Okay, we're gonna go ahead and call the meeting to order.

Want to extend a warm welcome to all of you for coming tonight to our regularly scheduled public hearing for the planning and zoning commission.

We'll go ahead and start with a report, or let's go ahead and do a roll call, Madam Clerk.

Garner.

Turner.

Keyhoe.

Here.

Morgan.

Your Kirkman.

Salman.

Here.

Copeland.

One absent.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Um Rodney, how about report on council actions?

If you feel like it.

I will that looks familiar.

Yeah.

Um Mr.

Chair and Commissioners, we actually don't have any items to report on from council this past uh week.

Last week, and we just didn't have any planning and zoning related public hearings.

Um that was, of course, the um the Idaho Center um decision about going to uh CWI, and that, as you probably all know, um, that was approved to transfer that ownership.

So that really doesn't have anything to do with with us, but I did want to report on um the AICP or the excuse me, the APA American Planning Association's conference that we had.

Several of you attended that training.

Hope it was really helpful.

Um, I really appreciated you attending and just showing your your support for that and uh interest in learning more about uh planning.

approved to transfer that ownership so that really doesn't have anything to do with with us but I did want to report on the AICP or the excuse me the APA American Planning Association's conference that we had several of you attended that training hope it was really helpful I really appreciated you attending and and just showing your your support for that and uh interest in in learning more about uh planning um and then at that conference we were awarded two uh two pre-significant awards uh the gym award um and and the other one was the public um participation award so that that was for our citizens guide to planning um and that was best in show is what they called it and uh and then uh the other one was our downtown implementation plan um that you've already you've already seen and recommended on to city council um so that one um is just basically we took a whole bunch of different planning efforts and different locations where people were having to go um to find out how to develop in the downtown or or how to um you know work on their facade or whatever and we combined it into one document so that's one source for people to go to for information about the downtown and then we created a process outline to help people know okay where do you start who who has what information for you at the city and um and then we outlined some tasks or high priority tasks for uh the city to address to start really focusing on revitalizing downtown you've seen some of those already the form based code was uh one of those um strategies that were identified in the uh in the plan and then the second uh one was the um the feasibility study that uh ndc nampa development corporation took on and is is working on um doing a significant project in the downtown and improving some infrastructure in our downtown uh to make it possible to really start redeveloping in the downtown so um just wanted to highlight my team they did an amazing job and um i think it was well deserved um we've got some good team members who worked really hard on it and others uh came up to me at the conference and just said hey we're using your citizens guide to to planning um to help communicate to our our citizens what what planning means and and why we do the things that we do and so I was glad to hear that that that's really the goal is to just help the citizens of NAMP and really the state of Idaho understand planning better so again just a great shout out to my my team who worked really hard on those two awards how frequently does do would we get the opportunity to host that conference something to come to we have never hosted it before not ever that's awesome so yeah well done all right well commissioners uh motion for the uh consent agenda moved second okay we got a motion by Kiho and a second by gap or all those in favor aye aye okay so before we move into our first uh public hearing just wanted to to let you all kind of know how it goes um because the meeting is being recorded um we need to be cognizant of the the noise that's in the room and so if you could please help us and and keep the chatter down to a minimum we will have the times where you're have the opportunity to speak and so if we can just kind of keep it um to a minimum that way that the recording is clear when they go to use it in the future to take down the minutes and and things like that so when the the way that the meeting will go each applicant who has a uh an item being considered tonight will have seven minutes unless it's otherwise agreed that they have more to present their project then staff will get an opportunity to present um they don't have a time limit because they're staff and then at the conclusion of staff's remarks we'll open the public hearing and anybody who's here who you could have previously signed up if you haven't then we'll ask at the end you'll have the opportunity to speak for three minutes each but please um make your make notes as the hearing begins because if there's other people that have said the same thing that you wanted to say you can just reference that you don't have to to reiterate unless you want to and then if you ask a specific question we'll try and make notes of that and then we will ask the applicant when they come back up for their final time for a rebuttal and then once the applicant has had a chance to rebut then we'll close that public hearing and then we will deliberate before we either make a decision or a recommendation depending on whether we decide or whether we recommend to the city council and so that's kind of how it goes and so we'll go ahead and get meeting started now our first applicant are you here okay come on up we already did it yeah yeah uh you you moved it um go ahead and give us your name and uh address for the record please uh I'm Nia Gore this is William Gore 612 first Street South NAMPA thank you

And so that's kind of how it goes.

And so we'll go ahead and get meeting started now.

Our first applicant, are you here?

Okay, come on up.

We already did it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

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

I'm Nia Gore.

This is William Gore, 612 First Street South.

Thank you.

So we're Rocky Mountain Jet.

We sell new vessels as well as parts and accessories for the vessels.

With the mini jet boat industry being so new, there are not many places in the valley that sell products for these boats.

The most common way to purchase boat products is online.

We are hoping to provide a physical location that will allow customers to come in and view the products before making their purchase.

We also understand how important water and boat safety are.

Therefore, we hope to be a place where customers can learn the ins and outs of their watercraft to ensure they keep themselves and others safe on the water.

In our experience with customer service, we have found it extremely reassuring to find someone who understands the mechanics of, for example, the car we drive.

Whether it be how to use something or what part may be necessary to fix it.

It is our goal to provide the kind of customer service to others that we always hope to receive in our own daily encounters.

Rocky Mountain Jet is also an authorized vendor for Idaho Parks and Recreation.

This gives us the ability to register motorized vehicles to legally operate on the water.

In addition, we can also issue non-invasive species stickers for both Idaho and out of state residents.

Both are essential and convenient to the community to ensure rules and regulations are being followed.

We have received nothing less than exceptional customer service during this process and want to thank everyone who has guided us along the way.

We are excited to be in NAMPA and to have a positive impact on our community.

We hope you will see the potential on our business that our business could have with the acceptance of the conditional use permit.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Um your business operates there currently, correct?

Correct.

And so this is just in an addition to what you're already doing.

You're going to open up, you want to open up for a redeal.

Yeah, we were we were here last year.

We were approved for the permit.

We were not able to get all of our paperwork submitted on time.

Okay.

So at this point, our building permit has been submitted the day after everything was expired.

So for all set at this point, and everything's been submitted.

All right.

Well, any other questions?

Yeah.

Um is this a showroom type?

Yeah, yeah, we sell new boats, consignment boats.

And then have them out there on in a in like an indoor showroom.

Correct.

Or you'll have them correct.

If they don't fit, we have some out front too.

All right.

So yeah, go ahead and take a seat, and then we'll call you back up after our public hearing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

My name is Terry Friend, associate planner for the city of Nampa.

The request before you this evening is for a conditional use permit for approval to sell new jet boats, parts, and accessories in a downtown village zoning district at 612 First Street South.

This property has a future land use designation of downtown.

It is zoned downtown village.

To the north is downtown village and heavy industrial zoning.

To the east and south is downtown village zoning, and to the west is industrial zoning.

Listed on this slide in and in your packet is a history of the applications related to this property of significance for your review today.

Is that the same request by the same applicants, William and Nia Gore, uh for Rocky Mountain Joe Jet came before the commission on June 25th, 2024.

At that time, the requested CUP was approved, and the actual CUP was issued and recorded July 11th after the appeal period had passed.

No building permits were applied for within six months of the date of the CUP being issued.

So in March of 2025, a building code compliance special investigation file was opened to investigate operations on the property without a certificate of occupancy.

The site inspection found that the building is being used as a uh for boat repair and boat fabrication, along with a portion of the building being used for equipment and accessory sales.

Following that, a notice of order was issued in July 2024 for lack of completing the conditions of the conditional use permit.

Although the Gores and City staff have been in frequent communication, nearly a year passed with no certificate of occupancy application being submitted.

So in late July of 2025, the GORS were notified that their CUP was officially expired and that they would need to apply for a new CUP.

I did receive an update today confirming that the commercial tenant improvement building permit application was recently submitted.

Mr.

Quick question before we move on.

Sorry.

The notice and order that was issued, was it a seasoned assist, like stop your operations?

It was not.

Okay.

So that brings us to the new the new CUP application that's before you today.

The application states that Rocky Mountain Jet will be selling mini jet boats as well as parts and accessories for boats and the boating community.

The slide shows on this slide shows pictures featured in their build gallery page from their website.

Because sale of new boats and boat parts and accessory are not a listed land use in our chapter 10, sorry, Title 10, Chapter 3 Section 2 schedule of land use control.

Tonight we're using code 10-3-2.b.

That's the code for unlisted land uses.

Bulleted so that we can look at them one by one.

The first section of the code allows the planning director or designee to determine a similar use or use that is listed in the chart and apply those to the districts as they are listed in the chart.

So using this, staff has determined that boats or vessels align with automobiles or cars or sorry or trucks, which do have uses in the chart.

New auto sales and auto parts sales and accessories are allowed uses in the DV zone with a conditional use permit.

The next part of the code requires that the similar uses that we're using not be inconsistent with the purpose of the district, nor impair present or potential uses of the properties in the area, nor be detrimental to the neighboring area that is specifically listed in the table.

The third portion of the code says if there's multiple uses or activities involved, that the most intensive activity shall be considered as the primary use.

So we like to look at compatibility.

So the proposed development is reasonably compatible with the surrounding area as it exists today.

The proposed business does serve a public interest.

It's going to be creating local accessibility to many jet boats, parts and accessories.

With many jet boats being a relatively new market.

Rocky Mountain Jet does hope to give consumers a resource for expert and in-person sales and sale sales and advice and an option to purchase locally.

The applicant states that the business is selling new jet boats parts and accessories.

However, that site inspection did find that the building is being used as a shop for boat repair and boat fabrication, in addition to the parts and sales and accessories sale.

The investigators' findings are supported by information found on Rocky Mountains website.

Two clips from the website are shown on the screen.

On the left, you can see them say here at Rocky Mountain Jet we build service and sell aluminum jet boats.

And on the right, you see Rocky Mountain Jet not only creates a custom boat build of your dreams but also maintains and repairs them.

With the stated emphasis on building custom made jet boats and doing boat repairs and maintenance, sale of new boats and parts and accessory doesn't accurately reflect the primary business focus, nor the most intensive activities related to their business.

More applicable might be the code found in the table, excuse me, the land use found in the table of manufacturing, assembly, and packaging of products from previously prepared materials.

Unfortunately, that is not an allowed use in the downtown village zone.

Boat repair is also one of the buildings' activities identified in the inspection and stated on their website.

Vehicle repair is not an allowed primary use in the downtown village zone.

So referring again to that code of unlisted land use.

The code does require, and this is kind of double negative, that the proposed use shall not be inconsistent with the purpose of the district.

So it's important for us to understand what the purpose of the downtown village zoning district is.

And it is intended to be a transitional district between downtown business and downtown historic zones.

It is intended to be a mixed use with a strong focus on higher density housing and nearby compatible business offerings.

The comprehensive plan speaks to neighborhood commercial developments, which supports small scale commercial uses within the proximity of residential developments.

The plan suggests that these would include convenience services like daycares or salons, along with a mixed use of professional offices, markets, banks, restaurants, and similar things.

That doesn't describe Rocky Mountain Jet, with its target market being the Treasure Valley and beyond Rocky Mountain Jet would better be described as a regional commercial development.

And those aren't necessarily intended to be compatible with or support nearby residential communities.

A few additional facts of to consider is that right now there is no housing in the vicinity of this subject property.

But it is an area of redevelopment.

Rocky Mountain Jet's property currently is unimproved.

The site does not have sidewalk curb, gutter, landscaping, nor park nor paved parking.

But if the CUP is improved approved, the development would be required to make those improvements.

Several agencies did provide comments for this.

The building department's comments really center around that special investigation, and that boat fabrication and boat repair operations do not fall within the current type B use classification, which is the building's classification from the last permitted use at the property.

If the CUP is approved, it's going to require an occupancy classification that matches that boat fabrication and repair operations that are occurring on the site.

Engineering specifies that the street providing access is going to be first street south, which is classified as a local road.

They also confirm that the parcel is served by city water, sewer, and pressurized irrigation.

And they advise that there is presently an active deferral agreement between the city and the property owner to delay the frontage improvements, but the change of occupancy classification is a qualifying event that would trigger the requirement for those frontage improvements to be completed.

The fire districts comments again focused primarily around their site inspection, which revealed that in correct occupancy class.

They do tell us that an appropriate occupancy class is critical because the related building codes are based on that classification, and as well as the occupancy load differs based on the occupancy classification, and so those code requirements also differ based on that occupancy load.

So it's really important to get that right so that we've got our building safety life safety codes accurate.

And lastly, the Idaho Department of Transportation has dealer per dealer operations.

They do require dealers to have permits for vehicle and vessel dealers as well as manufacturers and distributors.

Those are two separate licenses that are required for Rocky Mountain Jets operations.

They do have those two licenses and they are current.

They were reissued in September of 2025.

However, both of those licenses still show the previous location of their business, which was in Caldwell.

The required change of location paperwork has not been filed with ITD.

That change of location paperwork is gonna have a couple of triggers with it also.

It's gonna trigger a zoning verification letter from the city as well as a certificate of occupancy.

