He told me he's like, oh yeah, the one is like seven or eight feet.

I remember my dad was standing on the bottom of the whole setup form, and it was over his head.

Like, okay, so if it's eight feet, I think six or seven.

So it's very good.

Eight or nine words at call right here's number three.

They set it with a crate.

Three eighths will two.

Then it goes down to sixteen, then it goes down to twelve.

All three eights will be twelve and be done.

Wow.

And it's gone.

And then just set it up.

And then raced it off, walked away, and then they set the cycle there.

Hey, Brett, can you hear me?

All right, it is six o'clock.

I'd like to welcome everybody to the September 9th, 2025 NAMPA Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.

Let's start with roll call.

Garner.

Here Miller.

Here.

Daffer.

Turner.

Here.

Keho.

Morgan.

Here.

Kurtman.

Here.

Salmon.

Copeland.

Here.

Eight present.

Thank you.

Rodney.

Communications.

Oh, yeah.

Let's before we do that.

Um, if anyone is here for item three three on our agenda tonight, um, that has been withdrawn by staff by the city because of some timing issues and things like that.

Um so if you're here for that item, it has been withdrawn and rescheduled for October 28th.

Uh so everybody will get renoticed for that.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I just have one um public hearing to report on from City Council.

That was the reconsideration of City Council's denial of a zoning map amendment.

This one is the one right off of uh Roosevelt, and as 12th goes around the corner there.

Um yeah, it was right along the alleyway there.

And um it was for a little um Hispanic uh restaurant, and um that was recommended by Planning and Zoning Commission.

And excuse me.

And City Council had denied that as well, and then they gave them some directions and concerns about uh the impact to the residential area right next to it because it's right on the edge of commercial and residential.

Um they came back with what they thought was um uh the appropriate um response to those concerns, and they had proposed to put in a fence and um to put in some landscaping where vehicles would be uh driving uh on the lot.

Um and city council didn't feel like that did enough to address the concerns, and so they denied the reconsideration request.

Um so that will not be coming back as was proposed.

And I'll just jump into the next topic.

Um just a quick report on comprehensive plan update and what we're doing for public outreach.

Um over the last uh couple weeks, um we have been going to quite a few different public outreach events.

Um we're trying to get to um third Thursdays and to um the farmers market and visiting associations, realtors associations, and builders' associations, and um HOAs, library, yeah.

We're we're trying to hit them all, and um, so we've uh in just the past couple weeks about 10 different events we've been to and presented at and trying to get people to uh give their comments.

Um then uh as of August 28th, we've collected a total of 294 survey responses.

I know that's increased since then, so uh we are over 300 survey responses.

Um we have developed the survey and postcard in Spanish as well, and we are working to reach out to the Hispanic community directly because that's just been an underrepresentative represented population in the past.

Uh it's been really difficult for us to get their responses, and so we're trying to directly go to them and where they're at.

Um, our consultant has begun the existing conditions analysis for the plan and is developing a high-level framework of the plan document.

Uh, our first joint planning session with uh city council as well as you are and our consultant um occurred on September 30th, and we had that meeting with you.

We have another one coming up based on that the feedback we received there for the 18th of this month, and um we will uh be coming back to you for the form-based code.

Uh I'm I'm sorry, I'm kind of mixing two things there.

Um, comp plan is one thing, uh, but on the 18th will be the form-based code thing.

So um the calendar invite, I believe has already been sent out to you for that.

Um, please let me know if you have any questions about that.

And that's all I have to report.

Okay, thank you.

Make a motion that we approve the consent agenda.

Second.

Yeah, it's been moved by Garner, second by Daper to accept the consent agenda.

All those in favor?

Any opposed motion carries.

Okay, uh, we will go ahead and get started with our first public hearing item.

Um, so the way it's gonna work is we will ask the applicant to come up.

The applicant will have uh seven minutes to present their item, tell us what they want to do.

Um, then we will ask questions when they're done with their presentation, and we'll turn the time over to staff.

Staff has an limited time to tell us about what their thoughts and opinions are, um, and then we will open up the public hearing.

Uh if you are signed up, if you haven't signed up, you can still if you don't wish to, or you're not sure if you'd like to speak, we'll ask uh for raise your hand, you can come up.

Um, each person from the public will be allowed three minutes to speak.

Um, we would ask when you come forward to you, please give your name and address for the record.

Um, and then go ahead and tell us what your thoughts and feelings are.

Um, it's just fine to say I agree with what's been said and sit back down.

Um with that, we'll go ahead and start with the public hearing item three-one pre-annexation preserved to BC and development agreement for new life landscape uh for Carlos Torres here.

One comment is Carlos Torres.

I uh purchased the property uh 246 North Robinson Road in uh January of 2024.

I had run my landscape business up the road on Ambien Robinson for about seven years with no issue, and then after I purchased it, um, and as well while I purchased it, I bought it from the Napa Highway district after they did the roundabout there uh at the intersection.

So part of the condition of purchasing that property was asking for a 20 or uh I think it's a 40-foot commercial entrance on Robinson Road, which I would just remote goes.

So I didn't see any issues moving forward.

However, the county informed me that I was out of compliance and needed to either apply for a rezon or conditional use permit.

So I I thought the best thing to do would be to apply for a rezoned some next use arterial.

Um we run a landscape construction business, kind of higher-end landscape construction.

Uh we do everything from pools or outdoor kitchens.

Also having office spaces for myself and staff to work out of.

Always kept up like our last property pretty reasonably clean.

Um here at this new one.

We're kind of waiting to do anything until we get through the process because I don't want to put things in place that either need to be moved or an amusement or something that the county might require.

So we haven't done a whole lot yet until we get through this process.

But essentially, we want to have the ability to sell to the public.

We did have in our in our neighborhood meeting, we did have one concern because the prior year the the firework guys had let off some fireworks, and so this year we we said no no light enough fireworks on the on the property to show customers or anything like that.

So we try to do everything that we can to meet, you know, our neighbor we want to be good neighbor to the community around us, and we want to um represent ourselves well.

So that's essentially what we're applying for.

Any questions?

Thank you.

We'll call you back up.

Hey, Rodney.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh Rodney Ashby Planning and Zoning Director for the record.

Um, I think the description has been described here pretty well, but I'll just say that this is a recommendation on the city council, so that's your decision today.

Um the conference plan designates this property as community mixed use, a little closer view of that.

Uh that's that pinkish purple community mixed use, but surrounded uh otherwise by um residential, so low density and medium density.

Um the the zoning, you can see this is quite a ways out there.

Um we're not really near this for the from the city's perspective yet, but it is within our impact area.

So we have some county residential subdivisions in the area, and then of course some agricultural fields nearby as well.

And um those those are listed on the on the screen there.

I think he's done a good job of describing um his his state and purpose.

So I'll I'll skip over that.

But I do want to um be a little bit careful tonight because um we don't get these very often, and we've only had a few of these.

So I'm gonna I'm gonna walk through a lot of code language here just to make sure that we get this this one right.

It's it's just a little bit unique and and new.

So there's an aerial view of the property.

There was a building on the property when this area was taken.

I'm not sure if this building is still there.

Okay, yeah.

So it is still there.

Here's the utilities in the area.

We actually run uh water out to some subdivisions out in the county in this area, and that water line runs right past uh this property.

Uh but sewer and sewer is the uh green, and then the pinkish purple is the irrigation, pressurized irrigation, and you can see the locations there.

Um the access is is obviously from Airport Road, and um it could be in uh North Robinson Boulevard at the southerly boundary.

I guess I didn't see that.

So yeah, it looks like both both are there.

Um then uh emergency services are already being provided when continue to be provided.

Okay, so applicable regulations.

This is where it's it's important we get this right.

Um we have an agreement with the county that uh what about what happens in our impact area that's called a joint powers agreement, and that was signed in 2005 between the county and the city, and it kind of regulates what happens when development occurs in our impact area.

Essentially, the county makes the decisions still, but the city has um uh an ability to make comments and it will have great weight.

That's the language in the agreement on the decision at city at uh at the county.

Um we've recently implemented the pre-annexation process, and that allows us to go through this process through a public hearing.

Before what we were doing is saying, hey, yeah, it kind of matches the impact or the future land use map, the comprehensive plan, but it didn't go through a public hearing, and it was a little awkward because we were saying, yeah, this is okay, but we didn't have the public hearing to vet vetted out all the details.

So that's what is happening now.

The county is is looking at things like this and saying you need to go to the city first and go through their pre-annexation agreement.

So that when it becomes contiguous, it just automatically annexes into the city.

I shouldn't say automatically.

We we go through that process, but it's already gone through a public hearing, so there's some legal basis for the decision for annexation already.

So that's what's happened.

Uh the I outlined it here as kind of a summary.

The application is evaluated by NAPA City staff, NAMPA Planning and Zoning Commission holds a public hearing.

The NAMPA Planning and Zoning Commission provides a recommendation of the NAPA City Council, NAMPSA City Council holds a public hearing.

The NAPS City Council makes a decision and provides a recommendation on the city to the Canyon County Planning and Zoning Commission, and then the Board of County Commissioners staff provides that letter to the county.

I didn't put on here that the agreement of a development agreement will be established to lock into place what we decide here in the city.

So that's uh also the request here.

If the request is approved, staff works with the applicant to finalize that agreement, and then that agreement stipulates the layout, the densities, and any other conditions required by council and recommended by the planning and zoning commission.

If the request is not approved, the staff will issue a letter to Canyon County indicating opposition to the application.

So we will write that letter saying no, we do not feel that this is the appropriate time and location, and um, and then Canyon County still has to decide on it.

But they as again will give great weight to our comments.

Um so just a couple of quick points to make building permit is handled by Canyon County Development Services, we don't handle that.

Engineering is handled by Canyon County.

Uh development agreement with the city is a contract for which non-compliance may result in legal action.

We don't have a building permit to hold back, so we'd have to go to legal action in that situation.

Um ideally, city recommendations will be incorporated as conditions at Canyon County hearing, and then annexation is a requirement at time of being contiguous.

