Okay, we ready to go?

Okay, it is six o'clock.

I would like to start by welcoming everyone to the City of Ampa Planning and Zoning Commission meeting uh June 23rd, 2026.

Uh can we start with a roll call, please?

Garner here Miller here, Turner Keyhoe here.

Morgan here.

Kirkman, Copeland, Fiend.

Here.

Seven present.

Thank you.

Mr.

Ashby.

Mr.

Chair and Commissioners Rodney Ashby Planning and Zoning Director for the record.

Um first of all, I just want to thank you for those who participated in the comprehensive plan review of what the steering committee came up with, and several of you were active participants in the steering committee, so I appreciate that very much.

Um we didn't get anything back from City Council, and so we are going to go to them on a on in their regular city council meetings and um just take a couple of topics at a time.

Uh I think the goal here is to have to the point where City Council understands, knows the the comprehensive plan content and can support it, whether you know whether they agree with everything in the comp plan or not, that they can support the plan.

And so that's why we're we're doing this to make sure that they they understand that.

I'm happy to do presentations to this group, but I I think you know it's it's essentially what we've shown you already and what most of you have commented on already.

So and we thank you for your work.

Thanks.

Appreciate it.

Um so just a report on the city council meeting on June 15th.

Uh first one was a subdivision final plat approval for Cherry Grove number four number six, excuse me.

Uh that's northeast of Elm Lane and Franklin Road, and that was for sixty-one single family detached units and seven common lots.

Um and that you recommended approval and they approved that.

Uh next one was a subdivision short plat approval for Middlebury Middlebury South, number one.

And this was for 50 single family uh detached dwelling lots and seven common area lots.

Um this is um this was recommended for approval by you and approved by city council.

Uh now the public hearings was uh annexation for Highline Estates uh to RS4 and RS6 and BC community business.

This was on Franklin Road, um northeast of Linden Road and Madison Road.

And uh this was for three hundred and fifty-five single family detached dwelling units, thirty-three common area lots, and one commercial lot.

And um this was continued.

It's it's been a while since you've heard this.

This was on January twenty-seventh of this year that you had recommended approval unanimously.

Um City Council continued that at this last uh the the first hearing that they had um because they wanted to see a little more detail in the public open space um and see w how that open space would be used rather than just be drainage basins and um just open space without any amenities.

Um they so this went back to them and um with added amenities that they they included it was approved.

Uh so that was um it was a close vote, it was three yeses and two no's and so uh it did get passed.

It was three yeses and two no's and so uh it did get passed.

Um they also gave us some direction to come back with some um some well they they would like to revisit the idea of those drainage basins and whether they should be used as qualified open space.

I provided the um the language in code and uh haven't heard anything back from them.

So they that was the direction they gave me, provide us the language, and then we they would respond, and I haven't seen anything.

So we may be revisiting that in the future.

And then the the next one was uh NAMPA City Ordnance uh text amendments.

A lot of these were pretty simple.

You heard this on uh May 12th and recommended approval unanimously, and um we this one was also approved on a um three to two vote.

Um I think there was some confusion by one of the uh people in the audience about just some of the language in there, and so um there were a couple of votes against it, but it did pass, and then comprehensive plan text amendment to remove language.

Oh, I'm I'm sorry, that one was the one I was referring to.

Um the comprehensive plan text amendment was to remove language recommending development of five dwelling units per acre or more be required to get approval of a planned unit development or master plan community.

That's the one I think was just a little confusing to the public.

So um, but that one that one did pass as well.

Well, I have okay.

Thank you, Robin.

Appreciate it.

Mr.

Chairman.

Yes.

Make a motion to be approve the consent agenda.

Okay.

It's been moved by Garner, seconded by Keyhoe to approve the consent agenda.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Okay.

Um, so how this works if you haven't been here before, uh, the applicant will come before us.

Um they will have five minutes.

Seven.

Seven minutes.

Written down in front of me, uh, to tell us what they want to do, um, describe a little bit about their project, um, and we'll turn the time over to the city.

Um they will give us their thoughts, opinions, findings on the project, and then we'll open it up for public testimony.

Um when you come up to the mic to testify.

