That's all his job consists of.

Oh, he's at the point in his career where he can tell people no or yes or maybe or whatever.

Okay, it is six o'clock.

We'll welcome everybody that's here tonight to our August twelfth Nampa Planning Zoning Commission meeting.

Um make the first announcement, the item from June twenty fourth for the group home has been withdrawn by the applicant.

So if anybody's here for that, it's been withdrawn.

So report on council actions.

Oh let's do roll call first.

Garner.

Miller.

Here.

Goffer.

Turner.

Here.

Keyho.

Here.

Morgan.

Here.

Kirkman.

Here.

Selman.

Here.

Copeland.

Here.

We have eight present.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair and Planning and Zoning Commission.

We had three public hearings come before the city council at this last uh meeting.

And um this was for August 4th.

The first one was a zoning map amendment.

Um this was to rezone to match the area of zoning and for future development.

Um near the northeast corner of South Garland Street and Sunny Ridge Road.

And um from RA to R D, you had recommended approval, and that was approved.

Um the next one was an annexation and zoning and preliminary plat for Millwood Pines.

And this is fifty-six single family detached lots and six common lots near the southwest corner of Cherry Lane and 11th Avenue North for Hayden Holmes.

And you had a recommended approval on May thirteenth.

And the council did approve that one as well.

And then finally, uh zoning map amendment and conditional use permit.

Um this is uh contractor's landscape office.

This is the one just south of the railroad tracks off of Happy Valley Road and um just north of Greenhurst Road.

And this one uh was storage of planning materials and intermittent outdoor storage of heavy equipment.

Um and this was recommended for approval by you on May twenty-seventh, and the city council approved that one as well.

Thank you, Ronnie.

Um I would like to on the stand, welcome our new commission member, uh Meredith Copeland.

Is there anything you'd like to tell us about yourself or we're happy to have you?

Thank you for having me.

I've been our resident of resident of Nampa for pretty much my whole life since I was fifteen years old.

And I'm excited to be a part of the process to watch it grow and help it to grow so that everybody wants to stay, and then people that come are happy with it also.

Well, we're excited to have you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um so we will get started.

Um the way it works, plain and simple.

Uh applicant will come up, give their presentation, the last seven minutes.

Um we will try to keep our questions till the end of their presentation.

Just make things go a little smoother.

Um and staff will give their presentation.

Uh then we'll open up public hearing.

Uh each speaker or each person that comes up to testify will have three minutes to speak, and then we will have the opportunity at the end of that time to ask questions.

Um, once you have spoken once on an item, that's the only time you get it.

So move and second to approve the consent agenda.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.

It's been moved by Garner.

Um, and then after the public hearing is or after the public has given their testimony, we'll give the applicant a time to come back up and answer questions.

We'll rebut.

We'll close the public hearing and then we will deliberate and make a decision on each item.

Uh we just ask that everybody in the crowd, please and on the bench, please uh be as quiet as possible because the meeting is being recorded.

Um, and for listening to later or those online, it is hard to understand and hear if there's voices in the background.

So with that, we will get started with our first item.

Uh conditional use permit to allow reduced rear yard setback for single lot in an RS6 zoning district at 523 Sunny Lane, or Michael Underwood is the applicant here.

Hello and good evening.

My name is uh Michael Underwood.

I'm the property owner for 523 Sunny Lane.

Uh I have a conditional use request.

Uh the request is to reduce the rear setback on an existing single family dwelling.

Uh the existing property is uh per county records is 0.28 of an acre, so that's just over 12,000 square feet with RS6 zone minimum zoning size is 6,000.

Maximum zoning size is 12,000.

So currently I'm slightly over the maximum allowable area for the zone.

Um the intention of this is not whether I can or cannot split the lot per prescriptively per the zoning code right now.

I could split the lot.

The intention of this is to provide a more uniform consistent layout for the lots, uh creating two and more functionality for the new lot in the back.