By state law, it has to be contiguous with the city boundary, and so that's when that would occur.

All right, so jumping into the BC zone.

Um, I just highlighted here the the condition accessory exterior storage affiliated with principal uses shall not be allowed in any area in front of the principal building on a property and shall be otherwise screened from view with a site obscuring fence, wall, or hedge not to exceed eight feet in height.

So this is critical for some of our discussion in a minute here, but um again you can screen it from view behind the building behind the main primary building.

Um here are the setbacks required for the BC zone.

Um this one just says that commercial properties parking and loading facility shall be distant at least 20 feet from the intervening streets edge.

So um, and again the 20-foot landscape requirement or buffer is is there for commercial development along an arterial roadway, and both of these are arterial roadways that we're talking about.

Um so the parking is a little unique.

Um we typically we handle the parking as a part of a building permit, but since this is already there, it's a little bit tricky.

So what you could do is you could put in the requirement as a condition that they put in the parking necessary per our code requirements.

Um I would look at this and say, well, if the building is for an office, then that's the only required parking we have.

It's pretty simple.

That doesn't include break rooms, it doesn't include bathrooms or anything like that.

So it's pretty minimal, but that parking has to follow our standards of width, depth, parking interrupts, landscaping, lighting, all of those things have to be followed according to the our current code.

Again, that's a little tricky because this isn't in the city, but if you want to put those conditions on it in the development agreement, that's that's how you would do it.

Design review is required for the BC zone properties.

In this situation, we wouldn't have any design review right now.

And so I didn't really feel like it's it's necessary.

However, um the in the design review code, it states that fencing is prohibited except in the situations.

Whoops, sorry, except in this situation where you're securing outside storage of inventory or to screen or secure storage facilities as defined in that code, and to screen areas of the property that are not landscaped or are left to gravel.

So this becomes critical because one of the issues we're facing is that the applicant would like to keep the parking gravel and a good portion of their property gravel.

For city development, that's that's not really allowed.

So we have to come up with a way to screen it from view.

So we'll get into that in just a little bit.

But correspondence engineering made their comments again.

This is this is pretty standard.

These are pretty standard comments if it were coming into the city if it was being annexed.

Again, they will be evaluated at the time of uh going to the canyon to Canyon County for engineering requirements, but these would just be our conditions.

Um he listed all these conditions.

Um the engineering division did, I should say.

And I've just incorporated those in the into the proposed conditions.

So here's Canyon County Development Services comment, and basically this has already been explained.

They're trying to rezone, they've got some land uses there that are not permitted in the agriculture zone, which this is zoned in the county.

So they'd have to rezone in order to rezone.

They need a comment from us.

In order to give that comment, we have to do a pre-annexation agreement and process.

Umpa building department, they evaluated it as if it were coming to us for a building permit.

I didn't feel like these are too applicable because the building is already constructed.

However, they did indicate that uh bathrooms would be required as part of the public business, and having public come on to the property.

So that will all be handled with Canyon County Development Services.

Um then NAMPA code compliance indicated that there's some weeds and things again, it's not being annexed into the city.

We would have no authority over that property for weeds.

So I didn't feel like those were applicable either.

Um I think this was a mistake left in uh correspondence.

Uh so this is also a mistake.

I think I already went over the comments.

There we go.

Sorry about those two, uh, those two slides.

Um, so here's the property, and I tried to make it pretty clear.

We got this late comment, and it says I live next door at 6507 airport road.

The only request I have is they install a six-foot-tall solid plastic almond color fence and maintain.

This will reduce sound and dust.

So this is the property right here along airport road, so east of the the subject parcel.

And so there the red is what essentially they are asking for to be this vinyl fence, residential fence.

Um, our code doesn't allow vinyl fencing when it's commercial.

However, it's right next to residential currently, and there is uh the ability if they were to put in a design review fence, that means multiple uh materials, not a wood slat fence, not chain link, and not vinyl on the green on the green line, they could uh do the vinyl fence along the blue line here, because that would um that would be screen from view.

Um, so anything that's seen by the public has to be according to our code has to be this design reviewed fence, and it's supposed to be pretty decorative and a nice fence.

So if that's the way they want to handle it and do a vinyl fence back here, this that's the only way I could think of to allow that to occur, unless the property owner here were to pull the fence permit with the county and request uh a vinyl fence along there, and then somebody else pay for it, right?

That would be another option that they could do if the county approved that.

So there's ways to get through that concern, uh, but there's a concern with um current code about that, so we just have to walk through that process.

Um the applicant stated that uh about the concerns about the um the uh the neighbors being concerned about um things in the air and the dust control, and um they also said um uh visibility.

They were just concerned about the bulk materials and equipment yard.

Yeah, that's that's our same condition as well.

We can't have those those things out in the yard, so that it's right next to a residential property and it looks really industrial or something.

So, yeah, the the condition there would still be putting a fence up.

Um, so code allows gravel on portions of the property behind the primary structure that are screened from view with a design review fence or wall.

So if in this situation they were to put a fence here and here, and then all the way down this um frontage, then this out front couldn't be gravel, it would have to be paved, but everything else could be gravel, and um that's the majority of this parcel.

So that would be one way to handle that situation.

So here are the proposed conditions, um consistent with what our uh what engineering proposed, and then I have some additional conditions that I put in there.

Um letter E.

I added just a note here.

Uh applicant owner shall comply with all city codes, policies, and standards in place at the time of property development.

Um concern we've heard in the past is that we the county can't um how do I say this uh defer their responsibility to us or to our code, but if they adopted this as a condition, they could.

So it can't be city you regulate that, but the county, if they were to say here is the condition, um, then that could be enforced.

So this could this include landscaping, side paths, paving the parking area in front of the building, design review screening outdoor inventory behind the front of the building, screening graveled area, etc.

Those all those conditions.

Um let's see.

I added this last one.

I forgot to put this in.

We do have this in the development agreement.

Um the uh template for the development agreement, but I just wanted to be very clear about this.

Property owner authorizes the city of Nampa to annex the property following the property becoming contiguous to the city boundaries.

That would mean if we've become contiguous, we process it.

They've already paid the double fee for pre-annexation, and we just process the annexation at that point.

Rodney, I got a quick question for you.

On something like that, because it is very rare we have one of these.

Will there be anything?

Filed like sort of like an easement or something.

File to the down the road, somebody goes to buy this property to do a title search.

This will automatically come up for potential buyer down the road.

Yeah, good question.

Um, Mr.

Chair, sorry.

Oh, sorry, um Mr.

Chair and and commissioners.

Yes, that that's accurate.

Development uh we record the development agreement with the county so that that comes up when a property is being sold.

That typically uh it's hard because they don't go through every document very well sometimes, but that's the best we can do is it's recorded against the property, and then and then if there's a problem, we go through the legal process or the code compliance process to enforce it.

Okay, so these are the proposed findings.

Um the project uh and first of all is the criteria.

I've listed all the the facts, those are in your staff report.

I don't necessarily feel like I need to go through each one of those, but um happy to spend some time on that if you need.

However, I will just pause on it for a second for those online.

Um looking back on this, and then I will read the conclusion for approval.

I know this is long.

I'm sorry, but these are basically a summary of all of that, all of those facts.

So the proposed pre-annexation to a future zone of BC is consistent with the comprehensive plan, future land use map designation for community mixed use.

The description for community mixed use in the comprehensive plan describes the need to have multiple uses on the property, including high density residential.

The proposed use is not proposing any high density residential on the property.

However, at this time, the NAMPAC boundaries are a significant distance from the property, and the demand for high density and high intensity commercial uses on the property is not currently present.

Since the narrative in the comprehensive plan is a guide for approving entitlements, and because this property is developing in the county with no high density residential use in the area for a significant distance, it would be incompatible to require the high density residential at this time.

In addition, other properties in the area may redevelop or develop with high density residential uses when the timing is more appropriate.

Though the proposed site plan does not appear to comply with city codes for landscaping, sidewalk design standards, fencing, parking, and lighting, a development agreement requiring compliance with these conditions will ensure that the proposal meets city standards and co-requirements.

The proposal is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary because landscaping is an essential service and product needed for the basic function of a community, and the property will provide such service and products.

In addition, the proposal will provide jobs and an economic benefit to the region, which is highlighted in the comprehensive plan is a significant need.

The comprehensive plan is a document that highlights the interests and needs of the community using public outreach methods designed to hear those interests and needs.

Since no request for utilities has been made to the city of NAMPA, a recommendation from the Board of Appraisals is not necessary for the proposed pre-annexation.

Weighing all these facts, factors, the proposal does does meet the criteria for pre-annexation and is therefore approved.

So that's the proposal for approval.

And then if you were to do denial, the only the areas that are underlined here are the differences between what I just showed you and the denial motion.

And in that case, it would be the proposed use is not proposing any high density residential on the property and is therefore not consistent with the comprehensive plan to provide a mix of uses in this area.

The NAPA city boundaries and sewer and irrigation services are significant distance from the property, and it is not in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary to develop the property to commercial at this time.

The proposed site plan does not comply with city codes for landscaping, sidewalk design standards, fencing, parking, and lighting.

And then the last sentence there, weighing all these factors, the proposal does not meet the criteria for pre-annexation and is therefore tonight.

Um this was a difficult one for for me to analyze.

I think it's um something you've got to decide.

Uh I couldn't recommend one way or another.

It's out there far enough, and there's facts that could support either direction on this.

So I have these two motions on the screen for your consideration, and happy to answer any questions.

Yes.

Sorry.

Um Rodney, so we do have water in the area, and it is a pre-annexation.

So because the water's there, we're not going to force them to hook up to it at this time.

Yeah, it's a Mr.

Chair and Commissioners.

Um, that's a great question.

Um, we don't usually force people to um access the water.

What happens is the Southwest District Health will require that of them if there's a failed well or if there's a problem with sewer contaminating the water or something like that.

Um, if they're splitting the property or something and there's water available, then they if they develop on it and they're splitting it.