Since those two things can't happen yet, the permits haven't been updated.

So that concludes the agency comments.

So we can move on to the meat of things, which is the CUP criteria.

We've seen this before.

Criteria one asks whether the primary land use is supported by the comprehensive plan.

We've talked about how the comprehensive plan really strives to be for NAMPA to be business friendly.

It does recommend neighborhood commercial development in proximity to residential developments.

It encourages regional commercial developments, which provide the city with a wide range of goods and services.

And addressing the regional commercial development, the comp plan does recommend that these be located adjacent to collector and arterial roads, and that they provide some supporting uses to adjacent neighborhoods or attract with an attractive interface and convenient pedestrian connections.

So as we've already discussed, Rocky Mountains business location is at the intersection of two local roads, and in terms of interface with adjacent neighborhoods and pedestrian connections, we know that the property is lacking here because it has not been improved.

Criterion number two requires that the design construction and operation and maintenance of the property and the project will not adversely impact the intended character and appearance of the general vicinity.

As previously stated, the subject property is reasonably compatible with what's existing there now, but it doesn't necessarily match the downtown zoning, excuse me, downtown village zoning where this area is intended to redevelop as mixed use with residential and compatible businesses.

The code does require that the most intensive use be considered as the primary land use.

The most intensive use here is the boat fabrication or boat repair.

We've talked about how those are not necessarily allowed uses in the downtown village zone.

Criteria three is pretty straightforward.

It does require that the primary it asks about the primary land use being served adequately by public facilities and services.

We've got this box checked because it does have existing city services from police and fire as well as water, sewer, and pressurized irrigation.

Having a business at this location does make efficient use of city services.

And our fourth criteria tonight addresses the proposed use of the operation, will not be detrimental by reason of traffic noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors.

And again, this evaluation is going to go back to the building department's evaluation related to the occupancy classification.

And excuse me, and getting that corrected.

So for our CUP criteria today, you'll see those as identified on this chart.

In summary, Rocky Mountain Jet, having it be in our city is a benefit.

The challenge comes from the limitations of the specific property that they've selected for their business location.

The first concern is the property is being in the downtown zoning district.

The commercial land uses allowed in this zone really reflect the intention for the downtown village to redevelop as an active mixed use residential and neighborhood commercial business area, but Rocky Mountain isn't that desired type of business.

We're talking tonight about the conditional use permit for new vehicle sales, which is an allowed use in the downtown village zone with an approved CUP.

So is Rocky Mountain Jet selling mini jet boats?

Yes, they absolutely are without a doubt.

However, these are not boats that you purchase just straight off the lot from an available inventory of boats.

They are specialized and they are being custom made to order.

That requires manufacturing or fabrication.

And to be full service for their customers, Rocky Mountain Jet also needs to offer boat repair.

It's those activities that are difficult to fit into the allowed uses in the downtown village zone.

They are better suited to other districts available throughout our community, including community business, gateway business, or industrial zones.

The second but separate hurdle for this property is the site is unimproved, and currently the building does not meet the certification for the occupancy type that their building, excuse me, that their business requires.

Requiring a property to meet site development standards is the way that we move forward to the vision of the city that we want.

We have to do that one property at a time.

Building codes protect lives and property.

The analysis of this request is complex, and there are factors in support and against approval of the conditional use permit.

Of the four criteria used for evaluating a CUP staff finds that criteria number three has been met, but that the other three criteria really need your discussion and review for the decision.

This is really super tiny on the screen, but it is also listed in your staff report.

With this conclusion, you have evaluated the facts and the agency input and any public comments today, and you determine that with conditions, any issues can be mitigated, and the proposed business operation can meet the criteria for the approval of a CUP for new vehicle sales.

If you do choose to approve, there is a long list of conditions of approval listed in your packet.

On the screen is just a summary.

Alternately, you can go the other way.

Two, the vehicle sales is not the most intensive land use occurring there.

Um so it can't be considered as the primary land use.

And three, the land use associated with boat fabrication and boat repair are not allowed in the DV zone.

Here's your conditions for um sorry, your possible uh motions, and I'm happy to stand for any questions.

Mr.

Chair.

Did you start over?

I wasn't paying attention.

I'm just kidding.

Um I will go first, then we'll go Commissioner Turner, then we'll go to Commissioner Kehle.

Gary, what's the current occupancy?

Is it different than B?

The current occupancy is type B.

That's based on the previous um tenant of that space.

If the if they're considered really just new vehicle sales, that would also be a type B classification.

It's the uh repairs and the fabrication that are taking them to a different occupancy type.

What would they take them to?

I'm sorry, I should know the answer to the question, but it wasn't in my materials.

Okay.

Um just to the kind of the northwest, isn't there an auto-body repair shop?

It's probably outside the district, but it's probably really close.

Right across the street perfectly.

Yeah, there is an auto-body repair shop.

It is in an industrial zone.

Okay, and and I think if I remember right from driving over there all the time, there's another one to the southeast that would be in the same district.

I don't have that one noted.

I believe there's two of them.

The one I'm thinking of is caliber collision.

And that's an industrial kind of southeast of it.

I'm sure it's perfect.

Another auto body perfect.

It's right across the street.

Yeah.

So it would be in the district.

So I'm just thinking if if if there's already one there, granted it was probably in before the zonings were changed, but I'm thinking it probably fairly aligned with the auto-body repair shop.

So that's what I'm saying.

That's it.

That's an excellent point, Commissioner.

I do have a note that the zonings were changed in 2005.

So I don't know the time frame for the other business.

Commissioner Keel.

Uh Tara, do you have a copy of the appetite of illegal interest?

Your slides.

It's it's on the slide, but it isn't sorry.

Does the city attorney have a copy of that?

Do you have a copy of that?

Oh.

Uh well, my question is what's the city attorney?

This is a city of NAMPA planning and zoning department uh affidavit of legal interest.

And everything has been changed to fit out of state.

It says instead of Idaho, it says North Carolina.

And several other comments, not comment items have been changed.

Is that still make it a legal form if it's not printed portions of the form that say state of Idaho?

Idaho has been scribbled out in North Carolina, has been written in by PIN.

And so there's some areas where there's been some scribbles and some stuff written.

So that's the question.

But the documents notarized.

That's why.

Yeah, that uh vice chair.

I think the question is, you know, what was the basis for striking it out for North Carolina?

Um that's a question, my immediate question.

Is that where you executed it?

Typically that's where you'd you'd see a strike out.

Um that's not uncommon to see strikeout.

Sometimes there's a template or form, and people say, oh, this is being executed in a neighboring state, we're gonna exit it out.

Oh, thank you, Peggy.

Yeah, I think it'd be a fair question to um to inquire if this was executed in North Carolina.

If that's the case, um just scanning through it right now.

Does the owner lives in California?

I think the I think the the question is was this um executed in North Carolina?

I I agree that's it's a little unconventional to see it like this.

Well, there's a lot about the application unconventional, and that's not disagreeing with you, yeah.

I think it's a fair question to ask the applicant for more details on that.

That's uh essential element for the application for the affidavit of interest.

Okay.

Okay.

Um with that, we will move to the public hearing.

Mr.

Vice Chair, I'm sorry, I was trying to formulate my question before I had Dan or Mr.

Kirkman.

So in the packet, it says that uh NAMPA has numerous new automobile and truck dealerships that can be referenced for comparison to this operation.

Was there any R V dealerships or other RV dealerships, either repair or new sales or anything like that that was referenced for maybe comparison?

Because RVs dealerships don't necessarily fit in that in those categories either, Chairman and Commissioner Kirkman.

That's a great point.

Um I use new vehicle dealerships because we were comparing it to on that can the chart.

We were comparing it to automobiles and chart.

So no, I didn't look at RVs.

Because it seems like a boat dealership would be more of an RV type of a dealership than an automobile dealership.

Just just wondering out loud.

And then right across the street also is buy rider, which is a automobile dealership right across the street there, too.

I don't know if that falls in the D V district, but pretty dang close.

Mr.

Chair, I I'm looking at the land use table in 1032, and mobile home manufactured home and RV sales is a listed um item in the table and is not permitted in the Dr.

Yep, not permitted in the D V zone at all.

Okay.

Manufacturing no of RVs that would be permitted, also not permitted, but more for industrial or someplace like that.

That's correct.

All right.

Uh writing, so I guess that's a after after the public gets a chance, you get to come back up.

Yeah, yeah, you will.

It's okay.

You can you're you're you'll get a comeback up.

Okay.

Any further questions?

All right.

We're gonna go ahead and move to public testimony now.

So we'll open the public hearing, and as we do so, um, those that would like to testify, once again, you'll have three minutes timed to come up and and share your thoughts.

Um, and please, when you come up to the microphone, please first give us your name and your address for the record.

Madam Clerk, do we have a sign-up sheet?

We do not have anyone signed up for this.

Okay.

Is there anybody in the audience or online that uh would like to testify on this either for and or against my name's Justin Buckholtz, running for mayor of Napa?

Um just sitting in this one at this.

Sorry.

416 Meyer Avenue, NAP, Idaho.

Just by watching this one, looking at the maps, seeing what's around it.

There's no reason why this should be denied.

Change of the code to where it needs to be.

Let's cut the red tape.

Um there's businesses nearby that do the same thing.

I know there's technicalities, but those technicalities get in the way of people living prosperous, pursuing happiness.

So my advice, I'm just sitting in the one meeting.

This needs to change.

Let's cut the red tape.

Let's approve this.

Any questions for me?

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Um would you guys like to come back up?

How long do I have to talk?

As long as we keep asking questions.

We have five minutes.

Can we restart that?

Well, do I need to say my name and address since we already stated that?

No.

Okay.

Well, this has been a fun journey, guys.

We we started out in Caldwell.

We outgrew our shop.

We found a place in Napa that fit our needs.

We went and looked at the location.

And what we saw was railroad tracks.

Trains crashing all day long.

Lots of noise.

We saw an empty lot next door that the city of Napa owns and doesn't maintain at all.

People park stuff there of their own accord.

Next to that is a gas station for the police officers and city officials or whoever, I guess.

Then you do have an auto body shop across the street to the southeast.

You have Simplot's Kwanzaa huts to the south of us.

You have another empty lot.

I'm sorry, this is detrimental to my family for this lot to get approved.

We were told that the city of Napa was gonna be on our side on this.

That was from Christie.

There is nothing there besides industrial all around us.

Valhalla Pub fits the downtown village district very well.

It looks great, fantastic.

Lots of motorcycles, lots of drugs, awesome place.

We were told that when we rented this property that it was zoned industrial.

We were young, we were naive.

We didn't look into that any further.

Look around it.

Why would we think it was anything else than industrial?

So we took over this lease from the tenant before us, and he told us that he was doing dealership sales there before that.

This is a fun one.

We've been arguing about this one forever.

Dana consulting was there previous to us.

Dana Consulting is not a consulting agency.

They are an automotive or a locomotive manufacturing facility.

That was there, two people before us, then shop equipment specialties came in, and they were running shop upgrades out of that location, as well as running this dealership.

Because he didn't do his paperwork correctly, and he never got permits at all.

The use is now changing.

Since 2012 was the last documentation of the change of occupants.

So we've had a lot of fun emails back and forth on that, so you can get that was the start of this whole business.

Now our last public hearing, we were approved for this conditional use permit.

We were told to say that we were doing auto body.

Can anybody tell me what the difference between auto body that's approved for the area and auto repair is?

Auto repair is mechanics.

Auto body, you have to take out motors, you have to disassemble body panels, you have to paint them, you have to prime them, you have to sandblast them, you gotta put them back together, you gotta weld.

What we are doing, we have parts manufactured in Courtalane.

They are shipped to us.

We weld them together.

The most toxic thing that comes out of our shop is our welding fumes.

Let's have some common sense.

Now moving forward, after we got our last use permit approved, happy day.

We're moving on, we're going on to the next thing.

Then we were told that we needed to put in parking spots.

So we called our architect, we had the architect draw a plan since there's no architectural drawings for the building since whenever the owner didn't have any.

We paid an architect 3,500 bucks to do an architectural plan for the building.

Found out how many parking spots we needed.

Then we were told that she was gonna, Christy was gonna make us pave the lot.

I can't afford that.

So what do we do?

Then we found out that they had that deferral agreement.

We looked into that deferral agreement, and we hired our own lawyer to look into that deferral agreement, and she thought we had a decent case.

After her investigations, we had, I guess we didn't have a case.

So then we went back to the owners like okay, would you guys approve this?

Would you guys pay for these improvements?

So we worked, we've been working with the owners of the property, both of them.

One's the owner, one's an investor.

We've been working with Christy from the city, with Sean from the city.

We've been working with property managers, our architect, their architect, their landscape architect.

We have 12 people going on here.

And we're trying to get this done, and we're trying to improve this property, and the plans that we have right now, I don't even know how expensive those are for the landscape architecture, but it looks like a ruby in a goat's butt.

If you look at it, it's gonna be the nicest thing in that area.

Or we'll move the heck out, and it's gonna look like shit.

Excuse my language.

I this is I might lose my house over this, guys.

I don't know where else to go.

So the affidavit, the owner lives in California.

