
property that that's in and
the the dogs and the safety and animal
cruelty and all that. And I know that's
still running through the court, but
that's documented here. And so that's
why I bring it up.
Not saying that this is something that
I'm thinking about. And so I'm I'm
wondering I I I'm okay with the with the
time limit. I think two years is too
much is too long. I think there should
be I think if there were some spot
checkins
>> just already on their radar. [laughter]
>> That's true. That's true.
>> They're already checking on
a year.
>> Yeah, I think and and I think that just
it just kind of it just kind of pulls it
Yeah. Well, I don't want to I don't want
to
>> pressure, but does it make it
>> that it's immediate?
>> Yeah. that that things are kept clean
knowing that there's a time frame and if
she has to come back and get an
extension on the cup
then that's a pro that's the process
that everyone has and everyone is
afforded to um so
>> well but I guess at that point if it
hadn't been revoked would there be a
reason for us not
>> no if it hasn't been revoked or if it
I mean if everything is going the way it
should be going and there's no re
there's no violation and it's and it's
held to that and at one year.
So I I think there is definitely room
for compromise. Absolutely. And the two
years was kind of the thing that I was
>> That's too long.
>> Yeah, I think so.
That was really the only thing that kind
of
>> So is it one year or 18 months?
>> I'm serious. What? [clears throat]
» Well, I mean, I think 18 months is is
fine because you're right. if she's
looking to move
>> there's a will there's a will there's a
way out of
>> going to be a challenge moving and
finding a place like and I totally get
that so I'm I'm good with 18 months I I
just don't want this to drag out
>> there's always the option though since
this is a cup for someone in the
neighborhood who does
>> find absolutely
>> a violation to make a complaint
>> and so that option is always there so I
think 18 months for me personally I
think 18 months is better than two
and not necessarily as quick as one
minute.
» Maybe people in the neighborhood haven't
complained because they think it's being
taken care of.
>> Well, that's for them to decide at that
point.
>> That's not that's of no concern for me
right now.
They got a complaint. They got a there's
a process to follow.
>> Redo your motion from the first one. Cut
it down to 18 months.
>> I just want you to have the practice.
>> Thanks. Okay. Just chair. I'll make a
motion to approve the previous motion
with the amendment of 18 months
reduced from the two years.
>> Second.
>> Been moved by Commissioner Fi. Second by
Morgan to approve the item with the
amendment to the original.
>> Madam clerk, can you roll call?
>> Garner absent. Miller
>> I.
>> Daffer absent. Turner.
>> Nay.
>> Kho.
>> No.
>> Morgan,
>> yes.
>> Kirkman,
>> yes.
>> Copeland, absent. Fiend.
>> Yes.
» Four to two. The motion carries.
>> Okay.
This cup will become effective 15
calendar days from the date the written
decision and reason statement is
provided to the applicant unless an
appeal has been filed with the planning
and zoning department with the
appropriate fee. No action should be
taken on this cup until the appeal
period has concluded. The applicant must
confirm with planning and zoning staff
there have been no appeals.
» Okay, we will move into item 3-4.
>> Mr. chair. Since it's late, should we
just push this to the next meeting?
>> I'm just kidding. I'm [laughter] just
kidding.
>> I was going to vote on that.
[laughter]
>> Uh annexation and zoning to RS4, RMH,
and BC zoning districts and a master
plan community with a potential
development agreement for Lonear.
addressed is 000 Smith Avenue, 00 Lonear
Road for Lonear 110 LLC, Challenge
Development Incorporated, representing
Lonear 110, and Corey Barton,
the applicant here, please.
>> Good evening. Uh Stephanie Hopkins. I'm
with KM Engineering. Our address is 5725
North Discovery Way in Boyisey. I'm very
excited to be here this evening to talk
about Lonear with you. This has been a
really interesting agenda. I've been
very um the whole wide variety of
topics. So,
>> um we're thrilled to be representing uh
multiple
property owners and developers on this
property. Uh we're requesting annexation
to the city of Nampa with three
different zoning districts. We're
including a master plan community
request uh for Lonear uh plan community
with a potential development agreement
as well. We've met with the city to
understand requirements. We've held a
neighborhood meeting in March. There are
three attendees
uh and have researched the southwest
Nampa specific area plan in depth um in
designing what we're going to be showing
you this evening. We're requesting a
positive recommendation on the master
plan community and the annexation and
zoning. Um our team is very excited to
support the city's vision in this area.
As I was listening to all of the
hearings on the southwest Nampa specific
area plans, staff did a really great job
explaining the intent behind the
specific area plan. And at one point
they said specific area plans allow for
the city to be proactive and plan
slashprepare for growth while giving the
community and land owners certainty on
what to expect in the future. And I
think Lonear perfectly personifies that
objective the city had with the specific
area plan in this area.
I think
So, this is uh where the propertyy's
located. It's approximately 149 acres.
There's several parcels in
unincorporated Canon County. It's
located north of uh near the southeast
corner of Smith Avenue and Midway Road
in Southwest Nampa. Right across the
street from Midway Park uh and near
existing zoned properties. There's RS7,
RS6, RS 8.5, RS22, and BC districts in
the nearby area. If approved for
annexation, this would be the first
master plan community within the
southwest Nampa specific area plan. So,
it's a really great opportunity to have
a large assemblage of pro property
brought in uh as the first development
within the specific area plan. It's
opportunityly placed near transportation
corridors. Uh it's near existing
services, Midway Park, as I mentioned,
and is in a beautiful part of Nampa, as
you're all aware.
Our annexation and zoning request is
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
It's in alignment with the specific area
plan and the future land use map. The
proposed uses will be designed to be
compatible with this existing
development. Right now, we just have a
concept a conceptual plan that shows you
a rough road network that I'll show you
in a little bit with some land uses and
zonings. We don't have a preliminary
plat or anything showing layout at this
point, but we will eventually if this
annexation's approved. Uh and a reszone
to the BC, the Community Business
District, uh RS4 and RMH is consistent
with the specific area plan.
We're requesting about 30 acres in the
community business district, 90.65 in
the RS4 for the single family. That's
shown in yellow on the map in front of
you. And uh the RH district, which is uh
shown in the brown, is 28.66 acres.
Overall, the property is 149 acres. And
we've uh developed this specifically to
comply with the requirements of the
specific area plan. So that shows the
50%
it's 5 to 50% multif family with the
rest is commercial in that area. So the
southwest Nampa plan was carefully
developed as you're all aware reviewed
and revised over last couple of years.
Uh there were a lot of meetings about it
and city council approved it last year.
The plan specifically places low
density. So one dwelling unit per acre
and one to two and a half dwelling units
per acre shown in light yellow here and
the one unit per acre is or sorry one
unit per acre is in light green shown on
the map here adjacent to Lake LOL and
the wildlife refuge that was placed
there specifically to preserve those
areas in uh feed in relation to the
feedback that was received as part of
the specific area plan. The plan places
higher density with a mix of uses near
existing city infrastructure including
water, sewer, PI, and community
amenities such as Midway Park and
services such as the future Nampa school
district sites that are shown on this
site right where Lonear is uh proposed.
So within the area that we are proposing
development in, uh it's programmed to
see five to eight units per acre and 8
to 12 units per acre.
Within the community mixed use area,
we're including um the RH district to
fulfill the requirement for the 5 to 50%
multifamily. And then we're requesting a
density increase of up to 20% within
that area so that we can build more
density into what is programmed to be
more high highdensity housing to keep
some of our single family less dense and
to really support the commercial uses
that are going that are proposed within
the medium density residential area
which is on the periphery shown uh in
the highlight here. Uh we're proposing
RS4 which has a density range of 5 to
eight units per acre.
This is one of the exhibits from the
specific area plan that shows the mix of
uses that's anticipated with this area.
So, as you can see along Midway Road,
this is the Lonear project outline in
red. Along uh Midway Road, there is
commercial and then along a portion of
Lonear, there's commercial as well. And
then it uh transitions in density. So
there's some higher density residential
right up against the commercial and it
transitions to more of a single family
lower in density product
which is consistent with this diagram as
well. As you can see the city wants to
see some mix of uses along major
transportation corridors in proximity to
Midway Park and uh future school
district
potentially developed but owned
properties
and that is consistent with the concept
plan that we've submitted. So this is
the concept plan that's in your packet.
We're showing the BC district in the
pink color and that's right up against
Midway Road and on I both sides of
Lonear Road. And then we have a multif
family shown right in between the the
commercial and the single family to
provide a nice transition within the
multifamily area. We're proposing 75%
apartments or multifamily living and
then um the other 25% will be a town
home product. So the idea would be to
transition in density from a more
intense use on the commercial side to
kind of a higher density multif family
and then transition to the single family
homes as you go further east.
At this point we're showing some
connectivity that will occur as the
phases come in. So right now we're
showing um you know internal roadway
network that could occur with every
preliminary platter final plat that
comes in. We do have a collector shown
on our far east boundary as well that
would extend down to Lonear eventually.