We just ask that you speak clearly into the mic, give us your name and address for the record, um, and then you'll have three minutes to give us your thoughts and opinions on the specific project.

Um after that, we just rotate through people.

Once the public testimony is finished, we have the applicant come back up, do sort of a rebuttal and mainly answer questions that people may have on the specific projects.

We'll close the public hearing and then we'll deliberate, talk amongst ourselves, vote on it, and make a determination one way or another uh for recommendation or approval.

So that's how we'll work through this.

Um also uh keep the speaking.

There's not very many people here tonight, so um, but just remember keep your voices down.

The meetings are being uh live streamed and recorded.

Um, and it's just when people talk too loud in the audience, it does get picked up fairly well on the mics, and those people that are online are um want to listen to it later and in a recording, it does fuzzy things up a little bit.

So please keep your voices down.

Okay, we'll get started with uh the first item 3-1 annexation and zoning to RA zoning district with corresponding right-away potential development agreement and sub revision preliminary plat for Lake Wool Estates addressed as zero Lake Wall Avenue for Brecon Land Design representing Ronald Lester.

Is the applicant here?

Um excuse me, my my address uh 4818.

Uh West Camus Street, PC Idaho 837 as vibe.

Um good evening.

Yes, sorry, Becky is a Gary.

I've never done this before.

No, I'm just kidding.

Uh all right, good evening.

My name is Becky.

Um with Brecken Land Design.

Um, I'm here tonight to present applications for preliminary platin annexation for Lake Well Estates.

Um the project is located west of Midway Road and north of Lake Well Avenue.

Surrounding land uses include existing two-acre single family residential properties to the north, the future home of Grace Fible to the east, and Cope Sand and Gravel to the south, and a mix of half acre residential lots and agricultural farmland to the west.

The site is located approximately one half mile from Lake Lowell Park, providing convenient access to recreational amenities.

The property also is encumbered by a 120 foot Idaho power transmission easement that traverses the site and influences the overall design of the subdivision.

This project proposes 25 buildable lots on approximately three or excuse me, 38.7 acres with a requested RA zoning designation.

The lots average 1.12 acres in size with a minimum lot size of one acre, resulting in a density of just 0.62 dwelling units per acre.

We've also incorporated a hundred and five foot landscape buffer along the northern property boundary.

This pop this buffer was added after discussions with the neighboring property owners and provides a substantial separation between the proposed development and the existing homes to the north.

Overall, the design creates a low density estate style community that is compatible with the surrounding rural character.

The project is requesting a few minor exceptions due to the existing 120 foot wide Idaho power easement that crosses the property and packs the lot layout.

The two highlighted blue lots request a small exception to the one acre lot size minimum, while the red um highlighted lots request an exception to the 150 foot frontage requirement.

These exceptions allow the development to work around the existing easement while maintaining consistent lot patterns throughout the subdivision.

So, like I said earlier, this project provides 6.24 acres of open space.

Although the open space and amenities are not required by code, the development includes a pickleball court, a 10 foot by 20 foot gazebo, and a four-star four stall parking area.

Turf sod and landscaping are also proposed throughout the common areas and in the Idaho Power Easement, creating an attractive, usable open space for residents to enjoy.

All right, roadways.

The proposed roadway network is designed to meet city standards while providing safe and efficient access throughout the development.

Internal streets include a 60-foot right-of-way, a six-foot parkway strip, and a four-foot detached sidewalk.

Along Lake Lowell Avenue, the project will construct improvements to the center line and provide a 40-foot right-of-way dedication, an eight-foot parkway strip, and a 10-foot detached sidewalk, improving both safety and connectivity throughout the area.

And then as for utilities, the city has confirmed adequate capacity to provide sewer, water, and pressurized irrigation to the development.

That's all I have for you tonight, and I'll stand for some questions.

Okay, thanks.

Property details.

The parcel is currently enclaved and under Canyon County jurisdiction.

The surrounding zoning to the north is Canyon County, to the west is Canyon County, to the east is currently Canyon County.

However, the parcel directly next to this property is currently in the process of annexation.

Once it is annexed into the city, it will be zoned RA and then RS7 to the south.

And to the south is also Keny County.

