All right.

Let's uh welcome everybody here tonight.

Um, I'm Matt Garner.

I am the vice chair.

Our chairman is out of town, but he will be joining us at some point, we think.

So we'll go ahead and get started at this point, and then he'll join in when he can.

Um, let's go ahead and start with a roll call.

Madam Clerk, you Garner?

Here, Miller, Staffer, here, Turner, Keyhoe, Morgan, Kirkman, Salman, here, Copeland.

You have a quorum.

Thank you.

Um, Rodney, got report on council actions.

Rodney Ashby, planning and zoning director for the record.

Um, I we had several uh items that city council heard.

The first one was a final plat that you had approved or recommended approval for.

Um this was for East Ranch and uh Cherry Lane.

Um, this was recommended by you and approved.

This the next uh one was a public hearing with the adoption of the downtown implementation plan, and that was approved by City Council.

You had recommended approval of that one as well.

Um they you had recommended that they be approved for the the development agreement um modification and the rezone to BC as long as they had the B N zoning land uses and um except for the um the drive-throughs, essentially, they were trying to allow drive-through on that development, and that's exactly what City Council approved.

Next one was a pre-annexation and zoning.

This one was near the southeast corner of North Robinson and Airport Road for a landscape company.

We saw this not too long ago.

And you had recommended approval, and city council did approve that with a development agreement.

And then the final one was annexation and zoning and subdivision preliminary plat for Breckenwood subdivision.

This is near the uh 11th Avenue North Canada Road and Eustach Road.

It was kind of spread in several different locations.

And that one you had recommended approval.

That was for 68 single family attached townhouse dwelling units, 284 single family detached dwelling units and four commercial lots.

And there were some RS4 in there, uh RS or excuse me, BC R D, and the City Council uh denied that application.

Um essentially they just felt like it was too dense in that development.

So those were the ones that uh had to report on, and I've got staff communication.

You want me to jump into that?

Yeah, let's do it.

Okay.

Um so this is the staff communication.

This is the third quarter density report.

Maybe there we go.

Um these are preliminary plats, just as a reminder for the audience, maybe since all of you have heard this.

Preliminary plats are a pretty good amount of time out, three, five, sometimes ten years went before they're all developed out.

Um so these are the first phase of what they need to do to develop the subdivision.

So those are the preliminary plots.

Whoops.

Here's a little closer view of the north section and the number number of single family lots there and multifamily lots that were approved.

Um, and then the next one is the southern section, and then of course the table at the bottom there, 684 single family units.

And I'm a little confused by the multifamily units why it says zero.

Um I'll have to get back to you on that one because I think there was some multi-family uh listed on the map.

So we'll get I'll I'll get some clarification there for you.

Uh final plates again, these are all over, these are more short term.

Uh you have you know, typically you see these within the next year, year and a half, two years construction.

So they they're kind of all over, but we've seen a lot of the same locations for the last couple of years, southeast and um to the north and a little bit to the to the northwest.

Um we have seen some in the southwest in the past, but haven't haven't seen that in this report.

So that if you recall, this is for a full year in the in the last 12 months.

This is what we're showing.

Um little closer view there and the southern view, and then the the report there.

Um again 444 single family units in final plats, and then 72 multifamily units.

And that's all I have for you, unless you have any questions for it.

I have a check question for Roddy.

The last one that they the city council didn't deny, wasn't that in that area of impact that we spent all the time going through and developing, and didn't that fit what we outlined for that area?

So um, yeah, I think you might be thinking of District 16.

Um that's the specific area plan.

Um that one that they denied was not in that correct.

This is um this is the Todd Campbell one.

Um let me see if I can give you a specific location.

1751th Avenue North Rodney.

So it's at the corner of Landry and Canada, so half mile between Canada or Cherry and Eustach on Canada.

This the one that did that had the side street that didn't go all the way across correct.

Correct.

I was thinking it was in the area, but yeah, just south of it.

Was that um so just a quick question on the preliminary plates?

Was Brecken Ridge?

That's the one that was denied, correct?

By the city council.

Was that for those preliminary?

Brecken Wood.

Yeah, Breckenwood.

Was that one of the preliminary preliminary plats that was on your list here?

Um was it on there?

We could look back on the city.

So does the preliminary platform?

Does that approval just null and void at this point then?

Yeah, so yeah, there it is.

Second from the bottom there.

Um 352 single family units, and then yeah.

So that one is just it's gone now.

Any other questions?

Yeah.

Mr.

Viser, a quick question.

More of general answers.

If you go back to a map, all of the umperties there around the city.

Compared to other like Caldwell, Meridian, everyone's grown.

All these communities are growing so fast in the Treasure Valley.

Do they have the same roughly about the same area of uh of the uh in Enclave parcels?

Enclave, that's the way Mr.

Chair and Commissioners.

Yeah, I I would say that generally they do.

Though there's they're hard to develop in fill projects because of the development that has already occurred around it.

Um people get used to that being a field, and and then you get a lot of opposition at public hearings for that reason.

Um so that's sometimes hard, but it's also generally smaller.

They they generally are not the best projects to develop because of their shape or they're next to uh they have a waterway running through them or whatever.

So they're just more expensive to develop typically.

Yeah, and one of the things I was thinking about is that with the others with the other communities in the valley, they there's there's room for them to grow.

Nampa doesn't necessarily have as much room to grow as other communities, and I was just wondering if we're seeing a faster tick in some of those in vill developments than other communities are general.

I I again I I would probably I mean I don't have the data, I could look at that.

No, it's not worth um, but I think we're generally about the same.

Okay, yeah.

Any other questions?

Thanks, Rodney.

Um, I would entertain a motion for the consent agenda.

Second.

We have a motion to approve the consent agenda by Keyhoe and a second by Kirkman.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Okay.

Do we know if the chairman is on yet?

Have you seen him?

Okay.

We'll go ahead and move into the public hearing part of our meeting tonight, and would just remind you all and those of us on the uh stand here that the meeting is being recorded, and so um excessive noise up here or out there, it makes that audio recording kind of hard to decipher in the end.

And so if we could kind of keep the chatter to a minimum, um, there will be times when you were asked that you if you would like to participate in the public hearing, and so we'll let you know when that comes.

Um so the way that it goes is that the applicant, whoever has the uh the project that's up for consideration tonight, will have uh seven minutes to propose their project to talk about what they would like to do at the end of that.

Our staff, whoever is representing that project, will present, and they don't have a time limit, they can present as long as they need to.

Um and at that point, we will open up the public hearing, and anybody who's would like to speak for or against or undecided on that project will have time to come up and they'll have three minutes each to present and to talk about what you would like to talk about.

Um, in some of these cases, a lot of you might have the same concerns, and so you can come up and express the same concerns, or you can just come up and say most everything that I wanted to say has already been said, and so I'm in opposed or I'm I'm for it, or whatever you'd like to say.

Um at the conclusion of the public hearing, um, the applicant will have a chance to come up and answer any questions that were asked and to rebut any of the stuff that had been brought up in the testimony.

Um, and then at that point we will close the public hearing and then we will deliberate and then render a decision or render a recommendation, which either whichever one it is.

Uh so that's how it's gonna go tonight, and so we'll appreciate um having you all here, and so we'll go ahead and get started.

Is the applicant for our first project here?

Yeah, come on up.

And just remember, whenever you come up to this to the microphone, whether you're presenting or whether you're just here to give public testimony, please give us your name and your address when you come up.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Commissioners for the record, Ryan Cutler, Alquist Development 1144 South Silverstone Way in Rudy, Idaho 83642.

Here representing Prescott Creek and Jim Rish and Dave Palferman as the property owners there.

Just grateful for the opportunity to be here tonight and share some information with you.

I'm gonna go quick because I know how fast that clock goes.

We're grateful for uh the great team and your staff that you have who's worked with us on this project.

Um just for kind of for the record of myself here as the chief development officer for all quiz presenting tonight.

We'll also have some uh words here in a few minutes from uh Nicolette Wilmack, who is uh been helping us as uh staff on this as well from Kimley Horn.

Give you an idea and timeline uh of where we've kind of been.

Um we've been working with staff since early in 2024 through pre-op meetings and neighborhood meetings, uh and then a pre-op meeting again in January of 2025, and then an official neighborhood meeting in May of uh 2025.

Our application was then submitted in June.

Uh here we are tonight uh for our P and Z hearing and anticipating to have a additional city council hearing here in the next couple of months.

Um just to give you an idea of what uh this application is tonight.

I'm sure you've been able to read the staff report from our our staff members, but uh, this is an annexation and zoning with a development agreement for this property to bring it into the city, uh assign it to the RMH zoning, and then buying those conditions of approval to the site.

That also is a comprehensive plan text amendment to update highway 2026 specific area plan to reflect the current comprehensive comprehensive plan HDR gross density of eight plus dwelling units per acre.

So for your reference, uh you'll see here in a minute a site plan that shows an idea of what the site could look like.

That would have to come back in the future for an additional hearing.

We're here tonight just to talk about um the annexation and the zoning and the development agreement of the site.

So anything that would come in in the future as far as a plat or a building on that site would need to come back through for an additional hearing.

So tonight that's not what we're discussing.

We're discussing the annexation and the zoning and the density on the site.

Just for reference, uh the site is located here, may look familiar.

It is in close proximity to East Canyon, which was recently um approved and moved through uh P and Z and City Council.

And then one last thing on the future land use map, uh, you'll see the site highlighted here in red, and you can see the densities that are in the future land use map around it that it's been approved and set aside by the city of Dampa for development.

Uh this area as part of the smart growth principles, this would be a development that would generally include a combination of three plus plex complexes, townhomes, condominiums, apartments, and live at work units.

Uh, and and this would be contained in a single building complex that would be a part of a master plan or development.

Uh and that's uh as you'll see as we move forward, that goes hand in hand with what we are working with on our site tonight.

Um I'm gonna turn some time over to Nicolette to go through a few a few more slides to talk about some of these items, and then I'll stand back up and close real quick.

Chair Commissioners, Nicola at Walmack, uh 110 West Idaho Street, Boise Idaho 83702.

Um so based off the future land use map, um, when you develop in the city, um, I'm sure you all know, um, you take your future land use map um and you find your category on this zoning matrix.

So our category is high density residential on the far right column.

Um, and we are allowed to ask for the zones that are labeled an X.

We've just taken out the extra stuff to keep life simple.

Um, so we're allowed to ask for RD, RML, RMH, and RP zones.

We are asking for RMH, which is one of the um uh zones allowed within that future land use map.

So the RMH zone um says that it's specifically for high density multiple uh family housing uh near major commerce areas, campus locations, and major thoroughfare intersections.

Um so again, all of this is already in place on the property today.

Um so this is where the text amendment comes up.

Um previous years, the highway 2026 specific area plan was adopted.

Um you can see our subject property is labeled HDR in the bottom left corner, um, which says eight to twelve units uh per acre.

And we need to have 50% of that development area include townhouses.

So we're doing that with the 50 percent.

Um, however, there's some conflicts between the comp plan and the specific area plan.

The comp plan says eight plus dwelling units per acre, which is how everyone else has been developing within the city, and then this specific area plan caps it at 12 units per acre.

So we just like those two to match.

Shown here is the East Canyon Master Plan Community.

And it also includes BC business zoning as well.

So they have 28 acres of commercial, 287 acres of single family, and 40 acres of multifamily.

That means that their multifamily is 14.6 dwelling units per acre.

And you'll see what ours are in just a minute.

I believe it's 14.1.

So this is our subject site.

We are between 11th Ave on the right and Prescott Lane on the uh west.

Um 10 mile flood creek and floodplain runs through the middle of our site.

Shown here is the conceptual conceptual development plan that Ryan mentioned earlier.

Um so again, on this conceptual plan that will need to be further reviewed during a preliminary plot in the future.

Um, we are showing 65% of our site with attached townhomes for sale units when only 50% is required.

Um we are showing uh multifamily units, 760 units for a total uh 1,140 um units, and our density um is 14.1 dwelling units per acre.

Um we'll be quick because we're running out of time.

Um, our open space required to provide 15 percent.

We're at 27% open space with a number of amenities, and we can walk you through those.

Um, all the future roadways would be built out according to standards, which includes 10 foot wide sidewalks and 25 foot wide landscape buffers on all the collector roads.

Um, shown here are the access points, two access points to the east, two to the west, one to the north, and we have 2.3 parking spaces per unit.

And I'll turn it back over to Ryan.

In my last uh 20 seconds, again, just for reference, this was put out by the city uh data showing uh the needs for the city moving forward.