And because this property does connect
on both sides of Lonear improvements,
the whole Lonear section that's shown on
both sides of our property would be
improved as well as improvements along
Midway Road and Smith Avenue on the
north side. So those improvements would
be made as each final plaque came come
in um if the sanexation was approved.
And then there um is going to be a
pathway along the canal that's in the
northeast corner of the site uh in
alignment with the pathways plan the
city has.
So the single family residential area is
about 90 acres. The density in the uh
plan is 5 to eight units per acre. We
don't have a specific number of lots,
but we would comply with that.
Multifamily is designed here. These are
some amenities and some open space areas
that we would plan on including there.
And as I mentioned, we're requesting a
20% bonus on density there. Commercial
is about 30 acres and that's compliant
with the specific area plan. I'm running
out of time, so I'm trying to go quick,
but I'm happy to answer questions. Um,
these are some open space highlights. We
included some design guidelines with our
application to include consistent
compatible design for all of the
commercial, single family, and
multifamily components of the project.
And then there will be a list of project
benefits, but I think the most important
thing is the opportunity to partner with
the developer on the first largecale
development in this area. It's not often
that this much property comes in at one
time and you can really have a
comprehensive look and try to set forth
a foundation for what the city envisions
for growth in an area that has not a lot
of growth. Um, I think I heard loud and
clear from all the hearings that the
city really wants to see commercial in
this area and that's something that this
project is really excited to bring. Uh,
timing it'll be probably 10 to 15 years.
So, it's going to be an incremental
process. It's not going to be overnight,
but um we're all very excited and um I'm
happy to answer any questions if you
have them
>> questions.
Not right now.
>> Okay, call you back up.
>> Thank you. Appreciate it.
>> Thank you,
» Mr. Ashby.
Go ahead.
Thank you, Jim Cart.
>> Oh, no.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Did I [laughter]
>> Sorry about that.
>> You're good.
>> He's wanting to go home, too.
[laughter]
>> It's getting late.
>> Yeah, I'm getting tired myself. Um,
okay. So, I'm You've seen where this is
located near Midway Park. Um, we'll kind
of move through some of these slides
pretty quickly. The applicants presented
their proposal, so I'll skip that there.
Um,
I can't see very well, so let me look at
this. Um, so the Lonear uh master plan
community is in the Nampa comprehensive
plan planning area and within the
Southwest Nampa specific area plan. uh
you saw the applicant's um justification
for how they met the specific area plan
standards and uh I looked at those
standards as well and found that it was
really consistent with the specific area
plan. Um that that plan isn't perfect,
right? We we took a moment of time and
there was at that time they were
considering some um schools u being
placed there. the levy didn't pass. So,
some of that is going to be different,
but overall the principles of the plan
were followed and the land uses that
were under those uh those parcels are still applicable here. Um
the location and size Lonear master plan
community is in the uh Nampa planning
area east of Midway Road and between
Smith Avenue and Lonear Road with a
smaller portion south of Lonear Road,
all consisting of five parcels and and
rideway totaling 149.31 acres. Uh the
current land uses you've you've already
seen um some of those. I'm sorry. This
is the specific area plan map. They've
already shown that a closer view of
that.
Um you can see the the designations
here. To the uh south is a large lot
single family homes Kenyon County uh
farm fields in Kenyon County as well as
the RS uh I think that says 8.5
uh designation for a subdivision. And
then uh
the uh that's the Sonata Point
subdivisions
uh that have been partially developed
out. It came in as Coronado Point and um
only partially developed but are under
consideration still for development.
Um again to the north the you can see
the county subdivisions up there and
some a land and then to the east of
course is um the ones that I've talked
about but also a church and some farm
fields in King County.
So, I wanted to use this to just
highlight um some of the uh approvals
that we've had over the last year. Um
you can see uh three different
residential subdivisions and then one
commercial subdivision out in that that
area. So, those blue boxes are those
that have been approved in the past
year. Um and then on the right hand side
is is their proposal for how they're
zoning this. If you go back another
basically another year, you've got uh 29
single family homes is Sunnyale North uh
num or excuse me, Sunnyale number six
and that is just south of Carter Road
and then Wagers Dair which is 43 single
family homes and approximately 34 of a
mile north of Carter Road. So, in total,
I think there was likeund I want to say
31
uh units of everything that's been
approved in the last couple of years
for this area.
Uh utilities, you can see those there.
You saw that in the packet. I'm not
going to spend a lot of time here, but
that but oh, one last thing is the just
the last comment there. City utility
systems have adequate capacity. to serve
this property and the project will be
required to construct utilities to and
through the property as as all are.
Okay. So um I wanted to highlight this
one uh because in our master plan
community language in our comprehensive
plan and in the master or in the uh
specific area plan they highlight the
need to create some uh connectivity
in within a master plan community. Um so
you can see that on the right how
they're proposing to do that. They've
got a uh proposed east west route and a
north south route with um on the far
east is a collector roadway unnamed um
but that is a potential there and I I
have some recommendations on that in the conditions. I'll talk about that.
But again, you can see all those
different connections and the different
um amenities that they're providing.
Okay, so annexation application
criteria. This is we just analyze this
when it comes in to make sure that it
meets the state code. Um, again, you
have lots of flexibility since this is a
legislative action to approve or deny an
annexation.
But zoning takes a little more work. Um,
you have to meet these criteria. And
this is what you would use if if you
wanted to annex um and approve the
zoning, you would use these criteria and
they have to be met in order to approve
this project.
Um so correspondence we've received. So
NPA uh engineering division uh I've
asked Daniel to speak about this and
then um and then I'll jump back up.
So Rodney asked me to speak a little bit
about um our comments and um more
specifically regarding the uh traffic
analysis. So our our codes require uh
traffic impact studies to be completed
at the time of a preliminary plat or a
building permit that meets certain
criterias. um they do not require that
at the time of a master plan community.
Um mainly um because a master plan
community without a preliminary plat is
more of the bubble diagram that we've
been looking at. It doesn't have the
specific lot counts. It doesn't have the
level of information that would be
typically needed to complete a full
traffic impact study. um they have um
had their traffic engineer put together
a tech tech memo on the traffic for
that. We received that uh middle of last
week. Um I've done um a cursory review
of it. It it scopes out the required
things that will be studied when the
they do come forward with a preliminary
plat as well as looking at um the um
some general stuff for for that. Um, we
will have a more complete analysis of
that when we make it to city council.
Uh, but the general look that I've done
at this point, um, it does appear to
meet the same intent that we've used
when we've looked at other master plan
communities to provide that, um, general
guidance of how we will look at the
traffic um, when they do come forward
with preliminary plat. Um, and so if
there are any questions on that, I'll be
happy to answer that.
» Thank you, Daniel. Uh, Nampa Fire
District, I just I I think the bolded
section is kind of speaks for itself.
Approximate response time is four
minutes, well under what their goal is.
Um, and then, uh, parks didn't they did
respond. Um it does comply I mean they
are going to have to comply with the
park's requirements for the pathway as
you've already heard but um we wanted a
little more detail from them because of
the proximity of Midway Park and so I've
asked Mark Stoyer uh senior director of
development services to speak about his
interaction with the parks department.
» Uh good evening uh chair and
commissioner. So, want to provide some
more details on on a connection with uh
with the Nampa facility, I mean rather
with the parks facility, and that is
Midway Park. Um, as you can see on the
map before you uh kind of along Midway
right there, that northwest corner uh is
Caddy Corner to the southeast corner of
Midway Park. Uh you might remember that
this property was purchased by the city
u within the unincorporated area but has
not been able to be annexed by the city
because there's no contiguous uh
pathway. Uh if this development was
approved, there would be a pathway
because of that caddy corner right there
that connects to Midway Park and the
city would be able to annex that to
within the city limits. Uh some of the
benefits in doing that are that to this
point any improvements at Midway Park
have been under the county permitting
process. And so for example, the parks
department wanted to put in some parking
lot lighting and maybe some various ball
field lighting also as well, but county
requirements disallowed us from doing
that. If it was under the city permit
process, they would be able to put in
that lighting to increase safety in the
parking lot and also for people to
utilize those ball fields during
nighttime hours. Uh, another benefit to
being under the city process, you might
know that on midway there is a concrete
barrier there. So that prevents lefthand
turns into the park and left-hand turns
out. The city would not require that
barrier to be there. So ingress and
egress would be uh would be enhanced
there at that location. Uh, another
benefit, as uh, Rodney explained, water
and sewer would be extended down uh,
down Midway and that would also provide
a connection for the park to connect
their sewer and and water to that system
also as well. Currently, the park
utilizes a under capacity septic system.
So, they're pumping that every 3 to four
months and they get their water from a
temporary lease of a water well that's
on the property. So, that would be
another benefit if this development was
approved. Uh lastly, police department
would be able to respond to calls for
enforcement at the park. Right now, it's
under the county and this kind of vague
on exactly who can respond to calls
there at that site. So, Nampa would be
able to provide that enforcement since
it's within the city limits.