Um other than that, the intention is is to again align with City of NAMPA's uh over or underutilized develop land on interior infill uh and utilize this lot to its biggest potential.

Um again, I'd like to reiterate just so everybody's aware it's the intention is not whether I can or can't split the lot, it's just this provides a much more uniform layout, provides a much better buildable space.

There's also a large tree that isn't depicted here that's kind of off to the back left side.

Uh it would also allow the split to not impede on that or somehow subject the tree to being removed.

Uh other than that, I don't really have much else.

Okay, anybody have questions?

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, uh, the tree you're talking about, is it behind the uh you see where the N easement is it on that side?

No, the large tree is if you if you depict like the N on the new bill, there it is.

So it's kind of in the back left corner of the lot.

Yeah.

Uh the intention is to provide access along if you're staring at the front of the house, provide access along the left side of the property line.

So there'd be an easement uh recorded, and then the property, the new dwelling would naturally sit in that back right corner with a potential parking spot, kind of in the back left corner of the property so that the tree can remain unimpeded.

Okay.

All right, we'll call you back up.

Pardon me.

Thank you.

Damien.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

Damien Snodgrass Associate Planner.

The requested action item for tonight is a conditional use permit to allow for reduced yard rear yard setbacks on a single lot per code 10-8-5.a dot four.

And then RS6, single family residential zoning district.

Some of the property details currently under the comprehensive plan.

This is medium density uh residential designation.

The current zoning is RS6, and the lot size is 12,002 square feet, so it's just over being in conformance with that zone.

The surrounding land uses are all RS6, and there is currently public utilities and services available to the property.

Here are the applicable regulations for a conditional use permit that we can cover later on in the findings, as well as the applicable regulations that allow for this conditional use permit to come into effect.

Um per this code, a conditional use permit may be requested to reduce the rear yard setbacks for a single lot, as well as the code allowance for the lot sizing per the RS6 zone.

And as seen previously, here is a sketch of what the intended lot split would be at the time of a property boundary adjustment if this conditional were use permit were to be approved.

This is the concept.

Uh for correspondence, we received a few comments.

Nampa Fire District provided a comment around general access and water supply comments.

This was attached in the packet.

Umpa police department provided a commitment of funding for.3 and the 2018 IRC when lines are when lot lines prohibit the required six-inch fall, and the first ten feet of drains or swells should be constructed to ensure drainage away from the structure.

And for the last comment from engineering, we received some general comments around the public utilities and some conditions that the applicant shall comply with all city codes policy standards.

No building shall encroach within the public easements if necessary, if the applicant shall coordinate with the NAMPA engineering to determine a partial vacation or an easement, and the applicant shall and slash owner shall provide the necessary legal descriptions for utility and access easement up topon time of the property boundary adjustment.

So for the proposed findings, the first is that the proposed use is supported by the NAMPA comprehensive plan.

The NAMP comprehensive plan defines this as infill development and using an underly underutilized lot.

So staff has found this to be met.

That the design construction operation and maintenance of the property and project will not adversely impact the intended character and appearance of the general vicinity.

This project qualifies as infill development because it is increasing the density of an underutilized lot, and the parcel already has the ability to be developed as is if the application was willing regarding this rear setback.

The third criteria is that the proposed use will be served adequately by a central public facilities and services.

Currently there are access to services for staff found this to be met.

And that the proposed use will not involve any activities or processes and materials, equipment, and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or general welfare by reason of excess traffic or excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glares, or odors.

The proposed use must conform to international building code.

The proposed project is within an existing residentially zoned area, and the parcel has the ability to be developed as is.

So since this is regarding the setback, nothing would be changed.

Weighing all the facts, uh, staff has concluded that this meets all the criteria per code.

And so here are the proposed conditions of approval in the highlighted um I forgot some verbiage from the conditions I took off of another one.

There is no duplex for this.

This is just for the reduction of setbacks.

So the conditions are as follows.