Note the path to annexation is provided by the Zero Iowa Avenue parcel, which is contiguous to annexed Nampa City parcels to the south and east.

Applicable regulations, so annexation is taken care of in Idaho State Code, Title 50 222, and NAMPA City Code Title 10, Chapter 2.

It outlines the requirements for annexation with consent of property owners, specifically all private landowners have consented to annexation.

Property shall be contiguous with city limits.

The comprehensive plan includes the area of annexation and when applicable for annexation of roadways, all portions of highways lying partially to be annexed with a contiguous parcel unless by express agreement with highway maintenance district indicates otherwise.

More applicable regulations specifically for the zoning, so 10 2 3.

Conclusions of law pertinent to the proposed zoning map amendment.

The commission shall conclude the following conclusions of law before recommending to city council approval of an amendment to the city's official zoning map.

Title 10, Chapter 27 is related to subdivisions, and then Title 10, Chapter 7 is suburban residential chapter.

Here is the proposed preliminary plaque.

Correspondence.

Idaho Power provided general comments regarding the PLAT and the easement that goes through the property.

NAMPA GIS, the applicant shall submit an updated site plan to the City of Nampa Engineering GIS staff, reflecting these changes prior to final plat application submittal.

The NAMPA Fire District provided comments.

They do not oppose the application, subject to compliance with all of the following code requirements and conditions of approval.

However, they do not approve of the access road as submitted, and they also provide a general water supply and fire access comments.

NAMPA Engineering Division provided a complete review of the preliminary plat application and the full comments and conditions are listed in the staff report.

Nampa Police Department also provided comments.

Lake Lowell Estates is projected to add 57.6 new residents to the city of Nampa's current population.

The closest police department is five miles away.

Developments near this reporting district have a lower call volume of 214 calls annually in this area.

The lot sizes shown on the plat range from one acre to 1.19 acres.

The maximum gross density shall be one dwelling unit an acre.

The density for this project is 0.62 dwelling units an acre.

The applicant is requesting an exception for the 150-foot minimum frontage requirements for lots 9 and 13 of block 2.

In addition, they are also requesting an exception to the one-acre minimum lot size for lots 16 and 17 of block 2.

All other frontage and lot size lot size requirements have been met.

Residential lots that are 32,000 square feet or greater within a development are not required to contribute to the gross parcel area utilized to calculate the required qualified open space.

This project includes over the 15% at 17% or 6.7 acres.

So findings for annexation.

All of the facts are included here as well as your staff report.

The property proposed for annexation falls under criteria outlined in Idaho Statute 50-2.2 because the property owners have given consent to the annex of the property.

It is contiguous with city limits.

The proposed parcels are available for annexation because they are located within the current NAMPA area of impact boundary as shown on the future land use map in the NAMPA 2040 comprehensive plan.

And it matches the very low density designation for RA Findings for the zoning for RA.

All of the facts are again listed here and in your staff report.

City services are in the are within the vicinity of these properties and have adequate capacity to serve this project.

The proposed properties will be subject to building code requirements for the proposed use and any new construction as presented.

The proposed zoning map amendment is in harmony with the city's currently adopted 2040 comprehensive plan and comprehensive plan land use map, as well as the Southwest NAPA specific area plan and its land use map.

It establishes an area of RA zoning that is compatible with future and existing zoning in the area.

And because the proposed zoning district is permitted under the comprehensive plan future land use map designation of very low density residential.

A single family home subdivision is a use that will be reasonably compatible with adjoining properties because the proposed use is determined to be compatible according to the compatibility definitions in the comprehensive plan.

It outlines with the uses listed in NC NAMPA City Code 10-3-2, schedule of uses for the RA zoning district.

And it is in the public's best interest and reasonably necessary because the development of these parcels will extend city services and utilities.

Any new construction will bring improvements to the property per city code.

Here are the recommended conditions of approval and any others that the commission wishes to add.

So both of you listen up.

This is this application is uh kind of dependent on it being annexed by the property next door, more or less.

What happened if that property next door doesn't get annexed?

Say they go bankrupt or something like that.

Do they does this application go away or does it continue because at one point it was contiguous?

You look at the conditions, Chairman.

Yeah, maybe we look at the conditions, and if I might staff, if you have any image of the two properties, I think that'd be helpful.