>> Mr. Chair, can I ask a quick question to
Mark? Would that be automatically
annexed in as soon as it touches
>> uh chair and commission?
>> Would you have to go through that
annexation process? Yes, we would have
to go through the annexation process for
the park specifically. It's not part of
this.
>> So, it's not it was hasn't been future
annexed.
>> No.
>> Okay.
» All right. So then if we move into our
public comments, again just a reminder,
we did receive some additional comments
that were provided to you um that
weren't didn't make the staff packet,
but um these were the ones that did. So
Maria Lyman um opposed to apartments due
to existing uh traffic in the area. Um
Jamie Vander, I'm sorry. I'm gonna move
my screen so I can see what I'm looking
at. There we go. Um Jamie Vanderhoff,
I'm sorry about that. Uh was a resident
nearby was opposed due to the following
concerns. The density is too high. It
will provide large-scale commercial that
is not justified by the market and will
make existing commercial no longer
viable. Uh the development will be
incompatible with existing large acre
rural residences, existing and added
traffic due to cutthrough trips to
bypass Carter Road. And then Tony Engel,
I hope that's right. Opposed because of
the high number of units impacting
quality of life, traffic, utilities,
noise, and cost of services. Again,
they're their specific uh language that
they wrote is in your packet. This is
just a real quick summary. Um Tasha
Sweeney uh opposed because of the
existing traffic congestion and
concerns, infrastructure is not in place
to handle more growth.
Go. Uh Shannon Jones was another
resident nearby opposed um for loss of
rural lifestyle, traffic congestion and
lack of capacity on roadways, loss of
farmland, dwindling water supply, belief
that residents are overt taxed and
developers pay nothing. assumption of
elected and appointed officials greed.
Uh Cheryl Hickley uh opposed due to the
to traffic congestion claimed that
existing and future uh
traffic concerns weren't considered uh
and all the approvals of developments
along Carter Road weren't considered. Um
density seems too high for the area. uh
it will provide large-scale commercial
that is not justified by the market and
then loss of rural character of the
area. And then just other general
concerns from comments that I received
the need to preserve farmland, the
desire to maintain a rural field with
large lot single family residential. Uh
belief that the adopted plans don't
address the desires of those who live
nearby and then belief that utilities
can support the can't support the new
development.
Uh again, we did receive late comments
that were uploaded to the project record
for your review.
And then um staff analysis. So
um
it so much of what comments seem to
imply or have concerns about are because
there's not the detail yet that we would
get at a preliminary plat. So, I I just
want to emphasize that um
the this proposal that they gave you,
this one here, um show several qualified
open space amenities, but those aren't
going to be really all of the amenities
or all of the open space um analysis
until we get to the plat stage. So, I
just want to make sure that's clear. Um
in the northwest area they show open
grassy areas, trees, bike friendly
trails and kids play zone. Uh the
northeast area shows open grassy areas,
tree pedestrian paths and activity play,
a sports court. Uh and then southeast
area shows open grassy areas, trees, an
interactive play area for kids and
sports courts, two pickle ball courts
and a basketball court. And then they
don't show anything for multifamily, but
that is a requirement that they will
need to address when they go and develop
that.
Again, that's the concept conceptual
site plan. Uh a traffic impact study.
The last thing, just the note at the
bottom there is my thoughts here.
Traffic impact studies evaluate the
existing traffic as well as the
estimated traffic based on all
jurisdictional land uses use approvals.
Traffic mitigation and fees are assessed
to address the impact of the new
development on the system to maintain a
council adopted level of service. So
again, traffic impact studies are not
necessarily an opportunity for you to
say or for any elected official or
appointed official to say we don't agree
with the engineering that was done to
produce this traffic impact study.
Really, that's in the way that a traffic
impact study is set up from the very
start. So if you don't agree with the
traffic impact study, that's different
than what's the the results of that
traffic impact study you're saying. Um
so at some point we have to say well it may feel really difficult to put
additional traffic onto these roadways.
But at some point we have to step back
and say, do can we trust the engineering
that's done to produce these traffic
impact studies? And I know that's
challenging. Um, but
that's kind of the the situation we're
in. um we go through those processes and have a result that comes back to you
for for your consideration, but they
will be applied regardless of whether
you analyze these or not. These
conditions will be applied to uh any
project.
Um okay, so criteria for evaluating a
community, a master plan community,
these are all of them. Um there's it's
pretty extensive.
Um you want to look in more detail than
just a a typical subdivision. You want
to see how it feels in a larger scale.
Is it connected? Is it providing the
appropriate landscaping, a theme or
character? Um is it providing a mix of
land uses?
Um so I think you can look at that
yourself. But those were all the things
that I found in code.
Um again this is in code sorry that was
in our our uh comprehensive plan and
this is in code and very similar um up
to 30% of the area may be zoned a
district not permitted by the the future
land use map. Um in addition they've
already uh talked about this. They are
requesting a 20% uh increase in density.
Um and that requires approval from uh
city council and uh you can recommend
that or or recommend denial of that.
Um at least 15% of qualified open space
is required. That's pretty standard for
any commercial or any uh development.
And then uh it has to be greater than
50% commercial
uh in the uh CMU designation on the comp
plan future land use map and at least 5%
as a high density residential or light
industrial.
Um, the applicant is requesting an
increased density from the limit of 12
dwelling units per acre placed on the CMU area or the community mixeduse
area in the southwest Nampa specific
area plan. So, the comprehensive plan
says CMU and that doesn't have a density
max, but the the Southwest Nampa
specific area plan limits that density
and provides a max. So, that's what
they're asking for is a an extension of
20% above what the specific area plan uh
requires or max the max limit of the
density.
um staff analysis. So, here's some city
boundaries. Um you can't see it maybe
all that well, but Caldwell is all in
gray and ours is just the colored areas.
And I wanted to point out some specific
desk destinations in this area. Midway
Park, of course, uh no specific order
here. uh commercial. A lot of people
travel to the this commercial area and
to get on to I 84.
Uh you've got Lake LOL that people are
traveling to.
Uh this is the site of the new LDS
temple. So that's kind of out in this
area.
And um then if
my point here is that if the priority
goal is to preserve farmland in an area
then a no growth approach could
accomplish that goal for a while unless
other communities in the county approve
development in the area. So if that's
the goal to preserve farmland, you take
a no growth policy. uh approving large
lot single family residential consumes
more farmland per unit than a mixed
density does. So this approach does not
preserve farmland. There was some a
little bit of inconsistency in some of
the comments that I read just saying hey
we want to preserve farmland we should
approve densities of lower than three
units per acre. Well, that those do two
opposite things.
And here's the Caldwell zoning. Um I I
put on the right here I just a a brief
analysis of their zoning code found that
the RS7 zone which appears to be what uh
we're butdding up against here in this
area um is similar to our RS7 or excuse
me their R1 similar to our RS7. However,
they allow duplexes and town houses in
the RS7 zone, which we don't.
So, the last part of this is if the
priority goal is to maintain a rural
feel, then a city should plan for
density transitioning and consider the
market demand and need for each type of
development. I've drawn some circles
around these just to try to give you
that feel. So, you start out with pretty
dense um commercial and and higher
density residential. As you move away,
you get to five to eight dwelling units
per acre. And then beyond that, it's
potentially eight uh or excuse me, um
2.5 to five dwelling units per acre. And
then you get beyond that and you're
going to one to 2.5 dwelling units per
acre. And then beyond that is even one
or less dwelling units per acre. And
that is what the specific area plan
tried to do is trying to make a
transition as we move away from these
core centers of commercial development.
try to transition away from those so
that we're not um negatively impacting
all new development in the future for uh
and creating incompatibility.
We also require that when you're up
against a residential development
um a subdivision that you have buffering
to that subdivision. So the lot sizes on
the the edges have to be larger. So
that's another way that we try to buffer
these developments, the new development
and the existing larger lot
subdivisions.
Here are the proposed conditions. These
are all right from the staff
communications from engineering. And
then I added this one. uh property
owners shall enter into the development
agreement with the city of Nampa and um
to en ensure compliance with the
proposed major roadway alignments. Um
major roadway
um being roadways being lined with
significant landscaping and trees. Uh
the depiction of the type of amenities
that they showed on their landscape
plan. uh the depiction of pathways. Uh
that was critical in the master plan
community um requirements and that the
owner applicant provide any multif
family or commercial design standard as
amenities that exceed the requirements
in city code for review by council as
part of the development agreement
approval. If there's anything beyond
what they are, you know, just following
uh city code, um then we need to address
those in here. And and the reason I say
that is because the master plan
community in the comp plan and in the
code calls for higher design standards.
So, we're just trying to see how how
does that play out with this project.
and then uh a phasing plan if there is
one and then uh the BC zoned property
shall not be developed as residential.
Um we have that ability to get a cup in
a BC zone and so we're saying because
it's in community mixed use and at least
50% have to be commercial, we don't want
that to be an option for them to go to a
cup for multifamily.
