Okay, I think we're ready to get started.

And good evening.

So as we get started this evening, thank you for joining us.

I greatly appreciate those that are joining us in person and those that are joining us online.

Good evening.

So we have a tradition here that I value greatly, and that is that we open in prayer.

And Pastor Tony Johnson is here.

Tony, come on forward.

He's with Damper First Church and the Care House and Incredible Ministries.

Tony, thank you for all that you do.

So let's stand and we'll let you open us in prayer and a pledge.

Let us pray together.

Father God, let me begin by saying thank you.

Thank you for being the God of righteousness, holiness, and justice.

Thank you for being the God of mercy and grace, forgiveness, and compassion of life and breath.

Thank you for being the God who provides the wisdom and counsel, the direction and discernment to those who seek it.

So your kingdom can become real on earth as you desire it to be.

Thank you for giving our city the people, the finances, and the opportunities to create a city where its members can be able to flourish and prosper.

Thank you for the leadership of our mayor and our city council members who sacrifice so much of their time to be administers of your grace in our community.

And they have guided our city through times of prosperity in the midst of challenges.

Thank you for all the staff and employees, the police and fire department and officials who work to make our community safe for individuals and families to better live the lives you created them for.

Thank you for all of this, Father.

Now, Father, as these individuals wrestle with the challenging topics and decisions related to this, your city.

And by letting their conversations and decisions honor you and thus demonstrate that they love you with all that they are and their neighbor as themselves, for in loving the other, they demonstrate their love for you.

We ask all of this in the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, and that by the that your will be done by the power of your Holy Spirit in them and in us.

Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Mary Aaron.

Thank you for all the support you have given to Carehouse Partnerships over your eight years of leadership here.

It has been a blessing to work alongside of you to help make NAMPA a better place for our community.

Thank you.

Yes.

Through both food and medical, the whole thing that you provide through the ministries there, it makes a big difference in our community.

Thank you so much.

Glad we can be a part of it.

Thank you, Mayor.

Take care.

Okay, roll call.

Rodriguez.

Jingula.

Reynolds.

Griffin.

All present.

Um do we have any proposed amendments to the agenda?

Mayor Clint.

Yes.

Um I'd like a little more clarity provided on 17.

So 17A, if we could pull that off.

17A.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Is there anything else?

Any other proposed amendments to the agenda?

Seeing none, I would stand for a motion to adopt the agenda with 17A being moved to uh discussion.

So moved.

It's been moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

And with that, I would stand for a motion to approve the amended consent agenda as uh noted.

So moved.

Second.

Any discussion?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Thank you.

Okay, so let's go to 17A.

And this is the monthly cash report.

And uh see what questions we have on that.

Mayor, uh Doug.

Uh Doug Racine, if you could help me understand what the Idaho Center accounts, uh, there's about seven point four million dollars.

Is that the tr is that the fund balance for those accounts?

Those numbers.

There are primarily two accounts for the Idaho Center and two accounts for the Nappa Civic Center.

The two accounts for the Idaho Center are one is an operations account that they fund all of their daily activities from.

The other is a ticketing ticket account where revenues, unearned revenues come in for concerts that have not yet taken place.

The money comes in there, they hold it and just in case the tickets cancel the concerts canceled, and they so they can refund it.

After the concert takes place or event, they move the money from the tickets account into the operations account.

And it takes a little bit of time for them to reconcile, but that's essentially how they use those two accounts.

So the numbers that are in that an account or those two accounts, the major ones, um that's the actual fund balance that is in those two accounts to be able to do it.

No, as it relates to the fund balance, the ticketing account has nothing to do with the fund balance because it is unearned revenue.

The fund balance is primarily but not entirely, primarily in the operations.

What's not included in the cash account would be items such as prepaid expenses.

If they paid out money in advance for an item for an event that hasn't happened, that's a prepaid expense coming out of fund balance, i.e., a use of the operational funds.

Um payments that we have yet to pay them, such as the incentive fee would also eventually come out of the operations account.

And there are other accounting changes, such as when they reconcile the ticket accounts, they'll move whatever money is left over from the ticket account into the operations account.

And there's I think right now, probably based on our conversation last week with um with the Ford out Center, there's probably a couple of million dollars in the ticketing account.

They still have to move over into the operations account.

So we don't have a final reconciliation of what's in there.

It's a little bit of a moving target, but we hope to have a clearer aspect of everything left in a couple weeks.

So if you were to guess, how much do you think between all the accounts associated with the Idaho Center and the I assume the Civic Center is that the FIC?

Yeah, FIC is the Ford I said.

The NCC is not part of the process, so we'll exclude those funds from the any discussion.

They're they're not related at all.

So we we pull them out, and there's only two accounts we're talking about, the ticketing account and the FIC operations account.

At this time, there would be no guessing at to what is in those because until we get to year end and we actually close them close out, it's too soon.

If I understand correctly, that we have not closed those accounts out.

And so there is uh it would be impossible and it would be inaccurate if we were trying to trying to speculate on those fund balances until we actually have the appropriate closing audits.

Well, I when I talked to them last week about this, they did not have a number exact number for me because it takes a while to reconcile the final account.

So if I say a number, I'm going to be wrong one way or the other right now.

And that's fair.

I was just wondering if this was the fund balance, but you're saying it's not.

Okay, so the fund balance is all together separate accounts.

It's compr the fund balance is comprised of multiple elements of which cash is the primary component, but not the only component.

Okay, so I won't have a guess on what that amount is.

I was just it caught I I thought since this was 4.7, I thought that's what about we had as far as in the fund balance.

That's why I was questioning that.

But well, the fund balance, keep in mind overall, in the concept of fund balance is like retained earnings in a corporation.

The fund balance number on our balance sheet does not change but once a year when we close out the earnings.

And like you like in your business, you close out your earnings for one year and you roll it into your retained earnings if you're like a Schedule C corporation.

So we don't change that but once a year, and we're getting to the point now where we're ready to update that for the adjusted fund balance that reflects all of the operational events of the prior year.

So thank you.

When do you anticipate?

When do we anticipate that to be?

Um I would say in the next two weeks we should have a pretty good number.

They'll have a number probably a little earlier, but we will have not had a chance to even review it.

So let them finish the number, then let me review it and challenge it with them.

Okay.

So early November by mid-November.

Yes.

Okay.

Which is earlier than normal because we're rushing things.

That's why I want to take a moment to verify it and walk through each aspect of it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Just uh another point of clarification, Mayor.

I know part of our resolution document 1.24 stated that approximately $5 million to the city's general fund would be replenished.

Is that the account it'll likely come from?

And is it still anticipated that it'll be the five million dollars that was discussed?

It's too soon to answer that.

Until we close out, we don't know.

I will tell you that the five million dollars referenced was the fund balance a year ago in October 1st or 9 30.

That's what we had a year ago.

Since then, operations have been used, the values have changed.

It's like anybody's checking account.

It will go up and down based on the activities of that year.

I will tell you that this year and talking to Andrew, they had a pretty good year, but not their best year.

So I wouldn't expect it to go up.

So it would be safe to say we wouldn't expect it to be higher than five million, but it could still be five million, or should we anticipate that it's going to be less than let's find out rather than making a promise until I get the numbers in.

Okay, thank you.

So with that, uh, what is the role of the council on the approval of the monthly cash report?

Make a motion we approve it.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Uh all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

Okay.

So we do not have any agency or commission reports, but we do have public works staff communication this evening.

And as Crystal makes her way up, you will might notice there's a different attorney setting at the bench.

Um, our uh city attorney Preston is out of town, and Doug Waterman and uh with Hiltian Associates, and I'm probably getting the name wrong because sometimes they change, but Doug Waterman works very, very closely with the city and with Preston, and so he's filling in this evening.

Doug, thank you for being with us this evening.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

If you will humor me for one second, I'm going to go a little rogue and off script.

I wanted to to do a brag on one of my teammates, actually, a whole division of my team, it's our traffic division.

Um mayor shared at the state of the city that we have been actively working at retiming quite a few of the corridors.

And in the very nick of time, because the morning of state of the city, we retimed Garrity Boulevard.

Um, Matt, if you wouldn't mind sharing your screen for me.

Um I just wanted to tell you about the number of hours that it took to go in to retime this corridor.

Um, it goes basically from Idaho Center and Franklin all the way down to 11th.

Um, this is a live view right now, and this is five o'clock traffic on Idaho Center Boulevard going southbound.

You can kind of see the the off-ramp as well right there.

This is almost free-flowing traffic right here.

This has been a problem corridor for many, many years, and it took quite a few different tweaks.

We'll have some data.

I'm gonna come back at the next council with some data on how much time we've actually saved people getting through these intersections, but I just want to do a brag on our team about the the amount of man hours that it's went.

Um the um TMC allowing us to view this and make these live tweaks to get traffic um flowing better and to get people home faster and safer.

So just wanted to brag on that for a second.

Good job.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

And now what we are really here for.

You guys are gonna hear the sound of my voice for a little bit.

So uh hopefully you enjoy these updates.

I've got two updates for you.

The first is on a um study that we've been doing on we're calling it north side yale to seventh, but it basically goes from north side and second all the way down, it becomes Yale and then it becomes 7th Street to about the termination at 12th and 7th.

As a reminder, we received two different grants to do a safety study on this corridor, $50,000 from Compass and about $230,000 from a Safe Streets for All grant for about $280,000.

Um typically we start looking at safety on intersections if there have been more than about three accidents in a five-year span.

This one mile corridor saw over 260 accidents in a five-year span.

So it is a very, very much needed.

We've done the outreach, and I want to report out on what our citizens have thought about it thus far.

So as I said right here, this roughly goes from north side and second.

It did it kind of changes names.

We're calling it north side, but it's it's north side to Yale to 7th.

Um, this is a very, very high crash corridor, as I stated before.

Uh we see a lot of congestion.

It's a two-lane road right now.

Um there's a lot of pedestrian provements that need to be done, as well as the pavement has failed in the section of road.

The study came up with three different alternatives.

We presented all three to the citizens.

We received 180 responses, over 50 percent favored alternative three, um, 26 percent all favored alternative two, and 16 percent favored alternative three, which is eight percent of our citizens saying they would prefer us doing nothing.

So going over the alternatives, the first alternative is the lowest cost one, the lowest impact.

It was about 5.8 million dollars.

It looked at constructing ADA improvements through the corridor, so looking at the put PED ramp specifically at the corners, improving those.

It converted high street and Yale, which I'm gonna back up real quick.

It's that that curve in the corner where it goes from Yale to 7th.

It converts that to a ride-in ride out, and then it constructs some drainage repair as much needed, and then it repaved the corridor with just a mill in inlay.

Here's an example of what that ride in ride out could look like.

The access restricted with some form of curbing in the center.

The second alternative brought it up to about 6.8, so add another million dollars or so to it.

It did everything that alternative one did, except it also added constructing eight foot attached sidewalks throughout, and then it added intersection lights at all of the main intersections along this.

So here's an example again.

All of the alternatives had this, but it looks at extending that right hand turn bay at north side where it turns onto the boulevard at second street.

We see some cues on that free running right, so it extends it as far as we can without running into the railroad right away right there.

Um and then the big big improvement right here, it would add two southbound through lanes.

I'm gonna call them southbound from north side going on to 7th Street right there.

Uh so this would allow right now, there's only one lane, and then the other lane kind of drops off onto Davis.

That uh second through lane would be carried through about two blocks and in somewhere just on the other side of Hudson.

The highest cost alternative, I will say this one also included the most right-away, bumped it up to 8.1 million dollars.

It did everything that alternative two did, except it constructed a five-foot detached sidewalks with five foot grass buffer throughout the corridor from Hudson to 12th.

Then it constructed eight foot attached sidewalks between second and Hudson where it's a little bit more constrained right there.

We couldn't add that buffer to allow the sit the vulnerable users to get farther away from the road.

Instead of just putting corridor light or lights right at the intersections, it put lights along the entire corridor.

It installed a couple of bull bouts at key intersections so that the citizens don't have to cross the entire length of street, and then instead of just doing a mill and inlay on this, the big cost was it did a full depth rehab of the road.

