•  

  Weasel Word Salad:—CDA's "University" Zone

  Aug 20, 2024

  On August 13, the CDA Planning and Zoning Committee held a public hearing for a new "University District" Zone, that proponents claimed will “protect and maintain the university environment”.   But that is the OPPOSITE of what CDA's U-District Zone actually does.

  What the new zone type does is “facilitate the planned expansion” of private commercial and residential development on NIC’s northern campus.  And although CDA planners claim that the U-District Zone will “support and enhance the education environment”, the new zoning regulations are so full of weasel words that they utterly fail to RESTRICT commercial development on the campus.  In fact, they enable it, by explicitly allowing any business that can be said to “support higher education” to operate on NIC property.

  CDA's University District Zone is smoke and mirrors, and for city representatives to claim that the new zone type “preserves University property for Public Education Uses” is jaw-droppingly deceitful and fallacious.       

  The U-District zone is not intended to restrict commercial development.  Its purpose is to “facilitate planned expansion” by “allowing for flexible and creative development” and for a “mix of uses” that “supports higher education.”  And it does this by defining PERMITTED USES as any activity that “primarily" serves "students, faculty, employees, and alumni” of Idaho Colleges.  

  But of course, NIC students include working adults, retirees, high-schoolers, and part-timers as well as full-time scholars, and a high portion of local residents are alumni of Idaho colleges. And if that weren’t broad enough, the qualifier “primarily” renders even that restriction meaningly.   So “permitted uses” covers just about everything.  

  Believe it or not, the University Zoning is so broad it even allows for a “Hotel/Motel when integral to Community Education.”  The ordinance is insanely all-encompassing, given the tiny amount of developable land that is actually at issue.     

  Unless, of course, the plan is to use the U-District zoning code to turn all of North Idaho College into a public-private-partnership, controlled by CDA's Urban Renewal Agency and Planning Department. 

  This is hard to believe, but if only a few acres of the old mill property are at stake,  why is the plan to apply the U-District zoning—which provides for commercial development on public property,—not just to the old De Armond Mill property, but to all of NIC?   Inquiring minds want to know.  

  We've included links to the August 13th  P & Z agenda package, that includes the proposed ordinance text, and other supporting documentation (starting on page 113), and the NIC Facilities Master Plan, as well as a printable version of the U-District zoning code.  

  More specifics about the U-District Zoning regulations are discussed below, but first some background is necessary.

   

  Education Corridor Master Plan

  In 2008, the DeArmond Mill situated between NIC and the Sewage Treatment station was purchased by NIC for $10M.  The North Idaho College Foundation provided the financing, and the loan was paid off in only a few years.  NIC enrollment was growing rapidly at the time, and the administration anticipated expanding the campus to the north.

  Almost immediately after the property was purchased, however, CDA’s Urban Renewal District, (now CDA Ignite), took the lead in developing a Master Plan for how the property would be used.    CDA Ignite had been working with private corporation to develop prime riverfront property for many years, and it appears that the agency saw the De Armond Mill purchase as another “development opportunity”.

  The Education Corridor Master Plan, was published in 2009.  It outlines two visions for development of the property.     Alternative A, promoted by NIC, used the entire property to expand the community college campus, and it envisioned a spacious, low density campus.  

  Alternative B was promoted by the University of Idaho, and it anticipated more high-density development.  Alternative B envisioned commercial and residential development intermixed with educational buildings, allowed for "private investment", and advocated for more “collaboration" between NIC and the University of Idaho. 

  U of I vs.  NIC

  It is important to understand the University of Idaho’s viewpoint, because CDA’s University District” zone is based directly on an ordinance governing the development of U of I property in  Moscow.  And if NIC loses accreditation,  control of the community college could fall to the University of Idaho's trustees. 

  The University of Idaho is a land-grant university, established before Idaho became a state, and its trustees (who are appointed rather than elected), have been making deals with private developers for 135 years.   U of I still holds over 33,000 acres of land; its main campus is over 1600 acres; and the University still controls hundreds of acres in the city of Moscow.    Most of the U of I trustees are financial professionals rather than educators and making property and investment deals on behalf of the university is what they do,—for good or ill.   

  In contrast, NIC is a community college funded almost entirely by taxpayers.  It sits on 77 of the most desirable acres in Idaho and has few other land holdings.   NIC’s trustees are elected rather than appointed and their experience dealing with investors is limited.  Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of Kootenai residents oppose almost all commercial development on the campus and prefer low-density growth.   

  So one can see that from the U of I's point-of-view, property development and “collaboration” with investors is a positive opportunity.  In contrast, Kootenai tax-payers do not see property development as an end in itself, and do not support commercial development of NIC property.   Most local residents believe that NIC land should be used for educational purposes only, and if there is not sufficient need, left as parking lots and open space. 

  If the intentions of the CDA administration were aligned with Kootenai residents, instead of developers and their ISBE cronies, there would be an easy way to preserve NIC from commercial development.     All the CDA planners would have to do to “protect” the old mill site from overdevelopment, is to rezone it as a CIVIC zone, like the rest of NIC. 

  Boom!!    Just like that, it will be restricted from commercial development.    Instead, they are going in the opposite direction, and rezoning all of NIC to allow for "public private partnerships".  

   

  The CIVIC Zone vs. PUD Zone

  The Civic zone type, indicated in blue in the map above, is intended to designate publicly owned property, whether it is held by a city, school district, college, or fire district, etc.   In general, zoning restrictions that govern development of private property in urban zones don’t apply to publicly owned land, and public agencies have a lot of flexibility in what they can build on public property.   For example, almost all of NIC’s current buildings were constructed on a single, 34 acre parcel, currently zoned as CIVIC in the 2022 Comp Plan.     