At the time that he was sent the affidavit by the property management, Katrina Reif, he was on vacation with his family in North Carolina, and it was such an urgent matter that he went wherever he was in North Carolina, found a notary, and was you using the note the paper, the affidavit that was sent to him by property management.

So that's why everything's a little messed up there.

This process has been absolutely asinine.

It is collapsing small businesses that are trying to make a living and provide for their families.

I look forward to Idaho Burrito opening soon.

So thank you for your time.

I guess we're out.

Thank you, Mr.

Jordan.

Any questions for the applicant?

I got I got a couple of questions.

So will William Bill what the I usually go by Bill.

Bill?

So um you're gonna a lot of people here that are probably upset with us because we generally try to find a way to say yes.

So if you've noticed a lot of the questions we've been asking, it's oh, there's an autobody shop here.

It's like we're not out to get you.

We're usually we're trying to find an excuse to say yes.

The application was presented the way it was, because she has to lay out the facts, and that's just how this works.

So I understand you being upset, and I would be in your position too.

I bet I don't want you to walk away thinking, oh, we're just trying to find a reason to say no, because that's especially our our commission, we typically don't do that.

I understand that you guys are trying to be on my side.

I understand.

Thank you.

I remember this application came through because it was interesting.

I'd never seen something like this before.

This one kind of stands out in it.

Last time it came through, it was kind of an open-shame.

You presented it.

I think we asked some really off topic questions because we never heard of this type of business, and and we approved it and wasn't a big deal at all.

What I don't remember is the manufacturing part.

I I remember it being sales and refreshment memory.

Did you guys have the auto auto body part of that in your approved?

It was supposed to be on there, and then on Sean's visit, he uh informed me that it was not on there.

I believe last time I looked at that C UP approved, it did say autobody on it or in the description, but it wasn't on the approved zoning for that.

But it was in this meeting, and if we can go back and look at those tapes, we did say that we were doing auto-body.

Okay, I I know it's not in the approved zoning.

That's part of the reason we're discussing it, right?

Um, so uh is your manufacturing it's it's done inside the building, correct?

It's not outside.

No, that we'd be like, yeah, we're inside the building.

Okay.

And uh there's one other question I was gonna ask you.

Oh, so there's like pages of conditions in the packet.

Have you been presented those and you do you understand them?

What condition of what needs to happen?

Yes, like all the planning improvements and all that.

That's all in the works.

It's like a hundred and forty thousand dollars that have to happen at this property.

At this point, all this stuff we we've laid out every parking spot, every bush, every rock is gonna be faced upright when they're wet, it's raining.

It's everything is done.

And it was done just barely before.

Our our landscape architect had some other things going on, and he got this in two days late for the first CUP to be okay.

That's really unfortunate.

It is.

I the reason I'm asking is because if there was going to be an opportunity for you to ask not to have to meet one of those requirements, now's the time, right?

So we can discuss that.

We have for a variance, and the city said no.

Okay.

Well, um, as long as you understand them, I I wanted to make sure that you had seen them and had and understood them because there's a lot of times people agree to things they don't understand, and I don't want that right that to happen to you.

And as far as the dealership being moved, what how we have it right now?

We've been informed by our MBI or motor vehicle investigator that we are allowed by law to have our dealership in a separate office.

Yeah, we can we can have it there, and that's the shop that we were in is my best friend's place of business, so we maintain that location to be able to run our paperwork through that location.

Okay.

All right, well, that's that's all the questions that I had.

Thank you.

Yeah, Mr.

Vice Chair, a couple of quick questions.

Um maybe one.

Are you gonna be storing what kind of materials are you gonna be storing on site?

Is there gonna be a lot of it that's gonna be stored outdoors?

Is it gonna be uh supposed to be uh defenced?

Is it gonna be screened?

I mean, all that kind of stuff.

We have a list of materials that we store there that we had to submit with the building.

Uh anything that's gonna be might be stored outside.

Yeah, and as far as anything, no, nothing is stored outside.

We have oil that we store outside that we have pumped, but it's in a uh a contained barrel.

Okay, yeah.

Okay.

Um and how many employ do you have employees that work for you?

Do I do?

How many we have four?

That's all right.

Okay.

I have a question.

Yes.

If you do change your address for your dealership, uh dealership licenses, will you still be granted them?

If you turn in the change of address, can you still be?

Chris Brander's been waiting for this for a long time.

The only reason we can't see if it has to be no fire zoning officer.

And that's where all of this started.

That's where the whole disappearance started.

We're trying to get a zoning officer to stamp our paper to transfer it.

We had to get, yeah, we had to get the use permit.

That was because the improvements weren't done, right?

So you everything was just kind of a snowball of that.

Right.

Right, okay.

Yeah, we had the COP.

We didn't have the tenant improvement plans, and so they couldn't zone us for the dealership until that happened.

So we've been running our paperwork out of our old location.

Everything so that it doesn't look like you're trying to play the system, right?

I mean that's not what you're trying to do, is play the system by keeping the licenses and no.

No, we're just trying to stay alive.

Yeah, we we we we build boats and we have to have a small business owner myself, so I'm just asking the question if we're looking for here today.

Is that gonna put everything everything able to start address we'll start moving, I guess.

We still have lots of hoops, so okay.

We had a motion by Morgan and a second by Daffer to close the public hearing.

All those in favor.

I Mr.

Chair.

I just got some thoughts, and I I remember this too.

I think all of us do because I thought it was really cool.

And I mean, there's nothing else like it anywhere around.

It's I don't I don't see this as being a huge daily people going in and out of this like a made major boat dealership.

It's a pretty unique and niche market.

So as far as it being on a made arterial, I'm not worried about that.

It backs up the railroad tracks.

The housing, I know what we want to do there because I've been on that working with that too, but I don't see anything like that being anywhere close to this for years.

And these guys are trying to build a business that's really unique and and one of a kind anywhere close to here.

I I just have a hard time trying to wrap my head around saying no to them, even though it doesn't fit exactly what our zoning is.

I think these guys are doing their darndest to make this thing work.

If I mean it nobody wants to live next to those railroad tracks banging cars all night long.

So if these guys uh want to try to do something, I'm all for them.

I I sorry, but I I it whether it's in everything perfectly into the box or not.

I can look outside that and I would vote for giving the CUP because I think these guys are working their darnest to make this thing work.

Mr.

Vice Chair, to echo some of what Commissioner Turner was saying.

Um looking at some of these goals and the of the comprehensive plan.

Comprehensive plan strongly encourages entrepreneurial development and innovative startup businesses.

I think that box is checked here for me.

Um comprehensive plan promotes neighborhood commercial development to support small-scale commercial uses directly connected to or within proximity of residential development.

Well, obviously, there's no residential development around this area unless somebody's living in one of those box cars on the train.

Who knows?

But I I so I I think it checks that box simply because there's an absence of residential development there.

Um, but it certainly connects to I mean it talks about the neighborhood.

Is it is it uh compatible with the neighborhood?

Well, look at the neighborhood down there.

There is an old motel about a block away.

Well, that's right.

Yeah, I forgot about it.

Well, look at where I mean neighborhood doesn't just mean residential homes, it means wherever you're at.

And so I'm looking at that as as the neighborhood.

So for me, that box is checked.

I'm not seeing anything here.

It's right on the edge of a D V, and I I don't know where the boundary is right there at D V.

Is it well the boundary kind of jogs up and perhaps this property?

But it's close enough to the edge of the DV that I'm comfortable with it.

If it was even if it was any further in towards yeah, I mean, there we are.

I mean, is that the red is the is the DV?

Yeah, if it was any more to the down this way, I'm directionally challenged.

I would have a little bit more problem with the location, but again, you've got two auto body repair shops across the street, you got a car dealership across the street.

I I that box is checked for me.

I really can't see anywhere that it doesn't absolutely not check those boxes.

2050.

What's 2050?

That's when that's when it won't check the box anymore, right?

In 2015.

So that's what she's basing it off of is the company.

So the idea is it doesn't comply with all meet back here in 20 uh 2050, and then we'll have the same discussion again.

No, I'm disappointed.

I'm yeah, I'm in support of this.

I I think with the location of where this is at the entrepreneurial, the connection to the neighborhood that's around there right now.

I I really don't have an issue with this.

Couple questions.

I think for the attorney.

And then I might have a comment or two.

Um are we on any shaky legal ground by saying by giving a conditional use permit for something that's not permitted in a zone?

Do we have like you know what I'm asking?

Well, Mr.

Vice Chair and Commissioner Morgan, um, I I'll state what I think your question is.

It's I think what you're asking is this the direction the conversation the deliberations going is towards an approval.

And there the arguments for it um have conviction and grounds, but then there's the other side, which may be an easier argument, right?

Maybe for for denial.

This is a discretionary decision.

You're vested with that authority, and CUPs are your uh province to decide.

And so you don't want to abuse that discretion, you don't want to make your decision arbitrary, capricious, anything like that.

And so if you are finding toe holds or a foothold, albeit there's conflicting evidence, there is room for different decisions, even though there's conflicting evidence in the record.

So it would it's completely legally fine to say in our discretion, this feels more like a dealership than it does a manufacturing facility.

Therefore, we feel like a C UP is a permissible and we should grant it.

I think that's why Terry brought that up right there.

Yeah.

That fourth point.

From my standpoint, I think you have that discretion.

Um I may ask Rodden A P and Z director to weigh in on that point about the the zoning district.

I think I'd like to hear your opinion about that.

But yeah, the the here you you're calling, you're making a judgment call uh in your discretion based off the facts before you.

But Rodney, if you want to chime in on that.

Yeah, appreciate that.

Um yeah, I I think I think that is exactly what I was going to say.

Um the the challenge before you is not do we like this, does it does the is this a uh good use of that property?

It's does it comply with the criteria?

And if it complies with the criteria, then you're good.

Of a C UP.

Of a C UP.

Correct.

The the land use is is a little tricky because we're not absolutely sure what is the primary use of the property.

Uh the primary use of the property, if it is a dealership, then it's an approved use.

And you can you can grant that C UP, no problem.

If it's manufacturing, I think you're stepping out of that area where you're you're in a comfortable spot to approve this.

This is not about whether you or we as staff think this is a good project.

This is about making sure we we are following the criteria listed in code.

And so I think if it's an accessory to the primary use as a a dealership, then you're okay.

If it's uh manufacturing facility that has a dealership as a side gig, then you're probably stepping out of the bounds a little bit.

But isn't that where our discretion as a commission comes into play?

Absolutely.

Yep.

I guess what and I'm driving at this because I want to make sure I I think we're all here trying to approve this.

And I just want to make sure that if we do so, we have good standing, so it holds.

Does that make sense?

So and thank you for that, right?

Um it helps me and our planning team when you elaborate more on this deliberation why you're arriving at the decision, especially in these close calls.

Um you want to have that support.

So articulating the the reasonings, what you've done here has been helpful, and I'd urge you continue to do so.

And but yeah, that discretion is yours, just don't abuse it, uh don't be arbitrary, don't be capricious on that.

So just to make it clear, in my opinion, the any repair or manufacturing is a small accessory use to the primary use of a dealership, and that's why I think it's okay for us to grant C that enough on the record.

That's your opinion, and that's for this body to deliberate, right?

Was that was that not good enough for you, Jeff?

All right.

Um my next question that leads into this.

The way that we've ex the way that we've worded the CUP um, if it doesn't include those accessory things that I think are accessory and not primary, does it give the building department is it weaponize them to be able to say, hey, you're not allowed to do any of this manufacturing or repair there?

Does that make sense what I'm saying?

If I if we grant the CUP as it's written today, or do we need to say something in our conditions, or do we need to do something to make sure they can't go and say, well, they gave them a C UP for a dealership but not for manufacturing?

Yeah, Vice Chair and Commissioner Morgan, I think the it's a good question.

Um as you've heard the staff report, um, I believe on the uh recommendation it was for a um automobile dealership as the primary use.

And so if that's what's been drafted and you want to go a different direction to um I think it was in uh steer away from manufacturing, uh make that explicit in your motion, why you're there and where you're landing on this in terms of primary use, accessory use, and yes, include that in your motion so it's crystal clear what is being approved and what basis.

Okay, so we can do that with the that's just a recommendation.

Well, I know, but we can't just willy-nilly change what it's not advertised that way.

So, like like if somebody brought forth something that said we want to annex as commercial business, and we said uh we'd rather it be neighborhoods.

We can't see what you're saying as far as you know what I mean.

Like as far as the notice that was sent out.

Yeah.

Here you've been presented facts, you've had testimony from the applicant that clarify what their use is, what it isn't, and now you get to make a decision of well, what is the use in your uh opinion as uh our zoning experts?

So is the record is the wet the record take you know give as much weight as the public notice?

What's in the record and what's discussed here?

In my mind, they're one and the same.

The public notice is part of the entirety of the record, right?

It's it's part of this proceeding.

You have the testimony tonight, and you're to balance those together and and strike through it, pierce through it to where you want to land as a commission.

So along with the motion drew, so for example, can I just throw this up here for example?

Instead of saying conditional use permit for sales of new vehicles, parts, and accessories, we would add and as an auxiliary use, light repairs and light manufacturing or something like that.