Here are the findings. Uh the and
conclusion is the proposed reszone is in
harmony with the city's compl
comprehensive plan um because the
development is located on the future
land use map designation of MDR and CMU
and the development also provides
essential housing options as described
in the plan. The proposed zoning dep
district districts comply with the
designation shown on the future land use
map with the allowance of variance
variations through a master plan
community as noted in the legend on the
map.
Uh then uh this is the second one. The
proposed land uses are in harmony with
the surrounding properties because of
conformance with the comp plan uh map
and text. The comp plan is the city's
established policy for creating
compatibility.
The existing land uses are agriculture,
residential, and church in the immediate
area. These are common neighbors and
growing communities. Though the proposed
land use doesn't match exactly the
existing land uses, the fact that there
is compatibility built into future plans
for the area and the fact that these
land uses are frequently neighbors in
growing community. The result is that
the proposal is found to be compatible.
>> Also education land in there, isn't
there?
>> Yeah.
>> that's correct.
[clears throat] And again, those those
properties are still owned by the school
district, but they don't have the money
to develop them.
>> I can't speak to when that would happen.
I just know that at some point in the
future, as this area develops out,
there's going to be that need.
And then the last uh the last one is the
proposed amendment is our or would be in
the interest of the public and
reasonably necessary because the
proposed project is in line with the
city's comp plan which outlines the
public interest for future development
that provides a diversity of housing
options and commercial services that are
needed for community to function. That
was a run-on sentence.
And there is a couple of motions for
your consideration and I'd be happy to
answer any questions.
Ronnie, when I was looking at the staff
report yesterday, I noticed how close
this application is to Midway Park and
Midway Park has got lots of open space.
Is can a developer say, "Hey, since it's
I'm right next door to this, can I do
this instead of open space or can I do
can they trade or bargain with you on
that?"
>> Um, so they a lot of times what we
encourage people to do is to contribute
land. Um, so that yeah, you don't have
to necessarily have it in your
subdivision, but if you dedicated
property to the city to expand a park or
something, then that's possible. But
just having a park nearby, you don't
have the ability to count that as your
>> What can they get though? What what can
they trade for?
>> They they can't. They They would have to
dedicate land for City Park,
>> but they get nothing in return for that.
they would count that towards their
qualified open space.
>> Maybe we could get them to build a high
school out there on that.
>> Yeah.
>> Thank you.
>> Yeah.
>> Thank you, Rod.
Have a signup sheet.
Calling Jim Carr.
» You think it's [clears throat] about
time? Morning. [laughter]
>> Wake up.
>> Close.
>> My name is Jim Mar and I live at 1471
Wooley Drive which is Office Smith,
which this proposal is just across the
road from us. I do oppose the proposal
pretty much what everybody uh wrote in
for, but my main concern and you
represent Corey Barton. Is that correct?
Okay. But Corey Barton's one has this.
[clears throat]
>> You got
>> Sir, please direct your comments.
>> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I just got I just
got to straighten something up. So, this
piece of ground has a ditch running
right through them through it. It goes
from Lonear
north to Smith. That ditch is an
irrigation ditch that provides our
irrigation water into our subdivision,
which the last two years we've had
issues with trying to get water through
that because the farmer
has always in the past has kept that
ditch clean. This year that hasn't
happened.
My question,
I don't know if I can direct it to you
or to them.
>> Please do. If this development goes
through, are they going to tile that
ditch for us so we can still get our
irrigation water? They can't fill it in,
can they?
>> No.
>> 100%.
>> So, you're 100% going to say to me that will be tiled.
>> Uh, they,
as far as I understand, they just have
to they just have to make sure that you
are able to get your water.
>> Okay.
>> They can't take your water away.
>> Okay. because it runs about
>> how how it looks
could be a hund different ways but they
have I don't care how
>> you have to maintain they have to
maintain your ability to get your water
>> the way it runs now it comes to Smith
goes underneath the road and it goes
underneath the Phyllis canal and then
comes up into our ditch that feeds our
subdivision. So that was my main concern
is about the irrigation ditch
but [snorts] we're okay with they won't
fill it in. Y
>> we can we can ask them what they're
intending to do, but one way or the
other they're they have to preserve it.
>> Okay, that was that was my uh that's my
main concern. So, thank you.
>> Thank you. Appreciate it.
» Stephen Reed.
Evening, Mr. Chairman and uh
commissioners. Uh I reside at Oh, I
guess I didn't I should say my name,
shouldn't I? Steven Reed called, so I
responded. I live at 14
328 Red River Avenue in Nampa. I'm I'm
one of the people just to the west of
this project. Uh, I confess to you that
I wish I'd been able to memorize this
65page
staff report, which I did my best to
learn, but I didn't. [clears throat] But
I do have some questions. I want to join
with
the numerous written com uh comments
that you received about the density
proposals. Uh my math is way in the uh
rear vision rear view mirror tonight,
but if I calculate correctly of the
allocation of five to eight houses uh
per acre that the developer proposed
earlier this evening, that's those are
lots that are somewhere between
[clears throat]
5,500 and about 8,600 square F feet.
Those are tiny lots. Those are the same
size lots, at least to my eye, as in old
uh Nampa. They are you you heard you
heard testimony and talked about quite a
bit earlier this evening with regard to
Southside
uh about front yards of the the duplexes
that we're going to have four four foot
backyards and roughly equal four uh
front yards. Well, that's what that
that's what you're going to get with
five five to eight uh par lots, excuse
me, buildings uh per acre. Unless the
houses are going to be just tiny houses,
in which case uh they probably would
have larger yards, but they're going to
be considerably less desirable for the
whole neighborhood. people that that
commented on density, I think, were
worried about the fact that we were
going to end up with a very compact
bunch of houses in this in this area.
And that's probably borne out by the
proposal for all the green area uh that
is shown on their maps. We also have no
information whatsoever
uh how what
density is going to be in multifamily.
Uh we're told that some will be uh
condominiums or owner owner uh property
or they're going to be rental. Well, how
many uh how tall? We don't have any of
that information. Once again, that's the
density that the people wrote into you
and that I have concern about. And then
honestly, the commercial area is uh to
me a big red flag. First of all, I don't
think we need it. I live in the area. I
certainly don't find myself worrying
about or or missing out on uh uh place
to shop or supplies. Now, I see that the
uh clock has exhausted my time, so I'll
quit. But I'll just tell you that I the opening paragraph of this report
says that tonight you are going to
approve an application for annexation
and zoning. Good. That's terrific for a
master plan community with a development
agreement. I didn't find a development
agreement in here. Now, I'll grant you I
read it awfully fast and it's if it's in
there, it's hidden. I didn't see it.
Maybe uh Mr. Ashby can tell me where I
can find it, but at least as of this
moment, I don't know where it is. And I
would urge you not to approve tonight an
a proposal that obligates you to an
open-ended
uh development agreement. Thank you for
paying attention to me.
>> Thank you, sir.
Bob Williams.
» My name is Bob Williams. I live at 12220
Apple Roseway in Nampa. Um, I bought a
house just a couple of months ago just
north of the park and now I find that
Midway, which my house borders on, is
going to have a whole ton more traffic.
Now, it's obvious that this is a
foregone conclusion and we're not going
to be able to stop it or slow it down.
But one of the things I've noticed since
living here in Nampa is that, you know,
driving up Middleton, uh, Midland,
uh, the developments there that have
gone in get all these nice, beautiful
setbacks and vinyl fences and privacy
and noise abatement and everything from
all the traffic. But those of us that
have existing houses get screwed.
And Midway is going to take 75 90% of
the traffic from this development, which
is going to have to turn that into a
four-lane road. So, I'm going to lose
property that I just purchased. The
traffic is going to be closer to my
bedroom window. And I plan on next
spring putting in a a living hedge to
try to get rid of some of the traffic
noise and create privacy from the
existing midway. Well, that's all going
to get pulled out and cost me several
thousand dollars of lost lost u uh
landscaping.
So, I I guess what I'm asking is what can be done for those of us that
aren't in the development
but are affected by the development?
» Thank you for your question,
» Lynn Hodgeges.
Uh Lynn Hodgeges, 11455 Lonear Road. I'm
just south of the property that is in
question. Uh it's also it's the old
Lonear School, former Hope House
Children's Home. Uh I've been there for
23 years. Worked my fingers to the bone
fixing that place up. It was a mess. Uh
I oppose this uh this subdivision going
in. Uh and as I had a little bit of time
tonight to play with numbers from things
I've seen from the previous
presentations and also from online
resources, I wanted to share some
numbers. So they're they're allowed 1,69
dwellings. They're asking for 20% more.
That takes it to,282
dwellings.
City of Nampa uses 2.76 people per
dwelling. That's 3538 people. Uh from
one of the slides I gathered that uh
police cost, and I did some math, that's
going to cost the police department
about $44,000.