I will also say all of these alternatives put a light at 7th and 7th.

Right now it is an always stop, so this is another one of the improvements.

You can kind of see what the sidewalks would look like, and some of the high level right-away impacts would be for the buffer space and the attached sidewalks in this area.

So I wanted to talk a little bit about the projected improvements and why we need this.

There's two different pictures on this, and uh they talk about Q length specifically during the peak hours.

Um, the orange is what the existing Q length is.

You can see right now going, I'm calling it southbound.

Um, going southbound on north side, the queue is over 1300 feet.

You go up and over the railroad almost to the uh Broadmoor intersection right there.

After we put these improvements, it reduces the queue length to just 600, so less than half of the queue, and um allows a lot more capacity to get through that intersection.

You can kind of see the other cues are reduced on almost every single leg minus the northbound movement, but the Q isn't very high on that one to begin with.

What time of day?

Crystal was this are you?

This was the PM this is the peak PM.

We picked the worst numbers to show you.

So those are the ones we to typically design to is the worst case scenario in these instead of like when it flows well.

So I want to talk a little bit about the public feedback.

So I told you before that we received 180 responses, so it was pretty good feedback.

We also hosted an open house here in this room where we saw lots of citizens come in, um, kind of give you the breakdown schematic on the very top where you see the the higher amount preferred alternative three, which was the most expensive.

Um, but we wanted to really focus in on the people that live on the corridor.

So the ones that are gonna be affected by those ride-away takes.

What was their opinion?

You can kind of see their opinion was very, very similar.

Most of them preferred alternative three.

Um, the bulk of them preferred us to do something that would in any of these uh alternatives did require ride-away takes.

So most of them said, yes, please come purchase our ride-away to have these needed safety improvements.

Um I will also note looking at the written responses that we see we received.

The bulk of them basically said, come in, fix it right the first time.

That's why they preferred the higher cost alternative.

They said if you're gonna impact us, if you're gonna purchase our right-of-way, purchase everything you need right now, fix the road the right way, install the lighting as we need it right now.

Don't come back and do it again in a few years.

I do also want to address another comment that we received, and it was like, why would you just put one left turn lane going southbound on north side onto third street?

Why would you why wouldn't you put two in there?

So we wanted to talk a little bit about that and why that's not a good option.

This kind of breaks down what the average vehicles per hour is.

We had origin destination on this modeling on this.

So we were able to say about 350 if you're going southbound.

About I don't know, a third or so, maybe a little bit more.

570 people going southbound are gonna go onto the boulevard and go towards Caldwell, where 800 vehicles per hour are gonna keep going straight.

And of those 800, about 530 of them are gonna continue south down along Yale and 7th, and only about 350 were gonna turn on to the boulevard to go on to 12th.

So looking at these projections, um, we did another model of what it would look like if we put the improvements that we we wanted in versus what would it look like if we only did one southbound lane and then two left turn lanes from north side onto third streets.

So that that picture on the left I showed you before, you can see that that queue right now is about 1300 feet after our alternative improvements, it's gonna be about 600 feet.

If we redid that and we only put one southbound lane through and put two left turn lanes in, the maximum queue late would go all the way back to about 3200 feet during peak hours.

So not only would it not improvement, it would make it much, much worse than what it is right now.

Yes Crystal question.

I in looking at the diagram, I was uh seeing the two lanes uh turning left on the third street, but that's not the case, you say.

No, I'm gonna go back.

So I'm sorry if I make you display.

Yale and seventh slide.

Yep.

So you can see right here this bottom picture on the left hand side of the screen.

That's north side and third street right there.

So it shows one left turn lane going through and then two straits continuing south is to the right on the screen in this picture.

So two lanes would continue through, and then that last lane would taper back in around Hudson Avenue.

Okay.

Again, that's looking at the slide where you had the 533 vehicles per hour and the 352.

It didn't, it kind of looked like uh you had two turn lanes and one through through street.

Um, yeah, that one.

Just the way that it's shown.

If you zoom in on it, you'll see that there's the lane that currently is the left turn lane.

Then you have the blue arrow that is in a lane over.

That's why I was uh a little confused.

What you were indicating.

Yeah, the the model is showing whether it's one lane or two lane, about 350 cars or what would be turning left.

Thank you.

Yeah.

This is Matt Ricks, our engineering manager on traffic.

So what this shows is if we put in a dual left and gave people that option, how many vehicles would divert down third?

So the existing one, there's about 150 or 170 to make that left turn.

If we gave them the option, we'd get some diversion there likely, but we'd still get too many through vehicles going through there.

So the the through lane would be over capacity, and then that would cause the cues to be even longer.

That kicks you into that third option as far as um you showed us at the beginning as far as uh coming continuing through widening and adding more lanes.

Yes, so so all three of the alternatives add a through lane coming southbound.

This is a separate, just we had some public comments on this, so this was a separate model that we ran.

We had origin destination data, so we know we knew where the vehicles at North Side and Second where they wanted to go.

So we redistributed the traffic according to that, and then this is these are the results from that.

So this was a separate analysis that we ran.

Thank you.

Any additional questions?

Councilman Heaverfield, I do appreciate that that question.

Um, I do want to highlight that when we have these open houses and we do get the survey responses, we read every single one and we listen to all of our citizens, and when we see common trends, we don't assume that we've always done it right.

So this was a common trend that we've heard from people saying, like, hey, why don't you do this?

And we said, Great, let's do the analysis on it and see what happens if we did.

And that was the end of it.

There's more active conversation on Yale.

Any other questions, comments?

Nope.

All right.

Moving on.

Another six, eh?

The next uh large project that I wanted to give you guys an update on.

I committed to coming about quarterly in front of you guys to give you progress on our NAMPA RAISE grant.

So as a reminder, in August of 22, we received a zero-match $5 million raise grants to look at eight different projects in what we called the North Nampa area.

I'm not sure why we called it North Nampa, because it's really not.

It is roughly bound by the interstate to the north, the railroad to the south, north side to the west, and Garrity to the east.

It's our former north side now.

There we go.

It's north adjacent.

I am going to pass this off partway to Pearson DeWitt from HDR.

He's the program manager that is helping out on the consultant side, so I'll ask him to come up in just a few minutes.

So as I said before, this slide should look very similar as last time.

There are eight definitive projects, which can get very, very confusing on this five million dollar grant.

They're all shown right here.

They have different durations, different start and stop points on all of this.

So you can kind of see the star down at the bottom is where we're at.

We're coming to a completion of some of our projects.

Some of them haven't even kicked off yet, but we are well, well underway on this.

So we've made some great progress to share with you.

Start date on this was July of 24.

The final end date for all of the projects will be March of 27.

So this first one that I wanted to talk to you about, we are calling the multimodal analysis rehab.

This was identifying about five different projects in this North Nampa area that need to repair existing sidewalk and curb ramps.

These five projects all went to final design, so we've got shelf ready, I want to say, projects that when funding becomes available, we already have it completely designed and we can go immediately after construction funding.

Also, if councils would like to allocate additional property tax money to do these types of pedestrian improvements and vulnerable user improvements, we have bite-sized projects anywhere between 100,000 and like 500,000 that we can allocate some money to.

These are great projects for things like CDBG projects, safe streets for all projects, any of like the child pedestrian programs and things like that would all be eligible for these types of programs.

So it's really great that we were able to complete designs so that we can have some and be uh reactive whenever we we find the money for them.

It's about 95% completion on that.

We're just finishing final design plans right now, and then this will be the first one that we get to check off the list.

The next one I wanted to talk about.

Um, this is the mobility hubs implementation.

This will be a playbook, so it is a planning level document only.

This is not just focused on the North Nampa area in that raise area, it is for the entire city, but this will be for any type of mobility hubs throughout the city that we would like to put in.

It gives us guidance on what levels of effort that we need.

We've worked closely with Valley Regional Transit, Treasure Valley Transit, uh St.

Luke's, uh a bunch of stakeholders all throughout.

Um, this is an example of what one could look like, including ADA crossings and paths.

You can see the crosswalk right there painted.

Um, if bike racks, if somebody was going to bike to this location to get on a bus, what that would look like.

Um, any type of roadway lighting or lighting of the mobility hubs where we're talked about and things like this, seating again if there were bus stops working with VRT to make sure those were implemented correctly.

And then shelter structures are the last ones again, working with VRT.

This one is about 65% complete.

We need to do some additional public outreach to show them, get some idea from the public on what they'd like to see if there's any other amenities and things like that.

Um of the larger mobility hubs will will have more amenities, some of the smaller mobility hubs will have less.

And again, this is strictly designed.

This is strictly, this is just a planning level document.

So it will help guide our future designs and give us an idea of what they need to look like in the future.

Mayor.

Yes.

Crystal, is there any consideration at all to opening up Indian Creek on the north side of the track lines?

Is there any money available like through uh grants?

I am I I mayor, Councilman Haverfield, I do appreciate that that question.

I'm gonna put a pin in it and Pearson's gonna talk about that because that is one of our projects.

Good.

I'm gonna pass it over to Pearson.

Thank you, Crystal.

Good evening.

Uh so the first um project that I'm gonna speak about is project one, which is the North Side Boulevard and Four Street intersection.

Um, as you can see, we've got the preliminary layout associated with the intersection improvement and the bridge in collaboration with the city.

We came up with a really good way to accommodate some larger vehicles for the adjacent land use that's anticipated to be taking place as time goes on.

Or I don't get to play golf anymore at Broadmore.

But that was fun back in the day.

Anyhow, moving on.

Um we are about 40% complete with this right now.

Uh we just got through the preliminary design on it.

Umpa staff is reviewing the design at this point, and um going into the first of the year, we're gonna have a public meeting to go over any input that we received to help integrate that into the final design before we advance it to completion.

That remaining 60 percent.

Can I ask real quickly, will there be acquisition, right-of-way acquisition from the adjoining property owners right there?

Mayor, uh, we are trying on all the projects to reduce the amount of right-of-way as much right-away acquisition as possible.

There are some potential needs at the corners just to make sure that the intersections is going to be ADA compliant to make sure we have the directional ramps that we're looking for in the signal placement there, um, but it will be very minor.

Um, project two is um the 6th and 2nd Street AV rehab and side path installation.

This is um basically gonna do a road rehabilitation along the two streets in question.

Um I believe it's a mill and inlay at this point.

We're still looking at, I think the final geotech indicated that that was what was needed to keep the road uh sufficient for the next 20 years.

We have gotten through the preliminary design on this as well.

Uh we've we've looked at all the potential impacts and we've developed locations where we're trying to minimize impacts to adjacent properties, minimize the right-of-way, and determine the highest and best use.

The railroad crossing is one area where we're having to get a little bit um collaborative to make sure that we're kind of accommodating the needs and still meeting the right of way uh the railroads crossing requirements at intersections.

It's about 25% complete.

We're just I believe today actually we just submitted to the city the uh concept layout, um, which has been a really collaborative process with all the staff to come up with the alternatives that are gonna be presented today to the staff.

Uh the next one's project three.

Um, I hopefully you can see some of these images.

This is the railroad overpass off of 14th Street, um going from North Nampa into the downtown core.

Um we're gonna evaluate um alternatives.

One is to do nothing, one is to do improvements to the existing 16th Street Bridge, and then the other one is to evaluate new pedestrian bridge over the railroad at 14th Avenue.

Um, as you can see in a couple of these uh renderings, we looked at the one with some spiral staircases and then some switchbacks.

These are very preliminary in nature.

We're we're trying to engage the railroad staff, and we didn't want to just go up there with a blank canvas, so we kind of just try to develop some very preliminary renderings so we can have something to speak to when we meet with them here in the next month or two.

We're just getting started on this.

We did receive all the survey from our surveying subconsultant, and we are reviewing that now, and our next steps are to engage with the railroad company.

Um we got some contact information from Crystal regarding who we need to reach out to.

And um, fortunately, one of our staff members is third generation NAMPIN.

That's grandfather and father worked at the railroad.

So we're trying to leverage some of that information to to be able to engage in that conversation.

Project four is the 16th and 6th street uh intersection improvement.

