[1:33] Hi, Preston. How are you?
[2:10] » [clears throat]
[2:13] » I'll call you at least once.
[2:26] » Okay, I've got six o'clock. I would like
[2:28] to first start by welcoming everybody to
[2:30] the city of Nampa planning and zoning
[2:32] commission meeting August 25th, 2026.
[2:36] Um, can we have a roll call, please?
[2:41] >> Chairman Miller
[2:42] >> here.
[2:43] >> Thank you. Vice Chair Garner,
[2:47] absent.
[2:49] Commissioner Kho
[2:51] >> here.
[2:53] Commissioner Daffer
[2:56] absent.
[2:59] Commissioner Morgan
[3:00] >> here.
[3:01] >> Commissioner Copeland
[3:04] absent. Commissioner Kirkman
[3:06] >> here.
[3:08] >> Commissioner Turner
[3:09] >> here.
[3:09] >> Commissioner Fi
[3:10] >> here.
[3:12] >> Thank you.
[3:18] » Looking. I'm looking. Where did he go?
[3:21] >> Who? He's right there behind the TV.
[3:24] >> Oh, [laughter] where did he go? I don't
[3:26] see him back there.
[3:29] >> Uh, Mr. Chair and Commissioners, Rodney
[3:31] Ashby, planning and zoning director. For
[3:32] the record, um, we had four uh, final
[3:36] plats that were approved by city council
[3:40] number two, Spring Hollow Ranch number
[3:42] six, Trestle Creek number one, and
[3:45] Reflections Edge number five. And then
[3:48] we had two public hearings. Uh the first
[3:50] one was for a variance for reduced front
[3:52] yard setback and um reduced landscape
[3:56] buffer requirements at an existing
[4:00] inhome daycare. And that was uh 3424
[4:04] East Greenhurst Road and that was uh
[4:07] approved. Um five in favor, one opposed.
[4:11] The next one was a zoning map amendment
[4:13] from BC to BN and RD
[4:17] uh and a development agreement and
[4:19] subdivision preliminary plat for Spring
[4:21] Shores Commons. Uh you recommended
[4:24] approval
[4:25] uh on J July 14th and the city council
[4:29] approved it on a three to three and then
[4:31] the mayor uh broke the tie and approved
[4:35] it.
[4:37] And that's all I have.
[4:38] >> Okay. Thank you, Ronnie. Appreciate it.
[4:48] » Take a motion.
[4:50] >> Oh, yeah. Sorry, Mr. Chair. I'll make a
[4:52] motion that we approve consent agenda.
[4:55] >> Second.
[4:57] It's been moved by Kirkman, seconded by
[4:58] Fiend to approve the consent agenda. All
[5:01] those in favor?
[5:01] >> I.
[5:02] >> Any opposed?
[5:04] >> Okay.
[5:07] Um, we will go ahead and move right into
[5:09] our public hearing portion of this
[5:12] meeting. Um, so the way it works, if you
[5:15] haven't been here before, uh, we will
[5:17] open the meeting up,
[5:19] uh, call the applicant up. They will
[5:21] have seven minutes to present what their
[5:24] thoughts and plans are to do with the
[5:26] piece of property. We'll then turn the
[5:28] time over to staff. They'll give us a
[5:30] report on facts and findings, and then
[5:33] we will open it up for public testimony.
[5:35] When you come to the mic, we would ask
[5:37] you to speak into the mic and give us
[5:41] your name and address for the record.
[5:43] It's really important uh for the records
[5:46] that we have that information and we
[5:48] don't want to stop you once you start.
[5:50] So, if you could try to remember that,
[5:51] it's it's helpful. Um each person will
[5:56] have three minutes per item. If you'd
[5:58] like to speak on each item, that's fine.
[6:00] You get three minutes each time you come
[6:02] up to the mic and speak. Um, if you just
[6:06] agree with what's already been said, we
[6:08] have no problem with you coming to the
[6:09] mic and saying, "I agree. You know,
[6:12] traffic's bad," whatever your thoughts
[6:14] are. Um, and then sit down and we'll
[6:17] take that to note and it'll be part of
[6:19] the record. So uh with that we will
[6:22] start with item 3-1 annexation and
[6:25] zoning to RD zoning district conditional
[6:27] use permit for duplexes
[6:29] subdivision preliminary plat and plan
[6:31] unit development for southside duplexes
[6:34] subdivision at 1111 Southside Boulevard
[6:38] for KBY Hillbig representing Enoch Amos
[6:41] Living Trust is the applicant
[6:44] >> [snorts]
[6:53] » Good evening um gentlemen of the
[6:56] commission. It's a pleasure to um
[6:58] present today. Uh my name is Mike
[7:00] Washburn with Focus Consulting. My
[7:03] address is 1001 North Rosario uh Sweet
[7:08] 100 in Meridian, Idaho. Um, so we're
[7:12] here today to present the project at
[7:14] 11-11 Southside Boulevard. Uh, this is a
[7:18] coordinated application for annexation,
[7:20] a PUD, a conditional use permit, and
[7:23] preliminary plat. And our goal with this
[7:26] project was to create an appropriate
[7:29] infill
[7:30] um for the property that responds to the
[7:34] uh surrounding neighborhood, the uh
[7:36] city's comprehensive plan and the unique
[7:40] configuration of this site. As you will
[7:42] see, I'm able to scroll on this.
[7:48] Oh
[7:51] fast. There we go. Oh, out again.
[7:57] Um, this property sits along Southside
[8:00] Boulevard between some existing uh
[8:03] residential u neighborhoods on the west
[8:06] and some highdensity uh residential uh
[8:11] use going along Southside Boulevard. And
[8:13] this location is important because we
[8:14] see this property as really as a natural
[8:17] transition between the single family
[8:19] homes located on the west and the
[8:21] already high density uh use that's going
[8:23] along the corridor uh there.
[8:35] Okay. Uh this property is approximately
[8:37] 3.98 acres um of underutilized property
[8:41] which includes an uninhabitable home. Uh currently um
[8:50] the comprehensive plan identifies this
[8:52] as a medium density and um so we're not
[8:56] proposing you know something to um go
[8:59] beyond that at this time. And uh within
[9:02] those we propose a uh a mix of duplexes
[9:05] and six family lots. Like I said,
[9:07] creating a transition between uh both
[9:09] sides where we have single family homes
[9:11] and higher density uh to the east. Um
[9:16] sort of our site plan and um a lot of
[9:20] thought and intentionality went into
[9:23] meeting with the neighbors of um this
[9:26] community and the surrounding uh land
[9:28] owners. Um even so is that they have um
[9:33] provided enough feedback where we
[9:34] actually uh pivoted and and listened to
[9:37] them and changed our initial proposal.
[9:39] Um so we replaced 14 duplexes and now
[9:43] have six single family lots um to match
[9:46] the existing use there on that side. Um
[9:49] we've put all the existing uh or the six
[9:51] family lots on the north side to kind of
[9:54] create a buffer some space there. Uh
[9:56] we've curved uh the public roadway there
[10:00] to you know provide kind of a more
[10:02] residential feel as well as for some
[10:04] traffic calming. Uh as far as parking
[10:07] goes, we are providing five additional
[10:09] than the 59 that were required. So we're
[10:12] not, you know, putting all the um
[10:16] parking on potentially uh the
[10:18] surrounding neighborhood. Uh we even met
[10:20] with a family. they had a a child that
[10:22] loved basketball and so hey we're going
[10:23] to we're going to throw in a basketball
[10:25] hoop in our property as well. Um and
[10:27] then also we've got the open space uh
[10:30] adjacent there to the uh property to the
[10:32] south. And then we're also um looking at
[10:36] those two lots on the west. We actually
[10:39] have a um a variance for those two lots.
[10:42] They're actually above the 8,000 square
[10:44] feet, but we're actually not reducing
[10:46] those lot sizes. We want to make them
[10:48] larger in order to fit with the um
[10:51] single family lots that already exist on
[10:53] the west over there. Um so the
[10:57] comprehensive plan um it's medium
[10:59] density residential. So the R six uh so
[11:03] the RS4 zone uh fits with that. Um the
[11:08] duplexes are supported uh through the
[11:11] conditional use permit process, you
[11:14] know, which gives the city the
[11:15] opportunity uh to evaluate compatibility
[11:17] with the surrounding development. Um and
[11:21] then with the PUD, um we see this as
[11:24] providing uh targeted flexibility for
[11:26] the site because of its unusual uh
[11:28] narrow constraints. you know, it's 130
[11:30] ft wide and it's almost 1500 feet long
[11:34] and uh we're really looking to um find
[11:37] some good use in that. We we feel like
[11:38] we've come up with a uh a great solution
[11:40] here. Um so the requested relief, like I
[11:45] said, it's a very long, very narrow
[11:46] site. So we would like to um have the
[11:49] rear setbacks reduced from 15t to 4T.
[11:52] And this allows the duplexes to sit uh
[11:55] inside uh this property. Uh the parking
[11:58] setback, we would go from 20 to zero to
[12:00] allow for covered parking. And as I
[12:03] mentioned before, the lot size
[12:04] exception. We want those two abuing lots
[12:06] to kind of fit with that uh existing
[12:09] single family neighborhood there to the
[12:10] west.
[12:13] And uh now we just have some some
[12:15] renderings on the next uh few slides. Uh
[12:18] we just didn't want to make sure this
[12:19] was compatible on paper. We wanted to
[12:21] add some beauty and aesthetic to the
[12:23] surrounding neighborhood. Um, so the
[12:25] intent is kind of like a residential
[12:27] streetscape and these duplexes will have
[12:30] variations in colors and textures, uh,
[12:32] covered patios and really a nice
[12:36] emphasis on street presence for that
[12:38] area.
[12:40] Have just a shot there at the front of
[12:43] the duplexes, covered parking.
[12:49] Here's looking at the south side.
[12:55] there.
[13:04] Who doesn't love a nice playground slash
[13:06] basketball hoop?
[13:09] And so, uh, a part of the, um,
[13:13] uh, project here is these duplex, um,
[13:16] the unit design. Uh the the company that
[13:19] designs these is actually based in
[13:21] Caldwell. So we're, you know, we're
[13:22] wanting local uh Idaho in-house uh
[13:26] builders and manufacturers to contribute
[13:28] to the community. Um so steel uh steel
[13:31] structures, fire sprinklers, high
[13:33] efficiency, like I said, that uh
[13:35] appealing street presence.
[13:38] Uh with the staff findings, um
[13:42] we really found this to be in harmony
[13:44] with the the comprehensive plan.
[13:46] Speaking of that medium density
[13:48] residential,
[13:49] um the project also qualifies as infill
[13:52] because it's taking an uninhabitable
[13:54] unusable space and turning it into
[13:56] something for the community. Um police
[13:58] and fire services are readily available
[14:00] as well as sewer, water, and pressure
[14:02] irrigation.
[14:07] And overall, um, we believe this is a,
[14:10] you know, thoughtful infill project that
[14:12] will take a space that is currently, um,
[14:15] underutilized and kind of an eyesore
[14:18] there with the the abandoned house and
[14:20] provide, uh, some housing and some, um,
[14:23] just aesthetic appeal to the
[14:25] neighborhood as well. uh the PUD
[14:27] flexibility is there to not so that we
[14:30] can maximize lots on the site but that
[14:33] we can work with the constraints of this
[14:35] unique site and really make something um
[14:38] viable there for the community. So
[14:41] that is all.
[14:45] >> Thank you.
[14:47] >> We'll call you back up. We have
[14:48] questions a little later. Okay. Thank
[14:50] you,
[14:52] Miss Fry.
[14:54] We're up.
[15:34] Okay. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and
[15:37] commissioners. My name is Candace Fry,
[15:39] associate planner for the city of Nampa.
[15:41] The request before you this evening is
[15:43] an annexation and zoning to RS4 single
[15:47] family residential. The RD was a typo,
[15:50] but we did send out corrected notices,
[15:52] and the sign was corrected as well.
[15:56] Conditional use permit for the duplexes,
[15:58] a subdivision preliminary plat, and a
[16:00] planned unit development for southside
[16:03] duplexes. The original concept is 19
[16:06] residential lots, including six single
[16:08] family detached homes and 13 two-unit
[16:12] dup duplex dwellings with reduced rear
[16:14] yard duplex setbacks to 4 feet and
[16:17] reduced duplex front setback to zero for
[16:21] the garages and the carports.
[16:25] Property details. This parcel is
[16:27] currently under Canyon County
[16:29] jurisdiction. The surrounding zoning to
[16:31] the north is Canyon County. To the south
[16:34] is RD two family residential. To the
[16:37] west is RS6 single family residential
[16:40] and to the east is Canyon County and RML
[16:44] limited multifamily residential.
[16:48] Comprehensive plan designates this area
[16:50] as medium density residential. The
[16:53] surrounding land use designation. The
[16:55] adjacent parcels are currently
[16:57] designated as medium density residential
[17:00] and some commercial to the east. Here
[17:05] is a copy of the preliminary plat
[17:10] and then a lot of applicable
[17:12] regulations. So the first one is for
[17:14] annexation Idaho state code title
[17:17] 50-2225
[17:20] and NA city code title 10 chapter 2 4C
[17:24] outline the requirements for annexation
[17:27] with consent of property owners
[17:29] specifically those four. You have seen
[17:31] them before but they are here again for
[17:33] reference.
[17:36] And then the zoning. So 1023.C
[17:40] conclusions of law pertinent to proposed
[17:43] zoning map amendments. And then NA city
[17:46] code title 10 chapter 8 the RS zoning
[17:49] district single family residential and
[17:52] then chapter 27-1.C
[17:56] which is the subdivision code.
[18:00] even more applicable regulations.
[18:04] This is for the conditional use permit.
[18:06] So, chapter 25 of title 10 talks about
[18:10] the conditional use permit and then the
[18:12] conditional use permit criteria is below
[18:15] for your reference as well.
[18:19] All right. Title 10, chapter 26 is the
[18:22] plan unit development chapter and then
[18:25] they also have under 1026-4.b
[18:29] be the bulk requirements. The bulk
[18:31] requirements that would otherwise be
[18:33] applicable to a project developed in a
[18:36] given zone wherein a PUD is proposed
[18:39] slashallowed may be altered by the
[18:42] commission as a part of the PUD review
[18:44] and approval process. And then at the
[18:47] very bottom it is 1026-4.b.2.
[18:51] Parking space clearance that talks about
[18:54] the garage and carports shall be no
[18:56] closer to the street or alley than 20
[18:58] ft.
[19:01] I think we're done with that one.
[19:02] Correspondence. No public comments were
[19:05] received. The Nampa Fire District does
[19:08] not oppose the application subject to
[19:10] compliance with code requirements and
[19:12] conditions of approval as noted in the
[19:15] attached memo in your staff report.
[19:17] Nampa engineering division engineering
[19:20] provided general water and sewer
[19:22] comments also provided standard comments
[19:24] regarding access and traffic and then
[19:27] their attached memo is in the staff
[19:29] report as well. The Nampa Police
[19:32] Department Nampa PD projects future
[19:34] service needs based on the overall
[19:36] population
[19:40] density and development type. Southside
[19:42] Duplexes is projected to add 77 new
[19:45] residents to the city of Nampa's current
[19:47] population.
[19:49] Therefore, Nampa PD is recommending a
[19:51] commitment to fund 0.1 additional
[19:54] officers and 0.05 additional support
[19:57] staff if this project is approved to
[20:00] maintain current police levels.
[20:04] So, a lot in the staff analysis. So, I
[20:06] will dig in. According to the
[20:09] comprehensive plan, we do have a section
[20:12] for infill development. So, infill
[20:14] development is the process of developing
[20:17] vacant or underused parcels within the
[20:20] city. Infill development allows the
[20:22] utilization of existing community
[20:24] services such as water and sewer rather
[20:27] than constructing new facilities in
[20:30] areas that have not been developed in
[20:32] city limits. police and fire services
[20:35] areas wouldn't need to be extended and
[20:38] in addition infill development can and
[20:40] then I have listed that out here.
[20:46] Oops.
[20:47] And then way down at the bottom is Nampa
[20:50] City Code 1032,
[20:52] which is our land use chart. So in the
[20:55] RS zone, dwelling single family homes is
[20:57] a permitted use in the RS zoning
[20:59] district and then duplexes require a
[21:02] conditional use permit in the RS zoning
[21:04] district.
[21:07] So here 1085-
[21:10] A is the spatial and bulk requirements
[21:12] for principal structures and accessory
[21:14] structures. So I do have the setbacks
[21:18] listed here. So in the front it's 20 to
[21:21] the garage and then 15 to the living
[21:23] area. And then the sides are 5 ft and
[21:26] then the rear setbacks are 15 ft.
[21:30] And then the applicant is requesting
[21:33] those reduced rear yard setbacks. They
[21:35] are requesting to reduce the setback
[21:37] from 15 ft for rear setbacks for st for
[21:41] standard buildable lots to four feet.
[21:44] And then I'd like to also mention that reduced setback is only for the
[21:49] duplex lots. It is not for the single
[21:52] family homes. Those will follow the
[21:54] standard setbacks.
[21:59] 1085.B
[22:00] is the density requirements and lot
[22:03] sizes. So the lot sizes in the RS4 zone
[22:06] range from 4,000 to 8,000 square ft. The
[22:10] lot sizes for this project range from
[22:13] 4,323
[22:15] square ft to 8,817
[22:18] square ft. There are two lots that
[22:21] exceed the 8,000 square ft maximum lot
[22:23] size. Block one, lot three and block
[22:26] one, lot two is included in the
[22:28] exception request. City council will
[22:31] make the final decision for this
[22:33] exception request. And then density.
[22:36] Medium density residential designation
[22:38] has a density range of 2 and 12 to eight
[22:41] dwelling units an acre. This project is
[22:44] proposing a total of 32 residential
[22:47] units on 4 acres. The overall density
[22:50] for this project will be eight dwelling
[22:52] units an acre.
[22:55] And then the parking. So 1022-6
[22:59] talks [clears throat] about the number
[23:00] of spaces required. So single family
[23:03] homes in the RS zone require two parking
[23:05] spots and one of them shall be covered.
[23:08] And then each they mentioned staff staff
[23:12] the applicant mentioned that all of the
[23:14] duplexes will be two bedrooms. So doing
[23:17] the math according to city code they
[23:20] would need a minimum of 71 parking
[23:23] spaces. And after confirming with the
[23:26] applicant there has been a change and
[23:28] it's highlighted here and then later on
[23:31] in the facts for your reference they
[23:33] have clarified that the 70 they are
[23:36] providing 76 parking spaces which is
[23:39] more than the minimum that is required.
[23:42] There was a mention of I believe it was
[23:44] 64 that was for the duplexes only. So,
[23:48] we did add once we did the math again
[23:50] for the single family homes, they were
[23:52] over that minimum requirement.
[23:55] And then parking setback reduction. So,
[23:59] Nampa City Code 10264.B.2
[24:02] requires garages and carports to be no
[24:05] closer than 20 ft to the street.
[24:07] However, the applicant is requesting for
[24:09] the duplex lots to be located directly
[24:12] adjacent to the internal road with no
[24:15] setback.
[24:19] the open space requirements. So 10276N.2
[24:24] developments with a gross acreage of 2
[24:26] to 4.99 acres need to provide at least
[24:30] 10% of the total gross parcel area for
[24:34] qualified open space. This project is
[24:37] proposing to provide 0.48 acres or 12%
[24:41] of qualified open space. And then some
[24:44] of the amenities that they listed in
[24:46] their narrative was a barbecue area, a
[24:49] shaded structure, a tot lot, and then as
[24:51] you heard tonight, a basketball hoop.
[24:54] And then landscaping 1033-4
[24:58] C3.A
[25:00] is the landscape buffer for a single
[25:02] family residential subdivision. So, a
[25:04] 25- foot landscape buffer will be
[25:07] required along Southside Boulevard and a
[25:09] landscape plan will be reviewed to meet
[25:11] code requirements with the building
[25:13] permit.
[25:17] And then I do have here as well as in
[25:20] the staff report the PUD request and the
[25:23] elements. So, I did take all of the
[25:26] information from the PUD code and how it
[25:28] applied to their project and what they
[25:31] were requesting to make it a little
[25:33] easier to read, but I will try and speed
[25:36] through it if I can. So, 10264.b.1
[25:40] B.1 is building separation and it they
[25:44] shall meet current adopted international
[25:46] building code and then the applicant has
[25:48] indicated that all structures will meet
[25:51] building code separation requirements
[25:53] and then staff has no issues. The
[25:55] building department will review each
[25:57] permit for compliance with code. And
[26:00] then 1026-4.b.2
[26:04] is parking space clearance. So that one
[26:06] again talks about the 20 ft for garages
[26:09] and carports. They can't be any closer
[26:12] than the 20 ft. However, the applicant
[26:15] is requesting relief from the 20ft
[26:17] garage/carport
[26:19] setback. And then the covered carports
[26:21] and open parking stalls on the duplex
[26:24] lots are proposed directly adjacent to
[26:26] the internal road with no setback. The
[26:29] single family homes will follow the
[26:31] standard setback requirements for the RS
[26:33] zone. And then city code does require
[26:35] that there will be a 20 foot setback
[26:38] from the front property line. 10264.b3
[26:43] is regarding access. So access to a
[26:45] public street is assured to each and
[26:48] every building lot by direct access. And
[26:52] then the applicant has stated that
[26:53] access to a public street is assured to
[26:56] each building lot by direct frontage on
[26:59] the internal public road. And then
[27:02] 10264.B.4
[27:04] is the height of the buildings. So in
[27:07] the PUB code, you can if you would like
[27:10] request to extend two stories above the
[27:12] limitation of the zone
[27:16] in which it is located only when the
[27:18] zone does not above a single family
[27:20] resident, residential subdivision,
[27:22] residential zoning district or lower
[27:24] medium density residential land use
[27:27] designation on the future land use map.
[27:30] And then the applicant has stated in
[27:32] their narrative that all buildings will
[27:34] be two stories. The building heights
[27:36] will not exceed the RS zone height
[27:38] limitations.
[27:42] And then 1026-4.C.2
[27:48] is the buildable lot size and density
[27:50] requirements. So you may new lots
[27:54] created on or after October 4, 2021 by a
[27:58] lot split or through a subdivision of
[28:00] the land must conform to the minimum and
[28:02] maximum lot size and density
[28:05] requirements established for the zoning
[28:07] district assigned to that parcel or as
[28:09] approved through a PUD in order to be
[28:12] considered a buildable lot. So again,
[28:15] the applicant is requesting an exception
[28:17] to the maximum lot size in the RS zone
[28:20] for block one, lots two and three. The
[28:23] exception request will ultimately be up
[28:25] to city council whether to approve or
[28:28] not. So block one, lot two is only above
[28:32] the maximum lot size requirement by four
[28:35] feet or square feet. And then lot three,
[28:39] block one, is over the 8,000 square foot
[28:42] maximum by 817 square feet.
[28:46] 10264.B
[28:49] talks about the bulk requirements and so
[28:52] that could be setbacks, property depth,
[28:54] property width, building height,
[28:56] density, and street frontage. So they
[28:58] are requesting that reduced rear yard
[29:00] setback. And then the PUB code allows
[29:03] for the commission to allow deviations
[29:05] from the setback lot sizes, property
[29:07] death, so on and so forth with one
[29:11] without one or more variance application
[29:14] permits being required. So that's why
[29:16] they are requesting it through a PUD,
[29:18] not a variance.
[29:20] And then I have at the very bottom 102
[29:23] 1022-6
[29:25] which is the parking. And then I do have
[29:27] that corrected here as well that they
[29:29] are providing 76 parking spaces instead
[29:33] of that 64. So they are above the
[29:36] minimum requirement.
[29:39] So findings for RS4 zoning to RS4
[29:48] and then
[29:50] findings for annexation. So, the
[29:53] proposed zoning map amendment for the
[29:55] parcel listed is in harmony with the
[29:57] comprehensive plan because it proposes a
[30:00] zone of RS that is allowed in the
[30:02] designation of medium density
[30:04] residential on the future land use map
[30:07] and complies with the principles
[30:08] outlined in the comprehensive plan. The
[30:11] future land use map was established
[30:13] after thoroughly analyzing land uses for
[30:16] compatibility. The project provides a
[30:18] set of uses that would be reasonably
[30:20] compatible adjoining property because
[30:23] the existing uses are all proposed are
[30:26] residential and it is in the public's
[30:29] best interest and reasonably necessary
[30:30] because it will extend city utilities.
[30:33] It will install frontage improvements
[30:35] and it is compatible with the
[30:37] surrounding uses and it will comply with
[30:40] adopted city codes.
[30:43] more findings and then even more
[30:46] findings for the conditional use permit.
[30:49] So weighing the facts in department and
[30:51] agency input, the proposed use is again
[30:54] supported by the comprehensive plan. It
[30:56] is near major transportation corridors
[30:59] and it meets the goals and strategies
[31:01] for economic development. The use is
[31:04] making efficient use of vacant parcels
[31:07] and it will not adversely impact the
[31:09] intended character and appearance of the
[31:12] general vicinity through design,
[31:14] construction, operation and maintenance
[31:16] and will not be detrimental to the
[31:18] economic welfare of the community. It
[31:20] will be adding dwelling units to an area
[31:23] adequately served by transportation,
[31:25] jobs, and educational opportunities. The
[31:28] proposed development will not involve
[31:30] activities
[31:32] or processes, materials, equipment, or
[31:34] conditions of operation that will be
[31:36] detrimental to any persons, property, or
[31:38] general welfare by reason of excessive
[31:41] traffic, noise, smoke, fume, glares, or
[31:43] odors because it is it has access to
[31:47] adequate utility and emergency services.
[31:50] It must follow all city codes and
[31:51] standards at the time of development,
[31:54] including building permits, design
[31:57] review, signage, landscaping, all of
[32:00] those.
[32:02] Here are the recommended conditions of
[32:05] approval and any others that the
[32:07] commission wishes to add.
[32:10] Here are your potential motions and I
[32:12] will stand for any questions.
[32:16] » Questions? Yeah, Mr. Chair, make I want
[32:19] to make sure I follow this parking. So,
[32:22] how many parking stalls are required
[32:25] from just the duplexes?
[32:28] >> 52.
[32:32] » That's what my math says.
[32:34] >> And and it wasn't clear to me if guest
[32:38] parking required for duplexes or just
[32:40] multif family like apartments.
[32:48] Mr. Chairman and Commissioner
[32:51] Morgan. So, parking. Well, maybe
[32:55] Christie has something to say.
[32:58] >> Way to hesitate.
[32:59] >> I want to take the spotlight. [laughter]
[33:02] >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, and Mr.
[33:05] Morgan. The um parking chapter outlines
[33:09] a two family development
[33:12] has to have the 2.5 parking spaces. So,
[33:15] anything that includes more than one or
[33:17] two duplexes is considered a
[33:19] development. So, it would have to
[33:21] provide the 2.5 for the duplexes.
[33:23] >> 0.25 per unit. So, we're at 52 + 7. So,
[33:30] that's 59.
[33:33] >> They're providing 64
[33:36] >> 60.
[33:38] Okay.
[33:39] And they're I guess what I was driving
[33:41] at is they're not counting parking in
[33:43] front of the single family residences to
[33:46] meet the requirements for the duplexes.
[33:49] >> Um Commissioner Morgan, not to my
[33:51] knowledge, they're not. They're using
[33:53] the single family homes have their own
[33:55] parking garages, all of that. And then
[33:57] everything else is separated with the
[33:58] duplexes.
[34:00] >> That's what I thought. I just the map
[34:02] wasn't
[34:04] >> not my strong suit.
[34:11] Uh Mr. Yeah. Sorry, one quick question
[34:14] if you know and maybe the applicant
[34:16] would know this, but how much space
[34:18] after the
[34:29] weigh? I mean, how much without the 20
[34:30] foot setback?
[34:32] You know,
[34:36] » Daniel's going to tell us to
[34:40] >> anything that has to [clears throat] do
[34:41] with wheels. Uh, Mr. Chair, Commissioner
[34:44] Kirkman, uh, the way the preliminary
[34:46] plat shows it, they would have and and
[34:48] one of the conditions that we placed on
[34:50] there that there would be a um valley
[34:53] gutter or ribbon curb delineating the
[34:55] public roadway from the parking area. um
[34:59] they would be proposing a zero setback
[35:02] there. And so there would not be between
[35:05] the public roadway and the the parking
[35:07] area. There would not necessarily be any
[35:10] um area. They are proposing to put the
[35:12] public sidewalk in front of those
[35:14] parking areas so that you don't have
[35:16] people walking behind them um when
[35:20] they're trying to pull out. Um, with
[35:22] that being the case, um, it would be
[35:25] similar to, um, some of the angled
[35:28] parking we have downtown. Other than
[35:29] this would be, uh, perpendicular. Um,
[35:33] and so that's that's the way that
[35:35] they've shown it on their preliminary
[35:36] plat.
[35:39] >> So, they [clears throat] were backing
[35:40] out, they'd back in. They'd back up.
[35:42] They'd back out right into the public
[35:44] roadway.
[35:44] >> Just just like any single family
[35:46] residential would do. it would just be
[35:48] their parking location would be there um
[35:51] right next to the roadway rather than
[35:53] separated by a sidewalk. Um but it it
[35:56] would be no different than me pulling
[35:58] out of my driveway at at my house.
[36:01] >> So if I had a vehicle that was bigger
[36:04] than 20 ft, would I be ticketed for
[36:06] parking there?
[36:08] >> Um if if you were overhanging into the
[36:12] roadway, that would be an issue. But I
[36:15] can't back in because then my hitch
[36:16] hangs over the sidewalk. So I'd get a
[36:18] ticket for that.
[36:19] >> So the the size of vehicle may play into
[36:22] who should buy these properties if
[36:24] approved.
[36:25] >> That's what I [clears throat] was going
[36:26] to say.
[36:26] >> Okay.
[36:29] >> Thank you.
[36:32] Other questions?
[36:39] Um,
[36:41] usually I kind of glance over because
[36:44] it's always kind of pretty apparent on
[36:47] the fire turnarounds and what the fire
[36:49] department asked for.
[36:52] Daniel,
[37:05] sorry. Got to get back to Okay. So the
[37:09] this the you would have your access on
[37:12] um southside and then there is a stub
[37:15] street that was in installed with the um
[37:18] Taylor sub or Eagleclaw subdivision
[37:20] Taylor Street that they would connect
[37:22] onto and so there would be no need for a
[37:25] turnaround there. The fire would have
[37:27] fire and the public would have access um
[37:30] in and through through multiple public
[37:32] streets.
[37:34] So this will connect to the existing
[37:36] >> that is the proposal and what what staff
[37:39] has uh that is the purpose of that
[37:42] street being there. Um and so staff has
[37:45] made that recommendation that that that
[37:47] connection is required.
[37:50] >> Okay. Thank you.
[37:56] » Else good right now.
[38:00] Okay. I think that's it.
[38:02] Uh, madam clerk, do we have a signup
[38:04] sheet? Okay,
[38:08] >> thank you. Calling Lenita Canavves.
[38:13] [clears throat]
[38:25] Good evening. My name is Lenita Knavey
[38:28] and I live at 2810 Taylor Court and that
[38:33] piece of property
[38:36] um my backyard would face the single
[38:38] family home area
[38:42] and my concern is
[38:46] um number one that our neighborhood
[38:49] which is just really three streets it's
[38:52] Georgia Taylor and then Taylor port
[38:55] which I live on,
[38:58] they have no sidewalks.
[39:00] So the children because it's such a
[39:03] quiet area, the children play in the
[39:05] streets
[39:07] because there's no sidewalks to walk on.
[39:10] So they're riding their bikes on the
[39:11] streets
[39:13] and they're planning on, if I have this
[39:16] right, sorry I knocked over your
[39:18] [clears throat] gabble.
[39:19] >> You're good. um they're planning on um
[39:23] busting out Taylor Street to go into
[39:26] their area. Correct.
[39:30] And so,
[39:33] um to give you an example, we had one
[39:36] high-speed chase that came through our
[39:38] neighborhood because the weird driver
[39:41] didn't realize he was going to come into
[39:44] a nonac. the police had to chase him.
[39:49] In my piece of property in the front, I
[39:51] have three boulders, you know, or
[39:54] several boulders that are right next to
[39:58] the property.
[40:00] And um the guy knocked one boulder over
[40:04] and
[40:06] matched up his car and kept on going.
[40:08] Anyway, the police finally came back and
[40:12] um wanted to make sure we were all okay.
[40:17] Well, these kind of things scare me
[40:19] because this can happen because now
[40:21] we're going to have access. Well, the
[40:24] other night, I don't know what happened,
[40:27] but Saturday night, somebody came
[40:29] through in the middle of the night,
[40:31] knocked one of those boulders, and I'm
[40:33] kidding, these are big. I couldn't even
[40:35] move it five feet into my front yard,
[40:40] and my neighbor had to push it back for
[40:42] me. So these are the things that worry
[40:45] me about opening that up and the speed.
[40:49] Also what worries me is my property
[40:54] that faces that area. It's all, you
[40:57] know, it's all country back there right
[40:59] now.
[41:01] And on the other side of that skinny
[41:06] place where they're going to put all
[41:07] these houses, on the other side of that
[41:10] is
[41:11] a cow ranch.
[41:14] So I just have
[41:16] a little horse fence, you know, that you
[41:19] can see through. So my request is that
[41:22] there be a wall
[41:25] so no one can see into my property.
[41:29] And that would be my number one request
[41:33] because that would be frightening to me
[41:36] to have all those people and all those
[41:38] duplexes and everything being able to
[41:41] have access to my property.
[41:44] So,
[41:44] >> okay. Thank you.
[41:45] >> Those are my concerns.
[41:48] >> Okay, we'll ask the questions for you.
[41:49] And I'm concerned about the traffic
[41:52] coming through there
[41:54] tonight. Trying to get through onto
[41:57] Southside just from Georgia took me a
[41:59] while because Southside is really busy
[42:02] now because we have the other apartments
[42:04] now.
[42:06] And this is just a Southside's just a
[42:08] little street, you know, it's becoming a
[42:10] highway.
[42:13] So [clears throat] that's something the
[42:15] city needs to think about.
[42:17] >> Thank you. That's your time.
[42:19] Okay, next
[42:22] >> Andre Soliv.
[42:34] » Good evening. My name is Andre Solivi. I
[42:36] live at 1119
[42:38] South Taylor Street.
[42:41] Uh the concerns I have is it's nice that
[42:43] you know my kid wants the basketball
[42:45] court but he's 12 and he doesn't realize
[42:48] the danger of all the traffic like when
[42:51] mentioned before there's no sidewalks.
[42:53] All of our kids just get outside, ride
[42:56] their bikes, play play ball, play
[42:59] basketball right now outside on the
[43:00] streets. So if that street is going to
[43:02] be through street, I mean we're going to
[43:04] get a lot more traffic. Um the home I
[43:07] live in has been in our family since
[43:08] 2007. It's been quiet neighborhood. No
[43:12] extra traffic coming in, coming out. And
[43:14] you know, just now realizing that we
[43:17] cannot let our kids go in the front
[43:19] yard, you know, pretty much just, hey,
[43:22] make sure you play in the backyard. Um,
[43:25] we take our kid to private school every
[43:28] morning and leaving from Georgia Street
[43:30] to southside sometimes can be 3, five
[43:32] minutes wait. There's a lot of school
[43:35] buses stopped right in front of the new
[43:37] um town homes or apartments, whatever
[43:39] there is, and sometimes impossible
[43:42] leaving. So, with that adding an extra
[43:44] street, [clears throat]
[43:45] it's just going to create even more
[43:47] traffic. Um it's going to be disaster
[43:50] because some of those people going to,
[43:51] you know, try to exit the other way
[43:53] whichever they go. So, that's that's our
[43:55] concerns is um safety, traffic. Um like
[44:00] mentioned before, southside has been
[44:02] nothing but like like a highway lately.
[44:05] Um I you know I know sooner or later
[44:09] it's going to have to be built no matter
[44:11] what. But if it gets continued with like
[44:14] sizes we have you know close to half an
[44:15] acre lots under I'm sure you know
[44:17] everybody's going to be fine with that.
[44:20] But on a 4 acre lot I mean if you just
[44:22] going to bring more people that already
[44:25] live in a whole subdivision it's just
[44:27] going to be a disaster.
[44:31] Thank you. Appreciate it.
[44:36] » No one further has submitted public
[44:38] testimony for this topic.
[44:40] >> Okay. Is there anyone else that would
[44:43] like to speak for, against, or undecided
[44:45] on this item?
[44:50] Okay. Mr. Washburn, would you like to
[44:51] come back up
[44:53] answer some questions for us?
[45:23] Mr. Chairman and uh commission members,
[45:26] um firstly, we want to address um I
[45:29] believe it was Anita. Um we're willing
[45:32] to put in a sixoot fence. You know, I
[45:34] think we had plans for that um fence
[45:37] along there uh in our preliminary plat.
[45:40] and um she currently as it sits will be
[45:43] abuing the open space park and there
[45:45] will be lots of uh trees growing into
[45:47] mature trees eventually. So we don't um
[45:51] foresee an issue of privacy there in the
[45:53] long run. And for Andre um
[45:56] uh it says he didn't want a neighbor
[45:58] directly next to him. So we put uh an
[46:01] open space as a buffer um behind his lot
[46:04] as well. And that um
[46:08] yes, that is all I have.
[46:11] >> We have questions.
[46:12] >> Yeah, Mr. Chair. Um the fence, what type
[46:15] of fence?
[46:17] >> You just said a fence. I was just
[46:18] wondering if you could clarify what
[46:19] type.
[46:19] >> Yeah, it will be a vinyl fence.
[46:21] >> Okay. So, a vinyl privacy fence, not a
[46:23] chain link.
[46:24] >> Correct.
[46:24] >> Okay.
[46:24] >> Yes. [laughter]
[46:30] » Anybody else?
[46:33] Okay, I think that's all we have for
[46:35] you. Thank you.
[46:38] >> Motion to close public hearing.
[46:39] >> So moved. [cough]
[46:42] Been moved by Commissioner Kirkman,
[46:45] seconded by Kho to close the public
[46:46] hearing. All those in favor?
[46:48] >> I.
[46:48] >> Any opposed? Okay. Public testimony
[46:51] portions closed.
[46:54] What are our thoughts?
[47:01] My thought is if this passes, I hope
[47:03] they give that abandoned house to the
[47:05] fire department and let the fire
[47:06] department burn it down for training.
[47:09] >> Yeah, no kidding.
[47:11] >> Such an eyesore there.
[47:12] >> Oh,
[47:14] >> I think this is a, you know, it's a very
[47:17] unique piece of land there. Yeah,
[47:20] extremely
[47:21] >> challenging to do something with, but I like the design and I like the
[47:25] accommodations that the applicant has
[47:27] made to some of the concerns that were brought forward. I know it didn't
[47:32] alleviate all of them, but I think
[47:34] they've mitigated um [clears throat]
[47:37] uh most of them with the open space and
[47:40] putting the multifamily the duplexes
[47:43] down at the other end where there's no
[47:46] homes. And anyway, so I I think it's a
[47:48] great infill project for this particular
[47:51] I'm not particularly happy right there
[47:53] at Southside because it that goes right
[47:55] around the corner there and it's almost
[47:56] a blind corner when you have some of
[47:59] that traffic coming out of the
[48:00] apartments and some other developments
[48:02] there. But we just have to drive more
[48:05] carefully, I guess.
[48:11] » Mr. Chair, I got I got a couple of
[48:14] thoughts. And not sure [clears throat]
[48:15] which way I want to go on this, but
[48:19] 4 foot backyards is nothing. And I mean,
[48:24] granted, there's some open space, play
[48:25] areas for the kids, but moms can't be
[48:28] down there constantly with the kids.
[48:30] They've still got to do laundry and
[48:32] dishes and
[48:34] cook meals. And the kids don't have a
[48:37] place to play out back. I mean, four
[48:38] foot. I'm 63 and I would I couldn't even
[48:41] lay down in the stupid thing. So I I I'm
[48:44] really struggling with that 4 foot
[48:45] because that that just there's nothing
[48:48] back there. Typically the town houses
[48:49] don't do much. They don't have much of a
[48:51] backyard anyway, but 4 foot is nothing.
[48:55] And then I I start to have concerns with
[48:58] that property to the south
[49:01] when somebody goes to develop that and
[49:03] they've got a 4 foot
[49:07] >> to a two-story building.
[49:08] >> Yeah. It's going to I know this is a
[49:11] very dis difficult lot to try to do
[49:13] something with because it is so long and
[49:15] skinny and I'd love I'm like Jeff I'd
[49:19] love to see that old
[49:21] thing burned down or tore down or
[49:23] something because I get to drive by it
[49:25] at least twice a day like you do. So it
[49:28] would be nice to see it gone. But I I
[49:30] think that man that 4 foot and it's
[49:33] going to make that south property to the
[49:35] south difficult to do something with
[49:38] down the road. So I that kind of bothers
[49:40] me with what what could happen there.
[49:42] And I think it's saying 4 foot and then
[49:44] you got a two-story building and I think my thought my thought with that
[49:49] is you know yes the 4 foot but then you
[49:52] got no front yard either.
[49:53] >> Yeah. Neither. Yeah. You have no place
[49:55] for
[49:56] >> a sidewalk in front of the place and
[49:57] then a 4 foot.
[49:58] >> Yeah. It's just like if you're the kind
[50:00] of person who has a vehicle longer than
[50:02] 20 foot, maybe you won't live here. And
[50:04] if you're the kind of person that wants
[50:05] a front and backyard, you won't live
[50:06] here either.
[50:07] >> I guess there's some of that, too. It is
[50:09] just a two-bedroom, multiple bedroom.
[50:11] So,
[50:15] » that's my thoughts for now.
[50:20] » Daniel, go ahead. Sorry.
[50:22] >> Sorry. Uh, I agree with both
[50:26] other commissioners that the the lot is
[50:28] extremely unusual.
[50:31] Bowling alley is about the only thing
[50:32] that would fit in here,
[50:35] but uh don't have too many outdoor
[50:36] bowling alleys.
[50:39] And the parking situation
[50:45] doesn't leave a lot to be desired
[50:46] either.