The applicant shall comply with all city codes, policies, and standards at place to time of building permit.

No building shall encroach within public utility easements.

Applicant owner shall provide necessary legal descriptions for utility access and easements upon time of lot split review, and the applicant shall be required to submit a property boundary adjustment application with planning and zoning and any additional conditions that the commission may add.

Here are your potential motions, and I'll stand for any questions.

So have you seen do we have a uh proposal for the dwelling that's gonna go back there?

And what's the requirement for setbacks on the new lot?

Will there be?

So the new lot, we don't have any proposed plans right now for the actual dwelling that would go on the lot, but the new lots would have to be in conformance with current city codes.

So you're 15 feet to the living structure, 20 feet to the garage, um, five feet on the sides, and 15 feet on the rear of whichever way the residence is facing.

They could come back in and request another CUP on a new building or a reduction in those setbacks if necessary.

If necessary, would have to come back in front of the commission as a new application.

Chair, one more follow-up.

Is the C UP for one sole setback or can you request it for every single setback?

So each C UP would have to be for an individual setback on the individual lot purpose code.

So you can't request this same CUP for multiple.

That would have to be under a PUD.

No, what I meant is like for his new dwelling unit in the rear lot, so a separate lot.

Meaning, could he do front like all the way around?

Yeah, every every setback applying to that rear lot.

Could you request that they be modified, or is it only apply applicable to one single setback?

So this setback only applies to the rear, which is the reduction from 15 to 5.

The current side setbacks are already at five feet, so we couldn't reduce any more than that on those side setbacks.

Um within the front setbacks, there are a couple of reductions, but not in this particular application's case.

So I was uh so I was basically saying hypothetically, right?

So we know the front setbacks, they're requesting the rear setback be adjusted.

We get that, but what I'm saying is on that new lot behind, if he were to come back, can he request that every single one of the setbacks is adjusted if it is dwelling unit, or can he only request one setback for one of the line one of the setbacks?

Uh it can only be for one of the lines, and it has to be the rear setback for this code.

Yeah, just Mr.

Chair.

Um just to clarify, um, you can come in with a request for a reduction of setbacks as one project and have multiple properties all in one development um have uh approval for setbacks.

So I just wanted to make sure that's that's really clear.

So all in one motion, you could take care of multiple properties with setbacks.

But in the in terms of what I was asking about that back lot, it could only apply to one line.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions, Mr.

Chair?

Um so my I'm just gonna restate what I think is obvious.

My understanding is the C UP would be approved for the five foot setback, and then they would do a lot split along that line in order to have two different lots for an individual a single development on each lot.

That would be correct.

So in my mind, a CUP is relatively temporary compared to a lot line, a lot split.

In other words, I don't see a reason why, but a CUP could be revoked.

What would that do then?

To the lot.

I mean, we're we're we're making a permanent adjustment based on what it is technically a uh a temporary approval.

Any concerns with that?

I'm gonna defer to Rodney on this, Mr.

Chair and Commission.

It's it's hard to speculate for us what's going to happen.

Um I I think at that time we'd have to to look at what's possible.

Essentially, if one of those actions was revoked for some reason, then you would be left with a property that essentially couldn't be developed.

So then they'd have to come in and and go through the process again to to confirm that hey, this property can be developed from in this situation.

Well, the rear property would be conforming.

It would be this new is V as front property that now has a lot line that's five feet away from the structure.

But I understand that's hypothetical.

What would cause that?

What would cause the CUP to be revoked at that point?

Because it's not like they wouldn't be in performance of something because it's a lot of that's that's correct.

I I a lot of CUPs, such as a duplex.

Um, if we were to approve a duplex, it's a permanent thing, right?

It gets constructed, it complies with code.

It doesn't get revoked because it's a permanent situation.

Yeah, the building permit locks it into place.

So we we have those situations.

I I just can't see this being you're right that some CUPs are uh are somewhat temporary because they're based on a a use of the property that's not a permanent situation.