It was combined with project two, but there was some funding that was secured through a VRT grant where it's now been kind of put into its own design category.

It's it's it's on its own timeline now where it was initially combined.

And this breaks down the grant funding that was available.

Crystal, I don't know if there's anything you want to speak to as far as the grant funding is concerned, but we are we are in final design right now.

Um I think the the last hurdle that we're going through is the environmental approval process right now.

We're we're working with um the federal FTA on getting that approved, and so we're we're really close there.

I think we're submitting that later this week.

Yep, final design in September.

Uh PSE coming up down the line here pretty quick.

Fingers crossed, environmental approval by Thanksgiving.

Advertise this winter so we can build next spring summer.

About 75% complete.

Uh project five is the Indian Creek Pathway Extension.

Uh it's a conceptual alternative to install about two miles of pathway along Indian Creek.

Uh there's been a lot of close coordination with with Cody at Parks and Crystal and her staff to develop the the most effective way to use what available right away there is and to determine where we can we can come up with the best crossings.

We have recommended a preferred alternative.

We're trying to utilize as much of the existing infrastructure for these crossing locations on 11th Avenue and 7th Avenue to not reconfigure these intersections as that much.

There are a few bridge crossings involved as well.

We are just receiving comments back.

Final comments were due to us last week.

We're going to integrate those comments and move forward to present a final concept design there.

And then project sixth is the last project in the RAISE program.

It hasn't started yet.

It's anticipated to start first part of next year.

So yeah, coming soon.

With that, I'll stand for any questions.

And if there isn't any, I'll pass it back off to Crystal so she can talk about a few things.

Thank you very much.

Council, do you have any questions?

Not at this time.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Pearson.

So I want to summarize at the very end because we don't like to do design without a plan in place, right?

We don't want to have a planning level document for to sit on a shelf.

We don't want to do a design just to have it go stale and not actually implement.

So I want to talk about the funding and uh how our citizens will actually see these project projects come to fruition and how we're going to implement the improvements.

So that first that multimodal project that I talk about, um, we've got five or six now ready on the shelf in between 100,000, 500,000.

Um nice size bite out of the Apple.

I already talked about some of the grants that we could potentially get for this.

We could also choose to fund it with city funds if that's what we desire moving forward.

So we're still seeking funding on that, but I have plans in place for it.

That mobility hub is just a planning level document.

We'll never need any money for that.

So we finish after this.

Project one, North Side and Boulevard, North Side and Fourth Street intersection.

So that's that new bridge over Broadmoor.

Really, really looking forward to getting rid of that one-lane bridge, as well as installing a signal here at Fourth.

Um, I'm actually gonna partner that with that Yale study that I just spoke to you guys about.

It is on the docket for a build grant.

Um, we're anticipating build is the new name of RAID.

They did away with rays, and now it's build.

Um, so we will do a build grant for implementation of that as well as that Yale Street North North Side Corridor improvements.

So it'll probably be about 14 to 15 million dollars all in on that grant.

Um but I think it's going to be a very, very strong contender.

Not only did we already get raised funds, which makes them look kindly on us when we want to do next round of rays or build in this case, as well as looping in all of those safety benefits from improving the the north side corridor will also make it very, very eligible for additional funding.

Sixth Street and 2nd uh rehab.

We've already applied for a grant on that.

We should hear back any day.

It was a safe streets for all grant.

We combined it with uh some improvements in the cities of Middleton and the cities of Caldwell.

So this is a combo grant between all of us for the last two years.

Anybody that applied correctly to Safe Streets for All got the grant.

So I think there is high, high probability of us already having funding for this improvement.

Next 14th Avenue Bridge.

This one's gonna be a beast, I'm not gonna lie to you guys.

Um, this will be a very expensive one.

We'll need to find money for final design and for construction on this.

So this will be a challenge, but it is something that I am up to task for, and I'm ready to continue actively working on.

That's 16th and 6th Street improvements.

We already told you it's already funded through construction with our VRT grant, so that one's already done and checked off the list.

Indian Creek Pathway is another one that we're gonna have to find final design and construction money for.

This one will be very challenging as well as that pedestrian bridge.

Um in the new legislation, a lot of the the vulnerable user type grants have been cut, so we will have to work through both of those, but we will find avenues to continue on with them.

And then that last at first street and third street.

Again, that's another one that we're gonna have to find money for.

Um that one's going to be a partnership project with UP, so there's some potential for freight grants and things like that.

So kind of looking through this, over half of the projects either don't need money or have already found money for construction, which is pretty phenomenal.

Thank you.

And with that stand for questions on RAIS, or if any came up about North Side and Yale, I'm happy to answer them as well.

Or I can go sit down and I can keep going.

Any questions?

Okay, I don't see any.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Rodney.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Uh Rodney Ashby, Planning Zoning Director for the record.

Uh we had several items go before the planning and zoning commission this last week.

Uh the first one was East Ranch, uh, the final plat approval for East Ranch.

Um, and this is just for realignment of the of Cherry Lane.

And the final plat for residential lots will be done at a later time, but this was just to realign it so it's a safe access point.

On to the other road there.

So this was recommended for approval.

This will this is on your agenda, was on your agenda tonight.

The next one was an extension for final plat approval for Sierra Meadows subdivision.

This is for four buildable lots, residential lots.

At Sugar Southwest Corner of Sugar, South Sugar Street and Third Street North.

And this was recommended for approval.

And actually, this was uh approved by planning and zoning.

This doesn't come on to you, it's just an extension.

And then the next one is a conditional use permit for Rocky Mountain Jet Boat.

Uh this is the near the southeast corner of First Street South and Sixth Avenue South in the I believe it's the down, yeah, downtown village zone.

And this is for sales of new boats, parts, and accessories and some light manufacturing.

And that one was approved by Planning and Zoning Commission.

Two more here.

Uh the first one is the sugar district, formerly called the NAMPA Gateway Center.

Um they are readjusting their development agreement, and one of the restrictions in there or one of the concepts that was in the development agreement was that they would tear down half of uh two buildings in order to do residential in that area.

Um it's kind of right in the center of that development, and um they have found tenants for those spaces, and so they're not they're not going to be converting that over to residential, but instead leaving it as as retail and commercial.

So that was one of the things they're doing.

There's a couple of other things that you'll hear on the 17th of November when that comes before you.

The next and final one is um an annexation and zoning to for a mixed use development.

Uh this one has several different zones, residential and commercial and industrial zones, and this is right along State Highway 16 up by uh USTIC, and this was the uh bottles uh project that they've been working on compiling um some properties for a long time, and the commission found that it matched our specific area plan very very closely, and so they recommended approval of that, and that will come before you on December 1st, and that's all I have Rodney.

Thank you, Council.

Do you have any questions for Rodney?

Okay, Rodney, thank you so much.

We're gonna move at this time to our new business items and see we're running a little bit late, but see if we can get through all of them before we start public hearing.

And we're gonna begin with a new business item 5.1.

This is an action item and it's to authorize the chief information officer to sign a three-year Microsoft contract in the amount of $338,616.50 per year to purchase the usage licenses, and this is pending review by legal and procurement, and it is approved in the FY26 budget.

So moved.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez, yes, and Gula.

Yes, Cammerfield, yes, Reynolds, yes, Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

52 is an action item.

It's to authorize the mayor and the senior director of public works to sign a task order with parametrics for the Robinson and Greenhurst Railroad overpass and the amount not to exceed 1,512,250.

And this is approved in the FY20 budget and pending approval in the FY26 budget amendment, which is for the grant portion.

Moved.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Chingula.

Hammerfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

53 is an action item.

It's to authorize the public work staff to acquire temporary easements for Pertham Sewer Trunk Extension.

Project work package 1A.

This is Tree Line Avenue through 11th Avenue project in the amount of not to exceed 420,516 and 48 cents.

And this is approved in the FY28 budget.

Yes.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Hammerfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Ingula.

Yes.

All in favor.

Motion carries.

54 is an action item.

And this is to authorize the mayor to sign a contract for legal service.

And this is for PFOS litigation with Stag Louisa LLC on behalf of the City of NAMPA.

This is ensuring participation in the aqueous film forming foam, AFF.

Product liability litigation settlement.

This is to access access for to funding for the PFOS testing and remediation and protection for the public health and environmental standards.

So moved.

Thank you.

Is there any discussion?

Yes.

So this is can somebody explain to me.

It says uh liability litigation settlement.

Is that uh in anticipation of a litigation or is this a past litigation settlement?

Yeah, uh Mayor Councilman Haverfield.

This was this is a sort of nationwide PFOS litigation that's settled.

Um it was an opt-out class.

The opportunity to opt out was two years ago.

NAMPA did not opt out.

So NAMPA has settled its claims with three M and DuPont for PFOS contamination in drinking water.

And this is this is participating in doing the testing and submitting the claim.

You have access to the funds.

That's all I needed.

Yeah, thanks.

Any other discussion?

See none roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Ingula.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

55 is an action item.

It's to authorize the mayor to sign the cooperative agreement between the city of Nampa and Valley Regional Transit for the transportation funding in the amount of 862,948.

This is approved by legal.

It is the what we approved in our FY26 General Governor Government Contractual Services and our Mass Transit and Streets Funds.

So moved.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yeah.

Jingula.

Yes.

Haverfield.

No.

Griffin.

No.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Madam Mayor, there's a yes.

Motion carries.

5-6 is an action item.

This is the first reading of ordinance and approval of publication of ordinance summary amending Title II Chapter 4 of Nampa City Code to add the position of Chief of Staff to the list of appointed officials and provide for the duties of the chief of staff.

It's also removing the fire chief as an appointed official for the city of Nampa and correcting the titles of the senior director of public works and chief financial officer.

This was approved by uh Doug Waterman, and it is requested to pass under suspension of rules.

Provide for the duties of the chief of staff as an appointed official.

Remove fire chief as an appointed official for the city of Napa.

Correct the titles of senior director of public works and chief financial officer, allowing for a summary of this ordinance to be published, providing for severality, provide an effective date, and repealing all ordinances, rules, and regulations and parts thereof in conflict here with.

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Bills.

Haverfield.

No.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Ingula.

Yes.

Five in favor, one opposed.

Motion carries.

5-7 is an action item.

And this is to confirm the appointment of our chief of staff.

And Clay Long is the person that is being nominated to fill the chief of staff role.

And so I would just stand for uh action or motion from council.

Moved.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to appoint the Clay Long as our City of Napa Chief of Staff.

Is there any discussion?

Roll call.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

So do you want to go down and do the oath?

Yes.

Thank you.

That was a nail biter, Clay.

Clay, come on up.

You can say something while.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Sure's going to come down and give you the oath, but we know that you'll you'll uh you'll pass.

We'll go ahead and do the oath and then we'll let you say something.

Ready.

Do you solemnly well?

Thank you.

Do you solemnly swear that you'll support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Idaho and the laws therefore?

And will faithfully honestly and impartially discharge the duties of chief of staff during your continuance therein to the best of your ability, so help you guys.

I do.

Okay.

Go ahead and sign this.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

I'm excited to continue in this role and enjoy serving the city of NAMPA and being part of the community.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so 5-8.

Um this is an action item, and this is for council to provide direction on the rezoning of the downtown core, north side to 16th Avenue, 4th Street to Railroad, in conjunction with the potential adoption of the new form-based code, Central NAMPA zoning informed districts.

Staff proposes the following rezones of the downtown sub-districts the uh downtown historic, central NAMPA, downtown village, and gateway business two, and downtown business to GB1 get gateway business one.

Rodney, thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

There we go.

Um, so real quickly, uh, this is the current downtown zone.

Sometimes we talk about these sub-districts as zones, and they're actually not there.

The the zone that we have in our code is uh the downtown zone, and then it's broken out into those three different sub-districts downtown village, downtown business, and downtown historic.

So you can see the boundary there.

Um we heard a lot of discussion from our our community about what is downtown, what truly is downtown.

And I guess I'd I'd pose this question here is Burger King in the downtown.

Um that's that's what we heard is no, and so they wanted us to really focus on kind of condensing that down to what is actually the downtown.

