Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

I was there last week. I don't remember seeing it though.

So we have really one application tonight.

Uh okay. So I just told you so. Okay, that's working. Oh, wait a minute.

Both these on. Does it get really weird? Wait a minute. I don't have all these.

That's here for 34. So yeah, that's what I and then like 33 and no offense against the young man,

but I Just call Rodney. Okay. Rodney, I see you're up first. Well, actually, no. No, we want you to do it. Yeah. Yeah. Then two more. How you doing, bud?

Seeing some signs. I'm liking what I'm seeing.

I feel like I'm learning every time. I knew what I was talking about. I know. Oh, yeah. I wouldn't be able to feel like I could I mean, I can ask questions, but to like speak knowledgeably. I get what they're saying and I can ask questions, but boy, if somebody asked me to speak about something, I'd probably be like, "Oh, yeah. Not today." Yeah. Let's try that again in a couple years. You look like you're out politician today. It's on my list of things to do. You get trouble endorsement yet? Almost. The request has been submitted.

She just finished college. Are you kidding me? I couldn't even get the college fulltime job. Call him later and I kept trying and I never got back. Yeah, they we don't do the the state races. The state takes care of that. Huh. Too bad you couldn't reuse all your signs and just put I know the ones I got now are better. Nice.

And works and works and works and saves. Yeah. But I I mean, even still, I'm just so proud. I'm good. Ready? She's ready to move out. No, be along tonight. Yeah, I think so. She was the one that was here last meeting. Good looking. Six foot tall, beautiful. Came up after the meeting. No, it's okay. One of those guys. to get started or what?

Home buyers are slums. In here, we're becoming slums. Do all these, I guess.

Yes. Oh my. I need to start showing up to the meeting in order. Okay, we got to get we got to get this party going. We're never

got a corn. Yeah. Uh, hey. So, one, two, three, four, five, and you're missing three and you. So, we got it. Um, you're going to have to pick up the slack because I think he's either online or missing it. You know, like say I'll make I'll make a motion. Oh, Matt's up there. Okay, we don't have our TV on. Okay, I am here. Go

ahead and get started. And I understand everybody in the hallway will we'll be patient, but we need to get started. Um it's a little bit after 6:00. I'd like to welcome everyone to the April 28th uh city and ampa planning and zoning commission meeting. Um madame clerk, can we start with the roll call? Fine here. Copeland here. Kirkman. Morgan. Kho here. Turner here. Daffer here. Garner here. Miller here. Seven present. Thank you. And Daniel, can you swap places with Rodney so he can

Candace got it. Thank you. Thank you, Candace. Mr. Chair and commissioners. Uh Rodney Ashby, planning and zoning director for the record. Um so several things happened at uh city council this last week. Uh the first one was zoning map amendment from RS6 to BC. This was recommended by you for Raquel Padrazza at uh essentially 11th and Franklin. And uh this was a mechanic and auto repair materials and office for mobile auto repair service and no customers to v visit the property on approximately half an acre. Um and you recommended approval and city council approved that one. Next one is a variance um from 10124D, the maximum lot size of 9,000 square feet in an RMH uh zone at 20418th Avenue South. And um this was pretty simple. Convert the basement of a single family home into a separate dwelling unit to make the building a duplex. And that um was you didn't see that one because it's a variance to the law size. Um but it was approved. Uh next one was an annexation for the Highline Estates to RS4 and RS6 uh subdivision preliminary plat as well. And uh that was 355 single family detached dwelling units, 33 common lots and one commercial lot. Uh this one was at Franklin uh Boulevard and Lynen or sorry Lynen Road and Madison Road. Um addressed as zero North Franklin Boulevard. You had recommended approval uh unanimously and this one was

continued uh per council uh with a 51 vote to continue that public hearing. they essentially they asked them to come back with um addressing some of the concerns they heard from the public and uh give a new concept. So um the next one is an annexation and zoning for Breenwood to RS6 and BC and this one and a preliminary platinum that's a PUD as well for 296 single family detached dwelling units, four commercial lots and then 44 common lots. This was southwest of Eustic and North Canada Road and you recommended approval and they approved that with a 5 to1 vote and that is all I have.

Okay. Thank you, Rodney. Yep. Appreciate it.

Take a motion to approve consent agenda. I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Second. It's been moved by Turner and second by Kho to approve the consent agenda. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries.

Okay. We're going to go ahead and get get started. Um we're going to shift some items just a little bit um because of everybody that's coming in um for I'm pretty sure which item. Um so we're going to go ahead and shift item 3-4 uh to the very first item. That's the one we'll hear first. Council, do we need to do anything other than just announce now? We're good to just shift it. Yeah, if you want to uh Chairman Miller, move the agenda around. Um, please just indicate where you want to put it and get a a voice vote from the group. Okay.

Yep. Okay. So, moving item 3-4 to the first and then proceeding through as they're listed. All moved. Second. Say it's been moved by Daffer, seconded by Kho to approve this. All those in favor? I. Any opposed?

Okay, that's what we'll get started with. Okay, so if you're new to the process, we um have the applicant come first. They will give us uh an idea of what they were would like to do. They have seven minutes. Uh then we'll turn the time over to staff. They will have unlimited time. Then we'll have uh the public testimony portion of the meeting uh where each one of you have the opportunity to sign up and then come forward and speak. You'll each get three minutes each person. We'd ask when you come to the mic if you could speak clearly into the mic and please when you come up give us your name and address for the record. Um, as we start this meeting, if we could just ask everybody in the audience to be as quiet as you can. Whispers to each other is fine, but no talking. Uh, the meeting is being recorded and there are people online currently and those people have a hard time hearing when conversations get a little over a whisper in the in the audience. So, please be respectful of that. Um, so we'll go ahead and get started with item 3-4. Is the applicant here? Comprehensive plan map amendment from industrial to commercial for a 2.6 acre portion annexation and zoning to IIL zoning district for 15 acres and BC zoning district for 2.6 six acres and subdivision preliminary plat for elite industrial subdivision address addressed as 4300 East Victory Road and zero North Pickard Lane for Jeff Hatch with Hatch Design. Ready, Jeff?

Jeff Hatch with Hatch Design Architecture. Address is 5119 Brier Crest Drive, Napa, Idaho 83686. Good evening, Chairman Miller and commissioners. Thank you for your consideration of our annexation and comprehensive map amendment this evening. The subject property is just south of the airport on the northwest corner of Happy Valley Road and Victory Road. The entire property right now is being used as kind of open air storage mostly for uh recreational vehicles. To the south we have some rural residential and some commercial uh button. Uh to the north we also have a little bit of an industrial use. There's like a compost and a gravel kind of area that's used for various kind of industrial use businesses. Um and to the east that's an extension of the airport. The proposed zoning is IL and we do have an isolated uh BC zone. The intent with that is versus grandfathering a storage use on this entire parcel. Talking with staff and talking with the applicant, they were in favor of consolidating that

use and trying to isolate it to one location. So that BC zone would be for keeping that current use, consolidating that and uh also in the BC zone making it conforming use so we wouldn't have a grandfathered use into this space. So kind of trying to clean up some of the prior history on the project. The balance of the subject pri property would be uh zoned IIL. As far as the future land use, some of you may remember that we did a similar project um over by Ridgerest uh golf course a couple years back where we reszoned IL property to BC and then we adjusted some of that BC back to based on market trends in the city of Nampa. And so, um, when we were looking at this parcel, we saw an opportunity to do something similar, respond to the current market, but also clean up, um, you know, some of some of the grandfathered uses into a more of a conforming use moving forward. The proposed industrial subdivision would um have an access road would have some lots that uh front victory and then we would have some uh access perceived either, you know, with a culde-sac or we do have some interest in somebody maybe taking a a a chunk of those uh lots and then they would build kind of a larger development off of that. So those are all subject to conditional use permits in the future or other entitlement pieces based on current zoning that they want to go into. And then the proposed BC would be the top right uh corner on this plan.

And I will stand for any questions. Any questions right now, Mr. Chair? Yeah. So currently I mean there's a bunch of RVs on there. Is that like is this going to be a quick thing or is it you're just doing the entitlement work and nothing's going to change for a while or what's the plan?

Uh, Commissioner Daffer, great question. Uh, at this time the current property actually is zoned and has building permits through the county. so we could start building uh a four product uh mini storage facility through the county. And in talking to the owners, they pivoted and decided to devote their time and effort into an industrial u subdivision. And so with that, um they intend that they would be able to develop portions of this as soon as the subdivision is is subdivided and we have uh actual parcels. So I would say that you know from final plat they would intend to move right on into construction.

Gotcha. Okay.

Thank you. Call you back up. Miss Fry Good evening, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. My name is Candace Fry, associate planner for the city of Nampa. The request before you this evening is a comprehensive plan map amendment from industrial to commercial for a 2.6 acre portion and annexation and zoning to IIL light industrial zoning district for 15 acres and BC community business zoning district for 2.6 acres and a subdivision preliminary plat for elite industrial. The original concept plan is one commercial lot for the existing RV boat RV and boat storage and 31 new industrial lots. Thank you. Property details. Both of the parcels are currently enclaved and under Canyon County jurisdiction. The surrounding zoning to the north is Canyon County and IIL, Light Industrial. To the west is IIL. To the east is IIEL and to the south is Canyon County. Comprehensive plan. This area is designated as industrial. Surrounding designations are medium density residential and low density residential. The applicant is proposing to amend the

future land use designation from industrial to commercial on 2.6 acres. And that little red square is where they are proposing to change industrial to that commercial. The proposed comprehensive plan map amendment. The map here is just a closeup of the site. The red square again is where they are proposing to have the BC zone on 2.6 acres. The applicant is proposing to have the 2.6 acres out of 17.6 acres to be zoned BC. They are proposing to amend the future land use designation from industrial to commercial. The proposed zone will bring the existing storage use into conformity and will continue to be compatible with the airport district. Applicable regulations. So this is just the state law for comprehensive plan map amendments and then annexation the state code as well. More applicable regulations for zoning for 10232C and then chapter 16 for the BC zoning district and then chapter 19 for the IL zoning district as well. And that's shown here. More applicable regulations. This is chapter 27 and then chapter 31 of title 10 for the subdivision chapter and the airport chapter. And then at the bottom also included in the staff report is the 1975 aviation easement instrument number is 755201. And that whole instrument and easement is in your staff report.

The proposed preliminary plat platting of this project will serve to divide the land. It must be done in accordance with state law, Nampa city code 1027, 1019, 1016, and 1033 and in cooperation with the city, the city's currently adopted engineering design and specification manual. The application with submittal materials was received by the planning and zoning department and was reviewed to provide the following facts in accordance with title 10 requirements. However, the Nampa engineering division has indicated that the preliminary PLA document does not provide all of the required specifications and will need to be revised and resubmitted for a new review and public hearing. the Nampa Municipal Airport analysis. So, the next couple slides, this was an analysis that was conducted by Lindseay Johnson, the superintendent of the Nampa Municipal Airport and one of the commissioners on the NA airport commission. Their comments are in the top and then staff has addressed each item with a recommendation or solution and that is in the bold. So number one, restricting the uses. Since the developer is asking for a zoning change to IL and BC, is it possible for us to recommend that PNZ formally strips those specific exedout uses like churches, daycarees, and schools from these lots as a condition of approval. The chart of the recommended uses according to the airport is listed in your staff report, and this can be discussed with the commission and the applicant. Number two, the 7 to1 height slope note 10 on the pre plot says building heights will be per city code. However, the 1975 easement is much stricter with that 7:1

slope. Should we suggest that a maximum top of structure elevation be put right into the subdivision plat? Note 10 on the preliminary plat will need to be revised to include reference to the 1975 aviation easement document. Number three, landscaping and wildlife. They looked at the initial landscape plan and they had on the species list some red flags for bird attractants. So there were some trees listed that produce heavy fruits and berries and then another tree spe tree that provides large nesting canopies. So we recommend that they revise the landscape plan and include allowable trees in the airport zone. Number four, lighting and glazing. The rendering show large industrial buildings with what they assume to be heavy exterior lighting. The airport would like to require full cutoff LED fixtures that point 100% downward. The 1975 easement specifically prohibits uses that make it difficult for flyers to distinguish between airport lights and others. Nampa City Code 1034 addresses lighting standards with design review and is reviewed further with the building permit for each building. And then the following code sections list out the lighting standards that can be found in chapter 34. Number five, storm water and water foul. With Mason Creek bordering the site and the need for storm water retention should we ensure their drainage design doesn't create standing water ponds that attract geese or ducks. Namba engineering division will review the storm water retention with the construction drawings in accordance with FAA specifications. Buyer awareness. Should we require that a notice of the 1975 aviation easement

be recorded on the deed of every single lot? We recommend that this has been added as a condition of approval. Number seven, verification of compatibility. The applicant's narrative states that the use will be compatible with the requirements of the airport district. Since they've made this claim, should we ask for a certified height and glare analysis for the lots closest to the runway for to ensure that they actually meet the 7 to1 slope before the annexation is approved. At this stage of entitlement, the building structures have not been identified. The NAT engineering division will review each building against the specification at the time of building permit. And then correspondence. We did receive one public comment. They had concerns regarding the increased traffic on Victory. They also had concerns regarding Sunrock and the potential of renaming the business and their intentions. The Sunrock batch plant that was proposed many years ago is not at this site. It is further down. It is not associated with this parcel at all. Nampa Parks. They requested an easement of 20 ft to be granted from the top of the bank on the north side of Mason Creek for construction of the Mason Creek pathway. They request a pathway to be built by the developer to the current pathway construction standards. And then NAGIS wanted an updated site plan for street names to be submitted before the final plaque. Fire district. The Nampa Fire District does not oppose the application subject to compliance with all of the following code requirements and conditions of approval. The full list can be found in your staff report. And then more correspondence, NIA engineering division. And then Daniel is here to answer any of the questions regarding his comments.