Uh, and I think you can see by this document, um, the city is still well behind their anticipated growth in the future.

And just in the last uh five seconds, we appreciate staff and their recommendation of approval of this project towards uh going towards the city council.

And just for reference, here are all the uh zoning uh references within the code uh that shows that this site that we're attendeed to have annexed into the city and um and moving forward.

So meets all of the applicable codes that are set out in the future land use map.

For any questions, sorry for the extra eight seconds.

Um you have an anticipated build-out schedule.

Truthfully, we don't.

Um, we're kind of waiting to see what happens in our hearing procedures going on here, and then we'll determine what goes on in the future.

It's also kind of tied towards utilities in the area and how that plays out.

We recognize we'll play our part in that as far as bringing utilities or helping the infrastructure, whether it be roadway uh or water sewer, those those things, but the timing of that kind of works out with how other NX parcels are progressing so that we can utilize uh those areas to continue on with our area.

So I don't anticipate, I do anticipate.

I mean, it would be safe to me to say that we think in the next five years, a portion of the site would be completed, and probably within the next three years would be back in front of you two to three back in front of you for consideration of what that site will actually look like again as we're just going for the annexation and the zoning adoption this evening.

So not a really great answer, um, but we do not have any uh plans at this moment that are solidified of what would actually be built there.

The things that we've shown you tonight are just concept only of what it could potentially look like.

Thank you.

Awesome, thank you.

Okay, Damien.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

Damien Snodgrass, associate planner.

One second while I pull up this presentation.

All righty.

So the requested action item for the night is annexation and zoning to RMH multifamily residential and a comprehensive plan text amendment to change the text on the map in the highway 2026 specific area plan that restricts that high density residential to 12 dwelling units an acre.

So some of the property details currently the property is within Canyon County and it is under that high density residential designation.

Um the surrounding uses as of now is to the north, west, and to the south and east, there's all Canyon County agricultural field.

Down towards the southwest, we have an RS4 single family subdivision, the Northland sub.

And in 2024, a pre-application meeting was held.

Apartment and townhouse developments was the main topic of discussion within that pre-application meeting.

So this application is compatible currently with the comprehensive plan under the high density residential plan designation.

It has to meet those dwelling units per acre.

And so this one is falling within the normal high density residential designation allowances, but it is outside of debt within the specific area plan with those limiters.

Alright, here's some staff analysis on that little bit of area.

So along that UST corridor, just above it, all of those parcels that are within the HDR have the limiter of eight to 12 million units, and the townhouse limitations of 50% being townhouses.

And so this is kind of the reason behind why these are the way they are.

There wasn't too much spoken about in the plan that actually talked about the limiter, other than the fact that within master plan communities is kind of what we wanted to see for the area, and those mixed use of housing of higher density options around that USTIC corridor.

Here's that conceptual plan again.

And here are the applicable regulations.

We will cover these in the findings for annexation and zoning.

And here is the applicable regulations to the comprehensive text amendment.

And we don't have too many of these very often.

We only have them twice a year.

So City of Namper prepared the 2040 comprehensive plan future land use map, and it was adopted in 2020 and updated in December of 2023.

Unlike zoning code, the future land use map is a little bit more flexible and subject to change.

That the planning zoning commission and city council may desire periodically.

And so this is something where you can give recommendation to city council, and this map's a little bit more flexible and less hard-lined as zoned are, and then the zoning for RMH.

And here's more of that data on the housing needs assessment that was done for the city.

We are in a housing deficit.

And here is another slide about the average revenue that we get per zone currently within the city.

All right.

Correspondence.

A lot of correspondence in here from engineering, and this was provided within the staff report.

If we have questions on it, we have Daniel here to answer those kinds of questions.

For other correspondence, we have from the Nampa Fire District, they provide a general access and water supply comments.

Without a current plat, they can't really give too much information on that.

Once the platts come in, those will come before you again, and more comments will be provided at that time.

Valley View School District provided some comments over the conservative capacity of schools and the influx of students in the valley, and they included a list of developments that are happening within their district.

Caldwell Highway District provided comments about the city's ability to sustain roads and development.

It is requesting more impact fees or development exactions to address the future need of highways as they are being developed.

ITD has a no objection as for the proposed rezone or annexation.

But since this application is in its early stages, it doesn't indicate the proposed units in a plat, so that the analyzation can't go through the same way.

NAMPA Parks and Rec requests that the developer grant a permanent easement of 20 feet along the top bank of the west side of 10 Mile Creek for the purpose of the 10 mile pathway as indicated in the city of Nampa pedestrian and bicycle master plan.

And we received a numerous amount of public comments on this, and these are all provided in the staff report or came through as late comments.

The generalized message of a lot of these comments is that the loss of surrounding agricultural lands, there's property values not wanting to go down, people not wanting the zone to change.

However, since this is annexing into the city, there is not actually zone change happening.

It is being annexed into Nampa City proper.

There was comments regarding buffering existing neighborhoods.

Since there is no plat, we don't have those buffering requirements until subdivision plat comes in, and we will assess those codes at that time.

There was comments over the legality of the zone and like heights requirements of buildings within this zone and the distances that it is away.

It will meet all the buffering buffering requirements and all the height requirements that are necessity by code, and those are written in.

Those will come in at the time of building permits or plats, and I'll have to meet all those regulations.

And then the time of development that is happening right now, overcrowding, and wanting the area to steer rural variety of comments.

This one came in with a lot.

Alright.

Now the staff findings for the comprehensive tax amendment highlighted in yellow.

We added a few more to beef it up just so we have more findings through it.

So the first is updates to the NAPA comprehensive plan are necessary from time to time to ensure that the decision makers, planners, and the community are informed about the status of emergency resources and development impact fees in the area of impact.

As new development proposals are received, the comprehensive plan is utilized to determine how and where the resources could be distributed and planned for the future.

These land amendments are proposed, are in accordance with Idaho Code 676508.

The text amendment supports long-term growth planning, improved transparency, and ensures the cost of new development high density.

Then the applicants are within the density requirements per the high density residential designation and are just asking for that removal.

The SAP proposes 8 to 12 dwelling units with the townhome and apartments, and the specific area plan was made in accordance with the 2040 comprehensive plan.

And we provided both sets of approvals for this one since this one was we we don't get as many of these.

So approval conclusion is that the concluded proposed changes to the density limits within the highway 2026 specific area plan provide current accurate information that can be utilized for emergency development service planning, as these changes are required by state law and are necessary as the community continues to grow.

Next, we got the staff findings for annexation.

So all private landowners have consented to the annexation.

Staffs found this to be met.

We have an affidavit.

The property shall be contiguous city limits or be enclave by other properties so annexed.

Staff's found this to be met.

It's contiguous to the southwest.

That the NAMPA comprehensive plan includes the area of annexation.

Staff has found this to be met through the HDR designation.

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

The proposed annexation complies with the memorandum of understanding, so staff has found this to be met.

And then here are the applicable criteria for zoning, that the proposed map amendments is or would be in harmony with the city's currently adopted comprehensive plan and comprehensive plan land use map, that the proposed map amendments is R would provide for proposed use or set of uses that would be at least reasonably compatible with existing and adjoining property uses, and that the proposed zoning map amendments is in the best is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary for the relevant facts.

We the facts are the RMH zoning district code, some pieces from the comprehensive plan about high density residential smart growth principles and some key elements of creating a livable quality streetscape.

With this, that the structures within the RMH zoning district so will be subject to the design review standards within the city.

There's a current need for housing in the city.

The project, the projected need for housing within Nampa City limits.

There will be a 25-foot landscape buffer that is required with this development, that the current city codes are written to protect public interest by providing guidance for development.

Therefore, the project is resumed to be in public interest because any further development or redevelopment of the property would be required to meet the city codes and standards.

City services are available or will be working towards being available, and that the traffic and frontage improvements will need to be addressed at time of construction per the adopted city specifications and construction standards.

Inclusion conclusions, staff found that these were to be met, these criteria would be met, that it is reasonably necessary for the city, it is within the adopted comprehensive plan and does provide for a set of uses that would be reasonably compatible with the future adjoining properties.

And um that it is compatible with other definitions provided that it will be subject to the design review standards, and we'll have to provide open space amenities and things of that nature and provide those frontage improvements, and we'll provide a variety of housing types and all of this will be done with adopted city codes.

Here are the recommended conditions of approval.

Any on-site wells no longer for the proposed use shall be abandoned, that the property shall be annexed into the NAMPA municipal irrigation district, that the applicant owner shall comply with all city code's policies and standards.

The applicant shall dedicate the following right-of-way, construct frontage improvements along Prescott and 11th with NAMPA City Code 9-3-1 at time of development.

Developers shall provide a traffic impact study for review and coordinate with the NAMPA development engineering, and that the proposed development is partially encumbered by 10 Mile Creek floodplain, which has an undefined floodway.

Um at the time of platting and prior to building permits, developer need to complete a floodplain study, the dedication of the 20-foot easement along the west side of 10 Mile Creek, and review of the traffic generation distribution sent to ITD at time of development, and the applicant must have a development agreement reviewed by the city attorney prior to annexation and any others that the commission may recommend.

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

Any questions?

I would ask um the specific area plan.

I guess the the difference between the specific area plan and the requested zoning was that an oversight, or how did they not get coordinated?

And what's the so the specific area plan is meant to just hone down the comprehensive plan, and the requested zone is within that it is allowable within that.

What they're asking for is just to exceed the density limiter that is set by the specific area plan.

You are able to get between eight and twelve dwelling units an acre under the RMH um zoning district, like that density would be allowable within the high density.

They're just asking to have the normal high density designation, which is eight plus, which is no cap.

Uh, anywhere throughout the city that you see HDR that's not within a specific area plan, that's what would be allowable.

So they're just asking to remove that language for their parcels.

Thank you.

Mr.

Vice Chair was that removed for the East Canyon development in that specific area.

The East Canyon uh did not have those limiters on their high density, and they also did a comprehensive map amendment, which they because they moved theirs around.

Okay, so they they relocated their density throughout that development.

Okay.

We'll go ahead and open our public hearing.

Um just a reminder.

Try and keep the chatter down so we don't mess up our recording, and then when you come up again, please give us your name and your address for the record, and you'll have three minutes to to give testimony.

So we'll go ahead, Madam Clerk.

Do we have a sign-up sheet?

We do.

Our first speaker is Roger Pipkin.

Okay, Roger, go ahead and come on up.

Thank you, Chairman.

Members, my name is Roger Pipkin.

I live at 1873 Prescott Lane here in Nampa.

I'm here tonight to talk about why I'm against the Briscott Creek development and why it should not be approved.

Primarily it's it has to do with the density.

I mean, there's three issues that we that I see uh is going to be truly impacted by a density of this height.

There's the traffic and transportation in the area, is the safety in the area and the comp the compatibility with what's in the area.

Currently, the all those roads that we're talking about 11th, Prescott, Eustach, and Elm are all two-lane country lanes.

There's no sidewalks, there's no, there's not even a bike lane in that area.

So they're fairly narrow roads.

If we're talking 1,120, I think it is homes or units.

If they have two people per home, we're talking 2200.

If they go to work and back and to the store and back, you're talking eight to ten thousand car trips per day on two-lane roads.

Now, I understand Eustach Road is going to be expanded at some time, and so is 2026.

But I feel that this project is ahead of schedule, and that in this area at this time with the limited road capacity, we shouldn't be considering this high a density.

So the other issue we have is is um is the safety.

I mean, when we have no sidewalks, no roads, anybody that wants to leave this development to do a walk or to ride their bike, it's not safe.

Those roads are not that wide.

The other issue of safety is with that kind of traffic, we're going to increase the response time for ambulances for fire, anything like that.

The other safety issue is even if you annex this in, the major intersections around this, Canada and 11th and Eustach are all still within Canyon County area.

And so instead of the City of Nampa police department, you're going to get Canyon County Sheriff, which has a longer response time.

Nothing against them.

They do a good job, but they have a lot of area to cover and they don't have that many people.

So from a safety standpoint, there's a lot of reasons we should not change the density or increase the density.

The last thing is compatibility.

Everything out there is rural residential agriculture.

There's nothing that's really high out there.

Putting four story apartments out there would just not fit the compatibility of that area.

Um I just want to thank you for your service.

I understand, but you know, you gotta think for us that live out there, we don't need that kind of growth.

We need growth.

I understand that.

I'm I do I worked for a company that did a lot of development work.