[50:50] The answer, I guess, is just
[50:52] don't like it when you look at it, don't
[50:55] rent or buy there and you'd be all
[50:57] right. So,
[50:59] tough choice to make, but I would say I
[51:00] would be in favor of it.
[51:03] But it looks like we have a
[51:06] comment.
[51:07] >> I have a question.
[51:08] >> Question. So, in a situation like this
[51:11] where we are potentially tying into an
[51:15] older older subdivision um with no
[51:18] sidewalks,
[51:20] is there something that the developer
[51:23] could do that the city could do as like
[51:26] a traffic calming?
[51:28] Um there is certainly um
[51:34] that could be a condition that was
[51:35] placed on it that they install traffic
[51:37] calming along Taylor and Georgia. Um if
[51:40] that's a concern, um that would likely
[51:43] look like um speed humps along that. Um
[51:49] typically
[51:51] um when we look at
[51:54] um
[51:56] these types of things, my recommendation
[51:59] would be um that we collect speed data
[52:02] on Georgia and probably not Taylor just
[52:06] because of its length, but on Georgia to
[52:09] prior to the development going in and
[52:12] the condition be placed that those
[52:14] evaluations are done and then say at the
[52:18] point where 50% of the the homes in that
[52:21] development are owner occupi or
[52:23] occupied, we go back and redo that
[52:26] evaluation and that the developer has um
[52:29] designed and bonded for those traffic
[52:32] calming improvements in the other
[52:34] subdivision. But we only do them if if
[52:37] that those speeds um are have now
[52:42] warranted it um more than they did
[52:45] previously. If the if the residents of a
[52:47] existing subdivision are going 25 miles
[52:50] an hour, you know, is their typical
[52:53] speed, the development goes in, that
[52:56] continues to be the same situation. Um,
[52:59] the volumes we would be talking about
[53:01] increasing there um would not warrant
[53:05] that unless the speeds significantly
[53:08] increased.
[53:08] >> Speeds increase to 45, then it's a
[53:10] different conversation.
[53:11] >> Yeah. I mean, even if they increase to
[53:14] 30 at that point, then yes, it's it it's
[53:17] had an impact. Um, if the though if
[53:20] those speeds stay the same as they were
[53:22] pre-development, um, at that point, it
[53:25] probably doesn't warrant putting in um,
[53:27] those. Um, but that's kind of the
[53:29] evaluation. If if that's something
[53:31] you're inclined to place as a condition,
[53:33] my recommendation would be that um, it's
[53:36] a condition that those speeds are
[53:38] evaluated prior to the development. Um
[53:41] and the developer is required to um
[53:45] design and bond for those improvements
[53:48] uh to then be installed say after 50%
[53:52] occupancy and a re-evaluation to
[53:54] determine if it's appropriate.
[53:56] >> Okay.
[53:57] >> That's still not going to account for
[53:58] the guy running from the cops and
[54:00] running
[54:01] >> and those those are outliers that you
[54:03] know as much as I would love to be able
[54:05] to account for those I I don't I don't
[54:07] have a way to do that. I I had the
[54:09] street I grew up in, we had a we had one
[54:13] of the very nice cross drains that um
[54:16] would take out a transmission and we had
[54:18] a guy running from the cops when I was a
[54:20] kid and took out his transmission and
[54:22] had to get out of the car to run from
[54:24] him continually.
[54:25] >> How many transmissions did you lose?
[54:30] » Thank you, Daniel. Appreciate it.
[54:33] >> Any other questions or comments? Go
[54:35] ahead. Um,
[54:37] I like the idea of getting in some
[54:40] housing, um, diversity and continuing to
[54:43] do that in this area. Um, we need
[54:47] continue to have that supply in order to
[54:49] keep prices where we want them.
[54:52] I think this is as good of a design as
[54:54] you can do on this type of a lot.
[54:57] I however am concerned with the 4 foot
[55:00] setback and having a if it was a
[55:03] one-story building maybe I don't think
[55:05] it would bother me as much but having
[55:08] 5 foot tall
[55:10] structure 4t away if I were to make a
[55:13] motion I would approve all of it except
[55:16] for that exemption
[55:18] >> what would you do though
[55:21] the applicant to do building shorter
[55:25] >> well
[55:28] Mr. Chair, in response to Commissioner Morgan's
[55:33] comment, I I agree. I had a nextdoor
[55:35] neighbor who had uh it was probably a
[55:38] six-foot backyard. And when she was
[55:40] building her house, we thought she was
[55:42] nuts to put in
[55:44] uh but she only needed three strips of
[55:46] grass too, saw when she put that in
[55:48] there. Um but it was small. We couldn't
[55:52] believe it was right up next to the in a normal subdivision. I don't know
[55:57] that
[55:59] we can make a decision or at least for
[56:01] me anyways, my opinion can make a
[56:03] decision based on what might be south of
[56:07] this. We'd have to address that when
[56:09] that or if that would ever come up and
[56:12] then make at at that point we could
[56:14] certainly make a look at making
[56:15] conditions like the first this row up
[56:17] against there has to be one story, you
[56:19] know, or something like that. We've done
[56:20] that in other uh in other uh public
[56:23] hearings also. I just don't know. I
[56:25] think we just have to address what is
[56:27] presented to us here rather than
[56:30] assuming down the road what might be
[56:34] because it may not be either
[56:38] owned for duplexes if that helps.
[56:42] one story duplexes,
[56:44] >> two story.
[56:46] >> I guess we're my thought is we're
[56:48] minimizing impact on a neighbor.
[56:52] >> So Rodney, does that create a future
[56:55] problem with a 4ft setback and then the
[56:57] neighbor asks for a
[57:00] rear setback of five feet, then we have
[57:02] nine feet between buildings.
[57:05] I'm I'm kind of looking at the attorney
[57:07] here because we have to evaluate each
[57:09] project on its own merits. Right. So,
[57:13] I'm heading down the right direction. I
[57:15] hope there.
[57:16] >> Yeah. Commissioner, for the record,
[57:17] Preston Ruer. Yes. What Rodney's
[57:19] proposing, we got to take each of these
[57:21] case by case. Though that's relevant for
[57:24] a future one, it's not before you
[57:25] tonight.
[57:26] >> Thank you for the clarification.
[57:28] Appreciate it.
[57:31] >> I think um Mr. Sure.
[57:34] One of my other concerns is that
[57:37] connection through the existing
[57:38] neighborhood um
[57:42] and home values and how that impacts
[57:44] them as far as these it's it's a deadend
[57:48] street. It's not a through street and
[57:53] how people buy what they look for low
[57:56] traffic, etc., etc. That's wiped out
[57:58] now. Um,
[58:01] I'm all for property rights and people
[58:03] be able to do, but now when does that
[58:05] cross the line? When does that start
[58:07] impacting somebody else's also?
[58:13] » So, what are your thoughts then on
[58:16] traffic calming? Does that help ease
[58:18] your mind a little or No, [sighs]
[58:21] >> not really. No, not really. Um,
[58:27] if it were already if it were already a
[58:29] through street, if there was already
[58:31] traffic that could run in multiple
[58:33] directions, then yeah, maybe traffic
[58:36] calming just because you're going to add
[58:37] more traffic that would be accessing
[58:41] that street.
[58:43] um
[58:45] but as as it is right now.
[58:47] >> And I guess my only thought on that is
[58:49] we've got plenty of subdivisions around
[58:51] the valley, not just Nampa, but around
[58:53] the valley that are very similar to this
[58:55] older subdivision have those stub
[58:57] streets. And the reason that there's sub
[58:59] streets is so they can connect. So, you
[59:02] know, if they were trying to purchase a
[59:04] piece of property, take a house out so
[59:06] they could connect through that lot,
[59:08] that's a little different conversation,
[59:09] but it's just connecting a substrate
[59:11] that was intended for connection in the
[59:12] first place. So, that's my thought. I
[59:15] mean, I understand what you're saying,
[59:16] but
[59:18] >> look at what the original thought was.
[59:20] >> Yeah, that's the intent. Otherwise, it
[59:22] wouldn't be wouldn't be developed that
[59:25] way. Uh,
[59:26] >> they would have put a lot there. Made a
[59:28] lot bigger. really would have I mean
[59:29] there would have been a lot of things
[59:30] different but that's the whole intent is
[59:32] for future growth and connection so
[59:36] >> yeah culdeac there at the end of Taylor
[59:38] court one and Taylor court two
[59:46] » back to my setback thing
[59:51] hypothetically if we had both projects
[59:55] before us today
[59:57] it it would make sense to allow the
[1:00:00] exception on this lot
[1:00:04] hardship, you know,
[1:00:07] >> not be quite as lenient on.
[1:00:12] » I think that's where my thought is, too.
[1:00:14] It's the constraints on this piece of
[1:00:16] property are pretty big and it's I think
[1:00:19] they've done a pretty good job designing
[1:00:22] what they have and also speaking with
[1:00:24] the neighbors and trying to accommodate
[1:00:28] as much as they possibly can and and
[1:00:31] still make some money doing it. I mean,
[1:00:34] >> and if I were to I probably wouldn't
[1:00:37] make him go all the way back to 15
[1:00:38] either.
[1:00:43] or is tight.
[1:00:45] >> It is, but I mean, you know, like has
[1:00:48] been stated, maybe people would look at
[1:00:50] it say,
[1:00:51] >> "Yeah,
[1:00:51] >> all I want to put back there is my
[1:00:53] barbecue anyway." So, what difference
[1:00:54] does it make?
[1:00:55] >> No room for barbecue on. [clears throat]
[1:00:58] >> I don't know. Depends how big your
[1:00:59] barbecue is. If you only got two people
[1:01:00] living in the house, all you need is a
[1:01:01] little round guy.
[1:01:04] Anyway,
[1:01:12] » well, Mr. Chair, if there's no further
[1:01:14] comment or discussion,
[1:01:17] >> all right, then I will make a motion
[1:01:18] that we recommend approval of the
[1:01:20] project as stated on the screen with the
[1:01:22] recommended conditions.
[1:01:25] >> Been moved by Kirkman, seconded by Kho
[1:01:28] to recommend approval for this item.
[1:01:30] Madam clerk, can I get a roll call?
[1:01:32] >> Can before Mr. Mr. Chair, before that,
[1:01:35] uh, I just want to make it clear in that
[1:01:36] motion that that does not include any
[1:01:38] traffic mitigation. No, no speed humps
[1:01:40] or bumps or anything like that.
[1:01:42] >> That wasn't included.
[1:01:48] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Garner absent.
[1:01:51] Miller,
[1:01:52] >> hi.
[1:01:54] >> Daffer
[1:01:55] absent. Turner.
[1:01:58] >> Nay.
[1:01:59] >> Kho.
[1:02:00] >> Hi.
[1:02:02] Morgan,
[1:02:05] >> yes.
[1:02:07] >> Kirkman,
[1:02:07] >> hi
[1:02:10] >> Fen.
[1:02:11] >> Hey.
[1:02:14] >> Copeland. Absent.
[1:02:32] Four eyes, one nay.
[1:02:37] » Oh, two, sorry. Four eyes, two nays.
[1:02:40] >> Thank you.
[1:02:43] >> Mr. Chair. Just a quick question. Was
[1:02:45] Wasn't there a conditional use it in
[1:02:48] there that was approved? Does that have
[1:02:50] to be Do you have to read that? I mean,
[1:02:52] does that go along with the conditional
[1:02:54] use permit process?
[1:02:55] >> Chairman, I'll speak to this. Um, this
[1:02:57] one actually is an interesting
[1:02:59] application. and it has a lot of moving
[1:03:00] parts to it because you're lumped in
[1:03:02] there with a cop, a preliminary plat, a
[1:03:06] plan unit development. A cup and a plan
[1:03:09] unit development are usually approved by
[1:03:10] you. However, because this is lumped in
[1:03:12] with an annexation request, it actually
[1:03:15] all becomes one bundled package that you
[1:03:17] recommend up to city council.
[1:03:20] And at that time, they'll need to make
[1:03:22] um first an initial finding on the
[1:03:24] annexation piece, which you've talked on
[1:03:26] tonight. And then if they get through
[1:03:28] that hurdle, then they'll have to see if
[1:03:30] it meets the criteria of a cup and a
[1:03:33] plan unit development. Um, so kind of
[1:03:36] from an academic standpoint, there's a
[1:03:37] lot of parts here, but that's why it
[1:03:39] moves up.
[1:03:40] >> Okay.
[1:03:40] >> Yeah.
[1:03:41] >> Thank you for the clarification.
[1:03:42] Appreciate it.
[1:03:46] » Okay. We will go ahead and move on to
[1:03:48] the next item 3-2.
[1:03:51] Annexation and zoning to an IIL zoning
[1:03:53] district on two parcels addressed as 22
[1:03:56] Happy Valley Road and Zero Happy Valley
[1:03:58] Road for Scott Marshall of Straight Line
[1:04:01] Architects representing Cashing Holdings
[1:04:03] LLC is the applicant here.
[1:04:12] Dennis Durant, 1465
[1:04:15] East Bird Dog Drive, Meridian, Idaho
[1:04:18] 83642.
[1:04:20] I will be representing the applicant
[1:04:22] today. [clears throat]
[1:04:24] I'd like to begin by just giving you a
[1:04:26] brief understanding of what the
[1:04:28] applicant actually does. So, in this
[1:04:31] room, there are three doors that are
[1:04:33] visible. One to the left, one to the
[1:04:35] right, and actually two doors, a double
[1:04:37] door to the rear.
[1:04:40] So those doors are the product that
[1:04:42] Western Specialty supplies and they do
[1:04:46] slight modifications to those products
[1:04:48] as they come in from their suppliers. So
[1:04:51] they'll bring in a blank door and
[1:04:54] they'll bring in frames. And if we were
[1:04:56] using the door to the back as an
[1:04:58] example, you'll notice that there is a
[1:05:01] glass transom above the door. That
[1:05:04] requires a little bit of modification to
[1:05:06] the frame. the glass is going to be
[1:05:08] custom and so they'll put in the
[1:05:10] horizontal seal for that glass and that
[1:05:14] will be their modification that they're
[1:05:16] making to the frame. So what they're
[1:05:19] doing is they're bringing in product
[1:05:21] that is mostly preassembled but then
[1:05:24] they're going to do some finishing work
[1:05:26] inside of their um finished building. So
[1:05:31] if you were to take the door to the left
[1:05:32] over here, it's actually a wood door.
[1:05:35] That door has a steel frame and it has a
[1:05:37] small window unit in it. And so they
[1:05:40] would take a blank door. The door's um
[1:05:43] already probably cut for hinges and the
[1:05:45] lock set, but they need to cut in the
[1:05:47] window frame opening. And so that's what
[1:05:49] they'll do is they'll cut that in in
[1:05:50] their little wood shop and then that
[1:05:52] door would then be delivered to their
[1:05:54] enduse customer.
[1:05:57] I've known Western Specialties for
[1:05:58] approximately 20 years. Um they're
[1:06:00] currently located in Garden City, Idaho.
[1:06:03] Um they started with a very small
[1:06:05] operation about four people total. Um
[1:06:09] currently they have between eight and 10
[1:06:12] employees and their hours of operation
[1:06:15] are Monday through Friday um about 7:30
[1:06:18] to 5:00 p.m.
[1:06:21] Um granted there are emergency
[1:06:23] situations where a customer may need
[1:06:25] something um maybe on a Saturday or
[1:06:27] something where they need a lock set or
[1:06:29] something and and they'll supply those
[1:06:31] products for them on an emergency basis,
[1:06:33] but they're not operating their FAB
[1:06:36] location or doing anything like that.
[1:06:39] um all of the operations that they
[1:06:41] perform are contained within the
[1:06:43] building unit. They do not perform any
[1:06:45] operations outside. They don't store
[1:06:47] things outside. Everything is confined
[1:06:49] inside.
[1:06:51] Um
[1:06:53] [clears throat]
[1:06:54] this building is designed for growth.
[1:06:55] They currently have about 10,000 square
[1:06:58] feet that they're utilizing in one
[1:07:00] location and then they have several
[1:07:02] remote storage locations because their
[1:07:05] current facility is not large enough to stock all the inventory that they do.
[1:07:10] So this building is large enough for um
[1:07:13] growth times two. And what they
[1:07:17] anticipate is as they grow and if they
[1:07:22] were to fully utilize the building um
[1:07:25] they would probably have a total of 14
[1:07:28] employees.
[1:07:30] Currently they receive about one truck
[1:07:33] per day as far as incoming freight as
[1:07:37] far as a semi-truck coming in. Um, they
[1:07:40] might have a delivery from an incidental
[1:07:43] carrier like Amazon or something like
[1:07:45] that to drop something off. And they do
[1:07:48] have a little bit of will call traffic.
[1:07:51] And when we say a little bit, it could
[1:07:53] range from two to three people customers
[1:07:57] stopping to get something in a day or it
[1:07:59] could be five or six. This is not a Home
[1:08:02] Depot operation. And this is um a
[1:08:04] specialty business that caters to
[1:08:08] specifically doors and frames.
[1:08:13] Um
[1:08:15] the building has been designed in the
[1:08:17] lot. Um I just like to speak a little
[1:08:19] bit to the actual application.
[1:08:22] So, we are requesting that we do an
[1:08:25] annexation
[1:08:26] on this piece of property from the
[1:08:28] county into the city and then a reszone
[1:08:32] from the current zoning which is rural
[1:08:34] residential to an IL zone. The IIL zone
[1:08:39] is compatible
[1:08:41] with [clears throat] what our use is
[1:08:43] currently. The surrounding properties
[1:08:45] are to the south is a city-owned
[1:08:48] property which is IIL's own. Properties
[1:08:51] to the west include the airport.
[1:08:54] Um and then to the north is residential
[1:08:59] and to the east is residential.
[1:09:04] Through our planning and discussions
[1:09:06] with the city, we had an opportunity to
[1:09:09] meet with city staff and in that meeting
[1:09:12] we discussed with all the local
[1:09:14] jurisdictions some of the the thought
[1:09:17] and the requirements that would be
[1:09:19] placed upon the property in order to
[1:09:22] develop it in this way.
[1:09:24] The highway district made a proposal
[1:09:27] that uh since there are two lots
[1:09:30] um the existing residential house which
[1:09:33] is on the northwest corner and then um
[1:09:36] the larger lot that there be one
[1:09:40] combined access point to service both
[1:09:43] lots.
[1:09:45] And our our plan shows that combined
[1:09:47] access point. And so the house would um
[1:09:51] would enter with the main entrance and
[1:09:54] then they would turn to the north to
[1:09:56] enter the residence.
[1:09:59] In this application, the residence is
[1:10:03] designed to stay in place as a
[1:10:06] non-conforming use. Um it would be
[1:10:08] reszoned to an IL zone. Um but the
[1:10:12] owners prefer to stay and live in this
[1:10:14] location
[1:10:16] and as long as they're inhabiting the
[1:10:18] house um which is to their discretion
[1:10:22] would be it would remain as a
[1:10:24] residential living um area.
[1:10:30] As you enter the facility, um you'll
[1:10:33] notice that the building is placed the
[1:10:35] large building to the um eastern end of
[1:10:37] the property is placed that we have a
[1:10:41] fire lane around the whole building and
[1:10:42] then landscaping buffering to the north
[1:10:45] and to the east. We have approximately
[1:10:48] 55 ft from the building to the property
[1:10:50] line to the north and about
[1:10:53] um
[1:10:54] 50 60 feet to the east. When it's all
[1:10:57] said and done, we place the truck ramp
[1:11:02] um on the building to be located away
[1:11:05] from any residential areas. It actually
[1:11:09] is h situated to the south property
[1:11:12] which is the ILZ owned city piece.
[1:11:15] All of the unloading of trucks will be
[1:11:18] done at the loading dock and the loading
[1:11:21] dock is is enclosed and uh all of the
[1:11:26] traffic goes is contained within the
[1:11:28] building.
[1:11:30] Additionally, there is a building which
[1:11:32] we call building number two which is
[1:11:34] located on the western side of the
[1:11:37] property.
[1:11:39] This is a flex space building and is
[1:11:42] designed to
[1:11:44] um have contractors of similar nature to
[1:11:48] inhabit the space. And
[1:11:51] I think that ends my seven minutes I
[1:11:54] think. So if there's any questions I can
[1:11:57] answer or I'll sit down.
[1:11:58] >> I have a question.
[1:11:59] >> Yep.
[1:12:00] >> Um looking at your site plan here, are
[1:12:03] those trucks depictions of trucks making
[1:12:05] turns? what what's on those roadways.
[1:12:09] >> Yes. So So what we're depicting is how a
[1:12:12] truck would actually circulate or could
[1:12:15] circulate in the lot. And we're
[1:12:17] depicting that so that we can have the
[1:12:19] proper radius so that as a truck is
[1:12:22] making a corner, they're not driving
[1:12:23] over a landscaping buffer, hitting the
[1:12:26] corner of a building, hitting a car. So
[1:12:28] it's it's just for p space constraints
[1:12:30] for our planning purpose.
[1:12:32] >> Doesn't look like they're running over
[1:12:34] things.
[1:12:36] Um, it appears that they might be, but
[1:12:41] as this is designed, they will not be.
[1:12:44] So,
[1:12:44] >> okay.
[1:12:45] >> Yeah, that's what it's all about. It's
[1:12:46] designed so that we're not running over
[1:12:48] things.
[1:12:48] >> They don't allow to be 54t trucks
[1:12:50] either.
[1:12:51] >> What's that?
[1:12:51] >> They don't all have to be 54 54t trucks
[1:12:54] either.
[1:12:55] >> Uh, 50 64.
[1:12:58] >> Could be.
[1:12:59] >> They could be various sizes.
[1:13:00] >> Could be. Yeah.
[1:13:01] >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:13:05] here.
[1:13:05] >> Yes.
[1:13:07] >> Um,
[1:13:08] what's the what's the height of your
[1:13:10] warehouse and of your flex buildings?
[1:13:13] >> Uh, 32 feet is the finished height of
[1:13:16] the warehouse.
[1:13:19] And then on the flex space building, um,
[1:13:22] less than 20.
[1:13:28] Do you have any landscape plans for the
[1:13:31] north and east sides of the property?
[1:13:34] >> So, the landscaping is we're very open
[1:13:37] to what we can do on the property for
[1:13:39] landscaping. We have a landscaping
[1:13:41] buffer reserved. We're planning on
[1:13:43] fencing which would be compatible with a
[1:13:46] residential
[1:13:47] nature. We don't know if it would be
[1:13:49] best for wood or for vinyl or what that
[1:13:51] would be best served. Um, one of the
[1:13:54] restrictions that we have on the lot is
[1:13:57] a landscaping requirement from the
[1:13:59] airport that the landscaping is not to
[1:14:03] allow wildlife or especially birds, I
[1:14:06] think, is what the overall concept is.
[1:14:08] So,
[1:14:08] >> get those trees that birds don't like.
[1:14:10] >> Yeah. [laughter] Right.
[1:14:13] >> Yeah.
[1:14:14] >> It does make it tough.
[1:14:15] >> Yeah. So, we're willing to do whatever
[1:14:17] is best in that regard, but there's some
[1:14:19] restrictions with what the airport would
[1:14:21] prefer or want to have there.
[1:14:24] >> Thank you,
[1:14:28] » Mr. Chair. This rendering just shows two
[1:14:32] uh loading docks. Is there only going to
[1:14:35] be one?
[1:14:35] >> Um, the render the loading dock is
[1:14:39] actually to the right side of the upper
[1:14:41] building. You can see the curb. Yeah,
[1:14:43] >> those are overhead doors and are not
[1:14:45] loading docks.
[1:14:46] >> Okay, I see.
[1:14:52] » Okay, we'll call you back up.
[1:14:53] >> Okay, thank you.
[1:14:54] >> Thank you.
[1:14:57] >> Okay, Miss Friend.
[1:15:03] [clears throat]
[1:15:10] Good evening, commissioners and um
[1:15:13] chairman. My name is Terry Friend,
[1:15:15] associate planner for the city of Nampa.
[1:15:18] The request before you tonight is
[1:15:20] annexation and zoning to IL or light
[1:15:23] industrial for two parcels along North
[1:15:26] Happy Valley Road, which is in the
[1:15:29] airport overlay zone.
[1:15:35] The application covers two parcels.
[1:15:38] Those total five acres. Um the
[1:15:41] comprehensive plan designation in this
[1:15:44] area is low density residential within
[1:15:47] the airport overlay area. The applica
[1:15:51] the applicant is requesting a stretch of
[1:15:54] the industrial land use designation from
[1:15:57] the city airport area from the west of
[1:16:00] Happy Valley Road.
[1:16:04] The two properties are adjacent to
[1:16:06] parcels that are within the city of
[1:16:08] Nampa. Um, but they are currently um
[1:16:13] under Canyon County jurisdiction. They
[1:16:16] are within an area of rural residential
[1:16:19] under counties zoning definitions and
[1:16:22] their map. Um, the surrounding
[1:16:25] properties have varying zoning. to the
[1:16:27] north and to the east are under county
[1:16:31] count canyon county jurisdiction in an
[1:16:34] area of rural residential. But to the
[1:16:37] west and to the south, those are areas
[1:16:40] that are owned by the city of Nampa and
[1:16:43] they are zoned IL light industrial.
[1:16:48] The applicant is requesting annexation
[1:16:50] and zoning to that light industrial
[1:16:52] designation to match the south and the
[1:16:55] west.
[1:16:56] This is the proposed uh site plan for
[1:16:59] the project. It really complain contains
[1:17:02] three components. The first would be
[1:17:05] that existing residential property to
[1:17:08] the northwest. There is a um house and
[1:17:11] there is a shop structure that are
[1:17:13] intended to remain. And then to the east
[1:17:17] is the 30,000 square foot building for
[1:17:20] Western Specialties. Um, and then and as
[1:17:24] he discussed, that's going to have
[1:17:26] office, shop, and warehouse space. And
[1:17:29] then to the southwest, that portion of
[1:17:31] the property is intended to have a
[1:17:34] 10,000 square f foot multi-tenant flex
[1:17:37] building. Um, right now, as it's drawn,
[1:17:40] they're proposing four tenant spaces.
[1:17:45] Here are the conceptual drawings for the
[1:17:48] two new industrial uh buildings. The
[1:17:51] Western Specialties building is intended
[1:17:54] to be about 30,000 square feet. At the
[1:17:57] front, it's um planned to be 32 square,
[1:18:01] sorry, 32 feet high. It does slope
[1:18:04] towards the back. So, the back was like
[1:18:06] 28.
[1:18:08] Um and then the multi-tenant building is
[1:18:11] going to be singlestory about 16 feet
[1:18:13] high.
[1:18:18] So for our applicable regulations today,
[1:18:20] we're really just talking about
[1:18:21] annexation and zoning. So that's what
[1:18:24] the code we're looking at. Um Idaho
[1:18:27] state code does expressly provide for
[1:18:30] cities to be able to annex lands um
[1:18:32] which are reasonably necessary to assure
[1:18:35] orderly development which allow
[1:18:38] efficient and economical and viable
[1:18:40] provision of municipal services that in
[1:18:44] order enable the orderly development of
[1:18:47] private lands which would benefit from
[1:18:50] those cost-effective municipal services
[1:18:53] and to equitably allocate the cost of
[1:18:56] public services in management of um
[1:19:00] development on the urgent urban fringe.
[1:19:04] The annexation must satisfy four
[1:19:07] requirements uh which are detailed in
[1:19:10] Idaho code section 50-22 and then they
[1:19:15] must also pass a test of reasonleness
[1:19:18] to accept the annexation application.
[1:19:21] It's got to meet those four criterias as
[1:19:23] listed at the top of the slide. And this
[1:19:26] application has been evaluated and
[1:19:29] confirmed to meet each of those
[1:19:30] criteria. For zoning, city code 1023.C
[1:19:36] details three criteria for approval of
[1:19:39] the requested zoning. These are shown on
[1:19:41] the bottom of the slide and will be
[1:19:43] addressed a little later in the
[1:19:44] presentation here.
[1:19:47] As you know, we do send every
[1:19:49] application out to be evaluated by
[1:19:52] various departments and connected
[1:19:54] agencies um in our area. So, here we
[1:19:58] have some comments that have come
[1:19:59] through from the engineering department.
[1:20:02] They do not oppose the application.
[1:20:04] They've provided the comments about the
[1:20:06] availability of domestic water, sewer,
[1:20:09] and pressurized irrigation in the
[1:20:11] vicinity of the project.
[1:20:15] They've also um specified some access
[1:20:18] and layout requirements. They indicated
[1:20:22] that um access to the property is
[1:20:24] provided by Happy North Happy Valley
[1:20:27] Road. That's classified as a minor
[1:20:30] arterial and it has a speed limit of 40
[1:20:32] miles an hour.
[1:20:34] The applicant will be required to
[1:20:36] dedicate 50 feet of rightway along North
[1:20:39] Happy Valley with the annexation and
[1:20:43] they will be responsible for um frontage
[1:20:45] improvements at the time of the property
[1:20:48] development. The two properties will be
[1:20:51] required to um to share one access point
[1:20:56] which they've designed for you in that
[1:20:57] site layout. The existing access points
[1:21:00] will be required to be permanently
[1:21:02] closed.
[1:21:05] A traffic impact study may be required
[1:21:08] at the time of development if the
[1:21:10] project meets the threshold that's
[1:21:12] identified by engineering policy. And
[1:21:15] just two general comments um about
[1:21:19] needing to employ a surveyor to provide
[1:21:21] legal descriptions for the various
[1:21:23] components of this application and that
[1:21:26] any online wells or septic shall be
[1:21:28] abandoned at the time of development.
[1:21:33] Nampa airport did also provide comments.
[1:21:36] Um they indicated that the proposed
[1:21:39] light industrial use would be compatible
[1:21:41] land use for the near the airport. The
[1:21:44] developer will be required to submit um
[1:21:48] an application 7460, which is a notice
[1:21:50] of proposed construction with the FAA
[1:21:54] prior to um building permits so that the
[1:21:58] FAA has an chance to evaluate um any
[1:22:01] conflicts. The developer should use
[1:22:04] landscaping that does not attract
[1:22:06] wildlife such as birds. Um, and then any
[1:22:10] proposed buildings should have finishes
[1:22:12] that are not reflective. And the last
[1:22:14] thing is that all the building and site
[1:22:17] lighting should be focused downward.
[1:22:20] Nampa Highway District did not oppose
[1:22:22] the application subject to theou
[1:22:27] and the fire district provided comments
[1:22:29] indicating that the development is
[1:22:31] approximately 0.9
[1:22:33] miles from fire station number five with
[1:22:36] an approximate response time of 1
[1:22:39] minute. Um they did indicate that all of
[1:22:42] the development plans would be evaluated
[1:22:45] compared to applicable regulations at
[1:22:47] the time of the building permit, but
[1:22:49] specifically noted that based on the
[1:22:52] scope of the project, the um it will
[1:22:55] require a full life safety plan review.
[1:23:01] Couple of public comments received
[1:23:03] regarding this application.
[1:23:07] Uh, Maria, and I'm I'm gonna take a stab
[1:23:11] at it. Cuentes of 28 North Happy Valley
[1:23:15] um Road wrote in. She formally opposes
[1:23:18] the application and the proposed
[1:23:20] industrial development. Maria states
[1:23:22] that she chose her property for its
[1:23:25] rural character, which she believes
[1:23:27] would be compromised by the new
[1:23:29] development due to issues such as
[1:23:31] incompatibility with the surrounding
[1:23:33] area, increased noise, light pollution,
[1:23:36] loss of privacy, heightened traffic and
[1:23:39] safety concerns and potential health
[1:23:42] impacts, and possible depreciation of
[1:23:44] property values.
[1:23:46] Drake, excuse me, Drake Cifuentes, also
[1:23:50] of 28 North Happy Valley Road in. He um
[1:23:55] formally opposes the application and the
[1:23:57] proposed industrial development. Sharing
[1:23:59] a fence with the adjacent parcel near
[1:24:02] the Nampa Municipal Airport, Drake
[1:24:04] expresses concerns about airport
[1:24:07] compatibility, highlighting the risks
[1:24:09] posed by potential air traffic conflict
[1:24:12] created by the development such as
[1:24:15] obstruction of visual light issues and
[1:24:19] wildlife attraction, which could
[1:24:21] jeopardize pilot safety. He emphasizes
[1:24:24] the importance of protecting the
[1:24:26] airport's long-term viability from
[1:24:29] future complaints that could limit its
[1:24:32] operations and supports concerns
[1:24:34] addressed by his mother, Maria Suentes,
[1:24:38] um regarding incompatibility with the
[1:24:40] rural character of the area, noise,
[1:24:43] light pollution, and other negative
[1:24:46] impacts.
[1:24:48] And not included originally in your
[1:24:51] staff report, but um emailed to you
[1:24:53] separately was a comment from Mike
[1:24:56] Heaidman of 30 North Happy Valley Road.
[1:25:00] Uh he opposes zoning for the industrial
[1:25:03] development, having lived in the area
[1:25:05] for over eight years. Hideamman and his
[1:25:07] wife appreciate the quiet private
[1:25:10] atmosphere and scenic views of the
[1:25:12] Wahhees during the day and stars at
[1:25:14] night which influenced their decision to
[1:25:17] purchase their home. Although the
[1:25:19] anticipated um they anticipated future
[1:25:23] um additional residences, Haidman states
[1:25:26] that introduction of two large
[1:25:28] industrial buildings, one reaching 32
[1:25:31] feet in height would significantly
[1:25:34] disrupt their quality of life with
[1:25:36] increased noise, light pilution, and
[1:25:39] potential decreases in property value.
[1:25:41] Haidman has gathered signatures from
[1:25:44] neighbors within a 300 foot radius with
[1:25:47] nearly unanimous opposition to the
[1:25:49] reszoning. Um emphasizing the
[1:25:52] inappropriate nature of industrial
[1:25:55] zoning amidst a residential community.
[1:25:58] Um he urges local authorities to deny
[1:26:02] the reasonzoning request for the parcel.
[1:26:04] And here you see the um the petition
[1:26:08] that went through. This slide shows uh
[1:26:11] the petition that he circulated. The map
[1:26:14] to in the upper right corner I've
[1:26:17] actually pinpointed the addresses that
[1:26:19] are shown on those um to indicate the
[1:26:22] neighbors that we're talking about.
[1:26:28] All right. So proposed findings for
[1:26:30] annexation. Um the property owner is the
[1:26:34] property is contiguous to city limits.
[1:26:36] The property is located in Nampa's
[1:26:38] planning area and has a future land use
[1:26:40] map designation of lowdensity
[1:26:43] residential. The application requests a
[1:26:45] stretch of the industrial airport
[1:26:48] overlay land use designation from the
[1:26:50] property to the west. An annexation of
[1:26:53] roadway um will be subject to the
[1:26:55] revised and other agreements between the
[1:26:58] city of Nampa and Nampa's highway
[1:27:00] district.
[1:27:03] The facts for the reasonzoning have
[1:27:06] mostly been gone over in the rest of my
[1:27:08] presentation. I highlighted a couple of
[1:27:10] important things. Um
[1:27:13] [clears throat]
[1:27:14] on this slide, we've already gone over
[1:27:16] them, but on this slide, I just wanted
[1:27:19] to point out some things because we
[1:27:20] didn't talk very specifically about the
[1:27:23] comprehensive plan. So the project is um
[1:27:27] proposes that the existing residential
[1:27:29] single family dwelling units um on the
[1:27:32] 1acre parcel will remain with their
[1:27:35] residential use to continue. Now
[1:27:38] [clears throat]
[1:27:38] um based on our land use um controls
[1:27:43] chart a single family dwelling is not an
[1:27:46] allowed use in an IL zone. So we are
[1:27:49] technically creating a non-conforming
[1:27:52] use um for that property during the
[1:27:55] duration that it is continues to be
[1:27:57] residential. The comprehensive plan does
[1:28:01] address um public airport facilities
[1:28:05] specifically in chapter 14. The
[1:28:08] objective of the planned land uses need
[1:28:11] to be compatible with the airport. And
[1:28:14] the strategies to do that is to adhere
[1:28:17] to guidelines provided by the airport's
[1:28:20] master plan for land use compatibility,
[1:28:23] to zone for commercial and industrial
[1:28:26] uses in proximity of the airport, and to
[1:28:29] prohibit uses in the airport area such
[1:28:32] um that would attract birds, create
[1:28:34] visual hazards, and emit transmissions
[1:28:37] which might interfere with aviation
[1:28:39] communications or otherwise obstruct or
[1:28:42] conflict with the airport operations.
[1:28:48] And according to the comments provided
[1:28:51] by the airport, um they're satisfied
[1:28:54] that this application can meet all of
[1:28:56] those requirements based on the
[1:28:58] comprehensive plan and the airport's
[1:29:00] master plan.
[1:29:04] And again, three written public comments
[1:29:06] were received. Um, the third written
[1:29:09] comment included a petition indicating
[1:29:11] opposition by 38 residents in the
[1:29:14] immediate area and that uh below
[1:29:17] outlines the things that we've already
[1:29:19] covered for what their concerns were.
[1:29:23] And city codes are written to protect
[1:29:25] the public interest by providing
[1:29:27] guidance for development. Therefore, the
[1:29:29] project is presumed to be in the public
[1:29:33] interest because um any further
[1:29:35] development or redevelopment of the
[1:29:37] property will be required to meet city
[1:29:40] standards for development and shall
[1:29:42] install appropriate site improvements
[1:29:45] upon development.
[1:29:48] This paragraph summarizes everything
[1:29:51] that we just went over and provides a
[1:29:53] potential conclusion for
[1:29:56] um approving IL light industrial zoning.
[1:29:59] This is listed in your staff report in
[1:30:02] the proposed conditions of approval also
[1:30:06] listed in your staff report. Um that
[1:30:08] detail the things that engineering was
[1:30:11] going to require
[1:30:13] that the airport needed to address.
[1:30:20] And uh finally any other additional
[1:30:24] conditions that you wish to apply
[1:30:28] and there are your potential motions.
[1:30:32] What can I answer for you?
[1:30:36] » Any questions?
[1:30:38] >> Mr. [clears throat] Chair, um one of our
[1:30:41] findings says that this is in
[1:30:44] um accordance with our comprehensive
[1:30:46] plan
[1:30:47] is I
[1:30:52] approved zoning for low city
[1:30:54] residential.
[1:30:55] >> No, but our future land use map does
[1:30:59] allow for a land use designation
[1:31:03] to be stretched one parcel deep. So when
[1:31:07] we look at that future land use map,
[1:31:10] sorry, got to click got a number of
[1:31:12] slides,
[1:31:13] you can see that to the west of the
[1:31:16] property
[1:31:22] is to the west and to the south are um
[1:31:26] industrially zoned and it's industrial
[1:31:30] future land use map designation. So they
[1:31:33] would be allowed to stretch that land
[1:31:36] use designation over the two parcels
[1:31:40] because each one is adjacent to that
[1:31:44] aisle
[1:31:46] sorry industrial land use on the future
[1:31:49] land use map.
[1:31:50] >> So it would be more accurate to say
[1:31:51] we're stretching
[1:31:53] land use from adjacent parcels rather
[1:31:55] than it's in accordance with the comp
[1:31:58] plan.
[1:32:00] >> Randy would like to speak to that.
[1:32:02] >> Mr. chair and commissioners. Um I I
[1:32:04] think we need to remember the purpose
[1:32:07] behind a comprehensive plan future land
[1:32:09] use map and there never were intended to
[1:32:11] be exact, right? So those boundaries are
[1:32:15] kind of uh blurry for comprehensive
[1:32:18] plans and um and in this situation
[1:32:22] that's exactly what it is. It's kind of
[1:32:24] in that gray area where you can stretch
[1:32:26] it. We have it specifically stated on
[1:32:28] our comprehensive plan future land use
[1:32:30] map that you can stretch it. And so I
[1:32:32] would say that it is consistent with
[1:32:34] that as that statement on our
[1:32:36] comprehensive plan.
[1:32:38] >> Just didn't want Preston to have
[1:32:40] something that's not accurate in the
[1:32:42] findings.
[1:32:48] » The current the current residents
[1:32:50] residential portion of this property.
[1:32:53] Um, what would it take for them to just
[1:32:56] eliminate that and build another
[1:32:57] building?
[1:33:01] » Once it is zoned to IIL, they would be
[1:33:04] allowed to repurpose either the
[1:33:07] buildings on that property for an
[1:33:09] industrial purpose if it met the
[1:33:12] building requirements. Um or they could
[1:33:16] raise those buildings and build others
[1:33:18] that to meet the industrial
[1:33:20] requirements,
[1:33:22] >> but they couldn't do any redevelopment
[1:33:25] and keep it residential.
[1:33:28] >> Thank you. Um
[1:33:31] very very limited changes would be
[1:33:34] allowed to the property. Um
[1:33:36] >> what about hooking up to city services?
[1:33:39] >> They would be annexed into the proper
[1:33:41] into the city. So they would be able to
[1:33:43] hook up to city services.
[1:33:45] >> That doesn't qualify as a redevelopment.
[1:33:47] Okay.
[1:33:53] Thank you,
[1:33:56] Madam Clerk. Do we have a signup sheet?
[1:33:59] >> Here we do.
[1:34:01] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Calling Mike
[1:34:03] Hydeman.
[1:34:12] Good evening. My name is Mike Heidman.
[1:34:15] My wife and I are the owners and
[1:34:16] residents of 30 North Happy Valley Road,
[1:34:18] which directly borders the parcel being
[1:34:20] discussed tonight, just to the north.
[1:34:22] I've worked from home as a construction
[1:34:24] estimator ever since we purchased the
[1:34:25] home over eight years ago. We chose this
[1:34:28] location because it's outside of the
[1:34:30] city. It's not in a development.
[1:34:32] Surrounding properties are spacious.
[1:34:34] They're residential and they feel
[1:34:36] private. the view of the Aahes during
[1:34:38] the day and the stars at night due to
[1:34:40] minimal light pollution.
[1:34:43] We've always been aware that one day a
[1:34:44] house or two could be built on the
[1:34:46] neighboring parcel since it's zoned for
[1:34:47] residential. Had it been zoned for
[1:34:49] commercial or industrial, we never would
[1:34:51] have purchased it. Not just because it's
[1:34:53] extremely close to the house, but also
[1:34:56] the additional noise, traffic, and light
[1:34:58] pollution.