NAM municipal airport. The whole airport analysis section is included in the staff report. Lumen had a comment that said there are facilities in the existing rideway. If they need to be relocated, the developer would have to pay to do so. And then NA environmental resources had some comments about the height restrictions. And then they would prefer that no discharge of storm drainage be allowed in Mason Creek. So findings for the comp plan attached is the relevant state law according regarding the comprehensive plan. Facts for the comp plan. The future land use map is somewhat flexible and subject to changes that the planning and zoning commission and city council may desire to periodically impose or act on as a request from property owner. The NA 2040 comprehensive plan outlines future development for the area. It it has identified this location as area of industrial. Changing a portion of the development to a commercial designation would allow for a BC zoning request and then align with the existing RV storage use. Staff can reasonably recommend to the commission that the project be approved because the future land use map is somewhat flexible and subject to changes that the planning and zoning commission and city council may desire to periodically impose or act as a request from the property owner. The owner of the parcels requesting the change have proposed a subdivision layout that provides the uses that are compatible in the area and maintains the current use of an RV storage in a smaller portion of the development. And then findings for annexation. When determining the appropriateness of annexation, there are four criteria to be evaluated.

One, all private land owners have consented to the annexation. Two, the property is contiguous to city limits. Three, the Nampa comprehensive plan includes the area of annexation. And four, the project meets with the agreement between the city and the highway district. And then findings for zoning to BC and IL. There are three criteria to determine the zoning. And then city codes are written to protect the public interest by providing guidance for development. Therefore, this project is presumed to be in the public interest because of any further development or redevelopment of the property will be required to meet city standards for development and shall install appropriate site improvements upon development. The airport commission has provided a list of items for consideration in the areas near the airport and these items will be reviewed for each building at the time of building permit submittal. The preliminary plat is missing the following information and they will need to revise the plat to include that information. So, location of proposed water, sewer, and pressure irrigation, storm drain and roadway improvements, top topographical issues with the property, flood plane boundary of Mason Creek.

It's working.

Oh, thank you. at the very end. These are engineering's recommendations also listed in the staff report. And then should the commission vote to recommend approval of the comprehensive plan map amendment annexation and zoning? Then staff would suggest the following as conditions of approval for adoption with any such vote. The commission may add or subtract any conditions of approv approval as it is appropriate. Here are the potential motions and I will stand for any questions.

Mr. Chairman, I got a quick question for Candace. Candace, correct me if I'm wrong, but under the light industrial, there is absolutely no way a concrete badge plant can go into light industrial. Correct. And the only place it can go is heavy industrial and that's with a conditional use permit. Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Turner. That is correct.

Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, Candace. Do we have a signup sheet? No signup sheet. There anyone here that would like to speak for, against, or undecided? If there is, go ahead and come on up. Is there any way to pull up the preliminary plot map? Can we get Can we get your name and address, please?

Yes. Hello, Mr. Chair and commissioners. My name is Cheryl Heath. My address is 7462 East Newcastle Drive, Nampa. And the property owner to the west. Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. Um, I would just like to discuss the access easement and layout, specifically item number five that was listed in the staff report. Um, regarding the plat showing the abandonment of the existing access easement that benefits the properties outside of the plat, uh, the city requested that they identify a full path to replace the easement and identify a full route through the site that replaces that existing easement. Uh based on my review on plat uh preliminary plat 14 um down in the westerly corner um you can see the gravel road that goes up to the north. Um that is the currently the main access to um vision recycling property to the north as well as used by um properties to the west for getting in large traffic and trailers. uh without that access road, the large equipment is unable currently to get to the property um because the the access road to the west is currently, as you know, not developed. Um, so I would just like to go on record to ask that um, if this application is recommended for approval um, just respectfully ask that that you know as staff recommended that that um, new access road fully be um, implemented and uh, make note that it could allow service to the adjoining properties. Um, that that would be usable to the properties to the north and west. Um, and if you if you look at it, and I just had one question of clarification if the applicant could answer. Um, currently the access looks like it goes north 50

ft and then turns 90° left at a 26 ft um, easement. And so the 26T easement is noted as note 7. And note 7 throughout the um, the Westerly easement to be abandoned. Um, I just don't want him to be confused if if that's being identified as note 7. Um, not to be confused that that would be potentially abandoned. Um, but with that, I'll stand for any questions that you may have. Questions? No. Okay. We'll ask the questions for you when that time comes. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Is there anybody else that would like to speak for, against, or undecided on this item? Okay. Uh, Mr. hatch. Chairman Miller and commissioners, thank you again for your consideration. Uh based on staff comments as well as uh neighborhood comments, I had a couple things I'd speak to and then if there are any other questions, I can stand for those as well. Majority of the comments were in regards to the plaid and talking with Daniel. there's some additional information that he's going to need. So today, we're not here to decide that. Um we want to make sure that it's well vetted, well um accepted by the city and also the neighbors. So as far as the concern for traffic and the concern for access from the neighbor, we're we're fine working with staff and the neighbor to try to figure out what makes the most sense. I know there's some, you know, future considerations for roadway alignments and also obviously we can't cut off current active businesses as well. So that's not our intention at all. Um, in regards to potentially needing to to pause or or concern with item number seven in regards to height and glare, I mean, we have lots of restrictions put on plats all the time. So I think that that's something that could be evaluated at that as far as from an annexation and a complement standpoint. Um I don't see anything concern-wise that can't be established in the preliminary plat in in a more effective and a more documented manner in my mind. Um, as far as concerned specifically in regards to traffic, we do have this frontage road established and the businesses will be evaluated on a case- by case basis as they go to build. Um, if a traffic impact study is warranted beyond the one that will be satisfying for Daniel. Uh, and then

engineering. Um, those will both be kind of evaluated in the plat. Um, and then I'd also say I've annexed a fair amount of land in my time and most of it you just kind of come here and say we're gonna annex land and then we find out all these wonderful uh, you know, restrictions and things after the fact. What I like about Candace, what I really appreciate about the city of Nampa is they put a very thorough and effective objective about what they think those obligations are going to be now, so that my client and myself can evaluate those and make sure that we're making an informed decision versus just kind of going into a city blind. So, there are a lot of restrictions on this being adjacent to an airport. We're familiar with those. We're used to building next to airports and understand the obligations. We've conveyed those to our client and they are aware of those as well. There will be other obligations that get established through the preliminary plat. We are comfortable with that. But I would give accolades to the staff as well as just city officials for that because it's unusual in in my experience. So with that, um lastly, uh if if uh Mrs. Heath is available, I can give her my contact information or you can reach out. I'm more than happy to coordinate that. um off uh offline um but the intent would be to get to a satisfactory solution with our neighbors as well as the city in regards to access and I'll stand for any questions.

Thank you for that Mr. Chair. Yes. Quick question. Have you seen the request from the airport of the items that to be absolutely no way like the church and the daycare and stuff all those that they have requested that we remove from ever being a possibility? Are you you've seen those and you're okay with those?

Commissioner attorney. Um I have in the past they are allowed and then you have to go back to the airport and talk to them and then they say no. Um, so having the know now is easier because then you don't have people going in and trying to put a daycare or a use that just absolutely is prohibited by an airport. So in my mind, if those are a no-go for the airport, I would rather know now um just so that we have that clearly defined. So we are in agreement with that objective. It gets really convoluted when you start getting people who want like it's a little daycare and like can we can we you know skirt around these things. So, I think it it protects the airport quite a bit more to set that precedence now.

Just wanted to make sure you were aware of them and seen them all. So, okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, I'll move to close the public hearing. Second. It's been moved by Turner, second by Kho to close the public hearing. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Public hearing is closed. What do we think? Something happened with that property. Yeah, agreed. Something that's a little less dusty than the reclaimed place there for the airport. Unfortunately, it's not part of it, but maybe it'll help. But

yeah, and I think they are pretty aware and understand restrictions and so I think we're pretty good with that.

Okay. If there's no more discussion, I move to approve the project as stated on screen with the recommended conditions of approval. Second. Been moved by Daffer, seconded by Kihoo to approve this item. All those in favor? Chairman, on this one, we'll do a roll call vote. Roll call. Okay. Procedural matters, we can do I votes, but here for the record for name and vote for numbers. Garner. Hi. Uh, let's see. Turner. Hi. Kho. Hi, Kirkman. Oh, just kidding. He's not here. Oakland I Fi I Daffer yes Miller I

motion carries thank you

okay now we will jump back to item 3-1 comprehensive plan text amendment to remove language recommending developments five dwelling units per acre or more be required to get approval of planned unit development or master planned community for the city of Nampa Mr. Critchfield. Commissioner, Chair and Commissioners, Doug Critchfield, principal planner uh for the city of Nampa. Um this is a simple uh text amendment to chapter five. Um, and this is a recommendation to city council. Uh, the recommendation before you this evening, uh, is to change 5.5.3 of the 2040 Nampa comprehensive plan to, uh, eliminate the requirement that a development exceeding five dwelling units per acre be a planned unit development or part of a master plan community. Um the uh plan unit development in a master plan community are tools uh that can be used by an applicant to increase densities and uh to obtain special considerations from the commission and the council. Uh it's not a requirement for standard medium density residential subdivisions under five dwelling units per acre. And there we therefore we consider that to be something that should be optional for dwelling or developments that are over five dwelling

units per acre in that land use designation. The U regulatory framework as has been mentioned before and you'll hear this evening is in Idaho code 676508 that uh indicates that the planning and zoning commission um from time to time can update a comprehensive plan and that it requires at least one public hearing uh to be able to do so in 676509. Uh, and so that is being accomplished this evening with this public hearing. And so with that, I have motions on the board and if you have any questions, I can take those at this time.

We have questions for Doug. Uh, right now a PUD is required and under your language it's changing it to option. Give me an example where someone would want to have a PUD and where someone would not.

Yeah, thank you. So, um, Chair and Commissioner Daffer, the, um, a development perk could come in with a development of over five dwelling units per acre. Uh, and we would at this current time would require that they come in with a plan unit development to be able to do so. What a PUD u allows a developer to do is to increase the density by 20%. Uh over the current density that's stated in the comprehensive plan. Uh it also allows them to get uh setbacks and other allowances within that development that wouldn't normally be u uh offered to them as part of that u request. That's typically an optional tool. It's not a required tool. Um, that's the only u instance that I can see in a in the comprehensive plan that requires a PUD or suggests a requirement for a PUD in in an MPC for those uses, but it's not something that necessarily has to be used in that instance.

So, in practice, it's signaling to us that they're going to ask for some specific exceptions.

Yes. and a PUD is uh brought before uh both the commission and the city council who can make the decision about the the density additional density request and other factors. Um otherwise uh they would bring that process through a normal um preliminary plat process for example. So, uh, a PUD is kind of a check, if you will, um, to be used for additional density by the developer, and it's a check by the the planning commission and the city council at that point. So, other questions.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Do we have a signup sheet?

No. Anybody like to speak for, against, or undecided on this specific item? Robert Montlair, 19721 Madison Road. I'm kind of curious. So, I know I can't ask you guys questions, but this is my curiosity hearing back with all the legal mumbo jumbo that you guys got on laws. You're saying basically that a developer, if I'm understanding this gentleman correctly, if this gets approved, can go ahead and increase density by 20% without approval or does they need approval if this is recommended? Is that is that correct?

Yeah, we'll let we'll let staff answer that a little more clear. I apologize. Appreciate it. No, you're fine. Go ahead.

Sorry. Um, yeah, chair and commissioners. So, what this does is it it removes if a developer comes in with a development that's five to five to eight dwelling units per acre. Uh, right now they're required to come in with a plan unit development. And what that does is that it it forces the preliminary plat to go before the the city the commission and the city council. Uh by removing this requirement um they they are no longer required to come in with a plan unit development. They can come in with a regular plaid. It doesn't mean that they can increase their density by doing so. What a PUD does is it allows a developer to increase the density by 20%. So it forces that additional conversation between the commission and the city council by removing this requirement. Um they're they are not required to u go before the city council on a plat but it doesn't allow them to increase the density. So again, my question is is that if this is recommended, because I'm still not understanding, is that if this is removed, then additional conversations don't necessarily have to happen. Whereas if it stays, the additional conversations have to happen between the builder, the city council, and the planning department. Is that correct? That's all I really want to know. A different way to look at it is right now if they come with more than five units no matter what a PUD is in place. What we're what he's proposing is that if if they're not asking for any additional density so they they fall in the rules

they don't have to do a PUD but if they want to increase the density then they have to. Does that make sense? Okay. So regardless if they want to increase right but right now it's just Okay. Correct. It's just saving some steps if you're not going to ask for more. Okay. Copy that. Thank you. Anybody else

here? I'll move to close public hearing. Second. Been motioned by Turner, second by Daffer to close the public hearing. All those in favor? I I I. Any opposed? Okay, public hearing is closed for public testimony. Thoughts? Makes sense. Yeah. Yeah, it makes sense. Make things a little easier. Yeah. Process a little bit.