I worked for the power company, I designed project the power utility for projects.

I know what a good development looked like, and this is not it.

So thank you for your time and thank you for your service to the city of Nampa.

But I just want to ask if something like this was going on in your neighborhood, would you want this kind of density?

And I think most of you would say this is the wrong kind of density, and especially in an area with the roads that just won't handle it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Stuart Heinman.

Mr.

Vice Chair Stuart Heinmann, uh, thank you all for being here.

I live at 11th Avenue North Extension uh 18520, kitty corner to this uh piece of property.

All those announcements, all those meetings that they called.

I was never uh identified one time as somebody who is impacted by this.

I want to say that uh the Department of Development out here who's supposed to be notifying, forgot that I lived kitty corner to this property.

Uh I'm here to speak in opposition to the request and increase the to increase the building height from two stories to four stories.

I express this concern uh and even question the two-story approval that's out there for these.

The property has been designated urban high density, but it's clearly not urban.

It in character, it is about five miles from the city center, and it's roughly a mile outside of the current city boundaries.

There's no public infrastructure at all, no water, no sewer, no emergency services, or adequate school capacity to support the development of this intensity.

Expanding the allowable height and density would only create an isolated high density pocket surrounded by rural land with no supporting infrastructure that is directly contrary to the intent of NAMPA's comprehensive plan, which directs high density growth in areas where the city already has services.

Even the current two-story plan represents more development than this area is reasonable can reasonably support.

Providing the necessary infrastructure would be costly and burdensome to the city.

It's also worth noting that roughly half of the site is not under contract for development.

Senator Risch told me specifically he is under no contract to sell this, and he doesn't intend to sell it until he maybe his children will sell it when he dies.

The implication from Alquist was that he was on board.

I would say the senator is not on board, and he's been my neighbor for over 30 years on that piece of property.

So I would like to raise also the questions of fiscal responsibility.

This project, if approved, the cost would extend to roads, utilities, emergency services, adequate schools, and in this rural equation, it's likely to fall on existing taxpayers in the city of Nampa.

So the people who are asking for this to be built are not going to be paying for it.

It's the people who already live in Nampa.

Those costs could easily outweigh any new revenue the city might gain.

I left you all a uh article from uh Rick Hogaboom, which indicated what is happening in the city of Nampa and the fact that these developments that you're approving are costing the city more money than they're bringing in.

This one would be no different than those.

My question is simple.

Has a fiscal impact study been done?

Has have we examined who will actually pay for the utilities roads and public services this development will require?

Responsible growth should pay for itself, and this project does not appear to meet that standard.

In closing, this proposal is premature, inconsistent with responsible planning, and unfair to existing Nampa residents who would end up subsidizing the infrastructure for a project well outside of the city's natural growth area.

I respectfully ask the commission to deny the request for increased height, and that's density, and to reconsider whether high density zoning is appropriate for all of this property until public services, including adequate school capacity are in place to support it.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next is Diane Heinmann Commissioners, my name is Diane Heinman.

I also live at 18520 11th Avenue North Extension, Nampa, Idaho, 83687.

I again live kitty corner to the land in question.

I had to write mine down because I'll get nervous.

I want to express my concern about the proposal of high density multi-story house up to four stories tall in this location.

This part of Nampa is not an urban area.

It is at least five miles for the city from the city of Nampa, surrounded by open fields, farms, and established single home, single family homes.

It has also been a quiet rural residential community and a project that this scale simply does not fit the setting or the infrastructure.

One of my strongest concerns is also a nesting pair of red tail hawks that live on that property.

These hawks have been there since I've been there for 33 years.

They are important of this ecosystem.

They help control the vermin.

They also maintain balance in their area.

They also are part of the ongoing study for the Boise State University, which has been moderning these nests and behavior in part of the regional wildlife research.

I do not want to see this grove of trees removed from that property.

If this land is clear for high density constructions, a hot nesting site will almost certainly be destroyed, ending the research and removing the species that benefits from this neighborhood.

Beyond that, this type of density, urban style housing, would bring more traffic, noise, and parking congestion in this area and lacks the roads and infrastructure to support it.

The results will be permanent change to a quiet, open character of our community.

I would I respectfully request the commissioners reconsider to reconsider the density and height of this project.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Next is Todd Lodgett.

Good evening.

My name's Todd Blodgett.

I live at 18853 Prescott Lane.

And I can't say more than the first two gentlemen.

All I could say is the high density impact will affect when we're getting hay on and off the property, moving tractors and stuff down the road, is just dangerous right now.

And I can't imagine with all those influx of vehicles and people coming in and out of there.

So I'm opposed to it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mabrie Bryce.

Hi, I'm Mabel Bryce, 18050 North Sophie Place in Nampa.

And let's see here, I moved to this property in 2016.

We are just south of where they're doing the development.

Our land touches what they're doing, and it was supposed to be RS4 at that time.

And then in 2022, that you guys had a um a meeting or City of Nampa dead at Franza Witty, and at that point we were told it was going to be duplexes.

And now here we are three years later, and we're being told it is now eight to twelve units per year.

And they were trying to make it eight plus.

And I read a lot of your um laws, and according to what I can see, eight to twelve limits the height to 30 something feet, and um it has um setbacks on the farms that they're supposed to be.

And if you change it to eight to twelve, and I could be wrong, city knows this better than me.

Um, then all of a sudden they are allowed to do higher.

Um, an average four-story building is sixty-three feet tall, and um our farm backs up right along, and their land is already four or five feet taller than ours, and so you add four-foot ceiling, um, four-foot neighborhoods, uh, what do they call apartments right next to that?

And all of a sudden, you're 70 feet above our farm.

And with the 8 to 12 units, there's no longer a setback.

And so this is going to ruin everything.

We um we love where we live, and we went and visited all the neighbors.

There's 40 homes in the paper.

I said 60, and every 32 home that I got to, nobody wants this.

Not one of our neighbors want this.

And Jen Rish and Paulman are wonderful men, but they've never lived here.

They just own land.

And I know they're trying to sell the property, and I respect the property owners' rights, but um, you also have to think about the impact of the people who live there, please.

Um, a couple things.

Um on the last in the very beginning, you guys had like a Breckenridge neighborhood, and that's 81 acres, and you've just recently okayed it for 350 dwelling units.

And Harry, we have 81 acres, and they're trying to put 1140 dwelling units in.

And so I just um I wonder why.

Why do we keep going so dense and why I recognize that we need housing, but we need people to own homes.

We don't want apartment complexes that are owned by large entities.

We want places where people can have their home, and that's American dream.

That's what Idaho's all being offered.

I love Idaho.

I've lived here my whole life, and this just goes against everything that I feel and have um known about Idaho.

One more thing is I used to live in Meridian, and you have Chindon, McMillan, Eustick, uh Cherry, and Franklin, and they are all fortified lanes, and they have about R4 for all homes.

There's maybe a car apartment complex here and there.

There are some businesses.

Traffic is awful, even in the middle of the day.

And what we're trying to do here, we don't have the roads, and we're trying to go so much more dense, and it just scares me.

And I don't want to live there.

In fact, I'm gonna have to move if this happens.

And so um I appreciate you guys' time.

Um, and I appreciate all you do.

I hope that you listen to all these resonance.

We do we do care.

Thank you.

Mark Brace.

Mr.

Chairman, members of the council, thank you so much.

Um, I don't know that I can add a lot.

Um, address.

I live at 18050 North Sophie Place, which is actually a subdivision um just south of the property.

Um that most of it is actually being farmed.

Um anyway, I I don't know if I can say that much more other than right now to get out during um rush hour.

You have to turn right onto Eustick, you have to immediately turn right on the Prescott, you go up, you wait for about 30 minutes on Prescott before you can turn left or I'm excuse me, right on the on the Chinden.

And and this development will not be expanding Prescott or expanding 11th.

Right now it takes it takes it it's dangerous, and there's no sidewalks, they're all rural roads, and there's a theme.

Everybody's talking about the farm, the farm.

This is completely surrounded by farm ground.

We're gonna have apartment complexes in the middle of farm country, and people are gonna have to drive or walk five to six miles to get to any services.

Um there's no grocery stores, there's no gas stations, there's there's nothing nearby.

So it's completely inconsistent.

Um anyway, I appreciate what you guys do.

Hopefully, you're listening to all these comments of people that live here and realize that this this density uh like it.

There's good, there's good um development, and I think that you know that we need homes, and this could be turned into homes, but I think high density is just not quite the right fit for this area.

Thank you.

William Lathin.

Hello.

Uh my name is Bill Lathan.

I live at 18070 North Sophie Place.

And uh we own farmland, and then it's uh touches the property that's being talked about.

So I I don't know that I can add very much.

These other people have said really everything.

Um I might just share a couple of thoughts, but for this project to uh occur the zoning, an Amp City zoning says it is intended to be situated near major commerce areas, campus locations, and major thoroughfare intersections around downtown districts.

And some of the discussion tonight made it sound like this project needs that, but in my mind it doesn't.

I went out and measured it, and it were over four miles away from Costco and that development area.

And the project's over four miles away from uh Walmart.

It's about four miles from the CWI campus, and from downtown Nampa, of course, it's you know quite a bit longer distance.

So it doesn't seem like this project meets what this city of Napa zoning requirements require.

And so that's a major concern.

I've got some information on the roads and so forth, but that's already been talked about.

Uh we just hope that you will listen to us poor people.

There's some strong people who are marked that are for this, but there's gonna be a lot of bad things happen to you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sophronia Redenbaugh.

Hi.

My name is Sophie Redenbaugh.

I'm at 18070, North Sophie Place in Nampa.

And where I live touches the south edge of this proposed changes.

I wanted to just mention again the traffic and the emergency services.

Um the lack of of time to get to there.

Also, the schools, I think our are school buses average about uh like a 30 to an hour to take a loop to to bring our kids to school, and I think that would get a lot worse with the traffic.

And I I think we all want homes, but this is very high density.

Thank you.

Joseph Simolo.

Hello, my name is Joe Somolo, and I'm at 6946 Eustach Road.

And um I've only been there a year and a half, and um I was shocked to find that uh that this uh um project has the scope that it does, the size uh of it, not just in density, but in height, it's gonna be a huge eyesore and change the whole feeling of the neighborhood.

Uh I'm in full agreement with just about everything everybody said here.

I I couldn't say it better.

Um it's scary to think what this place is gonna turn into with that much traffic and that much populace uh in in this area.

Um I I understand that growth is is necessary, progress is necessary.

I understand what's going on on Eustach and 11th and uh uh the sewer line the widening of the road, it all makes sense, but to put this much uh population in in that area in such a small area, it's what an eyesore it's gonna be.

It's gonna be nothing like anything nearby.

It's it's almost shocking that it's even being considered.

Um I I could imagine developing the area with single-family homes, two family homes, maybe even small smaller apartments with four four four families in one structure uh with parking for them and and open spaces, but nothing that's conceived in that image makes any reasonable sense.

Uh I hope you can reconsider uh keeping it somewhat more in line with what what exists in the area right now.

Um there's a way to grow and then there's a way to just explode the place into something that it it isn't.

So thank you for your time.

No further sign-ups.

Hey.

Is there anybody else here that would like to speak on this application or online if you're online?

Okay, please come up, give us your name and address.

Hi, good evening.

Um my name is Katie Blodgett.

I live at 18853, Prescott Lane, and I come to you tonight because I wasn't gonna say anything, but I have lived on this property since I was seven years old.

I will be living just down the street from this development.

And I grew up as a just a country kid milking cows, going to Valley View School District, graduated from Valley View School District, and these apartments will have such an impact on this area.

I remember our street was a gravel road.

We had a party line, which means you picked up the phone and you got to hear everybody's conversation.

And yes, it was really exciting when we got our road paved.

Yay.

But this is this is a lot uh for our street, um, for our area, for our community.

Everybody here has already stated all the technical stuff.

I come to you with the emotional stuff, because honestly, I've lived there since I was seven, and to have this these apartments and the impact that it'll have, not just on our community, but our our schools, the traffic, everything.

And I just fear that we will be because we have 30 acres and we have cows, we have chickens, we have you know, we have goats, we farm hay, and the impact that it'll have on us.

I've seen it happen in for farm farmers in Meridian.

They got shut out, and they sold out because honestly, I don't blame them.

They got money and the kids don't want to farm it anymore.

But we do, and a lot of the people around us still want to farm that land, but unfortunately it's getting eaten up.