[1:35:00] All the windows in our living room,
[1:35:02] dining room, and kitchen face this
[1:35:04] neighboring parcel, as does our
[1:35:06] backyard, deck, outdoor seating and
[1:35:08] dining. We spend most evenings in our
[1:35:11] backyard, enjoying the sunset and many
[1:35:13] times the stars afterwards. On weekends,
[1:35:16] we enjoy our morning coffee outside
[1:35:17] before starting the day.
[1:35:20] Now, we're faced with the possibility of
[1:35:21] two industrial zone buildings being
[1:35:23] built right outside our back door in an
[1:35:26] area surrounded by homes on three sides.
[1:35:29] The largest and closest building is
[1:35:31] proposed to stick more than 32 feet in
[1:35:33] the sky above finish grade. Even with a
[1:35:36] six or eight foot fence, it would still
[1:35:37] be visible from both outside and inside
[1:35:39] our home. We're looking at increased
[1:35:42] noise from vehicle traffic, trucks
[1:35:44] navigating through a parking lot and
[1:35:46] idling, backup beepers, forklifts
[1:35:48] loading and unloading material, as well
[1:35:50] as the sound of saws and drills while
[1:35:52] they do their modifications.
[1:35:54] We're also looking at a considerable
[1:35:56] increase in light pollution at night
[1:35:57] from parking lot lights to building
[1:35:59] mounted lighting on every side of the
[1:36:01] buildings. Lastly, the decreased home
[1:36:04] values that are sure to follow.
[1:36:06] Even if the potential new owners say the
[1:36:08] noise and traffic will be minimal,
[1:36:10] that's subjective and it can always
[1:36:12] change once they're there. If they
[1:36:14] decide to sell or lease more of the
[1:36:16] property in the future, what type of
[1:36:17] industrial businesses, noise, traffic,
[1:36:20] and light pollution will that bring to
[1:36:22] all the surrounding homes?
[1:36:24] Um, I brought with me a copy of the
[1:36:26] petition containing signatures from all
[1:36:27] the neighbors within 300 feet who are
[1:36:29] opposed to the reszoning and the
[1:36:31] proposed use of this property. I focused
[1:36:33] on those homes first since that's all
[1:36:35] the city was required to notify.
[1:36:38] I also collected signatures from
[1:36:39] neighbors next to them, including those
[1:36:41] within line of sight.
[1:36:43] Every neighbor I talked with, except for
[1:36:45] one, signed an opposition. The only
[1:36:49] neighbor I didn't talk with is the one
[1:36:50] trying to sell the residential property
[1:36:52] as potential commercial or industrial
[1:36:54] use because it's worth more money.
[1:36:58] The property listing is shown pending
[1:36:59] since at least the beginning of this
[1:37:00] year. It's a safe guess that [snorts]
[1:37:02] that's contingent on the reasonzoning of
[1:37:04] proposed use being approved. Um the
[1:37:07] current view that's up on your screen
[1:37:09] right now is zoomed in. It doesn't show
[1:37:12] how close all the surrounding homes are.
[1:37:17] I ask you to consider
[1:37:20] these issues and ask yourselves, is this
[1:37:23] an appropriate location for industrial
[1:37:25] zoning when all the neighbors who live
[1:37:27] around it are opposed to it? Thank you,
[1:37:34] » Steve Great House.
[1:37:53] I wanted to go back to that screen we
[1:37:55] just had. Have you got control or not?
[1:37:58] [cough]
[1:38:00] >> All right, that works.
[1:38:02] But the laser pointer
[1:38:04] >> doesn't work.
[1:38:05] >> It doesn't work.
[1:38:07] Um, all right.
[1:38:10] The only meeting that was held to
[1:38:12] discuss this
[1:38:13] >> name and address for the record.
[1:38:14] >> Oh, I'm sorry. Steve Greathouse. Uh,
[1:38:17] address is 13 North Campbell Lane,
[1:38:20] Nampa. It's literally
[1:38:23] the right side that they've cut it right
[1:38:26] along my property line and they it's the
[1:38:30] right side of that image.
[1:38:33] Um,
[1:38:36] we were out of town uh when they held
[1:38:38] the meeting on June 27th. So, when the
[1:38:41] first time I was ever really able to see
[1:38:43] what the plan was was when these prints
[1:38:46] were loaded up to the website uh and
[1:38:50] submitted to the planning and zoning. It
[1:38:52] was only then that I found out that the
[1:38:55] size and nature of this monstrosity of
[1:39:00] 32 feet high, 30,000 square foot
[1:39:03] literally becomes my west side of my
[1:39:06] property.
[1:39:08] There is I can't see over it. I can't
[1:39:10] see around it. Everything is a big blank
[1:39:14] wall. There's not even windows in it.
[1:39:16] It's totally shielding me from anything.
[1:39:20] I've never even imagined that something
[1:39:22] like that could happen.
[1:39:25] Um, we have a bounce house
[1:39:28] uh that we use often with kids that or
[1:39:31] grandkids and stuff that come in. Uh,
[1:39:34] they that will be in the shadow when the
[1:39:39] sun goes down. This that building will
[1:39:42] shade shade that it'll shade our house.
[1:39:46] Uh semitrs,
[1:39:49] as you can see, are between my kitchen
[1:39:52] window and the building.
[1:39:56] There's I've only got 16 ft from my
[1:40:00] house to the middle of that property
[1:40:02] lane. And they are putting 40 ft of
[1:40:06] asphalt to get the semis to be able to
[1:40:08] go through there.
[1:40:10] Do you like to have semis driving in
[1:40:12] your backyard?
[1:40:14] Literally within a rock throw everything
[1:40:19] trying to sleep. Our our bedroom windows
[1:40:22] are just straight to the right of of
[1:40:25] where that bottom semi is.
[1:40:28] I I mean we it's intolerable that we
[1:40:32] have to live and think of that in our
[1:40:35] future.
[1:40:37] uh if they if this is a the final
[1:40:42] uh designation of what they're going to
[1:40:44] do, they're going to have some lawsuits.
[1:40:47] I will not put up with that kind of
[1:40:49] thing. This is just ridiculous that you
[1:40:52] would force this just because somebody
[1:40:55] feels that they want to have this
[1:40:57] property which isn't compatible with the
[1:41:01] whole rest of the uh neighborhood.
[1:41:03] You know, when you reszone something
[1:41:05] that's already residential and the
[1:41:07] people around it have uh incorporated
[1:41:11] that as a residential plan in their
[1:41:13] thoughts and you then change that they
[1:41:17] have the person um now assuming the
[1:41:20] ownership has to work with the existing
[1:41:23] people to be able to be integrated into
[1:41:27] them. We have to integrate this into us.
[1:41:31] It won't. This design, this plan does
[1:41:35] not integrate into the whole rest of the
[1:41:37] plans from um Happy Valley Road clear
[1:41:41] over to Robinson.
[1:41:42] >> Mr. Chair,
[1:41:43] >> Victory. No,
[1:41:44] >> thank you.
[1:41:46] >> There's I could go on and on and on, but
[1:41:49] literally
[1:41:51] uh we have nothing in our backyard
[1:41:55] except a monstrous building.
[1:41:57] Unacceptable. Thank you.
[1:42:02] Virginia Great House.
[1:42:10] » Virginia Great House, 13 North Campbell
[1:42:13] Lane, Nampa, Idaho 83687.
[1:42:18] Thank you for this chance to offer our
[1:42:21] opinion on uh this building. I I thought
[1:42:25] the name of the company was Big D
[1:42:28] Builders. That's not the case.
[1:42:30] Apparently, that was on some of the
[1:42:32] paperwork. But nonetheless,
[1:42:35] I'd like to take you all with me for a
[1:42:39] minute and imagine your backyard of your
[1:42:44] house. Now, I know they're probably all
[1:42:47] very different, but visualize those
[1:42:51] backyards
[1:42:53] and what you do in those backyards.
[1:42:56] You relax, you play, you entertain, you
[1:43:01] have children and grandchildren that
[1:43:03] come and they play in the yard.
[1:43:06] Now, think of those fun and entertaining
[1:43:09] moments and the memories that you're
[1:43:11] building
[1:43:12] and the ones that you have planned
[1:43:15] coming up. Think of them with a huge
[1:43:18] industrial building in your backyard.
[1:43:21] Because literally, as my husband said,
[1:43:23] that's what it would be right in our
[1:43:26] backyard.
[1:43:28] And we'll have the increased noise of
[1:43:31] loading docks, backup alarms, semitrs
[1:43:34] with their loud rumbling engines driving
[1:43:37] around the building, emitting diesel
[1:43:40] exhaust and fumes into the air that you
[1:43:44] and your guests and your children,
[1:43:46] grandchildren are breathing in, reducing
[1:43:49] your outdoor enjoyment, all the while you're trying to relax and have
[1:43:55] some happy memories. and be with loved
[1:43:58] ones.
[1:44:00] Along
[1:44:02] with all that noise is the noise that
[1:44:04] will come from the industrial machinery
[1:44:06] itself invading your family time. And
[1:44:09] even before any of that gets rolling,
[1:44:12] there's the noise of the construction of
[1:44:14] such a huge building of property.
[1:44:17] Morning shifts will start. I heard 7:30.
[1:44:20] Some of us are not morning people.
[1:44:23] That's why we like to be out by
[1:44:25] ourselves. And with residential people,
[1:44:29] usually that area is pretty quiet and
[1:44:33] early birds can get up early, late birds
[1:44:35] can sleep in late.
[1:44:38] But if I'm getting up to all those
[1:44:40] machines, worring and buzzing and
[1:44:42] hammering, nobody's going to sleep
[1:44:45] through that. Also, we mentioned the
[1:44:48] dust and concerns for health and safety,
[1:44:51] the light pollution, the ground
[1:44:53] vibrations from the semitrs,
[1:44:56] potential contamination risks and odors
[1:44:59] from the uh occupants garbage which is
[1:45:03] directly
[1:45:05] across from our patio like 30 feet
[1:45:08] maybe. So, um, don't forget, and I don't
[1:45:12] want to forget the negativity of the
[1:45:16] having a huge building and the effect
[1:45:18] that it will have on our property value.
[1:45:21] Please, I ask you to say no to this
[1:45:25] annexation. Leave it residential.
[1:45:28] We're ready for houses to move in behind
[1:45:31] us, but not a big huge building. Thank
[1:45:34] you. Thank you,
[1:45:38] >> Ian Twitchell.
[1:45:43] [clears throat]
[1:45:48] » Good evening, commissioners. Ian
[1:45:49] Twitchell, 4906 East Victory Road here
[1:45:51] in Nampa. I want to thank you guys for
[1:45:53] the opportunity to speak on this matter
[1:45:55] tonight. My wife and I bought our home
[1:45:57] here 10 years ago because it offered the
[1:45:59] best of Nampa. It still felt like the
[1:46:01] quiet, open, old Nampa that we love and
[1:46:03] grew up in while keeping us close to
[1:46:05] services. We'd planned for this to be
[1:46:07] our forever home. We have wonderful
[1:46:08] neighbors, many of whom are here tonight
[1:46:10] to oppose this annexation. Over the last
[1:46:13] decade, rapid expansion has chipped away
[1:46:15] at our community. Um, coming home to the
[1:46:17] valley doesn't feel quite the same as it
[1:46:19] used to. I'm sure a lot of you have felt
[1:46:20] that same way when the residential and
[1:46:23] farming properties that built this
[1:46:25] community are constantly targeted for
[1:46:28] industrial growth. I stand before you
[1:46:30] tonight to respectfully ask that you
[1:46:32] recommend denial of this proposed
[1:46:33] annexation and industrial resoning.
[1:46:35] While there are light commercial uses
[1:46:37] near the airport across the street, this
[1:46:39] proposal introduces critical conflicts.
[1:46:42] The field directly adjacent to the
[1:46:44] property is flagged against future
[1:46:46] development because it falls within the
[1:46:47] designated airport approach zone.
[1:46:49] Because no future industrial expansion
[1:46:51] can ever happen on that adjoining land,
[1:46:53] forcing a single industrial complex on
[1:46:56] this lot creates an isolated,
[1:46:57] incompatible footprint. If development's
[1:46:59] inevitable here, keeping it residential
[1:47:01] creates a logical, safe transition zone
[1:47:04] between the airport restrictions and our
[1:47:06] homes. Our household relies on a shared
[1:47:08] domestic well located on my neighbor's
[1:47:10] property, Mr. Grey House, which directly
[1:47:13] adjoins the subject's site. The wellhead
[1:47:15] is less than 10 feet from the direct
[1:47:18] property line. We also have a very
[1:47:20] shallow well at 35 ft. The applicant's
[1:47:23] proposal mentions the future
[1:47:24] possibilities of connecting to city
[1:47:26] sewer, but currently plans to install a
[1:47:28] commercial septic system. Once
[1:47:30] installed, if there's no enforcement
[1:47:31] mechanism to force a future connection,
[1:47:34] the issue becomes what contamination
[1:47:35] issues possibly lie in that. Has there
[1:47:38] been any geological studies mapping the
[1:47:39] rock layers and fracture angles to
[1:47:41] determine how the affluence going to
[1:47:42] migrate towards our properties? Annexing
[1:47:45] industrial uses without requiring
[1:47:46] immediate connection to the city
[1:47:48] proposes that risk. The applicant claims
[1:47:51] the traffic will be minimal, citing just
[1:47:53] one or two trucks and up to 14
[1:47:54] employees, but that estimate only
[1:47:56] accounts for the warehouse, completely
[1:47:58] ignoring the compounded traffic
[1:47:59] generated by the multi-tenant building.
[1:48:01] Happy Valley is already past its limit.
[1:48:03] Anybody who has driven that in the peak
[1:48:05] times knows that it is extremely busy.
[1:48:07] We've seen multiple accidents less than
[1:48:09] a mile away at airport and Happy Valley
[1:48:11] as well as the street lights at the
[1:48:12] roundabout being knocked over multiple
[1:48:14] times due to this traffic overload.
[1:48:16] Pushing freight delivery vehicles shift
[1:48:18] change traffic to two commercial
[1:48:19] structures creates an additional hazard.
[1:48:22] Nampa's primary light industrial hubs
[1:48:24] are established directly across the
[1:48:26] freeway over by Amazon. That's where the
[1:48:28] industrial buildings are happening.
[1:48:30] That's where these types of things
[1:48:32] should be forced and not into our
[1:48:34] locations. Putting that unwarranted
[1:48:36] industrial parks where they don't
[1:48:38] belong, where they don't fit with it
[1:48:39] being residential. Placing that 30,000t
[1:48:42] warehouse and flex space, loading docks,
[1:48:44] vehicle idling, night security lights
[1:48:46] directly up against established homes
[1:48:48] creates an immediate demunition of value
[1:48:50] for those surrounding residential
[1:48:52] properties. As has been discussed,
[1:48:54] existing homeowners should not be forced
[1:48:55] to absorb that real estate devaluation
[1:48:58] to subsidize spot reszoning that belongs
[1:49:00] in an industrial park. Growth in Nampa
[1:49:03] should be orderly and respecting
[1:49:04] existing homeowners. Please protect our
[1:49:06] water, our roads, our airspace, and our
[1:49:08] neighbors stability by recommending
[1:49:09] denial of this project. Thank you.
[1:49:11] >> Thank you,
[1:49:20] » Clark Krider.
[1:49:30] Evening. Clark Krider, 34 North, Happy
[1:49:32] Valley.
[1:49:34] I wasn't going to speak this evening
[1:49:36] till I saw this. This is the first time
[1:49:38] I've seen this. Here's the things I
[1:49:40] asked all of you to consider.
[1:49:44] 34 North or Happy Valley Road lines up
[1:49:47] with the air airport and the glide path.
[1:49:50] Could you show me that picture, please?
[1:49:53] So, you show a 54 foot truck up there,
[1:49:56] and it's a lot taller than a regular
[1:49:58] vehicle. The other day when I came home,
[1:50:02] the airplane was down low enough to
[1:50:05] where it could have struck a vehicle.
[1:50:09] Other thing I want you to consider is
[1:50:12] what is the manufacturer's noise limits
[1:50:15] going to be? Just as the neighbors
[1:50:17] mentioned earlier today,
[1:50:20] they're going to have vacuums. They're
[1:50:22] going to have all kinds of stuff that's
[1:50:23] outside the building,
[1:50:26] not depicted on that building.
[1:50:29] Okay? So, they're going to have to
[1:50:31] listen to that every day. And also,
[1:50:33] you're going to have the trash
[1:50:36] going to now be increased noise from
[1:50:37] that. So, I would ask that that be
[1:50:39] considered as well for all those people
[1:50:41] that are living around that that
[1:50:43] building.
[1:50:45] The next thing in there is the light
[1:50:49] pollution and then the track vehicles
[1:50:52] that come into this site. Right now is
[1:50:55] they said Monday through Friday.
[1:50:58] I actually work with people that build
[1:51:00] this stuff.
[1:51:02] They're going to be there on Saturday.
[1:51:04] They're going to be there on Sunday. It
[1:51:06] doesn't matter. Doesn't matter what you
[1:51:08] or I say. They're going to show up at
[1:51:10] whatever hour they need to get the job
[1:51:12] done.
[1:51:14] So, please consider that.
[1:51:16] Would ask that the fire department come
[1:51:18] back out and look at that site and make
[1:51:21] sure that it's supported. There's
[1:51:22] nothing that depicts the fire hydrants.
[1:51:25] And I would ask that the fire uh
[1:51:28] protection officer
[1:51:30] that's reviewed those plans go back and
[1:51:32] look at that again, especially the
[1:51:33] radiuses around those vehicles. Thank
[1:51:35] you for your time. Thank you.
[1:51:41] » Paul Flatt.
[1:51:49] » Uh my name is Paul Flat. I live at 12
[1:51:52] North Queen Victoria Court and that's
[1:51:54] located about 400 ft to the right of the
[1:51:57] property line where that property is.
[1:52:00] Been there 24 years and moved there
[1:52:02] because it was residential, light
[1:52:04] residential. And uh as some people I'm opposed to it. Many of the reasons
[1:52:09] people have already said among the
[1:52:11] things this is isolated. The property to
[1:52:14] the south is going to be encroaching on
[1:52:16] the glide path of the airport. Uh last
[1:52:20] year I had an airplane fly so low. I
[1:52:22] reported his end number was like in my
[1:52:24] face. He was that low. And I reported
[1:52:27] that had a call back a few months later
[1:52:29] that he had problems. He made this bank
[1:52:31] turn and it would have been like maybe a
[1:52:34] 100 feet over this building. Probably
[1:52:36] not very good. Uh I ask you to look at
[1:52:39] the bigger picture. [clears throat]
[1:52:40] Several years ago, high school was built
[1:52:42] to the south. Some sidewalks around the
[1:52:45] high school. Great. Nothing extended
[1:52:47] north or south. Roundabout was built
[1:52:50] really nice. Wonderful. Took care of
[1:52:52] traffic a lot. Again, no pedestrian
[1:52:55] access at all. Pedestrians tend to walk
[1:52:58] through that area. Good luck. And every
[1:53:00] day I see pedestrians on the side of
[1:53:02] Happy Valley. Now, Happy Valley is going
[1:53:04] to grow. Understand that. It is a major
[1:53:06] north south road. They already have
[1:53:08] congestion where it intersects with the
[1:53:10] interstate. There's a lot of This is a
[1:53:13] much bigger picture. Looking at this one
[1:53:15] little thing. Oh, it's only small little
[1:53:18] change, but it affects everything around
[1:53:21] it. I oppose it. Please don't do this.
[1:53:24] Thank you.
[1:53:30] Mario DeLeon.
[1:53:38] Uh, good evening. Mario Deleó, 985 West
[1:53:41] Corporate Lane. Uh, I'm here. We believe
[1:53:44] [clears throat] Light Industrial is a
[1:53:46] logical and compatible use for this
[1:53:48] property for several reasons. First, the
[1:53:51] property is contiguous with the
[1:53:52] city-owned property immediately to the
[1:53:54] south, making this a natural extension
[1:53:57] of existing city land and development
[1:53:59] patterns rather than isolated industrial
[1:54:02] use.
[1:54:04] Second, the property sits directly
[1:54:05] across Happy Valley Road from the
[1:54:07] municipal airport. Allowing appropriate
[1:54:10] light industrial development in this
[1:54:12] location can help protect the long-term
[1:54:14] viability of the airport by creating
[1:54:17] compatible uses around it, reducing
[1:54:19] potential for additional residential
[1:54:21] development immediately adjacent to the
[1:54:23] airport operations.
[1:54:25] [snorts] Third, this area of Happy
[1:54:27] Valley Road is already changing between
[1:54:29] Victory Road and Stan Lane. Multiple
[1:54:31] commercial and light industrial
[1:54:32] properties have been built or have been
[1:54:34] approved. This proposal is consistent
[1:54:37] with the direction this corridor is
[1:54:38] already moving in and would complement
[1:54:40] those existing uses. Light industrial
[1:54:43] also provides an opportunity for
[1:54:45] additional business investment
[1:54:47] employment and ex and expansion of NA's
[1:54:50] tax base.
[1:54:52] For those reasons, I believe Light
[1:54:54] Industrial is an appropriate long-term
[1:54:56] use for this property and a good fit for
[1:54:58] the city of Nampa. Thank you.
[1:55:00] >> Thank you.
[1:55:05] Jared Hopson.
[1:55:18] Uh, Mr. Chair, city council, my name is
[1:55:20] Jared Hobson, uh, 10622 West Sandpiper,
[1:55:24] uh, Boisee, Idaho. Uh, I'm actually the
[1:55:26] owner of Western Specialties.
[1:55:28] Um, and I've been looking forward to
[1:55:31] this project for many years as well as
[1:55:32] my employees. Um, we are uh growing
[1:55:35] business. Uh, we are uh maxed out where
[1:55:38] we are currently in Garden City as was
[1:55:40] mentioned earlier and uh this is a
[1:55:43] project that we look forward to for many
[1:55:44] years. Uh hopefully you can see that as
[1:55:47] uh been stated it does not um uh it
[1:55:52] matches adjacent properties and it will
[1:55:55] be a good improvement to that property
[1:55:56] currently. Uh, thank you for your time.
[1:55:59] >> Thank you.
[1:56:02] » And Chairman Miller, if I may, for the
[1:56:04] record, um, just out of a total
[1:56:06] abundance of caution, I do know Mr.
[1:56:08] Hopson. Technically, he is a relative of
[1:56:11] the fifth degree to me. If you want to
[1:56:13] know what that is, that would be my
[1:56:14] wife's cousin's husband. And, uh, Idaho
[1:56:18] law would not require this. There's no
[1:56:20] financial interest I have in it, but
[1:56:22] just an abundance of caution. Um, just
[1:56:24] note that for the record and the legal
[1:56:26] advice I'll give here is as if it was
[1:56:28] another stranger here as an applicant,
[1:56:30] but just an abundance of caution. It's
[1:56:32] good to see you, Jared.
[1:56:34] >> That's assuming we would have figured
[1:56:36] out what fifth degree is. [laughter] I'm
[1:56:38] still trying to Google it.
[1:56:42] » Thank you, Preston.
[1:56:44] >> Thank you. I apologize if I get your
[1:56:47] name wrong. Juliano Seafur.
[1:56:56] » Uh, thank you for letting me speak
[1:56:58] tonight. My name is Juliano. Um, I live
[1:57:00] over at 11 North P Victoria Court, a
[1:57:03] little bit closer than Paul, but uh, I
[1:57:06] had written a whole list of things to
[1:57:08] talk about, but at the end of the day,
[1:57:09] every single one of my neighbors uh, hit
[1:57:11] on each point. Um, it is important, it
[1:57:14] is important to emphasize the amount of
[1:57:15] traffic that'll be increased on Happy
[1:57:17] Valley. I understand it's part of the
[1:57:18] master plan. It'd be one thing if that
[1:57:20] master plan was already in place to the
[1:57:22] point of traffic control, but it's not.
[1:57:25] We've got a roundabout down there that
[1:57:26] was done a few years ago. People have
[1:57:29] hitten that light. I uh I have
[1:57:31] experience as an EMT. I did some medical
[1:57:33] training. I have assisted multiple
[1:57:34] people in accidents along that road,
[1:57:37] including a gentleman who got sideswiped
[1:57:39] on a motorcycle. Um, as a writer myself,
[1:57:42] motorcycles are cautioned in that
[1:57:43] roundabout area just because of the
[1:57:45] severe amount of traffic and people
[1:57:47] generally not knowing how to use a
[1:57:48] roundabout. Um, I'm pretty sure
[1:57:50] everybody here in this room knows that
[1:57:52] one. Um, so traffic is a huge issue. But
[1:57:55] the other thing too is I am a consultant
[1:57:58] for a cleaning company here in the
[1:57:59] valley. We service over 400 customers,
[1:58:02] small businesses. Um, stuff like Western
[1:58:05] Specialties, you know, some of my
[1:58:06] customers today are Greylock, Gem State
[1:58:08] Doors and Millwork Work. I understand
[1:58:10] the work that these gentlemen do. So,
[1:58:11] when somebody tells me that they're
[1:58:13] going to be there from 7:30 to 5, I'm a
[1:58:15] cleaner. I know what time you're there.
[1:58:18] I know when we take your trash. I know
[1:58:19] when to clean your restrooms. And that's
[1:58:21] just a flatout lie. I've been there many
[1:58:23] times in the weekends and have people do
[1:58:24] double shifts and overnight shifts
[1:58:26] because they got big orders. This kind
[1:58:29] of building put into a place where
[1:58:31] there's adjacent to residential
[1:58:32] properties makes me wonder why I bought
[1:58:34] my house in the first place. You know,
[1:58:36] if that's the kind of zoning that'll be.
[1:58:38] I mean, I think everybody in this room
[1:58:39] who lives close by, if you told us that
[1:58:42] you're going to put six or seven homes
[1:58:43] on that property, I'm pretty sure that
[1:58:44] other developer would have loved this
[1:58:45] place, um, I probably wouldn't be
[1:58:48] opposed to it. Probably be a little
[1:58:50] pissed off about eight, nine, 10 homes
[1:58:52] there, right? But this, this is a whole
[1:58:54] different monster. I service so many
[1:58:57] places that look like this that have
[1:58:58] traffic levels
[1:59:01] are just insane. And at the end of the
[1:59:03] day, the numbers that are probably
[1:59:05] given, you know, 14 employees,
[1:59:07] the gentleman from Western Specialty
[1:59:09] said himself, he's a growing company.
[1:59:11] They've already maxed out their space.
[1:59:14] What's to say as time goes on, they
[1:59:15] don't try to fill this space even a
[1:59:17] little bit further, push it a little
[1:59:19] further, store a little bit more? I can
[1:59:21] only imagine the kind of risk it'll put.
[1:59:24] The other thing, too, is I've got a
[1:59:26] wife, four kids, right? We sit in a back
[1:59:29] uh in our backyard. I've got a giant
[1:59:32] covered patio that we look out of. My
[1:59:35] neighbors probably think I'm crazy
[1:59:36] because the kind of patio that I put in,
[1:59:37] but we enjoy it. We look at the Warhawk
[1:59:40] uh shows that they put off in August,
[1:59:42] the Warhawk Roundup, if you all have
[1:59:44] seen it. We enjoy looking outside of our
[1:59:46] backyard. Putting something like this up
[1:59:49] blocks it. The sunsets blocked. Um and
[1:59:53] that's just the comfort side of things.
[1:59:55] Um I'd probably say those are
[1:59:56] insignificant to the safety side of
[1:59:58] things. Again, as somebody who's
[2:00:00] serviced over 400 people in the valley,
[2:00:02] who appreciates the growth, who benefits
[2:00:04] from the growth, I don't think this is
[2:00:06] the right kind of building to put into
[2:00:08] place so close to residential places,
[2:00:11] residential homes that are counter to
[2:00:13] it. Thank you for your time.
[2:00:15] >> Thank you.
[2:00:19] Mr. Chair. No further names
[2:00:21] were submitted for public testimony.
[2:00:24] Is there anyone one else in the audience
[2:00:26] that would like to speak for against or
[2:00:28] undecided on this? Okay, we'll just take
[2:00:30] you one at a time. So, go ahead and come
[2:00:31] on up and give us your name and address.
[2:00:37] [laughter]
[2:00:47] » I'll [cough] bring her with me.
[2:00:48] >> No, you have to speak.
[2:00:50] My name is Chris Avery and I am the
[2:00:53] great housewoman, Virginia's sister. So
[2:00:56] I'm at 13 North Campbell. Her home and
[2:00:59] Steve's home has helped our family. It's
[2:01:02] a large home. They've lived there 13
[2:01:04] years. Um they [cough and clears throat]
[2:01:06] have helped our family many ways. Many
[2:01:09] people have come and stayed and enjoyed
[2:01:11] Christmases there. Uh New Year's there.
[2:01:14] We go out on their deck and you can see
[2:01:17] the valley on the 4th of July. One of
[2:01:21] our favorite things is watching the air
[2:01:23] show this weekend.
[2:01:25] I am greatly opposed to this
[2:01:28] [clears throat]
[2:01:28] and my family that is out of town is
[2:01:32] like you get in there and tell them
[2:01:35] no, we're opposed all of the reasons
[2:01:38] that they have given. And I appreciate,
[2:01:41] you know, owner of Western Specialties.
[2:01:43] I love that he's local. There are many
[2:01:47] places in Nampa that are already
[2:01:50] industrial.
[2:01:51] No reason
[2:01:54] leave it residential and we can work
[2:01:58] with that. But this with the airport
[2:02:00] right there,
[2:02:02] I oppose greatly. Thank you.
[2:02:05] >> Thank you.
[2:02:09] Is there anybody else in the audience
[2:02:10] that' like to speak this evening?
[2:02:15] Nope. Nope. Got to come up.
[2:02:18] Need your name and address for the
[2:02:20] record, please.
[2:02:23] Ryder, 34 North Happy Valley Road. I
[2:02:26] submitted an opposal, an opposed comment
[2:02:30] online and I didn't see it. Does that
[2:02:32] actually make its way to you?
[2:02:34] >> Why don't you just tell us what you
[2:02:37] >> It's pretty much what everyone else
[2:02:38] says. It will severely disrupt the
[2:02:41] nature of our neighborhood. We have
[2:02:44] livestock and most of our neighbors do
[2:02:47] also. So that is a concern the health
[2:02:50] and well-being of our livestock as well
[2:02:52] as our our families. The emissions that
[2:02:56] are going to be in the air.
[2:02:59] The noise is very disruptive to all the
[2:03:03] livestock actually. horses, cows,
[2:03:05] chickens, they get very distressed by
[2:03:08] that type of thing.
[2:03:10] The gist of it is this does not fit in
[2:03:13] this neighborhood. It's a nice quiet
[2:03:15] neighborhood.
[2:03:17] We don't need industrial here. It's
[2:03:19] zoned as residential. I would like to
[2:03:22] see it remain residential.
[2:03:24] >> Thank you.
[2:03:29] Okay. Anybody else?
[2:03:35] Hey, Mr. Durant, come back up answer
[2:03:38] some questions.
[2:03:41] Have questions,
[2:03:51] » comments heard, and then we can
[2:03:53] >> Yeah, you have.
[2:03:56] So, regarding some of the comments, um,
[2:04:00] I'll address a couple of those
[2:04:02] specifically.
[2:04:04] Um, regarding the gentleman who,
[2:04:08] um, referred to Western Specialties as
[2:04:12] maybe being dishonest in how they
[2:04:15] perform their business.
[2:04:17] I would suggest that that he is
[2:04:19] completely incorrect. He may service 400
[2:04:22] other businesses.
[2:04:24] I believe that he services Western
[2:04:26] Specialties so he should not be speaking
[2:04:28] as if he does. The hours represented
[2:04:31] that Western Specialties works is the
[2:04:34] hours that they work. The vehicle trips
[2:04:36] that we discussed are accurate and they
[2:04:40] are they are exactly what we do. Um the
[2:04:46] number of 14 employees would be with
[2:04:50] doubling the size of their current
[2:04:52] operation. Currently they have 8 to 10
[2:04:55] employees.
[2:04:57] I would al also like to just um just
[2:05:00] share with the fact that
[2:05:04] the seller made an um a strategic
[2:05:07] decision in how they proposed to market
[2:05:11] and sell this building. Their choice was
[2:05:13] to go the light industrial route because
[2:05:17] they were going to continue to live in
[2:05:19] this location.
[2:05:21] There were offers available and
[2:05:23] opportunities available for highdensity
[2:05:25] housing which is located just to the
[2:05:27] north of this property across, you know,
[2:05:29] about a half a mile away.
[2:05:31] And if this were to be annexed in and go
[2:05:34] to the high density route, well, you
[2:05:36] would have buildings the same size as
[2:05:38] far as the height. Your vehicle trips
[2:05:41] would be triple or quadruple to what
[2:05:43] we're suggesting that they would be with
[2:05:45] this development.
[2:05:46] The noise pollution would be immense.
[2:05:50] Um
[2:05:52] the uh the pollution that would come
[2:05:54] just from children in neighborhood
[2:05:57] traffic would be incredible. It was
[2:05:59] discussed that uh potentially that the waste from Western specialties could
[2:06:05] be hazardous to the health of the
[2:06:07] neighborhood. Um completely incorrect.
[2:06:11] I I think that the concerns that have
[2:06:14] been addressed
[2:06:17] while emotional
[2:06:19] may not be completely factual
[2:06:22] and I appreciate the emotion.
[2:06:27] is a really really important
[2:06:29] thing.
[2:06:31] One of the guarantees that we have in
[2:06:33] the state of Idaho is the right to use
[2:06:35] our property.
[2:06:37] And as a property owner, I do not have
[2:06:40] to guarantee the visual sighteline of my
[2:06:43] neighbor.
[2:06:45] I have a property that has a wall from
[2:06:48] my neighbor.
[2:06:51] The only way I could control that
[2:06:53] neighborhood property is if I chose to
[2:06:55] buy it. Then I could control that.
[2:07:00] the the property owner has the right to
[2:07:03] use this property in the highest and
[2:07:05] best manner in which they see fit so
[2:07:08] long as it's compatible with the
[2:07:11] comprehensive plan and the codes and
[2:07:13] ordinances that the city imposes.
[2:07:17] The property and the development that
[2:07:20] we're proposing is to annex the property
[2:07:23] light industrial which is contiguous
[2:07:25] across the street to the west and to
[2:07:27] [clears throat] the south.
[2:07:29] We're proposing that we put in a project
[2:07:33] that that may appear large to a
[2:07:37] homeowner but actually is quite small
[2:07:40] when you view it in a light industrial
[2:07:43] application.
[2:07:44] And to find a lot that you can put a
[2:07:47] smaller project on is very challenging
[2:07:50] in the whole Treasure Valley.
[2:07:52] Very, very challenging. And so we're
[2:07:56] proposing this project and we we ask you
[2:07:59] to review it on its merits and to
[2:08:02] approve the annexation.
[2:08:06] » Question.
[2:08:08] >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, I have a question. Um,
[2:08:11] and please don't take this I'm not
[2:08:13] trying to be argumentative, but I just
[2:08:14] wanted to comment on what you said as
[2:08:17] far as compatibility.
[2:08:19] Um, I I don't disagree with you 100%,
[2:08:23] but wouldn't compatibility in that
[2:08:25] context also include the surrounding
[2:08:29] existing residential homes?
[2:08:32] How would how how do you square the
[2:08:34] compatibility of this project with those
[2:08:38] that are literally 20 to 40 feet away?
[2:08:43] [clears throat]
[2:08:43] >> Thank you for the question.
[2:08:45] If I started on Happy Valley Road and I
[2:08:49] was driving from, let's say, Airport
[2:08:53] Road headed south and I was making a
[2:08:56] visual observation
[2:08:58] of the neighborhood and how the
[2:09:00] neighborhood was developing and the
[2:09:02] compatibility of that corridor.
[2:09:07] I would have
[2:09:09] light industrial projects intermixed
[2:09:11] with residential. I would have high high
[2:09:14] density residential and I have an
[2:09:17] airport. And when I'm squaring the
[2:09:20] compatibility in the neighborhood, I'm
[2:09:23] looking at the whole what is it today?
[2:09:26] What is it going to be in five years?
[2:09:28] And where is it going to be in 20?
[2:09:32] I believe that the city has forecasts
[2:09:36] the direction that they want to go by
[2:09:39] approving the light industrial projects
[2:09:41] around Happy Valley that are in close
[2:09:43] proximity to this property.
[2:09:46] I believe that the airport
[2:09:49] has forecast that we want light
[2:09:51] industrial properties to surround the
[2:09:53] airport.
[2:09:54] And so that's how I square my
[2:09:56] compatibility issue.
[2:10:01] I must be
[2:10:03] not remembering,
[2:10:06] but what other light industrial
[2:10:09] properties
[2:10:10] around that area and and other than the
[2:10:14] closer you get to the freeway?
[2:10:19] Are there any other and the airport
[2:10:21] obviously?
[2:10:22] >> Yeah, you got a couple that new new one
[2:10:24] just south of airport on the east side.
[2:10:27] They've got two of the buildings up. I
[2:10:28] think there's one or two more buildings
[2:10:29] going on there.
[2:10:30] >> That's right. You got the brand new one
[2:10:33] on the other side that cleaning company
[2:10:35] that has that great big barbecuer that
[2:10:38] we
[2:10:38] >> There's Oh, yeah. Okay. There's You
[2:10:42] drive that a billion times a day and you
[2:10:44] forget. You just forget all this stuff.
[2:10:46] So, I appreciate that. And then there is
[2:10:48] some down airport or down Victory.
[2:10:51] >> Um,
[2:10:52] >> yeah, there's that new one that's going
[2:10:54] in right as you come around the round
[2:10:55] right there.
[2:10:56] >> All right.
[2:10:57] >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate I
[2:10:58] appreciate the the comments. Thank you.
[2:11:07] » There was there's questions about light
[2:11:09] pollution and noise pollution from not I
[2:11:14] mean I think the truck noise is pretty
[2:11:16] clear. Do you want to speak to what the operational noise like in the shops
[2:11:21] is and then like the lighting?
[2:11:24] >> Yes. So, the operational noise that
[2:11:27] would come from I'll address the 30,000
[2:11:31] square foot building. Um, there's
[2:11:34] several components that are happening
[2:11:36] within that building. You have the weld
[2:11:42] shop where you're going to weld a a
[2:11:44] frame of a of a hollow metal frame door.
[2:11:48] And then you have the wood shop. And the
[2:11:51] wood shop is cutting a like a window
[2:11:55] unit into a an already already developed
[2:12:00] wood slab.
[2:12:03] So within those units there will be um
[2:12:06] there will be dust mitigation controls
[2:12:10] and those dust mitigation controls will
[2:12:12] be housed within the building but bagged
[2:12:16] outside.
[2:12:18] So there will be a hopper that is
[2:12:21] collecting that sawdust or that refined
[2:12:24] dust.
[2:12:26] Um in the shop itself there will be a
[2:12:31] saw to cut and there will be a drill
[2:12:34] that would actually drill a hole for a lock set. And then there would also be
[2:12:43] a welding machine.
[2:12:46] uh the welding machine. I mean, I
[2:12:48] couldn't speak to decibb. I know that
[2:12:50] I've been
[2:12:52] um at the existing location where these
[2:12:54] functions are performed.
[2:12:56] They're inside.
[2:12:59] As a customer outside, I've never
[2:13:01] noticed any noise.
[2:13:03] Um the shops, both shops aren't running,
[2:13:08] I don't think more than six hours per
[2:13:10] day as far as actually time frame. It's
[2:13:13] done during business hours between the
[2:13:16] hours of 8 am and 5:00 pm.
[2:13:20] There could be people home, but I don't think that the noise from inside
[2:13:25] the building would be audible to anybody
[2:13:29] standing at the property line.
[2:13:32] >> What about um loading and unloading
[2:13:33] trucks?
[2:13:34] >> Loading and unloading trucks. Like I
[2:13:36] said earlier, currently there's about
[2:13:39] one truck that comes per day.
[2:13:42] Um, if that were to double and maximize,
[2:13:46] then that would be two truck per day.
[2:13:48] And that would be a semi-truck enclosed
[2:13:50] van.
[2:13:52] Um, it takes approximately from the time
[2:13:55] the truck arrives until he's unloaded,
[2:13:57] it takes approximately an hour, hour and
[2:13:59] a half to do the unload.
[2:14:02] Truck will back up into the loading
[2:14:04] dock. um dock cushions around the the
[2:14:07] truck and then a forklift will go inside
[2:14:10] the loading dock or inside the truck to
[2:14:13] move the material inside into the
[2:14:16] appropriate place or rack storage. Um
[2:14:21] the forklift
[2:14:23] electric or propane,
[2:14:25] it does have a backup sensor. It's it's
[2:14:27] contained inside the building. I again I
[2:14:31] don't know that you would you would hear
[2:14:33] it outside
[2:14:36] have to be
[2:14:37] extremely
[2:14:40] good hearing to hear that. Um the other
[2:14:43] operations inside the shop are just
[2:14:46] office
[2:14:48] far as clerical work and and sales.
[2:14:58] Good.
[2:14:59] Thank you for your time.
[2:15:05] » So, I move to close public hearing.
[2:15:08] >> Second.
[2:15:10] >> Been moved by Commissioner Kirkman,
[2:15:11] seconded by Kho to close the public
[2:15:13] hearing. All those in favor?
[2:15:15] >> I [clears throat] closed. Okay. Public
[2:15:18] testimony portion is closed.
[2:15:24] Uh
[2:15:32] the southern property, Rodney, for the
[2:15:34] city. What are potential develop? Could
[2:15:38] that ever develop into anything?
[2:15:41] >> What's [cough and clears throat] a race
[2:15:42] >> or Daniel?
[2:15:43] >> I think we know this both of us. um
[2:15:46] because it's in that uh uh the
[2:15:51] airport runway protection zone RPZ. Um
[2:15:56] there's really nothing that can be
[2:15:57] developed on that that property.
[2:16:00] >> Okay.