Mr. Chair, I move to recommend approval of a comprehensive plan text amendment to remove language recommending developments five dwelling units per acre or more be required to get approval of a plan unit development or master plan community for the city of Nampa. Second. Second. It's been moved by Daffer, seconded by Kho to approve this item. Madame clerk, do roll call. Garner. I. Copeland. I. Turner. Hi. Kho. I. Fine. I. Daffer. Yes. Miller. Hi. Motion carries.

Thank you. Okay. We'll move right into item 3-2. Comprehensive plan map and text amendment to change residential mixed use to medium density residential and commercial to medium density residential on the future land use map. Regional commercial and residential mixed use to medium density residential in the highway 2026 specific area plan. Annexation to BC and RS6 zoning districts for Mason Ranch Estates subdivision at zero Madison Road and zero highway 2026 for Mason and Associates representing Boisee Valley Land Holdings LLC Mason.

Good evening. Uh William Mason with Mason and Associates. Our address is 9243rd Street South in Nampa. Um tonight we're coming before you to ask for a comprehensive plan amendment. Um go to the the next uh the proposed project is located south of Highway 2026 on the east side of Madison and then it uh travels all the way over to North Franklin. Um, we're requesting a stretch of the residential zone to the north because uh the commercial area on the souththeast corner of Madison and Highway 2026 is going to be a restricted ride in right out um intersection by ITD in the future. So, we don't think a full 40 acre parcel, a big box store is going to be looking for a property on that corner because of the the limited access. This is your current um future land use map. You can see the the north area, that large pink area is uh zoned or planned for commercial. And then down in the souththeast corner below the the orange or the yellow is the purple area. And so we're asking for a stretch of the residential um medium density residential in that purple area too. uh because of the fact that we are limited on our frontage there. Also um if we slide you can see the area that I have marked out the commercial zone. Uh if we

stretch that medium density residential up to that location the highway district and the city engineering department want a backage road um for that commercial. It lines up with the commercial to the east that potentially will be zoned commercial in the future. And it also puts our residential zone um adjacent to the residential to the east. Um the residential uh medium density residential to the south uh stretches our residential back to the same zone that's across Franklin Road. Um, so that we have one continuous residential zone from our north boundary to the east. And if we can go to the next, this is ITD's uh plan at the moment. And if we can go to the next, I've blown up the intersection to show a little bit more detail. And if we go to the next one, unfortunately this slide is kind of hard to read, but you can see in the middle there, they have a raised median that through that intersection, so there will not be a a light. Uh so there's no access uh coming from eastbound traffic onto Madison. Uh, and I think let me I think with that I will stand for any questions or wait until after public testimony.

Okay. Anybody have questions now? Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Critfield, you're up again. Chair and commissioners. Um, so the item before you when when we brought the staff report, uh, when we sent that out to you, um, the plat that was associated with that had been pulled. And so we're showing here that, uh, we're not considering the preliminary plat this evening. We're only considering the other items that were on the agenda. Um, as a result of that, and we'll show you a little bit later, we're uh have a condition that's going to require a concept plan that go along with the development agreement um that uh will be brought to the city council and the issues associated with that plan will be deliberated at that time. Um so the uh the lot this evening location is just south of Highway 2026. This is an important area for the city of Nampa. This is a economic development zone as highway 2026 expands out uh in 2027. Um this area has been contemplated on the future land use map as an area that will have a significant commercial development in this area. U the surrounding zone zoning currently is u is very rural in nature. There's large lot single family development. Uh there's some agricultural. Uh there's some single family and then Cherry Grove subdivision down on the south side with an RS8.5

is adjacent and that Cherry Grove subdivision is adjacent to the eastern boundary here. Um you can see on the specific area plan for this site uh there's a regional commercial designation on the 40 acres adjacent to highway 2026 and then medium density residential and then next to the uh where the high school and all of that denser development is. It's uh residential mixed use in that area. The elementary school that's showing on this U concept plan is actually in a different location. That's Warhawk Elementary down near the high school. Now, it's a little bit further south. Um the comprehensive plan also shows this as commercial. Um you'll note that to the east there's low density residential specified in this area. That's because there is existing lowdensity residential now. And when we were uh working on the specific area plan, those residents asked that that be lowdensity residential through the public process. Then these land uses were um were designated as such. Um, so the request then this evening really is to take the 40 acres of commercial land use on Highway 2026 and reduce that to 20 acres that would border 2026 and convert the remaining 20 acres into medium density residential. The other is to take the uh the residential mixed use which is the purple on this map and to convert that to medium density residential. the densities in the residential mixed use is the same as the medium density residential. So there would be no request to change the density levels there. It's simply the land uses. The residential mixed use uh requires um

that neighborhood commercial be developed uh with the residential develop development. So um the comprehensive plan um that was adopted in in 2020 and updated in 25 um this is a flexible map to some degree. Um there is because there's a specific area plan over the top of it. There's more scrutiny on the types of land uses that are specified in this area. Uh but the zoning commission and the council may desire to change those and it's and it's your authority to be able to change those land uses. Um in terms of annexation that's covered under title 5022 uh section five of the NPA and the NA city code title 10 chapter 2 uh 4C. Um and those are the um standard um requirements um the findings uh for annexation for zoning um that's also found in Nampa City code 1023C and that indicates that uh the standard findings for zoning um are also a part of the requirement for the decision this evening. Um so we received several comments uh for the preliminary plat uh which was rescended um but wasn't included in the staff report. We extracted out of the comments the comments that we think would be applicable to the other uh requests this evening. Um for engineering um there was a traffic study that's prepared by Kimley Horn. Uh it was prepared in 2022. Um the engineering department said that the developer will be responsible for any triggered uh mitigations identified in in an updated in the updated study

that would be provided for this site. Um there are utilities available in the area and uh and Daniel can speak to any of the questions regarding the engineering of this site. You'll note here a map of the utilities um that are in the um Cherry Grove subdivision uh that are adjacent to this site. Uh from the fire district um the development is approximately 3.5 miles from fire station number three with a response time of 6 minutes. um long range planning. Uh so in long-range planning's job is to evaluate proposals against the comprehensive plan and the specific area plans. We concluded that those changes particularly along um 2026 are significant uh to the the city of Nampa. Um we have a relatively narrow uh connection to highway 2026 if you look at it compared to Caldwell and Meridian other other areas and that uh is going to be a significant regional commercial area. Long range planning felt that this would be a loss and um would not be compatible with the intent of the specific area plan. Um the also there was some concern about the loss of the commercial. Um the medium density residential replacement for the uh residential mixed use would eliminate u the opportunity for neighborhood commercial development in those areas interlaced. And we feel that if we want to reduce traffic um it's important that we try and bring commercial as close to residential and as and do as much mixed use as we possibly can. The Valley View School District also um indicated that the schools are impacted. There was a list that was provided.

They're concern concerned primarily with Ridge View and Warhawk Elementary in those areas. Um we did have some public comments. Uh so Tyler Dibby um said that he has some concerns about traffic on Franklin Road and uh drainage and storm water uh and the change in the character of the area and infrastructure. We also received comments um about u school capacity, public safety. Uh there was a desire to keep lower density in the area um lower than medium density residential to keep the development upscale and not cut not cut back on the commercial property. We heard that from several residents uh from Blake and Driscoll uh as well. Um there's a sincere concern by the residents uh about growth in the area, water um and state funding for fire stations and police that uh is may they feel may compromise um the services in this area. Um so there were facts in the staff report uh about the comprehensive plan amendment. We I've already discussed some of those this evening. Um the text conclusion is that um the proposed changes do not meet the intent of the comprehensive plan or the highway 2026 specific area plan for this area. Uh in terms of annexation and the findings for annexation already um have those in your staff report. those standard findings and uh we also stated the facts for those findings in the staff report. Um the it's important to note that the um annexation of roadways are subject to the revised and and general cooperation of planning and zoning and annexation development

and maintenance activities development agreement between the city of Nampa and Nampa highway district number one. We felt that was important to bring that out. Um and so we concluded though that um the um annexation criteria outlined in 5222 because the property owner has given consent to annex the property. It's contiguous to city limits and it's available for annexation. Um it it um it also matches the designation shown on the future land use map in certain areas um that it complies with the established currently in place between the city and the highway district. Uh in terms of the findings for zoning to BC and RS6. Um so if the changes are adopted this evening uh and are approved then the proposed zoning would match the comprehensive plan. If they're not approved then it then it would not. So it would be required to approve those changes to the comprehensive plan map in order to approve the zoning to BC and RS6 through that. Um the so the conditions of approval are stated in your staff report. Um, I I can answer any questions or uh Daniel can come up and answer questions about anything to do with engineering. And I have a motion here before you this evening.

Questions right now. Thank you. Hey, madam clerk, do we have a signup sheet?

We do. We have 10 signed up. Okay. Our first three are Christine Thomas, then Holly Drinkard, and then Paula Drinkard Bonds. I'm Christine Thomas and I live at 1988 Franklin Road. I am opposed to changing the designation. Uh the community surrounding the site is multi-acre residential properties. It's 20 plus acres of agriculture land. Alalfa and corn and onions and wheat and a school that is already at capacity and small two-lane roads with stop signs onto the highway that are not going to be widened with lights put in for years. Um, this is not an area of town houses and storage units and hotels and so current infrastructure cannot support a change in designation. Governor Little has already made known that there is no more money that can be designated to increase police and fire staff. And so the more homes put into a small area by a school that's overcrowded on a two-lane stop sign road is just going to increase the response time and then be an impact on safety of residents. Uh people are moving here in droves and it's not to live on a townhouse on the side of the highway. It's to connect to the land and NA cannot provide that by paving everything over. So I'm hoping we can be different from Star and Middleton and Meridian

and we can stay rooted in the motto that Nampa is the heart of the Treasure Valley and Nampa is not just another sprawling subdivision like everyone around us. I feel like when you look at a map, we are in this little circle of agg and then there's towns all around. And to keep that is going to be something that's special and desirable in the years to come that other towns in the Treasure Valley will not have. And so I would like to keep that as best as we can. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is Holly. Paula Drinker Bonds Paula Drinker Bonds 8080 East Drinker Lane Yampa. Um I wanted to read this because I'm not sure everybody's fully aware of all the houses and being built in the area. So I have a current letter as of April 7th and then one that I did talk to uh updated information from the schools. I know that last week they had stated that Caldwell or Belleview district was at 81% but that was for the district for Ridge View itself uh currently is at um 1723 students was just under the 1,800 capacity which is 96% capacity. So, I was reading and looking at the information I wanted to share with you guys that if approved, students residing in the Madison states, which is next to the New Highlands estates, would attend Warhawk Elementary School, Summit View Middle School, Ridge View High School. The proposed development would add 323 residential lots to an already extensive list of projects at various stages of approval construction that impact these schools. While some of the developments listed below were approved at the city of Caldwell, Valley View believes the information remains relevant as each contributes to the commum cumulative impact on schools. Um there's 19 neighborhoods right here. Avery Heights 305 detached units, Breen Ridge 296, Brentwood Village 24, Cambridge Estates 29, Cherry Grove 271, Connor Crossing 3 and 18 town homes, East Canyon 1,153,

Franklin Village North 54, Halton Heritage is another 286, Lido Village 36, Midland Meadows 242, Murphy is another neighborhood with,492 multifamily units. Northland 226 single family homes. East Ridge View Estates 54. Spring Shorts common 63 town houses. Ridgeview North is 233 uh single family. Trestle Creek 235. Vassor Heights 156 and Prescott Creek 1,140 which equals between 6,94. 721 of them are in the city of Caldwell. 29 are in the county and 6,94 and 7,000 between are all the city and Napa which all affect Ridge View High School. Um that's a big impact that already um we don't want to see all these kids that are coming in, not only the kids, the fire department that is the police and the people that are affected by this. it it's not feasible and I definitely am opposing and against building all the small houses on top of each other. So, any questions? And I have a copy of this if you guys would like.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Kira Hadlock. I am Kira Hadlock and my address is 516 Endicott Drive. My name um I'm a student at Ridgeview High School and I'm here tonight because this decision is not just about land, but it's about future. Building more houses on farmland may seem like growth, but for students like me, it feels like being pushed past pushed into a system that is already past its breaking points. Rid is already overcrowded. Our school is operating around 96% capacity and next year we are expecting around 500 new freshmen. We we simply do not have room. At lunch, students like me are forced to sit on stairs because there isn't enough room or tables for everyone. Many students are left sitting on dirty floors just to eat, surrounded by filth and unsanitary conditions. No student should have to wonder if the place they eat every day is clean or safe. Even transportation has become a growing concern. With so many students already attending RGU, our parking lots are overcrowded and unsafe. There have been many and accidents caused by reckless and inexperienced drivers. Glass classrooms feel cramped and uncomfortable, making it harder to focus and learn. Even simple things like using the bathroom have become stressful because of strict bathroom passes and overcrowded hallways. When schools become too full, problems grow bigger. Fightings. Fights happen more often, causing students to feel unsafe and being put in dangerous situations. Bullying becomes harder to control as well. Students feel less seen, less safe, and less supported. Teachers and staff are overwhelmed and aren't even able to help to their best ability. And students are the ones who feel the consequences every single day. Adding hundreds of new homes will bring even more students into Ridgeview. We are already struggling to keep up. And beyond the schools, we are also losing something we cannot replace. Our

farmland and wildlife. Open land is home to animals, local agriculture, and part of what makes our community beautiful. Once farmland is covered in concrete, it does not come back. There are other places to build. Growth does not have to mean destroying the land that feeds us and makes our community brighter. There's a powerful quote that says, "The decisions we make today shapes the world we leave behind tomorrow. Tonight, your decision will shape mine. It will shape where I learn, where I feel safe, and what kind of community future students will grow up in, and what's left of our farmlands. Will that future become overcrowded schools, lost farmland, and disappearing wildlife? Or will be a thoughtful growth, protected land in a community that puts young lives first? I'm asking you to think about students like me. Think about the future of our schools. Think about the families who will move here expecting opportunity, only to find overcrowded classrooms in a community stretched too thin. Please do not choose quick growth over lasting responsibility. Protect our farmland, protect our wildlife, and protect our schools. Please say no to building more houses on this farmland. Thank you.