Hopefully I didn't do the math wrong. Uh
Sonata Point West, which is directly
next to me, uh when they got their
proposal turned in, they used 9.44 44
vehicle trips per day per dwelling. That
equals 12,100
trips per day. And those roads out there
will not handle 12,100. You would have
to widen roads all the way out to every
collector everywhere. Uh so the density
uh that they're proposing very dense a
lot of apartments a lot of town homes
and RS4 they could have 4,000 square
foot lots and uh
I don't see much mix there. It's all
very high density. Let's pack as much in
as we can. Uh, one note from one of the
staff comments that that they brought up
was, uh, there was ballpark 140ome homes
approved out there in the last couple
years. This development, one development
is over 10 times that size. So it is a
massive massive impact not only to us
that have been out there for a long time
but that entire area uh will be dwarfed
with traffic with people uh and so I I
oppose this and I would urge you to uh
do the same. Thank you. Thank you,
» Cheryl Higgley.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners.
I'm Cheryl Higgley at 12441 South Abbott
Downing Way here in Nampa. I want to
express my strong opposition to the
application for Lonear master plan
community. No preliminary plat was
provided. However, based on the density
shown in the specific area plan plus a
20% increase in density allowed, it
could be over,00
excuse me, dwelling units. Here are my
reasons why commercial and residential
development should be limited. First,
just as the train poses an issue to
southeast Nampa, this area has unique
geographic factors and infrastructure
challenges, too. It is lake locked on
two sides, to the south and the west.
Therefore, traffic has to go north and
east to highway 84 where most jobs,
goods, and services are located. The
traffic will funnel funnel directly into
one of the most problematic interchanges
at Carter, Coldwell Boulevard, and
Highway 84. Even though the road is
being widened, the traffic will never
flow well. With six signals in the one
and a half miles from Middleton Road to
Costco,
it will remain a tangled knot of
congestion. To avoid the congestion on
Carter, residents will seek alternate
routes and head east all the way through
Nampa to get to the freeway. I know
because I do that now. This will cause
increased traffic congestion throughout
the city due to the insufficient road
capacity of the two-lane roads to handle
the volume of vehicles. Second,
regarding the anticipated residential
growth, the proposed density seems way
too high for this rural area. Apartments
in tiny 4,000 foot lots are incompatible
with the adjacent rural residences and
the nearby subdivisions.
In addition, per the email from the
engineering department, both Midway and
Lone Lonear roads are classified as
minor arterial two-lane rural rural
roads. And last year at the area of
impact public hearing before the board
of county commissioners, Crystal Craig
testified that there are currently no
road improvement projects planned for
Midway Road. Code section 10-12-1
regarding RH states that it is intended
to be situated near major commerce
areas, campus locations, and major
thoroughfare intersections and around
the downtown districts. This location is
the exact opposite of that description.
And to put an RH zone here is a
contradiction to our city's code,
especially an RH zone with the 20% bonus
increase in density, which I believe
will have the highest density of
dwelling units per acre in the city.
Rodney can correct me if I'm wrong
there, but it's the highest I've heard
of.
Third, regarding the anticipated
commercial growth, 30 acres of
commercial does not seem condu conducive
to this area. That's the size of the
entire shopping center where Hobby Lobby
is located. From Sportsman Warehouse to
TJ Maxx, Burlington out to Midland down
to Cracker Barrel. That's 31 acres
there. This would be 30 um or yeah,
especially for the 34 acres of
commercial has already been approved in
the nearby developments of Adera and the
Charles at Carter, which are within one
and a half miles and have already broken
ground. The truth is that if there was
ever an area in Nampa that needs to be
kept rural and very low density, this is
it. Due to its unique geographic factors
and infrastructure challenges,
development should be limited.
>> Please consider this before you make
your decision and please deny the
recommend or have a recommendation of
denial. Thank you.
>> Thank you,
» Mr. Chair. We have uh received no
further requests to speak under public
testimony.
» Good evening. My name's uh Ted Jones. I
live at [clears throat] 11855,
excuse me, West Patt
uh Drive in Nampa. Formerly, I lived uh
in the Arbor Landing subdivision, which
is just to the west of Midway Park,
right off of Smith. There was uh 16
parcels, one acre. Uh everybody in our
entire HOA was opposed to this because
the density is just too aggressive, I
think. And everybody in the neighborhood
felt the same way. We were all in a
rural area surrounded by farms and now
what you're proposing [clears throat]
to go to take it
what you have plus another 20% just
doesn't make any sense. Um the traffic
as it is now is just has been a fiasco.
I lived there for four years and I just
moved about a year ago. Uh because
there's just no infrastructure
and just to go to Costco from Midway and
Smith was a complete disaster and the
roadway is still a mess as you as you
guys know. Um the other thing on the BC
zoning,
my concern is on that I don't see enough
demand for it. Number one. Number two, I
think you're going to actually rob
potentially downtown and some of the
other areas um from um commerce. And I
think it's important that you guys keep
the downtown uh vitalized and all the
other current areas.
Um
right now with the economy the way it
is, it is very difficult for retailers
and by carving up more space for uh
commercial.
I think you're going to dilute
um and that's going to create more
problems. So those are my only comments.
I would just ask that you deny it and if
you are going to pass it for sure do not
allow the 20% increase. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
There anybody else who would like to
speak for against or undecided?
» Okay, you guys want to come back up
answer some questions?
» Thank you, Mr. chair, members of the
commission, Rodney, I don't know if we
can put our slide back up because I have
a couple things on traffic in there.
So, really appreciate all the written
testimony and then folks sticking around
to provide their spoken testimony, too.
It's really good to have feedback. Um,
we let's see
uh on the density stuff. So the 20%
density bonus we're requesting is just
for the RH district and the intent
behind that is that we can provide more
of a variety of housing within that
area. So 12 units per acre is pretty
limiting. It doesn't allow for uh
apartments essentially. So if you uh any
So a 20% bonus on the 12 would get us to
14.4 units an acre which would allow us
to do a twotory apartment building
basically with some town homes fixed in.
So it really increases the variety of
housing product that's there. It allows
us to transition the density from the
intense commercial to more high density
to less density to the single family
residential. So that's the intent behind
that request. Uh looking at our zoning
district um requests, uh the gentleman
that had all of the math um that he
provided was really great. I think what
we're envisioning because this is a
master plan community there's required
to be 15% open space throughout the
entire development which is um it's
difficult to get density with that
amount of open space. So realistically
in the single family area we've been
looking at five units per acre and
that's what our traffic impact uh study
analysis contemplated. So we'd probably
be more at with 90 acres probably more
around 450 to maybe 500 units within the
RS4 area. The RH area if we went up to
the 14 units per acre at around 28 29
acres that'd be around 400 units which
is a typical size for a multifamily
development. So, that's what we envision
and I think we'd be comfortable with a
condition that maybe stated something
along those lines if that's how the
commission feels they'd like to make a
recommendation.
Um,
the gentleman that brought up the ditch,
we are required to comply with state
code 42-12
requires that we maintain water that's
being delivered to adjacent properties.
And at this point, we haven't done a
whole lot of engineering uh on this
property, but it's likely that we'll be
tiling that because I think the one that
he's talking about goes straight through
the middle of the site where we have
some roadways and some other things
planned. But we will make sure that we
work with him to make sure that's
delivered to his property.
» Quick question on that while you're
Yeah, while you're there. So, it sounds
like the farmer hasn't been doing
anything this last year, so the weeds
probably grew up and it was slowing down
the the water flow. If this did get
approved, could the developer keep that
clean until he gets to the point where
he does tile it so that they the one to
the north does get their water without
an issue?
>> Mr. Chair, Commissioner, I can say that
we'd be comfortable committing to that.
Yeah,
>> thank you.
>> We'll make sure that we com coordinate
that with our client.
Uh, another thing that's really
important, I think, for folks to
recognize when they're talking about the
density and maybe the size of lots
within this development is that this
will all be incrementally phased
throughout the development. So, it is a
large swath of ground, but
realistically, you know, the northwest
corner, I'm trying to show you pictures
and I'm forgetting where they are in my
slide deck, but the northwest corner is
probably going to be where we would
first go and then all of the yellow is
probably what would be developing first
because we need the rooftops to support
the commercial. So, it's likely that the
yellow would develop first and then some
of the multif family may kind of be
sprinkled in there or may develop uh
second. A preliminary plat would be
proposed at some point showing probably
the entire property boundary with lots
within the single family area and then
we'd probably lot out the multif family
area and then maybe show some commercial
lots with conceptual plans for
commercial uses. So over a period of 10
to 15 years the preliminary plat for the
single family and the multif family
would be developed and then commercial
would come in when the market supports
it. So the intention is not for this to
be a huge commercial area. 30 acres
sounds like a lot. Um, this is kind of
in relation to Cheryl's comments. Uh, it
sounds like a lot, but really we're
looking at more of a like a smaller
market or a smaller like maybe an
Albertson's uh like a neighborhood
market type of store supported by other
retailers, restaurants, fast casual
dining stuff. uh maybe like a coffee
shop, stuff that people can really walk
to so that they're not accessing Midway
Road or Lonear to go over to Carter uh
to get to a store. So, the idea is
really to try to alleviate traffic by
having services close by where a lot of
folks will be living eventually.