[2:16:01] >> Turn it into a park.
[2:16:03] >> Excuse me.
[2:16:04] a park
[2:16:07] [clears throat]
[2:16:09] >> um
[2:16:14] in in [clears throat] an industrial zone
[2:16:15] like this, is there any decibel
[2:16:18] limitations?
[2:16:23] » Um Mr. Chairman, again, Rodney Ashby, um
[2:16:27] I mean, this is a subjective question.
[2:16:31] Um I think um you you need to balance
[2:16:36] the needs of the area and the
[2:16:38] compatibility of the area and that's a
[2:16:40] tough decision.
[2:16:42] >> Um we don't have specific decibb listed
[2:16:46] in code for this zone. Um so you'd have
[2:16:50] to think about that. But our code just
[2:16:53] says a nuisance. It shouldn't become a
[2:16:55] nuisance. I I'm I've struggled with that
[2:16:59] language because I don't know what that
[2:17:01] means exactly.
[2:17:02] >> Different for different people.
[2:17:04] >> Yeah. Different for different people. So
[2:17:06] I I think this is a a decision you have
[2:17:08] to make.
[2:17:10] >> While you're there, Rodney, get back. Um
[2:17:12] so the airport manager, whoever is for
[2:17:16] this,
[2:17:18] what what would the airport prefer to
[2:17:20] have close to it? Would they rather have
[2:17:22] industrial or residential? Yeah, this um
[2:17:26] Mr. Chair and Commissioner Turner, um so
[2:17:31] I've had this conversation with the
[2:17:32] airport commission and with the airport
[2:17:35] uh uh superintendent, and both of them
[2:17:38] have said what they prefer is
[2:17:41] industrial. What they don't want is lots
[2:17:44] of people gathered together in
[2:17:48] residences
[2:17:49] that if there was a terrible accident
[2:17:52] that there be a lot of damage done.
[2:17:56] >> So they what they see as less likely to
[2:18:00] cause a problem is is the industrial use
[2:18:03] over the residential.
[2:18:19] Mr. Chair, is that all questions you
[2:18:21] have?
[2:18:22] >> Go ahead.
[2:18:23] >> Okay. I didn't want to interrupt. You
[2:18:25] looked like you were looking for another
[2:18:26] one.
[2:18:26] >> I'm in I'm in thought. Go ahead.
[2:18:28] >> All right. Uh, Daniel,
[2:18:32] you know this was about Happy Valley, so
[2:18:34] you knew this was going to come up.
[2:18:39] the
[2:18:42] you get one car on Happy Valley that's
[2:18:44] traveling south and I don't care if it's
[2:18:46] up by Locust or if it's up by the
[2:18:48] freeway if it wants to turn left and
[2:18:52] it's at 4 or 5:00 it's going to back up
[2:18:57] 50 60 cars. I've been involved with that
[2:19:01] a number of times. You put one big semi
[2:19:05] 52-footer
[2:19:07] that is going to turn left into this
[2:19:09] coming south on Happy Valley, it's just
[2:19:11] going to exacerbate the problem. So,
[2:19:15] what is the possibility of putting a
[2:19:17] turn lane if this project were to move
[2:19:20] forward in that location to at least
[2:19:24] keep some of that traffic moving if a
[2:19:26] truck were there?
[2:19:27] >> That is certainly something that if you
[2:19:29] feel is appropriate, you can place as a
[2:19:31] condition of approval. Is there enough
[2:19:33] space
[2:19:35] >> there? The existing rideway in those
[2:19:37] areas, we have a 50- foot total, so 25
[2:19:40] foot prescriptive on either side of the
[2:19:42] roadway. Um, so that does provide enough
[2:19:45] room that with some widening on either
[2:19:47] side that can provide for a turn lane,
[2:19:52] >> but you're going to have to put one long
[2:19:53] enough to accommodate a 52 54 foot
[2:19:57] truck. Is there enough space that way
[2:19:58] too?
[2:19:59] >> Yes. So, so we have that 50 feet up and
[2:20:02] down the entire length.
[2:20:04] >> Um, and so they would ultimately just
[2:20:06] have to design it such that
[2:20:08] >> that that's has the appropriate tapers
[2:20:11] and storage length and that for that.
[2:20:14] >> Okay.
[2:20:15] >> Can I follow up on that,
[2:20:16] >> please?
[2:20:18] >> I'd like to know the legality of like
[2:20:20] can we require that and can we require
[2:20:22] them to add a turn lane beyond the
[2:20:24] extents of their property or what's how
[2:20:26] does that work?
[2:20:27] >> Is that our road? That's not our road,
[2:20:29] is it? Happy Valley.
[2:20:30] >> Um,
[2:20:31] >> half of it. Anyways,
[2:20:34] >> one second.
[2:20:36] >> The eastern half.
[2:20:37] >> I can wait till
[2:20:39] they know answers that question.
[2:20:40] >> Regardless of whether it's our road or
[2:20:42] not, we would be able to work with the
[2:20:44] highway district to make that happen. If that would not necessarily be a
[2:20:49] hindrance.
[2:20:49] >> Okay.
[2:20:52] >> Yeah. Commissioner, if I may, this gets
[2:20:54] to some constitutional principles. Nolan
[2:20:57] and Nolan are some famous cases that
[2:20:59] talk about where when you put a
[2:21:00] condition on it has to be has to be
[2:21:02] roughly proportionate to what their
[2:21:04] impact is. That's one prong. The other
[2:21:07] one there has to be a nexus, right? It
[2:21:08] has to be related to it. So you can't
[2:21:10] have them put a you know a water tower
[2:21:12] in or amusement park, right? That's not
[2:21:14] related as much as you may want either
[2:21:16] those or not. And so what's being
[2:21:19] requested here if there's a rational if
[2:21:21] there's a nexus connected with the
[2:21:22] project and what is being requested as a
[2:21:25] rough proportionality
[2:21:27] to their impact that's what the law does
[2:21:29] allow you to do. Obviously the condition
[2:21:31] can't render the property entirely you
[2:21:34] know deprive it of all economic use or
[2:21:37] just make it futile. Um so that's that's
[2:21:40] the analysis you want to run Daniel's um
[2:21:43] or the condition that's being discussed
[2:21:45] through is it roughly proportionate and
[2:21:47] is there a nexus connection?
[2:21:57] Well,
[2:21:58] in that light, if the commission were to
[2:22:01] move down that road, no pun intended, I
[2:22:04] think that that definitely would.
[2:22:08] >> There would be a Lexus Nexus. Is that
[2:22:11] what you said?
[2:22:12] >> A Nexus. It's
[2:22:13] >> he he'll get the joke. [laughter]
[2:22:17] » A Nexus and Yeah.
[2:22:19] >> Even just coming out of there to turn
[2:22:20] right and head back north. That road's
[2:22:23] not that wide there. That's
[2:22:25] It would just give them a little more
[2:22:26] room with a semi to be coming out there
[2:22:28] to,
[2:22:30] you know, the ones that are turning
[2:22:32] right at airport there with those blocks
[2:22:34] right on the corner. They got to take up
[2:22:36] both lanes to get around that corner.
[2:22:38] >> They do.
[2:22:40] >> So
[2:22:42] clarify. So nexus would be that it's
[2:22:44] related, which I think a left turn lane
[2:22:46] into it would be related. proportional
[2:22:48] mean
[2:22:50] if it costs $10 million to do something
[2:22:52] and you know what I mean like and the
[2:22:54] property is selling for like is that
[2:22:57] where the proportionality comes in or
[2:22:59] what's proportional mean
[2:23:00] >> chairman so the proportionality is
[2:23:03] really what impact they're anticipated
[2:23:06] and if there's a you know a study
[2:23:07] provided here if there's a traffic
[2:23:08] impact study or other data um it may not
[2:23:12] just hypothetical right it may not be
[2:23:14] proportions required you know a seven
[2:23:17] lane main road coming out of there,
[2:23:19] right? Based off the volume that's
[2:23:20] generated. So, you want whatever is
[2:23:22] there needs to have a rough proportion
[2:23:24] to what they're bringing to the table
[2:23:26] and it needs to have that rough fit, if
[2:23:29] you will. Doesn't have to be exact
[2:23:30] science. It's what the law said. It's a
[2:23:32] rough proportionality.
[2:23:34] >> Thank you.
[2:23:36] >> And then the other test you'll run
[2:23:37] through on these is okay, would this
[2:23:39] condition be arbitrary,
[2:23:42] capricious, or an abuse of the
[2:23:44] discretion? Right? And there's pretty
[2:23:46] the case law says there's pretty vast
[2:23:48] discretion and so those are kind of the
[2:23:50] fail safes so that you know there's not
[2:23:52] you know crazy or ludicrous things that
[2:23:54] are imposed. Um but starting point is
[2:23:57] that nexus and then the rough
[2:23:59] portionality. So, what I'm hearing is we
[2:24:01] don't want to be putting on conditions
[2:24:03] that are making it so hard you just
[2:24:05] can't develop as we want to.
[2:24:10] » If if the conditions were a nexus to it
[2:24:13] and roughly proportionate to their
[2:24:15] impact, the law allows that to be
[2:24:17] imposed.
[2:24:21] [laughter]
[2:24:22] >> Now, just to be clear, the word
[2:24:23] reasonable and [snorts] unreasonable has
[2:24:25] not been used here. It's nexus and rough
[2:24:27] proportionality, right? So, So putting a
[2:24:30] condition
[2:24:32] to add a center lane, a center turn lane
[2:24:34] from victory to airport, it would not be
[2:24:37] com. Yeah, that would not be
[2:24:40] an appropriate condition.
[2:24:43] Um
[2:24:44] I, you know, on another note, I I'm
[2:24:47] struggling a little bit with the
[2:24:49] compatibility of this location. As much
[2:24:53] as I would love to bring business to
[2:24:55] Nampa and steal jobs away from other
[2:24:58] communities in the Treasure Valley, I I really struggle with the location of
[2:25:03] this industrial area
[2:25:06] in the compatibility arena of the
[2:25:09] residences
[2:25:10] that have been there for
[2:25:13] well, as long as I've been around.
[2:25:20] Just throwing that out there.
[2:25:33] Yeah, I understand uh the concern there,
[2:25:36] building height and all those kind of
[2:25:39] things. Um I can also respect property
[2:25:44] rights um for both sides.
[2:25:48] Um, and then I think down the road,
[2:25:51] what's Happy Valley going to look like
[2:25:52] in 10 years, 20 years?
[2:25:56] Looks a lot different now than it did
[2:25:57] when I was a kid. That's for sure.
[2:26:00] >> Oh, there's just more cars on it. It
[2:26:02] doesn't look any different.
[2:26:03] >> It looks quite a bit different.
[2:26:12] But most of that traffic when highway 16
[2:26:14] or not highway 16. I think I asked this
[2:26:16] question at the last hearing or the last
[2:26:19] uh meeting uh
[2:26:21] meeting that we had was was about Happy
[2:26:24] Valley when it came up before and I
[2:26:26] think that the tra the intent is the
[2:26:28] traffic's going to get pushed over to
[2:26:29] Robinson
[2:26:31] >> with um
[2:26:32] >> with Dur but yeah
[2:26:33] >> Dur with Highway 16.
[2:26:36] So there there's no plans
[2:26:40] to widen Happy Valley to a major
[2:26:43] arterial or a connector even though it
[2:26:44] goes straight to the freeway, which I
[2:26:46] still don't understand, Dan. But that
[2:26:48] that's just that's just my not
[2:26:50] understanding.
[2:26:50] >> We're going to let Daniel We're going to
[2:26:52] let Daniel speak to it. So we are
[2:26:54] >> that's the emotion that's coming
[2:26:55] through.
[2:26:57] >> So So when you say there are no plans,
[2:26:59] um that that is not 100% accurate. Oh,
[2:27:03] that's great.
[2:27:03] >> The Happy Happy Valley is planned to
[2:27:06] ultimately be a fivelane facility.
[2:27:08] >> Um I do not have plans for construction
[2:27:12] of that right now. We are currently um
[2:27:17] reddoing our transportation master plan
[2:27:20] that will repprioritize and identify and
[2:27:23] so not knowing what um that that will
[2:27:28] bring. Happy Valley is one of our
[2:27:31] congested corridors and that may the
[2:27:34] priority structure that we have
[2:27:36] currently that may with things that have
[2:27:38] been done that may change those
[2:27:41] priorities and so until we have that
[2:27:43] update in the transportation master plan
[2:27:46] I can't give you a definitive of when
[2:27:48] that will happen but yes there is a the plan for Happy Valley will be
[2:27:53] ultimately a fivelane facility.
[2:27:56] >> Okay.
[2:27:58] at that time. Will they put left turn
[2:28:00] lanes at airport?
[2:28:02] >> Okay.
[2:28:02] >> Yes.
[2:28:03] >> So, so it'll have it'll have left turn
[2:28:06] lane up and down, center turn lane, all
[2:28:08] of that.
[2:28:09] >> Y
[2:28:14] » Rodney or Terry,
[2:28:17] um, is there any other large industrial
[2:28:20] areas that are not developed in this
[2:28:22] area or close by? I know you mentioned
[2:28:24] several which surprised Jeff, but I
[2:28:28] don't I never go out there my entire
[2:28:29] life. I've never been out there. I have
[2:28:30] no idea what's out there.
[2:28:40] » Thank you, Chairman and Commissioner
[2:28:41] Kho. Um so what you see on the screen
[2:28:45] now is the future land use map and you
[2:28:48] can see that that whole southoutheastern
[2:28:52] section is
[2:28:55] future land use map designation of
[2:28:57] industrial.
[2:28:59] So other potential industrial
[2:29:02] development there. I don't know of
[2:29:04] anything specifically that's in the
[2:29:06] works.
[2:29:12] Oh, thank you. And Rodney points out
[2:29:14] that it's also everything north of
[2:29:18] Victory almost all the way up to Kings
[2:29:20] Road. So that whole northeast
[2:29:23] northwest, sorry, section.
[2:29:31] » Well, Mr. Chair, I I think I have the
[2:29:34] same struggle you're having is
[2:29:37] we're pro business. We want to bring
[2:29:40] growing businesses here. I Some people
[2:29:42] have talking about how they'll work
[2:29:44] harder than they say they work. I don't
[2:29:46] know if I that's a bad thing. We want
[2:29:49] hardworking business owners that are
[2:29:51] growing their businesses here in our
[2:29:52] community. Um
[2:29:56] I think if if you look at this map,
[2:30:00] industrial does fit. I mean, we've got
[2:30:02] industrial across the street in both
[2:30:03] directions and then we've got this the
[2:30:06] county residential on the other sides.
[2:30:08] We're at that the borderland where we
[2:30:10] always hit, right? And when we're at at
[2:30:14] these borders between two different
[2:30:16] types of uses, we look at compatibility
[2:30:19] of like are we transitioning?
[2:30:22] And
[2:30:24] this is just such a big building right
[2:30:26] on that edge that it's it's hard to
[2:30:29] transition. I wish that
[2:30:33] I want to support it
[2:30:35] for economic reasons for the city, but
[2:30:38] it is a really big building on that edge
[2:30:41] of that lot.
[2:30:43] And I don't know if there's another way
[2:30:45] to reconfigure that lot to make this
[2:30:47] work so that they're closer to Happy
[2:30:49] Valley. I mean, it gets narrower there.
[2:30:54] I I would just note that the current
[2:30:57] zoning of the city-owned property to the
[2:31:00] south is light industrial,
[2:31:01] >> right?
[2:31:02] >> Um
[2:31:03] >> while the comp plan does show
[2:31:05] [clears throat] it as residential, the
[2:31:06] current zoning of it is industrial,
[2:31:10] >> which is why I say it fits. And it's
[2:31:12] this border. Yeah. It's just this
[2:31:15] kind of no man's land between lower low
[2:31:18] density residential and light
[2:31:20] industrial.
[2:31:22] I wish it was more of a transition like
[2:31:25] if the flex buildings were closer to the
[2:31:27] residential and the larger building was
[2:31:30] closer to the road but the lot doesn't
[2:31:32] >> doesn't work that way
[2:31:33] >> doesn't work for that
[2:31:38] » car. Yeah. Um maybe Rody can answer this
[2:31:43] or that flight path, the red area on
[2:31:46] that slide right there that cuts through
[2:31:50] looks like over 50% of that south lot.
[2:31:55] >> So is that like a no build zone?
[2:31:58] >> Yeah, that's that's a zero zone. So even
[2:32:01] so yes, [clears throat] this lot is
[2:32:06] >> is technically right there and light
[2:32:08] industrial,
[2:32:10] >> but it's pretty much unusable.
[2:32:13] So, you know, you can use that. It's almost
[2:32:18] >> Yeah.
[2:32:30] Miller and commissioners, I just wanted
[2:32:33] to respond just briefly to the concerns
[2:32:36] about height.
[2:32:38] So, if this came into the city and was
[2:32:43] zoned a zoning that matches the
[2:32:46] lowdensity residential land use
[2:32:49] designation, that would put it as RA,
[2:32:52] suburban residential, or an RS zoning
[2:32:56] district. In both of those options,
[2:33:01] the maximum building height for a
[2:33:04] residence is 30 feet
[2:33:08] and it would be a 15 foot rear yard
[2:33:11] setback and 5- foot sideyard setback. So
[2:33:16] the potential for
[2:33:18] a view blocking structure would be there
[2:33:23] whether we choose this industrial zoning
[2:33:26] and their proposed 32 foot high building
[2:33:30] or a residential zoning within the city
[2:33:33] which would allow a 30 foot high
[2:33:36] building maximum
[2:33:37] >> and that's again to the top plate of the
[2:33:40] wall. It's not to the peaked roof. So
[2:33:44] technically you could have a very steep
[2:33:47] roof. You could have a very large house,
[2:33:49] very steep roof,
[2:33:51] wide house, which then can play into how
[2:33:56] high that roof peak can go. So
[2:33:59] potentially you could be another
[2:34:02] easily 18 feet or so potentially
[2:34:07] >> above that 30 foot wall.
[2:34:09] >> I don't think that's true. No,
[2:34:11] >> there's
[2:34:12] >> Chairman Miller and Commissioner Fine, I
[2:34:15] agree that we don't know what that very
[2:34:18] steeped peak roof could be or how long
[2:34:22] their building would be. I just wanted
[2:34:25] to add in that a 30-foot height
[2:34:29] allowance is allowed and the city
[2:34:31] measures to the top plate of a building
[2:34:34] from grade to the top plate without the
[2:34:37] peak involved. What's been proposed here
[2:34:40] is a
[2:34:42] >> to have a very high building to have a
[2:34:44] very high roof line.
[2:34:45] >> Yeah. I mean, you could even 12 foot raptors, you're up to 42
[2:34:49] ft.
[2:34:50] >> I I think to the the thought that the
[2:34:53] setback would be significantly closer. I
[2:34:56] mean, you 15 ft. So,
[2:34:59] >> we're talking
[2:35:00] >> 24T building could be
[2:35:01] >> the east east boundary is the rear
[2:35:04] setback.
[2:35:08] Correct.
[2:35:10] >> We typically determine the front based
[2:35:13] on the addressing of the building. So
[2:35:16] assuming it remained this 4 foot large
[2:35:20] parcel, which doesn't necessarily fit in
[2:35:23] our zoning requirements, um yes, front
[2:35:26] would face Happy Valley and rear would
[2:35:29] be to the east.
[2:35:33] What what are the setbacks industrially
[2:35:35] for side setbacks?
[2:35:40] » This one has 50 feet.
[2:35:41] >> Well, I realize what it says, but my
[2:35:44] question is what are the setbacks?
[2:35:46] >> Yeah, sorry. Christie is quickly looking
[2:35:48] that up for me because it makes a
[2:35:50] difference when it's setting next to um
[2:35:53] residential properties.
[2:35:57] » So, 10 next to residential properties.
[2:36:00] So it could be 10 ft away from those
[2:36:02] homes instead of 50 whatever feet.
[2:36:06] >> They're not going to do that because
[2:36:07] they won't be
[2:36:09] >> No. If if if this wasn't going to be
[2:36:12] built here suburban res.
[2:36:14] >> I think what's important too is if this
[2:36:18] was voted on and passed,
[2:36:23] do we tie it to conceptual plan or do we
[2:36:26] just say it's now light industrial, you
[2:36:27] can build what you want. because then
[2:36:29] they could say, "Oh, well, the setback
[2:36:31] is X. I've just changed my mind and I
[2:36:34] want to move the building even closer to
[2:36:35] the neighbors."
[2:36:36] >> Chairman Miller, that's an excellent um
[2:36:39] observation. And you could recommend to
[2:36:43] city council that they
[2:36:47] require a development agreement and
[2:36:50] things like that could be included in
[2:36:53] the development agreement.
[2:36:58] I mean, because we've we've seen plenty
[2:36:59] of things come before us that they say
[2:37:02] they want to do one thing and then it's
[2:37:05] something totally different. So, that's
[2:37:06] why I like to try to tie it to something
[2:37:10] so we at least have some idea of what we
[2:37:12] said yes to and then what is going to
[2:37:15] happen moving forward. So
[2:37:17] >> I I think Ken, thank you for that
[2:37:19] context of the building heights that
[2:37:21] would be allowed in the residential, but
[2:37:22] I I there's got to be a difference
[2:37:24] between a 32 flat building that's 100 ft
[2:37:28] long versus a a peak.
[2:37:31] It's just a different feel.
[2:37:33] >> Yeah.
[2:37:34] >> Unless there's a series of buildings
[2:37:37] with peaks.
[2:37:39] >> That's what I'm saying. That's less
[2:37:40] obtrusive than one giant.
[2:37:42] >> Oh, I thought you were just talking like
[2:37:44] one building with a peak. I was like, I
[2:37:46] don't think they'd put one there.
[2:37:48] >> Of course.
[2:37:48] >> Yeah.
[2:37:52] » Which would
[2:37:55] >> I mean, even if that was the case, it'd
[2:37:57] still bring a lot more traffic like the
[2:37:58] applicant said, there'd be a lot more
[2:38:00] traffic there with
[2:38:03] >> if it was residential.
[2:38:04] >> Yep.
[2:38:09] » Sorry, I interrupted you.
[2:38:16] Well, Mr. Chair, I think looking at that
[2:38:18] context and what we were just discussing
[2:38:20] in the and and I I think I'm not 100%
[2:38:27] with this industrial going here, but I'd
[2:38:31] rather see a 32 foot building than a 32
[2:38:34] foot building with 12oot peaks and more
[2:38:38] traffic. I think, you know, I think it
[2:38:42] it's stretching a little bit, but I
[2:38:43] think it it does fit here. I mean,
[2:38:45] you've got industrial properties down
[2:38:47] the airport or down Victory. Um,
[2:38:51] and and it's they're not they're not not
[2:38:54] around this area.
[2:38:56] I if I were to move forward with this
[2:38:58] and and agree
[2:39:01] and vote yes, I would want a truck turn
[2:39:04] lane into this property, too, just to
[2:39:06] help alleviate some of that traffic
[2:39:08] that's going to get backed up. It
[2:39:10] already gets backed up at the at the
[2:39:13] roundabout there, Victory in Happy
[2:39:16] Valley.
[2:39:21] And I'm thinking out loud again. Um
[2:39:24] I want and I guess I should ask the
[2:39:26] applicant. I wonder if there's a
[2:39:27] specific reason for the 32 foot height
[2:39:31] um
[2:39:32] >> storage racks.
[2:39:33] >> Yeah. But I mean I visit a lot of
[2:39:36] facilities similar to this and I don't
[2:39:37] think that I've seen any 32 foot high
[2:39:39] storage racks because forklifts can't
[2:39:41] reach that high.
[2:39:42] >> Oh yeah. I mean depending and I guess I
[2:39:45] understand but
[2:39:46] >> we don't do these kinds of buildings but
[2:39:48] 36 clear height's pretty typical in a
[2:39:50] big warehouse you know.
[2:39:52] >> Guess I understand that then. So
[2:40:03] [clears throat]
[2:40:08] I'm not sure if I'm on which way I'd
[2:40:10] vote on a motion. I don't I don't know
[2:40:12] that I could support a motion that had
[2:40:13] that requirement. That requirement makes
[2:40:15] me nervous.
[2:40:16] >> What requirement?
[2:40:18] >> Why?
[2:40:20] >> It's a heavy burden.
[2:40:28] » A fairly high expense.
[2:40:31] >> I like the idea, but I think
[2:40:33] >> but it's not necessarily the expense,
[2:40:35] it's the proportionality.
[2:40:38] >> Correct.
[2:40:39] you
[2:40:40] >> you're listening Jeff [laughter]
[2:40:42] >> Nexus
[2:40:43] >> I see you're in the thick of it right
[2:40:45] now. Um so the proportionality is the
[2:40:49] scope right what the market may or may
[2:40:52] not be on it um would be relevant here
[2:40:56] but really the case law is okay what is
[2:40:59] being asked here and you don't
[2:41:02] necessarily take into consideration
[2:41:03] maybe the cost although that's more of a second analysis the
[2:41:09] first one is is it justified is it
[2:41:10] roughly proportionate with their impact
[2:41:13] and then if so the Second one would be
[2:41:16] yeah do you you believe that would be um
[2:41:19] proper to impose um again the costs can
[2:41:23] come into play but that's not the first
[2:41:25] analysis is is it proportionate
[2:41:27] >> well and I guess I have to I have to
[2:41:28] look at it too um yes this is a specific
[2:41:33] a fairly specific um proposed use but
[2:41:38] what if something were to happen and
[2:41:40] that proposed use went by the wayside
[2:41:42] and it changes and now it's slight
[2:41:44] industrial And instead of one truck a
[2:41:46] day, we get 15. I mean, it's slight
[2:41:48] industrial, so
[2:41:52] I don't know. I mean, I'm struggling.
[2:41:53] >> Well, then you definitely need a turn
[2:41:55] line.
[2:41:55] >> Well, that's that's what I'm saying. I
[2:41:57] understand both ways. And it's it's kind
[2:41:59] of a
[2:42:03] » Could we just make a recommendation to
[2:42:06] city council if we were to move this
[2:42:07] forward that they take a serious look at
[2:42:10] possibly requiring it if they deem
[2:42:13] necessary? Maybe by then Daniel could do
[2:42:16] some a little bit of analysis or
[2:42:18] something on it just to see if it
[2:42:21] instead of us requiring it, putting it
[2:42:24] on there.
[2:42:24] >> Would you be open to a motion that
[2:42:26] requires them to do a traffic impact
[2:42:27] study and
[2:42:30] >> required by the traffic impact study?
[2:42:32] You know,
[2:42:34] I'm I I like the traffic impact studies,
[2:42:37] but I have conducted my own traffic
[2:42:40] impact study about 50,000 times over the
[2:42:43] last few years as Happy Valley has
[2:42:45] become bit busier and busier. And
[2:42:46] especially since they put that
[2:42:48] roundabout in, you go at night or after
[2:42:52] in the afternoon, you can't get through
[2:42:55] there because everybody's coming west.
[2:42:57] And it's the same thing at Amity. It's
[2:42:58] the same thing up at Greenhurst.
[2:43:00] Everybody's coming west. And you sit
[2:43:01] there, you sit there, and you sit there.
[2:43:02] And yes, typically I'm one that's like,
[2:43:04] "Hey, traffic is traffic. We all got to
[2:43:06] deal with it." But you add a truck, a
[2:43:10] 52, 54 foot semi that's sitting in that
[2:43:14] lane to turn left in this because
[2:43:16] there's all this traffic that's headed
[2:43:18] north.
[2:43:20] I That's the You can do your traffic
[2:43:23] impact study, but I've already done one.
[2:43:28] >> I know that's not supposed to play into
[2:43:30] But but it really especially that close
[2:43:33] to the roundabout.
[2:43:35] >> Okay, let me push back on that. I the purpose of the traffic impact study
[2:43:39] would be that we have backing that it's
[2:43:42] got nexus and it's proportional. We
[2:43:44] would we would be able to then establish
[2:43:45] that this property is causing the
[2:43:47] problem, not background traffic. And
[2:43:50] therefore,
[2:43:51] >> I don't I it seems like it protects us,
[2:43:53] >> right? if the traffic impact study was
[2:43:55] done during when the buses are running
[2:43:57] in the morning and when everybody's
[2:43:59] coming home from work. I just I just
[2:44:02] >> it takes the emotion out of it.
[2:44:04] >> And I guess you're I understand that,
[2:44:06] but I think it's kind of pointless. If
[2:44:08] it's one or two trucks a day, I don't
[2:44:09] think it's going to make an impact
[2:44:10] enough that the traffic impact stud is
[2:44:12] going to show anything.
[2:44:13] >> Well, then why should we require them to
[2:44:14] do so?
[2:44:15] >> Exactly.
[2:44:16] But but then my point that if it the use
[2:44:19] were to change from this specific to
[2:44:22] something different
[2:44:24] >> and chairman I may have Daniel come up
[2:44:26] and speak on the traffic effect policy.
[2:44:28] >> So looking at this and the square
[2:44:31] footage and talking to them about the or
[2:44:34] listening to their um employee counts
[2:44:37] and that this is not uh likely to
[2:44:40] trigger the need for a TIS. And so if I would say that if if you are concerned
[2:44:47] about the the turning movements and that
[2:44:52] I would recommend that you just
[2:44:54] recommend that as a condition of
[2:44:55] approval um rather than trying to have
[2:45:00] the expense of a traffic impact study
[2:45:02] that is likely not warranted.
[2:45:05] Chairman, if I may, a cleaner way to if
[2:45:08] that's the route you want to go as a
[2:45:09] condition of approval. Um
[2:45:13] though a DA is not put here in the
[2:45:15] application, this is a recommendation
[2:45:17] that can be included here and then it
[2:45:19] goes up as a package to city council
[2:45:22] that it could be a pretty skinny DA that
[2:45:25] talks about this condition of a traffic
[2:45:26] impact study that that's produced.
[2:45:30] >> So based on the proposed use, is there
[2:45:33] any way that we could limit the amount
[2:45:35] of traffic coming and going from this
[2:45:37] facility?
[2:45:39] I mean that's I know it's
[2:45:40] >> How would you do that?
[2:45:41] >> Well, and I don't know. I mean, that's I have to ask and that's the thing,
[2:45:44] >> right? Because like I said, it's
[2:45:46] proposed that well, it's one truck,
[2:45:47] maybe two a day, but
[2:45:50] >> that's the whole
[2:45:51] >> what if they outgrow and he moves and
[2:45:53] now we have a different company that
[2:45:54] moves in. We got I don't know. I mean,
[2:45:57] I'm playing devil's advocate here, but
[2:45:59] >> being a little
[2:46:01] >> I think we're all here for limited
[2:46:02] government, right? We don't want we
[2:46:04] don't want city people going out there
[2:46:05] counting trucks and then saying
[2:46:06] >> Yeah, exactly.
[2:46:09] You know, I just I'm I'm thinking of up
[2:46:11] on Southside,
[2:46:13] right north or right south of
[2:46:15] Greenhurst, there's a new development
[2:46:18] that went in and they put in a left turn
[2:46:20] lane that's about three and a half ft
[2:46:22] long.
[2:46:23] >> Yeah,
[2:46:24] >> it's four.
[2:46:26] >> And when I saw that go in, I I chuckled
[2:46:28] a little bit. I was like, my gosh,
[2:46:30] there's this is the smallest turn lane
[2:46:32] I've ever seen. But the reason was is
[2:46:34] that there was no other there wasn't
[2:46:36] enough space to put a longer one or
[2:46:38] something like that in. And so that
[2:46:39] that's kind of what I'm looking at is is
[2:46:42] did that require a traffic impact study?
[2:46:44] I don't know. Maybe it did.
[2:46:47] But I you just now you've got these big
[2:46:50] a big truck. Let's just say it's one.
[2:46:53] Again, I know I'm beating this dead
[2:46:55] horse, but that
[2:46:58] a truck heading south, turning right,
[2:47:00] turning left, uh, turning left into that
[2:47:02] property right before that roundabout at
[2:47:05] particular times of the day. I mean, I
[2:47:07] don't I'm not 100% sold on this project
[2:47:10] anyways, but that would sure help me
[2:47:12] move to a
[2:47:15] >> So, this would basically just be I guess
[2:47:18] a DA
[2:47:21] like you said in the skinny
[2:47:23] >> very light skinny, you know, if it was
[2:47:25] an approving motion. Um, you would
[2:47:27] modify that to add a DA in there with
[2:47:30] that condition. It'd be pretty pretty
[2:47:32] basic addition to it. And then council
[2:47:34] would you'd be that' be packaged up and
[2:47:37] given to them to review and they can
[2:47:39] keep it there, strike it, whatever.
[2:47:41] Yeah.
[2:47:41] >> But it needs to be noticed because it's different than what was noticed
[2:47:45] coming into this meeting. It's an
[2:47:46] addition and that'll keep us legally
[2:47:49] compliant and keep this thing moving
[2:47:51] forward.
[2:48:06] Mr. Cherry, any other thoughts or
[2:48:09] discussion before
[2:48:09] >> I like that idea of putting it in the
[2:48:11] >> I just say we throw it out there and
[2:48:14] let the city council
[2:48:17] >> All right. Well, Mr. Chair, if there is
[2:48:19] no other further discussion, I will move
[2:48:21] to recommend approval of the project as
[2:48:23] stated on the screen with the additional
[2:48:25] of a simple DA development agreement
[2:48:30] that would add a truck turn lane into
[2:48:33] the property off of Happy Valley
[2:48:36] >> southbound.
[2:48:37] like one northbound, too. No,
[2:48:40] just southbound.
[2:48:41] >> So, does the DA also lock him into this
[2:48:44] concept
[2:48:45] >> concept of the site plan? sightful.
[2:48:48] >> Yeah.
[2:48:50] And that would be what's already
[2:48:53] >> present
[2:48:53] >> presented. So,
[2:48:57] I'll second that. [clears throat]
[2:48:59] >> It's been moved by Kirkman, seconded by
[2:49:02] Turner to approve the item. Uh, madam
[2:49:05] clerk, can we have a roll call, please?
[2:49:10] » Garner absent. Miller.
[2:49:16] Hi.
[2:49:18] Daffer absent. Turner.
[2:49:20] >> Hi.
[2:49:22] >> Kho.
[2:49:23] >> No.
[2:49:24] >> Morgan.
[2:49:25] >> No.
[2:49:27] >> Kirkman.
[2:49:31] » Yes. Even though I'm hesitating on my
[2:49:33] own motion.
[2:49:35] >> Yes.
[2:49:36] >> Copeland. Absent. Fiend.
[2:49:47] No
[2:49:49] [clears throat] fails.
[2:49:52] >> Thank you. Motion fails.
[2:49:56] » Thank you.
[2:50:01] » We're not done yet.
[2:50:02] >> No, I know. We got to
[2:50:04] >> We got to either figure out how to
[2:50:06] approve this or deny it, but one of the
[2:50:09] >> or recommend. Yeah.
[2:50:14] is I'm not opposed to the annexation and
[2:50:16] zoning to IIL. I'd like them to
[2:50:19] reconfigure the site plan, but I don't
[2:50:21] know how to
[2:50:22] >> I don't think they can with what they're
[2:50:23] trying to do. I don't think they
[2:50:25] >> Well, I think I think it would be
[2:50:27] removal of the existing resident goal. I
[2:50:30] think I they have to get a lot of work
[2:50:32] done.
[2:50:40] So, Mr. Chair, for Commissioner Morgan
[2:50:44] and others, is it is it the is it a
[2:50:46] compatibility?
[2:50:48] >> Yes,
[2:50:50] >> that's what I struggled with also. So,
[2:50:52] it's not the truck turning.
[2:50:55] [laughter]
[2:50:56] >> I don't feel like
[2:50:57] >> a good attempt, but no,
[2:50:59] >> I feel like if we if we were asked being
[2:51:02] asked to change the zoning,
[2:51:04] then it should hit overwhelmingly or
[2:51:08] pretty strong. And there seems to be a
[2:51:11] lot that's kind of in the middle here.
[2:51:14] >> There seems to be more industrial land
[2:51:16] nearby.
[2:51:19] Pick up your pants and move down the
[2:51:21] street.
[2:51:22] >> Well, well, I guess too I I look at it
[2:51:25] this way that you know has been stated
[2:51:28] if this was a residential project, the
[2:51:30] airport would probably be against it
[2:51:35] depending on the size of the residential
[2:51:37] development
[2:51:37] >> and the discussion, you know, the airport,
[2:51:41] we want it to be viable. We want it to
[2:51:43] stay there. It It's great for the city
[2:51:45] of Napa. And if they prefer to have
[2:51:49] industrial around it, so it does protect
[2:51:51] it from the residentials, that's going
[2:51:54] to cause problems, then
[2:51:58] I don't want to see that airport go
[2:52:00] away. I don't want to see the air shows
[2:52:01] go away. And and yeah, if you were to
[2:52:04] turn this into even four houses back
[2:52:08] there, they're only going to be 10 feet
[2:52:09] apart and you're going to have roofs
[2:52:11] like you say that are
[2:52:13] >> they're not going to be 45 ft.
[2:52:15] >> If you're 30 foot to the top sill plate
[2:52:17] and then you put raptors above it.
[2:52:18] >> Nobody that's a threetory building.
[2:52:21] >> Yeah. Nobody
[2:52:22] >> they could but
[2:52:24] >> but even even if you go 20 foot and put
[2:52:26] a a
[2:52:28] >> 12 15 foot raptors, you're going to be
[2:52:30] taller.
[2:52:30] >> 35 ft. You're going to be taller than 13
[2:52:32] and you're only going to have 10 foot
[2:52:33] windows between between structures.
[2:52:36] >> Granted, it's not going to be a big
[2:52:37] wall.
[2:52:38] >> I think it feels different than a big
[2:52:39] two.
[2:52:40] >> It would definitely, but it's you still
[2:52:42] are going to pretty much lose all your
[2:52:44] sight to that direction.
[2:52:48] >> That's why I'm saying I' I'd like to
[2:52:49] zone it to I
[2:52:54] » and there is a lot of coming down Happy
[2:52:57] Valley. So, Happy Valley has definitely
[2:52:59] changed.
[2:53:02] I'm not opposed to that. I I think
[2:53:04] that's the correct
[2:53:06] method for it or the correct
[2:53:09] recommendation for it, but not that lot.
[2:53:12] I think it needs to be moved down the
[2:53:14] road.
[2:53:15] >> Yeah, but this is the property they
[2:53:17] have.
[2:53:17] >> I know.
[2:53:20] >> We've heard that it's going to be that
[2:53:22] the proposed
[2:53:24] five lane for that. We don't know when
[2:53:27] that's going to be.
[2:53:31] So,
[2:53:33] in choosing to pro in choosing to change
[2:53:35] zoning
[2:53:38] with
[2:53:39] if if we had more of a okay, that's a
[2:53:41] five-year plan,
[2:53:46] maybe it makes sense, but with it being
[2:53:50] unknown in the future as of right now,
[2:53:58] is it prudent to chain zoning at this
[2:54:00] time. That that's one thing that we're
[2:54:03] all we're we can always look at when we
[2:54:07] look at annexation.
[2:54:09] Is it appropriate at this time?
[2:54:13] That's part of the latitude as I
[2:54:15] understand that we have. Am I correct
[2:54:17] with that?
[2:54:19] >> Okay.
[2:54:21] >> Yeah. Timing is one of the big things.
[2:54:25] >> Yeah. This is a what you call a
[2:54:27] legislative decision. Uh what that means
[2:54:29] is it's uh pretty wide open on the
[2:54:32] playbook for reasonings for an
[2:54:34] annexation. Uh it's not like a
[2:54:36] conditional use permit where there's
[2:54:38] certain criteria that they meet it or
[2:54:40] they don't. It's and it's looked at more
[2:54:42] scrutin scrutinized. This is timing is
[2:54:45] often an element compatibility. Again,
[2:54:49] you can't go into this abuse of
[2:54:50] discretion arbitrary world. That's not
[2:54:52] allowed. But short of that, um the law
[2:54:56] does give commissions and city councils
[2:54:58] a lot of latitude.
[2:55:00] I mean being often cited among other
[2:55:02] things.
[2:55:20] » I don't think my motion would pass. So
[2:55:32] Um, I move that we approve recommend
[2:55:36] approval of the annexation and zoning to
[2:55:38] an IL zoning district as stated on the
[2:55:42] screen with the condition that the
[2:55:45] um
[2:55:48] that the lot be reconfigured so that the impact to the neighbors is
[2:55:52] minimized.
[2:55:53] the city council can
[2:55:55] interpret that how they will.
[2:55:59] » I like that, but I don't know that ever
[2:56:03] happened that way.
[2:56:05] >> We can do that though.
[2:56:09] >> And if that's the motion again, you'll
[2:56:11] want to package that up in that DA
[2:56:14] version.
[2:56:14] >> Okay. I'll bend my motion to say
[2:56:16] >> Yeah. Amend that.
[2:56:17] >> That would be done through a DA.
[2:56:20] >> That'll be good enough. Yeah.
[2:56:26] With that.
[2:56:31] » Yeah. I got a second.
[2:56:33] >> Okay. It's been moved by Morgan,
[2:56:35] seconded by Kho to approve the item with
[2:56:38] the added DA. We need any clarification.
[2:56:41] Rodney,
[2:56:42] >> can can we just make repeat that motion
[2:56:46] again?
[2:56:46] >> Yeah.
[2:56:47] >> With Okay. move that we um recommend
[2:56:50] approval of annexation and zoning to a
[2:56:52] light industrial zoning district
[2:56:55] with the condition that we add a
[2:56:57] development agreement to
[2:57:00] um
[2:57:02] establish the site plan and a
[2:57:05] recommendation to city council that they
[2:57:12] » consider the impact that consider
[2:57:14] rearranging the site plan to lessen the
[2:57:17] impact on the residential
[2:57:21] >> due to the height of the building.
[2:57:23] >> Due to the due to the bulk of the
[2:57:25] building.
[2:57:25] >> Yeah.
[2:57:29] » Does that work? Right.
[2:57:31] >> That legal that a legal motion.
[2:57:34] >> Yeah. And it may may help to say what
[2:57:36] kind of impact type of visual type of
[2:57:39] traffic noise.