You,

Rocky Baker. Name is Rocky Baker. 19845 North Franklin Boulevard. Uh the high school has just uh been there as you know. My question is this. How much have you studied the impact around that area? I don't know if you have gone to the extent to know how many homes does it take before a moratorum should be implemented to to catch up the infrastructure that is going on in that community. That should be a study that you have already have taken on. it should been already uh before you because you're planning and zoning. So I don't know it hasn't come across what our community is facing and I don't know what you foresee and what you have set out in planning for that area. Right now as you have heard 96% of the school has already filled up. That school is only what two to three years old. What about all that you've passed already as far as development? How much of an impact? And the other question is have you already acquired properties for other schools? That's important. And so I I don't know.

We we're not communicating to know what's going on in our area. Um what properties have been acquired, when are schools going to be uh constructed to match what is going on in uh these developments. That's that's uh very important for that whole area to know what's going on. And as a community uh person in that community, we we have no idea what your plans are. But we do see a lot of development and a lot of uh um subdivisions that are being built, but no idea of what the school, the fire departments, and what's going on ahead. So we can understand how this is developing. your planning and your zoning. So, we're wondering how is this working out. Uh right now, it seems like our infrastructures lagging far behind this continued development of uh homes coming in. So, we don't see a good coordination and a good plan of what's going on uh in our communities. It just seemed like it's kind of one lopsided and we're starting to see acts on that. Thank you.

Thank you. The next is Jim Blake.

Good evening. My name is Jim Lake. I live at 19593 Madison Road. Um, I have I'm going to be talking about three issues that I think you need to think about. I'm writing formally to oppose this this uh deal. I agree with planning and zoning department on their recommendation. I recommend the residential mixuse and low density for the area remain rural and infrastructure should be paid by the developer not the taxpayer. Number one, I agree with planning and zoning when they are against this for the Napa comprehensive plan states as noted in department's findings, long range plan indicates that these proposed changes do not align with the intent of the comprehensive plan or a highway 2026 specific plan. Planning and zoning dated April 22nd to the commissioners long range planning concludes that the proposed changes do not meet the comprehensive plan for the area. Number two, I would like to recommend that the area of 2026 stay residential mixed use and the remaining area become low density. This aligns with is consistent with the area that is already there. We are rural not urban. Comprehensive plan 5.6.3 mixed use types defines mixed use

development is divided into two types. residential mixed use which is a lower density and residential focus which existing neighborhood for commercial property and land 5.5.2 talks about low density which is 1 to 2.5 houses per acre on that land. The Madison Road block, the the block we're talking about is one mile long and there's eight houses on that block. It's very rural. Everybody there has either animals or agricultural land and we would like to continue that for everything. The new development should be compatible with that area. And lastly, infrastructure is never paid by taxpayer money. Um, local government should make developers pay for the infrastructure such as widening the roads, sewers, uh, electricity, parks, etc. The methods to do this would be development fees, impact fees, special access, revenue bonds, performance bonds. These are the methods designed And that's it. Thank you very much.

Thank you,

Thomas Hartley. Thomas Hartley, 1 19225 North Franklin Boulevard, Napa, Idaho. We have got way too much noise, pollution out there now, too much smog, no police protection. Well, if you want to continue building this way, then I think that the developer needs to be buying a police department out there and a fire department out there at their expense and furnish it. If they can't do that and build the roads according to the amount of people they're wanting to put out there, then it needs to stay what it is. Now, is there anything wrong with that? Besides that, you take it out of farming, all the wildlife that comes in there to eat, where are they going to go? There's a park, they're going to go use it and then you're going to get poed because they're crapping in your parks. Isn't that right? Ain't no one of you can say anything different about that. So, it needs to be come to a stop.

They can't The schools are full. I watch them all the time. And there you just can't get in or out up there. Thank you. Christine Thomas.

Oh, okay. Karen Hoffman. Shelley Montlair. Good evening, Shelley Montlair, 1 19721 Madison Road, Nampa. Good evening, commissioner. Thank you for your time. I am here to express my opposition to this change of this designation into the property and to keep it as what is residential, low density residential and mixed use. Um, which mixed use also means not just lower density in houses, but the green areas and parks and property that can stay agriculture or green. Um, one of the things that we love most about Nampa is that it feels rural or and that we have a balance of country living, agricultural parks, gathering spaces, and that is what people want from Nampa. That is what we're known for and that is why people move to Nampa. The surrounding community is made up of primarily multi-acre residences and properties. residents in this area chose this location because it does not feel like a highdense subdivision. We are already experiencing a ton of growth around us and development and um do not want additional neighborhoods surrounding us. Um, and I think there's a survey that can be done that I don't think has been done that asks the area around us what we want and to to acknowledge that. Um, I also believe that the current infrastructure cannot handle more

building. Even though we're here just to annex to a little bit higher density, this whole area um the infrastructure is not set up for that. We live on a a two-lane country road with stop signs and the Madison Lynen light is not going to be put in for at least 5 years and Chinden the 2026 area I believe isn't going to start even start until 2029. So I ask, is it responsible to continue to move on to this and or should we just put it off for a little while, see what the city wants in 3 to 5 years and possibly change up then what could be then? I mean, we have 3 to 5 years before these roads should handle anything else. It is so congested and really cannot use 2026 other than a right turn lane. Um, I would never try to turn left on there. I have uh I'm also very seriously worried about what this developer and his reputation and his history is. He has a history of unfinished business. He has a history of not finishing his warrant or not honoring his warranties. and whether he builds or someone he chooses to build, I do not have faith in the fact that he um is going to build a great community around us. So, thank you for your time.

Thank you. That's all the signups.

Okay. Do we have Excuse me. Do we have anyone else that would like to speak for against Go ahead and come on up. You'll have to come up. Uh Ruben Eseni 23032 Highway 20-26 Paido. Um I'm one of the local farmers in the area. I am u for this project. Um I think it's uh it's not he's not asking to approve anything currently. I think the timeline would probably fit what the city is looking to do and what 2026 is happening. Um have like I don't know. I've been farming in that area for a long time. And you know, I remember times I told these guys last week with our thing with the city council. I remember on the ditch bake with my dad and you guys are lucky my dad's not here because he might go berserk on these people. But these guys building their houses in the '9s. He's like, "Oh, look, these guys are, you know, these guys will be the first ones that are going to fight development. You know, they'll want to keep their way of life, but they're coming in and ruin the farmer's life." It's kind of one of those like it's very one of those things that most farmers when they see these people, they don't really agree with what they they stand for because they've already come in and affected our lives that way. So now that people want to develop their land next to them, they want to fight it. So that's one thing. Um like uh the school districts are at 80%. I know that Ridge View's lines will probably have to change or different things that way. Um I don't know. The biggest issue right here is mostly your commercial side of things and up on 2026 you have a ride in ride out and like um it's going to be very difficult to have a big box store come in there and uh and get get that. I think as a community I think it would probably be better to have a residential community there instead of a big commercial box office type thing anyways. So that's kind of

what my two cents is. So thank you guys. Thank you. Okay. If you have a question, go ahead and come on. Drinker 201185 North Franklin Boulevard. I just wondered so if it's not approved at whatever they're trying to propose it, does it go back to the 40 acres of commercial or it's not what is it deemed today? What's approved today? Yeah, we'll ask. Sorry, I'm writing I'm writing it down as you're speaking. So, yeah, you're good. Tell them that though. Okay. Okay. Anything else? Oh, so you can't answer that. No, I we need to ask staff.

Oh, so Okay. Yeah. Nope, that's it. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else that would like to speak?

Robert Monontlair, 1972, Madison Road, Nampa, Idaho. as I said it before. Um, so you've heard the traffic thing, you heard the infrastructure thing. I think the last time I brought up that, um, your infrastructure here in Nampa, actually city proper, is crashing by the minute, especially water. Um, I remember from a few years ago that was going on. Then I also read that to pay for everything that the bills for the residents and the subdivisions going up a buck a month or something like that which could probably go up even more. And you can do your own research on it. Um I don't know if you guys read those facts yet or not. Um, and I I find it interesting that as soon as one thing you guys approve, which brings in 300 and some odd homes, uh, gets approved, this one, this particular piece of property, which was tried in 2022, the same gentleman under a different business name, finally waits until another one gets annexed. in order to go underneath a different business name. Now, me being a contractor myself, I mean, if I I mean, if I run into a guy that I'm doing business with and he's kind of changed himself, you know, lever don't change its spots. But, I mean, as developers and contractors yourselves, being in the industry, I would hope you take that into kind of consideration what kind of things you're trying to get into the community. Now, again, like I said with Mr. Monday. I'm not saying don't sell your land. It is your land to do whatever you please. What the thing the main thing that we're trying to get at is is that make them larger lots. It they've stated it at least six times that you guys have the power to change the comprehensive plan. I hear that

there's going to be some major commercial. This is like a major area for Nampa. Um I'm not really seeing it. Not from where I stand, but if you make them large acre lots, when you get them rich folks in there and they want to go ahead and buy these properties and have their horses out there, because I know a few boarding facilities that are already full within the area, Star, and also there's one getting up there near North Eagle. You know, folks are bringing horses in. They want to be around their horses. I mean that's just as some I mean the the rural thing is there. There's also farmers on this land particular land that have been leasing it for years and you know I mean they're going to lose out. So where where's the benefit? I mean you've heard it 2026 2029 that's when it's going to start up at Middleton and you saw how long it took for them to get that other stretch done. I'm sorry that there is safety concerns. People use that road like a racetrack. I've got a sheriff's county deputy who's a buddy of mine who I've told specifically sit there, you'll you'll nab speeders all day long and then more people are going to come in. They're going to still use it as a drag strap. It just increased that that that safety issue. So, thank you very much for your time. I hope you all take this into consideration. Have a good evening.

Thank you. Anyone else that'd like to speak for, against, or undecided? No. Okay. Mr. Mason, Will Mason with Mason and Associates, 924 Third Street South in Naba. Um to get started, I just want to remind us what we're asking for on that north side. Because of the ride in, write out. We're asking for reduction in the commercial area. Commercial typically um increases traffic. So, I know there's concerns from the neighbors about the traffic um because of the backage road that the city and the highway district are requesting. Um, not all of those people are going to have to go on to highway 2026 to get between Madison and Franklin. Uh, B, um, development obviously is going to have to do a traffic impact study when they come forward with a preliminary plat and make sure that they make uh, turn lanes as necessary. All the frontage that they um have on Madison will be uh built to city standard. So it'll be widened with curb gutter and sidewalk on the frontage of Madison. Uh there is a collector road that is being required between uh Lynen and Highway 2026. There's only a portion of that that's actually on this property, but the developer is going to have to build that. So, I guess I'm just trying to make the commissioners aware of the fact that the

infrastructure that is directly related to this project will certainly be conditioned with that preliminary plat. What we're trying to do tonight is to make sure that we have the appropriate zones and the appropriate preliminary plat for you to look at. Um, the uh developers do pay impact fees. I'm not sure if the public knows that there are impact fees and your staff can tell you what those are. Um there is also off-site sewer, water, and PI that is going to have to be brought to this property in order for it to be serviced. Um they would be paying for that plus all the interior improvements. Um, one thing I'd like to bring up that may or may not be known by the public is, um, I just read I I haven't got proof of this myself, but I read a news article that Value just purchased a piece of property that was on the market uh, for $2.5 million and they decided to take it off the market and then Value School District paid $5 million for it. So, um, the public should be at the school district meetings and wanting to talk to the board about why they spent $2.5 million more dollars on ground when there is school uh facilities that should be being considered. Um, anyway, with that, I'll stand for any questions. So, you're reducing the commercial by 20 acres, which is brought up by staff. Is is it strictly because of frontage? Is there a way to add that 20 acres along a different road or or is it just not feasible for you to keep that extra commercial in there?

go to my uh slide 10. So why we chose that location is that backage road and the backage road lines up with the north side of the low density residential to the east. So that would separate our residential and our commercial so that we could keep that that backage road as a true separation of commercial and residential. And I have a detail of that if if uh Mr. Chris can find it. But um that that's why we chose that area. That and the fact that it is right in right out. So we know there's going to be a reduced um interest in trying to purchase that large of a par parcel. Uh go one more. One more after that turn.