And why can't we revise that instead of having apartments, having you know, people who want to come in and have you know homes with acres and homestead and do those things, and they could still make the money, maybe not as much, but they're still making they're still lining their pockets.

I get it.

I get why they want to sell, but it still impacts us so much that it hurts, and it hurts to see that much growth in an area that is still so residential or rule, not residential rule, and still people wanting to farm it.

I thank you for your time this evening.

Thank you.

Anyone else would like to speak.

Okay.

Um, yeah, you want to come back up.

Absolutely, thank you.

Uh Mr.

Chair, uh, commissioners again for the record, Ryan Cutler, uh, all quest development 1144 South Silverstone Way uh in Meridiana, Idaho, 83642.

I appreciate uh members of the public coming to talk about both the impacts and and the emotional feelings that happen with development.

Um I think we we've all been there to an extent and we've seen a lot of growth in the area, which is challenging for all of us.

I'm uh I'm born and raised uh Idaho and myself.

Uh I happen to work in development, uh, but um there are challenges to seeing things develop and change and and and grow.

Um, and we want to make sure that that impact that's that's coming into areas is done the right way, and that's part of the reason why I do uh what I do from uh for for my profession uh is to make sure that the place that I love and see grow and develop in an appropriate way.

Just as a reminder, uh, based on staff's recommendation in their staff report, um we're meeting the needs of the city of Nampa based on their future land use map that's already been established.

We didn't come in here asking you to change uh to change uh the overall zoning of the area uh to to annex something that's not in an uh uh an area that could be annexed.

I know there was a lot of discussion that said that we're five miles away from anywhere that's within the city or adjacent to.

We wouldn't be able to annex into the city if we weren't adjacent to something that is already within the city limits of the city of Nampa.

So just from a from a standpoint of staff's recommendation, we appreciate their recommendation there.

Um and a couple of items that were brought up.

Um changing this designation to eight plus in the HDR doesn't change height requirements on the building.

I know that was said several times, though those don't change.

There's still a requirement for us to meet the height requirements of the zone that would still come in front of you as a as a site plan or for a plat where any sort of setback or buildings or structures that were built built there would have to go through design review and plat to have that approval there.

So uh to say that we're trying to change the heights of the building, I think is inaccurate uh based on uh staff's recommendation there.

Uh again, appreciate the the neighbors' comments.

Um there was a lot of comments about traffic some traffic and roads again.

Uh East Canyon will be required to do a traffic impact study.

Anything that's done on this site in the future uh with the next plat of any sort would be required to do a traffic impact study that would help understand what the mitigation factors would need to be from a traffic standpoint, uh, and so those items would be covered in that, and then all sorts of connectivity would take place based on the requirements from the city from pedestrians pedestrian standpoint to alleviate any issues of somebody walking on the roadway that are required for requirements for for landscape buffers and sidewalks uh along all sides of this property when uh uh it moves forward with a with the plot.

Um the landowners that couldn't be here tonight.

Um apologize uh Senator Rish is in Washington uh doing his job uh uh and Dave Palferman uh hurt himself, uh towards Achilles tendon, couldn't make it tonight.

He's on crutches, his son is here representing the family, and they've owned this property for 20 plus years.

Uh, and so um I would definitely count them as Idaho uh people they're just uh weren't able to make it this evening.

They asked us to come represent them and and to handle this hearing for them.

Um schools, uh, we have a meeting set up with uh the Valley View School District on Friday of this week to discuss the impacts to the area.

Also in the future land use map that is designated by the city of Nampa, there are three future school sites uh within a mile of this uh of this parcel.

So um in the future, there's intent for expansion and growth.

Uh we wouldn't have done that, or the city wouldn't have done that and placed school sites there if they didn't anticipate this to be a future growth area as a part of the future land use map.

Um there was discussion also about where these people going to shop, they're certain distances away from um from amenities of that nature.

Uh in the future land use map directly to the south of us and to the west of us is not only mixed use but also commercial zoning intended in the future.

So as growth and development happens, that's how that process works.

Uh the commercial zoning uh finds where the residential is and accommodates those needs of the people, and that's why you'll see a commercial zoning directly to the south of this site that would uh accommodate those situations.

Um sorry, just going through my notes again here.

Um again, there's a lot of a lot of discussion came up about density and height and on all of those things.

I think every single individual that came up talked about that again.

We're following the future land use map of the city that was already designated.

Uh we're following the correct steps steps by going through annexation because we touch uh the city limits and looking for a density within uh the site there that meetes what meets what the future land use map is anticipating.

Uh just for the record, uh you approved a site at East Canyon that modified their zone uh to actually have a higher density, and their higher density is average uh 14.6, which is actually actually higher than what we are asking for on our site.

So within the vicinity, you have areas that are actually higher density than what we're asking for.

I'll stand for any questions.

Uh commissioners, questions.

Well, one that pops up, and this might be for staff, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I probably am, but does the city determine where school sites are going to be?

The city does not determine Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

Uh the city does not determine where future school school sites will be.

The comprehensive plan will give a recommendation for those school sites.

That doesn't mean that the city actually owns the land or the school owns the land.

Um these are built in to try to build around corridors.

Um I know there's one north within that East Canyon development, and there's one over towards the east.

Uh proposed school sites.

This is just to try to give recommendation for the schools to build out around those.

Which the independent districts will then change if they have to sell the property, buy another piece, depending on where the growth is going.

That is correct.

So it's not necessarily the city's responsibility to say this is where a school's gonna go.

I just wanted to no, and I I don't disagree with that, uh, Mr.

Chair and Commissioner Kirkman.

I I don't agree with that, but all we have at this point in time is to be able to go off a map that's presented to us.

And we're happy to have that conversation with the school district on Friday because we want to make sure that we're doing our part or going into any agreement to have any sort of um uh compensation as part of our development that could help in the overcrowding of schools, and that's part of that discussion that we'll have.

Did I hear you just say you were gonna build another school for the Valley School?

I I don't know that I don't know this is on.

I don't think that's exactly what I said.

Uh but we're gonna have discussions with them because we recognize that's important.

I don't know if that was called leading the leading the witness.

Um I don't know if we could go to the slide where you had um the values.

I think you were talking about it the values of like RMH compared to the other values.

I think if staff had that, yep.

Yeah, that one right there.

So I again I don't know if I can get this question answered, but the RMH value that's that's tax revenue per acre per zone.

And we're looking at last.

That's what I wanted to see again.

Yeah, thanks.

Uh for right now, uh Mr.

Vice Chair, that's all the question.

Okay, I can remember anyways.

I have a question.

So, what is the purpose behind removing the 812 exactly?

Yeah, it's a great question.

Uh Mr.

Chair, uh Commissioner Copeland.

So uh as was mentioned uh by staff and and by us as well, there is a floodplain that runs down the middle of this site where there where the uh um canal runs 10 miles runs through it, and there are there is a pretty healthy ride-of-way uh adjustment that's required there, unless you go through a floodplain study, which is probably gonna be required when we do that to determine if you can reduce that floodplain.

It actually takes up a considerable amount of the property to be able to uh to handle that floodway area there, which actually limits the the amount of property that can be developed on the site based on what the findings are of that.

So the the reason behind why we're doing this is to allow because the the actual amount of acreage that we're going to be using is probably limited in size based on that flood zone.

We're just looking for an increase.

And again, going from 12 to 14.1 in the grand scheme of things is not a massive change when you're talking about multifamily, and it's in line with what's taking place in the area.

If you look at East Canyon, which again is higher than us, uh, and then the limited area that we can utilize.

Uh that's why the request is to take that cap off.

And again, this will come before this board uh uh this commission again in discussion of what that site actually looks like to where you can have comments not only on setbacks, height restrictions, and density.

I just want to give ourselves options when we look at the site that's available to be developed.

Okay, and you don't think your bill dot is at least five years down the line.

Um, I think it it's again we've talked about uh staff talked about utilities are not quite in the area, and so until we have the ability to tie into utilities, it doesn't make sense for us to go out and develop something.

I guess we could drag them from miles away.

Um that's not the intent of what's happening here.

Again, it's uh it's the desire to make sure that the zoning is adjusted to the proper zone that's needed.

Again, that's shown on the on the land use map, and then determine what the best outcome is based on that.

So I do think it's a long-term strategy uh that is you know likely three to five years out before we're even back having this conversation based on where the current utilities are now.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, Mr.

Chair, um so in uh public hearing introduction, it talks about a potential development agreement.

Um you have some site plans in here.

A lot of times site plans end up in the development agreement.

What kind of things would you actually put in there as opposed to what you've presented to us?

Sure.

Uh Mr.

Chair, Commissioner.

Um again, that was a uh going through with staff, and we went through different renditions with staff saying, what do you think about this?

Or what do you think about this look based on the number of requirements of town house townhouses based on the zone, open space required, uh knowing we have the floodplain in the area that was there, and then the ability and height of the buildings that are there?

That was a schematic that fit the depiction of what the zone says, but again, we're not holding ourselves to that exact site plan.

I don't think we would anticipate in a development agreement that it would show that exact site plan because I do anticipate it's going to be different.

I do anticipate that those, if there are taller buildings, they may move towards the middle of it to give more buffer around the edges of the parcel to eliminate some of the the um conversation that we had tonight from uh neighbors in the area.

Um so I I understand your question.

Um I again I think that was a concept idea to put in front of you that something it could look something like this based on the number of townhouses that are required and the density that is required, but in actuality a site plan could look quite different from that when it comes back, and that again would be in front of you for discussion if it if and when it comes back.

So I guess my question I could go towards staff then um if we're discussing a uh what's the term change to the text uh a text amendment.

Um and we're a potential development agreement.

Do we can we make that change to the text without a development agreement, or do we need to come up with a development agreement tonight?

Or I guess when you go to city council.

Maybe you wait and imposing staff about it.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

Uh imposing a development agreement is something that you could do as the commission, and it's like up to your discretion if you feel like it's necessary.

You don't think it's necessary to add those into a development agreement?

You could go without the development agreement if you were to not approve the CTA and go for that direction.

Um the development agreement can also hold other pieces of information that you would want to see in there, whether that be certain amenities or certain restrictions, and I could leave that in Preston's hands to go more on what you actually can do within that.

Yeah, Chairman.

Um all I would add to that is you have the ability to kind of impose what you want here.

This is a legislative decision, right?

It's a comp plan text amendment, it's an annexation.

And I'd like to say it really opens the playbook up for approval or denial.

Um that said if you want to impose any of those conditions, like a specific recommendation on the development agreement, you're welcome to do so.

Um if you feel that's not necessary, you could recommend an approval without that requirement.

Um so on you your options are pretty open here on what you can do based off the type of application that's here.

That's all I'd add.

Sorry, Mr.

Chair, if I could.

I I ran out of time earlier and forgot to mention we're we are great.

We've worked with staff on the conditions of approval that they've shown on their staff report.

We have no issues with those and intended that to be a part of it uh based on all the discussion of TIS and emergency services and all the different things that were in those conditions of approval.

Um we are great with those conditions of approval.

Any further questions?

Yeah, Mr.

Vice Chair, um so with the with what you're proposing with the eight plus what you're what you're hoping for.

I'm I'm thinking eleven hundred and forty new dwelling units.

Is that about right?

If it was restricted to eight twelve, if you didn't get the eight plus, how much would that reduce that number by do you know?

That's a great question.

On the fly math gonna be a challenge tonight.

A lot of math.

I don't know if I can answer that question.

I guess the uh there would really not be other than the annexation at this point in time, there wouldn't be a reason for us to be here if if for the 8 to 12 we could have just moved forward with the zoning that was already there.

Oh, there we go.

Math with the it would be 960.

Instead of 1140.

Trustee assistant tells me.

So again, the the in our discussion that we had before about the restricted area of land, again, there's already gonna be there will always be height restrictions on any building that's placed there based on code from staff, uh, and then just based on the number of uh townhouses that were required by our percentage, and then uh the other requirements that were in a multi-use building, um like anybody else probably would we went and looked to see what the densest we could do in that area just to make it work and uh pencil out on the site, and that's what we came up with.

Um I think the reason why we're asking for there not to be a cap there, it just allows us to play a little bit with where on the site each type of building is situated.

Uh and and if you if you limit yourself, you could you you um the the density that you're uh trying to achieve there allows for probably a lot of a really a lot of open space um that that might not be as desirable for somebody on the site there, but that cap of that um 12 just gets us just under what we're trying to do at maybe 14.1, which is what our average is there, and again, that is that is less than what's being uh averaged in the area on sites that have already been approved uh by the city of Dampa.