Sometimes the district health will require that they connect to city services at that time.

But until that point, we don't require that they do it.

If if their well is functioning just fine, then there's no requirement.

Follow-up question, Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

So the building that's on site, is it our understanding that that is going to be used as the offices and that's my understanding?

Okay.

Okay, maybe so maybe in your rebuttal just to address that.

So thanks.

Yes.

What kind of time frame are we looking at for you for this area would be built up that would automatically be taken care of?

Um that is such a uh difficult question to answer.

Um I'm gonna show you the utility um here.

Um if you look at this, you can see this is state highway 16 connecting to I-84, and there's a frontage road that would uh allow you to connect to Robinson Road or Robinson Boulevard, and um there's demand already.

You can see that sewer is being pulled from the north.

Um, however, I I I would defer to our engineering for where this site will be serviced for um sewer, but there is a demand in this area.

It's just I don't know how long it would take to get that developed, especially if if ITD were to continue to the south, that could really really change things here.

Yeah, so fast.

Okay, I'll put it on the so Mr.

Chair Commissioners.

Um the the sewer there that is to the north that was brought by Nampa School District, um, and the school district still owns that property there to the north of Airport Road.

Um that sewer uh would likely be able to serve that property, though I believe uh master plan wise, um, we would ultimately be the ultimate service would head back towards Happy Valley and and the trunk line there, so it is a fairly significant distance away from where the plan to sewer it would be Mr.

Chair.

Um Rodney in talking about the fence you brought up design review a lot of times.

How does that work with this being in the county?

Like, can we require them to go through a city design review process even though they're not part of the city?

Mr.

Chair, and commissioners um because this is not in the city design review would not apply here.

Um it would go to Cannon County, however, we can put in conditions in the development agreement for what we want it to look like, what it should develop like.

So my point here is to bring up what is in our code, and then I put a condition that they follow those points in our code.

It wouldn't go through the design review process, but it would be required to meet the conditions of you know the fence being a nice fence with materials.

So we would make recommendations to Kane County, who would then in turn hopefully all of those make those requirements.

Um how far do we go with it?

I mean, because you know, to to ask him to put sidewalks on his frontage.

That's a lot.

And if this doesn't develop out around him for 10 or 15 years, is it is it possible to say it would be required at time of annexation?

You definitely could make that recommendation.

Um I think they would be required to go through it.

Well, because it's not annexing into the city yet, it's not a requirement that would have to be deferred.

So yeah, I I think you could put that condition.

I just hate to see you know, uh some kind of requirement or recommendation made to the county, and then things change on Robinson Boulevard, and now all of a sudden all these sidewalks that he had to put in got to get ripped out, and then who pays for those?

Yeah.

Um, Mr.

Chair, um, where this would not be annexed being annexed into the city of Nampa, the highway district, Nampa Highway District is not in favor of sidewalks within their jurisdiction.

So I would not recommend that we require sidewalks at this time if you wanted to place a condition in the um recommendation for the uh for that at the time it annexes in that sidewalks be placed.

I think that would be entirely appropriate.

Um then the next question, Rodney, the design review fence.

So let's just hype it hypothetically say that the way you were saying is is the front edge was going to be towards the north.

Um is that the only place where he'd have to do a design review fence, or would he have to do it all along the west side of the property also?

Yeah.

Um Mr.

Chair, the the entire green line is what would be the design reviewed fence, it would have to be multiple materials.

So it had to be what we've seen in the past is like uh a steel fence with um wood slats, something like that would suffice for that.

So the chain link would not be uh permitted use.

Um chain link with slats wouldn't wouldn't be allowed according to our code, Mr.

Chair again on the waiting they say it's subject for this changes that he puts all this fence in can we postpone that until time of annexation as well in case it's say it'd be the same thing as a sidewalk that's not as expensive as a concrete sidewalk, but I mean put all that fencing in and then things change and it's got this fence out there.

I mean, is there a possibility that it could wait as well until later down the road?

Mr.

Jair and Commissioners, um there's a lot of options that we can go through right now because this is in the county, it's it's a county decision.

So um what I am providing you with is the information that would be required if they were to be annexed in as a BC zone.

This is the requirement.

Um however, since it's not being annexed in as a BC zone right now, you have a lot of flexibility to say what should and shouldn't be done at this time.

Um that the code just tries to get away from a residential feel for a commercial property, and um they don't want the you know the chain link fence and the wood slats or whatever for so could we make the recommendation that that time of annexation owner has you know one year to bring property in compliance with fencing and things like that.

Because it just seems to me that uh it's so far out there, and who knows when it's gonna change.

Uh I mean, honestly, he's a landscaper.

He's probably gonna put a nice landscape berm in there and have some nice trees along Robinson, and it's gonna look amazing.

A lot better than it does now, but he doesn't want to do anything until process.

Yeah, um I would just like you said I I just hate to see you know you spend 40 or 50 thousand dollars on a fence, and then five, six years down the road it develops, and oh well the highway district decided we want to do this instead.

So now you gotta rip your fence out, and we're gonna have to change things.

And yeah, plus um the other part of that too is it, you know, if it's 10-15 years before it gets annexed, they reviewed standards could change, and so now this isn't a compliance.

So it makes more sense to wait and make those things, and then when it gets annexed, they could come against Fitz design to design review at that time, get it approved, put in what they want.

So it just makes more sense because yeah, I'm like fence it in out there, it looked like a prison all by itself sitting out there.

So do you think that would be appropriate just to say to bring into current compliance and give them a year to do it, or you think that's too long, or um I I hesitate to make any I mean this isn't my decision, but uh I I think you could you could do that, you could put a condition on this in a development agreement that would require at time of annexation you have one year from that date to come into compliance with these specific conditions.

You could you could do that.

Mr.

Chair, yeah.

So I guess I I have a question that I think that um I wonder about a lot of times we'll have a uh uh a concept plan attached to a development agreement, and here like the use of the site is very nebulous things like so and where's the front of the building, you know, and then the other part of it is if you have an ADA parking stall, you need to have an accessible route to that stall, and I don't know that you can do that in gravel very well.

Um and so where where are we gonna pave or it it and he's even it sounds like and he'll respond later, but it sounds like he's not even gonna use that building as the offices or whatever else, and so I wonder how can we is there a way that we can get a concept plan attached to this development agreement before we say you know, or could we could we make that um like because this is recommendation to city council?

So could they we make a recommendation that we'd like to have something like that attached, and then you can pull that before C not to have them come back before us again, but I think I think you could absolutely you could ask them to provide a concept before the city council.

Um you could also just describe what you've just described.

You could say um the anywhere that's I mean our code already outlines that in front of the building and the parking lot that has the ADA spaces and the required spaces for city code, they already have to be paved, right?

So what I'm saying is everything between the green line and the light blue line is that space that could be used for landscaping and parking and that kind of thing.

If it's determined that that's the front of the deterrent, yeah, but code handles that so like wherever let's say they build the new shop, so it sounds like they're planning on building a new shop and they build it back here, and they want to it uh determine that this or or even down south, let's say they put the shop down here, and they want to call this the front of the property.

Well, maybe then the everything out front is just this line over to the to the west.

Right, and I think that that's my concern, right?

Is that so many things that we're talking about, the fencing, like that a lot of that's gonna be dependent on how he lays out the site.

And so I think that there probably needs to be a concept plan that gets attached to this development agreement.

Uh yeah, to answer some of the other questions that are arising.

Mr.

Chair, just to follow up on that.

Um, I I think that that absolutely could be done.

What I'm arguing though is that I think our code handles that.

So like wherever they put it, I'm not I don't think a condition has to be so descriptive, it just has to say um it essentially this if you look at K any construction of a fence that can be seen from the public right of way shall be done behind the 20-foot landscape buffer, two materials and be ornamental in appearance, but exclude chain link.

I mean, the the code already states that, right?

I'm just putting it into this section here.

So wherever they put their building, wherever they put their fence, they just have to comply with that code, including L outdoor storage of materials or equipment shall be screened from view by use of a building's core design of view compliant fence wall or landscaping.

He could put a berm that is plenty high and screens everything from view, that outdoor storage from view, and wouldn't even have to do a fence at all because it's it's screened.

That I think that's a personal decision that they have to make about do we want a fence to protect our equipment and and supplies, or do we can we just do the landscaping?

I have a question.

I don't know if it had if it's our concern of the county, but you talked about the parking and it's just uh doing a code for office work and parking, but he wants to have a nursery and a retail store.

So is that really the appropriate coding for parking where uh because that's pretty busy intersection, and as we grow, it's gonna get busier, and if there's no parking for the customers, they're gonna be parking on roads beside Mr.

Chair and Commissioners.

Um yeah, uh understood.

And and I think what I what I tried to do here is just give an example of what our code says.

I I'm this is gonna be determined at time of development.

So if that happens, then at that time when they develop that property, wherever that building is, that's gonna change the square footage, it's gonna change the location, it might even change the use.

So we can't say right now, here's what land here's what parking has to be done.

What I all I can do right now is say if this is the only building on the property, then your parking for an office has to be this, right?

So I I think our our uh the condition that I placed on there again, it's just referring back to code to say it has to comply with the numbers listed in code, but that could be done at time of a redevelopment of the property.

Thank you.

Yeah, well, of course, we have to Mr.

Chair.

Can I ask one?

I'm worried we'll open a can of worms so you can tell me not to.

Um the whole this whole thing is compatibility, right?

Like we got community mixed use, but we don't want to build high density housing because it doesn't make any sense out there.

The community mixed use doesn't seem to fit in the comp plan there.

Can you give any insight as to why we decided to put community mixed use amid just a bunch of low density and medium density residential?

Yeah, Mr.

Chair and Commissioners.

Um, that is a great question, and it gives me a chance to speak about comprehensive plans.

So I think my kind of my thing.

Um comprehensive plans are long range plans.

They think about the long-term future.

If this were only low density residential in this area forever, then yeah, there might not be that demand, but we're talking long range.

What what could this be 20 years from now?