[2:57:40] >> I that my big like the noise I think he
[2:57:42] addressed well. I think it's the bulk of
[2:57:46] the building being at the back of the
[2:57:48] lot and the trucks being between the
[2:57:50] bulk of the building and the residential
[2:57:53] which yeah [snorts]
[2:57:57] I think if those concerns accompany the
[2:58:00] recommendation then
[2:58:02] and I would second it.
[2:58:05] >> Okay. So it's been moved by Commissioner
[2:58:07] Morgan, seconded by Commissioner Kho to
[2:58:09] approve the item, recommend approval for
[2:58:11] the item with the added development
[2:58:15] agreement. Madam clerk, can we have a
[2:58:17] roll call?
[2:58:20] >> Garner absent. Miller
[2:58:23] >> I.
[2:58:26] >> Daffer absent. Turner.
[2:58:28] >> No.
[2:58:30] >> Kho.
[2:58:31] >> Hi.
[2:58:33] >> Morgan.
[2:58:34] >> Yes.
[2:58:36] >> Kirkman.
[2:58:37] >> No.
[2:58:40] >> Copeland. Absent. Fine.
[2:58:45] Yes,
[2:58:50] » thank you. The eyes have it.
[2:58:54] >> Thank you.
[2:59:00] » Okay, we will move into item 3-3,
[2:59:03] conditional use permit for a non.
[2:59:06] >> Mr. Chair, can I make a motion to take a
[2:59:09] fiveminute recess?
[2:59:10] >> Take a fiveminute recess. Yes.
[2:59:12] Absolutely. Please.
[2:59:17] » Yeah, I know. Go ahead.
[3:08:01] Okay, we're going to come back to order,
[3:08:05] get started again.
[3:08:07] So we are looking at uh item 3-3
[3:08:10] [clears throat]
[3:08:10] conditional use permit for a non-kennel
[3:08:13] non-commercial kennel license in an RS
[3:08:15] zoning district addressed as 816 7th
[3:08:19] Avenue South
[3:08:21] for Savannah Sloan is the applicant
[3:08:23] here.
[3:08:38] all of any roofing. So,
[3:08:41] um, my name is Savannah. I live at 816
[3:08:44] 7th Avenue South Nampa.
[3:08:48] Yes. Sorry.
[3:08:50] Okay, there we go.
[3:08:55] Okay. Um, I made a PowerPoint. Um, I'm
[3:08:59] here because I'm trying to keep my seven
[3:09:01] dogs. Um, three of which are little
[3:09:04] chihuahua. They're smaller than cats.
[3:09:06] One is a labradooki. One is a husky mix
[3:09:09] and a pitbull. And then I have a lab
[3:09:11] pointer mix that I've had for several
[3:09:14] years and I love them very much.
[3:09:20] Um, so this just kind of shows um what
[3:09:23] I'm trying to do here. Um, everybody
[3:09:25] spayed and knitted. I don't breed. I
[3:09:28] don't house it for people in my home.
[3:09:31] Um, I'm just trying to keep my own dogs.
[3:09:34] Um, I work really hard to take care of
[3:09:37] them. I keep them as safe as I can. Um,
[3:09:40] and I try to keep them from being in
[3:09:42] anybody's way as much as I can as well.
[3:09:46] Um, so I'm a veterinary technician. Um,
[3:09:49] I have been for over 10 years now. Um,
[3:09:52] part of that is how I've ended up with
[3:09:54] all these babies. Um, most of them are
[3:09:56] rescues. Um, they get advanced medical
[3:09:59] care. They get everything that they
[3:10:01] need. They get regular routine care.
[3:10:03] They're already fully licensed with the
[3:10:05] city. They're up to date on vaccines as
[3:10:07] well. They get um laboratory care. Um
[3:10:11] they're also really good citizens where
[3:10:14] we use them for practice when we're
[3:10:16] needing to practice blood draws or teach
[3:10:18] people. When we were shopping for a new
[3:10:20] ultrasound machine, it was my dogs that
[3:10:21] I would bring in that we could practice
[3:10:23] on. Same with my cats. Um, and then, uh,
[3:10:26] Jimothy is actually large enough to be a
[3:10:28] blood donor dog if that's ever needed as
[3:10:30] well.
[3:10:33] Um, so they have mostly been rescued.
[3:10:37] Um, that's little baby Almost and
[3:10:39] Jimothy next to her. Those were the
[3:10:41] first photos that I saw of them. And,
[3:10:44] um, that's kind of what pushed me to
[3:10:46] save them. They are both off euthanasia
[3:10:48] lists. um almost was never going to make
[3:10:51] it to the adoption floor because she was
[3:10:54] just so ill. Um they just they just
[3:10:57] weren't going to be able there's so many
[3:10:58] healthy dogs. They were both pulled out
[3:11:00] of Texas and then Jimmy was actually in
[3:11:03] a kennel and at the shelter for 6
[3:11:05] months. I pulled him um from being
[3:11:08] euthanized about two hours prior to the
[3:11:10] procedure. Um and then uh Pink, you
[3:11:13] can't see her in this photo, but she's
[3:11:15] my Labradooki. Um, she was going to be
[3:11:18] shot by a farmer down in EMTT who didn't
[3:11:20] believe in taking dogs to shelters
[3:11:22] because he didn't want to pay the uh,
[3:11:24] relinquish fee, but he had too many dogs
[3:11:26] due to accidental litters. And so, he
[3:11:28] was just going to shoot her and put him
[3:11:29] down himself. Um, and then the little
[3:11:32] Chihuahua, those are the only ones that
[3:11:34] didn't come to me as direct rescues. Um,
[3:11:37] except one of them. Um, I had the there
[3:11:40] was an accidental litter and I had that
[3:11:42] person reach out to me directly asking
[3:11:44] if I would take her so that she wouldn't
[3:11:45] end up in a bad situation. So, I did.
[3:11:49] Um, and I take them everywhere with me.
[3:11:52] Um, so I work really hard to keep them
[3:11:55] clean. Um, unfortunately my yard is all
[3:11:58] dirt. Um, it turns out it's actually
[3:11:59] really expensive to put in a lawn. Um,
[3:12:02] and also kind of hard when you have the
[3:12:04] dogs. Um, but they get baths. I'm
[3:12:06] constantly cleaning up after them. Um,
[3:12:09] they're a little naughty and they like
[3:12:11] to counter surf and, you know, tear
[3:12:13] things up, but they're living their best
[3:12:14] lives and, you know, mind over matters.
[3:12:17] So, I love them more than I love things.
[3:12:20] Um, I have a 6ft fence all around my
[3:12:23] yard. Um, so they can't escape. Um, they
[3:12:26] still try and they have, but I stand
[3:12:29] outside with them anytime they're
[3:12:30] outside now. Um, to prevent that from
[3:12:33] happening.
[3:12:36] Um, and then this is a little bit of a
[3:12:38] look into our lives. Um, I'm really
[3:12:39] outdoorsy. I'm constantly hiking,
[3:12:42] camping. I do back country, so even
[3:12:44] though we're on trails, they're not
[3:12:45] running up and harassing other people.
[3:12:47] Where I go is way out in the boondocks.
[3:12:50] Um, so that they can kind of run around,
[3:12:52] play wolf. Um, but they're really
[3:12:55] obviously really well behaved and they
[3:12:56] stay with me. And when we're not out
[3:12:58] hiking, we're I call it the pile and
[3:13:00] we're all cuddled in the pile in bed.
[3:13:02] Um, and that's my very favorite place to
[3:13:04] be.
[3:13:07] Um, this was a link to a video. I don't
[3:13:09] know if it'll actually work. Um, but
[3:13:11] it's just a little video of kind of what
[3:13:13] it looks like into our life. For time's
[3:13:14] sake, I'll just skip it. Um, but there's
[3:13:17] just another photo of us kind of out in
[3:13:18] the snow. We do stuff all year round.
[3:13:21] Um, the Wawaas typically stay home when
[3:13:23] the snow is really deep or really cold,
[3:13:25] but they all have jackets and they all
[3:13:26] have sweaters, including the big dogs,
[3:13:28] so that they're taken care of and warm
[3:13:30] and happy. Um, I actually am high
[3:13:33] functioning autism and ADHD. I routinely
[3:13:36] take medication every single day to make
[3:13:38] life easier for me. Um, I don't need to
[3:13:42] take as much medication when I'm with my
[3:13:44] animals. They help regulate me the way
[3:13:46] that the medication was when I'm does
[3:13:48] when I'm not around them. Um, I also
[3:13:51] have really bad PTSD. Um, I've had a lot
[3:13:54] of struggles in my life. I'm a rape
[3:13:56] survivor. I'm a domestic abuse survivor.
[3:13:59] I am a child abuse survivor and um these
[3:14:03] dogs really helped me to get through it.
[3:14:05] Um I also grew up military and when you
[3:14:07] grow up in that kind of environment, you
[3:14:10] aren't living somewhere long enough to
[3:14:12] build super lasting relationships. And
[3:14:15] so as a child, my lasting relationships
[3:14:19] that I could always count on were worth
[3:14:20] my animals. And that's what part of the
[3:14:22] reason I place so much value in them.
[3:14:26] Um, this just goes on a little bit more
[3:14:28] about what they give me, the dopamine
[3:14:30] regulation. Um, and then they help me so
[3:14:32] I don't have to take every medication
[3:14:34] every day or as much medication every
[3:14:37] day.
[3:14:40] Um, and then this is just a comparison
[3:14:42] of care standards of kind of what they
[3:14:44] get in the shelter and what they get in
[3:14:45] typical households versus what they can
[3:14:47] get with me.
[3:14:49] [snorts]
[3:14:51] Um, and then this just goes over the
[3:14:53] youth in Asia statistics. Um, 5.8
[3:14:56] million animal shelter intakes um,
[3:14:59] happen and that's and I don't want to
[3:15:01] contribute to the homeless animal
[3:15:03] situation. Um, I can't save all of them,
[3:15:06] but I can keep these seven safe and
[3:15:08] loved for the rest of their life. Um,
[3:15:11] out of those 5.8 million, 600,000 are
[3:15:15] euthanized. Um, and that's typically
[3:15:18] younger dogs, there's puppies, there's dogs that are perfectly fine um
[3:15:24] to be adopted that don't get to find
[3:15:26] homes.
[3:15:28] And then this just goes over um if you
[3:15:31] can take some of that and you can say
[3:15:34] some of it's for euthanasia or
[3:15:35] behavioral problems. But as you can see
[3:15:38] the euthanasia rate is still it's only
[3:15:41] 390k to 210k
[3:15:43] um that are euthanized due to behavior
[3:15:46] and medical problems.
[3:15:50] And then there's just extra
[3:15:51] vulnerability for certain breeds like
[3:15:53] pit bulls and huskys. I actually think
[3:15:55] almost is mixed with a pitbull as well.
[3:15:59] And then there's part of a look into the
[3:16:01] pile that just goes over cats a little
[3:16:03] bit. Um my my long-term um goal is to
[3:16:08] move. I'm actually in the process of
[3:16:10] doing that now. I've already spoken to
[3:16:12] my boss for the company that I work for.
[3:16:14] We have locations in Kentucky, um which
[3:16:17] is actually pretty far, but I can't
[3:16:19] afford to move out of city here. I can't
[3:16:22] afford to move to Kentucky and be able
[3:16:25] to afford a property that we can all
[3:16:27] exist happily and peacefully on. Um, I'm
[3:16:30] not just asking for permission from you
[3:16:32] guys to keep my dogs. I'm asking for
[3:16:35] your help to help me keep them so that I
[3:16:37] can move to a better place for us. Thank
[3:16:41] you.
[3:16:42] >> Thank you,
[3:16:43] >> Mr. Chair. Quick question.
[3:16:45] >> Yep.
[3:16:46] >> Uh, how you have seven dogs?
[3:16:48] >> I have seven.
[3:16:49] >> How many cats? There's no regulation on
[3:16:51] how many cats, so I'd rather not discuss
[3:16:53] that.
[3:16:59] » Okay. Yep. Thank you.
[3:17:02] >> Thank you.
[3:17:04] >> Okay. Christie.
[3:17:06] >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
[3:17:08] commissioners. Christy Watkins,
[3:17:09] principal planner for the city of Nampa.
[3:17:12] The request before you tonight is for
[3:17:13] conditional use permit for a
[3:17:15] non-commercial kennel in an RS6 zoning
[3:17:17] district to keep seven dogs.
[3:17:21] The property is located in the RS6 zone
[3:17:23] and it is completely surrounded by RS6
[3:17:25] zoned properties.
[3:17:29] So according to our animal code um
[3:17:32] potbelly pigs and dogs equate to each
[3:17:35] other. So you are allowed to have two
[3:17:37] dogs or two pigs or one dog and one pig
[3:17:41] um in combination. Anything over that
[3:17:45] requires a conditional use permit for a
[3:17:47] non-commercial kennel. I'm I'm sorry.
[3:17:49] Can you go back to that, Mr. Chair? Just
[3:17:53] uh clarification because right there in
[3:17:54] that first sentence it says in which
[3:17:57] more than two dogs and or cats of at
[3:17:59] least six months. That's why I asked the
[3:18:01] question how many cats she's got seven
[3:18:05] dogs. Wouldn't however many cats come
[3:18:08] into play also because there could be
[3:18:10] more than seven.
[3:18:14] » So that's the definition for a
[3:18:15] non-commercial kennel.
[3:18:18] Um,
[3:18:20] we don't regulate the maximum number in
[3:18:23] chapter 21 for cats.
[3:18:28] And in chapter,
[3:18:30] I guess chapter 3, where it says you
[3:18:32] need a conditional use permit for
[3:18:33] anything over that amount, that's what
[3:18:34] they would be asking for. Um, there's a
[3:18:37] number of other animals that are on the
[3:18:39] property as well that don't fall into
[3:18:41] the need for a conditional use permit
[3:18:43] either. It's either allowed or it isn't.
[3:18:46] So I I'm not quite sure how to defend
[3:18:50] that definition with a cat because cats
[3:18:53] are cats are cats
[3:18:55] >> and it's a but and it's very specific
[3:18:57] and or cats or but anyways that that's
[3:19:00] the reason I asked the question because
[3:19:02] >> that is very specific
[3:19:03] >> includes dogs and cats or cats.
[3:19:07] So [clears throat] if she's if if the
[3:19:09] applicant says seven dogs, I mean,
[3:19:12] however many cats, does it bump it up
[3:19:14] even more beyond that?
[3:19:15] >> Not according to the definition in 1021.
[3:19:21] » X 1021 says,
[3:19:25] » it would certainly be more than two.
[3:19:29] >> Okay, thank you.
[3:19:32] >> Um, as you know, there are four criteria
[3:19:34] for conditional use permit that need to
[3:19:36] be met. However, in this case, two of
[3:19:38] those criteria don't really apply to
[3:19:40] this application. So, we're going to be
[3:19:42] focusing on just two of them.
[3:19:46] Um, the only correspondence that we
[3:19:48] received was from the police department.
[3:19:50] Uh, they opposed the issuance of the
[3:19:51] conditional use permit. They have
[3:19:53] responded to her residence in several
[3:19:55] occasions. Most recent was June of this
[3:19:58] year. On this occasion, she was found to
[3:20:00] be in possession of the following list
[3:20:02] of animals. 12 plus cats is what they
[3:20:05] listed in their letter.
[3:20:06] While at the residence, officers found
[3:20:08] the condition of the home and yard to be
[3:20:10] unsatisfactory for the keeping and
[3:20:12] maintenance of animals. Miss Sloan was
[3:20:14] charged with animal cruelty, and this
[3:20:15] case is currently working its way
[3:20:17] through the court process. Over the last
[3:20:19] couple of years, NPA animal control
[3:20:20] officers have had several concert
[3:20:22] conversations with her regarding the
[3:20:24] number of animals that she keeps and the
[3:20:26] various conditions of her property.
[3:20:30] So, the surrounding land uses are
[3:20:32] primary single family residential. The
[3:20:34] lot is an averagesized lot in the RS6
[3:20:36] district. Um they are kept in the
[3:20:39] backyard in a fenced backyard. That is a
[3:20:42] fact. Um according to chapter 21, the
[3:20:46] left chapter or the left column is what
[3:20:49] is allowed by code to be kept. That can
[3:20:52] all be kept together at in one place. Um
[3:20:55] you can see where in some cases those
[3:20:58] numbers are exceeded.
[3:21:02] This is just a snippet of um the
[3:21:04] information that came from animal
[3:21:06] control um with the number of visits
[3:21:08] that they made to the property.
[3:21:13] These are the names of the seven dogs
[3:21:15] that she's asking for today. In July of
[3:21:18] 2022, she was approved for two dogs and
[3:21:21] two pot belly pigs. in April of 2024,
[3:21:24] that conditional use permit was revoked
[3:21:26] due to the numerous calls by uh law law
[3:21:29] enforcement to that property.
[3:21:32] So, while that conditional use permit
[3:21:34] was revoked due to multiple citations,
[3:21:36] this is a new request for seven dogs and
[3:21:39] no pigs.
[3:21:42] The conditional use permit criteria that
[3:21:45] applies is the design, construction,
[3:21:47] operation, and maintenance of the
[3:21:48] property and project will not adversely
[3:21:50] impact the intended character and
[3:21:51] appearance of the general vicinity. It's
[3:21:54] a residential neighborhood. Um she
[3:21:56] stated that she keeps everything clean.
[3:21:59] Um there's minimal noise impact. Um
[3:22:01] secure containment. Um, and then we've
[3:22:05] got the other side of that coin, um,
[3:22:07] from animal control that says due to the
[3:22:09] number and types of animals, there's
[3:22:10] evidence that the state of this property
[3:22:12] is not aligned with the intended
[3:22:13] character of the residential
[3:22:14] neighborhood.
[3:22:17] Um, and then the other one is the
[3:22:18] proposed use will not involve activities
[3:22:21] um that will be determined to be
[3:22:23] detrimental to persons general welfare,
[3:22:26] causing traffic, noise, and odors, that
[3:22:28] kind of thing. Um, again, she had some
[3:22:31] um
[3:22:33] quotes in her narrative where she talks
[3:22:36] through some of the general welfare and
[3:22:38] the noise and the odors and all of those
[3:22:40] things. Um, and I just go back to the
[3:22:44] numerous visits by law enforcement.
[3:22:48] Um, these are the conditions of
[3:22:49] approval. They kind of are the they are
[3:22:52] the same conditions that were approved
[3:22:54] with the last conditional use permit. Um
[3:22:58] and then also you know coming into
[3:23:00] compliance with the number of the other
[3:23:02] animals so that that meets code.
[3:23:05] These are your potential motions. I
[3:23:07] would ask that when you make your motion
[3:23:09] you give a reason for whatever you
[3:23:13] decide. I need you to come to the
[3:23:16] conclusion on this one.
[3:23:19] I'd be happy to answer any questions.
[3:23:21] >> Got a quick question for if I could sir.
[3:23:23] So, if we were to to deny this,
[3:23:28] does she have would she have a certain
[3:23:30] amount of time to remove all the animals
[3:23:33] that are over the limit or is it we just
[3:23:37] going to keep having to keep send animal
[3:23:39] control over there? Um, Commissioner
[3:23:41] Turner, I imagine that animal control
[3:23:43] would do an initial visit and would set
[3:23:45] up a a plan to be rid of them in a
[3:23:49] certain period of time and then they
[3:23:51] would continue to monitor it.
[3:23:53] >> Okay, thank you.
[3:24:01] questions.
[3:24:28] Um, Commissioner Morgan, that definition in chapter 21 is the one
[3:24:34] that causes the conditional use permit
[3:24:36] to be required. And that's where it
[3:24:38] talks about the two pigs or the two
[3:24:40] dogs. And then the chart itself
[3:24:44] lays out how many in total of the other
[3:24:46] types of animals they can have without a
[3:24:49] conditional use permit. So
[3:24:51] >> what we're talking about today,
[3:24:53] >> seven dogs.
[3:24:55] [snorts]
[3:25:02] Yes.
[3:25:13] Madam clerk, do we have a signup sheet?
[3:25:17] Yes. Calling Gilliano's furl.
[3:25:32] If Mr. S uh Spurl is not present, then
[3:25:37] we have no other uh speaker signed up
[3:25:39] for public testimony.
[3:25:41] >> Okay. Uh is there anyone that would like
[3:25:44] to speak for, against, or undecided on
[3:25:46] this specific item?
[3:25:49] >> Go ahead and come on up. Remember to
[3:25:51] give us your name and address for the
[3:25:53] record, please.
[3:25:55] >> Hi. Uh, my name is Jonathan Doppkins.
[3:25:58] Um, I live at 2770 West Tango Creek
[3:26:02] Drive in Meridian, Idaho. Um, but I am a
[3:26:06] friend and a co-orker of Savannah. Um, I
[3:26:10] have known her for about four or five
[3:26:12] years and um, I've gotten to know her
[3:26:15] with and her animals and her dogs. And I
[3:26:19] have not once um thought that they were
[3:26:23] mistreated in any way. And um I have
[3:26:29] been to her house and they have been
[3:26:31] taken care of. They're wellfed. They're
[3:26:33] in healthy condition. Um and so I asked
[3:26:37] that she would be able to keep her dogs.
[3:26:40] Um and this is this permit is only for
[3:26:43] the dogs. So I don't think the other
[3:26:45] animals would be put into the equation.
[3:26:48] Thank you.
[3:26:52] » Anybody else that would like to speak?
[3:26:58] » My name is Del Oram and I live at 51
[3:27:00] East Blue Heron Lane in Meridian, Idaho.
[3:27:03] Um, I've known Savannah for the past
[3:27:04] three years and she's not only become
[3:27:06] like my best friend, but a sister that I
[3:27:07] didn't have. And the dogs in her are I
[3:27:10] can't imagine her without her dogs. Like
[3:27:12] that is her family. That is her life.
[3:27:13] Um, and they're the things that keep her
[3:27:16] stable. like when she calls me and she's
[3:27:17] having a bad day, she's I know that
[3:27:19] she's in a pile with the animals. Um to
[3:27:22] say that they're like, you know, not
[3:27:23] being taken care of to say that they're
[3:27:24] abused is I think it's a grievous in a
[3:27:27] statement. I think that it it really
[3:27:29] hurts my soul to see the people to know
[3:27:30] that she has people in her quarter that
[3:27:32] support her. We've got lists of over
[3:27:34] like 15 plus letters of recommendation.
[3:27:40] Yeah, that um that just I think I just
[3:27:44] think if you take it away from her like
[3:27:45] I think that it just be be really
[3:27:46] detrimental to her and then to me and I
[3:27:49] don't want to lose my best friend
[3:27:50] because you know stuff we are planning
[3:27:52] to leave here we don't want to be a a
[3:27:55] pain to anybody but um if you want to
[3:27:57] know what real animal abuse looks like
[3:27:58] I'm work the same profession um I have
[3:28:01] seen things that I don't want to speak
[3:28:02] about and this is not abuse um and this
[3:28:06] is they're well cared for um and she
[3:28:09] would not be she would not take these
[3:28:10] animals on if she could not care for
[3:28:12] them
[3:28:14] can take that in consideration.
[3:28:17] >> Thank you.
[3:28:20] Anybody else?
[3:28:27] » Name is Sloan. Do you have anything to
[3:28:28] add? Yep. Go ahead and come back up.
[3:28:32] Yep. Go ahead, please.
[3:28:45] of time before. Um, but all of these
[3:28:48] binders are medical records.
[3:28:51] It's all their blood work and then it's
[3:28:53] letters of character from people
[3:28:56] and then it's not a secret to the four
[3:28:59] of us that we know who's reporting me
[3:29:01] and it's it's not from the neighborhood.
[3:29:04] It's it's a co it's co-workers, which is
[3:29:06] another reason that we're leaving. I've
[3:29:08] also had footprints that have they've
[3:29:10] seen outside my house in my yard that
[3:29:12] aren't mine in the snow. I don't feel
[3:29:14] safe at home. I don't feel safe at work.
[3:29:16] My animals make me feel safe. It's
[3:29:17] another reason I'm trying to move. I
[3:29:19] just want to move. I just want to keep
[3:29:21] my animals and move. That's all I want
[3:29:23] to do. I just want to leave. I've done
[3:29:26] the I bought my house when I was 24. It
[3:29:29] was a fixer upper. It's still a fixer
[3:29:32] upper. When I was 24, I was sleeping on
[3:29:35] my friend's couch. I didn't have a home.
[3:29:37] And I went from that to having a home
[3:29:39] that I thought I could live happily with
[3:29:41] and just have my animals, have my old
[3:29:42] lady dreams, my Disney princess life. I
[3:29:46] don't have internet. I don't watch TV. I
[3:29:48] don't have TV at my house. It's my
[3:29:50] animals. I go home and I'll just play
[3:29:53] with them and stare at them and hiking
[3:29:55] and camping. Like, that's my life.
[3:29:57] That's what we do. I know it's different
[3:29:59] from other people's hobbies, but I'm
[3:30:01] different and I'm really tired of having
[3:30:03] to take medication every day to fit in
[3:30:05] better and I have to do that to feel
[3:30:07] safe at my own home. It's not right. And
[3:30:11] here I am, you know, six, seven years
[3:30:13] later and my house is still a fixer
[3:30:14] upper because
[3:30:16] I don't have the funds to do all that. I
[3:30:19] [snorts] don't I don't especially now
[3:30:21] with how prices have gone up. I wouldn't
[3:30:23] have been able to afford my house as a
[3:30:24] 24 year old if I didn't buy it right in
[3:30:26] 2019 before I before the prices went out
[3:30:29] above and beyond. And that's why I can't
[3:30:31] afford to move out of the city here.
[3:30:33] That's why I have to move out of state.
[3:30:35] When I was 24, I didn't know to look at
[3:30:37] city ordinances. I knew not to live in
[3:30:39] an HOA,
[3:30:41] but I didn't think about city
[3:30:43] ordinances. And I wish that I knew what
[3:30:46] I know now because I would never have
[3:30:48] bought that house. I resent it. I don't
[3:30:51] want to be there anymore. I just want
[3:30:55] permission to exist there until I can
[3:30:57] leave, which is what I'm trying to do.
[3:30:59] It's probably going to be at least
[3:31:00] within the next year. And I did look at
[3:31:03] the ordinances in Kentucky. And it
[3:31:04] doesn't matter if you live in city or
[3:31:05] outside of city. You can have as many
[3:31:07] cats and dogs as you want. I learned
[3:31:09] I've learned.
[3:31:11] So, if you guys want to review medical
[3:31:13] records and review letters, you're
[3:31:15] welcome to. It's an open book. Um I've
[3:31:18] had trouble with the law enforcement. I
[3:31:20] know it doesn't look good and I'm really
[3:31:21] tired of being painted as this horrible
[3:31:23] picture through animal control. My house
[3:31:25] wasn't nice when I bought it. It's not
[3:31:27] because my animals. It's it's just it's
[3:31:30] it smelled bad when I bought it. It
[3:31:32] looked bad when I bought it. It was what
[3:31:34] a 24 year old could afford all on her
[3:31:36] own. And I worked really hard and I was
[3:31:38] really proud of my house until now.
[3:31:43] Okay.
[3:31:46] >> You have questions for
[3:31:48] Guess
[3:31:54] that's all. Thank you.
[3:32:02] » I do have a question. I'm sorry.
[3:32:04] >> Miss Sloan, if you don't mind.
[3:32:12] Um, would you mind speaking to what the current charges and situation in the
[3:32:18] court is just so we have a better idea?
[3:32:20] >> Yeah, absolutely. And I actually I
[3:32:22] didn't bring my phone, but I also was
[3:32:23] just texting with my lawyer yesterday to
[3:32:25] see if there was an update too that I'd
[3:32:26] be happy to share. Um, so when they came
[3:32:28] to my house, um, it was for a welfare
[3:32:31] check on my dogs again and, um, they had
[3:32:35] found Thank you. Um, and they found that
[3:32:38] I had 24 chickens. However, I had they
[3:32:42] were all less than six months old except
[3:32:43] like five because people get chickens.
[3:32:45] You grow them out, you see what's a
[3:32:47] rooster, you see what's not, you keep
[3:32:48] what you want, and you don't you don't
[3:32:50] keep the others. Other people are
[3:32:51] allowed to do that. Um, other people in
[3:32:54] my neighborhood do have roosters, but
[3:32:55] they they um took all my they took all
[3:32:59] my chickens that day. Um, I also had two
[3:33:02] mini ponies in my backyard, which I've
[3:33:04] had there for several years. Um, and
[3:33:06] they told me that I just had to move
[3:33:08] them. So, I moved them. They're
[3:33:10] outboarding with my large horse now. So,
[3:33:12] I moved them. That's fine. They
[3:33:15] confiscated the chickens, which Adele
[3:33:17] went and picked up the very next day cuz
[3:33:20] we were told that if they were picked up
[3:33:22] and just relocated by somebody who
[3:33:24] wasn't me, then there wouldn't be any
[3:33:27] charges. Um, but then, uh, the shelter
[3:33:30] hadn't finished processing them. Um, and
[3:33:34] so Adele had to pick him up the next day
[3:33:36] in which they charged her $700 to bail
[3:33:39] them out of chicken jail. Um, and we
[3:33:41] were not told of those fees. Um, but
[3:33:44] they basically when I asked why they I
[3:33:46] was being charged with cruelty because
[3:33:48] I'm not cruel to the animals. I'm not cruel to them. I even have
[3:33:51] medical records on my chickens of when I
[3:33:53] took them to surgery and um but um I
[3:33:58] asked why I was being charged with
[3:33:59] cruelty and they said it was just the
[3:34:01] category that it falls under and they're
[3:34:03] trying to charge me each for cruelty for
[3:34:05] each individual chicken. So like 24
[3:34:07] counts of cruelty towards each chicken
[3:34:10] and two counts of cruelty towards my
[3:34:11] ponies. And it's very contradicting
[3:34:14] because if the animals safety and I was
[3:34:16] cruel to them was really what they were
[3:34:19] worried about, then why were we allowed
[3:34:21] to get them to get them back so I could
[3:34:23] still have access to them? Why were my
[3:34:25] dogs left at my house if I was being
[3:34:27] cruel to animals? Why were the cats left
[3:34:28] at my house? Why? It's very
[3:34:31] contradicting. Um, and the update that
[3:34:33] my lawyer gave me yesterday was
[3:34:37] um let me scroll down and find it here.
[3:34:45] Um because I did ask him for advice
[3:34:47] about coming here too because I don't
[3:34:49] know if I could afford a lawyer he'd be
[3:34:51] up here with me right now. Um but he
[3:34:53] said where zoning is a civil issue. It
[3:34:55] is outside the scope of my appointment
[3:34:57] and I'm afraid I have a full calendar of
[3:34:59] cases tomorrow. So he wasn't able to
[3:35:01] make it tonight. He says I don't have
[3:35:03] [clears throat] any updates on your case
[3:35:05] currently. The prosecutor handling the
[3:35:06] matter has been away dealing with family
[3:35:09] stuff. I currently have nine other cases
[3:35:11] set for jury trial on the same day or
[3:35:14] prior to your case. I'm hoping the log
[3:35:16] jam of cases work in your favor to
[3:35:18] encourage the prosecutor to dismiss your
[3:35:20] case or maybe at least reduce it from a
[3:35:23] misdemeanor to an infraction. You know,
[3:35:25] because he has actual crimes to be
[3:35:27] concerned with.
[3:35:29] That was his exact quote.
[3:35:41] Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to close
[3:35:42] the public hearing.
[3:35:44] >> Second.
[3:35:45] >> Then moved by Turner, seconded by Kho to
[3:35:48] close the public hearing. All those in
[3:35:49] favor?
[3:35:50] >> I.
[3:35:50] >> Any opposed?
[3:35:53] >> Closed.
[3:35:55] [clears throat]
[3:36:04] What?
[3:36:06] I have some real concerns. We we granted
[3:36:09] her one in July of 2022 and within two
[3:36:11] years she she'd gone way over what was
[3:36:15] allowed with the two potbelly pigs and
[3:36:18] the two dogs at the time where she had
[3:36:22] what horses and goats and wasn't even
[3:36:26] two years and it was revoked.
[3:36:29] I
[3:36:32] countless
[3:36:34] calls to even three calls from her to
[3:36:38] that she had report a lost dog. So
[3:36:43] I I have serious concerns with extending
[3:36:46] this and giving her another chance to
[3:36:48] have seven dogs because if history
[3:36:52] repeats itself, which it usually does,
[3:36:54] the seven dogs are going to turn into
[3:36:57] who knows what else. And
[3:37:01] I I mean at the one time she had
[3:37:07] 46
[3:37:09] animals. I know farms that don't have 46
[3:37:12] animals. [laughter]
[3:37:15] So So uh I I am not for giving
[3:37:22] CU for this.
[3:37:28] I have to agree. I don't know how many
[3:37:31] chances you can get in life, but uh
[3:37:32] she's had a lot more chances to get get
[3:37:34] her act together than I've ever had in
[3:37:36] my life.
[3:37:38] Can't get together now. Hasn't been able
[3:37:41] to in the past. I can't see that she can
[3:37:43] in the future either.
[3:37:45] Probably disregards
[3:37:50] claims that she doesn't know what they
[3:37:52] are, which that's not excusable to me.
[3:37:56] Think about the police department and
[3:37:57] the dollars that they spend
[3:38:00] trying to address just her issue. It's
[3:38:04] expense to the city that we don't need
[3:38:05] to have.
[3:38:09] All right.
[3:38:13] Chairman, if I may, while we're in
[3:38:14] deliberation stage, um as deliberations
[3:38:18] are happening, there's a box here on the
[3:38:19] right that has the two there's
[3:38:21] technically four criteria, but these are
[3:38:23] the two that are gerine to this. the
[3:38:25] other two really don't apply.
[3:38:28] As you make your comments, can you speak
[3:38:30] commissioners to those points of where
[3:38:33] it fits into it? Where this is a quasi
[3:38:36] judicial decision, you got to fit it
[3:38:39] squarely and tightly within those. So,
[3:38:41] as you continue the deliberation, do
[3:38:43] that. Thank you.
[3:38:44] >> Thank you.
[3:38:45] >> Yeah, Mr. Chair. In fact, that's exactly
[3:38:47] what I was just looking at here is the I do not believe that the number of dogs
[3:38:52] and the request at the CUP fits the
[3:38:54] nature of where this location is, where
[3:38:58] the house is in the neighborhood. It's
[3:39:00] not com, you know, it's I think it's
[3:39:02] detrimental to the neighbors, the
[3:39:05] general welfare, not to mention the tra
[3:39:08] traffic. We mention traffic all the
[3:39:10] time. That's why
[3:39:12] [clears throat and laughter]
[3:39:14] not to mention the noise and the odor
[3:39:16] from Seven Dogs um and whatever else
[3:39:20] might be there in the home. Um I just
[3:39:22] don't think that there's I'm not
[3:39:25] convinced that the property is um
[3:39:29] equipped well enough to handle seven
[3:39:32] dogs.
[3:39:34] And it's evident from encounters with
[3:39:37] law enforcement that that has been the
[3:39:39] case. So that's why I am inclined to uh
[3:39:44] deny this.
[3:40:02] I haven't lived as long as Steve has,
[3:40:04] but I've been given more second chances
[3:40:06] than that.
[3:40:08] Um,
[3:40:12] a lot of times on these cups we
[3:40:18] almost better to have them than not
[3:40:20] because then we have some leverage and there's there's motivation for her
[3:40:25] to follow the rules when we have the
[3:40:28] conditional use permit.
[3:40:30] Um,
[3:40:37] I don't know if I have many thoughts
[3:40:38] beyond that, but
[3:40:41] >> I've got a question. So, if we were to
[3:40:44] issue a CUP in this situation,
[3:40:48] um, and let's just say somebody from
[3:40:50] Boyisey called and made a complaint.
[3:40:53] They know her, they don't like her for
[3:40:55] whatever reason, they're not a direct
[3:40:58] neighbor.
[3:40:59] Is that a valid complaint?
[3:41:06] Um, I'm I'm hoping we can look up that
[3:41:09] language in code. I I'll do that in just
[3:41:11] a second here. I think um I think it
[3:41:15] relates to a neighbor within a certain
[3:41:17] distance if if I remember right. So, let
[3:41:21] me let me take a look at that code. If
[3:41:23] there were two complaints from
[3:41:26] neighbors,
[3:41:27] if you issue the cup and the cup is to
[3:41:30] be revoked, I think it has to be two
[3:41:32] neighbors within a certain distance that
[3:41:36] uh complaint. So I if you got that
[3:41:39] >> commissioner or may or chairman, um I
[3:41:42] believe the language is in 102512 on
[3:41:44] revocation. says, "Any citizen complaint
[3:41:47] or city citation related to
[3:41:49] non-compliance with the conditions of
[3:41:50] the CUP shall be investigated by city
[3:41:53] staff."
[3:41:54] Um, again, I don't see any other as I'm
[3:41:58] scanning through it, it appears that
[3:41:59] it's going to be just for citizen
[3:42:00] complaints or city citation.
[3:42:03] And, you know, understanding is a lot of
[3:42:05] these are complaint driven and so they
[3:42:07] kind of come case by case analysis. And
[3:42:11] so, but somebody who's totally remotely,
[3:42:14] you know, from the situation, that's
[3:42:17] going to be a case by case analysis. So,
[3:42:19] >> the planning department has to
[3:42:21] substantiate it, act on it, right?
[3:42:23] >> Uh, I believe so. Yes. It's here
[3:42:25] investigated by city staff and it's in
[3:42:27] title 10 of your code.
[3:42:28] >> Rodney has to do it himself. Um,
[3:42:30] [laughter]
[3:42:31] but I I would I would imagine that the
[3:42:33] intent of the word citizen in there is a
[3:42:35] citizen of
[3:42:37] this jurisdiction. Yeah, that's only
[3:42:40] reasonable interpretation to it. Yeah.
[3:42:46] » Yeah. And the only last thing I would
[3:42:48] add to that is just that um we were just
[3:42:50] looking at the code. It also says found
[3:42:53] to be credible. So yeah, I would have to
[3:42:55] go out, visit it, visit the site, see if
[3:42:58] it's credible, what the complaint is
[3:43:00] about. And it's up a little bit of notch
[3:43:04] as you stated here, a notch up for um
[3:43:08] those who can make that complaint
[3:43:10] against a cup versus just an average
[3:43:14] code compliance issue, anybody could
[3:43:16] call in, right? They could be in Boisey
[3:43:18] and call that in. But for a cup to be
[3:43:20] revoked, it has to come from citizens.
[3:43:25] Rody, along that same line, um
[3:43:29] the police department, they're citizens
[3:43:31] of Nampa. Would that count as a citizen
[3:43:33] or does that count as an official duty
[3:43:35] or a citation?
[3:43:39] » Mr. Chair and commissioners, there's
[3:43:41] also discretion given to us. if there is
[3:43:45] a agency um uh complaint or concern from
[3:43:50] the animal control or whatever, we can
[3:43:53] go out and visit and make that
[3:43:55] determination.
[3:43:56] I typically don't do that unless I get a
[3:43:59] notice from somebody. I I wouldn't just
[3:44:02] go out and visit a a cup issued location
[3:44:07] unless we had the two complaints from
[3:44:09] neighbors or I had um an a staff member
[3:44:14] of the city notifying me there was a
[3:44:16] problem and then I would go out and
[3:44:17] visit.
[3:44:26] Is it possible to put limitation time
[3:44:29] restrictions on a cup?
[3:44:34] » Mr. Chair and commissioners, yes. Um, we
[3:44:36] have done that in the past and we've
[3:44:39] said you can you can have this for a
[3:44:42] certain amount of time and you by this
[3:44:43] date you have to do these things. Um,
[3:44:46] we've done that put conditions but again
[3:44:49] it's the Nolan Dolan Nexus and
[3:44:52] proportionality rule. uh you just need
[3:44:54] to be um it has to relate directly to
[3:44:57] what's being requested
[3:45:02] but you can't make excuse me you can't
[3:45:03] make a condition
[3:45:11] what I'm trying to say but I can't say
[3:45:12] it um
[3:45:16] one of the conditions that that you say
[3:45:19] your time limit is like he's talking
[3:45:20] about you can't say well by January 25th
[3:45:23] that you have to have no compliance
[3:45:26] issues. Every time you have a compliance
[3:45:28] [snorts] issue, that's another another
[3:45:30] citation.
[3:45:34] » You don't you don't give
[3:45:36] >> I think you say
[3:45:37] >> I think I she's trying to move and so
[3:45:40] >> but she
[3:45:42] >> if if we put a time condition on that
[3:45:45] and say okay conditional you use permit
[3:45:49] >> how long you going to get her to move?
[3:45:50] Well, I think I think that's the that's
[3:45:52] the whole point of the conversation is is it six months? Is it a year? And
[3:45:55] then if that time runs out, then she
[3:45:57] would have to come back before us and
[3:45:58] ask
[3:46:00] >> what's to keep her from [clears throat]
[3:46:04] trying for a year and have five
[3:46:06] complaints and then come back next and
[3:46:07] do four complaints and come back five
[3:46:10] more complaints.
[3:46:12] >> Assumptions.
[3:46:13] >> Yeah. And if there are complaints there,
[3:46:14] that is that gives grounds for
[3:46:16] revocation of a of a of the permit.
[3:46:20] Correct.
[3:46:22] >> Yeah.
[3:46:24] I care for her neighbors and I care for
[3:46:25] the city itself. We have laws. We have
[3:46:29] [cough] regulations. We should comply
[3:46:31] with them. If the police department goes
[3:46:33] out there as many times as it has, that
[3:46:35] sufficient for me.
[3:46:44] I guess if that's still out there, um,
[3:46:47] police will investigate for kind of code
[3:46:49] compliance, maybe criminal liability,
[3:46:52] whereas here, this is a, um, land use
[3:46:56] investigation. So Rodney's and his team
[3:46:59] would conduct their own investigation on
[3:47:01] that. And so there would be a different
[3:47:03] investigation when it comes to the cup.