This is uh a little outdated picture.

The Grace Bible Church just went to council and was approved for annexation.

I got a couple questions for Candace really quick.

One, I think you said that was dependent on zero Iowa is out of typo.

Should that be zero like hole?

Oh, is it like Iowa's like quite a way south of Lake Lowell?

So that's why I thought maybe it was a typo.

The other thing I had was the fire department's requesting a change in their turnaround.

If they have to enlarge that and some of those other parcels around that get below the one acre.

Can they just ask for that exception when they go to city council, or do they have to come back to us if there's one other lots?

Because if we we approve of what those few exceptions that they asked for tonight, anything else has to have an exemption.

Can they just handle that city council or yes?

Mr.

Chair and Commissioners, um, so by our code, any exception has to be approved by city council.

So it's not just your decision, it must go on to city council for their decision.

Yeah, I was just I I knew that, but I was just wondering if there's another exception that has to be done for another lot or two.

Do they have to come back to us or can they just handle that at City Council?

Yeah, good question.

Um, Mr.

Chair and Commissioner Turner.

Um the we have to advertise what exceptions they are requesting, and so it would have to go back through the process in order to work.

Is that it?

Um pick up.

Sorry to make you come back up.

Yes.

Um do you or the planning department have any thoughts on the exceptions?

Are you okay with them?

Chairman and Commissioner Morgan, we don't have an issue with it.

It is an ask, they can't ask for that exception, but ultimately it is up to the council to have final say.

Who was it up to?

The City Council.

Sorry.

So what one of like the minimum lot size ones, they weren't very far under one acre, were they?

Mr.

Chairman and Commissioner, no, the two lots are zero point eight acres, so they're just under 20 percent one acre, so not far off.

And then the the lot width one.

That one seemed like it got pretty narrow, did it?

Or yes, it did, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

That 20 foot Idaho power easement kind of made it so the width, the lot depth isn't 150 feet.

And it seemed like they flashed up, and maybe I can ask the applicant this.

Flashed up uh what might have been a earlier version where that was all one lot at the bottom.

That might not be that was in her presentation, it might not be in yours.

Um I'll ask her when she comes back up.

But you you don't have any concerns.

No concerns from where I'm standing.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Questions.

I don't have anyone signed up.

Okay.

Is there anyone that would like to speak?

Go ahead and come on up and name an address for the record and tell us what you think.

Good evening.

My name is Jill Hallows, 603 West Crimson Nampa.

Um, Cheryl Higley couldn't be here tonight.

She and I have been discussing this project, and she sent me an email with some concerns.

So I'll read that first and then tell you what my concerns are.

She says, I have mixed feelings about this application.

It is for very low density land use and zoning of RA, which is what is appropriate and what I would like to see for this area.

However, it does seem like sprawl to develop in the undeveloped area on the west side of Midway when there is still so much land on the east side and within the city limits that is available for development.

One of my concerns is that city council.

I've recently learned that our city is about 600 million dollars in the hole as far as deferred maintenance.

I'm concerned about what the cost will be to the city for adding or annexing and taking utilities out to this project.

I'm concerned about the deferred maintenance that eventually it will bring.

At that public hearing, people were very concerned about the amount of traffic in that area, and this will only add to it.

Continuing with Cheryl's concern.

She says I did not see an inquiry email.

Oh, it says the main thing I want to know is has the county been notified of this application since this is outside of the NAMPA impact area.

I did not see an inquiry email to them or their response in the agenda packet.

If not, what role, if any, does the county play in cases like these, where it goes outside the impact area?

Um another concern that I have is as we keep I I went to the water summit meeting for the Treasure Valley, and there are serious water concerns, and as we keep adding developments and adding green space to these developments, we are putting ourselves in jeopardy of uh overusing our water.

And I just think it's time to kind of pull in our reins on developing, particularly outside of the impact area.

Um I'm concerned about cost infrastructure, um all those things.

So if you'll take that to consideration as you determine how to move forward, I would really appreciate it, and so would Cheryl.

Thank you.

Okay, seeing no one.

You'd like to come back up and questions for us, please.

Okay.

So we can go back to that one that shows the exceptions.