And if state highway 16 were to come through, for instance, to the south, um, which ITD has acknowledged that that's a need, right, in the future, and they they hope to make it happen.

No funding yet determined.

But if that were to happen, there is going to be a demand for different types of services here.

And the increase in number of um dwelling units or whatever in this area would cause a demand for services and businesses.

And if we don't do that, if we don't plan for commercial out in these areas that aren't completely developed out yet, then we'll lose the opportunity to have commercial services right near residential, and that will lead to increased tra traffic that and increased cost on our infrastructure.

So it's a long-term thinking about planning for the future about what this area may be.

But you're you're right in that this is about compatibility right now, so you have to weigh both of those things, the long range side of things, and would it make sense to just put a high-rise multifamily building here right at this time?

Probably not, right?

So it's timing, it's compatibility, and it's long range thinking that matter here.

So if I can follow up, um was some of the thinking of where you put the community mixed use based on how else to say it, like ones that are already not county subdivisions.

Correct, yeah.

It's available space, and it's along uh a significant uh corridor.

So you can see that there.

Um available space, maybe for redevelopment someday.

And you can see that it's it's along two pretty significant corridors there, actually three there.

Victory, Robinson, and airport.

The um there is a long-range plan for the airport road to be a major corridor between Ada County and Canyon County at some point in the future.

Um there's a gap in it right now, but that plan is in place to make that a major corridor.

So you've got victory and airport road that would be significant corridors, and then Robinson, depending on what happens with state highway 16, that could be a major um corridor for us.

So when you're making your long-term plans, is the assumption that what is now a county subdivision is likely not to be redeveloped.

But anything that's farmland probably.

It's it's hard to know.

So how do you make commercial services be near that low density residential?

Well, you have to provide some density, some type of density at some place nearby so that it can support the commercial.

So yeah, it's I mean medium density to the north here would help a little bit with that, but it's almost gonna be its own redevelopment of this entire area at some point, and that could be a long ways out, but um maybe you do a master plan community of some kind where you do um you you may have major commercial uh services and some uh residential that are added to this area.

Maybe this is getting too much into the deliberation, but that's what I'm like.

Are we gonna honor the long range plan and make us stick to what's the calm plan is or start developing it based on what's there now?

Mr.

Chair, I just comment to that.

This is a landscape yard, so really there's not gonna be a lot of buildings there.

So if this does start to get developed, and somebody wants to do a commercial on the corner of some high race residential or something down the road when it does get developed.

I mean, you're not talking about taking out much of a building, the rest of it's all pretty much trees and shrubs and picked up and moved pretty easily.

So it's not like they're gonna have a bunch of buildings or something there, they're gonna have to tear out if somebody wanted to redevelop it down the road.

So that's just okay, Madam Clerk.

Do we have a sign-up sheet?

No, we don't.

No.

Okay.

Is there anybody in the crowd that would like to speak or concern decided on this side?

Please give us your name and address for the record.

My uh my name is Kim Marshall.

Uh my address is 11101 Greenhurst Road here in Napa.

And I am a longtime NAP resident and developer.

I've developed about 14 subdivisions in the area.

Um, and I'm retired now, Tom.

Anyway, I just wanted to give you a little background on Carlos.

Uh Carlos and by the way, state champion rush work from Skyview High School.

So Carlos and my son, uh, when I started developing subdivisions, they had an interest and started developing a little landscape business.

And over the years, um my son went off to medical school, and so hopefully you don't know him because he's emergency room doctor.

But anyway, uh Carlos took the business over, he has expanded it.

He has anybody that worries about what his stuff is going to look like, his landscaping, his designs and his pools.

I've been on magazine covers.

The guy's exceptional.

So proud of our homegrown boy here.

And uh just a little bit of clarification.

There is access off Robinson Road.

This was a piece that was left over from the roundabout.

He bought it from the highway district, was told by the county that he could just move his business, which he's had for seven years on Amity out there and keep on going.

So that's that's kind of the uh, but as far as Carlos, you won't find a better landscaper or a more outstanding NAPA-grown person.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else?

My name is Steve Kiter, and I live uh I posted the uh fence concern.

Um I live on the east side of the area right there where the arrow is.

Um and that's my chair name and address.

Yeah, name and address.

Uh Steve Kider, 6407 Airport Road.

Thank you.

Um that's just my biggest concern is having a uh fence across there.

I know a lot of people up on the um Arabian way, look that way, and I think they would um and myself too would appreciate uh a solid fence in there um to block off that area with or all their um stuff going in there.

Um my concern is that they're approved, um I'm not sure how far they can go along with the process before they actually are required or need to put in a fence uh blocking the dust and the stuff like that.

So thank you.

Anyone else?

Mr.

Torres, you want to come back up.

Yeah, so I guess first off to make clear my intentions would be to put a fence up.

Uh the reason that's not up yet is because the various discussions that you had tonight, we can see there's some discrepancy on what may or may not work.

So um, and that would be one of the first items we took care of.

So just to address concerns from the neighbors, I think that's important, and I value their uh concern there.

Um I think demand shows a lot of what the property use should be.

The firework kids sold 150 grand in about nine, ten days out there.

The community really enjoys the use of that property when there is a you know low retail standout there.

It's kind of been proven, I think, over the last couple of years.

I mean it's only second year there, so I think the demand is there for some services and products to be provided to the to the area.

Um we'll have people pull in there, and one of my guys will call me that somebody pulled in wanting to buy gravel or something, you know.

So I think there's a lot of need in the area for a service like that.

Um the discussions on the building.

So originally, and even perhaps now that barn is a it's kind of a I don't know, kind of consider it a historic attractive building.

I would have loved to rehabilitate it.

I've talked to an engineer uh foundation is really in poor shape.

So you're looking at a huge cost to lift a building, report a foundation.

Um not sure exactly where the new building will go, but it will be a new building.

Um we would address parking and concerns like that, along with whatever conditions you guys advise.

So if there's no other questions, I think I'm anybody done, Mr.

Chair.

When this property gets annexed, but it's still gonna be able to sell fireworks.

This if this is a BC zone property and they um file uh for a TP, a temp temporary use permit, they they could sell fireworks, yeah.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thanks.

I'll make a motion we close the public hearing.

Second, and moved by governor, second by Keyhoe to close the public hearing.

All those in favor?

Aye, aye.

Who do you think?

Let it go.

Yes, same yonder.

I think I kind of expressed my dilemma with my questions is I want this business there.

I think it's good.

I think we should allow it, but it just it doesn't follow the comp plan at all, you know.

Like that's my struggle.

Yeah, I don't know what to do with that.

Yeah, partially it does, and I think yeah, here's reality too.

It's so far out, and you know, like we've stated before, it could be five years, it could be 15 years, who knows when this area is gonna develop, and if it does, and he's surrounded by subdivisions, let's just say is he gonna want to stay and keep his business there, or is he gonna sell to the highest bidder who then will turn it into multi-family and commercial and it's just really I don't know.

I don't know the answer to that because I think but could he if there's a development agreement in place that says it's gotta be a landscaping business with this concept.

I don't know, maybe that's a question for Rodney.

Um Mr.

Chair, I I think you could put a condition in there that if they were to change, I mean they can always come in and revise their development agreement, frankly.

Um and that happens all the time, right?

So they would just come back through this process to change that now that I think through that.

Yeah, yeah.

And it and at that time would it require the same things as we have now with like the high density being part of it as part of that community mixed use, or once it's BC, it's just BC.

Um if there's a development agreement, it opens the door completely.

So what that does is it allows you to say it's a contract, right?

So then the the county or excuse me, the city could say, okay, our current code requires this.

So redevelopment of this property would require the design review, the whatever, all of the conditions of the comprehensive plan in the zoning uh at that time.

Redevelopment would redeem.

Whoever's on the board at that time, whoever's on this commission at that time when they want to do a mod would just say this is what we want it to look like.

And try to okay.

Yeah, I think that resolves any concern I have.

Mr.

Chair, I I probably better clarify that code would be in place at that time.

So redevelopment of a property to something else would need to follow code, I believe.

I'm looking at our attorney.

So I I think that would be the case, but they could put additional conditions on them at that point.

Yeah, because they would be coming to you saying, I want to change this agreement, and the city would say, Okay, let's negotiate and change the agreement.

Exactly.

So if somebody wants to redevelop it bad enough, they would come and change the agreement.

Okay.

Yeah, that resolves any of my concerns.

So I'm for it.

Yeah, I like it.

I mean, I want to I want to see businesses thrive.

That's what we need, right?

Businesses for employees, and stay home.

I mean, you want to drive in the town to do something.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well the concerns that I had seemed to like what Rodney said, I think they're addressed in the conditions, so I I'm for as well.

So close.

We have the condition on the development agreement in place.

Yeah, so I think we discussed earlier.

What can we get look at those conditions?

What I guess when is it triggered that they have to meet city code?

Is it annexation or at development?

That's what's to be determined.

It's not, it doesn't state that instead of that's what the the way I crafted this to have whatever you want or what what I put in here as conditions would be required at as a part of this approval, right?

So it would be in the development agreement.

If you have specific conditions that you'd like to put on there, like within this certain amount of time or at annexation, you can do that.

But I I think a lot of the conditions like um the fencing, the paving of the property, the lighting, the landscaping, all those are applicable right now because this is a new request.

Even though it's been there, it's never been permitted use, right?

So it is the first time that the county is going to consider allowing it to occur.

So for a commercial property like this, or the county requirements.

Like is the county gonna make them pave and put ADA stalls in and yeah, so that's that's a standard for ADA stalls.

That's definitely that's a federal requirement.

So yeah, that that would be required.

Um as far as landscaping and that kind of thing, that's that's a city requirement.

So that's why I'm suggesting that a development agreement be put in place to require those things.

Like on G side path, is that I mean sidewalks?

It does, yeah.

It's a it's a larger side path, but the 10-footer, yeah.

So it so the way if we propose if we approve these conditions like you have them now, we're telling them to build a 10-foot sidewalk right now.