So after all that uh process that we went through uh with a form-based code, we've met with you several times.

Uh we've come up with a boundary for central NAMPA, and you can see that on the screen there.

Um, and that would be the area that we would handle with form-based code.

Um, and that will come before you in the near future for approval through a public hearing, and we'll give you a lot more details at that point.

But what that does is leaves those two other zones, the DB and the DB subdistricts, um, kind of without uh a zone.

And so we have to we have to propose something in place of those two sub-districts.

And so what we're proposing, and and we just would like your head nod here that we're okay to bring this before you with more detail.

Uh didn't want to surprise you, and so um, this is what we're proposing the GB1 and the G B2 zone.

The gateway business zones were designed for gateways into certain areas, uh, one into our city, and then second of all, we're using this for uh gateway into the downtown.

Um, and so what we're proposing is that those would be uh what we bring to you when we do the form-based code adoption and the central NAMPA uh zone boundaries that we would bring these as well.

There's some differences, but there we'll point those out and have that discussion in the public hearing.

We've done a pretty thorough analysis analysis of the differences between these zones and what was there before, and we feel like these match really closely.

We're gonna have some recommendations for um how to treat it a little bit differently, but um I I think we can have that discussion in the public hearing.

So, really the question for you is are are you comfortable with this approach and and uh the planning staff bringing to you that proposal at the time when we consider the form-based code in the central NAMPA zone?

Rodney, thank you.

So I have a question.

So, what I think I'm hearing you say is you're wanting uh feedback from council, but where this is noted as an action item.

Is this an official vote?

Or basically what I hear you say tonight is you're looking for our feedback because what you're anticipating is coming back with gateway business one and gateway business two and the central NAMPA zone, and you'll build your form-based code off of that if you get them go ahead from council, then they'll get to vote on it at a later time.

That's correct.

Okay, so council, what are your thoughts?

Mayor, yes, uh, my hope would be is that we would keep it as marketplace directed in the gateway one and two, and uh in the other section that we would free up that section and not get too restrictive, and that we should discuss and potentially eliminate the historic district requirements and allow the marketplace to go to work.

Those are my comments.

Thank you.

Okay.

Any other comments?

Feedback.

If he comes back with gateway one and two, are we gonna be good?

Because I guess what Rodney's trying to do is not put a lot of work into something and bring you something and then hear that it's not okay on gateway one and two specifically.

Form based code is a separate discussion, and so that will be coming, and that's again in that whole area, and that's a little bit of separate discussion that's coming anyway.

Am I correct?

Yeah, we just we just don't want to bring forward the form-based code and have you adopt the form-based code, and then all of a sudden we have these two subdistricts that really don't fit anywhere in our code.

So we have to do something with them, and uh I think that the direction I've heard so far is exactly what we're proposing.

So the zoning, the current zoning requirements in GB1 and GB2 are already there.

Yep, background and it fits in this area.

Okay.

So any other thoughts?

Are is he good proceeding the way he is?

I'm seeing some nods.

Um I'm just considering have those businesses, as we don't have any documents.

Are those businesses already that in the GB 1 and 2?

Are they appraised of this?

And have they given you their two cents worth?

Yeah, so we've we've um done some outreach for the form-based code process.

We we haven't really what we're not really proposing anything different.

These are just zones because we're getting rid of D V and DB zones.

So essentially, we're we're not really changing anything except for a few minor twig tweaks between the two different zones, the GB and the downtown village or downtown business zone.

I've been wondering if it would affect them differently now.

Yeah, I I would say with certainty that our um legal non-conforming use status would exist.

If anything exists right now, they could continue to operate the way they're operating without any concerns at all.

Um, but honestly, I think most of most of what's down there, if not everything, is going to fit really well into this G V zone.

A mayor follow-up.

So the forum based code coincides with GB1 and two.

The form based code coincides with the central NAMPA area that you see on the screen on the right.

So that's the area that the form based code will handle.

The rest of those others are we're just rezoning it to what a zone we already have in our code.

I see.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Rodney, do you feel like you have the direction?

I think so, yeah.

And we'll provide a lot more details at that time.

So I was just wanting to make sure there's no surprises for you when we come bring this back.

Okay, good.

So council, I have a quick question.

I'm looking at the clock, and it's five after six.

We have two more items.

I'm not sure how fast these will be, five, nine, and five ten.

I can push those to after the public hearings, or we can address them now.

So what is the will of the council?

Council President, do you have a Madam Mayor?

I would say we push them and get our public hearings underway.

Go ahead and move public hearings since we have people waiting.

Mayor?

Yes.

I feel that uh few at least a few citizens are here to hear probably those specific items, and I would actually prefer to get them done now.

Either way, I don't I won't lose sleep over it tonight, but I think there are people in the audience that are here for those items, and the dragon hotel 11 might be unfair as well.

Okay.

These items are not public hearing items though, versus the others are public hearing items that we need our our citizens to get to be heard before it gets too late.

How many people are here for our public hearings tonight?

Okay, we have quite a few here for public hearings.

Okay, I think I'm gonna move forward with public hearings, and then we'll come back to items 5, 9, and 510 afterwards.

Um, and so continuing to move on.

We do not have any proclamations this evening.

Do we have anyone signed up for public forum?

Madam Mayor, we do we have one person signed up, and that is Selfina Buckles.

I don't see that they're oh there we go.

R here, sorry.

Good evening.

Go ahead and give us your name and your address, and then you'll have three minutes.

Okay.

My name is Selfina Buckholtz.

Address is 416 Meyer Avenue, Niampa, Idaho.

Mayor and Council, thank you for allowing me a time to speak.

As I stated earlier, my name is Sophina Buck Colt's wife of Mayor Old Candidate Justin but Colts.

I'm here to make a statement on my own opinions, but don't believe they are just my own.

I am an Idaho native, and I'm just now trying to inform and educate myself on this pollock stuff.

Sorry, I'm nervous.

And it's going slowly because how slow it has started is why I believe I am frustrated and a lack of trust in my local government.

Let's take, for instance, the last decision that the city council has made on behalf of us, the citizens, the Fort Idaho Center.

I do not feel like you put enough information or details out there for us.

You say you are being transparent and holding a meeting as you're required by state law, but I do not feel like you were morally transparent.

Where was my city councilman talking to us about it while it was finally out to the public?

Where was my door hangar letting me know he was going to hold the meeting for our district so he can get our voices heard or bounce ideas off each other or to make sure we fully understand the details of the situation?

Mayor, where was a citizen's opportunity to hear what CWI had to offer or ask questions?

Yes, you put things on the website, but to be honest, how many people in the city actually go to the website and know how to navigate through it?

It's not very user-friendly to get all the details.

I know I'm stuck in the Stone Ages and do not participate in social media, but I do read and watch the news, and I did not hear or see anything about the town halls or meetings until the morning after or the morning of the day after.

Part of having transparency is actually uh having community outreach.

Please take in consideration when you actually plan to plan these out.

People do work in the mornings and afternoons.

So you may need to give up a Saturday a month and give up some family dinners.

I'm not saying you don't deserve to have vacation or family time.

You were elected because you made our citizens believe their voices were going to be heard and you're going to make the best decisions on our behalf.

And you were supposed to know that when you made the decision to run, and that is why most of you ran more than once on October 8th.

I had the opportunity to have dinner with you, the mayor, and a lot of people on shaping the future of housing.

I'll admit as someone that is new to trying to understand this is very this was very eye-opening.

I did go in there with a closed mindset, thinking we are growing too fast and do not need any more development.

But having that presentation and having things explained to me in the way did change my mind.

If you could just do that and multiple community outreaches, imagine all the closed minds you could open.

Future councilman and future mayor, while you're out there campaigning, please hear that our citizens, please hear our citizens that you're fighting for and don't make promises that people like to people that you cannot keep, but explain and educate them on how the process works.

Don't go out there bullying our competitors to other people.

If you want to be a leader, then lead and educate for future successors.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you very much.

Good job.

Thank you.

Madam Mayor, we do not have anyone else out requested to do public form.

Okay, thank you so much.

Okay.

Um, at this time, we are going to move to our public hearings.

And our first public hearing, 8-1, is an action item.

This is adoption of the downtown implementation plan and a comprehensive plan text amendment to include the summary of the downtown implementation plan in chapter 15.

The removal of the reference to the Central NAMPA revitalization blueprint adopted in August of 2004, and an update to the downtown streetscape plan referenced in the NAMPA 2040 comprehensive plan for the city of Nampa.

And this was continued from September 15th.

Brie, thank you for presenting to us this evening.

Yeah, of course.

Uh good evening, Mayor and Council.

Um, my name is Brianna Howe, senior planner with the planning and zoning department.

I'm excited to finally bring this before you tonight.

Um, it's been a long time coming, it feels like.

Um, I also have Doug with me here, um, if and economic development staff if there are questions that come up that I can't just handle myself.

So let's get started here.

So the request before you tonight is the adoption of the downtown implementation plan and the associated comprehensive plan uh text amendment.

The downtown implementation plan follows the boundary of the existing downtown historic zoning district.

Um, as mentioned uh previously previously this evening by Rodney.

Um, there are other uh adjacent downtown zoning subdistricts.

Um, but what many have considered throughout this process to be the true downtown core is these this DH zoning district, which will ultimately be the central NAMPA zoning district if form-based code were to be adopted as well.

So to give you um some background on this project, um, a need was identified to consolidate and refine the planning and implementation projects um within the downtown and to have a and have one downtown resource, a one-stop shop, if you will, for all things uh downtown.

Um we wanted to provide a document that can be a resource for not only staff but elected officials, uh, developers, business owners, and the public.

The project began in 2024 and was completed earlier this year.

The plan document is structured around a market-driven framework, prioritizing investment in the downtown in the correct order and at the right time.

So I wanted to take a moment to talk about the three main kind of downtown projects that are happening right now and the key differences between between these three, and then also where there might be how they relate to one another.

So tonight we are here to talk about the implementation plan.

This was funded and is hopefully going to be adopted this evening by city council.

It combines 20 years of downtown plans into one document and one resource, and it translates that vision that we have for downtown into clear implementation steps.

Now we also have the feasibility study, which was funded and adopted by the NAMPA Development Corporation, the NDC, and that assessed a particular site in downtown for redevelopment, so that NDC can partner with maybe the city or a developer in the future to market that site for redevelopment, really to be a catalyst for development in the downtown.

So, in terms of how the implementation plan and the feasibility study relate, the feasibility study is just simply referenced in the implementation plan as a way to integrate housing into the downtown.

It is a suggestion, if you will.

And then we also have form-based code, which was funded both by the city of NAPA and NDC, and adoption by the city is hopefully forthcoming coming December 1st.

So form-based code really creates and codifies the new design standards for downtown and allows more flexibility for building form and streamlines the process for development in the downtown by clearly defining those expectations.

So form-based code was a top recommendation that came out of the implementation plan.

And then in terms of how the feasibility study and form-based code relate, the form-based code implements the findings also in the feasibility study into those standards that can be implemented, all coming together to hopefully create really that vibrant downtown.

All of these things work together, but they are separate projects.

But tonight we're here for the implementation plan, but I wanted to make sure that was clear right up front.

So getting into the plan document itself.

The implementation plan is broken down into seven sections, including economic housing, market gap office, and circulation analysis, stakeholder input, and finally recommendations.

Each recommendation given includes an action item, description, a responsible party, potential costs, and time for completion, so that we can truly implement all of these things.

We'll review the sections as we go here and recommendations at a high level.

But for time's sake, you know, we'll we'll try to get through this.

I also have economic development here to answer some of those questions that you guys might have about those specific housing analysis and market gap analysis.

I'm not an economic development professional, so we'll leave that to them.

So the plan was developed through stakeholder input.

A steering committee was formed and met on four occasions.

Our consultant also held individualized interviews with downtown business owners and developers.

These one-on-one meetings really helped us determine what the challenges and opportunities were in downtown from a variety of different perspectives.

The plan includes sections, as I mentioned earlier, economic analysis, housing analysis, market gap office.

The plan also identified key industries.

The housing analysis identified a total number of 139 housing units in downtown.