Yes, that'd be appropriate.

That would that uh that's an okay addition to the motion.

Okay.

That's your that's your finding or proposed motion, then yes.

Yeah.

Mr.

Chair, I just wanted to insert here real quick.

Um, Christy is texting me.

And she said that the building department is ready to issue uh building occupancy of an S1.

So I know that was a question before.

So it's S1.

What's that's one there?

Architect.

Text Christy back and ask him to ask her or good one.

Kevin Elliott here is tell her not to use such arcade or language we don't understand.

All right, and then my last I don't know if this is a question for staff or more of a comment for you guys.

If you go back to the conditions, please.

Um and maybe this is something you guys have already done.

The the frontage improvements, I don't like requiring that.

Oh, not there.

The the side improvements maybe I I guess, but it seems like frontage improvements would almost be a bad idea.

Well, it would be a bad idea because it's gonna get redeveloped at some point into what the comp plan wants.

And at that point, we want to do the right frontage improvements for that development.

Unless, like they said, they've already gone down that road and those things are already in motion.

I think Mr.

Chair and Commission, that unfortunately is not within your purview.

That is a code requirement that would require a variance from city council.

So well it was mentioned before that those frontage improvements were deferred until uh development was made.

Is that not a thing anymore?

And that is a city council decision, not a planning and zoning commission decision.

Okay.

And an S1 is moderate hazard storage occupancy.

Thank you.

Oh, they so Mr.

Vice Chair, if I could add your uh just a comment.

Somebody had mentioned about codes being changed.

And I appreciate the comment.

Unfortunately, codes can't be changed where we sit here at this dais.

They have to be changed at city council, has to go through a process and a hearing and all that other kind of stuff.

So we can't just willy-nilly for convenience change codes.

And I think everybody understands that.

Um, but that's one of the reasons why you know C UP is is has is an avenue to maybe look at some other options and stuff like that.

So just want to make that comment that we're not up here to change code at all.

So I appreciate you bringing that up, Daniel, too, because if that's code, that's what we have to abide by.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes, sir.

Taking it.

What Mr.

Keel.

Yes.

That's me.

Um taking a different track than the rest of you guys.

I used to work two blocks away from this location for 10 years, and nobody was beating down the doors to develop this property or reoccupy the property or anything around it.

So if we could find any excuse to make it a viable business in the city, um forward.

One last comment, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I think the uh real bummer of this whole situation is just not knowing, right?

Like you guys were given a disservice by whoever talked to you into renting that property, telling you things that weren't true about it, and then trying to trust the process and not understanding how to get through that.

And there's a lot of red tape that might not need to be there, and it's unfortunate that you had to go through it this way.

But um I think that we found a way to get through it, and we're all for it.

So I just wanted to put it out there that doing your homework is really important.

So Rodney and uh possibly council.

I normally sit one chair to the right, and so I'm not quite sure.

I can't remember if I am able to vote or whether I'm able to comment.

Both thank you.

Okay, perfect.

Just don't make a motion.

I will not make a motion.

I'll wait until somebody's ready to do it.

So I'm the one who was mixing it up the motion, so I'll give it a shot.

So I move to approve the conditional use permit for sales of the sales of new vehicles, parts, and accessories, along with boat repair and light manufacturing in the DV zoning district at 612 First Street South for Rocky Mountain Jet Boat, William and Nia Gore with recommended conditions and proposed findings for approval as listed in the staff report.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion by Morgan and a second by Selman.

Yeah.

All those in favor.

I posed none.

Okay.

Mr.

Chairman, you got to got a readis paper.

Vice Chairman, it may be more just uh an abundance of caution, but can we do a roll call instead of a voice vote on the I think it was pretty clear what the vote outcome was, but just for the record's sake.

Okay.

I think we're doing all voice vote or all roll calls now.

Yeah, do a do a roll call vote.

Yeah, do a call for a roll call vote instead of a nine.

Madam Chair, could you please do a roll call vote for us?

Uh Garner.

Aye.

Daffer?

Yes.

Turner.

I Keho?

Aye.

Morgan.

I Kirkman.

Yes.

Salmon.

Aye.

Copeland.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay.

Bill and Nia.

I will read this.

Okay, hang on.

Hang on, hang on.

One second.

Not over yet.

C will become effective 15 day calendar days from the date the written decision and reason statement is provided to the applicant, unless an appeal has been filed with the planning and zoning department with the appropriate fee.

No action should be taken on this CUP until the appeal period has concluded.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, everybody.

Okay.

All right.

One more note before we go.

A lot of support too.

Um if you are here for item number 33, the applicant has requested a continuation, and so that will not be heard tonight.

So if you're here waiting for that, please don't wait any longer because you're not going to be able to hear it.

Okay.

Our next item is item 32 action item development agreement modification at the NAMPA Gateway Center, now referred to as the Sugar District.

Modifying ordinance number 4661 instrument 2022 018840 in order to revise the concept plan and eliminate the cap of 750,000 square feet of building area for 14 parcels addressed as 04975-5075 and 5175 East Commerce Street, 1200 1260 1510 North Happy Valley Road, Zero Stam Lane, 1406, 1250, 1232, North Galleria Drive 000 Happy Valley Road.

Parcel numbers, there's a bunch of parcel numbers.

Do I need to read them all?

No.

For Jeffrey Wardle and Clark Wardle LLP representing multiple owners, the original concept amendment to retain existing retail space, eliminate the condition of a maximum of 750,000 square feet of building area, reflect existing lighting, and require new lighting, meet city codes at time of development.

Okay.

Is the applicant here?

I'm assuming you are him.

We are.

Okay.

Name and address for the record.

Mr.

Chairman, my name is Jeff Wardle.

I am counsel for the Gardner Company.

My address is 251 East Front Suite 310 in Boise.

And we're pleased to be here with you tonight on what we think is a fairly straightforward and simple development agreement modification.

Several of you were here when we came through in late 2021, early 2022 with a modification.

And at that time, it was coupled with uh a condition couple conditional use permits relating to the reuse of the Macy's building, relating to some potential residential development.

We did not proceed with the residential development at the time just because the market conditions that we all know in 2000 in 2022 and 2023 just didn't lend itself to that.

We have adaptively reused significant portions of the project, and that's necessitated us coming back for a recommendation on a modification to the development agreement.

So the first element is modification to the site plan.

And those of you that were here and heard this in 2021-2022, remember that we had proposed the demolition of approximately 100,000 square feet of retail space that was going to be repurposed for green space.

What we have found is that there has been an interest in this community for certain recreational uses that have allowed us to retain and reuse that existing retail space.

If you've been out there, there has been the addition of a gym, some other facilities, and we have a new recreational user that is looking at the re retail space that have been proposed for demolition.

And as we've gone through this, the determination was made that we need to modify the site plan, that we're not going to tear down any of that retail at this time.

So what you see there with the modified site plan is, you know, originally we converted the Macy space to light industrial light industrial uh manufacturing and tech space.

We were going to demolish certain retail buildings, and then we were going to modify certain residential development areas.

What we're here to propose tonight is in light of the uh in light of the alternative uses that we've identified and have leased to.

We're not going to demolish that space.

We have added additional hospitality uses with a hotel and a couple additional restaurants out there.

And because we're not demolishing the existing retail spaces, but we remain committed to residential and timings right in conversations with staff.

We've come forward with some text modifications to the sta to the uh development agreement, which include removing that square footage limit, modifying the lighting requirements to reflect what the development requirements will be at the time lighting is installed as part of a development application, because obviously there are different standards for lighting residential areas than work lighting retail areas, and then also just to conform the uses to the approved exhibit.

The text is set forth, those are the three changes that we've proposed, modifying and eliminating the maximum square footage requirement, modifying the lighting provision, and then clarifying that the uses set forth in the original exhibit F are the uses that are to be included.

One note I make from conversations with Rodney, uh, and he validly pointed out that the development agreement, as we drafted, has a misnumbering in it, and that's because a paragraph was inadvertently omitted, uh, which just relates to those uses.

We're not here to rezone, we're not here to modify any of the uses, and I conferred with Rodney, and when we go to city council, I will have the document revised, re-inserting paragraph three, fixing that issue.

So, with that, we believe that it satisfies all of the requirements for modifications of a development agreement, and I stand for any questions.

Mr.

Chairman, Commissioner Kirkman.

I don't know that any of us know what the future of movie theaters are.

The building that is not going away, right?

That's not being demolished.

We're not proposing its demolition right now.

If we do, and and I recognize that's part of the concern, just know that you already have a condition in the development agreement that whatever we do, we have to come back with a traffic study and a traffic study for any use, and if we come back with a residential reuse there or something else, that'll be a conditional use permit back in front of you.

Thank you.

Unfortunately, the 85-inch screen has rendered movie theaters a uh difficult business.

Maybe block business.

That's all I do.

All right.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Um staff.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair and Commission.

Um, this the other day I um was approached by uh pretty predominant um re um real estate agent and um they asked me about this project and said, Oh, are they doing the do they have to come back again for more residential?

And I said, No, that's not what they're doing.

So I think it's it's warranted that we go through a little bit of history here to just set the stage just so everybody's clear on where we're at.

So October 2005, there was an annexation and zoning to BC with a development agreement, all contained in ordinance 349.

Um in February of 2022, City Council approved a DA modification and a conditional use permit request for manufacturing in a BC community business zoning district, but denied a CUP for multifamily residential apartments in a townhouse style, stating that townhouses would not enhance the successful operation of the surrounding area in its basic community function and provide an essential service to the community.

For the approvals, council included a bunch of conditions, and here are those conditions that they approved.

I I just want to highlight three of those that are highlighted in yellow there that are relevant to this request before you today.

The first one is number five, a maximum of 750,000 square feet of building area shall be allowed on the site.

So they're kind of limited on what they how much building square footage they can have.

Um number nine, lighting will normally be reduced after 10 p.m.

The developer retains the ability to maintain lighting later during an atypical event such as the holiday sale season.

And then 13, remove auto sales new and used from the list of allowable uses, and I would say probably boats too.

Just in case.

Just as a side note.

RVs.

Yeah, maybe RVs.

Um March 7th, 2022, City Council reconsidered the request for the conditional use permit for multifamily housing and found that there was no legal basis or conditions of the project that would warrant a denial and remanded the decision to the P and Z Commission.

So in May of 2022, NAMPA Planning and Zoning Commission voted to approve the conditional use permit to allow multifamily residential apartments in a townhouse style on that eastern edge of the property.

But in late 2022, no permits applied for or issued for construction of the multifamily and the CUP conditional use permit for multifamily expires.

So that's where we're at right now.

We don't have any approvals for apartments in that area right now.

However, in the development agreement, they outline that area that would be allowed for residential.

So it's it's an expectation that in the future they'll come back with residential in that area.

But that's not the topic of discussion tonight.

It's just modifying the development agreement for those few things that they've talked about.

So this is really simple, but community mixed use is on the comp plan, future land use map.

The surrounding land use, you can see that there, and it's it's kind of diverse here, right?

It's commercial and high density residential and low density residential county subdivisions and uh kind of a mix of all kinds of things going on in that location right next to the freeway.

So you know this drill uh development agreements.

Essentially, you have the right to decide whether you want to or not, change this uh this development agreement.

It's kind of like a contract.

State code is pretty silent on exactly how you determine whether you want to to change a development agreement or not.

So it really is a subjective decision, and it's agreement between two parties, right?

You want to make them happy, they want to make you happy, and so that's the decision before you.

Um, and there are safeguards to protect us if there's the default in any way on the development agreement.

We can enforce it.

Um this is when there is a modification, um, a substantial change to the conceptual layout terms, provisions, or conditions can warrant a modification.

So that gives us the right to modify this.

Um applicant's purpose.

The I think they've done a really good job of describing this, but the first one is exhibit A number three.

We already talked about this originally they were they had left that out of the proposed development agreement.

But uh, after discussing that with the applicant, we're putting it back in.

So the second one was exhibit A number four.

Um it's to be replaced.

Um essentially it's um uh well I I could I could give you a minute to read through it, or I could um just kind of describe it.

They are there's not a lot of change here.

Um they're just saying that they've already done a lot of the work here, and and so um let's see.

Let's see if I need to highlight anything here.

It's pretty simple.

Mr.

Vice Chair, quick question for Rodney.

Um those improvements, does that include any improvements for uh high density residential?

Yes, um, the development agreement does kind of highlight what needs to happen for any high density residential, but there's no approvals yet, they'll still need to go through a conditional use permit to get an approval to do high density residential.

That would that would come before you, but it has to match that development agreement.

Um the next one is exhibit B.

The site plan shows the removal of some existing retail space.

The applicant is proposing to amend that exhibit to reflect the retention of the existing retail space.

So you can see that uh change right there.

And applicant has already kind of shown that.

Um they're essentially leaving the retail as is.

But a maximum of 750,000 square feet.

They're essentially saying, hey, leave that to the market.

We'll have to provide the parking that's required for anything that goes in.

Um we'll have to meet the the standards in code.

So why are you limiting us to 750,000 square feet?

So that that's their argument to remove that entirely.

The next one is lighting will normally be reduced after 10 p.m.