And a lot of the a lot of CUPs are owner-specific.

I assume this was specific to the property, and not the same.

That's correct.

Okay, the homework.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair and Commission, that that is correct.

We we um we do tie things directly to an applicant sometimes in this situation.

We wouldn't do that.

Yeah, yeah.

That's not some excuse me, Mr.

Chair.

But that's not something that we would have specifically need to make in whatever motion might be.

And then I guess my follow-up question would be.

Thank you.

Like, can I speak, Mr.

Chair?

I guess I would not understand what would be why you would you do it through a C UP and not a variance.

That was my question.

A variance seems like the way that this is normally handled, but I'm just not sure.

Mr.

Chair and Commissioners, uh, this is just one of the allowable uses by code.

Um could go through a variance, but in this very specific request to a single setback, we have it written in code that they can go the conditional use route rather than the variance route, which means they don't have to go to city council.

Yeah, nobody wants to do that.

Yeah, there's no strategy and Mr.

Chair.

I might add state law has something similar in their conditional use section of the land use uh planning act that uh you can do what a variance does through a CEP, and so you see that at the state level as well.

So it's not just unique or a one-off advantage.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Okay, Madam Clerk, we everybody signed up for this item.

Is there anybody that would like to speak for, against or undecided on this item?

Anyone online?

No.

No, I appreciate you guys' time.

Uh and I would bring it to the point that if it is a concern that I do eventually come back and start requesting additional rear yard side yard setbacks.

That's not the intention.

I think with this um CUP, that reduction in that one rear yard setback, uh, it really hinders just the newly developed lot that I would also be ownership of.

And I think with the that kind of development strategy that the dwelling that I envisioned back there wouldn't need kind of a another reduced rear yard setback.

I'm really not looking to just jam them all in there and just maximize like it just I don't think I would need to do that if that was a condition that you guys need to put on there to feel comfortable with moving forward.

That would be fine with you.

But again, appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Second move by Morgan, second by Garner.

All those in favor?

I mean, okay.

Pretty simple.

Yeah, you go.

That was my biggest concern too.

Uh Mr.

Chair, I'll make a motion that we approve the project as stated on the screen with recommended conditions and proposed findings.

Second of that.

You got you're pushing it, buddy.

It's been moved by Kirkman, seconded by Keyhoe to approve this item.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

So action should be taken on this CUP until we appeal period has concluded.

The applicant must confirm with planning and zoning staff that there have been no appeals.

Okay.

Of subdivision preliminary plat for Magnolia States and an RD zoning district addressed as zero North Lion Head Avenue, zero North Side Boulevard, zero west Violet Street, 1819 North Side Boulevard, and zero North Side Boulevard for Kent Brown, representing Sean Brownley, Trilogy, Idaho.

For the record, Kent Brown, 3161 East Springwood, my address.

Um with staff's help, we had a number of things that uh we were looking at doing.

Um when we did the original preliminary plat, there was an outparcel in the north uh the the existing home site.

When we did the original preliminary plat, there was an outparcel in the north the existing home site.

And since that time we purchased it, it was annexed and zoned at the same time, so everything had the same annexation and utilities were stubbed to it.

So we won't needed to go through a preliminary plat process on that.

The apartments that are at the south part, you changed your code for that area, and it allowed instead of requiring 14,000 square foot lots, it allowed it to go down to 12.

So looking at that, we could pick up one more unit in the south.

And we needed to do the upper part, and staff recommended this as submitting a replat of that.

So this drawing shows Magnolia One, which is most of the single family has already been recorded.

Building permits have been taken out on every single lot.

I I didn't know that until I drove through this afternoon.

So all of those lots have houses on them.

And so it's basically none effect of a majority of the site.

After submitting, we we looked at it.

I'm gonna there's the there's the final plat for the first phase and where those houses are going in.

One of the comments was from the parks department about a pathway along the drain there.