That market gap analysis found several missing sectors in downtown, including clothing stores, convenience stores, office supply stores, houseplant stores, and others.

And then from the steering committee and stakeholder meetings, a SWOT analysis was also completed.

This really helps staff and our consultant determine where downtown was starting from how we can turn these opportunities and weaknesses into sound recommendations.

Some of the strengths included historic character, community involvement, emerging growth, weaknesses, our aging infrastructure, limited public spaces, traffic, parking concerns, opportunities include infill development, historic preservation, and collaboration.

The threats to downtown included a resistance to change, competition with Meridian Caldwell, and also some safety concerns.

So our consultant worked to take all of the existing recommendations for downtown that were found in all those various plans.

So the 20 years of planning that we did previously, we had, I think, over 200 recommendations and various things in these plans, and they brought it down to these 14 specific projects.

And they are ranked here from highest to lowest as well, with the highest being housing and the lowest being installing more street furnishers.

I think it's worth stopping and noting here that we're already making progress on many of these.

Number one being with the feasibility study showing how housing could look in our downtown.

Number six and eight through our form-based code, and also number seven and fourteen because planning staff has been working directly with public works to finish the design of the streetscape, and also partner with them on the timing of key infrastructure projects in downtown as we move forward in the next couple years.

Well, and number two, improving the traffic routes with NDC and 11th Street.

Yes, level two mayor.

Yeah, that's huge getting that done, which we appreciate the funding for that.

So let's see here.

All right, so to even further clarify the recommendations, those 14 projects were broken down into project categories.

The categories include downtown built form, uh, urban design, downtown housing, parking and transportation, and economic vitality.

Could you pause and just explain those real quickly because you went from 14 different ones and then you narrowed it?

It's not like downtown built form.

Could you explain that?

What's in downtown built form?

So the built form is really going to cover, let's see.

I think I talk about them.

So the built form is going to be uh the infrastructure projects, that form-based code, how things look and how things are constructed, and then also how we enforce those standards.

And the urban design is more around uh placemaking, um, creating destinations, like family-friendly recreational destinations, um, improving our gateways, so that might be signage or wayfinding, um, lighting, um, those kind of things, and then the street furnishings.

So it was more of just a way to categorize than anything.

Um, and then obviously parking and transportation, and then economic vitality, and then obviously housing kind of ended up being its own recommended category in and of itself.

So the last part of the plan document is the appendix.

Um, one of the most important goals of this project was again to create that document that is that singular source for all downtown information for the community staff, developers, business owners, elected officials as well.

Um, therefore, the appendix has extensive information in it.

Um everything from the downtown organizations, who they are, what they do, the city departments, and what they handle, the various downtown boundaries, because we know that was of concern, the project priority list, uh maintenance, not a maintenance plan, but an acknowledgement that a maintenance plan needs to exist, and that is something that we will be working on.

Umtown project types, whether that be redevelopment or new development, or just a facade change, and then steps to develop in the downtown.

So when someone comes to NAMPA and they say, I want to develop in the downtown, there's a really nice document in the appendix that we can even pull out and we can hand it people and say these are the steps to develop in downtown, and this is who you need to talk to first, and this is their contact information.

So hopefully alleviate you know all that concern that we've had through the years.

Um, and then obviously the downtown streetscape plan is also in there as well.

So, next steps.

We've already talked about this quite a bit tonight, but yeah, um, form-based code is in progress.

Um, so we're already working on really implementing some of these things that are in this plan.

Um, we're working with a consultant to draft and adopt form-based code for downtown NAMPA.

And then also mentioned earlier, uh, NDC funded the feasibility study that was approved by them.

Um and then staff is really continuing to work both with stakeholders and departments as we work through these recommendations.

We have set up a quarterly excuse me, a monthly meeting with staff where it's planning and economic development, and then we bring in other departments depending on the projects that are going on at that time to make sure we're all on the same page.

Um, and then we have also established um a quarterly meeting that we um have not held yet because we've been in the process of form-based code and included all those same books of downtown stakeholders as we go through different projects in downtown.

So that group is established and they've been seeing through form-based code, and whatever comes next after form-based code um through this plan, they will be involved with that as we go as well.

Thank you.

And I think you did mention if you don't mind me saying so again.

I think Councilman Bills and Councilwoman Jangula both mentioned some thoughts regarding form-based code.

So just to ensure they will have opportunity to address those at some point as we move into this next discussion, not tonight, but regarding form-based code as we work through the process.

Yeah, yes, certainly.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, we are happy to take one-on-one meetings if that is the best method in doing so.

Um, staff is ready to do that.

Um happy to take feedback wherever we can.

Um, we're taking edits through the end of the month, so we're still we're still working through that process.

Thank you.

Yes, certainly.

So um, in addition to approving the plan here tonight, um, staff is also proposing changes to the comprehensive plan and asking for approval of the comprehensive plan text amendment as shown here on the screen.

Um, really, it's just providing a summary of the downtown implementation plan and removing reference to some of these older um downtown plans because they were they are now all lumped into the implementation plan together.

Um we did receive a little bit of correspondence so from agencies and departments.

Um, we have no comments um in terms of issues or concerns brought up.

We did receive three public comments, um, one from Cheryl Higley noting concerns around Lloyd Square, the farmers market, and generally downtown being cramped and crowded.

Staff found that her comments were more directed at the feasibility study.

Um the NDC commission funded and approved, not so much the the implementation plan.

Um concerns seemed more directed at the feasibility study.

Um we also received two emails from David uh Gerston, who owns and helpless emporium in downtown.

Mr.

Gerston had expressed some concerns, but found after meeting with staff that his concerns were addressed, and he uh provided his his support of both the feasibility study and the implementation plan.

Applicable regulations are found here.

Um Idaho Code 676508 requires that the city develop and update comprehensive plan with accurate and updated information.

The plan can be flexible and at council and mayor's will can be changed.

Uh these are the proposed findings.

Um, staff concludes that the adoption of the downtown implementation plan and the proposed changes to chapter 15 of the 2040 comprehensive plan provide current and accurate information that can be utilized for future planning in downtown NAMPA.

These changes are necessary as they continue the community um continues to grow and that um there's growing demand for commercial services and housing in downtown Hampa.

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

Thank you.

Mayor Clink.

Thank you so much.

Yes, Councilman Ruder.

Okay.

Um I have several questions, so bear with me.

What what other than funding the survey or of the details of the survey by NDC?

Has NDC come forward and saying that they will pay five, four, three, two, one million dollars to get this project going, or is that gonna lay on our taxpayers?

Um mayor and council, um, I really can only speak to the implementation plan.

I can't speak to what NDC is is choosing to do or fund.

Um, they did not fund the implementation plan.

I I know that to be certain.

Um, they funded uh half of the form-based code, which was 40,000.

Um past that they have not indicated whether they would fund anything additional.

Question because there is no cost.

This is a plan, so there's no cost to the city at all.

N DC is making a decision on where they are going to invest, and that will come.

It isn't done.

That's gonna be later then.

That will be later.

Okay, and that would be NDC making a decision, and there's a lot of discussion going around, and that isn't done yet.

But for this, this plan is strictly a plan.

Okay.

Yeah.

So no cost to the citizens.

Okay.

Keep going though, I'll let you keep asking.

Thank you.

Also, is there along with this plan, is there a fiscal impact study for the city to view and the taxpayers to look at how much that's going to affect local businesses or and and the downtown and our taxpayers?

Number one is infrastructure.

Yeah, Mayor and Council, thank you for that question.

Um there is not a fiscal impact component specifically in this plan.

The plan itself was very market-driven in that what is going to benefit the businesses in downtown and what is the market looking to do in downtown?

So that's what we are looking to support, is what the market would like to do.

Um we do have a recommendation in the plan though, however, that um if I can get there, is to review the projects on the CIP to make sure that we are uh we are funding um the necessary improvements that need to happen in downtown.

I can tell you though, with our conversations with public works, um, they're prepared to fund most of the infrastructure projects in downtown.

They were just waiting for this project, this implementation plan to be complete and for the possibility of NDC to do whatever they're looking at doing so that we're not tearing up streets twice.

Um, so the answer we don't know that yet because it hasn't been completed.

Okay.

Is this implementation plan the way I can I read it?

I had three versions.

One is increased business, that's that's a good thing.

Number two, how much is it impact our local businesses?

Bad or good, minus or profit or increase or profit, or is it family-friendly based or um family and family based for downtown, or does it accommodate the direction of the developer?

Yeah, uh yeah, mayor uh councilman Rodriguez.

I think um from the perspective of providing a document that a business owner can look at that's easy to read and easy to understand and provides clear steps for them.

I think that ultimately helps their bottom line in understanding process with the city, but in terms of it beyond that, I I can't say whether this plan would impact that or not.

Um we are trying to it obviously is a market-driven plan, um, and that what we're recommending here um the market would support and is interested in.

Um, but anything to create uh a seamless process for her business owners in downtown, I think is financially beneficial to them.

Okay, one more question, Mayor.

So I I have I I have seen a survey that said if we have downtown, if downtown has retail, it's gonna increase a profit by so many people of downtown.

If we have restaurants that serve food and alcohol, then their increase of profit will be much better, much higher than the retail.

So what is our objective?

Would it be a variety, or are we gonna stick to those businesses and stores that have the higher the higher the higher turnaround?

I guess.

Yeah, Mayor and Councilman, you're you're probably starting to lean into economic development world in terms of um yeah.

So I think Morgan's ready to answer.

Well, I think it's important before we do this.

This implementation plan just is to have is to take a look at the big picture.

That's that's what I'm saying.

Uh thank you, Mayor Councilman Rodriguez.

A large portion of this downtown implementation plan is that market gap analysis.

That that is the business mix.

So our consultant went through a lot of communities that have a similar demographic to what we have and said based on communities that are succeed succeeding and thriving and about our size, but further along in the redevelopment process than we are.

This is what their business makes looks like.

It's this percentage of retail, this percentage of restaurant and other kind of entertainment, and then backfilling into that of what that would require as far as housing needs go and parking along with that to support a true 18-hour district.

I think that's one of the phrases that we've heard in all of our outreach and our stakeholder is how do we take our downtown from a really hop in place to be from 4 p.m.

to 9 p.m.

on a week night, and then full of activity on Saturdays and really expanding it and making it that every day, all day full of people and vibrancy and commerce.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions at this time?

Mayor?

Yes.

Just for clarification on the downtown business owner side.

I went through and I could see I don't know what page this is, but there was business owners listed.

Was everyone in downtown given a survey link or mailed or knocked on or anything like that to be able to give feedback or consideration to the plan being developed?

Yeah, mayor and uh councilman Griffin.

Um at the beginning of this uh process back in gosh early 2024, um we we opted to not do public outreach because we were not this is nothing new.

All of these items that are in this plan, other than just the analysis that was done of existing conditions, isn't a recommendation that already existed in another plan.

Um we didn't reinvent the wheel, we didn't reinvent the vision for downtown.

Um however, we did go to the downtown Nampa Association who represents business owners in downtown and did speak with them uh about this project.

Um we did go to the NDC and speak with them about this throughout this project.

Um I know economic development met with the farmers market board um as well to talk about these types of things.

So um while we didn't have a survey specifically, we did meet with representatives of the downtown community.

Um on our steering committee was numerous downtown business owners and stakeholders.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions right now?

Okay, I don't see any.

Thank you.

Okay, we will have you back at the end of the public hearing.

And thank you.

So this is a public hearing, and we will begin with public testimony and then we'll come back.

Madam Mayor, we have one person that has requested public testimony, and that is Doris Phillips.

Good evening, Doris.

Thank you for sharing your name and address.

And you'll have three minutes.

My name is Doris Phillips.

I live at 220 South Ivy Street in Nampa.

Um, I'm a lifetime Nampa home, um Idahoan, and um I am very concerned about the plan for downtown, specifically Lloyd Square.

Umtown has its own character, and although there are things that could be done to probably improve businesses and um participation in events down there.

Um there are some things that are not going to be helpful and are not gonna drop people and having a lot more cars down there during times when there are gonna be um things that maybe other people want to come and go to could be an issue.