[3:47:04] Think of that as its own little box of
[3:47:06] rules that's governed and administered
[3:47:08] and enforced by a planning and zoning
[3:47:10] department. PD, they still can do as
[3:47:12] they need per calls. There's nothing
[3:47:14] that stops them from that. And the
[3:47:16] conditions you put on here, I mean, it's
[3:47:18] implied in the name. This is a
[3:47:19] conditional use permit. Um, put the
[3:47:22] conditions on that would um meet the
[3:47:27] criteria of our code that's up on your
[3:47:28] screen in the box. And it can be a time
[3:47:31] and it doesn't have to be to the
[3:47:32] property, right? It can be for time and
[3:47:34] limited to the occupant owner as long as
[3:47:37] they're there for a certain period of
[3:47:38] time.
[3:47:54] I understand concerns about
[3:47:57] prior.
[3:47:59] I've also had many second chances in my
[3:48:01] life, too. So,
[3:48:06] I don't know. I think like I've said
[3:48:08] before
[3:48:10] issue you have more control.
[3:48:14] I don't know. Two point
[3:48:54] You done just a good job.
[3:48:57] [clears throat] You've been on point.
[3:49:06] Well, if there's no more discussions or
[3:49:09] anything, I'll make a motion to approve
[3:49:13] the permit as stated on the screen with
[3:49:16] the conditions
[3:49:18] for my um reasons being
[3:49:25] a a time limit
[3:49:27] on the on the permit.
[3:49:33] with with a time limit of one year
[3:49:39] » to the occupant only, not to the
[3:49:42] property.
[3:49:45] >> What I'm hearing you say is to the
[3:49:47] earlier of um occupant no longer owning
[3:49:50] the property or one year, whatever comes
[3:49:53] earlier.
[3:49:53] >> Correct.
[3:49:54] >> Okay.
[3:49:57] » Mr. Chair, I I believe we still need
[3:49:59] some uh reasoning too because how does
[3:50:04] it meet the criteria? [snorts] I think
[3:50:06] we just need a little more clarity
[3:50:08] there.
[3:50:10] If you want to add some analysis or
[3:50:13] reasons based off those two in the box,
[3:50:15] that'd be needed here.
[3:50:20] » I know there's a motion on the table.
[3:50:22] Can we discuss
[3:50:25] a second?
[3:50:26] >> Absolutely. discuss.
[3:50:29] >> I'll hold it. I I don't know if the
[3:50:31] applicant would even be amendable to
[3:50:33] this, but I I wonder if we could
[3:50:35] include, you know, she's already gotten
[3:50:37] rid of the chickens and the ponies, and
[3:50:39] I think that's a good thing if we could
[3:50:40] just enshrine that in the conditions,
[3:50:42] too. That would make
[3:50:45] better
[3:50:47] is that that's kosher, right?
[3:50:50] >> Yeah. If you want
[3:50:51] >> if you want to have them amend the
[3:50:52] motion to include that. Yeah. Um, and
[3:50:56] yes, that would be permitted. Um, it's
[3:50:58] not uncommon we'll see, hey, by a
[3:51:00] certain time you have to be in
[3:51:01] compliance, um, and have certain changes
[3:51:04] happen, whether removed or added to your
[3:51:06] situation. If you fail to do that, then
[3:51:08] the whole thing crumbles, right? Then
[3:51:10] it's revoked. It's almost like an
[3:51:11] automatic revocation.
[3:51:19] I might do two years.
[3:51:24] But those are only suggestions you do.
[3:51:36] I'm looking at the top one and it says
[3:51:39] that the design, construction,
[3:51:40] operation, maintenance of the property
[3:51:42] and project will not adversely impact
[3:51:44] the intended character and appearance of
[3:51:46] the general vicinity.
[3:51:49] They're not necessarily new animals.
[3:51:52] This has been like this.
[3:51:55] I don't see anybody here from the
[3:51:57] neighborhood complaining about it
[3:52:00] changing the neighborhood.
[3:52:04] And if it did adversely affect the
[3:52:06] neighborhood, I would expect someone
[3:52:08] from the neighborhood to be here saying
[3:52:10] so. So, I don't live in that
[3:52:12] neighborhood, so I can't I'm not going
[3:52:14] to speak whether it does or not.
[3:52:17] andows
[3:52:23] us to have these conditions that would
[3:52:42] discuss this. I would I'm okay with
[3:52:44] adding some conditions
[3:52:47] If those are very specific, very
[3:52:49] specific time frame, very specific
[3:52:52] number of dogs and no other animals and
[3:52:57] you know that would be an automatic
[3:52:59] violation or revocation.
[3:53:02] That's what I would be able to.
[3:53:05] I want her to have her dogs, but I don't
[3:53:07] want her to have 17 27 chickens and 14
[3:53:11] cows and all that other kind of stuff at
[3:53:13] our property either because that
[3:53:14] definitely isn't
[3:53:17] the nature of where this location is.
[3:53:22] So, if there are very specific
[3:53:23] conditions in the
[3:53:31] » This might be a lengthy motion then.
[3:53:34] >> [laughter]
[3:53:35] >> Uh so I'll I'll make a motion move to
[3:53:39] approve the conditional use permit
[3:53:42] based on
[3:53:45] 25482
[3:53:48] the lack of
[3:53:51] um neighborhood opposition.
[3:53:55] I will put the conditions on there of
[3:53:59] one year
[3:54:01] either occupant
[3:54:04] or sells
[3:54:07] property
[3:54:09] with the condition of just the dogs
[3:54:14] given the prior
[3:54:16] am
[3:54:20] because of the past amount of other
[3:54:24] animals and other issues that have been
[3:54:27] with Does
[3:54:34] » that work Preston?
[3:54:37] >> I think so. Um maybe one cleanup or
[3:54:41] clarification on the ownership piece. It
[3:54:43] could be if you're again it'll be you to
[3:54:46] propose the amendment, not me. But um
[3:54:50] you know if ownership changes or
[3:54:52] occupant no longer uh or ceases to you
[3:54:56] know reside there that way they move
[3:55:00] sell whatever abandon it it's gone right
[3:55:04] or and then the in the fall fall back
[3:55:06] over this is a hard oneear back stop.
[3:55:11] Can I ask a clarification?
[3:55:14] We said seven dogs, specifically seven
[3:55:16] dogs,
[3:55:18] but what if what about cats? There's
[3:55:22] certainly some additional
[3:55:24] some cats there, too. I don't know how
[3:55:26] many there might or is that included in
[3:55:29] this motion or
[3:55:31] >> seven?
[3:55:32] >> Just seven dogs.
[3:55:33] >> Just to reiterate on the motion, it's
[3:55:36] for seven dogs
[3:55:37] >> because that's what we're talking about.
[3:55:39] and these seven dogs
[3:55:41] >> and these these particular seven dogs
[3:55:43] that have been listed and named in the
[3:55:46] staff report that was
[3:55:48] >> Yeah, I I think you've nailed it. I I
[3:55:51] the request today is not for anything
[3:55:54] but the dogs. So, we have to address
[3:55:57] that.
[3:55:58] >> Yes.
[3:56:02] » Okay. So, the motion's good.
[3:56:04] >> I think so.
[3:56:05] >> We don't need to redo it.
[3:56:06] >> Motion's good. The record's caught it.
[3:56:07] So, yeah.
[3:56:10] a second.
[3:56:10] >> We have a second.
[3:56:13] >> Um
[3:56:14] I I would second I'm a little nervous
[3:56:17] about the one-year timeline. It seems
[3:56:19] optimistic.
[3:56:20] >> And do we want her to have to come back
[3:56:22] every year, pay the fee every year, come
[3:56:25] back and do this permit?
[3:56:28] >> Sounds like you I've already mentioned
[3:56:30] two years.
[3:56:31] >> I mentioned two years. You stuck with
[3:56:33] one year. I if you want to stick with
[3:56:35] one year, that's fine. But that would be
[3:56:36] my suggestion. Then we'll go 18 months.
[3:56:39] How's that? [laughter]
[3:56:42] » It gives her I mean she's she wants to
[3:56:44] be out in a year.
[3:56:46] >> Yes.
[3:56:46] >> Years have been done.
[3:56:47] >> Correct.
[3:56:48] >> And I I just don't want to burden her or
[3:56:50] the planning staff with having to come
[3:56:52] back more than is necessary.
[3:56:58] » Mr. Chair. So the motion
[3:57:01] >> are you amending it?
[3:57:02] >> Motion's amended. And for the second
[3:57:05] >> and I'll just go with Commissioner
[3:57:06] Morgan for two years.
[3:57:10] » I have a second.
[3:57:11] >> Second.
[3:57:12] >> I has been moved by Commissioner Fiend,
[3:57:15] second by Commissioner Morgan to approve
[3:57:18] this item.
[3:57:21] >> Yeah. Can Can you restate the motion?
[3:57:24] [laughter]
[3:57:25] Just so that I'm clear. I think things
[3:57:27] have changed a little bit. Mr. Chair, if
[3:57:29] you could could you read it? Yeah. What
[3:57:30] do you got over there?
[3:57:31] >> Clerk can read it. I I'm pretty sure
[3:57:33] that I have it, but
[3:57:35] >> think I've got it.
[3:57:36] >> Okay,
[3:57:36] >> I'm looking at the clip.
[3:57:37] >> I have been
[3:57:38] >> Christiey's got it right there in her
[3:57:39] notes,
[3:57:40] >> writing seriously.
[3:57:42] >> Okay. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman and
[3:57:44] commissioners. Um, for approval,
[3:57:49] » because of 4 A2, the property has been
[3:57:53] in this condition for some time. There
[3:57:56] are no neighbors in attendance to
[3:57:57] testify that it adversely impacts the
[3:58:00] character and appearance of the general
[3:58:01] vicinity. With the conditions of
[3:58:04] approval that there is a time limit of
[3:58:06] two years for the occupant only or as
[3:58:10] long as the occupant or until the
[3:58:12] occupant no longer resides at the
[3:58:13] property for just these seven dogs and
[3:58:17] not the other animals due to the
[3:58:18] previous citations
[3:58:20] that were listed by animal control.
[3:58:23] So, it's two years or before she moves,
[3:58:26] whichever comes first.
[3:58:27] >> Yep. Yeah.
[3:58:27] >> Two years or she no longer resides at
[3:58:29] the property. Whichever comes first.
[3:58:33] >> That is my motion.
[3:58:36] » Okay. Madam Cler, can we have a roll
[3:58:38] call?
[3:58:42] » Garner absent. Miller,
[3:58:45] >> hi.
[3:58:47] >> Daffer absent.
[3:58:49] Turner.
[3:58:50] >> Nay. [clears throat]
[3:58:52] >> Kho,
[3:58:53] >> no.
[3:58:55] >> Morgan,
[3:58:56] >> yes.
[3:58:58] >> Kirkman,
[3:58:59] >> no.
[3:59:01] >> Copeland, absent. Fine.
[3:59:04] >> Yes.
[3:59:09] » We're at 33. Motion failed.
[3:59:28] situation.
[3:59:32] » I will make a motion that we deny the
[3:59:34] conditional use permit for a
[3:59:36] non-commercial kennel license for seven
[3:59:37] dogs in NRS6 single family residential
[3:59:41] zoning district.
[3:59:43] The reason is because this fails to
[3:59:45] comply with
[3:59:48] 41025
[3:59:50] 4.8.2.
[3:59:52] I know that there's nobody here from
[3:59:54] that is that has been here to testify in
[3:59:57] opposition, but there's plenty of police
[3:59:59] reports that have specifically said this
[4:00:04] is not conducive to this environment, to
[4:00:08] this neighborhood. And there's been
[4:00:10] noise complaints that have there's been
[4:00:13] written
[4:00:14] documentation from animal control about
[4:00:18] the concerns of what the property how
[4:00:20] the the state of the property and how
[4:00:22] the the dogs were taken care of and and
[4:00:25] so that's why I think that in the big
[4:00:31] picture that this fails to comply and
[4:00:34] that's why I make this motion to deny.
[4:00:37] >> Second it.
[4:00:38] It's been moved by Kirkman, second by
[4:00:40] Turner to deny.
[4:00:43] Madam clerk, can we have a roll call?
[4:00:47] >> Garner absent. Miller,
[4:00:49] >> no.
[4:00:52] >> Daffer absent. Turner.
[4:00:54] >> Hi.
[4:00:57] >> Kho.
[4:00:58] >> I
[4:01:01] >> Morgan.
[4:01:02] >> No.
[4:01:04] >> Kirkman.
[4:01:05] >> Hi.
[4:01:08] and Fi
[4:01:09] >> no
[4:01:11] >> and Copeland absent
[4:01:15] [clears throat]
[4:01:15] >> three three motion fails
[4:01:17] >> but people need to show up for these
[4:01:19] hearings
[4:01:26] » I mean to those voting to deny are there
[4:01:29] any conditions that would get you to
[4:01:31] vote for approval
[4:01:35] » I'm not going to say there's not because
[4:01:37] I always think there's I always think
[4:01:40] that there there is we just need to find
[4:01:42] those and I apologize that this was
[4:01:43] running late, but I think it's very
[4:01:45] important I think it's important to the
[4:01:46] applicant to keep these dogs. My concern
[4:01:49] is especially when they've been when
[4:01:52] animal control has been out there and
[4:01:53] it's documented of the state of the
[4:01:56] property that that's in and
[4:02:00] the the dogs and the safety and animal
[4:02:03] cruelty and all that. And I know that's
[4:02:04] still running through the court, but
[4:02:06] that's documented here. And so that's
[4:02:07] why I bring it up.
[4:02:09] Not saying that this is something that
[4:02:11] I'm thinking about. And so I'm I'm
[4:02:14] wondering I I I'm okay with the with the
[4:02:19] time limit. I think two years is too
[4:02:21] much is too long. I think there should
[4:02:23] be I think if there were some spot
[4:02:28] checkins
[4:02:30] >> just already on their radar. [laughter]
[4:02:33] >> That's true. That's true.
[4:02:35] >> They're already checking on
[4:02:40] a year.
[4:02:41] >> Yeah, I think and and I think that just
[4:02:43] it just kind of it just kind of pulls it
[4:02:45] Yeah. Well, I don't want to I don't want
[4:02:46] to
[4:02:47] >> pressure, but does it make it
[4:02:49] >> that it's immediate?
[4:02:52] >> Yeah. that that things are kept clean
[4:02:55] knowing that there's a time frame and if
[4:02:57] she has to come back and get an
[4:03:00] extension on the cup
[4:03:02] then that's a pro that's the process
[4:03:04] that everyone has and everyone is
[4:03:06] afforded to um so
[4:03:09] >> well but I guess at that point if it
[4:03:11] hadn't been revoked would there be a
[4:03:13] reason for us not
[4:03:14] >> no if it hasn't been revoked or if it
[4:03:18] I mean if everything is going the way it
[4:03:20] should be going and there's no re
[4:03:21] there's no violation and it's and it's
[4:03:23] held to that and at one year.
[4:03:28] So I I think there is definitely room
[4:03:30] for compromise. Absolutely. And the two
[4:03:33] years was kind of the thing that I was
[4:03:34] >> That's too long.
[4:03:35] >> Yeah, I think so.
[4:03:38] That was really the only thing that kind
[4:03:39] of
[4:03:39] >> So is it one year or 18 months?
[4:03:42] >> I'm serious. What? [clears throat]
[4:03:47] » Well, I mean, I think 18 months is is
[4:03:50] fine because you're right. if she's
[4:03:51] looking to move
[4:03:53] >> there's a will there's a will there's a
[4:03:55] way out of
[4:03:57] >> going to be a challenge moving and
[4:03:58] finding a place like and I totally get
[4:04:00] that so I'm I'm good with 18 months I I
[4:04:02] just don't want this to drag out
[4:04:04] >> there's always the option though since
[4:04:07] this is a cup for someone in the
[4:04:09] neighborhood who does
[4:04:11] >> find absolutely
[4:04:12] >> a violation to make a complaint
[4:04:15] >> and so that option is always there so I
[4:04:17] think 18 months for me personally I
[4:04:19] think 18 months is better than two
[4:04:21] and not necessarily as quick as one
[4:04:23] minute.
[4:04:27] » Maybe people in the neighborhood haven't
[4:04:28] complained because they think it's being
[4:04:30] taken care of.
[4:04:31] >> Well, that's for them to decide at that
[4:04:32] point.
[4:04:33] >> That's not that's of no concern for me
[4:04:36] right now.
[4:04:38] They got a complaint. They got a there's
[4:04:40] a process to follow.
[4:04:41] >> Redo your motion from the first one. Cut
[4:04:43] it down to 18 months.
[4:04:44] >> I just want you to have the practice.
[4:04:46] >> Thanks. Okay. Just chair. I'll make a
[4:04:49] motion to approve the previous motion
[4:04:52] with the amendment of 18 months
[4:04:57] reduced from the two years.
[4:04:59] >> Second.
[4:05:00] >> Been moved by Commissioner Fi. Second by
[4:05:02] Morgan to approve the item with the
[4:05:04] amendment to the original.
[4:05:08] >> Madam clerk, can you roll call?
[4:05:12] >> Garner absent. Miller
[4:05:14] >> I.
[4:05:16] >> Daffer absent. Turner.
[4:05:18] >> Nay.
[4:05:21] >> Kho.
[4:05:22] >> No.
[4:05:23] >> Morgan,
[4:05:24] >> yes.
[4:05:25] >> Kirkman,
[4:05:26] >> yes.
[4:05:29] >> Copeland, absent. Fiend.
[4:05:31] >> Yes.
[4:05:36] » Four to two. The motion carries.
[4:05:38] >> Okay.
[4:05:41] This cup will become effective 15
[4:05:43] calendar days from the date the written
[4:05:45] decision and reason statement is
[4:05:46] provided to the applicant unless an
[4:05:48] appeal has been filed with the planning
[4:05:49] and zoning department with the
[4:05:51] appropriate fee. No action should be
[4:05:53] taken on this cup until the appeal
[4:05:55] period has concluded. The applicant must
[4:05:57] confirm with planning and zoning staff
[4:05:59] there have been no appeals.
[4:06:04] » Okay, we will move into item 3-4.
[4:06:08] >> Mr. chair. Since it's late, should we
[4:06:10] just push this to the next meeting?
[4:06:12] >> I'm just kidding. I'm [laughter] just
[4:06:14] kidding.
[4:06:15] >> I was going to vote on that.
[4:06:19] [laughter]
[4:06:19] >> Uh annexation and zoning to RS4, RMH,
[4:06:23] and BC zoning districts and a master
[4:06:25] plan community with a potential
[4:06:27] development agreement for Lonear.
[4:06:29] addressed is 000 Smith Avenue, 00 Lonear
[4:06:33] Road for Lonear 110 LLC, Challenge
[4:06:37] Development Incorporated, representing
[4:06:39] Lonear 110, and Corey Barton,
[4:06:42] the applicant here, please.
[4:06:46] >> Good evening. Uh Stephanie Hopkins. I'm
[4:06:48] with KM Engineering. Our address is 5725
[4:06:51] North Discovery Way in Boyisey. I'm very
[4:06:53] excited to be here this evening to talk
[4:06:55] about Lonear with you. This has been a
[4:06:56] really interesting agenda. I've been
[4:06:58] very um the whole wide variety of
[4:07:01] topics. So,
[4:07:03] >> um we're thrilled to be representing uh
[4:07:06] multiple
[4:07:07] property owners and developers on this
[4:07:09] property. Uh we're requesting annexation
[4:07:12] to the city of Nampa with three
[4:07:13] different zoning districts. We're
[4:07:15] including a master plan community
[4:07:17] request uh for Lonear uh plan community
[4:07:21] with a potential development agreement
[4:07:22] as well. We've met with the city to
[4:07:24] understand requirements. We've held a
[4:07:26] neighborhood meeting in March. There are
[4:07:28] three attendees
[4:07:30] uh and have researched the southwest
[4:07:31] Nampa specific area plan in depth um in
[4:07:35] designing what we're going to be showing
[4:07:37] you this evening. We're requesting a
[4:07:38] positive recommendation on the master
[4:07:40] plan community and the annexation and
[4:07:42] zoning. Um our team is very excited to
[4:07:45] support the city's vision in this area.
[4:07:47] As I was listening to all of the
[4:07:48] hearings on the southwest Nampa specific
[4:07:51] area plans, staff did a really great job
[4:07:53] explaining the intent behind the
[4:07:55] specific area plan. And at one point
[4:07:57] they said specific area plans allow for
[4:07:59] the city to be proactive and plan
[4:08:01] slashprepare for growth while giving the
[4:08:03] community and land owners certainty on
[4:08:05] what to expect in the future. And I
[4:08:07] think Lonear perfectly personifies that
[4:08:09] objective the city had with the specific
[4:08:12] area plan in this area.
[4:08:15] I think
[4:08:17] So, this is uh where the propertyy's
[4:08:19] located. It's approximately 149 acres.
[4:08:22] There's several parcels in
[4:08:23] unincorporated Canon County. It's
[4:08:26] located north of uh near the southeast
[4:08:28] corner of Smith Avenue and Midway Road
[4:08:31] in Southwest Nampa. Right across the
[4:08:33] street from Midway Park uh and near
[4:08:36] existing zoned properties. There's RS7,
[4:08:39] RS6, RS 8.5, RS22, and BC districts in
[4:08:44] the nearby area. If approved for
[4:08:47] annexation, this would be the first
[4:08:48] master plan community within the
[4:08:50] southwest Nampa specific area plan. So,
[4:08:52] it's a really great opportunity to have
[4:08:53] a large assemblage of pro property
[4:08:56] brought in uh as the first development
[4:08:58] within the specific area plan. It's
[4:09:01] opportunityly placed near transportation
[4:09:03] corridors. Uh it's near existing
[4:09:06] services, Midway Park, as I mentioned,
[4:09:08] and is in a beautiful part of Nampa, as
[4:09:11] you're all aware.
[4:09:14] Our annexation and zoning request is
[4:09:16] consistent with the comprehensive plan.
[4:09:17] It's in alignment with the specific area
[4:09:19] plan and the future land use map. The
[4:09:21] proposed uses will be designed to be
[4:09:23] compatible with this existing
[4:09:24] development. Right now, we just have a
[4:09:26] concept a conceptual plan that shows you
[4:09:28] a rough road network that I'll show you
[4:09:29] in a little bit with some land uses and
[4:09:32] zonings. We don't have a preliminary
[4:09:33] plat or anything showing layout at this
[4:09:35] point, but we will eventually if this
[4:09:37] annexation's approved. Uh and a reszone
[4:09:40] to the BC, the Community Business
[4:09:42] District, uh RS4 and RMH is consistent
[4:09:45] with the specific area plan.
[4:09:49] We're requesting about 30 acres in the
[4:09:52] community business district, 90.65 in
[4:09:55] the RS4 for the single family. That's
[4:09:57] shown in yellow on the map in front of
[4:09:58] you. And uh the RH district, which is uh
[4:10:02] shown in the brown, is 28.66 acres.
[4:10:06] Overall, the property is 149 acres. And
[4:10:08] we've uh developed this specifically to
[4:10:11] comply with the requirements of the
[4:10:13] specific area plan. So that shows the
[4:10:16] 50%
[4:10:17] it's 5 to 50% multif family with the
[4:10:20] rest is commercial in that area. So the
[4:10:23] southwest Nampa plan was carefully
[4:10:25] developed as you're all aware reviewed
[4:10:27] and revised over last couple of years.
[4:10:30] Uh there were a lot of meetings about it
[4:10:31] and city council approved it last year.
[4:10:34] The plan specifically places low
[4:10:36] density. So one dwelling unit per acre
[4:10:39] and one to two and a half dwelling units
[4:10:41] per acre shown in light yellow here and
[4:10:43] the one unit per acre is or sorry one
[4:10:46] unit per acre is in light green shown on
[4:10:48] the map here adjacent to Lake LOL and
[4:10:50] the wildlife refuge that was placed
[4:10:52] there specifically to preserve those
[4:10:54] areas in uh feed in relation to the
[4:10:57] feedback that was received as part of
[4:10:58] the specific area plan. The plan places
[4:11:00] higher density with a mix of uses near
[4:11:02] existing city infrastructure including
[4:11:04] water, sewer, PI, and community
[4:11:06] amenities such as Midway Park and
[4:11:08] services such as the future Nampa school
[4:11:10] district sites that are shown on this
[4:11:12] site right where Lonear is uh proposed.
[4:11:16] So within the area that we are proposing
[4:11:19] development in, uh it's programmed to
[4:11:22] see five to eight units per acre and 8
[4:11:24] to 12 units per acre.
[4:11:27] Within the community mixed use area,
[4:11:29] we're including um the RH district to
[4:11:32] fulfill the requirement for the 5 to 50%
[4:11:35] multifamily. And then we're requesting a
[4:11:37] density increase of up to 20% within
[4:11:40] that area so that we can build more
[4:11:42] density into what is programmed to be
[4:11:44] more high highdensity housing to keep
[4:11:47] some of our single family less dense and
[4:11:49] to really support the commercial uses
[4:11:52] that are going that are proposed within
[4:11:54] the medium density residential area
[4:11:56] which is on the periphery shown uh in
[4:11:58] the highlight here. Uh we're proposing
[4:12:00] RS4 which has a density range of 5 to
[4:12:02] eight units per acre.
[4:12:07] This is one of the exhibits from the
[4:12:09] specific area plan that shows the mix of
[4:12:11] uses that's anticipated with this area.
[4:12:12] So, as you can see along Midway Road,
[4:12:14] this is the Lonear project outline in
[4:12:16] red. Along uh Midway Road, there is
[4:12:20] commercial and then along a portion of
[4:12:21] Lonear, there's commercial as well. And
[4:12:23] then it uh transitions in density. So
[4:12:26] there's some higher density residential
[4:12:27] right up against the commercial and it
[4:12:28] transitions to more of a single family
[4:12:30] lower in density product
[4:12:34] which is consistent with this diagram as
[4:12:37] well. As you can see the city wants to
[4:12:38] see some mix of uses along major
[4:12:40] transportation corridors in proximity to
[4:12:42] Midway Park and uh future school
[4:12:45] district
[4:12:46] potentially developed but owned
[4:12:48] properties
[4:12:50] and that is consistent with the concept
[4:12:51] plan that we've submitted. So this is
[4:12:54] the concept plan that's in your packet.
[4:12:57] We're showing the BC district in the
[4:12:59] pink color and that's right up against
[4:13:01] Midway Road and on I both sides of
[4:13:04] Lonear Road. And then we have a multif
[4:13:07] family shown right in between the the
[4:13:11] commercial and the single family to
[4:13:12] provide a nice transition within the
[4:13:14] multifamily area. We're proposing 75%
[4:13:17] apartments or multifamily living and
[4:13:20] then um the other 25% will be a town
[4:13:22] home product. So the idea would be to
[4:13:23] transition in density from a more
[4:13:26] intense use on the commercial side to
[4:13:28] kind of a higher density multif family
[4:13:30] and then transition to the single family
[4:13:31] homes as you go further east.
[4:13:35] At this point we're showing some
[4:13:36] connectivity that will occur as the
[4:13:38] phases come in. So right now we're
[4:13:40] showing um you know internal roadway
[4:13:43] network that could occur with every
[4:13:46] preliminary platter final plat that
[4:13:47] comes in. We do have a collector shown
[4:13:49] on our far east boundary as well that
[4:13:51] would extend down to Lonear eventually.
[4:13:54] And because this property does connect
[4:13:56] on both sides of Lonear improvements,
[4:13:58] the whole Lonear section that's shown on
[4:14:01] both sides of our property would be
[4:14:02] improved as well as improvements along
[4:14:04] Midway Road and Smith Avenue on the
[4:14:06] north side. So those improvements would
[4:14:08] be made as each final plaque came come
[4:14:10] in um if the sanexation was approved.
[4:14:14] And then there um is going to be a
[4:14:17] pathway along the canal that's in the
[4:14:18] northeast corner of the site uh in
[4:14:21] alignment with the pathways plan the
[4:14:22] city has.
[4:14:27] So the single family residential area is
[4:14:29] about 90 acres. The density in the uh
[4:14:32] plan is 5 to eight units per acre. We
[4:14:34] don't have a specific number of lots,
[4:14:35] but we would comply with that.
[4:14:38] Multifamily is designed here. These are
[4:14:41] some amenities and some open space areas
[4:14:43] that we would plan on including there.
[4:14:46] And as I mentioned, we're requesting a
[4:14:47] 20% bonus on density there. Commercial
[4:14:51] is about 30 acres and that's compliant
[4:14:53] with the specific area plan. I'm running
[4:14:55] out of time, so I'm trying to go quick,
[4:14:56] but I'm happy to answer questions. Um,
[4:14:58] these are some open space highlights. We
[4:15:01] included some design guidelines with our
[4:15:03] application to include consistent
[4:15:05] compatible design for all of the
[4:15:08] commercial, single family, and
[4:15:09] multifamily components of the project.
[4:15:11] And then there will be a list of project
[4:15:13] benefits, but I think the most important
[4:15:15] thing is the opportunity to partner with
[4:15:18] the developer on the first largecale
[4:15:20] development in this area. It's not often
[4:15:22] that this much property comes in at one
[4:15:23] time and you can really have a
[4:15:25] comprehensive look and try to set forth
[4:15:27] a foundation for what the city envisions
[4:15:29] for growth in an area that has not a lot
[4:15:32] of growth. Um, I think I heard loud and
[4:15:34] clear from all the hearings that the
[4:15:36] city really wants to see commercial in
[4:15:38] this area and that's something that this
[4:15:39] project is really excited to bring. Uh,
[4:15:42] timing it'll be probably 10 to 15 years.
[4:15:45] So, it's going to be an incremental
[4:15:46] process. It's not going to be overnight,
[4:15:48] but um we're all very excited and um I'm
[4:15:50] happy to answer any questions if you
[4:15:52] have them
[4:15:54] >> questions.
[4:15:56] Not right now.
[4:15:58] >> Okay, call you back up.
[4:16:00] >> Thank you. Appreciate it.
[4:16:01] >> Thank you,
[4:16:05] » Mr. Ashby.
[4:16:09] Go ahead.
[4:16:12] Thank you, Jim Cart.
[4:16:14] >> Oh, no.
[4:16:15] >> Oh, I'm sorry. Did I [laughter]
[4:16:18] >> Sorry about that.
[4:16:19] >> You're good.
[4:16:20] >> He's wanting to go home, too.
[4:16:24] [laughter]
[4:16:24] >> It's getting late.
[4:16:26] >> Yeah, I'm getting tired myself. Um,
[4:16:30] okay. So, I'm You've seen where this is
[4:16:32] located near Midway Park. Um, we'll kind
[4:16:36] of move through some of these slides
[4:16:38] pretty quickly. The applicants presented
[4:16:40] their proposal, so I'll skip that there.
[4:16:43] Um,
[4:16:45] I can't see very well, so let me look at
[4:16:48] this. Um, so the Lonear uh master plan
[4:16:51] community is in the Nampa comprehensive
[4:16:53] plan planning area and within the
[4:16:56] Southwest Nampa specific area plan. uh
[4:16:58] you saw the applicant's um justification
[4:17:02] for how they met the specific area plan
[4:17:06] standards and uh I looked at those
[4:17:09] standards as well and found that it was
[4:17:11] really consistent with the specific area
[4:17:14] plan. Um that that plan isn't perfect,
[4:17:17] right? We we took a moment of time and
[4:17:21] there was at that time they were
[4:17:23] considering some um schools u being
[4:17:27] placed there. the levy didn't pass. So,
[4:17:30] some of that is going to be different,
[4:17:32] but overall the principles of the plan
[4:17:35] were followed and the land uses that
[4:17:37] were under those uh those parcels are still applicable here. Um
[4:17:45] the location and size Lonear master plan
[4:17:48] community is in the uh Nampa planning
[4:17:50] area east of Midway Road and between
[4:17:53] Smith Avenue and Lonear Road with a
[4:17:55] smaller portion south of Lonear Road,
[4:17:58] all consisting of five parcels and and
[4:18:01] rideway totaling 149.31 acres. Uh the
[4:18:06] current land uses you've you've already
[4:18:08] seen um some of those. I'm sorry. This
[4:18:11] is the specific area plan map. They've
[4:18:13] already shown that a closer view of
[4:18:16] that.
[4:18:17] Um you can see the the designations
[4:18:20] here. To the uh south is a large lot
[4:18:23] single family homes Kenyon County uh
[4:18:26] farm fields in Kenyon County as well as
[4:18:29] the RS uh I think that says 8.5
[4:18:33] uh designation for a subdivision. And
[4:18:36] then uh
[4:18:39] the uh that's the Sonata Point
[4:18:42] subdivisions
[4:18:44] uh that have been partially developed
[4:18:46] out. It came in as Coronado Point and um
[4:18:50] only partially developed but are under
[4:18:53] consideration still for development.
[4:18:56] Um again to the north the you can see
[4:19:00] the county subdivisions up there and
[4:19:03] some a land and then to the east of
[4:19:06] course is um the ones that I've talked
[4:19:10] about but also a church and some farm
[4:19:12] fields in King County.
[4:19:17] So, I wanted to use this to just
[4:19:19] highlight um some of the uh approvals
[4:19:23] that we've had over the last year. Um
[4:19:27] you can see uh three different
[4:19:29] residential subdivisions and then one
[4:19:31] commercial subdivision out in that that
[4:19:33] area. So, those blue boxes are those
[4:19:35] that have been approved in the past
[4:19:37] year. Um and then on the right hand side
[4:19:40] is is their proposal for how they're
[4:19:43] zoning this. If you go back another
[4:19:45] basically another year, you've got uh 29
[4:19:49] single family homes is Sunnyale North uh
[4:19:52] num or excuse me, Sunnyale number six
[4:19:55] and that is just south of Carter Road
[4:19:58] and then Wagers Dair which is 43 single
[4:20:01] family homes and approximately 34 of a
[4:20:04] mile north of Carter Road. So, in total,
[4:20:08] I think there was likeund I want to say
[4:20:10] 31
[4:20:12] uh units of everything that's been
[4:20:16] approved in the last couple of years
[4:20:19] for this area.
[4:20:23] Uh utilities, you can see those there.
[4:20:25] You saw that in the packet. I'm not
[4:20:27] going to spend a lot of time here, but
[4:20:29] that but oh, one last thing is the just
[4:20:32] the last comment there. City utility
[4:20:34] systems have adequate capacity. to serve
[4:20:36] this property and the project will be
[4:20:38] required to construct utilities to and
[4:20:40] through the property as as all are.
[4:20:45] Okay. So um I wanted to highlight this
[4:20:48] one uh because in our master plan
[4:20:51] community language in our comprehensive
[4:20:54] plan and in the master or in the uh
[4:20:57] specific area plan they highlight the
[4:21:00] need to create some uh connectivity
[4:21:04] in within a master plan community. Um so
[4:21:08] you can see that on the right how
[4:21:10] they're proposing to do that. They've
[4:21:12] got a uh proposed east west route and a
[4:21:16] north south route with um on the far
[4:21:20] east is a collector roadway unnamed um
[4:21:24] but that is a potential there and I I
[4:21:29] have some recommendations on that in the conditions. I'll talk about that.
[4:21:34] But again, you can see all those
[4:21:36] different connections and the different
[4:21:39] um amenities that they're providing.
[4:21:42] Okay, so annexation application
[4:21:45] criteria. This is we just analyze this
[4:21:47] when it comes in to make sure that it
[4:21:49] meets the state code. Um, again, you
[4:21:52] have lots of flexibility since this is a
[4:21:54] legislative action to approve or deny an
[4:21:56] annexation.
[4:21:58] But zoning takes a little more work. Um,
[4:22:02] you have to meet these criteria. And
[4:22:06] this is what you would use if if you
[4:22:10] wanted to annex um and approve the
[4:22:13] zoning, you would use these criteria and
[4:22:15] they have to be met in order to approve
[4:22:17] this project.
[4:22:20] Um so correspondence we've received. So
[4:22:23] NPA uh engineering division uh I've
[4:22:27] asked Daniel to speak about this and
[4:22:30] then um and then I'll jump back up.
[4:22:39] So Rodney asked me to speak a little bit
[4:22:41] about um our comments and um more
[4:22:45] specifically regarding the uh traffic
[4:22:48] analysis. So our our codes require uh
[4:22:53] traffic impact studies to be completed
[4:22:55] at the time of a preliminary plat or a
[4:22:58] building permit that meets certain
[4:23:00] criterias. um they do not require that
[4:23:03] at the time of a master plan community.
[4:23:05] Um mainly um because a master plan
[4:23:10] community without a preliminary plat is
[4:23:13] more of the bubble diagram that we've
[4:23:15] been looking at. It doesn't have the
[4:23:16] specific lot counts. It doesn't have the
[4:23:19] level of information that would be
[4:23:21] typically needed to complete a full
[4:23:23] traffic impact study. um they have um
[4:23:27] had their traffic engineer put together
[4:23:29] a tech tech memo on the traffic for
[4:23:32] that. We received that uh middle of last
[4:23:35] week. Um I've done um a cursory review
[4:23:38] of it. It it scopes out the required
[4:23:42] things that will be studied when the
[4:23:44] they do come forward with a preliminary
[4:23:46] plat as well as looking at um the um
[4:23:52] some general stuff for for that. Um, we
[4:23:55] will have a more complete analysis of
[4:23:58] that when we make it to city council.
[4:24:01] Uh, but the general look that I've done
[4:24:03] at this point, um, it does appear to
[4:24:06] meet the same intent that we've used
[4:24:08] when we've looked at other master plan
[4:24:10] communities to provide that, um, general
[4:24:14] guidance of how we will look at the
[4:24:16] traffic um, when they do come forward
[4:24:18] with preliminary plat. Um, and so if
[4:24:21] there are any questions on that, I'll be
[4:24:23] happy to answer that.
[4:24:30] » Thank you, Daniel. Uh, Nampa Fire
[4:24:32] District, I just I I think the bolded
[4:24:34] section is kind of speaks for itself.
[4:24:36] Approximate response time is four
[4:24:38] minutes, well under what their goal is.
[4:24:42] Um, and then, uh, parks didn't they did
[4:24:46] respond. Um it does comply I mean they
[4:24:50] are going to have to comply with the
[4:24:52] park's requirements for the pathway as
[4:24:55] you've already heard but um we wanted a
[4:24:57] little more detail from them because of
[4:24:59] the proximity of Midway Park and so I've
[4:25:02] asked Mark Stoyer uh senior director of
[4:25:05] development services to speak about his
[4:25:07] interaction with the parks department.
[4:25:11] » Uh good evening uh chair and
[4:25:13] commissioner. So, want to provide some
[4:25:15] more details on on a connection with uh
[4:25:18] with the Nampa facility, I mean rather
[4:25:20] with the parks facility, and that is
[4:25:22] Midway Park. Um, as you can see on the
[4:25:26] map before you uh kind of along Midway
[4:25:28] right there, that northwest corner uh is
[4:25:31] Caddy Corner to the southeast corner of
[4:25:34] Midway Park. Uh you might remember that
[4:25:36] this property was purchased by the city
[4:25:40] u within the unincorporated area but has
[4:25:42] not been able to be annexed by the city
[4:25:44] because there's no contiguous uh
[4:25:46] pathway. Uh if this development was
[4:25:49] approved, there would be a pathway
[4:25:51] because of that caddy corner right there
[4:25:52] that connects to Midway Park and the
[4:25:55] city would be able to annex that to
[4:25:58] within the city limits. Uh some of the
[4:26:00] benefits in doing that are that to this
[4:26:03] point any improvements at Midway Park
[4:26:05] have been under the county permitting
[4:26:07] process. And so for example, the parks
[4:26:10] department wanted to put in some parking
[4:26:11] lot lighting and maybe some various ball
[4:26:14] field lighting also as well, but county
[4:26:16] requirements disallowed us from doing
[4:26:18] that. If it was under the city permit
[4:26:20] process, they would be able to put in
[4:26:22] that lighting to increase safety in the
[4:26:23] parking lot and also for people to
[4:26:26] utilize those ball fields during
[4:26:27] nighttime hours. Uh, another benefit to
[4:26:31] being under the city process, you might
[4:26:33] know that on midway there is a concrete
[4:26:35] barrier there. So that prevents lefthand
[4:26:37] turns into the park and left-hand turns
[4:26:40] out. The city would not require that
[4:26:42] barrier to be there. So ingress and
[4:26:44] egress would be uh would be enhanced
[4:26:47] there at that location. Uh, another
[4:26:49] benefit, as uh, Rodney explained, water
[4:26:52] and sewer would be extended down uh,
[4:26:54] down Midway and that would also provide
[4:26:57] a connection for the park to connect
[4:26:59] their sewer and and water to that system
[4:27:02] also as well. Currently, the park
[4:27:04] utilizes a under capacity septic system.
[4:27:06] So, they're pumping that every 3 to four
[4:27:09] months and they get their water from a
[4:27:11] temporary lease of a water well that's
[4:27:13] on the property. So, that would be
[4:27:15] another benefit if this development was
[4:27:17] approved. Uh lastly, police department
[4:27:20] would be able to respond to calls for
[4:27:22] enforcement at the park. Right now, it's
[4:27:24] under the county and this kind of vague
[4:27:26] on exactly who can respond to calls
[4:27:28] there at that site. So, Nampa would be
[4:27:30] able to provide that enforcement since
[4:27:32] it's within the city limits.
[4:27:35] >> Mr. Chair, can I ask a quick question to
[4:27:37] Mark? Would that be automatically
[4:27:39] annexed in as soon as it touches
[4:27:42] >> uh chair and commission?
[4:27:43] >> Would you have to go through that
[4:27:44] annexation process? Yes, we would have
[4:27:46] to go through the annexation process for
[4:27:48] the park specifically. It's not part of
[4:27:50] this.
[4:27:52] >> So, it's not it was hasn't been future
[4:27:54] annexed.
[4:27:55] >> No.
[4:27:56] >> Okay.