Yeah, okay.

So I just want to point that out.

Yeah, I just I have a hard time with it just because it is so far out to make them do city things, even though they're not in close to the city.

Um I feel a lot better about like I said earlier, at time of annexation, they have X amount of time.

What that exactly looks like, I don't know.

Uh I think the other side of it though is is sorry, Mr.

Chair comment.

Um I get the the site locked a lot of that stuff, I'd get it and trying to push that off and say at the time of development or at the time of annexation, but if he's planning on opening a business and running that business as soon as this approval goes through, then that that's different than down the road.

That's him running a business off of that site right now, in which case he would need to have those ADA requirements met in order to run a business off of there, right?

Yeah, which that's the county, the county and the states are gonna require their federal requirement as far as the paving and the AD stalls.

And I'm just talking about things like a 10-foot sidewalk, a sidewalk at all.

I just don't think is necessary in the county that far out.

Right, us determining that we want to have a specific style of fence.

Well, who's he gonna go to?

Is he gonna come back to the city design review and ask?

Okay, you guys are requiring this kind of fence.

What do you are gonna make me do?

Because he's going to the county for all of his permits to build the building and run his business, and right.

So it just kind of gets, I think it just kind of gets muddy.

It's really muddy, yeah.

And it's trying to figure out what goes into development agreement, what gets delayed, what gets not.

That's that's where it's tricky.

Yeah.

Mr.

Chair, may I just clarify something there?

Um currently we would the fence review would not go to the design review committee.

That's just staff review.

So we already do that when this is a requirement of code.

Then how does that take place?

I mean, so he goes to Canyon County for his building permit, he goes to Kenyon County for a fence permit, and then Canyon County says you gotta go talk to the city so they can tell you exactly what kind of fence you have to build.

Yeah, uh probably we'd need to work into the development agreement some kind of process of review that before they submit to the county for permits for the fence that we review it and make sure that it complies with our code.

Mr.

Chair.

So we because I think we're all kind of leaning the same way with the fence along Robinson and airport and the sidewalks.

Not making them put those in until time of annexation.

And I personally I'd say a year, just depending on when it annexation might fall, they might not be able to get it done in six months if it's just before winter or something.

So if you gave him a year, I think that's but the back fence for the papers.

It's it's not like he's already gonna do it, but should we just to guarantee it gets put in?

Should we put something in there that the east fence has to be put in within six months of approval by the county or something like that?

But the other stuff will wait until the annexation.

Um I don't want to make a judgment call here, but you absolutely can do that.

Yeah, that's I think the best everybody's worried about right now, the rest of us are thinking all that other stuff.

Yeah, it's it would like kind of stick up a 10-foot sidewalk out there in the middle of the far country.

So who approves the fence or have no build now?

Which the back fence?

Our staff.

No, not county.

That's where it's kind of yeah, is that the other part of it is right.

It's if you if you delay the fence along uh Robinson, the the brown fence or that the the almond colored fence is no longer comp uh compliant.

But you can go to the county and work with his paper.

Yeah, Steve, you can build a fence.

Reimbursement.

Yeah, we might have to do that, but that's kind of the way I would look at approving it, is just that fence gets put in within six months of the other stuff and wait until kind of annexation.

If we can't have anything to do with that fence, can we even put anything in the development agreement about it?

We we can because it's a contract.

It's a contract.

Even if it's they go to the county to get it approved.

I know within the six months.

Mr.

Chair, I maybe just let me restate this.

Um we have lots of flexibility here because we don't have authority over land use, and the county does here.

However, if we enter into a development agreement, we have all kinds of flexibility to put in conditions to put all kinds of different requirements on them.

Um it wouldn't be again, it wouldn't be something that the county uh upholds unless they adopt those same conditions, but we would be responsible to enforce a contractual agreement with the property owner.

So could we enforce that before the annexes?

Yes, only it's a contractual agreement.

That's correct.

That's correct.

Which I don't see it coming to that, but I just Mr.

Chairman.

I could be misreading the situation, but it didn't seem much given issue with the fence.

I don't think that you have a problem with that.

I'm I'm personally more for striking G and talking about the sidewalk than because I know I'm referenced that um IT that doesn't want sidewalk along the frontage there.

So that's something I think is more pressing than talking about how the fence works, because it's not like you can do that.

Or do we just change it to uh at time of annexation instead of at time of anxious?

Yeah, I think that I I I just I think that's the best way to go within 12 months of annexation.

Yeah, yeah, within annexed or whatever reasonable time period, yeah.

And I think I think a year is reasonable.

Do we need to specify time period?

Yeah, yeah.

Or well, I think we do.

Because if we don't, then it's open-ended and it could he could say, well, I'm doing it, it's gonna take me ten or twelve years to do, but I'm shaping one dollar every year.

Within so within twelve months of annexation.

That just gives them a little time depending on when it might get annexed.

I mean, if it gets if it was get annexed in middle of September, you know, you get three or four or five months of rain.

That just gives them a little more time.

I have no issue with it.

Is it can we go to the next page of conditions?

Are there more?

Um I think everything would be covered that way.

Is that it?

Is there more?

Is that well, I think that it seems like everybody's in agreement, but I think we need to really dial in what that motion is going to be, right?

How how are we going what what items are we gonna push off and what items even need to be addressed?

Like Rodney said, if it's you know, if it's a building, that's gonna be handled through Canyon County, right?

So a lot of the parking, the building, I think that'll all be addressed by Canyon County, so we don't need to worry about that.

But I think the fence and the sidewalk, stuff like that.

So does that having that run through the county does that resolve your concern of having a concept plan attached?

I think so, because I think the way the conditions are written, I think it addresses what I'm talking about because any way the building is oriented, the code is going to address it.

So we have the amendment to item G.

Yes, revision to item G.

That'd be that'd be amending saying at time of annexation.

Within twelve within twelve months of annexation.

Yep.

And then how do we want to handle the fence?

Cyberview fence.

I would say according to according to Rodney, I think my I uh what I my interpretation would be at time of annexation, owner shall work with the Napa City Department on.

Well, if we're not doing it until annexation, then it would go straight through the city.

So and it would have to meet their standards.

He could he could put a landscape buffer with landscaping and put a chain link fence behind that because it'd screen the fence.

That's correct.

Yep.

Yeah.

So does does K resolve everything about fencing that we're concerned about?

I I just I don't see anything here that I'm worried about that we just include them all.

Do you I mean if we're gonna if we're gonna do that?

The only concern I have would be your G, what you described in G.

And if you said it within 12 months of annexation, they shall build the required sidewalks and side or side path.

Yeah.

I'm on board with that.

You go to the motion.

Yeah, I I think I think what he's got there covers the fence.

But we don't need to push any of the fence off.

It just says if he builds a fence, doesn't it?

It says if he builds a fence, it has to be compliant with but isn't the fence required because it's the BC zone.

Mr.

Chair, a fence is not required unless you're screening uh outdoor equipment and materials.

It can also be screened by landscape.

Right.

So yeah.

Okay.

All right, I'll give it a shot.

Go for it.

New business and development agreement for new life landscape LC at 246 or for Robinson Road for Carlos.

Carlos Taurus with all proposed conditions.

With the exception that item G concerning the sidewalks, instead of saying at time of development would be within 12 months of annexation.

And findings and a conclusion for approval as shown in the staff presentation.

Second.

Motion by Morgan, seconded by Garner to approve this item.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed.

Motion carries.

Thanks, everybody.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Educational.

Yeah.

Okay, we'll go ahead and move to item 3-2 annexation zoning for approximately 68.5 acres into RS4, approximately 9.38 acres into RD, approximately 3.9 acres into BC.

With corresponding right-of-way potential development green subdivision preliminary plat approval for Breckenwood subdivision at zero North Canada Road.

For Becky Ugiri representing Stanley Wilton, Todd Campbell Custom Homes is the applicant here.

All right.

Good afternoon.

Wait for my present applications for annexation zoning and preliminary plot for Breckenwood subdivision.

Name and address.

Becky Isigari, 4818 West Camus Street, Boise Idaho.

The project is located north of Landry between Canada Road and 11th Avenue.

The project site is within two miles of several large employers that include Amazon, Pepsi Beverage Company, Walmart, CWI, numerous car dealerships, the cheese factory, and so on.

Making this the perfect location for this project.

The future land use map designates the subject parcel and the broader area from Cherry Lane to Eustick and Canada to 11th as residential mixed use.

And then the area just across Canada is identified as high density residential.

According to the comprehensive plan, the residential mixed use areas are intended to include medium density neighborhoods with some commercial, emphasizing a variety of small lot housing types such as single family detached homes, townhomes, duplexes, live work units.

The proposed development fulfills this vision by offering multiple housing options while complementing and preserving the character of this existing neighborhood to the south.

Here's the current zoning map for this area.

The subject property is bordered by undeveloped land to the north and east and RS7 on a portion of the subject property to the south.

Canada Road is a principal arterial and eustake as a minor arterial as the area builds out towards Eustake and 11th.

The comprehensive plan calls for more density and commercial uses to support this transition.

Breckenwood subdivision has been designed as a mixed use development on 81.78 acres.

The project will consist of four commercial lots, 352 residential lots, and five different housing types, made up of 68 twin homes, 87 40-foot wide lots, 33 45 foot wide lots, and 145 uh 50-foot wide lots and 1960 foot wide lots.

All 352 residential homes will have two-car garage and driveway.

Um we'll be providing additional on-street parking spaces located near the twin homes.

Um in addition, all sidewalks in the subdivision will be detached and treelined, which will keep up the look and feel of the existing development to the south.

For the commercial, we're proposing four commercial lots that will front Canada.

Um this will be developed in seven phases, each phase taking about a year or so to complete.

Um the next couple slides I'm gonna show you will kind of outline the development in a little more detail.

Um so the commercial, um so starting at the commercial at Canada, we're proposing four commercial lots with three um consisting of 3.9 acres with a provocate proposed zoning designation of BC.

These four lots will have ingress egress on Canada and with the secondary off landry.