So if I want to go to an event that's gonna be taking place downtown, and we already have so many new housing units down there that it's gonna take up almost all the parking, that's gonna be an issue to me, and I would think that it would be to others, um, which would have an impact on how many people are actually gonna want to go down and attend some of the events down there.

Um aesthetics are important, so as far as the housing in in downtown, um I would want it to fit in with the aesthetics that we have.

Um obviously some of our buildings are older, um, some of them need to be refurbished.

Um, but to put something that looks really modern and doesn't fit in, I don't think would be beneficial to the city of Nampa.

And um I appreciate your time.

Any questions?

Thank you very much.

We appreciate you coming.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here that had yes?

Thank you.

So anyone else that would like to testify, please feel free to come forward.

And good evening, how are you today?

Good evening, council mayor.

My name is Justin Buckle, 416 Meyer Avenue, NAP, Idaho.

Um, as many of you know, I'm running for mayor and I've been talking with a lot of people downtown.

Um downtown does need to be revitalized.

Downtown does need a facelift badly.

But after listening to uh I'm sorry, I can't remember her name.

Um it seemed awfully one sided.

That you know, the B ID is what they call a downtown or the DNCA or the DNC.

Um they've uh they've beautified their buildings, and everybody else's rent has gone up, and their buildings are not being lifted.

So I I I see this being a little one-sided.

Um, when she said that she didn't open it up to the public.

I think it needs to be revisited.

I think the uh the rest of the community downtown needs to be involved.

A little bit of transparency, a little bit of openness, and that's all I request.

Any questions?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Okay, you guys, I like to watch Hallmark movies.

So go ahead, Damon.

Jill Hallows 603 West Crimson Loop, Nampa.

Hallmark movies have this way of capturing the charm of a town.

And for me, the the train station and the Christmas tree.

Not if we can just keep that visible, so when somebody takes a picture of Nampa, they think it's a charming place and a place that they want to come.

Getting too high-rise and too crowded, you know, feeling claustrophobic.

I don't think that'll attract people.

So I hope that you'll just kind of keep the charm part of it in mind.

And I know I'm sort of a Pollyanna when it comes to Hallmark movies and stuff, but honestly, this town has wonderful charm in different places, and that's uh one of the things I really really enjoy about Nampa.

So two cents is worth maybe nothing, but you have it.

Thank Jill, thank you.

And just so you know, the train, it'll all stay just the way it is.

We won't lose any visibility.

It's all there.

Yeah, it is beautiful, and I agree with you.

Yes, is there anyone else?

Okay, so yes, Amy, go ahead and come forward and then whatever you go next.

Okay.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Amy Bowman.

I am actually uh I'm the director of communications, and lately the planning and zoning team and economic development have me working overtime with all the efforts that they have, and um we created a video that demonstrated the three different efforts that they have working behind the scenes.

And so one of the things that I did as part of this process is I went through some of our recent community surveys, and it did not take me very long to outline many of the comments, and so I I started just copying and pasting them.

I'm happy to send this to council.

This is not an exhaustive list.

This took me maybe 15, 20 minutes to go through.

So if I can, you can.

I guess I'm going on three minutes.

So I'm just gonna read these are excerpts from the community.

Yeah, these are excerpts from the community.

These are not my words.

Downtown Nampa needs improvements, acquire the buildings privately owned that are keeping Nampa where it is.

No room for growth, more restaurants and businesses.

Caldwell is crushing it.

We have so much more potential.

Focus on downtown, keep working on downtown areas to have events, have more meeting gathering places like Hallwell Downtown or Boise, rehabilitate downtown to draw nightlife and daytime shopping, revitalize the downtown as well as Northside, increase investment and public safety, downtown and neighborhood gathering places, invest city resources in downtown.

Downtown sucks from the traffic patterns to the buildings and the businesses.

There is nothing in Napa to draw anyone to Napa.

Continue to cultivate and grow the downtown improvement movement to draw citizens to the heart of their city to support local businesses.

I know Nampa is growing, but we definitely need additional restaurants slash places to gather that can be similar to better or than or downtown NAMPA.

Attract more businesses, especially downtown, like Caldwell has.

So that's a very I can keep reading if you would like.

So I just felt like as I I do read the community comments that that we receive that I wanted to share uh those voices with you tonight.

So thank you.

Thank you, Council.

Do you have any questions?

Thank you for that.

Appreciate it very much.

Yes, Cody.

Go ahead and give us your name address, and thank you.

Cody Daffer 33 South Sugar Loop Lane, Namp, Idaho.

Um I wanted to come and stand before you and probably say nothing you haven't heard or recognize, but wanted to say on the public record that uh I think that our staff does a really fantastic job at a lot of things.

Um I'm on the planning zoning commission, have a master's degree in real estate development.

I've I've done a lot of studying on this stuff, and there's one thing I can say is that they have a lot of intelligent and insightful thoughts.

They form-based code I think is a fantastic um process and something I think we could implement more than just in downtown, but um I wanted to say that uh the amount of effort that they've gone through to do public outreach is incredible.

I would have done a lot having been a part of some of that.

I think it's interesting that uh just before this public hearing, Ms.

Buckholz was up saying what she said, and I also understand that side.

I I echo that to some degree as well.

I think uh anybody who's listening to this public hearing, if you got any ideas on how to bridge that gap, we're all ears because I know that's all any of us want to do.

Um ninety percent of problems I think that come in a city government come from misunderstandings.

But I think that our staff does a really good job doing their best to bridge that gap and uh putting intelligent plans in place and helping others understand is probably the biggest challenge that we currently face.

So thanks.

Thank you for those comments.

Thank you.

Council, do you have any questions?

Okay, thank you.

I think we did we have one more.

Yes.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

I'm Cheryl Higley at 12441 South Abbott Downing Way, and I have read the whole plan and I love our downtown.

I love the train depot.

I was attracted to that from the moment I came to NAMPA.

Uh it's iconic and it's a beautiful historic building.

And I'm just really concerned by the pictures that are depicted in the implementation plan.

I know they're just a concept, but it really concerns me that the train station will be overshadowed by what is shown in the pictures.

And um also the farmers market is shown like in a corridor with pop-up tents.

I'm concerned about that.

Lloyd's um square.

I mean, just the pictures, maybe they're not accurate, I don't know, but I'm really concerned by what I saw in the pictures.

And if there could be more accurate pictures depicting, then maybe it would alleviate some of our concerns about the six-story apartment buildings downtown that look like they would kind of and the parking structure or whatever it is would block the view.

I think I think that the train depot should be the focal point of downtown.

And if um Lloyd Square is going to be relocated, I think that would be a good place for it, would be right in front of the train depot.

But anyways, I just wanted to come and share my comments because I'm not necessarily opposed to revitalizing downtown.

I think it's a great idea, but I do have um serious concerns having come from a city that when I was a child, they renovated the downtown.

Um I lived there for 55 years, and it has not recovered since.

They basically ruined our downtown when they renovated it, and it's not the same, never has been.

So that's my concern.

I'm sharing from past experience that please proceed cautiously and carefully.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much.

Is there anyone else here that had intended to testify this evening?

See no one, Brie.

Uh, would you like to provide any closing comments?

And I would appreciate um if there's a picture that um depicts what Cheryl was talking about, because I think that's the feasibility study versus the implementation plan tonight.

I just want to make sure I'm saying what I'm saying correctly.

I believe that what you're referring to, Morgan.

I'll let you speak to it.

Uh yes, thank you, Mayor and Council.

There are some images from in that feasibility study reference section of the downtown implementation plan that show the original proposed layout.

There is a new depiction that will be before NDC shortly.

We can work with staff to get those updated as the project moves through the feasibility study project moves through the process with NDC.

We can keep those images and information updated back in this plan.

Understanding that these two things are running kind of concurrent, just to make sure we are reflecting the most accurate version.

Part of this is just the nature of the projects running simultaneously.

Thank you.

So just uh Cheryl, just um the feasibility study has the drawings for the housing.

This is the implementation plan, which is a different a little different, but they do work.

But NDC is the one that has uh conducted the feasibility study.

I will say I don't believe I've seen any pictures that impact the train depot at all.

Um I correct on that mayor, you are correct, and I would add on to that as we move forward in the form-based code.

Some of the feedback we heard again was that protecting the train depot.

So we have a very specific set back and setbacks to pre uh to preserve that 12th Avenue view shed.

We did go ahead and bump out in that proposed preservation area, the train depot as well.

So protecting the depot is something we care a lot about.

And I will just say that there is additional review for the adding historic preservation code coming behind form-based code.

So, in a lot of this concern I'm hearing about the charm and aesthetics, those issues are also coming forward as we work through the process.

Thank you.

I appreciate that clarity.

Thank you.

Uh concerns about uh Lloyd Square.

Um, I think that will be uh addressed um through the feasibility study and anything that comes out of that.

Um we also hook heard concerns around parking.

Any new residential units in downtown will be required to provide their own parking on their own site.

Um so that will be handled as well.

Um we currently don't have parking requirements for any new commercial currently, so any new residential will be required to provide parking.

Um again, Morgan touched on the aesthetics, but form-based code is really going to handle that.

They're gonna handle um this setbacks and stepbacks um to maintain views, and so it doesn't feel when you're walking down the street that you have a six-story building over you.

Um, when you look up, you'll only be able to see really or feel that that two-story building, which is what the um downtown is currently made up of.

Um based code will also cover um just we heard that um people don't want it to look too modern.

We want that charm, that feeling.

Um, form-based code will address uh some of those things as well.

Um then let's see the other one just again keep the Christmas tree visible, um, train station.

I think all those things are gonna be be handled through that form-based code.

And um, and understanding that I think um as staff in the city, we we don't want anything to happen to trend through the train depot either, and we love to look at the Christmas tree um just as much as everyone else.

So um I think that's something that we all value that won't be lost.

Thank you.

Council, do you have any questions for Brie?

Yes, Councilman.

I just have one.

Rihanna doesn't the implementation implementation plan show the removal of uh Lloyd Square and replace it by a whole building.

Mayor and council the implementation plan does not show that.

The implementation plan is a com uh a compilation of existing downtown plans.

NDC's feasibility study contemplates the idea of housing in downtown with the Lloyd Square being integrated into that design.

But not this plan, but not this plan.

Okay, thank you.

Because I was wondering about that.

Are there any other questions for yes, Councilman Hannerville?

Thank you for your presentation, Rihanna.

Um that I get to sit on three or four of these commissions.

We've been seeing just a lot of different back and forth conversation workshops and things, and uh, and so when Morgan mentioned that there's still some updated drafts coming, that was what I was gonna ask you because I had specifically asked about a couple of changes that I don't see in these documents yet, but they're probably coming.

And uh and so when Morgan mentioned that there's still some updated drafts coming, that was what I was gonna ask you because I had specifically asked about a couple of changes that I don't see in these documents yet, but they are probably coming.

One of those is the first street uh continuation to 11th Avenue instead of being this pedestrian only being able to still be traffic generated uh thoroughfare as well, since there's a light right there.

That was something, and then obviously, as we talked with the mayor, um she said in one of the meetings where we talked at the form base code on 12th Avenue being able to step the buildings back so that vertical uh separation back uh lends itself to be able to identify the train depot from a distance coming into the downtown.

So those are things that are uh being redrafted at this point by the downtown renovation guys.

Uh mayor and councilman Howerfield, yes.

If there are updated images from the feasibility study that we can integrate back into the implementation plan to better reflect uh the idea of what we're we're potentially looking at, we're happy to include those images.

The implementation plan, I believe uh states that we should consider and look at concepts for um pedestrian closures.

I don't believe it identifies a specific roadway.

There might be we can double check to make sure there's an in the imagery doesn't reflect that.

In this in this report, uh second and third street are indicated uh from going away from one ways to two ways, and then at uh first street isn't identified at all, but in the images, it's indicating that it's a pedestrian only area.

So we can go back and update to make sure that the verbiage reflects the imagery and vice versa.

Okay, that's where my concern lied with uh us adopting something that's not accurate or it isn't properly coordinated to make sure that it is properly coordinated before we adopt it.