So, traffic, uh speaking of traffic, um
is always a big concern. We have uh
we've been working with KDson
Associates. they've been coordinating
with the city on scoping this project
out and one of the largest benefits I
think that we've found with the master
plan communities is it provides them an
opportunity to have an overarching view
of traffic for the entire area and then
when the preliminary plaque comes in
they have to do a more detailed analysis
and city staff reviews it to make sure
that the mitigations conform with what
they think should be required. So, there
were a lot of roadway segments that were
reviewed and part of the scoping area.
That's all outlined in black here. You
can see where our site is. It's in
green. So, that it's pretty expansive.
It looked at Smith Avenue from Midway
Road all the way to Nampa Calwell
Boulevard, Orchard Avenue, Lonear Road,
uh Midway Road from Lake to Moss, and
then Middleton Road from Orchard Avenue
to Nampa Caldwell Boulevard. Um, and
they're at this point the findings. So
they're they're basing these trip, you
know, the potential trips off of
potential densities, right? So we don't
have a layout that they can really look
at in a detailed way, but this is all um
stuff that they're stipulating based on
potential densities. So the overall
traffic um will be substantial for the
whole project, but as each phase
develops, they'll be required to make
improvements to roadways. So they'll
widen Lonear, they'll widen Midway, and
then there will be traffic signals
required. Um one thing I found
interesting in the analysis is it's
actually there are several intersections
and several roadways that need to be
improved just now with background
traffic. So it's not necessarily like
this development is going to trigger
those improvements. it would help to pay
for them if um if they came in but it
wouldn't you know require it on its own.
So um I think
then with each you know final plat you'd
get impact fees and that's what helps to
pay for improvements as you all know.
>> What else am I missing?
We really appreciate your consideration
and um I'm in agreement with the staff
report the conditions of approval. So
I'm happy to answer any other questions
you may have.
» Questions, Mr. Chair?
>> Yes. Um you touched on the phasing of
the project. Do you have any idea what
the timeline would be like? Are we
>> uh Mr. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Morgan,
we I don't have a defined timeline, but
if this annexation were to be approved,
our client wants to move forward with
the premier plat as soon as we can. So,
that typically takes, you know, through
the entitlement process, probably six
months, and then we would uh pursue a
final plat for the first phase, you
know, probably soon after that. So maybe
that's usually I'm going to guesstimate
um you know a year from design to
approval of construction plans and then
um construction would occur. So I'm
going to guess probably two to three
years out.
>> Okay. And then how what percentage rough
real rough ballpark of the project would
that be? And then how how long until the
next phases follow after that or is it
all just going to be continuous? So, if
we had four to 450 units, my guess is
they'd probably do under 100 for each
phase. I'm going to call it five phases
just to make it simple. But, um, if we
were to do the first phase, say the
first phase is constructed and they have
a final plat recorded in two years,
that's pretty aggressive. But, I'm just
using example. I think that they would
probably sequentially go through each
phase within a year after that. So, it'
probably be a phase a year. So, two
years to start and then maybe seven
after seven years. I I'm not holding you
to anything. Yeah. No, because we're
gonna we're gonna ask Daniel we're gonna
ask Daniel how
>> soon roadways are going to get improved.
Sure.
>> You know, and so having a rough idea.
>> I think what we been planning on is
around 10 years, but seven would be I'm
sure you know
>> and that's just the RS4.
>> Yeah, that would just be the single
family residential and then the
multifamily will be market dependent. So
if there's a developer that wants to
come in and do that, I think, you know,
they would certainly be amendable to
doing that earlier.
» Thank you,
>> Mr. Chair. Kind of a followup to that.
I've always been curious. I mean, this
is a huge
project. I would I would imagine one of
the biggest that we've seen in the city,
you know, but well, maybe not. So, but
it's a big one and it's going to have a
big footprint. Yeah. if it gets
approved.
>> Um what what kind of market analysis or
do you do to consider let's move forward
with reaching out to NA and see if
they'll if they'll be acceptable to a
project this big. I mean population
growth trends all that kind of stuff. I
mean is it
>> uh Mr. Chair, Commissioner Kirkman
>> without divulging any proprietary
>> I think I mean so [laughter]
I work at an engineering firm or a
consultant for developers who do this
kind of work all the time and so I think
a lot of times it's sometimes they just
know and one of the property owners in
this is a real estate broker so they
have a really good feel for you know
what the uh market is calling for what
the current trends are and then I think
a lot of them are really involved with
planning processes and understand what
decisions are made and and from those
decisions a lot of times land uses are
determined so um I might be a bit above
my abilities or pay grade to understand
exactly what decisions go into that.
That's a question I get a lot of people
just asking why why so many developments
I mean and it is there's concerns with
the comments that we've seen of you know
do we have the infrastructure to support
it and
>> does it does growth pay for itself and
we all know that that you know the
answer to that and
>> sure
>> it doesn't pay for itself no it does not
>> it helps
>> be a little careful
>> but it doesn't pay for itself
um but we just see all and I I think
there's some legitimate concerns with a
lot of especially with a lot of these
big
um developments going in.
>> So anyway, it's more of a curiosity
question than anything else because
and along with that the the commercial
node at the center of this is
>> do you anticipate
probably seeing more like box stores or
more of a village feel or something to
that?
>> Mr. Chair Commissioner Kirkman um to
comment on the size of the project just
really quick. So this isund what is it
130 acres? I can't remember offh hand.
So that's roughly I mean most of the
subdivisions around 40 to 80 acres. So
it's not huge but it is a good
collection of property I think to make a
comprehensively planned project which is
a cool opportunity. Um
>> the commercial component they really
envision being similar to the
Albertson's that's over off of Amity and
Eagle. So, kind of a, you know, that's a
really great amenity for folks over
there that didn't have any commercial
really options. Um, and it's not huge,
but they do have some other kind of
ancillary
uh retail and some smaller restaurants.
That's what they're envisioning here.
And we did include some design
guidelines in our um application that
they'd be held to. So, some different
architectural stylings and color, you
know, schemes that uh will give it its
own unique feel. And the idea was to try
to, you know, embrace the heritage of
Damp in this area recognizing it's an
important area for the T for city. So,
>> okay. Thank you.
[clears throat]
» Good.
Okay.
>> Thank you.
>> You have something to add, Rodney,
please.
>> Mr. Jared, I just had two questions that
were from the um the public. Will they
tile Oh, I guess we talked about the
tiling. Uh development agreement.
>> Do you want me to respond to that one,
>> please?
>> Um so, a development agreement in most
cases is developed as we have this
discussion in a public hearing. Um it
will be a decision by city council as
well. So you can recommend a development
agreement and you can include certain
conditions to be placed in that
development agreement. We don't have a
development agreement developed yet.
It's part of this process. Um but I did
put in the staff report a list of
conditions that I would recommend we
place in that development agreement. And
then we have a standard template that we
use for legal ease.
>> Thank you for the clarification, Rodney.
Close
the public hearing.
>> Second.
>> Been moved by Commissioner Morgan,
second by Kirkman to close the public
hearing. All those in favor?
>> I.
>> Any opposed?
Okay. Public hearing is closed.
>> Yes.
>> Rodney and friends. Um
[laughter]
you guys you guys showed us a really
cool tool a couple weeks ago about um
Kirkham's bold statement that growth
does not pay for growth.
>> No, I didn't say I said
>> go back. Rewind the tape.
» Can we see that? Why why don't we have
that yet? It's not ready.
>> We It's not quite ready. Um,
>> this would be a great
>> It would be great. Um, and we don't want
to release something unless we're really
certain it's accurate. We don't want,
you know, we don't want council
um debating whether this is um an
accurate tool and some people siding on
one side saying, "Yeah, it looks good
because it gets what I want or the other
side and saying, hey, this this is wrong
because
um
>> I don't agree.
with the process or the
methodology." So, we're trying to refine
it enough to make sure that we poked all
the holes in it and made sure that it's solid. So, we um we're considering
right now maybe even having like a third
party just look at it and say, "What did
we miss?" You know, did um one of the
things
>> Can I pause you for a second? I jumped
in there. For those who don't know,
there was a meeting last week, city
council, an early morning meeting where
the city's budget department presented a
tool they're developing that helps
analyze developments more accurately
like the costs of the development to the
city and the re not rewards isn't the
right word, the revenue.
>> The revenue cost. Yeah.
>> And and basically
>> what's the balance is does it pay for
itself or does it not? And
>> the answer depends a lot on the
variables you punch in.
>> Absolutely. Yeah. And we were really conservative in all the
assumptions we put in there. Um but you
know when we start refining those
assumptions and saying well this isn't
quite accurate then we need to refine
more assumptions and it it gets a little
bit tricky. So what amount of
specificity are we comfortable with? And
that's that's what we're working on
right now.
>> So that you're not comfortable enough in
the tool to
>> to release it. No, we we also want to do
a test run of a development and maybe
even do one that's existed that we've
already um developed and then it kind of
gives us a sense of did it actually
estimate. Well, so thank you.
>> I have the floor. Can I call Daniel up
please?