So it's not a stretch for us to say again, we're not coming here asking for 1820 units to uh to the acre.

Um we're just looking for that cap to be taken off in our and our our thought processes is gonna be around 14.1 or or less based on our our buildable area.

But even if that's the case, I know you keep saying 14.1, but even if it if it goes eight plus, doesn't that open it up down the road to possibly coming back to the city and asking for an amended amendment or even a modification to a development agreement and going 15, 16, 17, 18?

Mr.

Chair, commission.

What the market might be four years from now.

Yeah, I I don't think you're incorrect in saying that, but then you would also have the right to say no to that.

Right.

So um that's not our intent of what we're intending to do here.

Uh but from a legal perspective, I guess we'll ask the attorney in theory, yes.

I guess that could happen.

Uh, but that doesn't mean that this uh group has to approve that to move forward.

We would have to come in front of any sort of development group would have to come in front of this body for adjustment.

Okay, got a one question from me and uh kind of an interesting one.

Based off of so there are certain things that they don't come up almost every single meeting we have, traffic.

Everybody drives in the traffic, it's awful.

It is totally awful wherever you go in this town, okay.

Um and one of the challenges that we face is that people don't want development around them, and so they they want to see commercial somewhere else.

But what you end up doing is you end up putting commercial in one space, then everybody out around that commercial space has to go to that one place to get everything that they need, and that's why you get bottlenecks because everybody is leaving where they live to go where they shop.

Instead of having shopping kind of in the area where you live, you get more opportunities for people that maybe want to walk to the store instead of getting in the car and going where everybody else is going.

So that's that's brutal.

And that's traffic, and that's what we deal with on a daily basis.

And there's reasons why.

And then the density part, right?

And I think that what we're up against is that we're up here on this dais, and we kind of have because of what we do here, we have that crystal ball to look into the future, and we see where the city is planning on stuff happening.

This is down the road, ways down the road, right?

And so, like we've been talking about, this this might not be built out for five to ten years.

Um, and so a lot's gonna change in that time.

And with that highway 16 that's coming in, there's a lot of commercial that's gonna get developed along that corridor.

So that area out there is gonna look a lot different down the road, okay?

And so that's density.

So, what I think that I would ask you is, and I think you kind of alluded to this, you have the floodplain issue that you have to deal with.

And what that means is they've identified that that 10 mile creek that can flood at some point in time.

And they don't know how much it's gonna flood.

And so, what they'll do is they'll go in and they'll kind of prognosticate and say that in a hundred year flood, it's gonna expand to this much, and that makes that much of that property unusable.

You can't develop in it.

It can be used for maybe a pathway or things like that, but you can't build a building in it.

And so, what I think that they're trying to do is they're trying to say, we don't know how much of this property we're gonna be able to put buildings on, and so we want maximum flexibility.

And so that being said, based on the comments that you've received tonight, can you foresee areas or ways that you could mitigate what they're asking about in your proposed concepts down the road?

Is that something that you looking forward would be able to go back and say, okay, these are the things that we heard from the public because they've been here and they poured their hearts out, and I get it.

It stinks when you have stuff going on like this around you.

And so we appreciate you coming and kind of pouring your heart out and saying, this is our home.

So with what they've said, can you think of strategies for your site planning that you might be able to implement in order to mitigate that kind of stuff?

Yeah, absolutely.

And and Mr.

Chair, great comments.

Uh, I appreciate the comments you made.

You you hit the floodplain comment right on the head.

It's it's kind of a moving target.

We hear this distance from one group, we hear this distance from one group.

There'll have to be a study done that determines exactly what that looks like.

Um, the the good part about this is that area is a perfect place for open space pathways, and our our concept plan or whatever concept of the plan we do, we'll utilize that because that that's the best use of that space because uh a building footprint can't be built in that area.

So um there is going to be great connectivity, which was one of the uh comments that came up.

There'll be great connectivity, and I hope in the future, as other developments around us uh come into play that we consider those connectivity points.

Most of everybody's gonna have this 10 mile kind of running through their parcel, which makes a really great uh natural area for outdoor recreation or walking paths and connectivity to those areas that you discussed.

Smart development has higher density development next to areas of uh commercial impact directly to the south of us, and the reason why we've designed this the way it is is because the the parcel directly to the southwest has a commercial designation on it that allows for people to live, work, play in the area around them, potentially walk to the site of where they're gonna go shopping and not have to go to the to the off-ramp in the area over Costco is because it's it's bonkers over there, right?

We we understand how that works.

So, yes, to get to your question now, we've taken into consideration and will in the future, as we meet with the highway district with the school district and with the city on the ways that we can have the site accessed and the locations that we put the density uh within the site and how it's accessed onto the main roads around it to alleviate uh the challenges of getting out onto the road.

So instead of having one access point on a site or on a on a roadway, we properly space them and lay out the site plan that allows for two access points so that you don't get that build up in and out of the site.

Um we're gonna have uh the requirements of the city to have those setback requirements that are landscaped on the parcel to bring more of the development inward to allow for not only uh site site triangle and site vision on that traffic when they come in and out of the site, also allows for more pedestrian activity and safety on those roadways, and then keeps those buildings inwards a little bit more.

Uh the reason why you saw on the site plan here where we had some of those bigger buildings to the south of the property is because that was up against the commercial portion of the property as opposed to any other residential portion of it.

So that's the thought process that we've already started to go through to eliminate some of the issues around that.

Again, we looked at the site, the future land use map that was approved by the city of Nampa and said what's the best use for the already zoned area or anticipated zone area for this, and then determined how we could access the site, place the buildings on the site, and utilize the floodplain to make it the most active and useful site for the density that could be required there.

So there are a lot of options in working with staff, uh emergency services, uh the the um local uh highway district on making sure that yes, where there'll be more traffic, of course, there's going to be more traffic.

That's that's how this works, um, and utilizing their improvements with uh turn lanes, uh center turn lanes, improvements to the roadway and uh alternative routes on each leg of the um development that allows for a little more metered traffic as it goes out on the roadway, and then again, as I mentioned before, developing those buffer areas around areas of other residential nature or other land that's not developed currently and moving that high density either to the middle or up against the commercially zoned areas in the future.

Again, we're talking about years down the road here.

Uh we don't add there's no way that this goes up in the next year.

Um that's just not possible.

And so this is years down the road.

We're just trying to plan ahead and do it in a smart way.

Okay, thanks, Ryan.

Thank you.

Okay.

We got a motion to close the public hearing from Keyhoe and a second by DAFER.

All those in favor?

Okay, questions for staff.

I've got a few.

So to go back to what I was asking about before with the CTA.

If we don't do a development agreement, how does that ride with the land?

Is that part of the annexation?

Or Mr.

Chairman, Commissioner.

So if you were not to go through with the CTA, and then wanted a development agreement or not went through with the development agreement.

What I want to know is if we uh allow the change in the text, how does that stick to the land?

Is it a development agreement?

It would be just an amendment to the plan, so we we can remove it from that said plan, Rodney.

Could you want to speak more on this?

Mr.

Chair and Commissioners, so you could attach a development agreement to the annexation.

That's that's really your key because you attach it to the ordinance and that gets recorded with the property.

So if the annexation goes through, um, regardless of what happens with the text amendment, the comprehensive plan text amendment, you would attach that development agreement to that annexation.

So I think so.

The comprehensive plan text amendment that modifies the comprehensive plan text for everything, not just this.

The I believe the request was just for this specific location on the map.

Just like it was for East Canyon, it modified it just for that bigger development.

Yeah, it's just removing on the map in the specific area plan, it's removing that designation of eight to twelve and just making an eight plus, which is our typical high density designation.

It's just the specific area plan limited that to a cap of 12 instead of allowing it to go higher.

Rodney, what what was that intentional?

And if it was I spoke with Doug about this because I had the same question.

Um I said, hey, is this getting away from what was intended in that area?

And he didn't really have strong feelings about it.

He didn't say that he had received a lot of direction on uh getting that specific parcel as eight to twelve.

It's intended to create a buffer, right?

To create instead of going to 20 units per acre all of a sudden, and next door you have a I think is a residential mixed use or to the north a medium density residential.

You're not just jumping significantly, you're transitioning.

Um, what you can do in a project like this is you can transition within the owner it the project itself.

So that's I can see that the applicant has tried to do that with townhouses on the edges, and then they transition to apartments on the core.

Um, and you could put that into the development agreement that they re that they have to do that if if that's the direction you want to go.

Um, yeah, Daniel, is there is there plans in the next five to ten years to improve that the roads like Prescott Lane, make it a five-lane road or anything like that?

on the core um and you could put that into the development agreement that they re that they have to do that if if that's the direction you want to go any more um yeah daniel is there is there plans in the next five to ten years to improve the the roads like Prescott Lane put make it a five lane road or anything like that so our our transportation master plan has Prescott as a collector um and 11th Avenue as a collector through there they are not within the improvements to those roadways are not in our five year CIP at this point but as we update those five year plans as we do projects this year and then update um they I don't know when they will make that list but we do evaluate that each time they the projects that are going out there they will have to do um transportation impact studies and identify those um intersections and roadway segments that their projects trigger the need for those improvements and they will have to complete those improvements that oftentimes comes in phased so they they do the traffic impact study it looks at okay at full build out of this project what improvements are needed it also then looks at okay at what point in the development are which projects needed and they are required to undertake those each project that goes out there um uh especially one of this size will have a large area they have to look at uh when they're looking at those intersections and roadways um on eusttic specifically we received a grant uh over by highway 16 so from Canada over to highway 16 we're doing improvements there we are we anticipate that uh it well we we believe it's likely that the state legislature will make some additional grants for impacts from state highways available um and we and we plan to apply for those grants for USTIC improvements uh continuing those through to the west um though those are not available now so I can't necessarily speak to when that will happen um but those are things that we are looking for and actively would be pursuing and are these intersections supposed to be lights or roundabouts currently so the the Ustick corridor study identified uh usek as a roundabout corridor however with some of the state grants and stuff we've identified that Franklin heading east will be a signal corridor and then to the west of Franklin will be um roundabouts and and one other thing just to that you you could consider um they've requested an eight plus um you could look at um an eight to fifteen or some some other number in there if if that is something you would consider uh you could not make it as open ended as an eight plus um yeah good luck with those grants study are you done or just it's just a follow up all around that topic it seems like I've always seen the impact studies mandate um intersection improvements have I don't know if I've ever seen a roadway improvement is that common or obviously not super so a a two-lane roadway can handle a lot of traffic um the bottlenecks typically come at the intersections and so intersections typically are triggered before the full widening of the roadways because if you're if your intersections can handle the traffic the roadways themselves um have can handle quite a bit of traffic it's typically the intersections happen first and then we would come through later with roadway widenings we also obviously at those uh new developments look at turn lanes and that at their approaches and those types of things but um a a two-lane road can actually handle quite a bit of traffic if the intersections uh have the adequate movements and roundabout signal whatever's needed there any more questions just comments okay any other questions for staff okay discussion well I I uh I'm just we're here to talk about annexation zoning kind of text amendment and I have no problem ranting the zoning because uh the way the future land use map plays out and I have a hard time when somebody brings an application forward that complies with the map to say no to that on that on the other side of coin though where this project presented as is right now I would say no in a heartbeat because it has no there's nothing around it right now like it don't I don't like the idea of dropping a huge multifamily project in the middle of the middle of a farm but um I do think that in the next 10 years it will grow that way which is why I don't think that I have a problem granting the zoning annexation right now.

Like it don't I don't like the idea of dropping a huge multifamily project in the middle of the middle of a farm, but um I do think that in the next 10 years it will grow that way, which is why I don't think that I have a problem granting the zoning annexation right now.

Those are my surface level thoughts.

Yeah, it's a question of timing, right?

Because it absolutely does not fit right now, but someday it might.

And I wonder if it's premature.

I mean, theoretically, if we granted this, they could go out and build it.

Now they're not going to because it'd be too expensive to do the utilities and all that, but in theory, they could go out and build start building, right?

Once they get a plat approvals and everything, like if we grant them this zoning, they could bring in a a plat that's compliant.

We'd have a hard time saying no to that if it's compliant with the code and then they can start building.

I don't think that's gonna happen.

I don't I'm nervous painting it us into a corner before we know how the rest of this is going to develop.

So I'd be if we do grant the annexation, I don't want to do a development agreement that ties us to I guess we can always modify it, but I guess I'm just nervous approving uh uh even a conceptual site plan when we don't have any idea what's gonna what the development around here is gonna be.