That's this one right here. So you can see that the bottom of the picture is the um bagage road that the highway district and the city would like us to see to connect Madison and Franklin. That's about 750 ft south of uh Chindon. Gotcha. Okay, that makes sense. Any other questions? Not for Okay, thank you.

J, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Been moved by Turner, seconded by Kho to close the public hearing. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Public hearing portion is closed. We haven't heard from Daniel yet. Can I ask him? We We got a few questions for you. Mr. Badger, the smiling face tonight. Um, is there going to be a light on Madison or there's not? There's going to be one at Franklin.

Correct. There will be a light at Franklin. Um, I don't believe there will be a light at Madison. Um, ITD's standard practice is on those state routes, the lights are at the mile sections and then the half mile sections are do are not signalized. And then do we have an update on when they're doing working on that portion of 2026? Um, I I do not they have not identified a specific construction year. They they are working on designs and and funding and that, but they have not identified a specific construction year for that intersection at this point.

So, uh, not going to get away that easy. So, if Madison does not have a signal, what's that going to look like for on and off from 2026? Does it even be possible? I I believe as um Mr. Mason indicated that there would be a median there and there would be no left turns at that intersection. So it would be right in right out intersection. So then it limits the access to that block pretty significantly because there wouldn't be any frontage access from 2026 into that

the the access any access from 2026 would be right in right out. In order to get to that property, you'd have to turn on Franklin and go around the mile. Oh, you can go that that the half road that. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Um and then the question and maybe this you maybe you could answer, Rodney, what would happen if this was denied? What would Can you explain what would happen?

Yeah, I I could do this or or Doug could do it. um either one of us. Essentially, what what the request is before you is for a specific project, but it's also to change the comprehensive plan to actually make it medium density where it was residential mixed use. So, you would be losing some of your commercial component and then on the other side of it, the commercial would go from commercial to half of it would go to medium density as well. So you'd lose the 20 acre I think it's 20 acres. Is that right, Doug? Yeah. So 20 acres of commercial there and then the little bit of neighborhood commercial in the residential mixed use. It would just all go to medium density residential. So, if this was denied, the plans would stay the same and it would still be commercial up near um 2026 and then residential mixed use which allow requires some mixed use components to it um with some neighborhood commercial and that would that would stay the same. So, the next applicant would come in and they would need to follow that standard. Um there is not I I need to be clear here that there's not um if it's denied, it doesn't go back to low density residential on the comprehensive plan. It stays what it is as shown on the the map right there.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification, other questions. Doug, when I know that uh long range planning made comments, but when you guys come up with those, do you ever talk to economic development? Is that standard practice or no? Uh chair and commissioner Daffer, we uh when we developed the specific area plan for this area, economic development and other departments were involved in that process. And so those decisions were made based on the anticipated needs of the area when 2026 was expanded.

And there not being a light at this intersection. Was that considered in those decisions or uh yes the the um roadway system was part of the discussion? The the circulation in this area was part of that discussion. Okay.

Yeah. While while you're still there, Doug, um, knowing now that it's strictly a ride in, write out. I know you guys, the staff and everybody worked extremely hard on these specific area plans, reaching the reaching out to the public and having a lot of meetings and trying to figure everything out. But at that time, did if we didn't know that it was going to strictly be a ride in, write out and that's going to limit the traffic flow in and out of that. I I can definitely see a big box store not wanting to anchor that corner down. So, would that change the consideration of having that that 40 acres being all commercial or knowing that that's strictly going to have a limited access? Would would long range planning think that maybe reducing that would make a little more sense? Okay.

While they're talking, you still got access on on Madison, right? There's a left turn there and you can still get into the commercial property through Madison. So, it's like there's no access, right? But it's just not not 2026 access at Franklin at the moment. No, not without falling into a ditch. full buildout probably.

Sorry. Yeah, I just needed to make sure that Rodney and I are on the same page here. So, um, so when we laid out the roadway system, we worked with the engineering department and we anticipated interior roads that were going to be connecting to these different land uses in the area. Uh so the road that is u the is kind of arked up near that what's the elementary school um right there that roadway was anticipated to connect to uh Franklin Road as a a means of getting to the different areas up here uh other than the right in and right out um there's a similar examples of this uh in Caldwell one over where the Home Depot is and some of these other there's right in right outs on some of those access points. there and then there's a major connection visa via a stoplight. Uh in the case of Home Depot, they had to build a roadway from the Home Depot out to the the stoplight. Uh the I don't know if it's a collector or what that is there, but it uh it tied in through that road. It ties in through that roadway system and it's a right in right out. So there's not a signal directly in front of the Home Depot, but there is a signal near to it that has a similar type of concept behind it where you could get to that signal from directly from the parking areas and so forth to these areas. I I would hate to I'd hate to lose commercial property along 2026 because if what turns into houses, it's we're never going to get it back in 2026 is we all know is going to be a major east west and

to lose commercial property along there. I hate to see it. But I'd also hate to see because of access restrictions that it sits vacant for so long because a big box store is not going to come in and anchor the corner down. So I I don't want to lose commercial, but I also don't want to see it sitting there growing weeds for the next 20 years either. So

Mr. Chair, if I may, um just talking to Daniel again, as um Mr. Mason indicated on his plan, uh there was a a frontage road to get to that location. That is the intention uh of that frontage road to provide that access to the commercial along the corridor. And you're you're dealing with something I mean, Commissioner, you're you're dealing with something that we struggle with all the time, like how long do you just hold on to a property and just say, "Hey, let's just keep waiting cuz we know eventually we're going to need this." or do you um do you want to see it developed, you know, sooner? And that's tough. I I don't know that I have an answer to that except to say that um when we develop things along major corridors and we lose that commercial, that's concerning to us. Like that as a planner, I'm I'm concerned about that because eventually down the road there's going to be a demand for some of that commercial. Um but the commercial follows the rooftops and so we have to have the rooftops first in order to get the commercial interested in those locations. So

so while I got a balancing act then the the proposal was going to be if we shorten this to 20 acres they'd have a straight line a road on the back side of the commercial going between Madison and Franklin. If if we keep this at 40 acres, they can't have that straight road going across there. Yeah. So, the intention is that as as we develop these out, the plans come forward, we are going to require that there's a connection somehow.

So, so if if we stick to the 40 acres, they'll still have to build the road. And then when they do that one section of medium density residential just below the low density residential, they'll have to continue that access road over at that that point. I mean, I I don't want to speak for Daniel here, but the intention is that as planning or as projects come forward that we evaluate them on their own merits and say we have to have a connection here in order to make this land possible to function as commercial. And so then we would evaluate that at the time and maybe the applicant would submit a a plan for how to do that and we would evaluate it and approve it or or not. Um so I I think it kind of comes at a on a case-byase basis with the long range plan in mind that we have to connect these with a frontage road. any other

um so so the city of Nampa the highway district in the area and the city of Caldwell Madison is the boundary between Nampa's planning area and impact area and Caldwell's impact area we have coordinated between all those agencies and so on where that roadway will be um if there is regional commercial that is larger than that um it would take access from the frontage road directly rather than having frontage on 2026. Um, but that is the location where we have negotiated this is this is where that road will go.

Well, that that road connecting Madison and Franklin's going to be there whether it's at the 20 acres or the 40 acres. It'll be at the at that quarter mile um section there. whether it's or not/4 mile um 16th mile uh or eighth mile whatever um that location is the location that we've identified between the um the various roadway agencies in that area that that's where that front ended road will be. So it still access the back side of that commercial right 40 acres. Okay.

Right. Thank you. and and whether there's additional commercial on the south side of it or not, that's really the discussion and your your decision. Please clarification. I'm getting bogged down and I just want to clear on something before I get into it. Um, so if we approve what he's asking, we have to approve changing the comprehensive plan. Is that correct? That's what I'm understanding, but I want to make sure I'm understanding that correctly.

Yeah. So, a couple of things. The the comprehensive plan, it future land use map has a certain designation on it. Then you have within the comprehensive plan, you have a specific area plan that guides it even more. It refineses that land use that was done with some serious public input. Um, a lot of work went into that. So that's what you're seeing on the screen here as that specific area plan. So it amends both the comprehensive plan the the comprehensive plan text which includes this plan this specific area plan and then it would be for the is I guess we're not doing the plat yet. So we're doing an annexation. So then it would be an annexation and then you could lock in. If you wanted to, you could recommend some conditions that they lock the a site plan in or conditions that um are critical to to what you want to see done here. Because they're not doing the plat yet, they'll have to come back with a plat and match whatever decision that the council approves. So this all will go on to city council and it's your decision as to whether or not to recommend approval for each of those. So the annexation, the first really the comprehensive plan, the comprehensive plan uh text which includes this specific area plan and then the annexation. So three things,

Mr. Chair. Yes. Questions please.

Either Rodney or Doug. So this was you you mentioned about a small portion on 2026 and in our report it says that this we're missing out on that this doesn't really match the long-term uh look of that the long range plan. How much are we talking about if Napa has a small section on 2026? We know that neighboring towns have large areas are taking advantage of it and in the growth shows and I'm just wondering like what is that? Um rooftops follow the the commercial but it also sounds like we have a lot of rooftops that are going to be coming.

Yeah. So um thank you chair and um commissioner fine uh fi the um typically what has to happen is that commercial development has to see residential development with spec you know certain densities in order to develop. They have formulas that they use in order to determine whether they should be locating a a commercial development in a certain location. Um and so uh typically what happens is that rooftops come first and then the commercial follows because they see the value of that investment. Um the the advantage uh that we've been trying to take a advantage of with mixeduse development is that often times they can they can work together. They can come in tandem. It's it's hard to find developers that will do both. Uh they they usually do residential or they do commercial. So u this this short section of 2026 that we have these few miles that we have between the Meridian border and the Calwell border um that you can see already see the type of development that's occurring in Meridian and Calwell and and we're anticipating that same type of development to move all the way down the corridor as it expands. Um, so it's kind of a combination of getting a lot of hits for the residential so they get a lot of visual hits from the road. That's important to commercial and it's also important that we have the the development around that commercial to support it and uh and vice versa. So um does that answer your question? Is that approaching?

Yes. And okay, next part. So, by changing this annexation and changing the future land, we're going to be losing out on mixed mixed use, we're going to lose that community business aspect by changing this annexation, which from my understanding, the whole point of that is to cut down traffic on the roads, to cut down trips, to and actually help promote community with businesses within that. and we're going to lose that if this is approved as such.

Yeah. Um so the the residential mixed use there's a range that can be developed as commercial from 5% of the property to 50% of the gross can be developed in resident in commercial. Um so in a mixeduse environment oftent times we'll see a lot of residential develop residential mixed use. We'll see a lot of residential development and then we'll see uh some area left for commercial development and and th that's either that can be either little strip malls with doctor's offices or a small little market or a gas station or something like that where where they just the residents can go get the services they need without having to travel long distances. That's the intent of residential mixed use.

Okay. And is there anyone that can touch on I mean the public brings it up a lot. Is there anyone that could touch on schools to kind of shed a little more light on that?