And that's proposed to change to existing lighting has been installed consistent with the then existing provisions of the NAMPA City Code.

In the future, any new lighting installed or any old lighting that is retrofitted after the date of this development agreement shall comply with the design review requirements of NAMPA City Code Section 103410A6, as may be amended.

Lighting shall be operated consistent with the requirements of the NAMPA City Code.

This is really simple, it's just a cleanup.

So they're saying the lighting that was installed was uh was installed according to code.

Any new lighting will have to meet the new code.

And then the last one is remove auto sales.

And this doesn't really change anything except that it highlights what there was a lot of discussion about exhibit F in the development agreement about the land uses.

So we went back and forth, back and forth on all those land uses.

And after lots of discussion, City Council came up with a list of land uses that are approved or uh conditionally approved at the time of the development agreement going into place.

That means that if we change what is allowed in the BC zone, it's already in a development agreement.

What what land uses could be done?

So that it kind of gives the the applicant, the the uh property owner the ability to say, okay, here are the land uses that are allowed.

We don't have to worry that that the city's gonna change that up.

Mr.

Vice, sorry, Rodney.

If I might just quick interruption, um remove auto sales new and used from the list.

Does does that include like these pop-up, these pop up temporary auto sales like on a weekend or something like that?

An event?

No, that's uh a temporary use permit.

Um it's a different process.

Uh the land uses that we're talking about are permanent land uses.

Okay, so then I got correspondence from uh different agencies.

I actually didn't get any correspondence from the public on this.

Um I was a little surprised at that, but NAMPA Forrester, any existing tree removals along the public right-of-way for the purposes of development shall follow the NAMPA City Code.

I mean, that's pretty standard.

We we would require that anyway.

Umpa code compliance listed uh that there's some weeds and nuisances uh that need to be addressed, and um and then fire district standard access comments and conditions regulated by the international building code that'll be handled at time of development of any of the sites.

We'll we'll make sure that the fire code is followed and building code is followed.

Um so recommended conditions of approval.

I only have three.

Renumber the proposed development agreement provisions to correctly reflect the sequential order.

The proposed development agreement will shall substantially conform to the submitted development agreement draft submitted for the amendment and outlined in the staff report, and then I added this uh from the staff report, with the exception that exhibit A number three will be included in the agreement and not removed.

That's what they uh informed you about today.

And then the last one is code violations as described by code compliance shall be addressed prior to signing of the development agreement.

And here are a couple of potential motions for your consideration, and I'm happy to answer any other questions you have.

Okay, thank you, Ronnie.

Questions for Ronnie?

Jeff?

Is there any way we could slip a turn signal in at Happy Valley and Airport?

No.

That was a reach.

I know it was a reach.

Sorry, I wasn't sure that that was a serious question.

No, it's uh it was it was, but it wasn't that would be dictated by any updates they do to the traffic study to see um with any of their proposed stuff coming forward.

We would look and see if they if that triggers an updated traffic study, and if so, they would look at that then.

So depending on what any future uses might be, it could it could be a possibility.

It is a possibility.

All right, excellent.

Okay, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing.

Um again, if you are up to testify on this, um, please give your name and address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.

Um Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up?

We don't.

Okay, nobody's signed up.

Anybody here that would like to testify or online okay.

Seeing none, I would entertain a motion.

Or you have go ahead and come on up.

Yeah, uh Mr.

Chairman Jeff Wardle again.

Uh, just want to clarify one point as we uh we're in agreement with everything staff has said, and as Rodney pointed out, again, when we provided the red line originally, that paragraph four that he read to you and showed you had been renumbered as three, and that's why by inadvertently leaving out three, we're putting three back in, and four as it relates to all of the existing improvements were in the 2022 uh development agreement already.

And as your staff indicated, if and when we come back with a more intensive use that requires a new traffic study, we will do that per the existing development agreement.

Looking forward to it.

And with that, we we would uh request that you recommend approval to the city council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Make a motion to close the public here.

Second, all right, madam clerk.

We have a motion by Morgan and a second by Kirkman.

Close.

So all those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Hearing is closed.

Questions or simple, be nice to see something happening there.

Again, yeah.

Well, uh, Mr.

Vice Chair, if there's no comments or discussion, I will move to recommend approval of the project as shown on the screen for approval.

Second.

Okay.

We have a motion by Kirkman and a second by Keyhoe to recommend approval to the city council.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Roll.

Roll call.

Roll vote.

Oh, yeah.

Roll vote.

Okay.

Garner.

Here.

Aye.

Dapper.

Yes.

Turner.

Aye.

Keyhoe.

Hi.

Morgan.

Yes.

Kirkman?

Yes.

Salman.

Aye.

Copeland.

Aye.

Motion carries.

That motion carries and it'll go on to city council.

We need to open public hearing for number three to continue.

Don't think we open the public hearing.

I think we just I'll just read it, introduce the project, and then you might ask Rodney.

Rodney.

Um 3 3.

I'll introduce the item.

We don't have to open a public hearing.

We just need a motion to continue.

You you actually do need to open the public hearing.

Otherwise, he's got to re-notice by that notice.

And then continue it to a date certain of November 20.

Correct.

Okay.

Um, so as stated before, this uh next item 33 has been requested a continuation.

It's an action item, preliminary plat approval for the amended portion of the reflections edge subdivision in an RS4 zoning district and an RS6 zoning district for the parcels noted, all addressed as zero railroad street for Abbey Hahn representing Scott Curtis KB Homes LLC original concept reconfiguring lots in a previously approved preliminary plat for development of 163 single family detached dwellings and date 28 common lots.

So they whether it's extended to what date they're gonna can they're gonna continue it to November 25th meeting.

So then we'll open a public hearing for this without staff report and without applicant.

Okay.

So the public hearing is open.

Mr.

Chair, I'd make a motion to move this to November 25th, 2025.

Okay, we have a motion to continue from Turner and a second by Keyhouse.

Yeah, yeah.

So then do we need to do the roll call vote?

Adam Clerk.

Let's do one.

Okay.

All right, Gardner.

Aye.

Miller.

Oh, just kidding, Daffer.

Yes.

Turner.

Morgan.

Yes.

Kirkman.

All right.

Salman.

Aye.

Copeland.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Okay, so the motion carries, and that'll be moved to the 25th of November meeting.

Okay.

All right.

So we'll move on to our final public hearing of the night.

This is an action item.

Annexation and zoning to BC community business.

RMH multifamily residential, RS4, single family residential, IP industrial park, zoning districts, and master plan community with the development agreement for district 16 for the parcels noted in the posting addressed as 4188 Cherry Lane, Zero Eustack Road, 5059 Usdick Road, 533 Eustack Road, 17873 Star Road, Zero Eustach Road, Zero Cherry Lane, Zero Cherry Lane, 4565 Eustack Road, Zero Eustach Road, Zero Eustack Road, Zero Cherry Lane, located in the uh coordinates noted in the staff report, VM for Idaho Holdings LLC representing multiple owners, uh original concept, a master plan, mixed use development of single family detached and multifamily residential community commercial and industrial uses for on approximately 405 acres.

Mixed use development of single family detached and multifamily residential commercial and industrial uses on approximately 405 acres.

The applicant has requested and has been granted a 10 minutes for this presentation because of the size of the project.

The applicant here.

Come on up and give us your name and address for the record.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, Chairman Jeff Bower, 601 West Bannock and Boise here tonight on behalf of the applicant team for the District 16 Master Plan community.

With me from the applicant team is Emily Mueller with Mark Bottles Real Estate.

We have reviewed the staff report for tonight's hearing.

We agree with staff's analysis of the project, and we are also in agreement with all of the proposed conditions of approval.

There we go.

Alright, District 16 is a mixed-use plan community made up of 405 acres along NAPAs State Highway 16 corridor.

Eustake Road forms the northern boundary.

Cherry Lane forms the southern boundary, and McDermott forms the eastern boundary.

There are approximately 114 acres of the project on the east side of State Highway 16 and 291 acres on the west side of Highway 16.

There are NAPA City limits to our west and south that have already been annexed and developed.

We are asking tonight for two applications.

The first is annexation and initial zoning.

The second is an approval for a master plan community.

We've also submitted a development agreement to go with this project that would guide future development of all 400 acres as well.

There is no specific development plan proposed tonight.

This is a kind of a preliminary approval for the master plan.

As specific portions of this project would develop in the future, we'd come back to the commission and the council for further hearings and applications such as subdivision, design review, you know, variances, conditional use permits, whatever it may be.

This is just the first step of many to develop this project.

Once a development does start, we're anticipating this is a roughly a 15-year project to build out fully.

Can you advance it for me?

Thank you.

Okay, so um the District 16 project is located in this got turned off.

Okay, that would make a difference.

So this is a plan that the city adopted in 2023 once ITD decided to fund the extension of State Highway 16.

And what it did is it generated based on the city's underlying uh future land use map, a more specific essentially sub-area plan for the state highway 16 corridor.

Um we have specifically designed this project to dovetail with this with this map, and I'll get into the details of that in a second, but we just wanted to give you the context for the zoning designations we're requesting tonight.

And just a quick update on that highway 16 project.

I know we all drive by it every day, but it is cranking along, and ITD expects full completion by 2027.

So this is again just that state highway 16 specific area plan zoomed in to what we're talking about today.

Um you can see we have various areas outlined in green that are the subject of tonight's application.

Um we so we have uh you know high density residential, commercial uh designations, commercial industrial, and medium density residential, and finally high density residential.

We are asking for annexation as our first application.

Uh again, this map shows the areas we're um annexing, proposing to annex the 405 acres.

Annexation is appropriate under the circumstances because we do have continuity to city limits.

We have the Toll Brothers project kind of in the center of the of the property, and some other older uh annexed subdivisions down to the south that provide continuity.

Uh I'm sorry, contiguity, and we're also in the city's area of impact, so annexation is appropriate.

This is the proposed zoning map overall for all 405 acres.

We are requesting four different zones.

We're requesting the RS4 single family zone for a portion of the property, multifamily RMH, community business, and industrial park.

So the community business is shown in pink up on the north side along Eustach.

The single family residential is sort of in the salmon color.

The multifamily is in the light brown or light gray, and then the industrial park is in the darker gray.

So single family residential would be 168 of the 405 acres.

Per the master site plan approval, we would have to have 15% open space for all the single family residential.

It'll be highly amenitized, you know, as we come back with subdivisions for this area.

It would have to comply with the not only the code at the time but the approval tonight.

So heightened open space standards and more integrated design that I'll get over, I'll go over shortly.

Per the DA, we have adopted voluntarily some single family design requirements that are a little bit above and beyond the city's current single family design standards.

Those would include things like building material, variation, fenestration, some heightened setbacks, things like that, again to create sort of a first class feel and continuity for our community.

So next, after the single family would be the 80 acres of multifamily.

And again, the idea with these slides is to show you the whole Highway 16 plan on the left, and then our zoning map on the right.

You can see where the single or I'm sorry, the multifamily residential would be proposed with the two stars on the zoning map.

In total, this would be 80 acres, and again we would come back to this commission and ultimately the council for any subdivision approvals and design review at the time those would develop.

Eustake Road is obviously under a lot of development pressure right now because of the state highway 16 project.

It's one of only four interchanges that actually accesses State Highway 16.

So with that interchange along with the city's existing Eustach Road project, we think this is a great location for commercial.

It obviously dovetails with the plan, but it does have very good access, which we think will make very successful and vibrant commercial areas that will be integrated with our single family and multifamily residential.

Lastly is the industrial park, so the fourth and last zone.

Again, this slide shows that we would have 119 acres of industrial park zoning, and it does straddle state highway 16 as the state highway 16 plan requires or proposes.

One of the things the master plan community allows the commission and the city to do, right, is to create sort of a planning context or a theme for the community.

In this case, we're going to apply that theme through the development agreement, which imposes again design requirements on the commercial and the industrial components.

So the state highway 16 corridor plan encourages a heritage design, a certain color palette.

And so again, our our development agreement embodies that incorporates it as a requirement for this community.

So when those future applications come before you, they will have to, you know, be cohesive in design.

We think not only is it important for our project, but it creates sort of a distinctive gateway to the city.

And that gateway is sort of what the state highway 16 plan envisioned.

Here's the concept plan for the project.

Not much different here than the zoning map that I showed you, but it shows conceptual open space areas, walking paths, connectivity.

One interesting feature here is that we would build out a portion of the city's 10-mile multi-use path that actually goes under State Highway 16.

So that would provide pedestrian connectivity from meridian under 16 to NAMPA.

And we would be allowed two sections of that.

Again, this is our amenity and landscape plan.

These plans all be adopted again through the development agreement, showing that we'll have the required pools and multi-generational parks and ultimately the correct percentage of open space in each portion of the project.

And lastly, a signage plan to go with our heritage theme and sort of the color palette and the distinctive features of the area.

We do have a signage plan that will provide materials, colors for all the signs in the industrial and residential and commercial components of this project, sort of tie everything together.

Lastly, real quick, we all know you're aware of the housing needs analysis, but this is a large project that will provide a lot of housing.

Um and it's not just one type of housing, which is what the housing needs analysis said was needed to address the shortage in the city.