Uh that pathway is in that entire length already and landscaped, wrought iron fence adjacent to it.

It was the conditions that were on the other preliminary plat, so that's that's nothing new.

Um we submitted, we had the lot five was a buildable lot, and we got looking at it, and it didn't make a lot of sense to me that uh how livable is that lot that would be in the the middle with a driveway on either side.

Um the road is built in front of it, and so basically we have no road improvements.

Um what we need is to take care of the storm drainage that would be uh created from those driveways, and it makes a lot more sense to have an open space.

So from the report talks about 46 buildable uh single family lots.

We we've reduced it by one, and it's uh now 45.

Um that's about the only change that really has taken place.

Um I asked the builder to give us kind of a house plan on that.

You have to know which is the driveways and so forth, but that many of you have been here a while, so you would see which ones of those are there's three of the houses that would have three-car garages, and the others the other uh four would have uh two-car garages.

Um with that storm drain in in the middle.

So that's all I have unless you had some questions about what we're doing and how we got here.

Okay, thanks, Kent.

We'll call you back up.

Okay, Rodney.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Chair, and Commissioners.

Uh Rodney Ashley Plenty and zoning director for the record.

Um I think we've gotten a good description of what's being done here.

Um, I just want to point out a couple of things that uh are um that I'm showing as the new concept.

Um, I should have changed this to new concept instead of original concept.

The original was for 46 single family detached and um 13 common lots that is since changed as has been described by the applicant to 45 and 14 common lots.

So again, this is the old.

This uh area up here in the top is where the new homes would go.

And um here is the view with the new homes and the new uh common area shown as well.

So just a quick history here.

December 2021, City Council approved annexation and zoning to RD and the preliminary plat for Magnolia State Sivisions with conditions.

2022 October, City Council approved the final plat for phase one.

September 2023, Nampa P and Z Commission approved a one-year extension of phase one.

And then once that got approved, it locks in the preliminary plat in place.

So 2024 and 2025, some building permits pulled for construction of homes in phase one, and sounds like all of them.

So that again that has locked in the final plat and the preliminary plat because of the buildings being constructed.

So this location, we saw it north side and Eustach.

Here's the zoning for the property.

You can see it's uh to the north is RS7, Kinghorn subdivision.

The south is Canyon County uh residential across Eustach, and then to the east is R7, that's the Heartland subdivision, and RD at the future would popy subdivision if approved by City Council.

Um actually that was not approved.

Um that was from the the previous uh staff report, so I should have corrected that.

And then West was Canyon County agriculture.

Umtilities are available, uh, the emergency services, the nearest station is 1.7 miles uh for fire.

That's five-minute response time.

Police is near police nearest station is 3.9 miles.

So here's the applicable regulations, and for all your sake, but um especially for new commissioners.

Um, this is the criteria that we have to look at when approving or denying uh subdivision preliminary plat.

So this first one gives the RD zoning district uh purpose.

Uh we it has to protect, it's meant to protect quiet residential areas, and it allows a little bit of an increase in density, and it gives some uh examples of that, two, three, four units, uh uh attached units.

In this case, it's uh attached four units in the bottom part of the development, and then single family detached on the northern part.

Um, so again, that has already been decided.

The RD zone has already been decided on the property.

So just want to give that for context.

Um, and then of course, the the description of what a subdivision is, when we would subdivide the property, and when it's required, and then this is this is really the the action that you have to take uh tonight.

Um, plat shall be in highlighted in yellow.

Plat shall be eligible for approval if all requisite needed applicant application submittal materials have been received by the city.

The proposed plat design complies with relevant zoning and subdivision standards and engineering attests that the provision of services to the future development is available.

The planning and zoning commission shall evaluate a proposed plat's design based on city codes in making its determinations.

So the we've had other cases like conditional use permits, um, annexations, those kinds of things have a list of criteria that describe what has to be found for each of those, and you have to make your decision based on those criteria.

In this case, for a preliminary plat, it has to follow our process and it has to follow code.