>> Please. And would you speak to any
roadway improvements that are already
planned for this area, please?
» So, we don't have anything in the
five-year plan for for Midway at this
point. Um there are a number of
developments that are proposed out there
that will ultimately do traffic impact
studies that may trigger improvements
um if they are approved and um go
forward just like this development.
We'll have to do those analysis and
would likely trigger um improvements
associated with it as well. Um but as
for a
wholesale, we're widening midway to five
lanes. um that that's not something
that's in the in the five-year plan at
this point. Again, we are working on our
transportation master plan that will go
through and do those analyses and and
identify where the priority corridors
are and and re um set our our projects
list.
>> Well, can I get something from Daniel
really quick? Um, can you address the
one property owner that lives just north
of the park on Midway and what we could
possibly do to address the noise and
mitigate for him, I believe he's in the
county, so there's not a whole lot we
can do. So, so until we are doing actual
design um plans and looking at project
property specific uh when we do do those
designs, we are looking at how do we
minimize our impacts to existing
property owners. Um not I did not pull
up that address so I don't know um
specifically what the situation is.
There are times where the um
depending on the vintage of the
development that they are in, what those
setbacks were required to be can be
challenging on that. Um I'm happy to
talk with him and and talk over where um
we would anticipate those rideway lines
are. So if he's putting improvements in
that he's not putting in pro
improvements that we then have to go
purchase in the future um to to minimize
those impacts. Um but ultimately um
those are those are things we do on
every single project on a mile or half
mile section road when we go to
transform it from a rural two-lane
section to an you know the urban urban
section that it ultimately needs to be.
>> Thanks.
Why are you there? [laughter]
>> Um, there was something about there was
a project about a month and a half ago
or so and Midway was brought up and the
redoing of it and if they wanted to do
improvements, they had to go
underground. Will that be over or is
this even in in that area where Midway
was improved?
>> I'm not remembering that. Um, the only
things we've had out on Midway recently
have been the proposal for the Grace
Bible Church.
>> I believe that was it. And there and for
them to get their utilities, they
everything had to be underground.
>> So there was
>> because of an improvement to Midway up
to a certain point.
>> There was a comment from someone asking
whether or not they would we would
require the power lines to be put
underground. if I remember correctly and
that is not something that the city
dictates. Um so aerial power is fine. Um
obviously the other utilities and stuff
pretty much everybody but power goes
underground. I'm just I'm recalling
something about the repaving of it and
since it was done
>> so [snorts] okay so that um there was
work done by uh canyon for highway
district number four um when those
properties come into the city um we we
have jurisdiction over those their codes
require a four fiveyear moratorum
um on on things our codes do not have
that. Uh we do have patch requirements
and those types of things for that. Um
but no, that that's not something that's
in city code.
» Well, you guys, you're all running
around the mouth. Um, you know, let let
>> I got a I I mean, the city the staff
were did a lot of outreach to develop
these specific area plans and reached
out to the communities, had a lot of
community input and stuff on them. This
one, the other ones around Highway 16
and Eustic and stuff. And I if I
remember right, there was a lot of
comments from people that wanted
some business centers, some shopping and
stuff down there because they had to
drive so far. So, and it's not going to
happen until the rooftops get there. But
it would be nice. I mean, there's no
store or anything down that area. If you
could get a local grocery store and few
restaurants and stuff, they wouldn't
have to drive forever. But there was a,
if I remember right, there was quite a
few comments of people wanting
some business in the area so they didn't
have to drive clear across town,
>> especially the car.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Well, I think the comments, the negative
comments about commercial, um, a lot of
people just don't understand what
commercial would do.
Um, and they assume that it will
increase traffic when actually it does
just the opposite because people that
live in the area tend to travel less
distance to that said commercial
property. So there isn't the effect on
the entire city that there is if there's
not that
>> and there there plan to do the
commercial and the real high high
density up against it and then pays that
down to town homes and then go to the
single family. I like the plan. I think
it's what we're trying to get these
areas to do. But
I think they did a good job addressing
what our
scope of that area that plan was for.
And I think they've done a good job at
addressing it. But
>> well, I think it took a lot of time
putting this area plan together. I mean,
it was
>> it did was quite a while. If I remember
right, staff worked on it. So,
>> but
I'm I'm I like it. I'm for it. But and
it's it's not happening over the next
two years. It's they'll be still
building there seven, eight years from
now. So,
>> or more.
>> Yeah. Or more. [clears throat]
Um, I agree with all
[clears throat]
» 11:30. Give me a break.
>> Um, I agree with all chairman Turner
sentiments. However, I feel like I have
a hard time with these kinds of plans
because
like has been stated, annexation and
zoning is our when we have the most
discretion,
but we have the least amount of
information. You know what I mean? Like
when we don't we don't know. We we think
they're going to put the bigger lots
next to the existing residential, but we
don't know that. And by the time the
plaque comes, we have less
discretion, I would say.
>> And
go ahead.
>> Maybe I'm out of turn. He's gonna
correct me. Go ahead.
>> Actually, I'm just going to ask a
question. Are you talking about the lock
compatibility requirements we have in
code?
>> I'm just I'm just saying like it's a big
blob of RS4, which could be a lot of
things. And I don't know, do we still
have
what I understand is this is our this is
our moment of greatest discretion.
So, our code specifically addresses
compatibility when it's adjacent to a
previously platted subdivision.
>> So, where the RS4 is on the west side
against the existing uh residential
lots,
>> yeah,
>> there may be some compatibility
requirements on that side.
>> That's a really good example.
>> Yeah. And so I think that if memory
serves me correctly, the RS4
compatibility requirement is 8,000
square feet.
>> Okay, that's and that's what I'm getting
at is maybe even 8,000 is a little too
small
>> for you know and and so maybe some more
um
granularity a word, right?
>> I think you know you know you know what
I'm trying to say.
>> Since this is a master plan community,
you have some flexibility in
um in lot sizes and what you would
approve. That's the definition of the
master plan community is that you have
that flexibility. So in your development
agreement, you could outline that the
properties on the west have to be a
certain size or maybe even
I don't know just um the setbacks might
be larger. There might be a landscape
buffer or there might be you know some
different things that might transition
better to those lot sizes that you would
prefer. Those are all conditions you can
put in the in the development agreement.
>> We just talk a lot about diversity of
housing types and this looks like this
looks to me like two housing types. I'm
not sure I'm sure that it'll be more
than that, but we can't see that at this
point. And so when it comes to their
preliminary plat and if if I'm sitting
up here and I say this is not enough
housing diversity,
is there anything I can do at that point
or is it just quasi judicial and they meet code and you're done.
>> So there was a lot there. Sorry. Um Mr.
Chair and commissioner, I I um
[clears throat] a couple of things.
First of all, maybe we need to address
some of the type of housing that they're
proposing. I saw on their slide that
they're proposing um some attached and
some detached.
And so that's one difference that you
could see in diversity of housing. Um,
but then yeah, you can put if you want a
principle in there to use against the
preliminary plat, you can put that in
the DA so that [clears throat] when the
preliminary plaque comes forward, you
say, "Yeah, we put that statement in
there because we wanted to see this and
you don't quite match what we're we were
saying." you know, you have some
discretion to to approve or deny that
based on its compatibility or uh
compliance with the development
agreement.
» Thank you. That answers my
>> And my question for the group then, I
guess, do you guys have any concerns
with that 20% increase that they're
asking for? No, because like I don't
because like she was saying they want to
try to increase the from what I the way
I understood it the multif family up
next to the commercial and then phase it
down as she goes out towards the single
family. So I think that's where she's
trying if I understood her correctly
that's where they're trying to get add
that higher density is up against the
commercial and work out from it. So
couldn't So would the average over the
whole thing still be at 12?
» That makes sense what I'm saying.
>> Mr. Chair, I I think I need to jump in
here because I I heard a couple of
comments like that in uh the public
presentations. We need to make sure that
this is very clear. They are only
requesting a 20% increase to their
highdensity residential designation. So
that goes to 14 dwelling units per acre.
Is that right? 20
>> 14.4.
>> Yeah, 14.4. Um, so that's the only one.
And then yeah, you could you could put
restrictions on, hey, it up against
those lots that are a large lot, single
family. You could put restrictions on
those to say, hey, it has to be a
certain size lot. From
>> what I understood when she was
explaining it, that's what they were
going to do. And then as they got out
towards the single family, they were
going to even do some town homes. So
they're they're stepping down,
>> which is what we want them to do.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. And I think if they're developing
the whole thing, they're going to want
to do that to make it compatible. If you
go from the high density apartments down
to transition down to town homes and
then the single family, it's it's nice
gradual transition instead of the
apartments right up against the single
family. So I guess if we're looking at
the highdensity housing, when we say
we're giving them the 20% increase, does
that mean that's the maximum density in
that area or the average density over
the whole thing or is that the same or
you looking at that as the same thing?
>> That do you do you don't understand the
difference of what I'm asking?
>> I think so. But are you saying for the
whole development the average or just
multifamily?