So we are providing uh not only single family but multi-family zoning to support that mix of housing types.

Um and lastly, uh we just want to say thank you to staff and the commission for your time.

Uh we think we have proposed a cohesive project that meets the intent of the specific area plan, and we'd ask for your recommendation of approval.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, um, I I know there was a lot of concern on um the real small lots button up against the existing larger lots, but I don't believe you've got any of those going to guess the I think you have pretty good sized lots up against the existing coaching.

Uh smaller lots are inside of I was correct.

Yeah, um Chairman Garner and Commissioner Turner.

So at this time we're not proposing any subdivision at all.

Um the project today, the the parcels are 12 separate just existing parcels, but as we do bring in future subdivisions, we would of course you know respect um our our neighbors that have already developed, etc.

Try to um provide you know similar densities, not just similar densities, but similar lot sizes that are adjacent, like we always do.

A lot of other people concerned about that.

Right, yep, and and that's a great question too.

That kind of I forgot one component that I just wanted to highlight too.

You know, at each stage when we develop a portion of this project, right?

And we come to you with a preliminary plat or or a variance or CUP, right?

That is the time where we would address a specific traffic impact study or a specific utility connection.

So all of those mitigations would be made right at the time of development, Mr.

Chair.

Uh I just wanted to say that we we also have code that requires the buffering from um from those larger lots subdivisions so that they would have to they would have to have the larger lots next to those.

Um they couldn't just have the 4,000 square foot next to a one-acre lot.

I just know there was a lot of concern about that.

So I chair a couple of questions.

Uh I know this is conceptual and early planning stages, and you're here just to request annexation and zoning, but uh a lot of interest from the public that I've heard about this area, obviously.

And a lot of those have to do with is there gonna be something like the village in Meridian in this particular area?

Is that something that that you kind of conceptualize it being, or is it gonna be spread out strip mall along Ustick or something like that?

Yeah, uh Chair Garner and Commissioner Kirkman.

So, you know, one of the the industrial park designation along State Highway 16, it that that zone does have kind of a broad scope of allowed and conditionally allowed uses.

So, I mean, in a perfect world, I think, yes, we would like to bring some sort of lifestyle um development similar to the village, with again, like kind of that mix of uses, you know, recreational, entertainment, retail, things like that.

Yeah, and five, ten, fifteen years down the road.

McDermott, is it the same zoning?

So or are they gonna whatever?

Mr.

Chair and Commissioner Kirkman.

Um I think I can speak to that pretty well.

When we did this state highway 16 um plan, uh we worked really closely with Meridian to match their a uh proposed uh land uses.

So this this matches what Meridian has uh on their side of the case.

Can we say meridian matches what we have?

Yes, we could.

They did their plan first, but we but it's a good flow though.

I mean, it's a good flow into it's not gonna be chopped and what's correct.

Okay, yeah.

Those are those are all the questions I have.

Any additional questions?

Okay, well, thank you for your time.

All right, Damien.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

Damien Snodgrass, associate planner.

Uh, tonight's a little bit of a longer presentation, but the requested action item night is annexation and zoning to BC RMH RS4 and IP zoning districts, and a master plan community with a development agreement for district 16.

Um the concept is a 405-acre master plan community.

So delving into more of the criteria for an application of this type, since there is no plat coming in, a lot of the things that we're gonna see about lot compatibility and those codes will come in at a later date.

This one's a lot more broad into what we need for a master plan community and what we need for an actual annexation.

And in the master plan community, uh, within the comprehensive plan under 51231, uh, the approval process will include a review of the entire development proposal, including the overall site, architectural design, standards, themes, character of the development, zoning, landscape, infrastructure, affordable housing, commercial provisions, all that is covered within the comprehensive plan of like what we want to see in those things, and the regulations of state highway uh of specific area plan highway 16 design that designate that it will have to go under a development agreement and review by the city attorney.

And so thank you, Preston, for reviewing these.

It defines mass plan communities as encompassing a large geographic area of at least 40 acres, and this will have to include elements such as open space amenities and design criteria.

It has to be a little bit more concise with that, but also allows for some allowances, which is uh reduction of lot sizes or bulk requirements or things of that nature, and the applicant has the option to request those things within this type of application.

All right.

So the property details.

Uh the location of this master plan communities, the proposed master plan communities is right within the highway specific 16 specific area plan and consists of 12 parcels.

Um the current conditions is within the area.

We have a predominantly agricultural, um, and we have a an existing single-family neighborhood within the area.

However, this is eligible for annexation, and it does fall cohesively within the regulations as specified by highway 16 and the comprehensive plan.

Some more property details.

Um nearby, we have Eustach Road, which is a principal arterial, and we have Star Road, which is a minor arterial, Cherry Lane, which is my minor arterial, and Owai Storm Avenue, which is a collector road.

And currently there is going to be the construction of state highway 16 right through that, but it is not current a current and existing condition.

So for utilities, the city of Nampa is currently working on it to extend the Perdam trunk sewer intersection of Eustach and Canada Road, and the city is partnering with developers in this area.

And within this application, a development agreement has been prepared to enclose all of the design criteria, signage criteria, and everything of that nature that will be conceptual within the plan, again, reviewed by Preston.

Here is the proposed zoning, and we'll get into the open space map next.

So here are the amount of acres for each zone that is being requested.

All of them have the 15% open space minimum, with the exception of the IP zone.

This will be an exception that will be requested for a bulk requirement from city council, but for transparency, this is one of the exceptions that they will be requesting from that body.

Here is a conceptual open space plan as talked about in the presentation from the applicant of some of the amenities that they're planning on including within this concept.

And with that, all of the zones will shall include the 15% qualified open space within the total project area.

Within their application, they will be providing a pool amenity in the multifamily section, residential park spaces, which is grass fields and things of that nature, as long as well as a 10 foot multi-use path along the Northwest Pipeline, easement, and 10 Mile Creek.

And again, there is that exception to the bulk requirements to reduce that open space a little bit within that industrial park area.

All right.

Getting into the correspondence from the NAMPA Engineering Division.

I list those within the engineering details within the staff report, but I do have the conditions listed in here tonight.

From code compliance, we have annexation is not recommended until uh the issues of the weeds is not remedied.

So cleanup on some of those properties.

Nampa fire district provided general access and water supply comments, which is attached in your staff report.

Um this is due to the fact that there is no plating yet, so there's not much they can give until those plats come through and development actually begins.

Nampa Park and Rex has reviewed the annexation of mass planning community, and they're requesting a 20-foot wide permanent easement along the top bank and south side of 10 Mile Creek that would be dedicated to the city to help part of the NAMPA's bicycle and pedestrian master plan.

And that the developer construct the pathway along the easement.

Value view school district sent in a good amount of comments.

This is listed in your staff report.

The general basis of it is the current capacity of their schools and where they're sitting with schools and they're having an overcrowding issue.

More correspondence.

So Idaho Department of Transportation sent in some comments and that requests that the adequate local road infrastructure is planned and provided, and that they provide traffic generation numbers and trip numbers at the time of development of these applications.

We received a comment from COMPASS, which is the community planning association.

And so I wanted to dive into this just a little bit.

We received a comment from them, which is their communities in motion analysis, and I met with COMPAS prior to them submitting this comment to get a better understanding of what they were submitting with.

And after analysis of their comment, most of their points are made off conjectures with incomplete information regarding access and walkability and business infrastructure.

And without a plat that is coming forward, a lot of these points can't really be determined yet.

They can't determine units or businesses that are going in.

So since these are conjectures, staff took these with a grain of salt.

We need more information and more trip analysis to really dive into those kinds of analysis.

Then we received public comments.

We have a few late comments tonight.

We did receive one before the deadline.

And the public comment was mostly regarding traffic, fear of lowering property values, not wanting to live next to apartments.

With some of the late comments, we have uh questions regarding the water table and water usage, some of those themes around there.

Uh currently that we do have capacity, or the city will have capacity at the time, and those will be analyzed at the time of each development of each capacity.

And Daniel can speak to more on that at the time those developments come in.

And I will leave all traffic questions to Daniel.

Good move.

So this is just another piece of information before we get into the findings for annexation about the City of NAMPA's annual report.

We are in a housing shortage.

We have a proposed more, well, not proposed, uh we do foresee a bigger shortage as the years goes on.

Right now we're about 2700 units short.

By 2040, we're looking at just under 17,000 units short.

All right, now into the applicable regulations for annexation and zoning.

We'll cover these as we go through the findings.

Alright.

Findings for annexation.

All private landowners have consented to the annexation.

The property owners have consented, they've signed affidavit, staff has found this to be met.

The property shall be contiguous with SIMU limits, not only through shoestring connection or strip of land comprising of highways, right-of-way.

The property is contiguous, and so staff has found this to be met.

The comprehensive plan includes this area of annexation.

The properties to be annexed are within that NAMPA comprehensive plan, and so staff has found this to be net.

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

Right-of-ways will be annexed as a part of this application.

All right.

The findings for zoning two RMH, IP, BC, and RS4.

That the proposed map amendments is are or would be in harmony with the city's currently adopted comprehensive plan and comprehensive land use map.

The proposed annexation is in line with the comprehensive plan as well as the specific area plan, so they are following that pretty much to a T.

NAPA comprehensive plan text highlights that we need to provide single family residential land use.

And all commercial multifamily structures have to go to the design review as well as the development agreement to make sure everything is in line with that, and that will have to be reviewed by the city attorney.

So and the next finding sorry, there's a lot of speaking.

So the pro the proposed land use is aligned with the surrounding land uses or designations of community mixed use, high density residential and medium residue residential.

So this will be what we designated under that future land use map, and it is compatible with that specific area plan of what we want to see this area grow into.

And it also is in line with our east-west corridors from Caldwell the Boise of providing these kinds of businesses and housing along major corridors, such as state highways and Eustach Road.

So staff has found this to be in harmony with those surrounding land uses.

Then the proposed amendments is our would be in the best in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary.

The proposed application is in line with the NAMBRA comprehensive plan.

It is in line with the specific area plan.

The land uses would be allowed by the requested zoning and complement that addition to the highway as defined by the specific area plan.

The qualified open space in this plan meets up to code with the exception that will be requested from city council.

And there is a current shortage of housing within NAMPA.

The proposed development will provide housing to that shortage.

So staff has found this to be met.

Here are the recommended conditions for approval that the applicant owner shall comply with all cities' codes, policies, and standards at the place at the time of subdivision or building permit.

That prior to the third reading of ordering ordinance annexing the property, the applicant owner shall dedicate the following right-of-way, which is 50 feet from Star Road section line, 50 feet from Cherry Lane section line, 40 feet from section line Hawaii Storm, that the development agreement is required and must be reviewed and approved by the city attorney prior to the approval of these applications, that the read via weed violations to be resolved prior to approval, that the dedication of the 20-foot-wide permanent easement along the top bank and along the south side of 10 mile creep be given to City Nampa for the 10 mile Creekway crossing, and any others that the commission or council may recommend.

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

And they are concerned about not having enough capacity.

What would be our or their legal position if we approve all this and they had no place to put the kids can they sue the city for putting the burden on them or something?

I don't know.

I'm just trying to figure out what would they do, what could they do if it telling us that they don't have the capacity?

We say too bad, we do it anyway.

Do they have any recourse?

So uh with this application type, because there's no like unit count, we can't give a direct number of how much impact this has when it comes to the course of lawsuits because they are a separate organization.

I'm gonna leave that up to our city attorney of what his uh direction would be on that.

Uh Mr.

Vice Chair, Commissioner Keho.

Um, kind of a loaded question, right?

Because I can't speak for the school district and what they would or would not do what they potentially do, as I guess my concern.

Yeah, I mean, and this is an annexation, um, and as the applicants are aware, that means it opens the playbook up for the decision makers, right?

This isn't uh what we call a quasi-judicial decision.

Um there's a lot of strict criteria.

It's it's it's a legislative decision.

So it does open up the playbook.

Um what it also does, it does limit the ability of people to challenge it.

There's not a judicial review process, right?

Like you would see with a COP a variance, right?

Whether take it to court per se through that avenue.

Now they have another course of action there, um, but we just can't speak for the school district.

Um, but there is some legal recourse.

It's just a little different dynamic because this is an annexation.

It's kind of like a policy decision that you're making tonight instead of a you know, uh like I mentioned earlier, like a COP of variance that's for a specific piece of property um, like a judicial decision.

Well I didn't get the answer I was hoping to hear, but yeah, I got an answer.

That's usually the case with legal.

So no kidding.

Um Mr.

Vice Chair Commissioner Keyhouse, maybe be careful with your experience, yes.

Well, I gotta be careful what I say, because like the attorney says you I don't speak because this isn't involved the NAMPA school district, but typically school districts react to how cities grow, and then they have and and one of the reasons that they have the ability to make decisions as a governing body for that particular area is because they do have to make decisions based on the growth of uh of an area that they're in.

One of the reasons that Nampa School District and Valley View School District split, and and I think at the time Nampa School District gave up some area two Valley Use school districts would include which included North Nampa, this area in particular is because NAPO is getting too big, Nampo school district was getting too big.

So I mean, those are things that are gonna have to be looked at down the road.