[4:28:02] » All right. So then if we move into our
[4:28:04] public comments, again just a reminder,
[4:28:06] we did receive some additional comments
[4:28:09] that were provided to you um that
[4:28:11] weren't didn't make the staff packet,
[4:28:13] but um these were the ones that did. So
[4:28:16] Maria Lyman um opposed to apartments due
[4:28:20] to existing uh traffic in the area. Um
[4:28:24] Jamie Vander, I'm sorry. I'm gonna move
[4:28:28] my screen so I can see what I'm looking
[4:28:30] at. There we go. Um Jamie Vanderhoff,
[4:28:34] I'm sorry about that. Uh was a resident
[4:28:37] nearby was opposed due to the following
[4:28:39] concerns. The density is too high. It
[4:28:42] will provide large-scale commercial that
[4:28:44] is not justified by the market and will
[4:28:46] make existing commercial no longer
[4:28:47] viable. Uh the development will be
[4:28:50] incompatible with existing large acre
[4:28:52] rural residences, existing and added
[4:28:55] traffic due to cutthrough trips to
[4:28:57] bypass Carter Road. And then Tony Engel,
[4:29:03] I hope that's right. Opposed because of
[4:29:05] the high number of units impacting
[4:29:07] quality of life, traffic, utilities,
[4:29:09] noise, and cost of services. Again,
[4:29:11] they're their specific uh language that
[4:29:14] they wrote is in your packet. This is
[4:29:16] just a real quick summary. Um Tasha
[4:29:19] Sweeney uh opposed because of the
[4:29:22] existing traffic congestion and
[4:29:24] concerns, infrastructure is not in place
[4:29:26] to handle more growth.
[4:29:39] Go. Uh Shannon Jones was another
[4:29:42] resident nearby opposed um for loss of
[4:29:46] rural lifestyle, traffic congestion and
[4:29:49] lack of capacity on roadways, loss of
[4:29:51] farmland, dwindling water supply, belief
[4:29:54] that residents are overt taxed and
[4:29:56] developers pay nothing. assumption of
[4:29:58] elected and appointed officials greed.
[4:30:01] Uh Cheryl Hickley uh opposed due to the
[4:30:05] to traffic congestion claimed that
[4:30:08] existing and future uh
[4:30:12] traffic concerns weren't considered uh
[4:30:16] and all the approvals of developments
[4:30:18] along Carter Road weren't considered. Um
[4:30:21] density seems too high for the area. uh
[4:30:25] it will provide large-scale commercial
[4:30:26] that is not justified by the market and
[4:30:29] then loss of rural character of the
[4:30:31] area. And then just other general
[4:30:33] concerns from comments that I received
[4:30:35] the need to preserve farmland, the
[4:30:37] desire to maintain a rural field with
[4:30:39] large lot single family residential. Uh
[4:30:42] belief that the adopted plans don't
[4:30:44] address the desires of those who live
[4:30:46] nearby and then belief that utilities
[4:30:49] can support the can't support the new
[4:30:51] development.
[4:30:53] Uh again, we did receive late comments
[4:30:55] that were uploaded to the project record
[4:30:57] for your review.
[4:31:00] And then um staff analysis. So
[4:31:04] um
[4:31:08] it so much of what comments seem to
[4:31:13] imply or have concerns about are because
[4:31:17] there's not the detail yet that we would
[4:31:20] get at a preliminary plat. So, I I just
[4:31:23] want to emphasize that um
[4:31:28] the this proposal that they gave you,
[4:31:32] this one here, um show several qualified
[4:31:36] open space amenities, but those aren't
[4:31:39] going to be really all of the amenities
[4:31:42] or all of the open space um analysis
[4:31:45] until we get to the plat stage. So, I
[4:31:48] just want to make sure that's clear. Um
[4:31:50] in the northwest area they show open
[4:31:52] grassy areas, trees, bike friendly
[4:31:54] trails and kids play zone. Uh the
[4:31:57] northeast area shows open grassy areas,
[4:31:59] tree pedestrian paths and activity play,
[4:32:03] a sports court. Uh and then southeast
[4:32:06] area shows open grassy areas, trees, an
[4:32:09] interactive play area for kids and
[4:32:11] sports courts, two pickle ball courts
[4:32:13] and a basketball court. And then they
[4:32:16] don't show anything for multifamily, but
[4:32:19] that is a requirement that they will
[4:32:21] need to address when they go and develop
[4:32:24] that.
[4:32:27] Again, that's the concept conceptual
[4:32:29] site plan. Uh a traffic impact study.
[4:32:33] The last thing, just the note at the
[4:32:35] bottom there is my thoughts here.
[4:32:37] Traffic impact studies evaluate the
[4:32:39] existing traffic as well as the
[4:32:41] estimated traffic based on all
[4:32:43] jurisdictional land uses use approvals.
[4:32:46] Traffic mitigation and fees are assessed
[4:32:49] to address the impact of the new
[4:32:50] development on the system to maintain a
[4:32:53] council adopted level of service. So
[4:32:56] again, traffic impact studies are not
[4:32:58] necessarily an opportunity for you to
[4:33:00] say or for any elected official or
[4:33:03] appointed official to say we don't agree
[4:33:06] with the engineering that was done to
[4:33:10] produce this traffic impact study.
[4:33:12] Really, that's in the way that a traffic
[4:33:15] impact study is set up from the very
[4:33:18] start. So if you don't agree with the
[4:33:22] traffic impact study, that's different
[4:33:24] than what's the the results of that
[4:33:27] traffic impact study you're saying. Um
[4:33:30] so at some point we have to say well it may feel really difficult to put
[4:33:38] additional traffic onto these roadways.
[4:33:41] But at some point we have to step back
[4:33:44] and say, do can we trust the engineering
[4:33:48] that's done to produce these traffic
[4:33:51] impact studies? And I know that's
[4:33:53] challenging. Um, but
[4:33:56] that's kind of the the situation we're
[4:34:00] in. um we go through those processes and have a result that comes back to you
[4:34:06] for for your consideration, but they
[4:34:09] will be applied regardless of whether
[4:34:13] you analyze these or not. These
[4:34:15] conditions will be applied to uh any
[4:34:18] project.
[4:34:21] Um okay, so criteria for evaluating a
[4:34:25] community, a master plan community,
[4:34:27] these are all of them. Um there's it's
[4:34:30] pretty extensive.
[4:34:32] Um you want to look in more detail than
[4:34:35] just a a typical subdivision. You want
[4:34:38] to see how it feels in a larger scale.
[4:34:41] Is it connected? Is it providing the
[4:34:44] appropriate landscaping, a theme or
[4:34:46] character? Um is it providing a mix of
[4:34:49] land uses?
[4:34:51] Um so I think you can look at that
[4:34:56] yourself. But those were all the things
[4:34:58] that I found in code.
[4:35:00] Um again this is in code sorry that was
[4:35:04] in our our uh comprehensive plan and
[4:35:06] this is in code and very similar um up
[4:35:09] to 30% of the area may be zoned a
[4:35:12] district not permitted by the the future
[4:35:14] land use map. Um in addition they've
[4:35:17] already uh talked about this. They are
[4:35:20] requesting a 20% uh increase in density.
[4:35:24] Um and that requires approval from uh
[4:35:27] city council and uh you can recommend
[4:35:30] that or or recommend denial of that.
[4:35:34] Um at least 15% of qualified open space
[4:35:38] is required. That's pretty standard for
[4:35:40] any commercial or any uh development.
[4:35:43] And then uh it has to be greater than
[4:35:45] 50% commercial
[4:35:48] uh in the uh CMU designation on the comp
[4:35:52] plan future land use map and at least 5%
[4:35:55] as a high density residential or light
[4:35:59] industrial.
[4:36:02] Um, the applicant is requesting an
[4:36:04] increased density from the limit of 12
[4:36:07] dwelling units per acre placed on the CMU area or the community mixeduse
[4:36:14] area in the southwest Nampa specific
[4:36:16] area plan. So, the comprehensive plan
[4:36:19] says CMU and that doesn't have a density
[4:36:23] max, but the the Southwest Nampa
[4:36:28] specific area plan limits that density
[4:36:30] and provides a max. So, that's what
[4:36:33] they're asking for is a an extension of
[4:36:37] 20% above what the specific area plan uh
[4:36:41] requires or max the max limit of the
[4:36:45] density.
[4:36:49] um staff analysis. So, here's some city
[4:36:52] boundaries. Um you can't see it maybe
[4:36:55] all that well, but Caldwell is all in
[4:36:58] gray and ours is just the colored areas.
[4:37:01] And I wanted to point out some specific
[4:37:03] desk destinations in this area. Midway
[4:37:06] Park, of course, uh no specific order
[4:37:09] here. uh commercial. A lot of people
[4:37:12] travel to the this commercial area and
[4:37:15] to get on to I 84.
[4:37:18] Uh you've got Lake LOL that people are
[4:37:20] traveling to.
[4:37:22] Uh this is the site of the new LDS
[4:37:25] temple. So that's kind of out in this
[4:37:27] area.
[4:37:31] And um then if
[4:37:35] my point here is that if the priority
[4:37:37] goal is to preserve farmland in an area
[4:37:39] then a no growth approach could
[4:37:41] accomplish that goal for a while unless
[4:37:44] other communities in the county approve
[4:37:46] development in the area. So if that's
[4:37:48] the goal to preserve farmland, you take
[4:37:52] a no growth policy. uh approving large
[4:37:55] lot single family residential consumes
[4:37:58] more farmland per unit than a mixed
[4:38:00] density does. So this approach does not
[4:38:04] preserve farmland. There was some a
[4:38:07] little bit of inconsistency in some of
[4:38:08] the comments that I read just saying hey
[4:38:11] we want to preserve farmland we should
[4:38:13] approve densities of lower than three
[4:38:17] units per acre. Well, that those do two
[4:38:21] opposite things.
[4:38:26] And here's the Caldwell zoning. Um I I
[4:38:30] put on the right here I just a a brief
[4:38:33] analysis of their zoning code found that
[4:38:35] the RS7 zone which appears to be what uh
[4:38:39] we're butdding up against here in this
[4:38:40] area um is similar to our RS7 or excuse
[4:38:45] me their R1 similar to our RS7. However,
[4:38:50] they allow duplexes and town houses in
[4:38:53] the RS7 zone, which we don't.
[4:38:59] So, the last part of this is if the
[4:39:02] priority goal is to maintain a rural
[4:39:04] feel, then a city should plan for
[4:39:06] density transitioning and consider the
[4:39:09] market demand and need for each type of
[4:39:11] development. I've drawn some circles
[4:39:13] around these just to try to give you
[4:39:16] that feel. So, you start out with pretty
[4:39:18] dense um commercial and and higher
[4:39:22] density residential. As you move away,
[4:39:25] you get to five to eight dwelling units
[4:39:28] per acre. And then beyond that, it's
[4:39:30] potentially eight uh or excuse me, um
[4:39:34] 2.5 to five dwelling units per acre. And
[4:39:38] then you get beyond that and you're
[4:39:40] going to one to 2.5 dwelling units per
[4:39:42] acre. And then beyond that is even one
[4:39:45] or less dwelling units per acre. And
[4:39:48] that is what the specific area plan
[4:39:50] tried to do is trying to make a
[4:39:53] transition as we move away from these
[4:39:56] core centers of commercial development.
[4:39:59] try to transition away from those so
[4:40:02] that we're not um negatively impacting
[4:40:07] all new development in the future for uh
[4:40:10] and creating incompatibility.
[4:40:13] We also require that when you're up
[4:40:16] against a residential development
[4:40:19] um a subdivision that you have buffering
[4:40:22] to that subdivision. So the lot sizes on
[4:40:25] the the edges have to be larger. So
[4:40:28] that's another way that we try to buffer
[4:40:30] these developments, the new development
[4:40:34] and the existing larger lot
[4:40:36] subdivisions.
[4:40:40] Here are the proposed conditions. These
[4:40:41] are all right from the staff
[4:40:44] communications from engineering. And
[4:40:46] then I added this one. uh property
[4:40:48] owners shall enter into the development
[4:40:50] agreement with the city of Nampa and um
[4:40:54] to en ensure compliance with the
[4:40:57] proposed major roadway alignments. Um
[4:41:00] major roadway
[4:41:02] um being roadways being lined with
[4:41:06] significant landscaping and trees. Uh
[4:41:09] the depiction of the type of amenities
[4:41:12] that they showed on their landscape
[4:41:14] plan. uh the depiction of pathways. Uh
[4:41:18] that was critical in the master plan
[4:41:20] community um requirements and that the
[4:41:24] owner applicant provide any multif
[4:41:26] family or commercial design standard as
[4:41:28] amenities that exceed the requirements
[4:41:30] in city code for review by council as
[4:41:33] part of the development agreement
[4:41:35] approval. If there's anything beyond
[4:41:37] what they are, you know, just following
[4:41:41] uh city code, um then we need to address
[4:41:44] those in here. And and the reason I say
[4:41:47] that is because the master plan
[4:41:48] community in the comp plan and in the
[4:41:50] code calls for higher design standards.
[4:41:54] So, we're just trying to see how how
[4:41:57] does that play out with this project.
[4:42:00] and then uh a phasing plan if there is
[4:42:02] one and then uh the BC zoned property
[4:42:06] shall not be developed as residential.
[4:42:09] Um we have that ability to get a cup in
[4:42:13] a BC zone and so we're saying because
[4:42:15] it's in community mixed use and at least
[4:42:17] 50% have to be commercial, we don't want
[4:42:20] that to be an option for them to go to a
[4:42:23] cup for multifamily.
[4:42:28] Here are the findings. Uh the and
[4:42:30] conclusion is the proposed reszone is in
[4:42:32] harmony with the city's compl
[4:42:34] comprehensive plan um because the
[4:42:36] development is located on the future
[4:42:38] land use map designation of MDR and CMU
[4:42:42] and the development also provides
[4:42:44] essential housing options as described
[4:42:46] in the plan. The proposed zoning dep
[4:42:50] district districts comply with the
[4:42:51] designation shown on the future land use
[4:42:53] map with the allowance of variance
[4:42:55] variations through a master plan
[4:42:57] community as noted in the legend on the
[4:42:59] map.
[4:43:01] Uh then uh this is the second one. The
[4:43:04] proposed land uses are in harmony with
[4:43:07] the surrounding properties because of
[4:43:08] conformance with the comp plan uh map
[4:43:11] and text. The comp plan is the city's
[4:43:14] established policy for creating
[4:43:16] compatibility.
[4:43:17] The existing land uses are agriculture,
[4:43:21] residential, and church in the immediate
[4:43:23] area. These are common neighbors and
[4:43:25] growing communities. Though the proposed
[4:43:27] land use doesn't match exactly the
[4:43:29] existing land uses, the fact that there
[4:43:31] is compatibility built into future plans
[4:43:34] for the area and the fact that these
[4:43:36] land uses are frequently neighbors in
[4:43:38] growing community. The result is that
[4:43:40] the proposal is found to be compatible.
[4:43:43] >> Also education land in there, isn't
[4:43:45] there?
[4:43:46] >> Yeah.
[4:43:46] >> that's correct.
[4:43:48] [clears throat] And again, those those
[4:43:50] properties are still owned by the school
[4:43:53] district, but they don't have the money
[4:43:55] to develop them.
[4:43:57] >> I can't speak to when that would happen.
[4:43:59] I just know that at some point in the
[4:44:01] future, as this area develops out,
[4:44:04] there's going to be that need.
[4:44:07] And then the last uh the last one is the
[4:44:10] proposed amendment is our or would be in
[4:44:12] the interest of the public and
[4:44:13] reasonably necessary because the
[4:44:14] proposed project is in line with the
[4:44:16] city's comp plan which outlines the
[4:44:18] public interest for future development
[4:44:20] that provides a diversity of housing
[4:44:22] options and commercial services that are
[4:44:24] needed for community to function. That
[4:44:26] was a run-on sentence.
[4:44:29] And there is a couple of motions for
[4:44:31] your consideration and I'd be happy to
[4:44:33] answer any questions.
[4:44:36] Ronnie, when I was looking at the staff
[4:44:38] report yesterday, I noticed how close
[4:44:41] this application is to Midway Park and
[4:44:44] Midway Park has got lots of open space.
[4:44:46] Is can a developer say, "Hey, since it's
[4:44:49] I'm right next door to this, can I do
[4:44:50] this instead of open space or can I do
[4:44:54] can they trade or bargain with you on
[4:44:55] that?"
[4:44:57] >> Um, so they a lot of times what we
[4:45:00] encourage people to do is to contribute
[4:45:03] land. Um, so that yeah, you don't have
[4:45:06] to necessarily have it in your
[4:45:08] subdivision, but if you dedicated
[4:45:11] property to the city to expand a park or
[4:45:14] something, then that's possible. But
[4:45:16] just having a park nearby, you don't
[4:45:19] have the ability to count that as your
[4:45:21] >> What can they get though? What what can
[4:45:23] they trade for?
[4:45:25] >> They they can't. They They would have to
[4:45:28] dedicate land for City Park,
[4:45:31] >> but they get nothing in return for that.
[4:45:33] they would count that towards their
[4:45:35] qualified open space.
[4:45:37] >> Maybe we could get them to build a high
[4:45:38] school out there on that.
[4:45:39] >> Yeah.
[4:45:42] >> Thank you.
[4:45:42] >> Yeah.
[4:45:45] >> Thank you, Rod.
[4:45:48] Have a signup sheet.
[4:45:54] Calling Jim Carr.
[4:45:59] » You think it's [clears throat] about
[4:46:00] time? Morning. [laughter]
[4:46:03] >> Wake up.
[4:46:05] >> Close.
[4:46:07] >> My name is Jim Mar and I live at 1471
[4:46:10] Wooley Drive which is Office Smith,
[4:46:14] which this proposal is just across the
[4:46:17] road from us. I do oppose the proposal
[4:46:21] pretty much what everybody uh wrote in
[4:46:23] for, but my main concern and you
[4:46:27] represent Corey Barton. Is that correct?
[4:46:31] Okay. But Corey Barton's one has this.
[4:46:34] [clears throat]
[4:46:36] >> You got
[4:46:36] >> Sir, please direct your comments.
[4:46:38] >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I just got I just
[4:46:40] got to straighten something up. So, this
[4:46:44] piece of ground has a ditch running
[4:46:47] right through them through it. It goes
[4:46:50] from Lonear
[4:46:52] north to Smith. That ditch is an
[4:46:56] irrigation ditch that provides our
[4:46:59] irrigation water into our subdivision,
[4:47:02] which the last two years we've had
[4:47:04] issues with trying to get water through
[4:47:06] that because the farmer
[4:47:09] has always in the past has kept that
[4:47:12] ditch clean. This year that hasn't
[4:47:14] happened.
[4:47:15] My question,
[4:47:17] I don't know if I can direct it to you
[4:47:19] or to them.
[4:47:20] >> Please do. If this development goes
[4:47:23] through, are they going to tile that
[4:47:26] ditch for us so we can still get our
[4:47:28] irrigation water? They can't fill it in,
[4:47:31] can they?
[4:47:31] >> No.
[4:47:33] >> 100%.
[4:47:34] >> So, you're 100% going to say to me that will be tiled.
[4:47:40] >> Uh, they,
[4:47:42] as far as I understand, they just have
[4:47:44] to they just have to make sure that you
[4:47:45] are able to get your water.
[4:47:47] >> Okay.
[4:47:48] >> They can't take your water away.
[4:47:50] >> Okay. because it runs about
[4:47:51] >> how how it looks
[4:47:53] could be a hund different ways but they
[4:47:56] have I don't care how
[4:47:56] >> you have to maintain they have to
[4:47:58] maintain your ability to get your water
[4:47:59] >> the way it runs now it comes to Smith
[4:48:02] goes underneath the road and it goes
[4:48:04] underneath the Phyllis canal and then
[4:48:07] comes up into our ditch that feeds our
[4:48:09] subdivision. So that was my main concern
[4:48:12] is about the irrigation ditch
[4:48:15] but [snorts] we're okay with they won't
[4:48:18] fill it in. Y
[4:48:19] >> we can we can ask them what they're
[4:48:20] intending to do, but one way or the
[4:48:22] other they're they have to preserve it.
[4:48:24] >> Okay, that was that was my uh that's my
[4:48:27] main concern. So, thank you.
[4:48:29] >> Thank you. Appreciate it.
[4:48:34] » Stephen Reed.
[4:48:48] Evening, Mr. Chairman and uh
[4:48:51] commissioners. Uh I reside at Oh, I
[4:48:55] guess I didn't I should say my name,
[4:48:56] shouldn't I? Steven Reed called, so I
[4:49:00] responded. I live at 14
[4:49:03] 328 Red River Avenue in Nampa. I'm I'm
[4:49:09] one of the people just to the west of
[4:49:13] this project. Uh, I confess to you that
[4:49:17] I wish I'd been able to memorize this
[4:49:20] 65page
[4:49:22] staff report, which I did my best to
[4:49:25] learn, but I didn't. [clears throat] But
[4:49:27] I do have some questions. I want to join
[4:49:30] with
[4:49:31] the numerous written com uh comments
[4:49:34] that you received about the density
[4:49:36] proposals. Uh my math is way in the uh
[4:49:42] rear vision rear view mirror tonight,
[4:49:45] but if I calculate correctly of the
[4:49:49] allocation of five to eight houses uh
[4:49:53] per acre that the developer proposed
[4:49:56] earlier this evening, that's those are
[4:49:59] lots that are somewhere between
[4:50:02] [clears throat]
[4:50:03] 5,500 and about 8,600 square F feet.
[4:50:07] Those are tiny lots. Those are the same
[4:50:11] size lots, at least to my eye, as in old
[4:50:16] uh Nampa. They are you you heard you
[4:50:21] heard testimony and talked about quite a
[4:50:23] bit earlier this evening with regard to
[4:50:26] Southside
[4:50:28] uh about front yards of the the duplexes
[4:50:31] that we're going to have four four foot
[4:50:33] backyards and roughly equal four uh
[4:50:37] front yards. Well, that's what that
[4:50:39] that's what you're going to get with
[4:50:41] five five to eight uh par lots, excuse
[4:50:46] me, buildings uh per acre. Unless the
[4:50:49] houses are going to be just tiny houses,
[4:50:51] in which case uh they probably would
[4:50:54] have larger yards, but they're going to
[4:50:58] be considerably less desirable for the
[4:51:01] whole neighborhood. people that that
[4:51:03] commented on density, I think, were
[4:51:05] worried about the fact that we were
[4:51:07] going to end up with a very compact
[4:51:10] bunch of houses in this in this area.
[4:51:13] And that's probably borne out by the
[4:51:16] proposal for all the green area uh that
[4:51:20] is shown on their maps. We also have no
[4:51:23] information whatsoever
[4:51:25] uh how what
[4:51:28] density is going to be in multifamily.
[4:51:31] Uh we're told that some will be uh
[4:51:34] condominiums or owner owner uh property
[4:51:39] or they're going to be rental. Well, how
[4:51:41] many uh how tall? We don't have any of
[4:51:44] that information. Once again, that's the
[4:51:47] density that the people wrote into you
[4:51:49] and that I have concern about. And then
[4:51:52] honestly, the commercial area is uh to
[4:51:57] me a big red flag. First of all, I don't
[4:52:00] think we need it. I live in the area. I
[4:52:03] certainly don't find myself worrying
[4:52:06] about or or missing out on uh uh place
[4:52:10] to shop or supplies. Now, I see that the
[4:52:14] uh clock has exhausted my time, so I'll
[4:52:17] quit. But I'll just tell you that I the opening paragraph of this report
[4:52:24] says that tonight you are going to
[4:52:27] approve an application for annexation
[4:52:30] and zoning. Good. That's terrific for a
[4:52:34] master plan community with a development
[4:52:38] agreement. I didn't find a development
[4:52:40] agreement in here. Now, I'll grant you I
[4:52:42] read it awfully fast and it's if it's in
[4:52:45] there, it's hidden. I didn't see it.
[4:52:47] Maybe uh Mr. Ashby can tell me where I
[4:52:50] can find it, but at least as of this
[4:52:53] moment, I don't know where it is. And I
[4:52:55] would urge you not to approve tonight an
[4:53:00] a proposal that obligates you to an
[4:53:04] open-ended
[4:53:06] uh development agreement. Thank you for
[4:53:08] paying attention to me.
[4:53:10] >> Thank you, sir.
[4:53:14] Bob Williams.
[4:53:21] » My name is Bob Williams. I live at 12220
[4:53:25] Apple Roseway in Nampa. Um, I bought a
[4:53:30] house just a couple of months ago just
[4:53:33] north of the park and now I find that
[4:53:36] Midway, which my house borders on, is
[4:53:39] going to have a whole ton more traffic.
[4:53:42] Now, it's obvious that this is a
[4:53:44] foregone conclusion and we're not going
[4:53:46] to be able to stop it or slow it down.
[4:53:50] But one of the things I've noticed since
[4:53:52] living here in Nampa is that, you know,
[4:53:55] driving up Middleton, uh, Midland,
[4:53:59] uh, the developments there that have
[4:54:02] gone in get all these nice, beautiful
[4:54:04] setbacks and vinyl fences and privacy
[4:54:08] and noise abatement and everything from
[4:54:10] all the traffic. But those of us that
[4:54:12] have existing houses get screwed.
[4:54:15] And Midway is going to take 75 90% of
[4:54:19] the traffic from this development, which
[4:54:22] is going to have to turn that into a
[4:54:23] four-lane road. So, I'm going to lose
[4:54:26] property that I just purchased. The
[4:54:30] traffic is going to be closer to my
[4:54:31] bedroom window. And I plan on next
[4:54:36] spring putting in a a living hedge to
[4:54:39] try to get rid of some of the traffic
[4:54:41] noise and create privacy from the
[4:54:44] existing midway. Well, that's all going
[4:54:46] to get pulled out and cost me several
[4:54:48] thousand dollars of lost lost u uh
[4:54:52] landscaping.
[4:54:54] So, I I guess what I'm asking is what can be done for those of us that
[4:55:00] aren't in the development
[4:55:03] but are affected by the development?
[4:55:08] » Thank you for your question,
[4:55:15] » Lynn Hodgeges.
[4:55:25] Uh Lynn Hodgeges, 11455 Lonear Road. I'm
[4:55:30] just south of the property that is in
[4:55:33] question. Uh it's also it's the old
[4:55:36] Lonear School, former Hope House
[4:55:38] Children's Home. Uh I've been there for
[4:55:41] 23 years. Worked my fingers to the bone
[4:55:44] fixing that place up. It was a mess. Uh
[4:55:47] I oppose this uh this subdivision going
[4:55:50] in. Uh and as I had a little bit of time
[4:55:54] tonight to play with numbers from things
[4:55:56] I've seen from the previous
[4:55:58] presentations and also from online
[4:56:01] resources, I wanted to share some
[4:56:02] numbers. So they're they're allowed 1,69
[4:56:07] dwellings. They're asking for 20% more.
[4:56:10] That takes it to,282
[4:56:12] dwellings.
[4:56:14] City of Nampa uses 2.76 people per
[4:56:17] dwelling. That's 3538 people. Uh from
[4:56:22] one of the slides I gathered that uh
[4:56:24] police cost, and I did some math, that's
[4:56:27] going to cost the police department
[4:56:28] about $44,000.
[4:56:31] Hopefully I didn't do the math wrong. Uh
[4:56:34] Sonata Point West, which is directly
[4:56:36] next to me, uh when they got their
[4:56:38] proposal turned in, they used 9.44 44
[4:56:41] vehicle trips per day per dwelling. That
[4:56:45] equals 12,100
[4:56:48] trips per day. And those roads out there
[4:56:52] will not handle 12,100. You would have
[4:56:54] to widen roads all the way out to every
[4:56:58] collector everywhere. Uh so the density
[4:57:02] uh that they're proposing very dense a
[4:57:06] lot of apartments a lot of town homes
[4:57:08] and RS4 they could have 4,000 square
[4:57:11] foot lots and uh
[4:57:16] I don't see much mix there. It's all
[4:57:18] very high density. Let's pack as much in
[4:57:20] as we can. Uh, one note from one of the
[4:57:24] staff comments that that they brought up
[4:57:26] was, uh, there was ballpark 140ome homes
[4:57:31] approved out there in the last couple
[4:57:33] years. This development, one development
[4:57:36] is over 10 times that size. So it is a
[4:57:41] massive massive impact not only to us
[4:57:46] that have been out there for a long time
[4:57:48] but that entire area uh will be dwarfed
[4:57:52] with traffic with people uh and so I I
[4:57:56] oppose this and I would urge you to uh
[4:58:00] do the same. Thank you. Thank you,
[4:58:08] » Cheryl Higgley.
[4:58:18] Good evening, Mr. Chairman and
[4:58:20] Commissioners.
[4:58:22] I'm Cheryl Higgley at 12441 South Abbott
[4:58:25] Downing Way here in Nampa. I want to
[4:58:28] express my strong opposition to the
[4:58:31] application for Lonear master plan
[4:58:33] community. No preliminary plat was
[4:58:36] provided. However, based on the density
[4:58:38] shown in the specific area plan plus a
[4:58:40] 20% increase in density allowed, it
[4:58:43] could be over,00
[4:58:46] excuse me, dwelling units. Here are my
[4:58:48] reasons why commercial and residential
[4:58:50] development should be limited. First,
[4:58:53] just as the train poses an issue to
[4:58:56] southeast Nampa, this area has unique
[4:59:00] geographic factors and infrastructure
[4:59:02] challenges, too. It is lake locked on
[4:59:05] two sides, to the south and the west.
[4:59:07] Therefore, traffic has to go north and
[4:59:10] east to highway 84 where most jobs,
[4:59:12] goods, and services are located. The
[4:59:15] traffic will funnel funnel directly into
[4:59:17] one of the most problematic interchanges
[4:59:19] at Carter, Coldwell Boulevard, and
[4:59:22] Highway 84. Even though the road is
[4:59:25] being widened, the traffic will never
[4:59:27] flow well. With six signals in the one
[4:59:29] and a half miles from Middleton Road to
[4:59:31] Costco,
[4:59:32] it will remain a tangled knot of
[4:59:34] congestion. To avoid the congestion on
[4:59:36] Carter, residents will seek alternate
[4:59:38] routes and head east all the way through
[4:59:40] Nampa to get to the freeway. I know
[4:59:43] because I do that now. This will cause
[4:59:46] increased traffic congestion throughout
[4:59:48] the city due to the insufficient road
[4:59:50] capacity of the two-lane roads to handle
[4:59:52] the volume of vehicles. Second,
[4:59:55] regarding the anticipated residential
[4:59:57] growth, the proposed density seems way
[4:59:59] too high for this rural area. Apartments
[5:00:02] in tiny 4,000 foot lots are incompatible
[5:00:05] with the adjacent rural residences and
[5:00:08] the nearby subdivisions.
[5:00:10] In addition, per the email from the
[5:00:13] engineering department, both Midway and
[5:00:15] Lone Lonear roads are classified as
[5:00:18] minor arterial two-lane rural rural
[5:00:22] roads. And last year at the area of
[5:00:24] impact public hearing before the board
[5:00:26] of county commissioners, Crystal Craig
[5:00:28] testified that there are currently no
[5:00:30] road improvement projects planned for
[5:00:33] Midway Road. Code section 10-12-1
[5:00:37] regarding RH states that it is intended
[5:00:40] to be situated near major commerce
[5:00:43] areas, campus locations, and major
[5:00:47] thoroughfare intersections and around
[5:00:49] the downtown districts. This location is
[5:00:52] the exact opposite of that description.
[5:00:54] And to put an RH zone here is a
[5:00:57] contradiction to our city's code,
[5:01:00] especially an RH zone with the 20% bonus
[5:01:04] increase in density, which I believe
[5:01:06] will have the highest density of
[5:01:08] dwelling units per acre in the city.
[5:01:11] Rodney can correct me if I'm wrong
[5:01:12] there, but it's the highest I've heard
[5:01:14] of.
[5:01:15] Third, regarding the anticipated
[5:01:18] commercial growth, 30 acres of
[5:01:20] commercial does not seem condu conducive
[5:01:22] to this area. That's the size of the
[5:01:25] entire shopping center where Hobby Lobby
[5:01:28] is located. From Sportsman Warehouse to
[5:01:31] TJ Maxx, Burlington out to Midland down
[5:01:34] to Cracker Barrel. That's 31 acres
[5:01:37] there. This would be 30 um or yeah,
[5:01:43] especially for the 34 acres of
[5:01:45] commercial has already been approved in
[5:01:47] the nearby developments of Adera and the
[5:01:49] Charles at Carter, which are within one
[5:01:52] and a half miles and have already broken
[5:01:54] ground. The truth is that if there was
[5:01:57] ever an area in Nampa that needs to be
[5:01:59] kept rural and very low density, this is
[5:02:02] it. Due to its unique geographic factors
[5:02:05] and infrastructure challenges,
[5:02:07] development should be limited.
[5:02:10] >> Please consider this before you make
[5:02:12] your decision and please deny the
[5:02:14] recommend or have a recommendation of
[5:02:17] denial. Thank you.
[5:02:18] >> Thank you,
[5:02:27] » Mr. Chair. We have uh received no
[5:02:30] further requests to speak under public
[5:02:33] testimony.
[5:02:41] » Good evening. My name's uh Ted Jones. I
[5:02:44] live at [clears throat] 11855,
[5:02:48] excuse me, West Patt
[5:02:50] uh Drive in Nampa. Formerly, I lived uh
[5:02:54] in the Arbor Landing subdivision, which
[5:02:57] is just to the west of Midway Park,
[5:03:01] right off of Smith. There was uh 16
[5:03:04] parcels, one acre. Uh everybody in our
[5:03:08] entire HOA was opposed to this because
[5:03:12] the density is just too aggressive, I
[5:03:14] think. And everybody in the neighborhood
[5:03:16] felt the same way. We were all in a
[5:03:18] rural area surrounded by farms and now
[5:03:22] what you're proposing [clears throat]
[5:03:25] to go to take it
[5:03:28] what you have plus another 20% just
[5:03:30] doesn't make any sense. Um the traffic
[5:03:35] as it is now is just has been a fiasco.
[5:03:38] I lived there for four years and I just
[5:03:40] moved about a year ago. Uh because
[5:03:45] there's just no infrastructure
[5:03:47] and just to go to Costco from Midway and
[5:03:51] Smith was a complete disaster and the
[5:03:54] roadway is still a mess as you as you
[5:03:57] guys know. Um the other thing on the BC
[5:04:00] zoning,
[5:04:02] my concern is on that I don't see enough
[5:04:05] demand for it. Number one. Number two, I
[5:04:09] think you're going to actually rob
[5:04:11] potentially downtown and some of the
[5:04:14] other areas um from um commerce. And I
[5:04:21] think it's important that you guys keep
[5:04:23] the downtown uh vitalized and all the
[5:04:27] other current areas.
[5:04:29] Um
[5:04:32] right now with the economy the way it
[5:04:34] is, it is very difficult for retailers
[5:04:39] and by carving up more space for uh
[5:04:43] commercial.
[5:04:44] I think you're going to dilute
[5:04:48] um and that's going to create more
[5:04:50] problems. So those are my only comments.
[5:04:52] I would just ask that you deny it and if
[5:04:56] you are going to pass it for sure do not
[5:04:58] allow the 20% increase. Thank you.
[5:05:02] >> Thank you.
[5:05:05] There anybody else who would like to
[5:05:07] speak for against or undecided?
[5:05:14] » Okay, you guys want to come back up
[5:05:16] answer some questions?
[5:05:21] » Thank you, Mr. chair, members of the
[5:05:23] commission, Rodney, I don't know if we
[5:05:24] can put our slide back up because I have
[5:05:26] a couple things on traffic in there.
[5:05:30] So, really appreciate all the written
[5:05:31] testimony and then folks sticking around
[5:05:33] to provide their spoken testimony, too.
[5:05:35] It's really good to have feedback. Um,
[5:05:38] we let's see
[5:05:40] uh on the density stuff. So the 20%
[5:05:44] density bonus we're requesting is just
[5:05:46] for the RH district and the intent
[5:05:48] behind that is that we can provide more
[5:05:51] of a variety of housing within that
[5:05:52] area. So 12 units per acre is pretty
[5:05:55] limiting. It doesn't allow for uh
[5:05:58] apartments essentially. So if you uh any
[5:06:02] So a 20% bonus on the 12 would get us to
[5:06:05] 14.4 units an acre which would allow us
[5:06:07] to do a twotory apartment building
[5:06:09] basically with some town homes fixed in.
[5:06:11] So it really increases the variety of
[5:06:13] housing product that's there. It allows
[5:06:15] us to transition the density from the
[5:06:18] intense commercial to more high density
[5:06:21] to less density to the single family
[5:06:23] residential. So that's the intent behind
[5:06:24] that request. Uh looking at our zoning
[5:06:29] district um requests, uh the gentleman
[5:06:33] that had all of the math um that he
[5:06:37] provided was really great. I think what
[5:06:39] we're envisioning because this is a
[5:06:41] master plan community there's required
[5:06:42] to be 15% open space throughout the
[5:06:44] entire development which is um it's
[5:06:48] difficult to get density with that
[5:06:50] amount of open space. So realistically
[5:06:52] in the single family area we've been
[5:06:54] looking at five units per acre and
[5:06:56] that's what our traffic impact uh study
[5:06:59] analysis contemplated. So we'd probably
[5:07:01] be more at with 90 acres probably more
[5:07:04] around 450 to maybe 500 units within the
[5:07:08] RS4 area. The RH area if we went up to
[5:07:12] the 14 units per acre at around 28 29
[5:07:16] acres that'd be around 400 units which
[5:07:18] is a typical size for a multifamily
[5:07:21] development. So, that's what we envision
[5:07:24] and I think we'd be comfortable with a
[5:07:26] condition that maybe stated something
[5:07:28] along those lines if that's how the
[5:07:30] commission feels they'd like to make a
[5:07:32] recommendation.
[5:07:33] Um,
[5:07:35] the gentleman that brought up the ditch,
[5:07:38] we are required to comply with state
[5:07:40] code 42-12
[5:07:42] requires that we maintain water that's
[5:07:45] being delivered to adjacent properties.
[5:07:46] And at this point, we haven't done a
[5:07:48] whole lot of engineering uh on this
[5:07:50] property, but it's likely that we'll be
[5:07:52] tiling that because I think the one that
[5:07:53] he's talking about goes straight through
[5:07:54] the middle of the site where we have
[5:07:56] some roadways and some other things
[5:07:57] planned. But we will make sure that we
[5:07:59] work with him to make sure that's
[5:08:01] delivered to his property.
[5:08:05] » Quick question on that while you're
[5:08:07] Yeah, while you're there. So, it sounds
[5:08:09] like the farmer hasn't been doing
[5:08:11] anything this last year, so the weeds
[5:08:13] probably grew up and it was slowing down
[5:08:15] the the water flow. If this did get
[5:08:18] approved, could the developer keep that
[5:08:20] clean until he gets to the point where
[5:08:22] he does tile it so that they the one to
[5:08:24] the north does get their water without
[5:08:26] an issue?
[5:08:27] >> Mr. Chair, Commissioner, I can say that
[5:08:28] we'd be comfortable committing to that.
[5:08:30] Yeah,
[5:08:30] >> thank you.
[5:08:31] >> We'll make sure that we com coordinate
[5:08:32] that with our client.
[5:08:37] Uh, another thing that's really
[5:08:39] important, I think, for folks to
[5:08:40] recognize when they're talking about the
[5:08:42] density and maybe the size of lots
[5:08:44] within this development is that this
[5:08:45] will all be incrementally phased
[5:08:47] throughout the development. So, it is a
[5:08:49] large swath of ground, but
[5:08:51] realistically, you know, the northwest
[5:08:53] corner, I'm trying to show you pictures
[5:08:55] and I'm forgetting where they are in my
[5:08:56] slide deck, but the northwest corner is
[5:08:59] probably going to be where we would
[5:09:00] first go and then all of the yellow is
[5:09:02] probably what would be developing first
[5:09:05] because we need the rooftops to support
[5:09:08] the commercial. So, it's likely that the
[5:09:10] yellow would develop first and then some
[5:09:12] of the multif family may kind of be
[5:09:13] sprinkled in there or may develop uh
[5:09:16] second. A preliminary plat would be
[5:09:18] proposed at some point showing probably
[5:09:20] the entire property boundary with lots
[5:09:23] within the single family area and then
[5:09:24] we'd probably lot out the multif family
[5:09:26] area and then maybe show some commercial
[5:09:28] lots with conceptual plans for
[5:09:30] commercial uses. So over a period of 10
[5:09:33] to 15 years the preliminary plat for the
[5:09:36] single family and the multif family
[5:09:37] would be developed and then commercial
[5:09:39] would come in when the market supports
[5:09:40] it. So the intention is not for this to
[5:09:43] be a huge commercial area. 30 acres
[5:09:46] sounds like a lot. Um, this is kind of
[5:09:49] in relation to Cheryl's comments. Uh, it
[5:09:52] sounds like a lot, but really we're
[5:09:54] looking at more of a like a smaller
[5:09:57] market or a smaller like maybe an
[5:09:59] Albertson's uh like a neighborhood
[5:10:01] market type of store supported by other
[5:10:04] retailers, restaurants, fast casual
[5:10:06] dining stuff. uh maybe like a coffee
[5:10:08] shop, stuff that people can really walk
[5:10:10] to so that they're not accessing Midway
[5:10:12] Road or Lonear to go over to Carter uh
[5:10:16] to get to a store. So, the idea is
[5:10:20] really to try to alleviate traffic by
[5:10:22] having services close by where a lot of
[5:10:24] folks will be living eventually.
[5:10:28] So, traffic, uh speaking of traffic, um
[5:10:31] is always a big concern. We have uh
[5:10:33] we've been working with KDson
[5:10:35] Associates. they've been coordinating
[5:10:36] with the city on scoping this project
[5:10:39] out and one of the largest benefits I
[5:10:42] think that we've found with the master
[5:10:43] plan communities is it provides them an
[5:10:45] opportunity to have an overarching view
[5:10:47] of traffic for the entire area and then
[5:10:50] when the preliminary plaque comes in
[5:10:51] they have to do a more detailed analysis
[5:10:53] and city staff reviews it to make sure
[5:10:55] that the mitigations conform with what
[5:10:58] they think should be required. So, there
[5:11:00] were a lot of roadway segments that were
[5:11:03] reviewed and part of the scoping area.
[5:11:06] That's all outlined in black here. You
[5:11:08] can see where our site is. It's in
[5:11:10] green. So, that it's pretty expansive.