Mr. Chair and commissioners, this is a touchy subject. Um, it's one I've struggled with. I I don't I don't want to speak for the school district. So, it's difficult because um they're trying to plan for the future and um and we are trying to plan for the future. We don't have the authority to um to regulate what they do. and they're kind of frustrated if um or they've expressed frustration when growth is happening and we're approving developments. um what a lot of the the developments that have been discussed tonight that have been brought up um that would impact schools um they will impact schools absolutely but um some of those are MPCs that are really big developments that are going to happen over years and years and so it's really hard for me I people ask me all the time well man we're growing so fast. We've got so many things approved, but I don't even know if those will be developed. I've seen lots and lots of subdivisions expire over time. So, I I it's hard for me cuz I I know that we've gotten approval on the books. We don't know exactly when it's going to happen. So, what I point people to is the final plat we're going in. we're going in within the next year or two, you know, and and you're going to see some development start happening. Um, so I point to those final plats and I just encourage us to be mindful that it takes so much time to

develop these subdivisions and in the meantime, school districts can plan for that growth that is occurring. We regularly speak with the school district. Um so much of this information is available on our annual report that we provide and um we regularly communicate with them. We provide them l um projects every time a project comes forward we provide them that and ask for their comment. They know of what is coming forward. They are aware of it. It's challenging because they're trying to fund um schools through bonds, which can be challenging because we don't have if we don't have the capacity at a max at the moment, then maybe the the taxing district may not approve a bond because they're they're saying, "Well, we're we're doing okay. I don't want to I don't want to increase my taxes. Um and so then the school districts are saying, "Well, we're we're getting close to capacity." Um so these are these are the challenges we deal with and they deal with. I I know their job isn't easy. My job isn't easy trying to balance that out either. Um and what I what I find is that um there a lot of times when they are opposing our pro any project and again these are not our projects they're applicants coming to the city requesting development when they're um when they're opposing those projects they often will site all of the development that has been approved and that's not capacity. that that's not existing capacity. It's

future projections of what that capacity will be. So I went to Caldwell and asked them, they they told me they had some numbers from uh the school district from Valley View School District and they provided those numbers to me and I said, "Oh, this is interesting." So this is what you see on the screen here. Um the three high schools, the Valley View Academy is obviously an alternative school. Um it's a little different than your typical high school. So they are over capacity on the that alternative school. But for the typical public schools, there's two high schools. One's at 69% and one's at 95%. Um, generally school districts want to be somewhere between 80 and 95%. So I look at the school district number at the very bottom total 79% total for capacity. So if if we're taking all of those schools into one, you know, and adding up those numbers, we're at 79% capacity for the entire district. So, I I don't I don't pretend to understand why they draw the boundaries they do, but I do look at this and I say, "Well, they've got some room in Valley View High that they could add some students to." Um, I don't know if maybe they could redraw the boundaries. Maybe there's a reason they they they don't, but it's from a planning perspective, all from all I can do is is look at their numbers, communicate with them, try to understand, hey, what are your needs? But a a city

can't be beholden to another agency for whether they approve or deny their new schools or or the bonds don't get approved. And so that's really challenging. And what I've told the school district is I'm with you if you want to have me hope I hopefully I'm not speaking out of turn but I I hope that the city can kind of partner with them to say here's why we need uh improvements. So I need to know that from them what what is the purpose? If if these are the numbers which I just just learned about um then we need to know that. So I've spoken too much. I'm sorry but that that's the answer.

Thanks for the clarification thoughts

lots. Um so I think that the American education system has has done us a disservice by not teaching us about how this is supposed to work. You guys are all coming here to voice your opinion here in the fourth quarter of the game. And while it's not impossible, um there's been a lot of public discussion on this for years. Um Nampa always has a 25-year plan that gets updated every 5 years, and everybody should come participate in that. We're updating ours right now. And this future land use map is part of that. And it was publicly noticed. We had a lot of meetings on it as we've talked about before. And everyone should have had a chance to come and voice their concern. And that's when you guys are supposed to come and say, "I want this to stay low density. I don't want this to be a part of the city. I don't want this. I don't want that." That's your chance. Cuz once we put this into place, this is a legal document. And on the planning as only commission, it's our job to test applications against this document. So for everyone to come in here and say, "I don't want any of this stuff." Well, I don't know if we're allowed to say no to that. We can say no for a few reasons, but not very many. And I feel for you because it's not fair that you don't get to know about that because from my perspective, how do I tell everybody what's going on? If I knew a way to make sure everybody knew what was going on all the time, I would do it in a heartbeat. But I don't know how to do that. If you guys had any ideas, I'd love to hear it. And if the system is broken and needs fixed, let's fix it. But this is the system in place right now. And that's what we have to operate with. you know, when there's a seat open on the planning and zoning commission, I invite any of you to come take it because then you have a chance to be a part of the discussion more than you currently do. So, when we make a decision, and I really don't know how this is going to go. Um, it's not because we didn't hear you, it's because our hands are semi-ted and there's not a whole lot we can do about it. Now, on the specific application, I don't like losing the commercial personally. you

know, all the all the cities, Star, Meridian, Caldwell, they glombmed on to Highway 2026 and they're all shooting to get as much as they can. That's just been the the real estate race, right? And Nampa somehow got up there and got a piece of it. I'm not sure how, but um it's all going to get developed out in the next 20 years. And whether if we turn it into residential now is never going back to commercial. So, I I have a hard time with that part. But um I understand the desire to keep some low density because there is a subdivision there already approved by the county. I'm assuming it's the county. Um so I don't know. I go back and forth on that specific point and I will uh yield my time for a while. Thank you for your comments. Um I I struggle with losing industrial or commercial ground because it's one of those things like you said it's very finite and we don't ever get it back. Um and if you look like you said at Caldwell and Meridian specifically that's all it is on 2026 and any residential that there is is being bought up and developed commercially because that's what they want it to be. So, I just really struggle with making that commercial that much smaller. So, and then the RMU is great because that brings small business, community grocery stores and things like that, but we all know and it's hard for a lot of people to understand that little nodes of commercial like that help with traffic on the roads because then you as citizens drive a minute down the road instead of 10 minutes across town to get to WCO or Albertson's or wherever you're going. I'm just saying 10 minutes if it's a mile down the road, 30 minutes if it's three miles down the road. So, so we

understand some of the frustrations and and like Commissioner Daffer, I encourage everyone here, um please be involved as much as you possibly can. Get on the city website, ask your neighbors, talk to your neighbors. This is all about us, not you and us. It's all about us as a community. We live here, too. And we want to make Nampa the best it can possibly be. I've lived here my entire life, and I want my kids to want to live here, too, in the future. That's what I want. Um, I don't want them to move away because I love it here. Um, and is Nampa the same as when I graduated from high school over 30 years ago? Not even remotely close to the same. Um, and and I agree to a to a point that I think some of the people that complain the loudest are the people that have moved from a massive other place and moved to Tampa because this is a agricultural and lower density place. They don't want to see any more growth. Well, that's not reality. I mean, if you don't want any more growth, then stop telling your friends and family to move here. It's just not how it works. Um, so for for the couple reasons I stated, I I just don't feel real comfortable with this. I got a couple thoughts. Go ahead. So, um, I know some of you. So, um, and it was brought up that the developers or the city should improve the roads and stuff. Well, do you know how much it would cost if we had to go out and buy the ride away from private property owners to to widen those roads? It would be we just can't do it as a city. Our taxes would just So when we take in developments like this, we require them to give us a rightway and improve that road along their section of their development. So that helps the city save money down the road where we don't have to go out and buy this stuff from

private property owners and force them to sell it to us. So it the developers do pay quite a bit. They do pay impact fees. And as we all know, the houses are not cheap around here. And every time you increase those impact fees, you push out more and more entry- level buyers that just cannot afford to buy homes. And you know, I've said it many times, we're we're up to 40 years now, 40 years of age before you buy your first home on average now. That's ridiculous for kids. They they shouldn't have to wait that long to start building wealth and have to pay somebody else's mortgage. So the the more we can keep the prices down, the better. this. This the the staff worked hours and hours on this, reaching out to the public and doing everything they could to get as much impact in input as possible on this area and the specific area plans specifically. And as a private property rights person, if the farmer says, "I'm not farming it anymore. I'm getting tired of it. I want to sell it." He has every right to do whatever he wants to do with it. And if it fits into our future land use map, we really have a tough time telling him no. So if you don't want it to become something else, you have one opportunity and that's to go buy it from the farmer. Other than that, we follow our what the property owner would like to do and if it fits within our zoning and our plan, our future land use map. But I I'm agree I'm okay with the annexation, but I'm not I'm not going to agree to losing any of the commercial property. So, it's a hard note for me on that 2026. We don't have much of it. So,

thoughts?

Well, I I agree. I the residential mixuse, the commercial hard to come by. I'm I'm leaning. Well, I'm not leaning. I'm in favor of denial because I don't want to lose that. That's my two cents. Uh, I move to recommend denial of the comprehensive plan map and text amendment to change residential mixeduse, medium density residential and commercial to medium density residential on the future land use map, regional commercial and residential mixed use to medium density residential in the highway 2026 specific area plan. Annexation to business commercial and RS6 zoning districts at zero Madison Road. or at highway zero highway 26 for Mason and Associates Incorporated res representing Boise Valley Land Holdings LLC because I don't it doesn't fit the comp comprehensive plan or the specific area plan I need to get more specific than that

Mr. Chair, that's good. This is a legislative action, so we're good. Thank you. I think I think he seconded it. Okay. It's been moved by Daffer and seconded by Garner to deny this item. Can we get a roll call, please? Fine. I Copeland. I He Turner. I Garner. I Miller. I Daffer. Yes. Motion carries. Motion denied.

Okay. Item that. Okay. We're going to take a quick pause for a break. Let's say five minutes. Be back at 8:17. H I don't know. Can you

appear? I have no idea. First name. Uh, no. Second. Second. Second. Yeah. Yeah.

Yes. Yeah. No, I kind of after the last one, I just I really felt this or is it not working? Yeah. Some of the things that people bring up since we don't have this since we don't have this this forum where it's where it's a back and forth that some of them but it still but it still belongs to the owner. Some of them are not even ever addressed until people leave here. They may not agree and like but at least

whereas if we just don't say anything and it looks like we don't even care. I love it when there's deliberation. I would love it if there was five six minutes deliberations putting facts out there reason. I think that does well for everybody. Yeah, especially on I mean this is what they call you. They're working on it right now, but if you stay on the website, I think you can actually sign up to get updates and get notices. So permits, well, they have they have like focus groups and things like that. So that's what defends the city

next door. They usually have big then get into the decision that is either challenged or upheld in court. So that's good. Tonight there was a lot of good hearty Yeah. discussion. That's always always city. Sometimes they ask way too many questions. Now that's what I hear. That's what I hear. How you doing? your side as well.

Neighbors who have a nice stone uh uh uh fencing or whatever, they're going to lose that part of their parking because you had because they just went and did the found out what this word was. It's the the center line something. It's kind of funny. Here's the center of Madison. That orange mark is right here further east. Yeah. Yeah. Cuz the roads might not be right on the center. It's not. And so my neighbors they're part of the development. If they're not, I mean,

how does that work? So the road's going to go Yep. You drive around you'll find a lot of roads like the because we can't we can't go in and for we could I mean you can do it's political suicide is what it is but but the but the problem is is I mean the perfect example and it's because I live over there is Greenhurst Road. Yeah. You know you you go three lanes wide, two lanes wide, three lanes wide, sidewalks on both sides. Shannon was that way forever. Yeah. And it was every time they put a new development in, they widen it on one side or the other. And the only way to the only way to get around that is to annex mass annex.

And I talked to highway district before. I was curious because they run it and then my buddy was the kind of like dude like what happens when it's going to be a jurisdiction because they still have to respond but if it's certain things and I'm like okay. So that I came from Virginia because

well city council website has it all. I'm in the Nampa city website. If you go to the planning and zoning, they they do all they advertise all the meetings and all of the focus groups and stuff like that. I think they have notes on there, don't they? What's supposed to happen? There's a lot of development south that that's working its way up and it's it's going to be slow. I mean, eventually it's going to get built out.

That's how you'll know the city. So they hold those views all the time and what they typically do is they'll they do it in phase planning. So last summer they spent all summer at different locations asking people

I know what's going to happen. I appreciate you guys all have a wonderful You too, sir. You too. We'll see you at the next one. Okay, I gave everybody an extra minute. Let's come back into order. That's the best system we got and that's if we please can this is better hurry. I would love everybody. This is really hard to Yeah. So, do you want to check to make sure?

Mr. attorney. Do I need to have a vote on continuing to May? We do, don't we? Yeah, we have to open it public hearing and then continue, don't we? Okay. Certain. Next item 3-3 comprehensive plan map amendment from lowdensity residential to medium density residential addressed at 5601 East Locust Lane for Ray Bowlinger. Uh the applicant has requested this item be continued to May 12th, 202026 due to incomplete property posting by them. So we need to open the public hearing, don't we? We need to open. Okay. And then continue to a date certain.

Okay. So we're going to open this item up. Mr. Chairman, yes. I'd make a motion to reschedule this item number 33 to May 2nd, 2026. Continue. May 12th. May 12th. What did I say? Second. Second. Continue May 12th. I think it's what? And I'm still here too. Yes. Continue May 12th. Do we have a second? Good. Second. Okay. It has been motioned by Turner, second by Fi to continue this item to May 12th, 2026. All those in favor, do we roll call? Just this is procedural. So you can do a voice.