That's that's the criteria.

And it's it's really not should this go here, it's does it comply with code.

Um, you can put conditions on a preliminary plat if there's um things that arise in the public hearing process that are concerns and that can be mitigated, but it has to have a nexus, it has to tie back to the purpose of the application.

Um then the next section down there is for revised preliminary plats, and essentially it's just saying you have to go through the same process.

You have to go through a public hearing, which they are doing today.

Uh okay, so we had correspondence, we just had agency correspondence on this one.

We had two open and active cases for weed, trash debris, and unlicensed inoperative vehicles.

Um the city forester said they need to select alternative alternate tree species for ACER.

Maple, how about that?

Then NAMPA police department.

The correspondence was originally received regarding the full plat, the original full plat.

So we've already gone through that analysis to determine how many new police officers, how much budget they would need.

That's that's already been determined, except now they're adding an additional determined 11 units or something.

Yeah, 11 units now.

Um so I I put their comments here, they're 5.6 miles away.

That's not changing anything for the project here.

Um they did indicate that 5.6 miles away, it's not typically accurate because they have police officers out in the community and they can usually get there faster.

So I thought that was interesting to hear.

Umpa Parks Department indicated the need for the the easement, the 20-foot-wide pathway being constructed as has been indicated, it's already been done.

Um Valley View School District.

Um, they did the same thing that the police department did.

They looked at this as if it were a brand new subdivision, and not that it had already been developed out for the most part, and um, so their comments were generally in opposition, but uh expressed concerns about the growth of the potential impact to schools in the future as the schools in that area are filled up.

But again, their comments were already received in the past, so I think you need to be careful about those new comments and essentially limit it to the 11 units.

It was 12 until they recently changed that last one to a common area, and then amplifier, same thing.

Um, they analyzed it as if it were brand new subdivision.

So okay, so here was my analysis of the plat.

Um 21.67 acres.

Uh they're now proposing only 73 units total.

Um total common lot count is 14 rather than 13 because of the uh additional property that's circled in red there that um was a common area.

Open space acreage was more than I didn't run the analysis because I just got this today, but or um got to it today, uh 4.3 acres plus and 19.8 plus total square footage of building lot count is 45.

Uh total fourplex building lot count is 15, and um single family minimum square footage has to be 6,000 square feet for the RD zone.

Their um well, and I'll tell you what they provide here in a second, and then the fourplex is 12,000 square feet, so with their proposed plat, they are the minimum that they've provided or proposed is 6,099 square feet, and then the four flexes was just over 12,000, so they comply with that code.

Uh periphery uh compatibility is not applicable here because the RV zone doesn't require, and then the minimum lot width is 30 feet.

That is consistent with the flat.

So I just uh took the quick shot of the southern section of their landscape plan to kind of point out what they're what they're doing.

There's a pickleball court here, there's a playground equipment here, and some open spaces and drainage uh in that area.

No real changes to the except for that one uh open space lot here now, and then of course on the side over here, because that wasn't originally a part of the flat.

Um right-of-way has already been dedicated.

Uh landscaping plan was submitted with the application paperwork and reviewed by the city forester with the recommended changes.

We've gotten those incorporated, a six-foot vinyl fence, privacy fence is proposed around the perimeter of the majority of the development.

Um qualified open space is 15.

They're doing more than 19.8%.

Uh so they definitely complied with that.

6.2 acres is 28.4% of common area proposed and 13 common lots.

And all those amenities that have been listed here, including the pathway along the Mason Creek.

Now in your packet, I submitted a condition.

I have since talked to the applicant, and they um indicated that the distance was the a straight line from the property line edge to a curve on the curve table.

And then so if you included the curved tape, the curve table curved description.

Thank you.

Core distance, then you add that 32 feet or whatever it was, then you get your your distance.

So I once I got that clarification, I felt like we needed to just remove that as a condition.

These other ones as well.