Moving into the residential, we're proposing um 68 single family twin homes with a minimum lot size of 3,346 square feet and an average of 3, uh 382 square feet.

Each unit will be individually platted and sold.

They'll be front loaded with two-car garage and driveway.

These hybrid homes combine the benefits of single family um with the accessible pricing of like a town home.

Um so moving west, we're proposing 284 uh single family homes with four lots ranging from um 40 to 60 foot wide.

Um so here you can see the yellow lots represent 40 foot wide lots, the pinkish page indicates 54 foot wide lots, and the light page shows 50 foot-wide lots, and the darn the brown denotes 60 foot wide lots.

The average lot size is 5,715 with the max being 8,000.

Each lot will be front loaded and include a standard two-car uh garage and driveway.

So as you can see, these homes fit in nicely with the subdivision to the south.

Um, from the street, the twin homes read as residential homes, um, and the traditional single-family homes match those of the homes of the south, preserving the look and feel of the existing neighborhood.

Um Breckenwood subdivision provides 9.3 acres of open space representing 15.7% of the total project area.

Centrally located amenities include two picnic areas and two playgrounds linked by many meandering pathways that will enhance the walkability throughout the neighborhood.

Um, all sidewalks will be detached and tree-lined.

The landscaping will incorporate shred trees, ornamentals, and low water plantings uh to create a sustainable, visually appealing neighborhood.

So, as for the roadways, this development plans to construct 21 new local roads.

Um all local streets will include a four-foot um wide sidewalk, a six-foot plant uh parkway strip, uh, followed by curb and gutter of so Fort Hall, which is the collector, um, the main collector in the subdivision, will have a 20-foot uh landscape buffer, a 10-foot pathway, and an eight-foot parkway strip.

Canada will see a 25-foot landscape buffer, a 10-foot pathway, and an eight-foot parkway strip, and Landry will have a 25-foot landscape buffer, a 10-foot pathway, and an eight-foot parkway strip.

For the utilities, one of the major benefits of this development is the removal of the existing sewer lift station, um, which is currently serving the Canon Creek subdivision to the south.

We will be providing them with a brand new gravity sewer line.

Um, we will also bring sewer down from will be part of that sewer project and bring it down and and through 11th.

Um water will come from an existing stub in Canada and will tie into the city's existing PI system.

Um, all storm water will be retained on site via stormwater ponds, um, which will be located throughout the development.

And I'll stand for some questions.

Okay, don't have any now.

We'll call you back up.

Thank you.

Sorry, Mr.

Chair, one question.

Um you said one year per lot on the commercial, plus or minus, of course.

Oh, for the commercial?

Yeah, is that probably not maybe maybe I misunderstood what you're saying.

What's the build-out timeline of this?

Yeah, so we we are proposing uh seven phases.

So each phase will take about a year to a year and a half to complete.

The commercial kind of stands on it, so and it just kind of waits for a commercial buyer, but the residential will be about over the next seven years.

Yeah.

I mean, that's the time it takes, you know, for the city to get a plot and everything construction drawings and all the things.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, I got a quick question.

Oh, one more.

Sorry about that.

Go ahead.

Um, you had mentioned a couple of times that each each of the homes, the standard, the standalone, the detached homes would have a standard two-car garage.

Um, I heard that a couple of times, but then when you posted pictures and some what might the houses, what might they look like?

There were some three-car garages, like RB garages.

Is that the case for some of those homes?

Yeah, um, so some of these we have um you know, the the 60-foot wide lots could accommodate that.

Yeah, that's and that is a part of our product that we do offer.

Okay, so some homes will have not necessarily just the standard two-car garage, but they may have an RB garage or a three-car garage.

That's yeah, that's correct.

The 60-foot wide lots could accommodate that.

All right, thank you.

That's all just a clarification.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Damien.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

Damien Snodgrass Associate Planner.

The applicant's request tonight is the annexation and zoning of 68.5 acres into RS4 single family residential, RD two-family residential, and BC community business zoning districts with a potential development agreement, and a subdivision preliminary flat off of Canada Road and 11th Avenue North.

The concept is for the 68 single family attached townhouses, 284 single-family detached dwelling units, and four commercial lots with 38 common lots.

Some of the property details.

Currently, the property resides within Canyon County, and it's under the residential mixed use designation.

To the north and west, uh, we have undeveloped county parcels.

To the south, we have an RS7 single family residential, and this is Canyon Creek subdivision.

And to the east, we have an undeveloped county parcel.

Currently, there is access to utilities within the area, and the history of the property is that there was a pre-application meeting held in June of 2024 discussing a PUD and single family detached two unit townhouses, things of that nature regarding this property.

So, under that, the proposed RS4, BC and RD zoning uh is an allowable use under the residential mixed use zoning designation.

And the homes will be built in the development standards of Nampa City Code 10-8.

Um, within the two mile of the proposed development development, there is an elementary school, single-family residential homes, multifamily units, and a college campus.

Staff found this to be compatible with the comprehensive plan.

So here are the applicable regulations for annexation and zoning, and we will cover these in the findings.

And here's some more applicable regulations, the general regulations around subdivisions, around the RD zone, the BC zone, and the RS zone.

And currently the allowable uses within those zones do follow within each zone.

For correspondence, uh, we have a review from engineering, and there was a pre-application meeting held with the engineering department.

They did provide some comments on the plat regarding the future right-of-way depths and things of that nature, floodplains, and those comments would be attached in the staff report.

There is a request.

There is a traffic impact study that was held for this development, and they give comments about access off of Canada and Landry, as well as access to utilities, the drainage, the irrigation, and floodplains.

For comments from Nampa Fire District, we received general access and water supply comments.

Umpa GIS added some conditions regarding the change of street names and addressing.

This is attached in the staff report.

Valley View School District uh provided some concerns around capacity for schools to hold the influx of students with growth in the valley.

The NAMPA police department provided comments regarding the commitment funds for officers.

Um in summary, this was 1.4 additional officers and 0.73 additional support staff.

And NAPA Park and Recreation request that the developer grant a permanent easement of 20 feet from the top bank along the west side of 10 Mile Creek for the purpose of the 10 mile pathway as indicated by the City of Nampa Pedestrian Bicycle Master Plan.

This permanent easement would transfer to the city Nampa and allow for public use of the pathways for recreational travel.

And we did not receive any public comments on this application.

And here is a the proposed zoning for those plates.

Sorry, needed a little breath.

Staff analysis of the plat.

Um the proposed plat proposes four commercial lots, 38 common lots, 68 town home lots, and some internal roads.

The open space was 15.16 acres of the site with 9.35 acres of that being qualified open space, which goes over the qualifying open space standards that are necessary within the city.

The total residential gross density of the development was 4.52 units per acre, which is well within that residential mixed use of 2.51 to 8 dwelling units an acre.

The comprehensive map is residential mixed use and parking for the commercial uses will be determined at the time of the building permits.

So the staff analysis of the RD zone.

Here are the base lot sizes that are necessary for single family or duplex townhouse lots, but when you have townhouses like this where the property line is going through it, it's cut in half.

Each unit gets 3,000, meaning that the total unsplit lot is 6,000 square feet.

Currently, all of the lots within the proposed plat comply with this.

Staff analysis of the RS zoning.

It meets the density and sizing requirements that are currently for the RS4 zoning, which is 4,000 8,000 square feet.

The proposed lot sizes are between 4,307 square feet, 7,990 square feet.

The density range has been met for this zone, and all of the lot widths and depths have been met.

And again, the qualified open space does meet city code.

It exceeds it by 0.7%.

Alright.

Staff findings for annexation.

The first is that all landowners have consented to the annexation.

There has been an affidavit signed, so staff has found this to be met.

That the property shall be contiguous with city limits or be enclaved by other properties, so annexed.

Staff has found this to be met.

It is contiguous to the south.

The NAMPA comprehensive plan includes the area of annexation.

Staff has found this to be met under the RMU designation.

And when applic when applicable for annexation of roadways, all portions of highways lying partially or wholly to be annexed with a contiguous parcel unless by express agreement with the highway maintenance districts and indicates otherwise.

It complies with the memorandum of understanding currently in place with the city of NAMPA and NAPA Highway District.

Staff findings for zoning.

So here are the applicable criteria for that.

That the proposed map amendments is or would be in harmony with the city's currently adopted comprehensive plan and comprehensive plan land use map, that the proposed amendments is or would provide for a proposed use or set of uses that would be at least reasonably compatible with existing and adjoining property uses, and that the proposed map amendments is in the best is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary.

So the relevant facts are the code descriptions under the RD, RS, and BC zoning, which fall under that comprehensive map.

That per the comprehensive plan 563, the comprehensive land uh land use map and the comprehensive plan endorses having mixed use type developments as such.

The comprehensive plan is compatible with visual relationship to nearby buildings and intermediate streetscape.

That the comprehensive plan defines this as a residential area and supports residential uses within the vicinity.

Structures within the BC zoning districts will be subject to design review standards.

There's a current need for housing in NAMPA city limits.

The 15% open space is required, and this succeeds it.

And there are current access to utilities and city services at the property.

Weighing all of these facts that the proposed zoning map of amendments for the parcels as follows is in harmony with the city's currently adopted comprehensive plan and comprehensive planned land use map because it establishes an area of RD, RS, and BC zoning that provides single family and two family attached housing that would be compatible with future zoning in the area because those proposed zoning districts are permitted under the comprehensive plan and future land use map under that residential mixed use designation.

The BC zoning provides commercial uses within the allowable percentage under the RMU designation.

The future land use map was established after analyzing the land uses and compatibility.

This application does provide a set of uses that would be reasonably compatible with adjoining properties because the proposed uses that are determined to be incompatible with that comprehensive plan for the NAMPA City Code 10 3 2 schedule of uses.

The structures are subject to design review standards, and it will provide open space and amenities for future residents and make frontage improvements that will buffer along larger frontages.