Once this starts building out, is the school districts, and I I know they're difficult decisions, but they're gonna react to whatever at the time point in time that they're gonna have to react to, whether it's building new schools, whether it's closing some schools, whatever, they just have to adjust.

Look, would they I mean they they they can't pass a bond on their own, they have to get the public to approve a bond.

A bond has to be approved and uh and a levy has to be approved.

Those are two different things.

Bond and levees are two different things, but yeah, that has to be approved by the public.

That's just not something that a school district can say we're gonna do this.

Right.

I understand.

But I'm not I'm trying to figure out what their options would be and how they might affect the people that live in the community.

Yeah, but I I can tell you there's school district, so obviously there's no way that the like, for example, there's no way the Napa school district could sue the city of NAMPA because there's more people moving out of the city, and therefore the district enrollment has been reduced.

There's no way we have no recourse.

We just have to react to the realities.

Okay, thank you.

I hope I didn't say anything that I shouldn't say enough.

You'll hear from the city attorney.

I'll hear from somebody, I know it.

I have a general question on the 2440 current housing unit shortage.

Is that include the approvals that have been made that they're building?

Right now.

So the ones that we've been approving take away from the shortage, correct?

So I'm gonna refer to Rodney a little bit on this item.

I saw his eyes roll when he said that.

Um Mr.

Chair.

Um the I I've had this conversation with the economic development team who um contracted that uh study to be done, and I've asked it several times.

Um I think what their ultimate um response was that as we are developing at our current rate, the shortfall is what the number is the shortfall if we continue to develop at our current rate.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions.

Okay, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing.

Once again, I would remind you when you come up to testify, please give us your name and your address for the record, and you'll have three minutes.

Um, and as you come up, just remember to address the commission with your comments and questions you might have.

Uh Madam Clerk, do we have a sign-up sheet?

We do.

We have Austin uh Lannis.

Um so I live in the Toll Brothers community um star.

Solar SAR.

Oh, yeah, it's Austin Alanis, and I live on 4769 East Coldwater.

The guy told me if I put that on when I signed up, I wouldn't have to say it.

But just living in that community for the last um six months, you know, there's the minimum 15% open space requirements.

Um I know that there's variances that allow uh less in those communities, um, which is one of my concerns is I had an inspector come out, and they're supposed to be 10 feet between each home, and um I didn't believe that space was there, so they inspected it, and the guy kind of eyeballed it, and he was like, Yeah, it looks pretty good.

I'm just like, okay, I can see how this is gonna go.

Um you can see on their their plot map that there is quite a few homes crammed into those developments.

Um there's no plan in place right now for the future developments that I see that they're proposing.

Um, and compass is asking the same question is you know, how can we approve or disapprove of something with uh without having a plat.

Um you know, the the industrial park that's gonna be lining up next to the community.

Um, that could be a three-story subdivision or a three-story building, you know, up against homes.

So that's another concern I have.

Emergency services.

I don't think there is a fire station or um a police department on that side of the uh interstate, as well as um the hospital.

The only gas station nearby is Garity and Franklin.

Um beyond that, I think you have to go all the way to Meridian.

Um there's no traffic studies being done uh so far.

Um you know, we just keep throwing in roundabouts, you know, to kind of put that in place, and it seems like I have to wait there longer than I do traffic lights anymore.

Um so those are some of my concerns.

Um, you know, everybody's traveling from that location into Meridian or to Boise typically, it seems like to go to work, and you know, we're backed up with all of the other uh development that Valley View is um you know also talking about.

So those are my concerns, and um, you know, I just I'm not opposed to growth.

I think it's necessary and changes necessary, but you know, coming here as a commercial developer and having no plan in place, um, just saying, hey, give me this blanket approval, and then we can change it down the line doesn't set well with me.

So, you know, that's why I wanted to come out here and talk to you guys tonight.

So I think you're thanks, Most.

No others?

Is there anybody in the audience?

Go ahead and come on out.

Uh my name is Robert Mickel.

I live at uh 14411 West Guinness Drive over in West Boise.

Uh almost in Meridian.

Uh lived in Island Woods for about 20 years, and just a little little short history.

I've done several developments in eastern Idaho.

I've developed a 45-acre master plan called Jackson Hill Junction on the south side of Idaho Falls, which is uh created a whole new front door to the city of Idaho Falls.

It's a beautiful development.

It does, it's very similar.

It has all of the same automobile dealers that you have here in uh Nampa that all collected there.

It was the first new interchange that went in in 40 years, and it's at uh exit 116 on Interstate 15.

Where I where I really agree with former speaker, is to simply uh I think I think what you should really be looking at is annexation.

I think you're too early on the zoning.

I don't think you should, I think you'd need a lot more hearings and input than just he and I to make a decision.

This needs a lot more public input.

Uh so I came here 30 years ago.

Watched Dennis Baker develop Eagle, amazing thing.

I sat in most of his HOA meetings for years and years.

I lived in Island Woods in two different homes.

And I watched what how Eagle is developed, uh, how Nancy Merrill did that.

She was the mayor there.

Amazing thing they did with Eagle.

I just don't see from any perspective why you'd want to have 115 acres of industrial out there.

To me, it just doesn't fit anywhere with what Meridian is doing and with what the actual natural value of that hole is, the whole area is.

I had a chance to visit with a couple high school students at uh Waihee High School.

And I mean, that's just an amazing high school, and the way that whole thing works.

It's it just seems to me like everything out there for the next three or four square miles is just natural single family home and and multi-use.

Uh and I think if you go out there and do industrial too early, you'll totally screw the pooch, pardon the expression, with any opportunity to do anything really spectacular at uh Eustach.

I mean, the opportunity at Eustach is just phenomenal there to have something like you know, Meridian Village, or uh not just some strip malls, not but if you go if you go industrial, uh you know, I just I don't think the the total value is ever going to be achieved.

Uh I just don't think it's a good master plan to have that much locked in because once you once you approve this tonight as industrial, it's only gonna be two or three industrial, and then it's gonna be hard for anybody to look at doing anything else out there.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anyone else that would like to speak?

Okay, go ahead and come on out, give us your name and your address.

My name's Wanda McGuire, and I live at 1663 Mulberry Lane, and it's right off Star Road.

Um first of all, I think this is a terrible plan, to be honest.

That corner is like a quarter of a mile from where we live.

Um if they do single housing, you know, they're going to do it, but trying to mix it with multi-apartments will it's not a good idea.

It's been done in meridian, and your home value goes down, the crime rate goes up.

There's just it's just not a good idea to mix those.

Um we live right next to, I think it's called Autovol.

A couple of years ago they put it in.

Um, we were at a city council meeting here, and they said you won't have the noise level, you aren't going to our roads, we're not going to do anything on Star Road because we can't afford it, and the increased traffic, it's not going to be a big deal.

Well, I'll tell you what, it's a huge deal.

It's very noisy, the traffic is ridiculous, and to put that big of a project in that area.

Your roads are, you know, Eust is getting wider, yes.

Star Road, they have did nothing to it, and they've had a ton of subdivisions.

Um, as far as the new high school, that new high school is opened, I think two, three years ago.

It is almost capacity as of right now.

We don't have the schools.

We're in Meridian School District, even though we live in Nampa, we are on that side on Meridian School District, and Meridian School Districts are packed.

Rocky Mountain High School, we were in that subdivision, clear over because there's so many kids.

That is the capacity right now.

So it is really struggling to see that NAMPA would approve something like this because we just don't have the infrastructure, and it's easy to say, oh, we want the houses, we need the houses.

Great, put another hundred houses there, but you don't need this mega um deal right there because we just don't have the infrastructure on it, and NAMPA has proven that we have all of this growth, and I was born and raised here.

We have all of this growth.

Our roads are terrible in NAPA.

You can't get anywhere.

I mean, and it's just a fact, and all they do is put roundabouts everywhere.

So, anyway, that's my whole thing.

Thank you.

Hi.

My name is Um Kieran Clark, and I live at 4594 East Musselshell in the Silver Star subdivision.

And I would just like to say I totally agree with what these people have brought up.

And my great greatest concern is the light industrial park so close to our subdivision.

My fear is that it will lower our property value, it will increase the amount of traffic.

And there's children that are playing that ride their bicycles on the sidewalk.

Thank you.

Anyone else that would like to speak?

Chairman, uh Vice Chair, thank you for hearing me out.

My name is Garrett Hamrill.

I'm from 4582 East Fortuna.

My house is right in the middle of the map you guys have earlier.

I'm also part of the Silver Star subdivision.

I just want to get out of the way that I am not opposed to new subdivisions, especially if they come with Chick-fil-A.

The uh industrial park, though, is a little bit of a concern for me.

Our house is one of the last ones in the subdivision when the previous lady was talking about children on bikes.

That's my child.

She's always on a bike, and she's always over there.

I am very excited to see the Gornfield that we have turning into uh empty parking lots, but I am a bit concerned about the schools.

Um I think that Hawaii, sorry.

We're new as a subdivision.

Uh, as I understand it is 500 students over capacity right now.

And um uh between that and the um traffic in the area, uh those would be our biggest concerns, certainly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else would like to speak?

Anyone online?

No.

Okay.

Go ahead, come on in.

My name is Julie Barnes, and my address is 4957 Goldenspur in Silver Spur Ranch, I think.

Anyway, um I guess you said not to um duplicate what's already been said, but the traffic is it needs exclamation points.

Getting out onto Star now is just horrendous, and we've lived there just 10 years, and the change has been incredible.

Um let's see, and I think just the the traffic there needs to be a plan for that before we bring all this into the city, and all that will come with that.

Um thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay, well, thank you for all your comments.

Um you guys want to come back up and thank you, Vice Chair, Jeff Bowers, 601, West Bannock in Boise.

Uh try to kind of take them as they came, but if you have more questions, please interrupt me.

So there was a condition related to weeds on one of the parcels.

We've already gotten that addressed, so hopefully we can peel that off before city council.

Um schools came up quite a bit.

Um, and I want to say I appreciate the responses from the city attorney and from Commissioner Kirkman.

I would echo what they said.

I don't need to repeat it.

I would also just add um I'm not personally aware of any school district ever suing uh land use jurisdiction for a land use decision.

Please go to the night.

All right, perfect.

Um, and also for this project, um, it is a large project, 405 acres, as we discussed.

Only a very small portion of it is actually in the Valley View School District.

So uh about 30 acres west of Star.

I'm sorry, 60 acres west of STAR is the only portion of the project that's in Valley View.

The rest is in West Ada.

And so that portion that is in Valley View is what we're proposing to zone as RS4.

So still some uh additional units at some point, but not a 405-acre development, just 60.

Comment about fire brought up a comment or a point I meant to make in my opening.

Um we are negotiating or working with uh NAMPA Fire District to provide a site and this property.

We think it'll be on Cherry West of STAR.

There'll be some kind of combination of donation acquisition, but that's something that we advocate for and we hope works out.

Hopefully, have more details by city council.

Something like that being a development agreement.

Uh Vice Chair Garner and Commissioner Morgan, we would certainly welcome that being in the development agreement.

I don't think we're at a place yet where we know what the district wants, but something you know uh I guess that we would cooperate with and uh provide a site would be uh uh acceptable to us given that you know it won't all be a donation.

Yeah, we are working on um as I mentioned, and as you all know, right, the traffic impact study is something very specific to the to the use that's being proposed.

And so we're not in a position today to to analyze traffic at the granular level that um Mr.

Badger requires.

Uh we are doing uh what's called a master plan traffic analysis, which basically takes the the uses that are potentially anticipated and kind of generates traffic counts, you know, potential improvements, and we're working on that with Mr.

Badger now, and we hope to have it for city council just to sort of give them a picture of what future improvements might look like.

So we are working towards that, but again, at each plat or at each uh uh subdivision, we would have a specific track traffic impact study and mitigation that would be required to address the traffic concerns that have been raised.

Um couple comments from Mr.

Nickel.

I'm not sure kind of what where they're coming from, but um Idaho Code does require cities to zone property when they annex it.

So you can't just annex property without a zone, you have to zone it when it comes in.

Um we are proposing zoning that tracks the specific area plan to a T.

So I think the the notion that we need to talk about this more, there needs to be discussion about what uses go in this corridor, uh, is I guess I don't think correct, and that Mr.

Ashby, you know, provided testimony that in 2003 a lot of careful planning went into this corridor plan, and we're trying to bring that to fruition today.

Sorry, 2023.

Thank you.

Um yeah, and again, we we we do believe that the commercial zoning we're proposing does take advantage of this special interchange area that is coming to the city.

So the the U Stick uh 16 interchange, and we also think that it'll serve a Waihee High School well with you know uses that are supportive of a high school.

Uh another thing that was kind of common through these comments is you know, we don't want uh an industrial park or an industrial use uh next to next to our residential community.

Um wish I had the map up, but a waihe storm is a collector roadway with 80 feet of right-of-way that will separate our industrial park zone and high density residential from any existing residential.

So there is an 80-foot buffer there, and I also want to highlight too, we're not asking for light industrial or heavy industrial zoning.

We are asking for the industrial park zone, which uh per for the code says it's to have a campus feel for commercial manufacturing and retail uses.