The slide that shows the exceptions.

Well, she's doing that.

I'll just the fire comment.

So there is room to put, um, you can see it when she pulls it up, but there is room to put a fire turnaround where the the fire department has requested one.

So we won't be requesting an additional exception.

We can just put it in in the easement and around the the area there.

Yeah, so um it's not gonna hurt anything.

Um we just left it just to you know, in case there were more comments, we don't want to make more changes to the plot.

Um, but it is it is um you can't accommodate that for sure very easily.

Um and then as far as um the water um that the um neighbor had brought up.

Um we're this development's planning to hook up to city services.

Um so the city has told us that there's adequate services that can be supplied to the development.

Um so I think we're good there.

Um and then as far as the traffic goes, you know, we're we're we're proposing 25 lots, um, and and that's pretty low in the scheme of things, and we're we're meeting code and and um we weren't required to do a TIS on this this piece of property just because the lock count was so low.

Um we are also improving, you know, our half section of roads, so we're we're adding a lot to the city, we're adding sidewalk, um 10 foot sidewalk too, um, which will be a nice addition, you know, as development moves out and kind of connect to that Lake Wool Park, which would be kind of cool.

Um but um so here's the exception request.

So um, yes, so we are we are proposing um you know exceptions here.

The reason I mean I worked on the design on this thing uh a thousand times.

I've tried to rework it to to meet those lot frontage requirements and then and then meet the one acre, but man, the Idaho Power Easement is tough um to design around.

Um and and so you know, it is kind of what it is, and you know, if we were to combine the two lots, you know, the the blue lot down at the bottom, it just looks really weird when you have like a massive parcel.

It just doesn't fit with the rest of the development.

Um so that's kind of why we wanted to split that in half, because it just adds to the cohesion of cohesiveness of it all.

And then um as far as that red one kind of to the north there that's kind of bordering the the the power easement there again, that would be a massive lot if we were just to combine the lots.

So that's kind of why we're we're we're doing that, and then same with the the one to the south there.

Um there's just that usement's kind of tough.

Um so that's that's what I got for you guys.

Any questions?

Yes.

On the pickable lot, what's the size of that area?

That area?

That's your main your main and only amenity to the pickable court, right?

Yeah, so that area is cover two point six nine acres.

Point six nine acres?

Yes, that is correct.

The water courts aren't that big.

Oh, the just the court itself, is that what you're wanting to do?

The area for it.

So you you've got two acres of area set aside with pickable pickleball and anything else.

Um we have we're proposing a gazebo there as well, a 10 foot by 12 foot gazebo in that that two-acre area.

Yep.

Twelve foot on each corner side or yeah, just a s a square, you know, like your standard gazebo thing.

What that could be.

What would you do if pickleball was a flash in the pan and everybody says, no, we don't want that.

Get rid of it.

But do you have a backup plan for something like that?

Or is it just um yeah, I if if that is the will, um, you know, we there are like sports court will is what is you do you have any plans for something like that that if it happens?

When you have other subdivisions, we're talking about this one tonight, but you have other subdivisions, it's possible that your amenity is no longer uh uh fired amenity.

You know, it it's tough because I'm uh it uh in other projects that I've had a lot of residents love it.

Um and then there again some some don't care for it.

Um it just really depends.

Um I had a project in Meridian that was they were they were very excited to have a pickleball court.

Um I guess there's no set answer for it.

Um yeah, I if it's the will of a planning and zoning in city council, we can we can definitely change the amenity to um you know something else.

Um that that that's up to you guys for sure.

I think if it I think if it goes away, the HOA will change it to boxey ball or handball or you'll no longer be involved since you yeah.

That's all right.

It's a tough question to answer, so if that point comes.

So questions.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thanks.

Move to close the public hearing.

Then move by Commissioner Morgan, seconded by Keyho to close the public hearing.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed testimonies closed.

What are our thoughts?

I I guess I have a couple questions for Daniel.

Um I'm pretty sure you can answer both of these.

Um I'm confident you can.

Um, so the first question: what role does the county play in decisions or comments or things like that when it's outside city impact area?

Rodney?

I was confident.

So the the state code actually says specifically in it that impact areas are not to be used for growth, restricting growth, right?