So all those in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Well, this item will be continued. So we'll move on to item 3-5. Comprehensive comprehensive plan map amendment from commercial to medium density residential and comprehensive plan text amendment to change land use map in the SH16 plan from high density highdensity residential neighborhood commercial to medium density residential addressed at 17403 Star Road for Trilogy Development. Come on up

chairman and members of the commission. Hello and good evening. For the record, my name is Sabrina Derie and I am here on behalf of the applicant. My business address is 5179 South Boven Avenue, Boisee, Idaho 83716. And this evening, I have the privilege to present to you our applications for a comprehensive plan map amendment. And um throughout this presentation, you're going to hear me refer the project as Creeks Bend. Um, following our initial application submitt, we kind of took a little deeper dive into the site's natural features and developed a cohesive theme and design vision. We wanted the name to reflect one of the site's most defining characteristics, its direct connection to the 10m Creek which bends um along the western boundary of the property. So, the natural feature became the inspiration and the new name creeks bend, which I just got a reservation approval. So, it is official from um this this afternoon. So now let's take a look at the subject site. This site is located west of Star Road and is approximately 55 acres in size. The current comp plan has the the site split with medium density residential and commercial with high density residential designation for this area. To help provide context to this um context, this slide illustrates the prior comprehensive plan designation which showed the entire parcel was identified as medium density residential, establishing a long-standing vision for medium density for this area. Now, really quick, I'd like to walk you through the surrounding development pattern to provide additional context for this area. To the north we have Spring Hollow, which has multiple phases that have been constructed and a few phases remaining to be developed. To the east, we have a mix of lowdensity county parcels within Silverspur as well as Silverstar, which is a medium-density residential development within the city of Nampa. To the south, we are bordered

by three county subdivisions, Atkins Acres, Pontiac 58, and Low Angle Subdivision. To the west we have Likito Village which is zoned RS7 and developed as a medium density residential scale. When you look at its entirety you can see this area reflects a transition between larger lot lowdensity county development and more traditional subdivision um in the city of Nampa with the site position between low density and estate style parcels with medium density. We do not feel that highdensity residential nor commercial designation is appropriate for this location. Those designations would not provide a compatible transition to the adjacent county parcels and would in introduce higher traffic volumes into what is fundamentally a midblock site. Additionally, given its midblock location, the site lacks the visibility, access, and roadway characteristics that are typically needed to support a successful commercial development. We are therefore requesting the site to be designated medium density residential. When looking at the appropriate locations for commercial and the higher density residential uses, the areas designated along the US corridor planned as a five-lane arterial are far more suitable. These locations are intentionally planned to accommodate higher traffic volumes, provide the visibility, access, and infrastructure necessary to support both both commercial and higher density residential development. By directing these uses to the arterial corridor and changing our comp plan designation, we feel that this allows the site to develop in a way that is more compatible with the existing area. Now, I'd like to introduce our initial design vision for Creeks Bend. We're planning in early stages of design and we'll move into more fullsight planning once approval for our site plan um our comp

plan amendment. But we wanted to share the direction we're headed with the Tenm Creek as a defining feature. Our goal is to create a seamless connection to the surrounding landscape with direct access to the regional pathway system for the walking, biking, and enjoying the outdoors. This connection enhances both day-to-day livability and long-term value by tying the neighborhood into a larger open space network and connecting via the 10mi creek pathway system to the future waterways district. In addition, we're planning internal amenities designed to foster community gathering, including a central gathering space with games, picnic pavilion with barbecues, and a small amphitheater for events and neighborhood activities. We're excited to be part of the Highway 16 specific area plan for Creek's Ben Site. In reviewing this attempt, this plan, particularly the waterways district, we have thoughtfully incorporated those guiding principles into the development to help shape our overall design and character of the property. With these key elements, we continue to coordinate closely with staff on how it seamlessly connects our site to the waterways district. With the presence of the 10mm Creek and the planned pathway network, we see a unique opportunity to create a park at the bend in the creek serving as a natural focal point and a meaningful extension and overall vision for this area within the southwest corner of the site. We are proposing approximately 2.5 acres. Um this spice this space is designed to provide a pathway connection and it will serve as a designation along the 10mi Creek corridor. This park will be incorporated passive recreation elements such as parklet style seating areas, picnic shelters and hammocks, creating opportunities for residents and the broader community to pause, gather, and enjoy the outdoor setting. We also plan to include parking and wayfinding signage to ensure the space is accessible and easily um to navigate for

all users. We believe the park will be a defining feature for this project and a key highlight in the broader specific area plan. So, in closing, we're excited about the opportunity to bring forward our amazing new community and we're in general agreement with the staff report. However, we disagree, respectively disagree with the recommendation to include approximately 1.5 acres of neighborhood commercial within the site. Given the midblock location, we do not feel that commercial is appropriate for this location with better locations just north in the US corridor. Instead, we're in strong agreement with the concept of activating this area with a meaningful amenity that has um been earmarked for this parcel. We believe a park is the most appropriate use for this location along with the medium density residential and are proposing that our 2.5 acre park near 10M Creek be part of the recommendation instead of the commercial. We feel that this this approach better aligns with the intent of the waterways district, enhances connectivity along 10m Creek, and provides a lasting benefit to both future residents and the surrounding community. And with that, I'd like to thank you all for your time, your thoughtful consideration, and respectfully request a recommendation of approval to council. Thank you so much.

Questions? Okay. Thank you. No. Okay. Richfield. Busy man tonight. So, thank you, chair and commissioners. Um so uh what what's before you this evening is a comprehensive plan amendment and a text amendment that affects the specific area plan. Um it's not the it's not the uh plat that was presented this evening. So I just want to make that clear that we're just talking about these two issues tonight and the decision will be will be on those issues. Um, so, uh, there needs to be a, uh, change to the staff report. Um, there was a, a paragraph left in the staff report that was what I call random bits of data that creep in and out of these staff reports once in a while. As much as I tried to clean that up, that was left in. So, I apologize to you and need to make sure that that's removed. Um so um the uh the staff recommendation um was completed utilizing the conclusions of law in the NPA comprehensive plan the NPA highway 16 specific area plan and city code. Um, with all of those, uh, staff, we can reasonably recommend to the commission that the project be approved. And we'll we'll show you the reasons behind that and the reasoning behind that.

Um, so the change to the land use designation. Um, so u because this area is largely a residential area, there is low density across the street. It's a it's a county u subdivision, but it is low density. um has longevity. Um we feel we feel that the change to this um is in is in is compatible with the adjacent development. Um the the current zoning in the area um uh is RSA 8.5, RS7 and RA to the south. Um the specific area plan identified that area as high density residential because of its proximity to the creek. Um that 10-mi creek corridor uh is a regional corridor. It's the only place on Highway 16 where we have a trail connection that goes underneath the road uh that ITD provided for us. Uh so we anticipate that to have somewhat of a Boise River trail type of feel about it. And uh if you look at the Boise River Trail, there's there's development fairly close to the river with a trail walkway including eeries and commercial uses. And so the feeling was is that we needed to have some commercial in that area. Um the the uh what's called the waterways district of that trail system, which is uh further to the a little bit further to the south on that trail. That waterways district will have those commercial elements uh in it. and uh the proposed 2 and 1/2 um acre park uh if that's proposed in the plat um would likely suffice for gathering areas that a that a commercial area would provide. The reason that we suggested that is to uh preserve again the integrity of the highway 16 plan which anticipated commercial in this

area and we suggested a 1.5 acre u commercial development be included in the conditions. Um that's a suggestion u again to preserve the integrity of the of the specific area plan. Um the reason also is that um in order to get up to that residential neighborhood area up off a high off of Ustick Road, it's about a half mile walk and typically we like to keep commercial about a quarter mile if it to be walkable. So again, that was the intent of having uh commercial in that area. U here's the view of the site from Star Road. So, it's largely farmland, but you can see that it's developing residential all all the way around it to the north and to the south. Um, so, um, in the comprehensive plan, uh, there are there were different, uh, designations in the staff report and descriptions. I I'd be glad to describe any of these to you if you have any questions about what medium versus high density versus neighborhood commercial, what what all of those descriptions u mean. I'd be glad to talk to you about that. Um, and then I have the descriptions as well um up here that I can bring up on the board. Um, so again going back to 676508 uh the commission's responsibility is to change the map and to allow for some flexibility as this is a planning map. It's not a zoning map. And so you do have that um flexibility as you desire to impose that. Um these were this is feeding back to the comments that I gave to you earlier. The 1.5 acres is 5% of the area that was commercial. That's how we came up with that number. That would be akin to a residential mixeduse type of designation on the area.

Um let's see. So, um we the highway 16 specific area plan um it uh contemplated the need to add neighborhood commercial in the area to be changed to medium density residential. Um section 543 allows limited commercial zoning in a medium density residential area. So even if they change the zoning, if you change the future, the land use designation, the entire thing to medium density residential, the comprehensive plan allows for a little bit of commercial still to be developed within that land use designation. So what we were suggesting is that the future zoning of that area include uh neighborhood uh commercial as a part of that provision from the comprehensive plan. that was the suggestion for for a condition. Um so our conclusion is that it it meets the the u comprehensive plan uh and that the um and the highway specific area plan if we include that 5% of 1.5 acres and this is the suggested condition of approval that I was speaking to earlier. All right. So, um I have any questions? Glad to take them. So, nope. I'm sure we'll have some later. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Do we have a signup sheet?

We do. Our first speaker is Paul Turnbull. Our second speaker is Jared Hosme. Uh my name is Jared Hosfi. I live at 5115 East Feather Creek Lane, which borders the south part of the proposed subdivision. And um I'm glad that they were able to provide a plat um I think it was on like the fifth slide. That was nice to see just to kind of get an idea of what was proposed. But um some of the concerns I had is our properties on the south side specifically. If you look at them, they're all um an acre or better and off of Feather Creek Lane. And that's it's concerning to me just to throw, you know, have go from no back neighbors to three, four, five houses directly behind you, which is when I moved out here, um, not what I first saw happening in in the future. So, um I just like I I think if we are going to look and consider this being a subdivision that you need to have like properties directly behind us and I I think that makes sense just for the surrounding areas. I know to the north it's higher density, medium density rather. Um, and then to the west it's higher density, but if you look to the east, if you look to the south, those are estate style homes. And I think it's important to keep that fill for the residents that bought those properties

and for the values to be considered. Um, I think traffic is a concern. Star Road is extremely busy. Making a lefthand turn from sun up to sun down out of my subdivision is a hazard. It's hard to get out there. I have young kids and a lot of times they'll have to make a right-hand turn, go to the roundabout just to safely go to their school. So, I think that's consider uh needs to be up for consideration is just the additional traffic control. I know it's beating a dead horse for you guys. It's talking about infrastructure in roads and I'm sure you guys hear it every Tuesday night, but hopefully um you're listening to that and not not just, you know, looking at the dollar signs with the developments that are happening. Um I think just in general if there's a way to accommodate um the existing homes on the south specifically in the east um I think that would be appreciated by the current residents. So thank you.

Thank you Rebecca Jimenez. John Low.

Good evening. John Low, 5280 East Feather Creek Lane in the Low Angle subdivision. Um, and by the way, the the properties that Jared was talking about is on the north side of Feather Creek. So, it's the one bordering that actual uh um Creek's Bend. And those are all acre or more properties there. Um for the first time seeing that map, um we know it's going to be developed and the considerations we have as a community have all been talked about here. It's all all the common things. And we actually sent in a previous letter. I don't know if all of you had received that. Um, the first concern we have is we didn't have a whole lot of time from the time we were notified. We met as a community just a couple of days ago and form this letter. And so we'd first like the motion to table this folk for another month or so if we could to further look at look at what we have and discuss it and you know possibly a meeting with the developer. Uh that's always good. Um the planned infrastructure as was mentioned Star Road is terrible with um traffic right now and with more houses that's also becoming a great danger. um traffic uh is not good. I is there plans to create a lower speed limit? It's been a rural farm road for many years and it's 45 and with all these homes coming around now with kids driving and kids on bikes, it's just not safe. So, I'd like the

city or the highway district to consider um a 35 mph um speed limit. I think that's important for safety. Um emergency services as we mentioned in the letter um a couple of times ambulances have been needed on uh East Feather Creek and it's taken forever during times a day that people are going or coming home from work and it's just um that's a danger in itself as well. Uh the schools have been brought up from all the developments and I know that's out of your control. Um but it still should take um some thought process to think if if uh bringing more people into an area should be done at this time. Um based on that slide of of the development uh between the north property line of low angle subdivision and the creeks bend there's an irrigation line that is there and there's an easement there. I think it would be um a planned a well planned idea to have a road along that easement or in that easement. Um when um I bought that property there, we put the um open trench, irrigation trench underground, but it still is going to need service.

Mr. Chair, time. Okay. Um just hope you consider those options and and those thoughts and ideas and thank you for your time. Thank you, Lori Brenamman. A second. Don't start the clock. Don't start that. I'll start it after you give me your address. Are you trying to find your glasses? They're right here. Thank you, sir. I knew I figured I know who you were looking for.

Okay. My name is Lori Brandon. I live at 5120 East Feather Creek Lane. The name of my subdivision is also in that list, but was not listed in the list that was given. First, I would like to bifurcate my testimony tonight. And the first part is going to be about this. And then the second part, as a teacher, I'd like to show you something. Um, there has been a historical decision about this area. Nampa City Council set a precedent for this area in a letter dated September 7th, 2016, which states that the area under consideration tonight is established as agriculture and rural. Line three of the Nampa City Council's letter states, "The proposed rural residential use of the subject property will be compatible with the existing rural agriculture and rural residential uses established around the area." So, we're talking around the area. The subject property being discussed tonight lies adjacent to the property addressed in the forementioned letter. The precedent has been set that this area is to be used in a matter compatible with RA zoning. RA zoning requires no less than 30,000 square ft for home sites. This lot size and RA has been upheld by this planning department. Over the last several years and including 2025, we had to comply with that zoning that was set forth by the city council along Feather Creek Lane. As land owners in this area, I would like to ask for continuity and equitability equitability from the planning department as previously decided and written on the forementioned letter. I have heard Doug talk tonight about terms like 3/4 acre lots in the north, low density residential, and I would like to say I liked what he was saying. He was talking about communities being in harmony. I liked what Doug was saying about that. In speaking further on equitable land use, the developers are asking you to approve smaller lots just a few feet

away from what you require us to do. This is not equitable and or in harmony and the termination of the lot size has been discussed and decided asked and answered by the city of Nampa for this particular area. I would ask that you follow the precedent which was set in the forementioned letter which determines that land use legalities just a few feet away. the legalities that you hold us to just a few feet away from this. Please represent the citizens before you tonight and um who have held to your board and your city council's decisions. We have been lawful in following that. Now, I hope I have enough time because I really want to do this because this is an overarching idea of what you guys are up against. Okay, please allow me to have this apple represent the earth. All right, I'm going to start right away with teaching you because I was a teacher for 30 years. There's a second three4s of the Earth's surface is of no use to us to grow food. So, we're going to get rid of this because that's of no use. One quarter of the Earth's surface is what we have left. We've got to get rid of this. We've got to get rid of this eighth as well because this is deserts, mountains, Antarctic, Arctic, swamps. We can't use that for the humans that we have. We've got this portion of land left.