And it is in the bet public interest and reasonably necessary because it proposed a development that will provide a variety of housing types that complies with adopted city codes and it has city services readily available, and the traffic infrastructure improvements are either in place or will be required to be in place at completion and is compatible with that comprehensive plan.

Here are the recommended conditions of approval that the applicant owner shall dedicate the following public road right-of-way as a condition of annexation that the fronted road improvements along all frontage shall be constructed in accordance with NAMPA City Code 9-3-1.

And NAPA standard drawings at time of property development.

The developer is responsible for providing gravity sewer connection to Canyon Creek subdivision, thus allowing the Canyon Creek lift station to be abandoned.

The developer is responsible for coordinating project sewer improvement timeline and a construction to meet the future perandum trunk line and Eustach Road.

Any on-site walls and septic systems are to be abandoned.

The property shall be annexed into the Nampa municipal irrigation district at time of connection.

Developer shall submit an updated traffic impact study and prepared in court accordance with City of Napa traffic impact study policy.

Utilities shall be constructed through the site at time of property development.

The developer shall comply with all city codes.

The developer must adhere to the changes necessary to the GIS regarding street names and addressing and the dedication of a 20-foot easement along the west side of 10 Mile Creek and dedicate to the city of Nampa per the pedestrian and bicycle master plan.

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

Mr.

Chair, I I would like to clarify.

Um already.

Thank you.

Questions.

I have a question.

I feel like I missed something in the speed of Amy's presentation.

Really?

This doesn't go to 11th Avenue North, does it?

So they are engineering is requesting that they dedicate right away that goes and creates access to 11th.

So there the piece of property is you can see the dark blue outline there.

They have the a small strip of right-of-way that would be in what the extension of Landry is that goes all the way out there.

Um they are proposing to take the sewer through that.

Um, and so we would require that dedication of that.

And they have that skinny chunk, yes.

Okay.

Yeah.

So they got a dedicated, and then I should know this, but this the stuff that says background, do they have to build that too?

Background traffic issues are issue traffic issues that are there today that are not triggered by the development traffic.

And so, no, they do not have to address background traffic issues.

Okay, so this stuff that says required to be constructed as part of the development.

We have it listed on there like the roundabout at 11th and U stick.

Those if those are background traffic issues, those are not required to be developed by the this development, those are background issues that will be dealt with with impact fees.

So this it's almost putting a it's putting a requirement on the city.

Well, and and it's really it is an existing need, and the impact fees that they pay go into funding those improvements.

But only the ones that say total are the ones that they have to correct.

Okay.

Sorry, Mr.

Chair, can I ask him some questions?

Please done.

Okay, Madam Kirk, do we have a sign-up sheet?

Hello, my name is uh Victor Dowdy, and uh I live at 6182 East Mayfield Drive in Nampa.

Uh the uh Breckenwood developers uh certainly seem to have a good reputation and uh provide uh an excellent product, and that's uh a plus from my perspective.

The fact that uh East Landry Street is the only way in or out of the subdivision has been my biggest concern with this proposal.

When the neighborhood met with the developers in April, we were told that East Landry Street would not be extended through to 11th Avenue no uh north.

So I I'm pleased to uh to see that East Landry Street will now be connected all the way across to 11th Avenue North.

My support for this project is contingent upon connecting East Landry Street across to 11th Avenue North before or in conjunction uh with uh the early phases of this project, otherwise, ingress and egress at the intersection of East Landry Street and North Canada Road will represent a serious safety hazard for current residents, potential home buyers, construction crews, utility workers, delivery vehicles, landscapers, school buses.

I think you get the picture.

It's not a major arterial.

Uh it's not even the main entrance in into Fairhaven, and and Canada along that uh stretch, that's an acceleration zone.

You go from Idaho Center at 35 miles an hour to the traffic circle, and then you got about 50 feet to go 50 miles an hour, and then you have subdivisions breaking off of Canada, and this is not the main uh uh exit off of Canada.

There's no left turn lane, uh nothing.

Um East Landry Street must be connected through to 11th Avenue North prior to or conjunction with the early phases.

At the same time, the traffic impact study uh must be amended to include the new intersection at the corner of East Landry Street, 11th Avenue North.

I don't think that's in the uh traffic impact study.

Traffic impact study was completed in in May, I think, and this was a change that I first saw in the submission from the developer uh to the planning commission in August.

So I mean I was pleased but surprised to see that the road is going to be built all the way through to 11th Avenue North.

With several large uh subdivisions being planned nearby, and the expansion of state highway 16.

There'll be a tremendous increase in the number of vehicles in the area.

Trip generation will go through the roof.

It will be important to know how the traffic increase will be managed for vehicles traveling along North Canada Road, East Landry Street, 11th Avenue North, other intersections in the area.

Will there be traffic lights roundabouts and there's no lanes, left turn lanes, acceleration, deceleration lanes, lower speed limits, which I think is uh really important in this area.

You'll know that 11 half 11th Avenue North, the speed limit is 35, yet on Canada, our speed limit to the same stretch is 50 miles an hour.

So thank you very much for uh listening.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, sir.

Next the next sign up was Becky, but I believe she's the applicant.

That's it.

That's it.

Is there anybody else going on?

Mayfield.

And uh what we've noticed um with the apartments that are being built, just uh increased traffic along Canada and um we in Used at the USTIC the development, the the work going on there, and Canada they put a stop light there.

That stop light caused backup all the way to this Landry entrance, and when that happened, there is no left turn lane going on to Landry.

So when you stop there, you're stopping up all traffic all the way back.

So now you have this increased construction traffic that's gonna be coming in there.

The traffic uh study was done, but is all this work gonna be done?

It's the development canada can be done before it's definitely gonna be needed.

It's like uh the resident was saying it's it's gonna it's already bad there, and it's it's really gonna be a mess.

Um but back to the developer's comments about the um the um residential um the flow of the residential to the south flows to their design.

I would disagree that there's no commercial in the development that we're in, and there is no uh what do they call um twin homes?

So the flow.

If I don't see I I would disagree with the flow uh if we were expecting something that would be similar to the resident to the south.

Um I would have a question about um state highway 16.

I don't know what that plan is, um, but that would definitely seem like that would alleviate some of the traffic problems coming through that area.

Um my understanding was there is there is no street that's gonna be going to 11th, it's just gonna be a right of way for the sewer, is that correct?

So that was a misconception that that's that will that would have helped the traffic flow, but if it's just a sewer ride away, there's gonna be a problem there.

Um what else?

I think that's most of the most of the items.

Anybody have any questions?

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Barbara Davis.

I live at uh 6473 East Path Drive at the very end of where that farm is.

Um, so I wanted to address a couple of things.

Obviously, uh growth and change are inevitable, and while we know we cannot stop it, we can't ask for efforts and consideration to keep things balanced between growth and community needs.

So I'd like to share a few concerns that some of us have.

So, first traffic and safety, as you've heard a few times now, the proposed subdivision has only one entry point on Canada, which is planned to be, well, we thought would plan to be extended, but obviously if it's a sewer uh access road, that changes things.

Um but that is the same the same access point we have for the Fair Haven subdivision on one side.

There's technically the main and then one off of Cherry that you can go through another sub to get there.

Uh our suggested or some of us are suggested solution would be to have dedicated turn lanes uh for all subdivisions that are now along Canada, including our existing Fair Haven and the proposed development.

Umenities and community impact is something of concern for us.

The new subdivision does not include a pool, and uh that's similar amenities that we have, which raises concerns that residents may attempt to use ours.

Uh, we already face issues with children from a neighboring subdivision jumping our fence, so we're working with our HOA to try to get that fence raised.

Uh that's one area of concern.

City services, as a population grows, city services must keep pace.

This includes fire, police, electricity, water and canal systems.

Uh, for example, a house fire last year incurred a longer than average response time from the fire department to extinguish it.

Uh so we know services are stretched and we want to see more than a one-point whatever it is for an increase in support staff, and then irrigation levels are already suffering with little to no pressure for most of the day.

So this could only worsen that additional demand, and that development should not outpace the city's ability to provide these essential services, and we urge consideration of impact fees for new developments so that our taxes are not continually required to raise year after year to cover the cost of growth.

And of course, schools in the area are already at or near capacity, so adding hundreds of new family homes will put additional strain on an already stretched system.

So, in summary, we just respectfully ask that you council you consider carefully these concerns that we have, which require developers to provide solutions that ensure safety, protect existing neighborhoods, and support the necessary infrastructure for growth.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to speak for against or go ahead and come on up?

I wasn't planning on it.

When does it stop?

I mean, I love I love growth too, but it just seems that it is so quick, so fast.

We are bumper cars.

If it's not three different detours on Cherry in the last year, it's eustic.

We are kind we are like mice in a maze trying to figure out how to get to the next.

I work at the Capitol, and sometimes I just have a real problem getting there if I have to go through back roads, so I don't have to use the freeway in the snow or whatever it is.

So just when what is the rush?

I I've been here for five years, and I have not seen our community without cranes, without digging up our streets, without the dirt, without the detours.

We already have problems with our water in our irrigation, and like and like my neighbors have said, are we gonna see levees?

Lots more levies.

Are we gonna we have to support residually these people that are coming into our police and our fire and our schools?

And believe me, when I moved to Idaho, I was I felt so blessed.

You people are amazing here.

And I I want more.

So I don't know what it is.

Is it a bunch of money that was handed to the city and said you got to get this done in a matter of time?

But I'm I'm telling you, it is we we are fatigued, we are fatigued because it just never stops, you know.

And like my neighbor said, we got a huge apartment building here.

We got what is it?

Uh 200 more homes and stuff in this little area.

And so all I'm asking is we are very grateful for our community.

We love our community, we love our schools, we love our government.

We're a rich people here.

All I'm asking is that if you guys can just consider maybe giving us a time to breathe.

I know this is too late, but maybe for the next one, just let us breathe a little bit and um slow it down.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay, that's gonna come back up.

All right, um, so I just want to get some clarifications from Daniel and on Landry.

Daniel, can you address Landry?

Mr.