So an impact area is a coordination boundary.

It's where we must contact the county and have coordination with them.

However, this since this is outside of the the boundary, we still contact the county, and um essentially it's going from their authority or their jurisdiction to our jurisdiction.

And frankly, I've just never seen a county respond um and give comments on things like this, because they they don't really care if it goes into the city or not, uh if they're uh meeting our standards and meeting the state standards for annexation.

Um this is a permitted uh annexation, even if it is in the it isn't in the impact area.

Um the county is welcome to uh give comments, but they just don't.

Thank you.

Uh then the next one.

Probably, Daniel.

Just guessing again.

Uh talk about water and the capacity the city has and what future problems we could have, and so the the city's uh domestic water system has plenty of capacity to handle the this proposed development.

Each time we receive a uh development application, we run a water model so we have our our domestic system model and our pressure irrigation system model that we we run those to verify that the existing system has adequate capacity to serve um the development, or if there are improvements that are necessary to the system to serve that.

Um we in addition to just the the physical water system side of things, uh we also proactively work um on what's called a raffin or a reasonable anticipated future needs um water rights um that preserve the what we will need into the future, um our ability to obtain water rights for those and so we're we're actively participating in the groups that are being discussed and how to proactively um maintain the the water infrastructure here in the city as well as the the aquifer and the ability to serve you know the water needs of the valley so we are actively part of those conversations for this specific development the city has adequate within our existing uh rights and within our existing uh network and system to to handle this development.

Thank you.

Um I know you're not a water professional, but those discussions and meetings you have.

Have you have you heard anybody who is a hydrologist?

Is that guy that's the water guru that sees serious long-term issues with our aquifers in Nampa in Canyon County?

Because I've heard a lot of people talking about we're getting to the point where our aquifers are gonna dry up if we don't stop.

And so I I'm not the one directly attending those meetings anymore, and so for the last couple of years that's been our director of water, so John Spencer currently.

In my discussions with him, um, there has not been concerns raised that would make me think that we're at an eminent cliff.

Thank you.

Yes, um, Daniel, you could probably answer these questions.

Um can you talk to how much it costs the city to have this development come in?

What does the city pay for in order to provide this development?

So the all of the development costs are paid by the developer.

Um, and so they will put in brand new infrastructure, the water sewer lines, all of those types of things.

Um the roadways that will go in will be brand new, and so there's no cost to the city other than future maintenance and the infrastructure that they're putting in now, obviously is going to last for on the water side of things.

You know, we we the current pipes are typically if they're installed properly, we're talking you know, 75 to 100 or more years before we would be looking at a replacement of those.

Um and so growth when it comes in, we those those new rate payers, there's very little demand on the maintenance side of things, and so that helps spread the cost for um the needs within the core of the city that have more needs for um immediate uh re m operation and maintenance on the on the lines that we have more core to the city.

So the city is not paying for these people to come in, and these people are helping to pay for the cost that we already have.

Correct.

Thank you.

My thoughts.

I I think it's great.

I mean, it's what everybody asks for at almost every hearing we have as far as hey, you're on the you know, the outside of the city, we don't want to see a subdivision, we don't want to see apartments that belongs in the core of the city or closer to the freeway or closer to a downtown corridor.

Um acre plus lots.

I mean, it's literally what everybody asks for on the outside.

Especially out there by the lake.

So I I like it.

I think it's a good project and it's gonna fit well in the area.

So my thoughts.

And just to hammer that home, if we don't do it, if we don't choose to bring them into the city, they'll just develop it in the county and still still drive on our roads and not help pay for it.

Mr.

Chair, I recommend we approval of the project as stated on the screen with recommended conditions.

Let's get a roll call.

Garner.

Miller.

Hi.

Staffer.

Turner.

Keyhoe.

Aye.

Morgan.

Yes.

Kirkman.

Copeland.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Okay, we will move on to item 3-2.

Subdivision short plot approval for 805 subdivision in an IP zoning district addressed as 805 Park Center Way for Frank Fridrick.

See applicant here.

Good evening.

Uh Mr.

Chair Commissioners, my name is Jared Walgren.

I'm with JGT Architecture.