Mr. Chair, all that's left after we get rid of subdivisions and other land is this 1/4. This, excuse me, this 132nd right here. You guys are deciding on this much of the Earth's surface. 6 in deep. This is all we got out of the apple, folks. You're making the decisions. Good luck. Sites and sources. I would be happy to email to you so that you can have the fact that all of this was above board. Thank you. Thank you very much,

David Brennan. David Brenamman, 5120 East Feather Creek Lane. Um, we're part of the uh low angle subdivision. We're just to the south of this um proposed division. I decided, it's a moot point, but I just would like to see the uh city or comprehensive planning preserve large acres. like this is going to be 55 acres that we're going to lose and right across Star Road to the east there's 405 acres that the city's planning to develop also. So I guess that's about all I would like to see and I know it's a moot point but uh it's something to consider for the future generations also that we're losing a lot and a lot of agricultural men. Thank you. Thank you,

Fred Deold.

Good evening. Fred Deepold, 4765 East Fortuna Drive, Napa, Idaho. Um, I have lived in this area uh for 26 years and I've seen it grow and I I agree with a lot of the comments that have come about traffic throughout our whole community and u kind of sometimes I wonder you know what's crazy there's more cows in Idaho than there are people but all the traffic is here. Um I did want to say that it seems to me like um all the previous speakers are in agreement that they don't want the higher density there, the apartments, the um whatnot that is part of the current uh comprehensive plan. And so I also agree with that that let's let's approve this that's before you tonight and not put apartments or commercial there. If you look at the master plan um project that you guys just approved was I think it was 450 acres. Is that right Rodney? Uh that master plan and it has commercial, it has industrial and it just kind of as in my opinion overdoes us with commercial, industrial and high density. So I would rather see the 15% open space that comes with the medium density. We really need that. I now live in the Silverstar subdivision. You know how much open space we have there? Basically zero. There wasn't a requirement back then when they approved that. And so um people in our neighborhood like to get out and walk and you know we we crave that green space. So even the uh 5% that they're talking about as a resident there, I'd rather not see that. I'd rather see more grass. um you know, I'm not going to go to that dentist office or whatever is there, but my my

grandkids that uh also live in the area, they would appreciate uh more open space. And so I am for um this movement, a motion before you to change the comprehensive plan and let's go with medium density residential like it was for years and years. I've looked back at the 2019 future land use map and the 2021 future land use map and they were all medium density and so somewhere between then and now it has changed. So that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. There's no more sign up.

Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak for against or undecided on this item? Fred Rowan, address 5125 East Feather Creek Lane. Um, in terms of, um, mentioned earlier is property value and ensuring that we retain our property value in our low density neighborhood. Um, and it would be helpful to ensure that that is maintained in that adjacent property. um in order to you know again retain our investment in in our property. So as all as others have mentioned um the infrastructure is critical. Star Road is just inundated with traffic um and as mentioned earlier is becoming very dangerous. uh would appreciate that that is under consideration in terms of that road being supported in terms of this population that's being proposed. I also agree green space is important and I do like the idea of the park that's included in this plan. Um, and I would definitely would ask that that's expanded a bit more um, in terms of keeping green space and buffer in between the properties. Thank you for your

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Anyone else? Okay, Mr. Chie, come back up. chairman um commissioners again. Thank you. Um I think there might be a little disconnect with the application and what the neighbors are thinking. We're wanting to actually reduce the density, reduce the amount of traffic that the commercial and high density would produce for this area. Um and obviously the plat's not before you. So I I'm not even at that point. we just want to get through this hurdle and then my plan is um as always my plan is to always try to work with the neighbors as best I can. So, um once we get to that point, I'd love to talk to the neighbors, work on that transition that works for them for the site design and um and then proceed with our neighborhood meeting and um and um applications later on. But our goal really is um cuz I know I know this area well. I know with the low density I was like wait a minute this high density here this is not a fit. This does not fit for this area. I understand the overall goal um for the specific area plan. But I think that we can really create something special that works for this area, that works with the neighbors, that transition wells, and is really an asset to um the overall design with the park, the connectivity um to the waterways district. And so that's my goal. Um but again, we have to go through this one little little hurdle and then it's the next step. So um with that, I'll stand for any questions that you have. Um and again, thank you for your time. questions.

Have one. So, you uh said that the only thing you disagree with is the commercial. Can you speak more to that? Why is that? And what uh would you rather do with it?

Uh yes. um chairman um Commissioner Daffer um we we we looked at the area and I think one of the other area reasons why this area u Mark Bottles provided a letter explaining that the Roman um Catholic Church owns the site right now and I think they had planned for a church and maybe a school and that's why this area got slated for um in the comp plan um for the high density and the church now has decided they're going to be they have other areas that they're going to this isn't a good fit for them anymore. And so I think historically I think that's why maybe other nuances is why this area got slated for commercial. But when we asked Mark Bottle's team, when we ask the people that are experts in the commercial, they're like, "This area won't work for commercial." That midblock um have we talked about just doesn't work. that where it really works, where it's really needed is where the necessary infrastructurees at of the Ustick corridor, which isn't far from where we're at. And so, we really feel that that area is the better fit. And then we can designate that area for the park and have it flow with the residential um for the development. And again, I'll probably change some stuff. We'll move some things. We'll work with the neighbors. Um, and it'll be maybe a little bit different than what you've seen tonight, but overall what our vision and goal is, that is what we'd like to um design and develop for you.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Yes. Thank you all. Thank you. I move to close the public hearing. Been moved by Daffer, second by Kho to close the public hearing. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? All right. Okay. Public hearing is closed. Thoughts, questions for staff. I

think it makes more sense in that commercial piece in there, but hopefully they can work out something with the neighbors to the south. Hopefully they can get a little bit larger lots. and don't see them making one acre lots along that south border, but maybe maybe you can stretch them so they're not quite so stacked up on there. Ones to the east, I'm not so worried about because you got the whole width of Star Road. So, I'm not I'm not concerned about those. Just the ones to the south that those are big big lots and you know, if you got four doors right out your back door, it kind of gets a little discouraging. So, I'm sure you'll try to work with them, but that that's my only only thought on that. I like the park idea. I think I think that's very nice of you guys to consider that for the entire neighborhood, the surrounding neighborhood. So, people going down that pathway. So, I appreciate that and just hope you can work on that south border. Doug, can you come talk more about your recommendation for the condition?

Sorry. Um, chair and commissioner Daffer. Um, see if I can be a little more clear. So, um, the long-range planning does not oppose the change to medium density residential for the entire area. Uh what we're trying to preserve in that commercial is um is a small enough area that um it wouldn't be too imposing on the the residential, but enough that there could be some small commercial provision in there along Star Road. Um and that's provided for in Nampa City Code 543. Not Nampa City Code, excuse me. the the uh comprehensive plan 543 allows that type of or suggests that that type of development could occur in the medium density residential land use designation. Um, so what the the proposal is is that a condition be placed on the approval of the medium density residential that the developer when they when it comes time to annex and zone the property that they zone one and a half acres or 5% of the area um that was in commercial as um neighborhood residential, excuse me, neighborhood commercial. I'm a little tired tonight. Uh neighborhood commercial uh in that area.

And I guess digging a little deeper, my question is the I get the on the surface logic behind it, but is there heartburn giving up that acre and a half of commercial or is it is it just kind of a standard procedure? What's the what's the deep thought behind it? Um it's really a decision of the of the council to decide to change the plan. um if they if they decide to do that. Uh the philosophy behind that again was to get some commercial that's walkable from the neighborhoods in that area.

Yep. So I I uh guess looking at the application to I don't I'm not thinking about the site plan I saw because that's not part of this, right? is just do I want all medium density residential or do I want all of it plus an acre and a half of commercial and is that going to change it much or and if you look uh west there's no commercial that direction and it's all medium density residential like I don't I personally don't feel like giving up an acre and a half I don't think that I I wouldn't say no if everybody else was on board with keeping that condition, but I also don't I'm just trying to think an acre and a half, you know, what would go in there that would be beneficial to the to the specific neighborhood and then the surrounding neighborhoods.

We'd put a church there, but you know, church is what's giving it up. I think it right there. But be a small church, but church. Well, it's better than the high school gyms they're meeting in right now. So, yeah.

But I I mean it it fits with the comp plan. It fits with the highway 16 area plan. Like there's no I can't see any reason to say no to it based off of what's been proposed. I have I'm mixed feelings here. Um I don't want to give up the commercial. In the last application, that was my main thought was not giving up the commercial, but I really like the the large park. I think they could adjust the property on the south where Tom was talking about uh butting up against his other properties that are there now. I think they could get work around that. So, I'm really stuck in the middle. I don't know which way to go, but I'm leaning more towards favor favorable.

Twisted my arm hard enough I could be convinced. The commercial on Highway 2020 is really important because it's the highway, right? This is Star Road. Commercial on Star Road. Yeah. Yeah. Especially when it's mid block, not in the not on a hard corner or something. I know it'd be it it'd be nice to if you had like a little coffee shop or something where neighbors could, but And we we say that all the time, but I never see them get built.

Yeah. Yeah. And you know, they're it looks like they're they got a decent looking little park in the corner along the creek and and if she can help adjust the lots along the south border, they're going to be losing a number of doors and then to force them to put a acre and a half aside for some future possible who knows what. I think we start asking a lot of them to start they start losing a lot of doors and then it starts to not make sense when you pencil it all out. So, you know, if if it was me, I would rather give up the not enforce the acre and a half and hope that they widen those southern lots u wider to fit better with the neighbors to the south than to require them to have a acre and a half that might get something built on it down the road.

What's hard is you can't require that. That's take the commercial or no, they get to decide whether they widen the lots later, you know. Yeah, we still get to have a say in that later, but you can't make that a condition of giving up the commercial. Yeah. No, no. I'm just saying I'm hoping because if you start asking them to, you know, maybe go another 20 feet, 25 ft wider on those southern lots. Okay. Well, by the time you do that whole stretch, they've lost what, a half a dozen doors and then you're taking out another acre and a half that's not going to be doors. It's so to me that, you know, I would rather lose that in hopes that they can, you know, take that into consideration when they draw those lots on that southern boundary. So, but like Yeah, but we can address it when the plaque comes

when we see. Yeah. And I ask them to give up too much and Yeah. And I understand the no coffee shop thing, but it hasn't been really a a push by the city in the past where now it's tomorrow night if they I win. I'll put in a coffee shop. Okay. Okay. Oh, I did have would. So, I probably should have asked this when she was up here, but so if we hold the mist in the staff report to the acre and a half, does that do away with the park? Her sight plan isn't part of the site plan is not part of it.

So, I don't irritely different when it comes back through. We'll just ask staff to remind us when that time comes.

Save that. I think given the given the surrounding residential that's there pretty much all the way around it. Um once six once Highway 16 is complete I'm I'm just going to go out on a limb but I'm going to say that probably traffic on Star Road is probably going to decrease because it's right now one of the major arterials that takes you north and south. So hopefully we'll be limited to what you would call local traffic instead of through traffic with Highway 16. I know for myself, I'm never touching Star Road again once 16's done.

Yeah. And I know that's the thought. So So I don't know how much commercial would be successful there. Yeah. aside from a local coffee shop and that's a toss of the dice whether or not somebody even does that

unless somebody wants to do that. I move to recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment from commercial to medium density residential and comprehensive plan text amendment to change the land use map in the state highway 16 plan from highdensity residential/ neighborhood commercial to medium density residential um for trilogy development um striking the one condition of approval staff report second then moved by Daffer and seconded by Kiho to recommend approval for this item. Can we get a roll call, please? Kho, yes. Turner, I. Fine. I Daffer,

yes. Garner, I Copeland. I Miller, I. Motion carries. Thank you. I move to uh adjourn. Second. Oh, no. No. No. Uhoh. What? We have a motion on the table and it's been seconded. Should we vote in tonight? Are you in my district? Good. It's been moved by Daffer, second by Turner to

the to adjourn. All those in favor? I I Any opposed? This hurt. Eyes have it. Eyes have it. I just said not the protocol. Just give him a I would if there weren't people here. I made so many motions. Next. Yeah. See, next meeting I'll stop. Next meeting. I'm going to be like I'm going to move every single motion. You stop on one foot, I'll stop on the other. He'll forget what he's supposed to what he's going to do. Oh. Oh.