Chair, Commissioners, um, the requirements for Landry, as we've discussed, um, they would be bringing the sewer down the small, it's about a 25-foot wide strip, not wide enough to develop the roadway, um, but wide enough to bring a the sewer down, and if needed, an emergency access uh location out of the subdivision to 11th, and so that is what we would anticipate being developed there, not a full open street at this time, though obviously once the sewer is there, um it's likely that the other adjacent properties would then uh be able to develop and that street would um then go out to 11th.

Um, but that is at this time the this this development does not own the an adequate with the right of way there to um develop Landry all the way out to um 11th Avenue.

Mr.

Chair, well Daniel's there.

If I remember reading right, I believe on Canada there was a northbound left turn lane and a southbound right turn lane.

Soundry the northbound left turn lane is a background traffic issue uh that shows up in 2030.

Um it is certainly within um where this is an annexation if if you feel that that is um something that is necessary um for you to to make an action on that is something you could recommend to city council that be required in the development agreement that a northbound left turn lane at uh Landry and Canada be installed.

Um that's certainly within your purview, and council then would make a decision on whether or not they they included that in the um the development agreement.

Daniel, can we do that with any of the background stuff or just the ones that are close to the property?

I would caution you stretching that too far.

Obviously, this is at an annexation, and so um council has broader discretion.

The the commission and council has broader discretion at an annexation.

Um if it were already annexed into the city and that then you would we would likely I'll I'll look to Preston, but we would likely have an issue with requiring something in the in the background side there, but at the time of annexation, there is uh broader discretion than if it were already in the city.

Okay, I'd be right.

Okay.

Um we will we will um comply with that that northbound left turn lane if it is conditioned on the project.

Um yeah, um so uh I guess um the to address some of the the comments that were heard.

Um so the commercial is required by the comp plan.

Um and I can defer that to staff.

There's a certain percentage of commercial that's required within the comp plan designation of so within the residential mixed use there's not a requirement, there's just an amount that you can't receive.

Um that's Rodney, I believe that's 15.

Mr.

Chair, Commissioners that it's actually a requirement of five percent um being required for commercial in residential and a maximum of 50 percent.

Okay, so we we were required to provide some commercial, um, but we did our best to um make this development as compatible as as possible.

Um the twin homes, um those homes will be designed to look like a single family home.

There's just gonna be two of them.

Um they're gonna operate as a single family, they are single family homes, just to skip that um right.

Um they are single family homes.

Um they're they're just they're just sharing a wall.

That's it.

Um and and the design of those homes will look like aesthetically will look like a single family home.

Um and as far as the amenities go, um, we you know, we're we're offering two playgrounds and a couple picnic areas, and and a lot of places uh, you know, spaces for people that play that, you know, soccer or you know, kickball, whatever they want to do.

Um and uh we don't want to clutter up those open spaces too much.

Um see um the another thing, um, as far as as far as this development goes, you know, it's it's going to support um the commercial um in the the area, the existing commercial in the area, and then it's also gonna support future commercial, it's gonna bring commercial out there, and especially um the comprehensive plan wants commercial along UC in Canada, um, and this type of density will help bring that commercial.

Um, so it will support the comprehensive plan for years to come.

Um see um as far as the schools go, um, we recognize that the schools um are the capacity is often a concern with new residential growth.

Um but I I do want to say um this will be a phased um subdivision, um so meaning that that the students will be absorbed incrementally, um it's not gonna just kind of dump all at once onto the school districts.

Um so uh this would give the the school district enough time to plan accordingly um for those incoming students over the years.

Um and I believe that's all I have.

I have a minute.

Do you guys want to come up and see?

I think we're good.

Questions?

No.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair, can we close the public hearing?

Second, it's been moved by DAF or a second by Garner to close public hearing.

All those in favor?

I mean opposed.

Public hearing is closed, um.

Is there any concerns with the irrigation or water pressure?

Um I am not aware of any um I've not been made aware of any issues with the irrigation in that area.

This property does have irrigation rights, and so they will bring additional water um rights to the system.

Uh, and so we can certainly we've from a modeling perspective, we've looked at it and we we did not see any issues with either domestic or irrigation system.

Um if there are operational issues, um, please let us know and and we can work with the operations crews to try to identify and address those.

Um but from the engineering side of things, I don't we did not identify any any issues.

perspective we've looked at it and we we did not see any issues with either domestic or irrigation system um if there are operational issues um please let us know and and we can work with the operations crews to try to identify and address those um but from the engineering side of things I don't we did not identify any any issues other questions thoughts I just make a comment if I could sir um I I know we're we're all fighting this growth issue but some of us have been here for a long time but it's definitely gotten worse but as you can attest this place is people love this place and that's why they're moving here and and we're still one of the hottest places even though our prices are extremely high if you see interest rates come down you're gonna see a a big shift of people coming again so it it's just a matter of trying to keep up with the demand if the demand's not wasn't there these people wouldn't be doing this and spending this kind of money so there's a there's a definite demand and schools the way they get funded you pretty much have to have 15 portables around it before you can get the taxpays to put in another school so it's just a crappy way of having to do schools but they they do get maxed out but I think if they're willing to put in a left turn lane on northbound Canada that will definitely help on landry.

I wish the subdivision to the south would have had one put in not because that is a mess on Canada when you're trying to go north but um at least getting the left turn lane on the one would would definitely help so I I'm for the proposal and I think that's the only thing I want to add is that northbound left turn lane.

Yeah I think that's just about a must yeah chair I uh uh I agree with uh what's been said and I think I this is affordability is an issue and I I most subdivisions this big come in with a pool and things like that and I one monthly building it's overlooked a lot of HOA fees you know not having one makes the edgeway fees smaller and therefore more affordable and so I don't like people jumping into somebody else's pool either like that's really frustrating and I've been there but I also don't like how much I have to pay for my HOA fees you know so I having the option would be nice it is interesting this is the biggest subdivision that's come through that hasn't proposed uh a pickleball court but besides the point that's that's the last year that's it is not learn how to play that so I my concerns with traffic are most of the things that get built around here I'm feeling better about because they can hop on Ustick and go to highway 16 and not have to go down Canada in order to do that here you got to make a left turn onto Canada which I don't know I'm looking to Daniel can you ease my concern there at all so if they are putting a left turn lane in a left northbound left turn lane um they have to you know obviously do some widening north of the intersection to to accommodate the lanes so that we're not you're not deadheading a lane into that north turn lane so um that will help address that um whether it's I mean that's that's something we can look at with them to identify if we need some storage pocket in the north um currently one sec let me look at the I don't believe Landry goes to the west or to the east there no it doesn't so um they could uh add some some storage pocket length in there as they do that um we would want to work with their traffic engineer to identify what was appropriate for that um as we work as they they do their designs and landry coming onto Canada will have a right and a left turn lane I certainly yes they it would that that is wide enough that um with their development that will be a fully improved collector and we'll have a center we'll be able to have a center left turn lane Mr Chair and piggyback off that it looks to me like on the site plan that the commercial is taking access off of just straight off of uh Canada Road there would that and that that doesn't trigger them needing to put in a middle lane so we would look at that with what actual commercial goes in there and the trip generation for that we would we would look at that again to identify whether um you know when a specific commercial use went in what their traffic volumes are and whether that triggered the need for um a left turn lane there at that location um but without knowing what type of commercial is going in there it's we just go off of general numbers um until they come in with specific uses um and based on that it doesn't appear that it requires something at this time but that would be reviewed again when the specific uses come in but this development will dedicate enough space for us to put that in correct it seems dense I'm having a hard time with that much density out there but I haven't I just we still have to adjust our mind to use

Um and based on that, it doesn't appear that it requires something at this time.

But that would be reviewed again when the specific use is come in.

But this development will dedicate enough space for us to put that in.

Correct.

It seems dense.

I'm having a hard time with that much density out there, but I haven't I just we still have to adjust our mind to U stick being the corridor that it's gonna be, right?

That and the zoning that they're requesting, you know, they're not going for it's community.

No, they have to RS4.

So yeah, I mean I think so.

And I think what what I like is that the commercial it looks like coming off of Landry that they have going into the twin houses with the commercial, right?

And so the twin houses I think are a part of buffering between the residential and the commercial, and so they're kind of grading it out density wise, you know, towards the lower density to the west.

But it's all up against RS7.

The old frame of reference, we should be getting less dense as we move away from town, but now we're getting going more dense back to U stick with the.

Well, yeah, because you're gonna get a hired method, but there's a there's a uh landscape berm there, isn't there?

Along Landry.

No, but it's you know you think about uh how far are they from CWI landscape and all those they are required to have a landscape buffer.

It's not necessarily a berm item.

I don't remember specifically on the south side whether they put a burm.

Correct.

You got that plus the backyard plus the road.

So it's not like property back property lines back up to the back property line.

So I think there's quite a bit of distance there, so that's why I wouldn't do worry about it.

And I mean when highway 16 opens and U stick expands and the growth happens out there, that whole area is gonna completely change.

So commercial, yeah.

I mean it's a necessity, right?

Mr.

Chair, Commission.

Um the the city is um undertaking a project for widening on Eustach from 16 to Phyllis Canal currently.

Yeah, and then we have in the next it under design is a signalized intersection at uh Canada and Eustach that will finish that out to the Phyllis Canal that is funded, I believe in 2027.

Um and so would likely be coming online very shortly after this, you know, they started building houses.

Yeah, um, but before the majority of any homes would go in.

Thank you for that, Daniel.

Well, Mr.

Chair, if no one else is gonna discuss, I'll shoot something, throw something out there.

We'll see.

It's been moved by second by Mr.

Chair.

Can we clarify that that northbound left turn lane is Canada and Landry?

Right, yeah, right.

Canada and Landry.

Okay.

That's been moved and seconded.

All those in favor.

I think there's any opposed.

Okay.

Motion carries.

And adjourn Peggy's not here.

Um stuck here for two weeks.

Should we go to the other end of the bench?

I just say that.

I make a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Second.

Motion and second to adjourn the meeting.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?