And we can't always modify, we can only modify it if they if they want to, right?

So it's like I I want I will probably say that yes to this in five years.

I'm not sure if I'm ready to say yes to it tonight on that how do we not know what's gonna be out there as far as development?

We got highway 16 that up the the transportation department up the schedule on that, so that kind of took people by surprise.

I mean, theoretically, because we were thinking it was 20 years out, and so we got highway 16 there, we've got 2026 that's being improved.

I mean, how do we not know what's going to be developing out there on those major corridors?

Because it's all still farmland.

Well, I know, but that's exactly why the city up their game or uh uh fast track the the future land use and so this is not part of the highway state.

Well, I know that's but it's only four it's only four or five miles from there, and it's four or five miles from Costco, and it's four or five miles from it's literally like right there in the center on well, and that's maybe that's kind of my point is it's not part of the highway 16 specific area plan, it's part of the highway 2026, and it's about as it's at the very bottom of the highway 2026 specific area plan, right?

So to me, if it were closer to highway 2026 or closer to highway 16, I feel more confident about knowing that development is coming there sooner.

But the straight shot on Eustace and the straight shot on 2026 to highway 16, that's exactly what's I mean.

Sure.

So and again, that goes back to my budget.

How do we how do we not know?

I mean, people are people are and I don't know that this is the intention of the developer or the applicant for this, but I just assume that there's gonna be some a lot of uh multi-family development going on out there just because of the proximity to whether or not it's in highway 16 specific area plan or not, it doesn't really matter at this point.

It's just out there.

How far is District 16 from this miles up the road?

But it's it's past what we already have money to build for, right?

The what we have able to build for stops at Canada miss speaking on that and the city's plans would be to take the sewer down Eust to or to Canada.

We are working on that project right now.

That is not what sewers this project.

This project will sewer to the north.

Um, and so the Eust sewer in this project would not be dependent on that.

The sewer for this project is existing at Franklin and Linden.

Um right now.

Commissioner, I have a question.

Do you have to have a development plan in order to annex in, or can it go be annexed in without a development plan?

So what what is I guess what is the neg the negative side of annexing it in without a development plan?

I think that's what I would prefer.

I think the question is when they annex zoning has to be assigned.

And so it's a question of how this property will be zoned in the density that's allowed on it by virtue of that zoning.

Oh, so it's not already zoned.

That's just what we've suggested in the in the comprehensive plan.

It's zoned in the county right now.

But not in the city.

So when they annex it in there will be assigned the zoning.

I think the other thing that says that we kind of know what's going to go there is the comprehensive Mr.

Vice Chair.

You see it fairly often that a development agreement is associated with an annexation.

In fact, that's that's the time that you would impose one.

Um have called it kind of contract zoning, where there's a little bit of discussion uh between the parties, meaning the city and the developer, um, what terms they'd be willing to agree to to kind of formulate this a little more hands-on.

Um so cities see the benefit of that, and and the development party too.

There's some predictability, um, and there's a there's a little bit of uh negotiation that takes place there.

And yeah, thank you.

So my I got some thoughts on the future land use map was designed for this, so we know what's gonna be going in there.

We've got the development just to the kind of northeast.

So I I mean that's this is what our future land use map designated the area to be and how it was laid out, and now we get somebody that brings in a something that fits it almost perfectly, and we're sitting here debating on whether we should allow them to do it.

I have I I struggle with that because it's this is what we laid out for our developers to look at and give them an idea of what to bring to us, and now we're sitting here going, well, you know, and I'm I struggle with that because we spent all this time building a future land use map for these guys to follow.

Um as far as uh eight plus, I really don't have a problem with it because I know how it is to deal with the floodplain, and when you don't even know where the floodplain actually is, you're gonna have to do a lot of tweaking in there once you finally get what the feds will allow you to build, how close to that thing.

So I mean, I have no problem with it being eight to twelve.

They've still got to come back to us with any preliminary plat for approval, and they'll have to work with the staff and setbacks and you know it is in the center because they've got the commercial to the south.

Um, and yeah, I think the plan that they kind of their idea anyway was townhomes towards the north, which would then go to the medium residential.

So I mean they're buffering it in the center.

So I I just don't have a problem with it, and I just think I just struggle with we've developed this future land use map by going out to the public and bringing in all the thoughts and concerns, and then we lay it all out and put make a beautiful color map, and they come in here with the same colors, and we're going, you know, we just don't know if that's what we want.

So I struggle with it.

So I I don't have a problem.

I I've tying them down to a development agreement at this point when they really don't yet know where the floodplain is going to land them.

I I I struggle with that.

I think I think they brought us what we've asked for, and now we're trying to nitpick it to make it not work.

So yes, sir.

I totally agree with Paul.

I've been sitting here and looking at this, and we we talk about mixed use.

We've talked about mixing up the whole map.

That's exactly what we have here.

We have residential mixed use, we have commercial, we have medium density, we have uh low density.

The whole bellywick is right here, and we're sitting here debating it.

What do we make the map for in the first place if we're not gonna follow it?

Well the map, the map is not set in stone.

No, it's not that's why we're sitting here debating.

Because there's room for discretion.

I think for me, it's the timing that I mentioned.

I I agree with what you're saying.

But the timing is like I say it probably if they start putting specs in the air in five years, they're probably gonna be lucky.

By then all those other developments that we've approved over the last three or four years going out that direction.

And we want the the whole idea was to put some of that higher density along the main thoroughfares, which used to be is going to be a main connector over to highway 16.

And I believe Daniel 11 gets a you have an idea when 11 is supposed to get a light on 2026.

Um I I do not remember right off the top of my head, but um the mile sections on 2026, they are planning lights through there.

I don't know the specific year for 11th.

I I believe Franklin is the is sooner than 11th, but I I they're all in in their plans.

I think we're trying to put the high density on the main roads to get them out of the neighborhoods and onto the main roads to get them to work.

And I mean you can't get much closer to highway 16 than this.

I mean, we get a little closer, but a couple miles or something.

I think it's gonna be a five-lane road, and it's supposed to be moving traffic, and that's why we want the high density next to those main roads.

So I think you swayed me.

But um wait this way, I know I want you to make for me.

What one thought I had while you're talking is approving, I was trying to think of why we should approve it now rather than wait until maybe utilities are closer or more of this is developed out.

And I guess one reason would be to give confidence for commercial developers to come out there knowing that it's already approved to build the multi-family.

It's just tough because everybody here is right that it doesn't fit there now, but someday it will.

And it's seeing all this change is rough.

Um that's why it's so hard.

But it is, it's rough.

And you know, we all will drive through it and see it as a farm country right now, but this whole area you look at 10 years ago what it would a 10 mile look like.

A couple of buildings off the freeway, and now look at it.

It's it's exploded.

So this is gonna do the same thing.

The commercial's gonna follow the rooftops.

That's the way it works.

And so I I just think by putting the vision out there and starting to look to do what we what we thought we wanted to do on these areas, and get a plan in place, and so five, six years from now when they do start to put sticks in here, everything else will already be grown up around it, and then it'll it should.

I mean, it's gonna it's gonna grow from 16 east and west down Ewstake, Cherry, and the other main, you know, that's the way it works, and then it'll fill in from there.

So, what's your thoughts on the development agreement and the text amendment?

I I don't know to me, I think that's a little early to try to put them into a development agreement when like I say, that floodplain is going to be as you guys you know, that floodplain could could raise raise havoc with actually, and so that you know, without what they can do in there to make it pencil out at the end of the day, so I think we still have the opportunity when they bring us back a preliminary plat, we can say no, we want you know fine to have three-story buildings or whatever up against the commercial because that's what we want, and then as you go towards the medium resid medium density and the uh multi or mixed use, you can walk it down to duplexes and stuff and then move out to that.

We we still have the ability to make changes when they come in with their plans.

Well, and maybe in in lieu of a development agreement tonight, we we consider that the a instead of eight plus maybe eight to fifteen instead of eight to twelve.

I mean that that's not necessarily a development agreement, but that is something that they said, you know, we're only gonna do 14.1, so maybe we could lock them into that, doing eight to fifteen or something to that.

Be okay with that.

There was there was something else I was and hasn't been brought up yet.

I'm surprised because usually Commissioner Kehill brings up the the police and the safety.

But I was I was just looking at their comments, and um, you know, they were looking at they were projecting that the police department is projecting about 3,000 new residents in this development based on 1150, 1140 new dwelling units, and they always pencil in the amount of uh that they always ask them for staff, which they certainly need, but the cost for additional officers and support staff for just this development is gonna be three quarters of a million dollars give or take the first year.

And as I was looking, and one of the reasons I asked for the cost, the the return on investment for an RMH zone, eight thousand dollars per acre, eighty acres, someone do the math for me real quick.

I'm sorry, forty thousand.

Yeah.

What the needs of the police department are.

And there's a mantra that floats around all the time, like development or growth should pay for itself.

And you know, this is just one of those areas where it's just not paying for itself.

And this is one of the things that I struggle with too.

And I school districts, and I, you know, familiar with how school districts operate, and I'm familiar with where the where the money comes to pay for the schools, very familiar with that.

And and we just don't know.

Um Valley View is struggling.

I mean, they are very, very, very overcrowded.

I don't know if they've are in the process of building new schools.

I mean, it's just we do have to think about these things, even though I say almost every single time it's the district's responsibility, the school district's responsibility to do that.

But I don't we're we're we're all in this together.

And if it this is what bothers me sometimes is why it's hard for me on decisions like this is you know, you make decisions based on this these things right in front of you, which is I know Mr.

Attorney, that's exactly what we're supposed to do.

But you can't help but think about all the ancillary contacts that developments are gonna have and and you know, school districts and fire districts and police districts, which is why we reach out to them.

And I just didn't want to discount what the NAMPA police department has has provided as far as comment, and this development the first year is not gonna hit that that need.

So we already know we're gonna be short in public safety in that area, not to mention all the other stuff that we've talked about, traffic and things like that.

So this is a this is why this is a difficult decision for me.

I was thinking about is this the right time.

Rodney has a mic.

Did he want to say he must he must have a comment?

You gotta you got if you want to stop me from chabin, you gotta you gotta just jump in.

Well, he has to ask me first before we start talking.

Well, you gotta ask you guys you gotta interrupt with Mr.

Chair.

Um I just want to clarify a couple of things um on the financial part of this.

We we um recently had our uh finance director for the city of NAPA talk about how growth whether it pays for itself or not, and he actually walked back quite a ways on the comments that he's made in the past about growth not paying for itself, and that the reason he did that is because there's multiple sources of funding that a city uses to pay for services.

So this number that's on the screen right now is an average.

All we did is we took uh the zone RMH across the whole city, all the city properties that are zoned RMH, and we estimated the value.

We took all their their um uh tax what's called assessed value, and then we ran the number, right?

So we got it per acre, um, and and that's your number there.

What that doesn't show is some developments that are you know um higher density, but zoned RMH, but they're maybe uh a couple of triplexes or a four-plex or something on a larger lot.

So it's not actually it's we've got to be careful to not compare this to this project, right?

We can't take that number and say, okay, this is what it's gonna pencil out as.

And we could run that number and say, well, the the tax levy rate uh based on the value that they're estimating, what are we gonna get?

Um we also use all those other different funding sources, revenue sources for the city to pay for things, and so that's what our finance director said is hey, be careful not to just equate one number to uh whether development is paying for itself or not.

In addition, I I know that they don't pay for police, but uh police officers, but impact fees do pay for vehicles, um, equipment, and all of that as well.

And so we offset some of the cost through impact fees as well.

So again, I I would just be really careful here not to just equate this number and times it by the number of acres.

That's that's actually not how we fund uh police services.

Right.

Is this uh this is an average number then is what you're saying?

Of all the RMH property zones across the city.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, all right.

Well, I'll walk back my comment then.

I appreciate that.

Um it actually helps me make it actually helps me come to a decision a little easier.

Like I was saying, I think the the timing was something I was concerned about in this area, but then when you think about highway 16 and used to everything else.

I was saying if I had moved out there 20 years ago, I'd be I'd probably be at this mic right now tonight doing the same the same thing.

It's like what the heck?

Well timelines got moved by the transportation department, and I think that's kind of what's doing a lot of this.

Anyway, they had all that all I got probably.

So motion.

So what do you got?

Can you change the screen back?

What do you think about the fellow commissioners?

What do you think about the foregoing the DA and going to an eight point or eight point but eight to fifteen?

Is it condition?

Yeah.

I think so.

Well, I don't think it's a condition, it's just that's what we do.