Uh 3137 South Meridian Road, suite 110 in Meridian, representing the applicant for this proposed plat at 805 Park Center Way.

This is a 2.9 acre parcel that about five or six years ago was developed with a 30,000 square foot office warehouse building and uh improved parking lot.

As you can see from the image on the screen, a good portion of that lot uh was left undeveloped.

Uh we have a simple request tonight that is we're just going to convert that undeveloped portion into its own lot just for future flexibility.

Uh we've done some preliminary planning where we can fit uh you know eight to ten thousand square foot building with parking and some yard space behind.

Uh no immediate plans to do that, but uh the owner would just like to have the flexibility to do so.

Um I'll be short.

That's simple as that.

We've uh reviewed the uh staff report and agree with all the conditions, and I'd be glad to stand for any questions.

Okay, doesn't look like we have any now.

We'll call you back up.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Miss Friend, you're up.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

My name is Terry Friend, associate planner for the City of Nampus Planning and Zoning Department.

Um, the requested action item for today is approval of a short plat for the property at 805 Park Center, which is in an industrial park zoning district.

When the application went through, it was mismarked as IL, so that's why you see the correction there on the screen.

Um the applicant is property owner Frank Friedrich, who proposes to keep the existing industrial building and parking um and create a separate 0.84 acre parcel out of that undeveloped portion for a future industrial building.

The property is um future land use map is industrial, it's currently zoned industrial park surrounding in this area to the north is um an industrial park area that currently has a U.S.

Postal Service facility to the south is um local businesses in the BC zoning district.

Those are up against Caldwell Boulevard, just to kind of get you acclimated there.

Uh to the east is light industrial, that is Union Pacific property, and to the west is uh BC community business zoning, that is Bethesda Christian Church.

This area of the city um went through a subdivision process in 1911.

Um that was the Arbon subdivision.

It actually divided this area into three really large parcels.

Over time, it's been subdivided and uh property boundary to adjustment or whatever.

So that's why we're here tonight for just two parcels with a short plat, is just a lot of things have happened with splitting the land that was originally that Arbon subdivision in 1991.

Um this area was annexed and zoned to the industrial park, and then in 2021, they got certificate of occupancy for that existing industrial building.

The existing property is 2.95 acres.

This short plat is gonna create two parcels dividing off that undeveloped land onto its own parcel, and the existing building and parking will remain on the balance of the property.

Uh the short plat is exempt from open space requirements.

The IP zone does not have minimum lot dimensions, so the plat is compliant in regards to lot area, width, and depth.

The landscaping and parking will be reviewed at the time of building permitting when that new parcel is proposed for development.

And um, so based on the analysis of the plat, staff finds that the plat complies with all the applicable city codes and development policies and standards.

Um if it complies with the conditions of approval that have been listed for correspondence for this application, we didn't receive any public comment.

Engineering did do an evaluation of the plat, and they um recommended a couple of conditions of approval.

They also noted that the um when the original plat was done, there wasn't an easement for the hydrant that uh lateral that extends from the street to the inside of the parking lot.

So they need to establish that easement now was part of the comments, and then here are the recommended conditions of approval.

These are also listed in your staff report.

It does mention that easement requirement.

The rest of them are pretty standard conditions, and here are your potential motions questions.

I don't have anyone signed up for this one either.

Is there anyone present that would like to speak for against or undecided on this item?

You have anything you'd like to add?

No, okay.

Move while you're at a move we close the public hearing.

Second.

All right.

Okay, public hearings closed.

Thoughts simple.

It is industrial space, and it's gonna add a lot.

So more industrial space.

Yes.

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

Second, been moved by Garner, seconded by Morgan to approve the item.

Uh get a roll call, please.

Garner.

Miller.

Hi.

Staffer.

Turner.

Aye.

Keyhoe.

Aye.

Morgan.

Aye.

Kirkman.

Copeland.

Aye.

Feam.

Aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Yes.

I'd like to move the theme.

Second.

Been moved by Copeland, secondary by Morgan to adjourn the meeting.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Anyways.

Meeting is adjourned.

Oh get you a maileth.

I should have got the mail it out.

Gavel it out.

Sweet to the point, folks.

Reserve high-fives on the way out the door.