I mean, um have already been addressed.

Um the the bike and headmaster plan conditions, that's already uh that's already done.

But I included it just because we included it on the original plat.

So it's just consistent, nobody questions it when we look back on this in the future.

And then the findings of fatty fact essentially are that they met the um the process, they followed the process for a preliminary plat, and they met the code.

And here is a motion for your consideration, and as you see here, I've changed this to say with all proposed conditions and findings of fact as shown in the presentation and amended from the staff report, and as described as follows with these the 45 single family detach lots and 1545s.

And then I would stand for any questions, chair.

Uh I'll shoot some calculator out.

All right.

Um this was originally approved.

I guess probably in the annexation and zoning part.

Was there any development agreement?

Oh, give me give me a second, I'll look that up.

And I guess the reason I'm asking is a lot of times these get approved or denied based on the density and number of units.

I know I wanted to ask this earlier when you're talking about the the criteria we need to abide by is does it meet code or does it not?

But we're adding up to the Mr.

Chair, Commissioner Morgan.

Typically, on these, if there is a development agreement, we put the the preliminary plat in as the layout.

Um the layout of the subdivision um is not changing.

They've they're taking that that they've added one lot, but the roadways and all of that are not changing, and then they've added the residential lots on the north with just common driveways.

Um, and so our review of this, even were there development agreement with that preliminary plat in there, um, we would look at it as in substantial conformance with that original preliminary plat, and so it would not require any modification to the development agreement as a general rule.

Um as Rodney and I are looking that up, we'll we'll make sure, but that that's typically how we have interpreted these types of changes when when something like this happens.

Yeah, I mean it makes sense.

You're not really adding density because you're adding more acreage to build that on anyway, right?

Correct.

Um I mean it was kind of what I might have picked up off the record was uh it was probably already planned for eventually developing that anyway.

Um we've had um developments in the past where adding even one more fourplex was a big deal, um, and it got shot back down by city council.

I personally don't think it's a big deal, but I just wanted to put that out there.

Don't worry about looking it up anymore.

There was no development agreement in that annexation ordinance.

Okay, thanks.

Okay, Madam Clerk, is there a sign up sheet?

Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak for against or undecided on this item?

Just give us your name and address for the record, please.

Excuse me.

My name is John Chapman.

I live at 1770 North Side Boulevard in Nampa.

Also, our family owns a property in the Polar Way subdivision there in North Side Estates.

Just because we don't have the infrastructure there for traffic, and we're getting a lot of industrial park type traffic that's dedicated to go down north side that can't go to uh cartridge interchange, and north side isn't big enough yet either.

So I'd be opposed to adding more to the existing deal other than the lots that they're gonna have to build on.

But if there's any way you could postpone everything they're doing from this point on until the road improvements, I'd I'd recommend that type of thing.

Um still don't think the density is uh the correct density even from the original plat.

But uh in the past, I don't know whether you're treating this as a new platter, what you're doing, but in the past they've started looking at adding commercial sites on these developments could because this particular developer is not doing PUDs any place.

You guys are gonna have to be in charge of some kind of PUD in the area, and so that was my understanding of what's supposed to be happening now is there has to be some support systems with uh in all this housing, and the density is higher than what is to the to the south, and uh this developer has not been able to develop land to the southeast because he doesn't have the ability to get in and out of the property well and uh his density is too high, and he keeps asking for more density every time he comes in.

So I think our density is too high for this time.

There might be a point in time if they didn't develop now and then and then come back after all the road structures in and everything where we could handle a good amount of traffic, but they're talking about about 55 semi-trucks a day coming down north side and going into whatever they decide to use for an intersection there.

If it's a roundabout, it needs to be almost as big as the one that they're gonna put up at uh Carcher.

And so, and then the design for Usteak is five lanes, and it hasn't been done yet.

So I just think you're premature adding more stuff all the time.

These guys can hold on to this and and develop it as it goes, but you need some infrastructure, you're gonna have people injured or killed just dealing with it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else that would like to speak?