Text amendment to can we do a different text amendment than what was advertised, Mr.

Chairman and and Commissioner Morgan.

You can when you make the motion, you can say we would recommend approval for the comprehensive plan text amendment to be changed from eight to twelve dwelling units per acre to eight to fifteen dwelling units per acre, and then the rest of it could be as stated on the screen or something like that.

So we can change that part.

I'm not I'm never clear on which parts were allowed to change and which parts that's all we have an attorney.

He'll let you know.

You can add conditions if as you see fit.

Umce you get into some of those more detailed conditions, that's when we start getting into development agreement territory, and we need to have that agreement contain um more finer details.

But if you're just handling it through the comprehensive plan text amendment, then that would cap it at 15.

Nothing here.

Nothing here tells me it's just for these plots, does it?

It seems to me like it's changing the entire specific area plan.

So it does apply just to the lots that are listed for the parcel numbers on the screen.

Or the ones we never read.

Well, then I'll take a oh no, I'm good.

I'll take a stab at a motion.

I move to recommend approval of the annexation and zoning to RMH multiple family residential zoning district comprehensive plan text amendment to change the text on the map in the highway 2026 specific area plan that restricts high density residential to eight to fifteen dwelling units.

Residential eight to twelve dwelling units an acre, two eight to drive.

Oh, eight, yeah, you're right.

Residential where it's at now, eight to twelve dwelling units an acre to eight to fifteen dwelling units an acre, as is allowed in the high density residential designation in the NAMPA comprehensive plan for the future development of a project known as Prescott Creek at zero eighteen two ninety Prescott Lane, 18319 11th Avenue North, total of 80.81 acres.

I'm reading this all out because I left out the in those three parcels for Ryan Cutler representing Prescott Farm LLC with all conditions lifted in the listed in the staff report.

Is the DA a condition listed in the staff report?

Okay, and to adopt the proposed findings of approval as stated in the staff report.

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

We doing this by roll call.

Yeah.

Okay.

Garner.

I Miller.

Just kidding.

Daffer.

Yes.

Turner.

I Keyho.

I Morgan.

Yes.

Kirkman?

Aye.

Salman.

Aye.

Cokeman.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Um, Mr.

Vice Chair, just just want to make sure.

Uh, because we didn't read a can you go back?

Sorry.

That there's no DA and it's 8 to 15.

Just want to make sure that was in there.

I think I think it would okay.

When you read it, that's what I I I got that out.

Okay.

So that motion carries, and that's passed, and that's a recommendation to the city council.

Um so if you want to follow this to the city council, they will also hear this as well.

Um so just keep that in mind and keep your eyes on their docket.

Thank you for coming.

Yeah.

Yeah, we can call now.

We gave it the full treatment.

Well, we did.

Okay.

Our second item is an action item comprehensive plan map amendment from medium density residential to industrial for eight parcels located at 1627, 1704, 1705, and 1811 East Florida Avenue 001820 and 1722 East Iowa Avenue.

And there's the parcel numbers listed.

Um for the city of Nampa and David Snow.

Original concept.

Properties currently contain industrial uses, but are designated as medium density residential.

Request is to align the comprehensive plan future land use designations with the current uses.

Is our applicant here?

That would be me.

Yes, I'm here.

Oh, Christy.

Okay.

Let that calm down just a second.

Unlimited time plus seven minutes.

Sure.

Makes sense.

Thank you, Vice Chairman and Commissioners.

My name is Christy Watkins.

I'm the principal planner for the city of Nampa.

Um the request before you this evening is pretty simple.

The comprehensive plan amendment from medium density residential to industrial for this area of town that has had industrial uses on it for quite some time and actually has some uses happening in the county currently that could be considered industrial, and that the county is requesting be corrected.

Um there are eight properties involved in this request.

Um the Iowa addressed parcels are the ones that are currently under Canyon County jurisdiction.

They are pending Canyon County code compliance issues for an existing landscaping company in a residentially designated area for the Canyon County zoning designations.

They are in the city's impact area and designated as medium density residential on the future land use map.

The four Florida Avenue address parcels, which are the ones to the north in the light blue that you see there, are within the city limits and zoned IL currently.

There has been an existing seed company in operation for a number of years there because of the old railroad spur that used to be the Stotterd Line that is now the pathway.

Um the surrounding area is mostly single family residential, um, some canyon county large lot uh subdivisions and some large lot parcels that are undeveloped.

The existing seed company on Florida is connected to city water only.

The landscaping company on Iowa has um pressurized irrigation, sewer, and water all available to it, but is um not currently in need of them once they have annexed into the city, which tonight, if you say yes to the industrial designation, they would be able to annex as light industrial.

They might then consider uh further development on their property at that time.

So here's the future land use map.

It's medium density residential as far as the eye can see.

Um this chunk in the middle is requesting the industry industrial designation.

So the NAMPA comprehensive plan is somewhat flexible as we've already discussed.

Um gives you kind of the option to make changes as desired or as are requested by the public um it identified this location.

It's been identified since 2012 as medium density residential as um staff was kind of thinking that since the rest of it was already single family, that maybe this would redevelop.

Um it hasn't.

Um, as a matter of fact, the vacant properties on Iowa have gone the other direction and are trying to do uh more business oriented, which again we were talking about mixed use things happening.

Um, you know, maybe maybe that's what needs to happen closer to these residential neighborhoods.

So as far as correspondence, we didn't really see receive a lot.

Um the fire department gave their typical water supply, fire access, signage, and general building code conditions.

Um this property is located 1.1 miles from fire station number two with an approximate spot response time of two minutes.

Um the conditions of approval will ultimately be associated with the annexation and any building permits that would be coming forward on those properties.

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

Okay.

Questions like a weird place for industrial.

Too bad it's already there.

Okay.

There's no questions, then we'll go ahead and move on to our public hearing.

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

Okay.

Is there anybody in the audience here today that would like to speak on this item?

Anybody online?

Okay.

Move the close.

We got a letter have it.

You do you want to rebut yourself?

I was anticipating.

Go ahead, Jeff.

I move we close public hearing.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion by Kirkman and a second by Daffer to close the public hearing.

All those in favor?

That was kind of a motion.

Okay.

Any conversation about it or discussion?

So you said pretty straightforward.

Mr.

Chair.

I move to recommend approval of the project as stated on the screen.

Second.

Okay.

We have a motion by Daper and a second by Kirkman, unless they want to arm resselter.

Oh, to approve this item.

All those in third, madam, you want to do a roll call?

Or do we need one?

Copeland.

Hi.

Selman.

Hi, Kirkman.

Hi.

Morgan.

Yes.

Kehoe.

Hi.

Turner.

Hi.

Dapper.

Yes.

Garner.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Okay.

Moving on.

Our next item is an action item, a comprehensive plan map amendment from medium density residential to low density residential for three parcels located at zero, 1619, and 1835 South Side Boulevard.

Annexation and zoning to RS 18, single family residential on two of the parcels, and an adjacent right of way at 1619 and 1835 South Side Boulevard.

A zoning map amendment from RS6 single family residential to RS18 single family residential on the third parcel and adjacent right of way at zero South Side Boulevard with a potential development agreement and subvision preliminary prep plat approval for Crosswoods Estates subdivision on three parcels at zero, 1619, and 1835 South Side Boulevard, located in the uh legal description for triple crown development representing Lance Steweson.

Um original concept, 25 single family detached dwelling lots and eight common lots.

Is the applicant available?

Yes, she is.

I am chair.

Okay, name and address yes, sir.

I better accuse myself from this one.

Why am I can I go sit down there?

Yeah, if you wouldn't mind, just kind of state on the record the reason for it.

Oh, I didn't think I had to tell you.

Okay.

Now we want to know.

I'm related to the land.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you, Commissioner Morris.

Do I can I sit down there?

No, you've got to leave the room for deliberation.

Right, or that room right down there.

Yeah.

We're not banishing into the corner, but that's that's the proper procedure.

So name and address for the record.

Absolutely.

Um, Chairman, members of the commission, hello, and good evening.

For the record, my name is Sabrina Durchy, and I'm here on behalf of the applicant.

My business address is 5179 South Boven Avenue, Boise, Idaho 83706.

And I am very excited to present to you our applications for crosswood estates.

So, first, let me tell you a little bit about Crosswood estates.

It has been envisioned as a welcoming, thoughtfully designed neighborhood that future residents will be proud to call home.

This infill site offers a unique opportunity to create a quiet estate-style community that feels tucked away while still being connected to the surrounding area.

Well, this with this community we're requesting the annexation, complan map amendment to low density, residential, and an RS 18 zoning with an approval of a preliminary plat.

Our preliminary plat includes 25 single family residential lots, eight common lots with a net density of 2.19 units per acre.

Residential lot sizes will range from just over a half an acre to nearly two acres, providing spacious lots, privacy, and a rural character consistent with the surrounding area and established existing use of the site.

So Crosswoods is made up of three parcels in total.

Two of those are currently located in the unincorporated Canyon County, and one parcel already has been annexed into the city of Nampa and carries an existing zoning designation.

Within the slide, you can see the parcels highlighted.

Everything in yellow is in the county, and the area cross hatched in green is in the city of Napa City Limits.

There's an existing single family home on the property along with a few accessory dwelling units with large mature trees.

That is our tent to retain the house as part of the project, and that will be lot eight, block one in the new subdivision.

By keeping this existing residence, we're maintaining part of the rural site's rural character and history while thoughtfully integrating it into our new community layout.

Crosswood site is currently designated as medium density residential under the City of Niampa's Comprehensive Plan.

The properties to the north, south, and west share the same designation.

However, to the east, the character shifts to low density residential that has larger rural county parcels and city lots.

So to better align with the existing development pattern and our vision for the community, we're requesting a comprehensive plan map amendment from medium density to low density residential.

This adjustment allowed for us to maintain the larger, more rural lots that have historically defined the area.

We believe this provides an appropriate transition between the existing county lots to the west and the medium existing medium density residential areas to the west.

With the comprehensive plan map amendment to low density, we're requesting a RS18 zone for all three parcels to ensure that the zoning aligns with the updated land use designations.

We're requesting an exception for lot eight block one, which I'd mentioned earlier.

We are exceeding the maximum lot size allowed in the RS18.

But this adjustment is necessary to preserve the existing house, its accessory dwelling units, and the mature trees that are located next to the house.

By maintaining the residence and applying consistent zoning across the remainder of the property, we're creating a seamless transition between the existing rural lots and the new estate style homes within Crosswoods.

So let's just take a look at the surrounding development area real quick.

Just to get a broader area to look at the surrounding context.

To the north, we have Wildflower Subdivision and Sunshine, and we also have some several larger unincorporated county parcels to the northeast.

To the east, we have Wilson Estates with an additional some larger county lots.

To the south, we are bordered by Oakhurst estates, and to the west, we have Greenhurst Elementary.

We feel that this low density comprehensive plan designation and RS-18 zoning complements the existing pattern extremely well, maintaining compatibility with larger rural lots to the east while transitioning naturally to the more established neighborhoods surrounding the site.

So for open space, we have thoughtfully designed 4.13 acres of qualified open space, which represents 15.8% of the site.

So everything you see in green is our qualified open space.

But keep in mind these are large lots, so we're gonna have large front and backyards to accommodate as well.

Pathway connectivity walkability is a priority within Crossroads, Crosswoods, seeing our pathway exhibit.

Purple depicts our community sidewalks, orange depicts our micro pathways, and green illustrates our community pathway that provides connection along the Elijah Drain that will provide pedestrian access from South Side Boulevard to Golden Rod Drive.

So here are some elevations of the homes built south of Crosswoods in locust lane subdivision.

We will have the same builder for Crosswoods.

And these homes proposed will draw inspiration on a modern farm style look, combining clean roof lines, board and batten siding, and natural stone accents to create a really timeless yet fresh and charming feel for this community.

And then quickly to summarize, we strongly feel that this community will be a thoughtfully planned, high-quality community that blends rustic charm with modern livability.

It brings a much needed diversity of larger estate lots to this area.

It's ideal for families and professionals who value space and connection to this community.

And this infill location offers really kind of the best of both worlds.

It's conveniently located close to downtown Nampa and I 84, yet kind of tucked away to provide a quieter, more private lifestyle.

So we feel that Crosswoods supports the city of Napa's long-term goals for thoughtful growth, housing diversity, and high quality of life for future residents.

And behalf of our entire team and the applicant, we'd like to extend our sincere thanks to city staff for their guidance and support throughout this process.