So this isn't your kind of spec big box industrial, right?

It's it's a it's an industrial park that has a campus feel connected by pathways, etc.

Um comments that maybe a mix of housing types isn't right.

Um you all been involved in all of the planning that the city's done recently, whether it's the comprehensive plan or this the state highway 16 specific area plan.

Again, mix of housing types is considered smart growth and provides diversity of housing for for residents.

So we're we're proud to be providing a diverse housing type.

Um Mr.

Chair Time.

And with that, I just say we again we we appreciate your time.

We think we meet the criteria for approval, and we'd ask for your recommendation of approval.

Excellent, thank you.

Uh questions for the applicant.

Yeah, Mr.

Vice Chair.

I have a I have a question, more clarification, and maybe Rodney, you can help me a little bit here.

Um, because I don't live in this area.

I mean, like live every day, this is not my life.

So the industrial zones there along Highway 16.

What was that?

What was that zoned for?

Was the intent to have like these uh more of a heavy industrial, like the big box things we're seeing on I-84 go up and is it to have more of a someone would look at it and say that's more commercial than it is industrial, um Mr.

Chair?

Um Commissioner, so we did a lot of work on that state highway 16 plan to identify what that should look like.

We have even have some uh diagrams in the plan showing that uh very similar to what they showed on their the screen for their presentation, these almost commercial or office looking buildings in a campus field.

It is not intended to be heavy industrial at all.

Um we recognize that it was near residential, and so we put in some pretty specific requirements there to to limit that so that it's not heavy.

Yeah, okay.

And thank you.

I appreciate it.

I think that's a big concern.

Um, and the gentleman who is speaking who had some experience in Idle Falls, I know that area very, very well.

And I think that's kind of what this area would be looking like if those big box stand-up wall industrial type warehouses don't pop up out here.

So appreciate that.

Jeff I if you look up the uh highway 16 area plan, some of the pictures they got in there for the commercial industrial park look pretty slick, I think it's not well no, I remember.

I remember going through the process, and it was very involved, and we had many, many, many hearings because I wanted to bring that up to the gentleman had mentioned you know, wait and have more hearings.

We've had a ton of hearings about what the state highway 16 area is gonna look like.

But I want to get on the record that that's not what the intent was is to have these huge warehouse industrial type buildings going there.

But it's gonna be more like if someone were to look at it and someone who doesn't understand this were to look at and say, oh, that's commercial.

Yes, sir.

Vice Chair and Commissioner Kirkman.

If I could just read real quickly from this specific area plan, and maybe we could pull it up to Damien.

Um, so that area is has the designation, the land use designation of commercial industrial campus, um, and that you know gives this strict normal matrix.

And so the the only zone that is deemed you know correct for that designation is IP, which we're asking for, and it says, you know, this is an area that provides for a variety of industrial flex business uses that include single or clustered large mass building structures, one to three stories.

Industrial parks should provide for light industrial use with campus-like atmosphere settings with uniform building standards, generous landscaping, pedestrian access, open space, and parking.

So, I mean, I think as we move forward, right, and we bring in projects, they're gonna be subject right to those standards.

So I think that's some security that it's gonna develop as the city envisioned.

Thank you.

Okay.

Additional questions.

Uh oh, I'm sorry, this might be one for Daniel.

What highway district is this area in?

Uh this would be in Nampa Highway District upon annexation, it would be brought into the city's uh road jurisdiction.

And I'll save that one for that.

Any additional questions for the applicant?

Thank you.

Thank you.

You cannot, I'm sorry.

Public hearing, nope.

Thank you, though.

Okay, we had a motion by a second by Kehoe.

Madam Clerk, you want to give us a roll call?

Need it for that?

Not for that, okay.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, hearings closed.

Did you give us any hope regarding traffic in this area?

Um so we have been working with the developer on this to scope what the traffic studies will look like.

And they are working uh with us on those.

Uh our codes and policies do not require the submittal of a traffic impact study at the time of a strictly just annexation that is done at the time of the entitlement for either or a subdivision plat or the submission of a building permit.

Um and so prior to any actual construction of structures happening, a traffic impact study will be completed and will it will identify any mitigations that are required based on the traffic generated by that development.

Mr.

Chairman.

About this uh you mentioned that you were talking about a master plan traffic study.

Um can you maybe talk to us a little bit about what that would entail?

And so what what we've been doing on these, uh we've had a couple of annexations like this where they've come in with the annexation ahead of um the actual development applications.

So what we have been doing is going through and they've been providing, you know, based on their ideas at this point and what they are proposing with the zonings, what those trip generation numbers would be, and then we have been scoping what intersections they would be looking at, what um size and scope of that study will be when it comes time to actually submit um for the development, whether that's a plat, an industrial complex or or something of that nature, um so that we have a already established what they're looking at and and how how large of an area they're looking at based on our policies.

Would it be fair to say that that process could very well inform their design as they move forward into the flating processes?

Certainly, I that that would likely as they look at what those traffic generation numbers are, what their scopes would be, and what improvements may be necessary.

I would not be surprised if they they take that into account as they look at their development proposals.

Okay, thank you.

Follow up on that.

So you've explained this to me before, Daniel, and it's not because you're bad at explaining, it's I'm bad at understanding.

But help me understand again.

I I let me phrase this question right.

I don't understand we need to look at these things holistically.

But if you develop all of these things as 100 trips a day or less every little chunks, then they don't ever have to do a traffic impact study and they're never required to do mitigations.

And it's all background is what you call it, right?

So on this development, that is why we've scoped what their full development would be, and that's the scope we're developing.

So we're looking at this as a one annexation and one development.

So this is different.

Okay.

Yes.

So there would not be a piecemeal of this.

This is a single development we're looking at, and that's what we've been scoping with them.

So once they bring in enough to justify a traffic impact study, everything they've done so far would be part of that.

So when they bring in their first thing, their traffic study, they will have their traffic study, and it will identify those triggers.

Um that's not to say that the first thing they bring in triggers them doing something, but it would that traffic study will also look at okay, at what point of their development does it trigger these improvements that are attributed to their growth or their their traffic.

So in this case, it works how I think it should work.

Yep.

Okay.

Thanks.

That's common sense right there.

Hey that that was my big question.

But since I got the floor, Rodney down uh or Damian down at uh Star Road and Franklin.

Fuller 84, Amazon, are those IP or those IL GB2?

Yeah, those are separate entirely that okay.

Gateway business.

For some reason, I I was thinking there was some IP that looks a lot like Fuller 84.

Is is what look is or maybe I'll just ask the question.

Is would Fuller 84 be permitted in IP?

In IP, yes.

Okay, so we could get those big industrial tilt up buildings.

Let me clarify.

This is not just IP.

This is an industrial park in the um state highway 16 specific area plan.

Okay, so there's so it's different than a zone.

It's and I don't even know it was this is IP zoning that you're proposing.

Okay.

So in addition to the IP standards, the state highway 16 plan puts additional requirements.

There's that additional overlay that makes it so they couldn't just put a bunch of correct warehouse in that IP.

That's correct.

That also makes me so just to staff real quick.

So we had a lot of public comment questions, like pages of questions and are are those gonna be responded to.

I know a lot of them don't necessarily merit a response at this point in time right now, just because we don't know what it's gonna look like when it develops out.

But are you gonna our staff can respond?

Uh Mr.

Chairman and Commissioner.

Uh I will be responding to them.

A lot of them came in today, and uh it's just gonna take me some time, but I I will be responding to them all individually or delegating that out to said city engineer to answer the ones I can't.

Second time is better.

So no names.

Follow up on that.

Do those responses become part of the public record in any way after we've club closed public hearing.

And they received today.

They were received yesterday and today.

Okay.

Now we still this is just a recommendation tonight.

Correct.

And that's what I was gonna say.

These typically what we do is we take all those comments and questions and we put them into the packet for city council.

That's what I was gonna do.

With your responses.

Yeah, and that would be I guess an expansion of the record um from this setting to city council setting.

All right, that makes sense.

Um I think all my questions got answered.

I just um I just I you know, a lot of people complain about suburban sprawl in Hampa and piecemeal development and pockets of development all over the place, and and one of the things that we can do to combat this is have these very specific plans like the state highways 16 very specific plan, which has additional restrictions and so on and so forth.

And when we plan, and staff has done an amazing job at doing that, and making sure that this plan is in place, and having all that hearing and that whole process, having these types of plans in place reduces a lot of that suburban sprawl where we have these just pockets of development around, and this is surrounding a lot of those pockets of development.

So I really like this plan.

Um I'm glad that my questions, my concerns are answered about the industrial park.

So that doesn't look like uh this is this is our first north-south gateway in the NAPA, really.

So I just hate seeing all those monolithic buildings coming through on I-84, but I I'm I am uh for this.

I know it's just annexation.

I know we're just annexation, so I'm for it.

But it is a development agreement in possible.

And I'm assuming that the like the stuff that we've been presented as far as the visuals and things like that, that's all part of the concept that goes into the the DA, and so that is also an additional you know, protection as well.

Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

Um, with that, I provide you guys a copy of the development agreement, and since this was late, I'm going to click through it so it's on the record for everybody to see.

And this still needs to be reviewed by the city attorney, and we'll go through multiple stages after city council to actually be approved.

Uh additional problems.

Over your speed reader.

Got it all.

Um I I like it.

I think I think what we've done over the last couple of years with put all the public meetings and all the input and try and try to get a good plan put in place for this highway 16 when it well, we found out it was gonna go in sooner than we thought, and the U State corridor and everything we've been planning on for two years plus on what we want to do here.

These guys have brought exactly what we've asked and put in, put out there to this is what we want to see happen on this corridor.

And I mean that's why we put the plan together, and these guys brought us exactly what we asked for.

So I think they've done a fantastic job, and and followed the lead of what the city looked wanted the area to look like, and I'm all for it.

I think they've done a fantastic job following the guides guidelines and rails that we had in place for this highway 16 and you stick.

So I commend them on their looking at our plan and doing exactly what we asked.

I agree that this is what we look for in the past.

We've talked about this.

We we want another parts of the city.

Um we're gonna get it right here in this area, and I think it's a good mix of housing, it's a good mix of uses, and I'm definitely in for favor of it as well.

Mr.

Vice Chair, just to add to the comments, it's not just what the city wanted.

This is this was an involved process.

Sessions and all kinds of stuff.

So it really is a it really is a collaborative effort on what what this is gonna look like.

So I think that I would say just as an aside to everybody that's here, um, they've been referring to this uh highway 16 area plan that was developed over a long period of time with public comment and all that.

Um if you if you didn't know anything about it, that's unfortunate because it's a plan that was presented in lots of different public settings.

Now, I would say currently at this very moment, they're working on downtown the um form-based code that they're working on the the planning department, building department, everybody's working on it, and they are currently doing public input.

And so I would encourage you if you want you know don't want to be surprised by something in the future.

Um it's it's happening right now.

The city's taking comment on that, and so get involved, don't contact the city or go to the city's website.

I believe that it's on the website the the opportunity to actually comment on that.

So um that was just in the side, so go ahead and continue.

Uh umce you develop a piece of property, it doesn't go back, right?

And doing this right the first time is imperative, as something I think isn't or can should be appreciated is how many different landowners are a part of this.

I mean, how many of the lines of that development agreement had a different owner on it, right?

Like they didn't just buy a bunch of land and say this is what we're gonna do.

They got a bunch of people together and discussed it, held to what the public input was without the plan we put in place.

So I think this isn't this.

This isn't just let's go put a bunch of things here, it's well thought out.

You this is the corridor you want to put high density housing.

This is the corridor where you want high traffic to go to.

Star Road does suck, and this is gonna pull traffic off of Star Road because Star Road and Highway 16 go the same direction.

Uh stick, that's a different story.

We'll have to talk about that as we go along.

But you know, any of the north-south corridors are gonna ease up a bit when highway 16's finished.

So I uh just want to commend them for being able to put all this together.

I think if I were to make any criticism, it'd be more of a diversity in housing more than even what you have.

Because we have we basically have two types here, right?

We have the small single family, and then we have the apartments.

You know, a lot of developments come in with apartments and townhomes, small single family, and then a little bit larger single family.

Maybe you don't have enough room to get all of the different types in here, but I still like it how you have it.

But there is diversity of housing, but barely because there's two types.

I still support it.

I don't think we can change anything at this point.

That's one of the changes we can't make in the chair.

I move to approve the project to stay down screen with recommended conditions and proposed findings.

Second, it's been moved by Commissioner Daffer, seconded by Commissioner Keyhoe to uh recommend approval to city council.

And uh, Madam Clerk, you want to do a roll call?

Hi, Dapper, yes, Turner.

Hi Keyhoe.

Aye, Morgan, yes, Kirkman.

Hi, Copeland.

Hi motion carries, and that will go on to city council.

Um so if you would like to go ahead and continue to follow the project along and testify to the city council.

We appreciate you coming tonight.

We do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Peggy.

I make a motion we adjourn.

Second.

We got a motion by Selman and a second by Morgan to adjourn.

All those in favor?

I when Peggy when Peggy's turn, are we ever gonna be able to adjust forever?

We'll never adjourn again.

All right.

All right.