Warren against or inside it.

Anyone online come back up?

Um we all recognize the traffic and and the road systems, and that's why you guys asked for traffic studies to be done and so forth.

And your comprehensive plans talk about the densities that should go on different pieces of property.

Um as I was out there today, I was going, well, it's not that far from the industrial stuff that's going in, and if I remember correctly from when I brought this forward and the property to the north forward, um your comprehensive plan has the property to the west of us as being industrial type of properties.

And the way that you handle traffic is by having your workforce people living closer to those now.

Doesn't mean that people are gonna do that.

You know, you have micron and where micron's at in Boise.

There's a bunch of developers looking at putting houses with the part of that expansion, and you guys are really bursting at the seams because I I do industrial work also, and those clients are bringing some really nice manufacturing people to be there.

And so having workforce housing or housing in those proximity areas and some of your commercial stuff that you have that's fairly close.

You have vehicle trips that are safe, but because they're there.

So there isn't anything that he said this developer is not doing what we've kind of had to because the cities are looking at stuff having that diversity.

And so we've tried to we've had to kind of expand ourselves and look at that.

We have the storage units, but that's the next next one that needs to happen.

And because of the restrictions that subdivisions have about what you can put in.

Hopefully that answers, and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer that.

This is actually reducing the density.

Not by much, but removing one building all.

Um to be an open space there, but they're they are adding units here, and they're adding one fourplex down here so that it's 15 instead of 14.

So a total of I think it's 11 units total, what they're proposing, but they're also adding space here that they're they're putting some of those units in.

Just want to be there about that.

Then move by Garner, second by Morgan to close public hearing.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Hearing is closed.

Um I do I do like that threaten space within what else to look at.

Mr.

Chair, just a quick question to staff.

Was there a there was a traffic impact study done on this at the beginning of time?

This development as a whole falls under the traffic study requirement.

Okay.

Um, and so for this specific development, no, there was not a traffic impact study prepared because it did not meet the threshold to require one.

And adding these in that north section wouldn't still be the threshold is 100 units.

Um, this is still well below the threshold to require a TIS.

Wait, wait, threshold is 100 units.

Correct.

I'm asking me 105 now.

Yeah, sorry, okay.

I apologize.

You so a hundred vehicle trips within a peak hour, not a hundred doors.

Right, and and the multifamily has less peak trips in a peak hour than a single family residence, and so this would still fall below that TIS threshold.

I apologize.

And then there was a question about the intersection improvements.

So the intersection of USTIC and North Side has been designed.

Um we there are cost um issues with the multiple waterways that are right around that intersection.

We originally when we were looking at the design of that intersection, we were just going to replace the existing culverts that are there that are less expensive than doing full bridges.

But because of some design um issues that were run into, uh we had to modify those the design to have bridges, and so that pushed the funding year for the construction of this intersection out a few years.

I believe if I remember correctly, it's now um 2029 or 2030.

Um but it is still within the five-year CIP.

Thank you.

And the fact that they're adding another vortex is that they're utilizing code for their benefit to get another building because the density, you know, or the requirement for those lot sizes changed.

So in the you know, utilizing that property that they acquired to put it as a part of this as opposed to a standalone piece.

I think it makes sense as well.

So I like it, and I'm all for I was gonna say I am sympathetic to building houses out there on more farm ground.

This is already I don't see a good reason not to there's not a big enough change in this plot.

So I have good reason to deny it.

So I'm with that, especially since according to candidates already built.

Yeah, yeah, there's no other conversation or comment, then I'll go ahead and move that we approve the project as stated on the screen uh for approval.

Second who am I gonna give it to?

Whoever you want, it's been moved by second by Kirkman to approve this item.

All those in favor?

I aye, any opposed and passes.

Thank you.

Maggie I make a motion we adjourn.

Second then moved by Selman, seconded by Dapper to close the public hearing.