Uh that's where my concern lies.

So and I like I say I know that there's other uh you know things taking place concurrently with this, and so uh maybe that's where something's being missed or uh ex accepted one way one area and not here.

So I just you know otherwise I'm concerned about my vote in favor, knowing that there's changes still yet to be made.

Yes, certainly mayor and council.

That's certainly something you want to say something first.

Thank you.

Mayor and council.

I I just want to uh kind of re-emphasize um that this plan is about principles and kind of vision that is is that has been established in lots of different uh planning efforts that we've had.

It's not intended to show a specific project and what exactly needs to be done.

This is truly just conceptual in nature.

So those 14 projects that came out of the plan, that's the main core of what the recommendation is.

It's not intended to say on first street you should do uh a pedestrian mall or close down second and third.

It's truly intended to just be consider that and go through that process.

Uh fully go through the details and the outreach so that um we get it done right.

This is not this is really high level planning right now.

And that's fair.

I just uh again when we're talking about guiding documents, yeah.

And we're talking about circulation patterns.

That's uh that's not the buildings, that's just the circulation.

So that's where my concern was to make sure that we get the traffic patterns properly identified, and then it's market-driven as been stated earlier.

Uh the market will come in and they'll ask what they can do and partner with us, and there's a lot of other agency departments, design review and such that they'll have to meet with.

So uh I just again it's more of the circulation patterns that I was questioning in this report.

Make sure that those changes are coming.

Councilman Haverfield, thank you for your comments.

And I think what I think what I'm hearing you say is to ensure that we make sure that the final document, if if we have a motion to approve tonight, that we go back and make sure that there's clarity.

Um, but we also need to look at the difference between the two feasibility and this one and make sure that this one doesn't have something like you're suggesting, maybe that there's a street that shows that it's one two-way or one-way versus two-way.

So we just want to make sure that those are whatever images are there reflect the language in the would that be sufficient?

And my final comment would be the raise grant as well.

The imp how that plays into this as well, because we're talking about pedestrian access into the downtown from North Nampa, how that comes into all this as far as another layer to add on to the complexity of what's being described.

Uh Mayor Councilman Howerfield, our consultant did look at the raise grant documentation when they were compiling all of this back together in terms of like what actually came into the boundary of the implementation plan was just the possibility of that 14th and 16th Avenue pedestrian bridge.

In terms of like what actually came into the boundary of the implementation plan was just the possibility of that 14th and 16th Avenue pedestrian bridge.

So that was included in how that how that connection would be made.

So will this council be making the determination on which uh pathway is chosen, either fourteenth, eleventh, or sixteenth?

Uh ultimately, yes.

Yes, this council will be making that decision because it will come back before this council once they get through.

Yeah, it will so um with that, are there any other questions for Brie?

Okay, if there are not, then I would stand for a motion to close public hearing.

So moved.

All in favor?

Aye.

Anyone opposed.

Okay, this is an opportunity for council discussion and followed by motions.

Yes.

Okay.

I move to approve the project as stated on the screen with the proposed findings.

Okay.

And Mayor, one other thing with the addition and notation that the updated documents will reflect the comments made by Councilman Haverfield.

And does the second still stand?

If you wouldn't mind, Councilman Havers.

As far as the updates, um, we didn't really get into specifics, but there has been through several meetings uh on the form based code on uh even the arts and historic preservation.

Um, we've talked about how everything kind of comes together and culminates in this process.

So uh the main thing that I'm looking for is just uh the updated definition of of the uh pedestrian versus vehicular uh drive lanes in the downtown core.

Thank you.

My second still stands.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

See, none rockal.

Enriquez.

No.

Yes.

No.

Yes, Reynolds.

Yes, Griffin.

Yes.

More in favor, two opposed, motion carries.

Okay.

So um I know we've got three more public hearings, and I know we want to move quickly.

This is a time where many times with council, we say we've been here for two hours, we're going to take a quick pause.

I want to defer to council and say, do you want to take a quick break before we dig into the last three?

And I'm seeing a yes, so I do apologize.

We're going to take a quick break.

We'll try not to be too long so you don't have to sit here all evening.

And we will be right back.

Thank you all.

Okay, I think we're ready to get started.

Enjoy that right for you.

So we are ready to move forward.

So eight two is an action item.

This is a zoning map amendment from neighborhood business to community business zoning district and a development agreement modification of ordinance number forty-eight sixty-two.

This is on three point four six acres in portions of three parcels addressed as twenty-three twenty-one Sunny Ridge Road and zero six seventeen East Greenhurst Road.

Is our applicant here this evening?

Thank you.

So as you come forward, go ahead and state your name and address, and you'll have seven minutes and thank you for being here.

Thank you.

Yes.

Oh, excuse me, yes.

Mayor, real quick, like uh I need to uh express I'll be abstaining from this item discussion.

I have an indirect conflict of interest.

Thank you, and I'm sorry I didn't call upon you.

Thank you.

Okay, Madam Mayor members of the council.

My name is Larry Lazier.

I'm one of the partners in this project.

I can't believe it.

We were before you two and a half years ago.

Uh and we appreciated the unanimous support of the zoning that's in present in place.

And and up front, let me share with you.

I I I do apologize.

Can you give us your address real quick?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Uh 2320 crooked stick road in Eagle.

Thank you.

Okay, now you can keep going.

No.

First of all, as I say, I I apologize only because when we came before you with this project and so forth, I I not only misunderstood, but I was wrong because in the zoning that we requested, it was to include as was on my site plan that I presented and was approved, a drive-through and uh for restaurant and or uh at the same time, uh perhaps coffee and a convenience store that would also accompany uh uh fuel fuel at the site.

So that's the only purpose this evening to share with you.

We're not trying to increase uh uses that that perhaps are not in in the BN zone, but we assumed, I assumed that was my part of the project, that a conditional use could be presented uh in in place if we did decide to go with a convenience door with the gas and uh also drive-throughs in this particular area.

So I share that with you first because of all let me be sure I can work this.

Yeah.

Um and first of all, the the project site as was presented in our original with the uh with the zoning that was there.

This particular location as major arterial, we approved, you approved the existing zoning once again for RN.

That's what we requested, and the cottage concept for residential, which I think you will find when they uh uh move forward will be a very exciting project, very close to what you've already seen in the residential.

We're only this evening talking with you only about the commercial parcel, and uh the commercial parcel as it sits today, is one parcel, one ownership.

At the time we presented our plan, uh there were portion of this was another property owner that was working with us for access to tie in the major uh portion uh as you'll see on this concept.

Uh on the corner is a uh is a drive-through uh drive-through coffee.

We had other retail, we looked at child care, which we still have been looking at that, and other neighborhood uses that we think make sense.

The truth of the matter is that other than other than approximately and going out past Skyview High School, uh, it's approximately 1.6 miles to a small commercial, and uh there is a service station in that uh actually two in that location, 1.6 miles out, and then on Sunny Ridge, it's another 1.6 miles into the Holly Shopping Center, which is the next site with any type of neighborhood commercial, and then going in the other direction, which would be going out south.

There's nothing out there.

Uh there is no neighborhood commercial or convenience type uses.

So for that reason, that's why we initially came in before you for this zone and this this approval.

We have since that time we're in the process of finalizing agreements with a major residential.

But today in the commercial, we have we have a number of convenience store interest for the site.

And we then as of a year ago, which you'll see proposing the BC.

This is now the new preliminary plat of the area of the commercial.

This is only the commercial, as you see above you.

Staff has recommended two plates, one of commercial, which is what this will disclose, and the other piece would be residential, and that will be coming forth soon, independent of that.

So this approximately is one of the very preliminary plans, not final, but as you will see here, the roadway, we've extended that now for the drive with literally no access along Greenhurst except at Ivy.

And we've tied that together now and made that happen, and that's all tied now to the real estate in the same location and plan as one saw before.

This is preliminary landscape plan for the commercial.

In this it meets definitely city city code, landscape code.

There is a six-foot fencing between the residential and the commercial, the 20-foot landscaping landscape plan all along Greenhurst and Sunny Ridge in all the properties as outlined.

Once again, we have provided and released all rights of way in the plat to the uh to and for the city.

This would be a private drive as we'd indicated in our initial approval.

After many, as you will notice, uh April 3, 23, we started with a major charrette for all the neighbors above and beyond 300 feet of the neighborhood.

We started our neighborhood meetings there in June, uh application in July of 23, and then came at with our initial application and planning and zoning approved November 14 in 23, so just about two years ago.

City council unanimously approved in December of 03.

Uh we came back and submitted our application, as I say, because I I uh I was not accurate in uh in the conditional use permit proposal at this basis.

So we are before you tonight based upon that asking for a BC and a BC zone, but as far as uses time seven minutes up.

It is, but I would like to ask you.

I don't know if you have another slide after this.

I think it's important that we get that we have a full understanding of what you're wanting to accomplish.

Very good.

Thank you.

So go ahead.

So I'll be very quick.

Thank you.

These were the dates that were approved unanimously.

We then have had hundreds and hundreds of hours.

We we are not proposing a vape or tobacco shops on the site.

We are saying that the zone the uses that were there prior.

So we're simply requesting a rezone to BC with a development agreement, limiting the uses to BN permitted uses, plus allowing us to have a convenience store with gas and restaurant coffee drive-through.

That's the whole purpose of this request.

Thank you.

Pause there.

Council, do you have any questions on this proposed project and the changes?

Okay, I'm not seeing any questions right now, so we'll have you back after public hearing.

And Larry, thank you so much.

Okay, staff report.

Christy, this is I think it's Christy.

All right, thank you, Mayor and Council.

Christy Watkins, principal planner for the city of Nampa.

Um, as stated, the request before you this evening is for a development agreement modification and rezone from BN to BC for the project located on the southwest corner of Greenhurst and Sunny Ridge.

Um he went through the timeline of approvals, so I am not going to bother you with that again.

Um the property is currently surrounded to the north by RS6 zoning, to the south by RS 8.5 zoning, to the east with RD, and to the west with RD, all single family subdivisions.

The area is surrounded.

Oh sorry, all single family subdivisions, excuse me.

Um through the schedule of uses, um, the BC zone will be evaluated at the time of the building permit.

So as he stated at the end there, where you guys could potentially uh limit the uses that you might allow in the BC zone.

Um we need to make that a condition of approval if that's a direction that you decide to go.

Um the BC zoning district creates the opportunity for a wider range of businesses to serve an area with a fairly dense population.

There are city emergency services available to this property.

All new construction will be required to be submitted for design review, and a co-compliance does have an open case currently for weeds, but that will be taken care of with the development.

For engineering, it will be required to install appropriate frontage improvements to provide access to the businesses and fill the gaps in the sidewalk along Greenhurst and Sunny Ridge Roads.

It will be required to extend city services to and through the new development.

The developer will construct road improvements along East Greenhurst Road to match those conditioned and being constructed by the adjacent Parker Estate subdivision and modify the center lane striping to accommodate two-way left turns at development access at the time of property development.

The developer shall modify Sunny Ridge Road striping to provide a center turn lane at the development access at the time that the property is developed.

So the comprehensive plan uh future land use map indicates this area is high density residential.

However, it was approved with a planned unit development, and that is how we have the mix of uses that we have currently with the commercial on the corner.

The development agreement modification request we have in our code in 1025 D1 a list of items that would be considered a substantial change to a development agreement.

The last one says items determined to be substantial changes according to the planning and zoning director or his or her designee.

In this case, since they're wanting to change the zoning and the uses that were provided in the concept plan, we determined that to be a substantial change, and that's why this request is before you this evening.

Okay, he already showed you the layout.

So the one on the left.

Sorry, which way are you looking at this?

One on the left is the old one.

The one on the right will be the new layout for the commercial pads.

And that will be what will go into the new concept plan.

We did receive some correspondence, one from Code Compliance stating that they do have an open case.

Um the engineering division provided their general comments about the right-of-way and frontage improvements, and the fire district indicated that this development is located approximately 0.2 miles from fire station number two with an approximate response time of three minutes.

And those were the only comments that we received on this project.

For the rezone from BN to BC, there are three criteria that you need to determine if this is appropriate.