And we're in full agreement with the staff report's findings.

And with that, I'd like to thank you for your time, your consideration this evening, and the opportunity to present.

And I would love to have a recommendation to city council for approval for our applications this evening.

Thank you.

And I'll stand for any questions.

Questions?

Mr.

Vice Chair, Mr.

Sorry, not a question for the applicant.

But what was the reason?

He excused he recused himself.

What I heard was relation to the applicant.

Yeah, I'm not sure.

That's what it is.

I think maybe a family member of the applicant.

Okay.

I I know the applicant and I know his family.

But I'm not in no relationship to them, so I think I'm good.

Yeah.

The conflict of interest is if you're within a second degree relation or if there's some what they call pecuniary interests, right?

Financial system.

Okay, I just want to make sure that that it was uh so long as you can park your hat and be an impartial decision maker.

Do that.

I think you're good.

So thanks, Sabrina.

Yes, thank you, Commissioner.

Christy.

Thank you, Vice Chairman and Commissioners.

Um, again, Christy Watkins, principal planner for the city of Nampa.

Um she covered most of it, so I'm just gonna get on with it.

How's that?

Um, as you've noticed tonight, you have been seeing a lot of comp plan amendment requests.

We do this on a six-month rotation.

Um it's state law that we allow that to happen twice a year.

Um, we don't really want to entertain it a lot just because it is our future land use map, it is our guidance for future growth.

Um, but it's October, and it's time for you to be hearing these, so you get them all in one night.

Um, the future land use map here is designated as medium density residential.

They are requesting low density residential, as you can see, it's directly across the street, and as you know, our map allows for a stretch of neighboring or adjacent designations, one parcel deep.

There is city services available to this property.

There is um sewer main, water main, and pressurized irrigation all in Southside Boulevard and in Goldenrod, so it can come from either direction.

Uh traffic impact study is not required for the number of lots that they are proposing.

They are required to dedicate some right of way along South Side Boulevard, and Goldenrod does not have any uh right of way requirement at this time.

They will be required to widen the sidewalk on South Side Boulevard to eight feet wide and add a sidewalk on Goldenrod Drive.

She talked a little bit about what the layout's going to look like.

These are the applicable regulations that we'll be talking about tonight.

Comprehensive plan amendment, annexation zoning, and then of course the plot.

So the facts for the comp plan.

Um, again, the future land use map is flexible and subject to change based on either your desires, city council desires or requests from property owners.

The immediately surrounding area is all medium density residential, but allows for the stretch.

In the facts for annexation, um, there are four criteria that need to be met for this.

One is that we do have permission from the property owner to annex into the city.

It is contiguous to the city limits on all four sides where it abuts RS6, RS 8.5, RS-22, and RP zoned properties.

Um it is in the NAMPA's area of impact on the future land use map.

And it does comply with the uh roadway MOU between the highway district and the city of NAMPA.

So there are three criteria when determining whether or not the zoning is appropriate.

They are asking for RS-18, which is an allowed zone under the low density residential designation.

Um the area around is all RS zoned, so that is appropriate as well and compatible.

Um, they do have access to city services, and they are providing a use that is compatible to the uh surrounding properties.

We did not receive a lot of correspondence.

Nampa Parks talks a little bit about the pathway that's being constructed along the Elijah drain and the fact that that will be in a 20-foot-wide permanent easement from the top of the bank that allows us access for maintenance to that city pathway.

Uh GIS said that the legal description will need to be revised because there's a little bit of a gap and an overlap overlap with those documents.

The fire department has stated that this subdivision will add approximately 71 residents and will require an increased personal demand of 0.07 firefighter positions.

These are the conditions of approval that are listed in your staff report.

These are the potential motions, and I will stand for any questions.

Okay.

We will go ahead and open the public hearing.

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

We do.

We have Zane Craddock.

Okay.

Zane.

Huh?

You're good?

Okay.

All right.

Anybody else?

Anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this item?

Okay.

Seeing none, Sabrina, you want to add anything?

I know you've already had a long evening, so just real quick.

We feel that this is going to be a low impact and high quality infill development that really balances NAMPA's growth objectives with the character of the surrounding area.

And it kind of preserves the rural appeal and manages resources responsibly and enhances the community's livability.

And with that, um again, I'd love to get that recommendation of approval this evening.

We think this is going to be a really great infill project for NAMPA.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Second.

Okay, we got a motion to close the public hearing by Kirkman and a second by Keyhoe.

All those in favor?

Okay.

What do we think?

I really I like it a lot.

Yeah.

In fill makes me happy.

Yeah, logs.

I drive by this property about 37 times a day.

I always wondered what the owner was when he was gonna downsize.

Yeah, now I know.

Otherwise, sunflower courts on throw a rock to it.

Um but yeah, I agree with Commissioner Salman.

This is a good infill project, and low-key, low footprint, low density.

Like it gives us some of those bigger, excuse me.

I said close enough to get it hit me.

But it gives us a few, it gives us more of those larger estate lots that I've complained about that everything's RS6, and we need to keep families in the same area.

We need to have places that they can upsize or downsize from, and these state lots will be perfect for those older people with high school kids or ones that are moved out and want a place to park their motor home for when they go to Yuma in the winter time.

And there's a turn lane on Southside.

Yeah, there is one quick question for you, Staff.

Um you said eight-foot sidewalk, so I gotta rip out the sidewalk that's already going down south side and make it wider.

Mr.

Chair, Commissioner Turner, no, they will be able to just add an additional to it.

Oops, sidewalk splicing.

Oh, joint expanding correct.

Um, Mr.

Chair, if there's no further comments or questions, I will move to recommend approval of the project as stated on the screen.

Second we had a motion by Kirkman, a second by Selman to approve this item.

Madam Klerk, if you want to do a roll call.

Garner.

Aye.

Staffer?

Yes, Turner.

Yeah.

Keyhoe.

Aye.

Morgan.

Oh, sorry.

Kirkman.

Aye.

Salman.

Aye, Copeland.

Aye.

Motion carry.

Okay.

Thanks, guys.

Um, how are we doing?

Need a break?

No, push through, good.

We got one more.

This is aging Commissioner Morgan.

Morgan.

Tell them to come back in if you see him out there.

I did tell them to be able to wait in the car.

Maybe you really went out to the car.

Okay, moving on.

Our last item tonight is an action item, a conditional use permit for a home occupation daycare for up to 12 children in an RS6 zoning district at 8337 East Expedition Drive on a.25 acre parcel.

I guess it's culture-based sub lot 22 block two for Jennifer Kenner, owner.

Original concept in home preschool for up to 12 children.

Um applicants here.

Okay, come on up.

And again, give us your name and address for the record.

I'm Jennifer Kenner at 8337 East Expedition Drive in NAMPA 83687.

Um so the purpose of this application is to request a per conditional use permit for the operation of a small in-home preschool facility located at our address.

The proposed preschool will provide high quality early childhood education and care in a nurturing home like environment to contribute to the community's need for accessible child care options.

The proposed in-home preschool will offer a play-based hands-on curriculum for up to 12 children between the ages of two and a half and five years old.

The hours of operation will be Monday to Friday from 9 o'clock a.m.

to 2 30 p.m.

The preschool will utilize our dedicated playroom, dining room, and outdoor play area in the backyard.

The in-home preschool will accommodate a limited number of children, thus minimizing traffic generation.

There is ample parking along the street as we are on a corner lot.

The proposed use will not generate excessive noise, and outdoor play will be restricted to designated areas and the hours to ensure privacy for neighboring residents.

Additionally, the property is adequately screened with tall cypress trees to minimize any potential visual or sound impacts on the neighboring properties.

The in-home preschool will comply with all applicable health, safety, and safety regulations, including those related to fire safety, sanitation, and child supervision.

The facility will undergo required inspections by the appropriate authorities, including the fire department to ensure the safety and well-being of the children in care.

The proposed in-home preschool will offer several benefits to the community.

It will provide valuable child care option for local families, support early childhood education, and contribute to the economic viability of the neighborhood.

The preschool will provide a valuable service to the community and will be operated in a manner consistent with the health, safety, and welfare of the residents in of NAMPA.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Questions for the applicant?

Yes.

Medicare.

Yes, sir.

It's curiosity question.

You're not going to open it up until 9 o'clock in the morning.

Correct.

People always go to work like at 6 o'clock in the night.

Yes, so this is not a daycare.

It is a preschool.

I will be having two s two two and a half hour sessions of classes each day.

Okay.

Okay.

I misunderstood the application.

Oh, so Mr.

Vice Chair.

Yes, sir.

Follow course on that.

The application.

So the action item is a home occupation daycare.

Is that different than a pre Damien?

Is that different than a preschool?

So under the current code with the current capacity of children, uh staff found this to be like the closest to what this would be requiring for the age of 12 or six seven to twelve children.

Falls within the same guidelines of watching children under a specific age.

And you were probably going to cover that in your staff report, right?

In a short time.

Thanks, Jennifer.

We'll call you back up when we go.

Okay, Damien.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Commissioners, Damian Snodgrass, Associate Planner.

The requested action item tonight is for a conditional use permit for a home occupation daycare, up to 12 children and an RS6 single family residential zoning district.

Again, because it the preschool for the children this young, the staff has found this to be the closest margin of what this would be.

Property details, it's medium density residential, RS6 zoning, and everything around it is within that same subdivision, and there's currently utilities.

Here are the applicable regulations.

Here are the applicable regulations for a home occupation permit.

This will be have to be filled out with the planning and zoning department.

Uh, if this is to be granted for a conditional use.

NAMPA building department provided a list of comments and conditions.

All of this will be followed fall under the residential permit that'll have to be filled out at the time of if this were to be granted.

So they have to do some internal renovations to make it up to code for fire and building for the proposed findings that the proposed use is supported by the NAMPA comprehensive plan.

This is an accessory use to a single family home, so staff found this to be met.

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

Um this is covered by a home occupation, it has to retain that single family home character, so staff found this to be met.

That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services.

It's being served, so staff found this to be met, and if the proposed use will not involve any activities or process material equipment and conditions of operation, that will be detrimental to any persons, property or general welfare by reason access traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glares or odors.

Um services are readily available.

Um the property must have that home occupation permit, and so it has to still retain that single family home.

Um so weighing all of the facts.

Staff found that the criteria for 1025-4, conditional use to be met.

The proposed conditions of approval, applicant owner, operator owners shall comply with all state city codes and policies and standards.

This includes all of those by the building department under aligned with building code, and the applicant must obtain a home occupation permit with the planning and zoning department.

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

Any questions for Madam Clerk?

Do we have anybody signed up for our public hearing?

Okay.

Anybody online?

Anybody, anybody in the audience?

Husband's not even gonna support.

Okay, maybe he's maybe he's opposed to all these hair left to pull out when he starts getting all those kids.

So Jennifer, you want to come back up?

Uh questions for Jennifer?

Anybody?

Yeah, quick question, Mr.

Vice Chair.

Mr.

Daffer, I didn't okay.

You spoke for are you aware of the conditions?

Like there could be some renovations that are needed in order to comply.

Okay, yeah, so we've already done some electrical renovations and um fire exits.

Oh that's all perfect.

Okay, I was gonna ask the exact same thing.

Okay, look.

Might have sounded smarter.

All right, thanks, Jennifer.

Appreciate it.

Okay, entertain a motion.

To do what?

To do what was the public hearing?

I'm ready for it.

We would close the public hearing.

You gotta be the second.

It didn't move to do anything.

Oh, okay.

So do we have a second?

Okay.

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

All those in favor.

I had at least four seconds.

Some of our bedtime.

Can I make a second?

Can I make a uh a comment on the record about these that I it amuses me to see complaints saying that children playing is a noise concern?

That's all I want to say.

Okay.

Is it's on the record now, so you're good.

Besides that, I move to approve the project as stated on the screen with recommended conditions and proposed findings.

Okay, we have an emotion to approve by Morgan and a second by deaf.

Uh roll call, madam clerk.

Hi.

Summon.

Hi, Kirkman.

Hi.

Morgan.

Yes.

Keyhoe.

Hi.

Turner.

Hi.

Daffer.

Yes.

Gardner.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Okay, that motion carries.

Um now, Jennifer.

If you listen, I'll read this to you.

This CUP will become effective 15 calendar days from the date the written decision and reason statement is provided to the applicant, unless an appeal has been filed with 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.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh, this is the part of the evening, Peggy.

I make a motion we adjourn.

We have a motion to adjourn by Stillman and a second by Kirkman.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.