  But in the same map, the part of the NIC Campus north of River Road—that is the old mill site—is green, indicating that it is a “Planned Unit Development” (PUD), rather than blue, like the rest of the campus.   Why is this?  

  As it turns out, almost immediately after the Education Corridor Master Plan was published, NIC’s Director of Resources management applied for a PUD for the old mill property.  But why did he do this?  

  At first glance, developing the old mill property as a PUD doesn’t seem to make sense.   After all, NIC, as a public agency, already had the right to build whatever it wants on the property, and a PUD only complicates things   Also, when the college applied for a PUD in 2011, it was not anywhere close to having definite plans for what to do with the property.  It would take years just to add infrastructure and landscaping and at the time the PUD application was submitted, there were no definite plans for even one building, much less the nine or ten specified in the application.

   

  PUD is required for “Investment Opportunities” 

  But there is an explanation.  Recall that the Education Corridor Master Plan outlined two “Alternatives”.   Alternative “A”, would use all available land for educational purposes and would therefore, not require a PUD. 

  However, alternative “B”, the plan promoted by the University of Idaho, envisioned a denser development, with the central portion of the mill property shared by U of I and NIC, and private development on parcels adjacent to Northwest Blvd.    And it was to accommodate alternative B, or some similar plan for a “public-private-partnership” in the future, that a PUD was needed.  

  This is because in order for any entity other than NIC to build a structure on NIC property, the land would need to be subdivided, so that other agencies could sign a long-term ground-lease.  And subdividing the NIC mill property is part of the process of applying for a PUD.  

  In addition to providing a means to subdivide the property, a PUD also provides a way for developers to get their building plans finalized simply by getting approval from the CDA Planning department, without going through the process of a public hearing and a rezone.   In this sense, leasing land from NIC as part of a PUD can be easier than purchasing it and requesting a rezone, since the PUD process is handled by the college.  

  To summarize, a PUD would not be necessary for a low density, “Alternative A”, expansion of NIC onto the old Mill property.   And it would also be unnecessary for other colleges, such as U of I, or Lewis & Clark, to lease parcels from NIC.  But a PUD is required for the high density “private investment” opportunities of the University of Idaho’s   “Alternative B” plan.  

  This explains why CDA’s University District zone is tied to a PUD, and why it  “would overlay any Planned Unit Development” in the district.  If there is no PUD, then there cannot be private development on NIC land.  CDA's University zoning has nothing to do with educational facilities, and everything to do with facilitating private development on public land.

  University District “Permitted Uses”

  Now we understand why the Old Mill Property is zoned as a PUD and a PUD is necessary to enable high density private development, we can take a closer look at the Ordinance for CDA’s University District, and see how it does the opposite of what claims, and opens the door wide for all kinds of commercial development.

  First, notice the 2012 PUD diagram shown above, anticipates a dozen new buildings on NIC property, but in the PUD plan of record, all of the buildings designated are college owned educational facilities.     There are no commercial or residential buildings designated in the original PUD whatsoever. 

  The University District “Overlay” fixes that problem by enumerating a long list of allowable “uses”, most of which are not core educational functions. 

  The fact that CDA’s University Zone “Permitted Uses” makes no distinction between primary and peripheral educational activities, is a huge problem.    It intentionally blurs the distinction between publicly subsidized “on-campus” educational facilities and “off-campus” commercial services in order to open the door to "public private partnerships" in support of "education".  

   

  University District “Prohibited Uses”

  Just as problematic as the University Zone's “Permitted Uses” are its guidelines for “Prohibited Uses.”    First of all, it prohibits “residential development not intended for student or faculty housing”, which sounds reasonable, until one realizes that CDA tried to apply the University Zone to dozens of privately held residential properties adjacent to NIC.   This was, of course, intended to make it impossible for Military Dr. residents to sell their property to anyone but the University.  

  And then there is section D, which states: “Any other uses that the planning Director determines are not in conformity. .  . are prohibited.”  This is just a flat-out power grab that puts the CDA Planning Director in charge of what businesses can and cannot operate on NIC property.  And the NIC trustees—who are the custodians of NIC property, are left out of the loop.   

   

  How to Protect NIC from Over Development

  CDA's University zone clearly fails to protect NIC, but a simple and straight forward way to protect NIC from overdevelopment does exist.    The easiest and most effective way to protect the NIC property from private development is to keep it zoned as CIVIC and to rezone all of the old Mill Property as "Civic" in CDA's land use map.    This would still allow public Universities, such as U of I or Lewis & Clark to lease land from NIC and build on the property. 

  The Civic zoning code gives public institutions all the flexibility that a PUD provides, but it does not provide a mechanism for private investment, so the primary point of contention—that is, whether a few favored corporations would be allowed to develop on prime public property, would go away.   

  This is a no-brainer.   There is no compelling reason that the Mill property needs to be developed to anywhere near full capacity, or that significant development should happen in the near future.  There are many other places for commercial developers to build, other than the NIC Old Mill property.   In fact, there is a significant amount of private property adjacent to River Road, that is perfectly appropriate for private development. 

  NIC pays no taxes on the old mill property, and Kootenai residents are not in any rush to develop it.  So we do not need CDA’s University District to “facilitate the planned expansion” or “allow for a mix of uses”.

  The CDA University District Zoning Code is a word salad of vague terms, and weasel words that well-connected investors can use to justify doing anything they want, under the cover of  “supporting education”,  “contributing to cultural vibrancy”, "serving students and alumni", and “enhancing  the educational environment”.

  It's all balderdash and bunkum, intended to deceive.  Say NO to the "University District" diversion, and make all of NIC a CIVIC zone, free from commercial development, as it always should be.  

Comments

• (no comments)