[5:11:12] It looked at Smith Avenue from Midway
[5:11:14] Road all the way to Nampa Calwell
[5:11:16] Boulevard, Orchard Avenue, Lonear Road,
[5:11:19] uh Midway Road from Lake to Moss, and
[5:11:22] then Middleton Road from Orchard Avenue
[5:11:24] to Nampa Caldwell Boulevard. Um, and
[5:11:28] they're at this point the findings. So
[5:11:32] they're they're basing these trip, you
[5:11:34] know, the potential trips off of
[5:11:37] potential densities, right? So we don't
[5:11:38] have a layout that they can really look
[5:11:40] at in a detailed way, but this is all um
[5:11:43] stuff that they're stipulating based on
[5:11:45] potential densities. So the overall
[5:11:48] traffic um will be substantial for the
[5:11:53] whole project, but as each phase
[5:11:55] develops, they'll be required to make
[5:11:57] improvements to roadways. So they'll
[5:11:58] widen Lonear, they'll widen Midway, and
[5:12:01] then there will be traffic signals
[5:12:02] required. Um one thing I found
[5:12:05] interesting in the analysis is it's
[5:12:06] actually there are several intersections
[5:12:07] and several roadways that need to be
[5:12:09] improved just now with background
[5:12:11] traffic. So it's not necessarily like
[5:12:13] this development is going to trigger
[5:12:15] those improvements. it would help to pay
[5:12:16] for them if um if they came in but it
[5:12:20] wouldn't you know require it on its own.
[5:12:22] So um I think
[5:12:31] then with each you know final plat you'd
[5:12:33] get impact fees and that's what helps to
[5:12:35] pay for improvements as you all know.
[5:12:39] >> What else am I missing?
[5:12:42] We really appreciate your consideration
[5:12:43] and um I'm in agreement with the staff
[5:12:46] report the conditions of approval. So
[5:12:48] I'm happy to answer any other questions
[5:12:50] you may have.
[5:12:53] » Questions, Mr. Chair?
[5:12:55] >> Yes. Um you touched on the phasing of
[5:12:57] the project. Do you have any idea what
[5:12:59] the timeline would be like? Are we
[5:13:03] >> uh Mr. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Morgan,
[5:13:05] we I don't have a defined timeline, but
[5:13:08] if this annexation were to be approved,
[5:13:10] our client wants to move forward with
[5:13:11] the premier plat as soon as we can. So,
[5:13:13] that typically takes, you know, through
[5:13:14] the entitlement process, probably six
[5:13:17] months, and then we would uh pursue a
[5:13:20] final plat for the first phase, you
[5:13:22] know, probably soon after that. So maybe
[5:13:25] that's usually I'm going to guesstimate
[5:13:27] um you know a year from design to
[5:13:29] approval of construction plans and then
[5:13:32] um construction would occur. So I'm
[5:13:34] going to guess probably two to three
[5:13:36] years out.
[5:13:37] >> Okay. And then how what percentage rough
[5:13:41] real rough ballpark of the project would
[5:13:44] that be? And then how how long until the
[5:13:46] next phases follow after that or is it
[5:13:49] all just going to be continuous? So, if
[5:13:52] we had four to 450 units, my guess is
[5:13:55] they'd probably do under 100 for each
[5:13:58] phase. I'm going to call it five phases
[5:14:00] just to make it simple. But, um, if we
[5:14:03] were to do the first phase, say the
[5:14:05] first phase is constructed and they have
[5:14:07] a final plat recorded in two years,
[5:14:09] that's pretty aggressive. But, I'm just
[5:14:11] using example. I think that they would
[5:14:13] probably sequentially go through each
[5:14:15] phase within a year after that. So, it'
[5:14:17] probably be a phase a year. So, two
[5:14:19] years to start and then maybe seven
[5:14:22] after seven years. I I'm not holding you
[5:14:24] to anything. Yeah. No, because we're
[5:14:25] gonna we're gonna ask Daniel we're gonna
[5:14:27] ask Daniel how
[5:14:29] >> soon roadways are going to get improved.
[5:14:31] Sure.
[5:14:31] >> You know, and so having a rough idea.
[5:14:34] >> I think what we been planning on is
[5:14:36] around 10 years, but seven would be I'm
[5:14:39] sure you know
[5:14:41] >> and that's just the RS4.
[5:14:43] >> Yeah, that would just be the single
[5:14:44] family residential and then the
[5:14:45] multifamily will be market dependent. So
[5:14:48] if there's a developer that wants to
[5:14:49] come in and do that, I think, you know,
[5:14:51] they would certainly be amendable to
[5:14:53] doing that earlier.
[5:14:57] » Thank you,
[5:14:58] >> Mr. Chair. Kind of a followup to that.
[5:15:01] I've always been curious. I mean, this
[5:15:02] is a huge
[5:15:04] project. I would I would imagine one of
[5:15:07] the biggest that we've seen in the city,
[5:15:10] you know, but well, maybe not. So, but
[5:15:12] it's a big one and it's going to have a
[5:15:14] big footprint. Yeah. if it gets
[5:15:16] approved.
[5:15:18] >> Um what what kind of market analysis or
[5:15:24] do you do to consider let's move forward
[5:15:28] with reaching out to NA and see if
[5:15:30] they'll if they'll be acceptable to a
[5:15:32] project this big. I mean population
[5:15:35] growth trends all that kind of stuff. I
[5:15:38] mean is it
[5:15:39] >> uh Mr. Chair, Commissioner Kirkman
[5:15:41] >> without divulging any proprietary
[5:15:44] >> I think I mean so [laughter]
[5:15:46] I work at an engineering firm or a
[5:15:47] consultant for developers who do this
[5:15:49] kind of work all the time and so I think
[5:15:51] a lot of times it's sometimes they just
[5:15:53] know and one of the property owners in
[5:15:56] this is a real estate broker so they
[5:15:57] have a really good feel for you know
[5:16:00] what the uh market is calling for what
[5:16:02] the current trends are and then I think
[5:16:04] a lot of them are really involved with
[5:16:06] planning processes and understand what
[5:16:08] decisions are made and and from those
[5:16:10] decisions a lot of times land uses are
[5:16:12] determined so um I might be a bit above
[5:16:16] my abilities or pay grade to understand
[5:16:18] exactly what decisions go into that.
[5:16:20] That's a question I get a lot of people
[5:16:23] just asking why why so many developments
[5:16:25] I mean and it is there's concerns with
[5:16:27] the comments that we've seen of you know
[5:16:29] do we have the infrastructure to support
[5:16:31] it and
[5:16:32] >> does it does growth pay for itself and
[5:16:35] we all know that that you know the
[5:16:36] answer to that and
[5:16:37] >> sure
[5:16:38] >> it doesn't pay for itself no it does not
[5:16:43] >> it helps
[5:16:43] >> be a little careful
[5:16:44] >> but it doesn't pay for itself
[5:16:48] um but we just see all and I I think
[5:16:50] there's some legitimate concerns with a
[5:16:53] lot of especially with a lot of these
[5:16:54] big
[5:16:56] um developments going in.
[5:16:59] >> So anyway, it's more of a curiosity
[5:17:00] question than anything else because
[5:17:03] and along with that the the commercial
[5:17:06] node at the center of this is
[5:17:09] >> do you anticipate
[5:17:11] probably seeing more like box stores or
[5:17:14] more of a village feel or something to
[5:17:16] that?
[5:17:17] >> Mr. Chair Commissioner Kirkman um to
[5:17:20] comment on the size of the project just
[5:17:22] really quick. So this isund what is it
[5:17:25] 130 acres? I can't remember offh hand.
[5:17:27] So that's roughly I mean most of the
[5:17:29] subdivisions around 40 to 80 acres. So
[5:17:31] it's not huge but it is a good
[5:17:33] collection of property I think to make a
[5:17:35] comprehensively planned project which is
[5:17:37] a cool opportunity. Um
[5:17:39] >> the commercial component they really
[5:17:41] envision being similar to the
[5:17:43] Albertson's that's over off of Amity and
[5:17:45] Eagle. So, kind of a, you know, that's a
[5:17:48] really great amenity for folks over
[5:17:49] there that didn't have any commercial
[5:17:51] really options. Um, and it's not huge,
[5:17:54] but they do have some other kind of
[5:17:56] ancillary
[5:17:57] uh retail and some smaller restaurants.
[5:18:00] That's what they're envisioning here.
[5:18:01] And we did include some design
[5:18:03] guidelines in our um application that
[5:18:05] they'd be held to. So, some different
[5:18:07] architectural stylings and color, you
[5:18:09] know, schemes that uh will give it its
[5:18:12] own unique feel. And the idea was to try
[5:18:15] to, you know, embrace the heritage of
[5:18:18] Damp in this area recognizing it's an
[5:18:20] important area for the T for city. So,
[5:18:23] >> okay. Thank you.
[5:18:25] [clears throat]
[5:18:30] » Good.
[5:18:32] Okay.
[5:18:33] >> Thank you.
[5:18:34] >> You have something to add, Rodney,
[5:18:36] please.
[5:18:37] >> Mr. Jared, I just had two questions that
[5:18:40] were from the um the public. Will they
[5:18:44] tile Oh, I guess we talked about the
[5:18:46] tiling. Uh development agreement.
[5:18:49] >> Do you want me to respond to that one,
[5:18:51] >> please?
[5:18:52] >> Um so, a development agreement in most
[5:18:54] cases is developed as we have this
[5:18:57] discussion in a public hearing. Um it
[5:19:00] will be a decision by city council as
[5:19:03] well. So you can recommend a development
[5:19:05] agreement and you can include certain
[5:19:08] conditions to be placed in that
[5:19:10] development agreement. We don't have a
[5:19:12] development agreement developed yet.
[5:19:14] It's part of this process. Um but I did
[5:19:18] put in the staff report a list of
[5:19:20] conditions that I would recommend we
[5:19:22] place in that development agreement. And
[5:19:24] then we have a standard template that we
[5:19:25] use for legal ease.
[5:19:29] >> Thank you for the clarification, Rodney.
[5:19:32] Close
[5:19:36] the public hearing.
[5:19:37] >> Second.
[5:19:38] >> Been moved by Commissioner Morgan,
[5:19:40] second by Kirkman to close the public
[5:19:41] hearing. All those in favor?
[5:19:43] >> I.
[5:19:43] >> Any opposed?
[5:19:45] Okay. Public hearing is closed.
[5:19:49] >> Yes.
[5:19:51] >> Rodney and friends. Um
[5:19:54] [laughter]
[5:19:55] you guys you guys showed us a really
[5:19:57] cool tool a couple weeks ago about um
[5:20:03] Kirkham's bold statement that growth
[5:20:05] does not pay for growth.
[5:20:08] >> No, I didn't say I said
[5:20:12] >> go back. Rewind the tape.
[5:20:16] » Can we see that? Why why don't we have
[5:20:18] that yet? It's not ready.
[5:20:20] >> We It's not quite ready. Um,
[5:20:22] >> this would be a great
[5:20:24] >> It would be great. Um, and we don't want
[5:20:28] to release something unless we're really
[5:20:31] certain it's accurate. We don't want,
[5:20:35] you know, we don't want council
[5:20:38] um debating whether this is um an
[5:20:42] accurate tool and some people siding on
[5:20:46] one side saying, "Yeah, it looks good
[5:20:48] because it gets what I want or the other
[5:20:52] side and saying, hey, this this is wrong
[5:20:55] because
[5:20:56] um
[5:20:57] >> I don't agree.
[5:20:58] with the process or the
[5:20:59] methodology." So, we're trying to refine
[5:21:02] it enough to make sure that we poked all
[5:21:05] the holes in it and made sure that it's solid. So, we um we're considering
[5:21:12] right now maybe even having like a third
[5:21:16] party just look at it and say, "What did
[5:21:18] we miss?" You know, did um one of the
[5:21:21] things
[5:21:22] >> Can I pause you for a second? I jumped
[5:21:23] in there. For those who don't know,
[5:21:25] there was a meeting last week, city
[5:21:28] council, an early morning meeting where
[5:21:30] the city's budget department presented a
[5:21:32] tool they're developing that helps
[5:21:34] analyze developments more accurately
[5:21:38] like the costs of the development to the
[5:21:40] city and the re not rewards isn't the
[5:21:44] right word, the revenue.
[5:21:45] >> The revenue cost. Yeah.
[5:21:47] >> And and basically
[5:21:49] >> what's the balance is does it pay for
[5:21:51] itself or does it not? And
[5:21:53] >> the answer depends a lot on the
[5:21:54] variables you punch in.
[5:21:56] >> Absolutely. Yeah. And we were really conservative in all the
[5:22:01] assumptions we put in there. Um but you
[5:22:05] know when we start refining those
[5:22:08] assumptions and saying well this isn't
[5:22:10] quite accurate then we need to refine
[5:22:12] more assumptions and it it gets a little
[5:22:15] bit tricky. So what amount of
[5:22:18] specificity are we comfortable with? And
[5:22:21] that's that's what we're working on
[5:22:22] right now.
[5:22:23] >> So that you're not comfortable enough in
[5:22:24] the tool to
[5:22:26] >> to release it. No, we we also want to do
[5:22:28] a test run of a development and maybe
[5:22:32] even do one that's existed that we've
[5:22:34] already um developed and then it kind of
[5:22:37] gives us a sense of did it actually
[5:22:41] estimate. Well, so thank you.
[5:22:46] >> I have the floor. Can I call Daniel up
[5:22:48] please?
[5:22:48] >> Please. And would you speak to any
[5:22:51] roadway improvements that are already
[5:22:52] planned for this area, please?
[5:22:58] » So, we don't have anything in the
[5:23:01] five-year plan for for Midway at this
[5:23:04] point. Um there are a number of
[5:23:06] developments that are proposed out there
[5:23:09] that will ultimately do traffic impact
[5:23:12] studies that may trigger improvements
[5:23:15] um if they are approved and um go
[5:23:17] forward just like this development.
[5:23:19] We'll have to do those analysis and
[5:23:21] would likely trigger um improvements
[5:23:23] associated with it as well. Um but as
[5:23:26] for a
[5:23:28] wholesale, we're widening midway to five
[5:23:31] lanes. um that that's not something
[5:23:34] that's in the in the five-year plan at
[5:23:36] this point. Again, we are working on our
[5:23:38] transportation master plan that will go
[5:23:41] through and do those analyses and and
[5:23:44] identify where the priority corridors
[5:23:46] are and and re um set our our projects
[5:23:51] list.
[5:23:53] >> Well, can I get something from Daniel
[5:23:56] really quick? Um, can you address the
[5:23:58] one property owner that lives just north
[5:24:00] of the park on Midway and what we could
[5:24:04] possibly do to address the noise and
[5:24:06] mitigate for him, I believe he's in the
[5:24:09] county, so there's not a whole lot we
[5:24:11] can do. So, so until we are doing actual
[5:24:14] design um plans and looking at project
[5:24:17] property specific uh when we do do those
[5:24:21] designs, we are looking at how do we
[5:24:25] minimize our impacts to existing
[5:24:27] property owners. Um not I did not pull
[5:24:31] up that address so I don't know um
[5:24:33] specifically what the situation is.
[5:24:36] There are times where the um
[5:24:41] depending on the vintage of the
[5:24:42] development that they are in, what those
[5:24:45] setbacks were required to be can be
[5:24:48] challenging on that. Um I'm happy to
[5:24:50] talk with him and and talk over where um
[5:24:53] we would anticipate those rideway lines
[5:24:56] are. So if he's putting improvements in
[5:24:58] that he's not putting in pro
[5:25:00] improvements that we then have to go
[5:25:02] purchase in the future um to to minimize
[5:25:06] those impacts. Um but ultimately um
[5:25:10] those are those are things we do on
[5:25:12] every single project on a mile or half
[5:25:15] mile section road when we go to
[5:25:18] transform it from a rural two-lane
[5:25:21] section to an you know the urban urban
[5:25:24] section that it ultimately needs to be.
[5:25:26] >> Thanks.
[5:25:29] Why are you there? [laughter]
[5:25:32] >> Um, there was something about there was
[5:25:35] a project about a month and a half ago
[5:25:37] or so and Midway was brought up and the
[5:25:42] redoing of it and if they wanted to do
[5:25:46] improvements, they had to go
[5:25:47] underground. Will that be over or is
[5:25:50] this even in in that area where Midway
[5:25:52] was improved?
[5:25:55] >> I'm not remembering that. Um, the only
[5:26:00] things we've had out on Midway recently
[5:26:04] have been the proposal for the Grace
[5:26:06] Bible Church.
[5:26:07] >> I believe that was it. And there and for
[5:26:09] them to get their utilities, they
[5:26:11] everything had to be underground.
[5:26:13] >> So there was
[5:26:14] >> because of an improvement to Midway up
[5:26:16] to a certain point.
[5:26:17] >> There was a comment from someone asking
[5:26:21] whether or not they would we would
[5:26:24] require the power lines to be put
[5:26:26] underground. if I remember correctly and
[5:26:28] that is not something that the city
[5:26:30] dictates. Um so aerial power is fine. Um
[5:26:35] obviously the other utilities and stuff
[5:26:38] pretty much everybody but power goes
[5:26:40] underground. I'm just I'm recalling
[5:26:42] something about the repaving of it and
[5:26:44] since it was done
[5:26:46] >> so [snorts] okay so that um there was
[5:26:51] work done by uh canyon for highway
[5:26:55] district number four um when those
[5:26:58] properties come into the city um we we
[5:27:02] have jurisdiction over those their codes
[5:27:05] require a four fiveyear moratorum
[5:27:09] um on on things our codes do not have
[5:27:12] that. Uh we do have patch requirements
[5:27:14] and those types of things for that. Um
[5:27:17] but no, that that's not something that's
[5:27:19] in city code.
[5:27:33] » Well, you guys, you're all running
[5:27:34] around the mouth. Um, you know, let let
[5:27:38] >> I got a I I mean, the city the staff
[5:27:42] were did a lot of outreach to develop
[5:27:44] these specific area plans and reached
[5:27:47] out to the communities, had a lot of
[5:27:48] community input and stuff on them. This
[5:27:51] one, the other ones around Highway 16
[5:27:53] and Eustic and stuff. And I if I
[5:27:56] remember right, there was a lot of
[5:27:57] comments from people that wanted
[5:28:01] some business centers, some shopping and
[5:28:03] stuff down there because they had to
[5:28:05] drive so far. So, and it's not going to
[5:28:08] happen until the rooftops get there. But
[5:28:11] it would be nice. I mean, there's no
[5:28:12] store or anything down that area. If you
[5:28:14] could get a local grocery store and few
[5:28:17] restaurants and stuff, they wouldn't
[5:28:19] have to drive forever. But there was a,
[5:28:21] if I remember right, there was quite a
[5:28:23] few comments of people wanting
[5:28:25] some business in the area so they didn't
[5:28:27] have to drive clear across town,
[5:28:29] >> especially the car.
[5:28:31] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[5:28:32] >> Well, I think the comments, the negative
[5:28:34] comments about commercial, um, a lot of
[5:28:36] people just don't understand what
[5:28:37] commercial would do.
[5:28:41] Um, and they assume that it will
[5:28:44] increase traffic when actually it does
[5:28:46] just the opposite because people that
[5:28:48] live in the area tend to travel less
[5:28:50] distance to that said commercial
[5:28:52] property. So there isn't the effect on
[5:28:55] the entire city that there is if there's
[5:28:57] not that
[5:28:59] >> and there there plan to do the
[5:29:01] commercial and the real high high
[5:29:03] density up against it and then pays that
[5:29:05] down to town homes and then go to the
[5:29:08] single family. I like the plan. I think
[5:29:11] it's what we're trying to get these
[5:29:12] areas to do. But
[5:29:15] I think they did a good job addressing
[5:29:16] what our
[5:29:18] scope of that area that plan was for.
[5:29:21] And I think they've done a good job at
[5:29:22] addressing it. But
[5:29:23] >> well, I think it took a lot of time
[5:29:25] putting this area plan together. I mean,
[5:29:27] it was
[5:29:27] >> it did was quite a while. If I remember
[5:29:30] right, staff worked on it. So,
[5:29:32] >> but
[5:29:34] I'm I'm I like it. I'm for it. But and
[5:29:38] it's it's not happening over the next
[5:29:40] two years. It's they'll be still
[5:29:42] building there seven, eight years from
[5:29:44] now. So,
[5:29:45] >> or more.
[5:29:47] >> Yeah. Or more. [clears throat]
[5:29:50] Um, I agree with all
[5:30:02] [clears throat]
[5:30:04] » 11:30. Give me a break.
[5:30:07] >> Um, I agree with all chairman Turner
[5:30:11] sentiments. However, I feel like I have
[5:30:14] a hard time with these kinds of plans
[5:30:17] because
[5:30:20] like has been stated, annexation and
[5:30:22] zoning is our when we have the most
[5:30:24] discretion,
[5:30:25] but we have the least amount of
[5:30:27] information. You know what I mean? Like
[5:30:29] when we don't we don't know. We we think
[5:30:31] they're going to put the bigger lots
[5:30:33] next to the existing residential, but we
[5:30:35] don't know that. And by the time the
[5:30:36] plaque comes, we have less
[5:30:39] discretion, I would say.
[5:30:42] >> And
[5:30:45] go ahead.
[5:30:46] >> Maybe I'm out of turn. He's gonna
[5:30:47] correct me. Go ahead.
[5:30:49] >> Actually, I'm just going to ask a
[5:30:50] question. Are you talking about the lock
[5:30:54] compatibility requirements we have in
[5:30:56] code?
[5:30:57] >> I'm just I'm just saying like it's a big
[5:30:59] blob of RS4, which could be a lot of
[5:31:02] things. And I don't know, do we still
[5:31:05] have
[5:31:08] what I understand is this is our this is
[5:31:10] our moment of greatest discretion.
[5:31:18] So, our code specifically addresses
[5:31:20] compatibility when it's adjacent to a
[5:31:23] previously platted subdivision.
[5:31:25] >> So, where the RS4 is on the west side
[5:31:29] against the existing uh residential
[5:31:32] lots,
[5:31:32] >> yeah,
[5:31:33] >> there may be some compatibility
[5:31:34] requirements on that side.
[5:31:36] >> That's a really good example.
[5:31:37] >> Yeah. And so I think that if memory
[5:31:40] serves me correctly, the RS4
[5:31:42] compatibility requirement is 8,000
[5:31:44] square feet.
[5:31:46] >> Okay, that's and that's what I'm getting
[5:31:47] at is maybe even 8,000 is a little too
[5:31:50] small
[5:31:50] >> for you know and and so maybe some more
[5:31:54] um
[5:31:56] granularity a word, right?
[5:31:58] >> I think you know you know you know what
[5:32:01] I'm trying to say.
[5:32:02] >> Since this is a master plan community,
[5:32:03] you have some flexibility in
[5:32:07] um in lot sizes and what you would
[5:32:09] approve. That's the definition of the
[5:32:12] master plan community is that you have
[5:32:13] that flexibility. So in your development
[5:32:16] agreement, you could outline that the
[5:32:19] properties on the west have to be a
[5:32:20] certain size or maybe even
[5:32:24] I don't know just um the setbacks might
[5:32:27] be larger. There might be a landscape
[5:32:29] buffer or there might be you know some
[5:32:31] different things that might transition
[5:32:32] better to those lot sizes that you would
[5:32:34] prefer. Those are all conditions you can
[5:32:37] put in the in the development agreement.
[5:32:38] >> We just talk a lot about diversity of
[5:32:40] housing types and this looks like this
[5:32:43] looks to me like two housing types. I'm
[5:32:45] not sure I'm sure that it'll be more
[5:32:47] than that, but we can't see that at this
[5:32:50] point. And so when it comes to their
[5:32:52] preliminary plat and if if I'm sitting
[5:32:55] up here and I say this is not enough
[5:32:58] housing diversity,
[5:33:00] is there anything I can do at that point
[5:33:02] or is it just quasi judicial and they meet code and you're done.
[5:33:09] >> So there was a lot there. Sorry. Um Mr.
[5:33:13] Chair and commissioner, I I um
[5:33:16] [clears throat] a couple of things.
[5:33:18] First of all, maybe we need to address
[5:33:20] some of the type of housing that they're
[5:33:22] proposing. I saw on their slide that
[5:33:25] they're proposing um some attached and
[5:33:28] some detached.
[5:33:30] And so that's one difference that you
[5:33:33] could see in diversity of housing. Um,
[5:33:36] but then yeah, you can put if you want a
[5:33:40] principle in there to use against the
[5:33:42] preliminary plat, you can put that in
[5:33:45] the DA so that [clears throat] when the
[5:33:47] preliminary plaque comes forward, you
[5:33:49] say, "Yeah, we put that statement in
[5:33:51] there because we wanted to see this and
[5:33:54] you don't quite match what we're we were
[5:33:57] saying." you know, you have some
[5:33:59] discretion to to approve or deny that
[5:34:02] based on its compatibility or uh
[5:34:06] compliance with the development
[5:34:07] agreement.
[5:34:11] » Thank you. That answers my
[5:34:14] >> And my question for the group then, I
[5:34:16] guess, do you guys have any concerns
[5:34:18] with that 20% increase that they're
[5:34:21] asking for? No, because like I don't
[5:34:24] because like she was saying they want to
[5:34:25] try to increase the from what I the way
[5:34:28] I understood it the multif family up
[5:34:31] next to the commercial and then phase it
[5:34:33] down as she goes out towards the single
[5:34:35] family. So I think that's where she's
[5:34:37] trying if I understood her correctly
[5:34:39] that's where they're trying to get add
[5:34:41] that higher density is up against the
[5:34:43] commercial and work out from it. So
[5:34:45] couldn't So would the average over the
[5:34:47] whole thing still be at 12?
[5:34:52] » That makes sense what I'm saying.
[5:34:54] >> Mr. Chair, I I think I need to jump in
[5:34:56] here because I I heard a couple of
[5:34:58] comments like that in uh the public
[5:35:01] presentations. We need to make sure that
[5:35:03] this is very clear. They are only
[5:35:05] requesting a 20% increase to their
[5:35:08] highdensity residential designation. So
[5:35:11] that goes to 14 dwelling units per acre.
[5:35:15] Is that right? 20
[5:35:17] >> 14.4.
[5:35:18] >> Yeah, 14.4. Um, so that's the only one.
[5:35:23] And then yeah, you could you could put
[5:35:25] restrictions on, hey, it up against
[5:35:28] those lots that are a large lot, single
[5:35:32] family. You could put restrictions on
[5:35:34] those to say, hey, it has to be a
[5:35:36] certain size lot. From
[5:35:38] >> what I understood when she was
[5:35:40] explaining it, that's what they were
[5:35:42] going to do. And then as they got out
[5:35:43] towards the single family, they were
[5:35:44] going to even do some town homes. So
[5:35:47] they're they're stepping down,
[5:35:49] >> which is what we want them to do.
[5:35:51] >> Okay.
[5:35:52] >> Yeah. And I think if they're developing
[5:35:55] the whole thing, they're going to want
[5:35:56] to do that to make it compatible. If you
[5:35:58] go from the high density apartments down
[5:36:00] to transition down to town homes and
[5:36:02] then the single family, it's it's nice
[5:36:05] gradual transition instead of the
[5:36:07] apartments right up against the single
[5:36:09] family. So I guess if we're looking at
[5:36:11] the highdensity housing, when we say
[5:36:13] we're giving them the 20% increase, does
[5:36:16] that mean that's the maximum density in
[5:36:18] that area or the average density over
[5:36:21] the whole thing or is that the same or
[5:36:23] you looking at that as the same thing?
[5:36:26] >> That do you do you don't understand the
[5:36:27] difference of what I'm asking?
[5:36:28] >> I think so. But are you saying for the
[5:36:31] whole development the average or just
[5:36:34] multifamily?
[5:36:35] >> Just the Yeah, multif family part.
[5:36:38] So yeah, the
[5:36:39] >> So do you analyze it all as one big
[5:36:41] thing?
[5:36:42] >> We do.
[5:36:44] >> So all this gray area,
[5:36:46] >> the multif family, if it came in, we
[5:36:48] would look at the density that they
[5:36:49] provided
[5:36:50] >> on just because they're not they're
[5:36:52] probably not going to develop all that
[5:36:53] gray at once, right?
[5:36:55] >> Correct. Yeah.
[5:36:57] >> So each individual
[5:37:00] application that comes in
[5:37:02] >> Yeah.
[5:37:02] >> could be as high as 14.4.
[5:37:07] Correct.
[5:37:08] >> Okay. So, so really that whole gray the
[5:37:10] potentially could be 14.4.
[5:37:12] >> Correct. Yeah.
[5:37:15] >> But we could also at this point like I
[5:37:17] say put in the development agreement
[5:37:18] that as it transitions towards the
[5:37:22] single family detached homes that has to
[5:37:25] transition to town to town home style
[5:37:28] duplexes or something.
[5:37:29] >> We we want to see some transition.
[5:37:31] >> Transition. Yeah.
[5:37:34] >> Yeah. From west to east. West. Yes.
[5:37:37] >> And can we say that in the RS4? Do we
[5:37:40] want to see that same kind of step down
[5:37:42] as we move west to east or
[5:37:45] >> I think in the single family I think
[5:37:47] they need to make sure that the lots
[5:37:49] around the exterior against the other
[5:37:51] lots are compatible.
[5:37:53] >> I think that's I think that's the more
[5:37:55] important thing is saying that the
[5:37:57] >> the lots the current residential lots
[5:38:00] that but the RS4 need to be more
[5:38:02] compatible than
[5:38:06] You mind going back to the specific area
[5:38:08] plan?
[5:38:16] You have one that's got this one
[5:38:17] highlighted
[5:38:19] or is that in the other presentation?
[5:38:24] » Sorry.
[5:38:33] Well, he's finding that I have a I just
[5:38:35] had a comment or a thought. If if we're
[5:38:39] a if we're agreeing to the 20% increase
[5:38:43] and they do transition,
[5:38:45] do we have to go with RS4
[5:38:50] six
[5:38:52] neighboring is 7 8.5
[5:38:57] etc.
[5:39:00] I don't know.
[5:39:02] Or is that
[5:39:05] I know it has to pencil out. I get it.
[5:39:06] >> Yeah, that's a good one right there.
[5:39:10] >> What happened there? That's a good one.
[5:39:17] » I got to do the math to invert it
[5:39:19] because I got to go from units per acre
[5:39:21] to square feet.
[5:39:27] Yeah, correct. So the tricky part about
[5:39:31] this uh is that we are looking with a
[5:39:35] specific area plan. We're looking at a
[5:39:36] really big area beyond just this
[5:39:39] development and how it transitions. So
[5:39:43] this five to eight dwelling units per
[5:39:45] acre, we're kind of stuck there.
[5:39:48] >> That's just and that's RS4.
[5:39:49] >> Yeah, that's RS4.
[5:39:51] So if you go beyond that then it starts
[5:39:54] getting to the you know less than that
[5:39:57] 2.5 to five dwelling units per acre on
[5:40:00] the southern side of that
[5:40:02] and then even on the as you transition
[5:40:05] back over to the west it's 2.5 to five
[5:40:09] dwelling units per acre but the area
[5:40:12] that we're talking about is the higher part of that medium
[5:40:17] density residential
[5:40:19] >> I think and I'm comfortable able with
[5:40:21] that. I think I would like to arc the
[5:40:24] compatibility and I'll take your guys'
[5:40:26] input compatibility to allow it to go
[5:40:28] beyond that 8,000 because it's it's up
[5:40:30] against like acre lots, right?
[5:40:35] >> I don't know.
[5:40:36] >> So, in our code, RS6 and RS7 max out at
[5:40:39] 10,000 square feet.
[5:40:44] » That's as much as they could go.
[5:40:46] That's as much as they're required to go
[5:40:49] >> or 80% of whatever they're next to. So
[5:40:53] >> I like I like something like that. I I
[5:40:55] was going to throw out 50% of what
[5:40:57] they're next to, but
[5:40:58] >> 80% is the lower if it's
[5:41:01] >> Oh, that's the lower bound.
[5:41:03] >> Whatever.
[5:41:04] >> The other one you just said is the upper
[5:41:06] bound.
[5:41:06] >> Yeah.
[5:41:07] >> So yeah, exactly. It would max out at
[5:41:10] 10,000.
[5:41:12] [snorts]
[5:41:15] » Is anybody as concerned as I am.
[5:41:19] >> But that is that what's in the code?
[5:41:22] >> The code. So the code would be 8,000.
[5:41:24] The ones along the edge abuing
[5:41:27] >> the existing residential would be 8,000.
[5:41:29] >> 8,000 max.
[5:41:30] >> It's still pretty small compared to
[5:41:32] what's there.
[5:41:34] >> But you have the flexibility with an MPC
[5:41:36] to make that condition bigger.
[5:41:39] >> Only up to 10 though.
[5:41:40] >> No, I'm just giving you an example. RS6
[5:41:42] and RS7 go to 10,000. So
[5:41:45] >> bigger.
[5:41:46] >> Sorry, I'm just I'm just throwing out
[5:41:47] the numbers that we have in code just to
[5:41:49] give you an idea.
[5:41:50] >> So we could require those along the
[5:41:52] existing county
[5:41:55] lots to maybe go 70% of the lot width
[5:42:01] that they but up to. So they' be close
[5:42:04] 70 75%. So you wouldn't have to match
[5:42:07] them completely, but the width that they
[5:42:09] would be button up to would be darn
[5:42:11] close to what's already there. Something
[5:42:12] like that. my mind is just do like a
[5:42:14] percentage or something. Yeah, like
[5:42:15] >> I don't know
[5:42:18] >> that could start cutting into the the
[5:42:21] required densities
[5:42:24] >> specific area plan.
[5:42:28] I
[5:42:29] >> I to
[5:42:31] >> Yeah.
[5:42:32] >> kind of what you want
[5:42:33] >> because that's where we always run into
[5:42:34] a problem with these these larger lots
[5:42:37] county subdivisions when something comes
[5:42:39] along that people you know they're
[5:42:41] looking at getting four lots across the
[5:42:43] back property line and and that just
[5:42:45] isn't compatible most of the time. So if
[5:42:47] we could say that they have to be
[5:42:49] at least 75% of the width of the
[5:42:52] >> even 50% I think
[5:42:54] >> or something so of those lots that
[5:42:57] they're going to butt up against
[5:42:59] >> and then I guess we need to look at
[5:43:04] » like this this is impacting such a small
[5:43:06] portion of this
[5:43:09] but I think it's an important part.
[5:43:10] Yeah, there's not a lot of lots.
[5:43:11] >> If that's required though, how much how
[5:43:13] much are you going to have to change on
[5:43:16] the interior? I mean, they have to
[5:43:18] reback. Are they going to have to go
[5:43:19] back and redo the whole
[5:43:20] >> They haven't planned any of it out yet.
[5:43:22] >> Oh, they got a pretty good idea.
[5:43:25] >> They don't have lots laid out.
[5:43:27] >> Well, they're not even an acre.
[5:43:29] [laughter]
[5:43:30] >> They're 3/4 of an acre.
[5:43:32] >> They're pretty wide. So,
[5:43:33] >> those are even like the chairman said,
[5:43:36] you know, if we make them 50%. So, but
[5:43:39] isn't that a ditch
[5:43:40] >> that divides them?
[5:43:43] >> There's a canal there.
[5:43:44] >> So, they actually aren't even a budding.
[5:43:47] >> So, yeah, there's a
[5:43:48] >> there's a there's already a buffer. So,
[5:43:51] you could do a landscape buffer to get
[5:43:53] them even further away.
[5:43:56] >> Changing the
[5:43:57] >> the lot sizes.
[5:44:00] >> That's a pretty good size canal though.
[5:44:04] Right away,
[5:44:06] >> Mr. chair and commissioners, it looks to
[5:44:07] me like um the even though there is a
[5:44:10] ditch there, the uh properties extend to
[5:44:14] the center line of the ditch on both
[5:44:17] sides. And so you are abudding those
[5:44:20] properties. So you'd still have that
[5:44:22] requirement that's already built into
[5:44:25] code, but you could increase that. I'm a
[5:44:28] little bit nervous about giving a
[5:44:30] percentage because um some of these
[5:44:34] properties if they're budding up against
[5:44:37] two of these properties and it's a
[5:44:39] percentage it's going to be really
[5:44:41] challenging for me to figure out what I
[5:44:43] should do. Right? So I would prefer
[5:44:47] since these are about a 3/4 of an acre.
[5:44:49] That one that I'm kind of pointing at
[5:44:51] here is 2 acres but that's kind of an
[5:44:54] outlier for that subdivision. Um I would
[5:44:58] recommend we do some exact number. So
[5:45:01] that's you have to have
[5:45:05] you know from this range maybe um 10 to
[5:45:09] 12,000 square feet or something like
[5:45:12] that.
[5:45:12] >> Good numbers
[5:45:15] >> but two that what do you got there? You
[5:45:17] got 20 foot on each side of that canal.
[5:45:19] That's probably
[5:45:20] >> that's actually the Phillis canal. So
[5:45:22] it's a not
[5:45:24] >> Yeah. Uh, so then you got 20 feet on
[5:45:26] each side of it, right, for the
[5:45:27] rightway. So, I mean, you're not even
[5:45:29] going to be buttoning up to them come
[5:45:30] to, you know, when you look at it. So, I
[5:45:33] think if we just leave it the way code
[5:45:34] says, then I think we'd be good.
[5:45:36] >> Okay.
[5:45:38] >> I mean, they're long going to be a long
[5:45:39] ways apart.
[5:45:40] >> 8,000
[5:45:42] >> feet bigger. Yeah. As we get what code
[5:45:45] and I think they'll work on it and do
[5:45:46] their best to make make it compatible.
[5:45:48] You're Yeah. Phyllis Canals. How wide is
[5:45:50] that thing? 12 15 feet something like
[5:45:53] that. maybe bigger. So, you're going to
[5:45:55] be over half a football field apart
[5:45:58] anyway from the prop line where you know
[5:46:01] >> what if we just said
[5:46:04] there's no 8,000 limit
[5:46:08] as compatible as they
[5:46:11] >> sounds perfect. Go for it.
[5:46:15] Could
[5:46:17] we say [laughter]
[5:46:18] but
[5:46:22] » from the person who has to review the
[5:46:24] preliminary plat
[5:46:26] >> that's too loose.
[5:46:26] >> Yeah. It would be really hard to just
[5:46:28] look at it and be like it's close
[5:46:29] enough.
[5:46:32] >> Could do that. [laughter]
[5:46:34] >> If you word it like that I could do
[5:46:36] that.
[5:46:36] >> They're not they're not incentivized to
[5:46:38] make those huge lots. And if they did,
[5:46:44] » but if you're good with 8,000, they'll
[5:46:46] probably
[5:46:46] >> I don't know that I am.
[5:46:47] >> Okay.
[5:46:49] >> We just leave it up to what's in code.
[5:46:50] So
[5:46:50] >> do a range. Well, 8,000 is what's in
[5:46:52] code to So if you're not good with that,
[5:46:54] then
[5:46:55] >> I'd like to see 10 or more there.
[5:46:59] >> 10 to 12. 10 to 12.
[5:47:00] >> Okay.
[5:47:02] >> There you go.
[5:47:03] >> Is that a motion?
[5:47:04] >> Since that's what time it is.
[5:47:06] >> 10 to [laughter] 12.
[5:47:11] that a motion.
[5:47:12] >> Okay.
[5:47:13] >> Anything else?
[5:47:14] >> No, just got to get the the motion back
[5:47:16] up there so you can get it made.
[5:47:18] >> Um,
[5:47:22] » to most people are is everybody How's
[5:47:25] everybody feeling? I heard Steve say he
[5:47:26] doesn't like the 20% increase, but
[5:47:29] sounds like everybody else is okay with
[5:47:30] >> Oh, I have I don't have a problem with
[5:47:32] the 20% increase.
[5:47:34] >> You're going from 12 to 14 year. You
[5:47:36] feel better? I just like the fact that
[5:47:39] you get a little going to give the 20%
[5:47:42] then give a little bit more on the
[5:47:44] single family side
[5:47:46] >> and
[5:47:49] [snorts]
[5:47:49] >> Okay.
[5:47:50] Go for I'll move to recommend
[5:47:52] approval of the project as stated on
[5:47:54] screen with remen
[5:47:56] with recommended conditions and proposed
[5:47:58] findings
[5:48:01] with the additional
[5:48:05] understanding because I kind of want to
[5:48:07] put this into a development we go.
[5:48:10] >> Okay.
[5:48:13] with a development agreement. Can I just
[5:48:15] say that that incorporates
[5:48:18] the principles of transitioning the
[5:48:21] density of the multifamily housing at
[5:48:25] moving for decreasing from west to east
[5:48:28] and lots that are abuing existing homes
[5:48:35] are 10,000 to 12,000 square feet in lie
[5:48:39] of the
[5:48:41] 8,000 currently.
[5:48:45] Second.
[5:48:48] >> Okay. It's been moved by Commissioner
[5:48:49] Morgan, second by Commissioner Turner to
[5:48:51] approve the item with the development
[5:48:54] agreement.
[5:48:56] We
[5:48:56] >> have a roll call, please.
[5:48:59] >> Garner absent. Miller,
[5:49:02] >> yes.
[5:49:03] >> Daffer, absent. Turner,
[5:49:05] >> hi.
[5:49:07] >> Kho,
[5:49:08] >> I
[5:49:09] >> Morgan,
[5:49:11] >> yes.
[5:49:12] Kirkman,
[5:49:13] >> yes.
[5:49:15] >> Copeland, absent. Fiend,
[5:49:17] >> yes.
[5:49:19] >> Okay, motion passes.
[5:49:23] » Motion to adjurnn.
[5:49:25] >> Second. Been moved by Commissioner
[5:49:28] Morgan, second by Commissioner Turn to
[5:49:31] all those in favor?
[5:49:32] >> I. Any opposed?
[5:49:33] >> I
[5:49:36] That's how we do it.
[5:49:37] >> Thank you all. Appreciate it.
[5:49:39] >> I could have made it to midnight, but
[5:49:40] whatever. What's up to you guys? Thanks
[5:49:43] for sticking it out.
[5:49:45] >> Maybe my wife. [laughter]
[5:49:48] >> What's up to you guys?