>> Just the Yeah, multif family part.
So yeah, the
>> So do you analyze it all as one big
thing?
>> We do.
>> So all this gray area,
>> the multif family, if it came in, we
would look at the density that they
provided
>> on just because they're not they're
probably not going to develop all that
gray at once, right?
>> Correct. Yeah.
>> So each individual
application that comes in
>> Yeah.
>> could be as high as 14.4.
Correct.
>> Okay. So, so really that whole gray the
potentially could be 14.4.
>> Correct. Yeah.
>> But we could also at this point like I
say put in the development agreement
that as it transitions towards the
single family detached homes that has to
transition to town to town home style
duplexes or something.
>> We we want to see some transition.
>> Transition. Yeah.
>> Yeah. From west to east. West. Yes.
>> And can we say that in the RS4? Do we
want to see that same kind of step down
as we move west to east or
>> I think in the single family I think
they need to make sure that the lots
around the exterior against the other
lots are compatible.
>> I think that's I think that's the more
important thing is saying that the
>> the lots the current residential lots
that but the RS4 need to be more
compatible than
You mind going back to the specific area
plan?
You have one that's got this one
highlighted
or is that in the other presentation?
» Sorry.
Well, he's finding that I have a I just
had a comment or a thought. If if we're
a if we're agreeing to the 20% increase
and they do transition,
do we have to go with RS4
six
neighboring is 7 8.5
etc.
I don't know.
Or is that
I know it has to pencil out. I get it.
>> Yeah, that's a good one right there.
>> What happened there? That's a good one.
» I got to do the math to invert it
because I got to go from units per acre
to square feet.
Yeah, correct. So the tricky part about
this uh is that we are looking with a
specific area plan. We're looking at a
really big area beyond just this
development and how it transitions. So
this five to eight dwelling units per
acre, we're kind of stuck there.
>> That's just and that's RS4.
>> Yeah, that's RS4.
So if you go beyond that then it starts
getting to the you know less than that
2.5 to five dwelling units per acre on
the southern side of that
and then even on the as you transition
back over to the west it's 2.5 to five
dwelling units per acre but the area
that we're talking about is the higher part of that medium
density residential
>> I think and I'm comfortable able with
that. I think I would like to arc the
compatibility and I'll take your guys'
input compatibility to allow it to go
beyond that 8,000 because it's it's up
against like acre lots, right?
>> I don't know.
>> So, in our code, RS6 and RS7 max out at
10,000 square feet.
» That's as much as they could go.
That's as much as they're required to go
>> or 80% of whatever they're next to. So
>> I like I like something like that. I I
was going to throw out 50% of what
they're next to, but
>> 80% is the lower if it's
>> Oh, that's the lower bound.
>> Whatever.
>> The other one you just said is the upper
bound.
>> Yeah.
>> So yeah, exactly. It would max out at
10,000.
[snorts]
» Is anybody as concerned as I am.
>> But that is that what's in the code?
>> The code. So the code would be 8,000.
The ones along the edge abuing
>> the existing residential would be 8,000.
>> 8,000 max.
>> It's still pretty small compared to
what's there.
>> But you have the flexibility with an MPC
to make that condition bigger.
>> Only up to 10 though.
>> No, I'm just giving you an example. RS6
and RS7 go to 10,000. So
>> bigger.
>> Sorry, I'm just I'm just throwing out
the numbers that we have in code just to
give you an idea.
>> So we could require those along the
existing county
lots to maybe go 70% of the lot width
that they but up to. So they' be close
70 75%. So you wouldn't have to match
them completely, but the width that they
would be button up to would be darn
close to what's already there. Something
like that. my mind is just do like a
percentage or something. Yeah, like
>> I don't know
>> that could start cutting into the the
required densities
>> specific area plan.
I
>> I to
>> Yeah.
>> kind of what you want
>> because that's where we always run into
a problem with these these larger lots
county subdivisions when something comes
along that people you know they're
looking at getting four lots across the
back property line and and that just
isn't compatible most of the time. So if
we could say that they have to be
at least 75% of the width of the
>> even 50% I think
>> or something so of those lots that
they're going to butt up against
>> and then I guess we need to look at
» like this this is impacting such a small
portion of this
but I think it's an important part.
Yeah, there's not a lot of lots.
>> If that's required though, how much how
much are you going to have to change on
the interior? I mean, they have to
reback. Are they going to have to go
back and redo the whole
>> They haven't planned any of it out yet.
>> Oh, they got a pretty good idea.
>> They don't have lots laid out.
>> Well, they're not even an acre.
[laughter]
>> They're 3/4 of an acre.
>> They're pretty wide. So,
>> those are even like the chairman said,
you know, if we make them 50%. So, but
isn't that a ditch
>> that divides them?
>> There's a canal there.
>> So, they actually aren't even a budding.
>> So, yeah, there's a
>> there's a there's already a buffer. So,
you could do a landscape buffer to get
them even further away.
>> Changing the
>> the lot sizes.
>> That's a pretty good size canal though.
Right away,
>> Mr. chair and commissioners, it looks to
me like um the even though there is a
ditch there, the uh properties extend to
the center line of the ditch on both
sides. And so you are abudding those
properties. So you'd still have that
requirement that's already built into
code, but you could increase that. I'm a
little bit nervous about giving a
percentage because um some of these
properties if they're budding up against
two of these properties and it's a
percentage it's going to be really
challenging for me to figure out what I
should do. Right? So I would prefer
since these are about a 3/4 of an acre.
That one that I'm kind of pointing at
here is 2 acres but that's kind of an
outlier for that subdivision. Um I would
recommend we do some exact number. So
that's you have to have
you know from this range maybe um 10 to
12,000 square feet or something like
that.
>> Good numbers
>> but two that what do you got there? You
got 20 foot on each side of that canal.
That's probably
>> that's actually the Phillis canal. So
it's a not
>> Yeah. Uh, so then you got 20 feet on
each side of it, right, for the
rightway. So, I mean, you're not even
going to be buttoning up to them come
to, you know, when you look at it. So, I
think if we just leave it the way code
says, then I think we'd be good.
>> Okay.
>> I mean, they're long going to be a long
ways apart.
>> 8,000
>> feet bigger. Yeah. As we get what code
and I think they'll work on it and do
their best to make make it compatible.
You're Yeah. Phyllis Canals. How wide is
that thing? 12 15 feet something like
that. maybe bigger. So, you're going to
be over half a football field apart
anyway from the prop line where you know
>> what if we just said
there's no 8,000 limit
as compatible as they
>> sounds perfect. Go for it.
Could
we say [laughter]
but
» from the person who has to review the
preliminary plat
>> that's too loose.
>> Yeah. It would be really hard to just
look at it and be like it's close
enough.
>> Could do that. [laughter]
>> If you word it like that I could do
that.
>> They're not they're not incentivized to
make those huge lots. And if they did,
» but if you're good with 8,000, they'll
probably
>> I don't know that I am.
>> Okay.
>> We just leave it up to what's in code.
So
>> do a range. Well, 8,000 is what's in
code to So if you're not good with that,
then
>> I'd like to see 10 or more there.
>> 10 to 12. 10 to 12.
>> Okay.
>> There you go.
>> Is that a motion?
>> Since that's what time it is.
>> 10 to [laughter] 12.
that a motion.
>> Okay.
>> Anything else?
>> No, just got to get the the motion back
up there so you can get it made.
>> Um,
» to most people are is everybody How's
everybody feeling? I heard Steve say he
doesn't like the 20% increase, but
sounds like everybody else is okay with
>> Oh, I have I don't have a problem with
the 20% increase.
>> You're going from 12 to 14 year. You
feel better? I just like the fact that
you get a little going to give the 20%
then give a little bit more on the
single family side
>> and
[snorts]
>> Okay.
Go for I'll move to recommend
approval of the project as stated on
screen with remen
with recommended conditions and proposed
findings
with the additional
understanding because I kind of want to
put this into a development we go.
>> Okay.
with a development agreement. Can I just
say that that incorporates
the principles of transitioning the
density of the multifamily housing at
moving for decreasing from west to east
and lots that are abuing existing homes
are 10,000 to 12,000 square feet in lie
of the
8,000 currently.
Second.
>> Okay. It's been moved by Commissioner
Morgan, second by Commissioner Turner to
approve the item with the development
agreement.
We
>> have a roll call, please.
>> Garner absent. Miller,
>> yes.
>> Daffer, absent. Turner,
>> hi.
>> Kho,
>> I
>> Morgan,
>> yes.
Kirkman,
>> yes.
>> Copeland, absent. Fiend,
>> yes.
>> Okay, motion passes.
» Motion to adjurnn.
>> Second. Been moved by Commissioner
Morgan, second by Commissioner Turn to
all those in favor?
>> I. Any opposed?
>> I
That's how we do it.
>> Thank you all. Appreciate it.
>> I could have made it to midnight, but
whatever. What's up to you guys? Thanks
for sticking it out.
>> Maybe my wife. [laughter]
>> What's up to you guys?