The proposed map amendment is in harmony with the comprehensive plan because there is a PUD in place on this property for a mix of uses.

The proposed map amendment is providing uses that would be reasonably compatible with the area, as he indicated.

There is a need for some commercial services in this area.

The proposed amendment is or would be in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary because it will fill those sidewalk gaps.

It will make improvements to the roadways, and any projects that go through will have to go through design review, so they will be appropriate for the area.

These are the recommended conditions of approval with the potential addition for the limiting of the uses that might go on that corner.

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

Christy, thank you.

Yes, Councilman Haverfield.

Just one question.

The private uh drive that uh runs east-west over to Sunny Ridge.

Uh, is that will that be a full access access on to Sunny Ridge or limited?

Uh, Mayor, uh, Councilman Haverfield, I would have to defer to Daniel to answer that question, as that's a transportation issue.

At this point, it would be a full access at some point in the future as traffic volumes on Sunny Ridge there south of Greenhurst expand it to potential that it could be restricted, but at this point it would be full access.

Just for the developers' standpoint, I just want to let them know that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes.

Christy, for ease of making the motion when we get to that point, because it's only specifically looking for a convenience store gas station or coffee shop and restaurant.

Are we needing to go through and list all of the things that need to be struck from the BC land uses, or do we specifically say that we're redesignating this from B and to BC specifically and only limiting it to the desired uses on that land?

Um, thank you, Mayor and Councilman Griffin.

That's a great question.

Um I had this conversation with the applicant.

Um, I sent them the list of uses comparatively and said, you know, you guys kind of need to go through this and decide what you want to propose.

So I think his last slide, which I will bring up again when you're ready to make that motion, um, is their response to that conversation and that they're willing to go with those um limited uses with the convenience store and the drive-thru restaurant.

Um basically what I would recommend the motion being to add a condition that we use all of the same BN uses on the property plus the convenience store and the restaurant with the drive-thru.

And that would only add those two by process of elimination.

That seems like an easier list to me than going through and trying to decide what to allow and what not to allow.

Well, and that's why I raised the question at all why is it to change from BN to BC if we could just do a BN with the exceptions of so and so and the notice that we've given for that.

So I I think we all come to the same place.

I just was curious if I should, or whoever may go from BN to BC or BN with the inclusion of Well, Councilman Griffin, unfortunately, we we can't allow things that are not allowed, so we have to go the other direction with that.

We have to put it into a zone where they are allowed and then pull out the pieces that we don't want.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you for the clarity on that.

Are there any other questions for Christy?

Okay, we'll have you back if we need to.

Thank you so much.

Okay, this is a public hearing, and Madam Mayor, no one requested to provide public testimony on this item.

Is there anyone here that had intended to testify this evening?

Yes.

Go ahead and come forward and thank you for stating your name and your address, and you'll have three minutes.

Thank you.

My name is Carrie Gellstrap, and my home is at 62 North Liberty Drive in NAMPA.

Um, first, I do have a letter, a letter that I would like to enter into record that was not able to be entered into record from um Mr.

Greg Hathaway, the owner of um Pathaway Homes.

I don't know if I need to read this letter if I can just submit it into record.

Um I don't know how that would work.

I think well, if you want it to be considered, then you might want to read it.

Okay.

Well, I will read that, but I'm also in um support of this proposal.

Um I'll read this quickly.

My name is Greg Hathaway on his behalf, former president of the Snake River Valley Builders Association, current member of the City of NAMPA's building and fire code advisory and appeals board and owner of Hathaway Homes Inc., a firm that has been building in this valley for decades.

In both my professional capacity and my advisory role to the city, I have seen the immense value that thoughtful long-range planning and true collaboration between the development community and municipal leadership can bring to NAMPA.

I am writing in strong support of the Greenhurst Crossing proposal.

Projects of this caliber do not appear by accident.

They require sophisticated planning, financial discipline, a willingness among multiple parties to engineer a compatible and neighbor conscious outcome.

In this case, the developer could have pursued higher density apartments under current market demand, but instead elected to advance a more context sensitive mixed use concept that responds to neighborhood input while still contributing meaningful commercial vitality.

As builders, we value predictability, efficiency, and the ability to deliver housing and services that truly serve local families.

Mixed use done right, cohesive scaled and attractive creates enduring community value.

And that is only possible when city leadership recognizes well-considered plants rather than discouraging them simply for involving innovation or a fuel canopy serving a neighborhood scale commercial node.

This is precisely the type of investment NAMPA should welcome locally engaged professionals working together, not absentee speculation.

Thoughtful projects such as Greenharse Crossing, expand the tax base, bring needed convenience to residents and keep dollars circulating with our own economy.

They're far more difficult to execute than conventional single-use developments and only advance when the city signals that responsible collaborative planning is truly embraced.

I respectfully urge the council to support this project and affirm that NAPA remains a place where builders, landowners, and the city can partner to balance growth and respect with existing neighborhoods.

Sincerely, Greg Hathaway.

Thank you.

And did you have anything else you wanted to share?

I I would just like to share that.

This development.

Right now, where I live, it would just be more convenient for me to go to this area to get the gas that I need, and rather than going to over to Garrity or or the 12th Avenue area.

So I do support this.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else that had intended to testify this evening?

Okay, seeing no one, uh Larry, would you have like to make some closing comments?

Well, Madam Mayor, Council, uh thank you for your consideration of this request.

Uh we've had an incredible amount of opportunity in this particular project to explore the cottage project that you'll you'll uh see happen and trying to tie that into the commercial, and I assure you, and there was there was a comment made we want to do things right, we we do things right and want that to happen, and so for that I'm very appreciative.

There are a number of other letters we do have from the neighbors and other neighbors that are here tonight that uh have supported us as we've gone through this.

So thank you very much.

I appreciate uh the extra time.

Thank you.

Council, do you have any questions?

See none, and if we have no discussion, I would stand for a motion to close public hearing.

So moved.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Okay, this is an opportunity for council discussion and/or motion.

Mayor zone.

Yes.

For a motion, if I could.

Yes.

Mayor, I move to approve the map change, the zoning map amendment from BN to BC to include all B and limit it to all VN zone uses, as well as the addition to a convenience store with gas station and a restaurant/slash coffee shop with drive-through as presented on the screen.

It's been moved and seconded.

Is there any discussion?

See none.

Rocal.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

How are field?

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

There you go.

Done for the evening.

Thank you.

Okay, with that, we're going to move to 8.3 on the agenda.

This is an annex uh an action item.

It's pre-annexation and pre-zoning to community business and a development agreement for the new life landscape LLC at 2046 North Robinson Boulevard.

This is for a total of 3.54 acres for Carlos Torres.

The original concept is to continue operating a landscape business in the county with the potential for retail sales of nursery and landscape material.

Is our applicant here this evening?

Good evening.

Go ahead and come forward and give us your name and address, and we'll let you share what you're trying to accomplish what you want to accomplish.

My name is Carlos Torres.

I live at 655 East Kingsford Drive, Meridian, Idaho, 83642.

Um we we run a landscape construction design business.

Um I actually had my property at Amity and Robinson, so just a few miles to the south.

Bought this property almost two years ago.

Um I ran my business over at the other property, thinking that I could do a landscape business on agricultural land.

Uh found out that I'm not able to do that now.

So once I bought this new property, um, they informed me that I'd have to either get a conditional use permit or a rezone.

So I elected to go the rezone route mainly because I feel like it's the most honest thing to do to my neighbors.

That's what we want to do eventually.

We'd like to have retail sales, um, trees and plants, other items like that.

Essentially, right now, what we'd like to do mainly is just continue to operate and serve the community with landscape construction services.

So we do have a fireworks stand that has been there the last couple years, um, just open during the fireworks season.

Uh limited pretty much to those uses.

Thank you.

Council, do you have any questions for our applicant?

I do just one.

Yes.

What's the status of Canyon County Planning and Zoning?

So we were about to go to hearing, and then we were informed by City of Nampa, I think it was around July time frame that we needed to come through this pre-annexation meeting prior to that to get the city's approval is my understanding.

Okay, you'll talk about that later.

Okay.

Okay, so as you maybe noticed, we will have you come back.

Okay.

So we'll have you we'll listen to staff, we'll do a public hearing, and then we'll have you come back and ask any additional questions.

Okay, Madam Mayor, I have a question.

Oh, I'm sorry, yes.

What kind of fireworks do you sell?

Um, their aerial fireworks, so what's allowed to be sold in the county?

So this type of stuff that you see sold outside of city limits.

Okay, so and you and just so you know those are illegal to sell in the city limits.

So this would change that for you.

Potentially, yeah.

So we're in with we're in the county, we're in the area of impact in the city, so I don't under I don't know that would be up to you guys, I guess.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So Mayor, just for clarification, this is but pre-annexation, correct?

So if we were to approve the motion as it is tonight, that wouldn't affect necessarily right here and now it's when the annexation does come in the future.

I think it's a very good question, and so let's I think that's something we will address.

Okay.

Thank you.

Carlos, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hey, Rodney.

Thank you.

Mayor and counsel.

Um, you're asking all the right questions.

Um, I'm ready to answer those.

So this is a pre-annexation and a pre-zoning, um, plus a development agreement to lock any conditions you have in place.

Uh, I think he's done a good job of describing what his intention is.

You can see on the screen here um the location uh on the corner of Airport and Robinson Road and the colors where you see the RMH, RP, and BC are the um are the city boundaries.

So we're good distance off from existing city.

Um, but this would be pre-annexation.

And I'll go into details about why.

Why do we have to go through pre-annexation?

So the county zoning is agriculture, it does not allow a landscape business.

Um the applicant is seeking a county conditional rezone to MUA, which is mixed-use arterial to allow the business to continue.

Um the city of Nampa have a joint powers agreement that kind of directs what happens inside the impact area.

And the city of Nampa provides recommendations to Canyon County uh PZ Commission and the Board of County Commissioners when a rezone is proposed in our impact area.

So they give great weight to that.

They they consider our comments on that because it's in our impact area.

And then um Ken County allows NAMPA's future land use map to apply with approval of a city pre-annex pre-annexation.

So we have to go through that process to allow him to get approval through the county.

So on September 9th, 2025, uh this the planning and zoning commission recommended approval, but they added um a condition, and that condition is that the property owner shall construct the side path or sidewalk according to the city of Nampa adopted engineering specifications and policies and master plans within 12 months of the date of annexation ordinance being recorded.

So this was their recommendation to you to say hey, we really don't think that uh the side path should be installed at this moment, but within 12 months, a year of when the annexation actually occurs is when they think that should occur and be required for clarity.

For clarity, that's annexation when it's contiguous to the city limits.

Correct.

Not pre-annexation.

That's correct.

All right, thank you.

Sorry.

That was great question.

The proposed conditions and proposed findings in the staff report reflect the recommendation by the planning and zoning commission.

So I I'll get into the specifics of how that process occurs with the county in just a second here, but just quickly our comprehensive plan, community mixed use, zoning will would follow that, and it could be the BC zoning as proposed.

It's a pre-zoning essentially, just kind of establishing the rules for how you would evaluate this.

Surrounding land uses, um, county residential subdivisions, and then some active farms to the northeast and the southeast.

And I can skip over the applicant's stated purpose.

He's already stated that.

Just a heads up, there is an access point on the southern end of this on Robinson Road, and then an access point on Airport Road as well.

But those ass those access points continue.

Yeah, those would continue.

They would need to, so perfect.

Thank you.

So whoops.

Um, there is water really nearby.

Um this is kind of unique.

I see some questioning faces up there because uh what the city does it has done in the past is that we've provided water service to some of these county subdivisions because um it's it's so far out there that we're not contiguous, but we have a requirement that they once they become contiguous that they would annex into the city.

And and water's fairly easy to I mean, relatively easy to provide versus sewer um water can be pretty um shallow and the the service being provided to those, and so what that allows them to do when they have water, and this may not apply to this situation, but it allows for smaller lot sizes because Southwest District Health will only allow some smaller lot sizes for a septic tank when they have a separate water system that's provided by the city.

So that that's why that's applicable is if this were to develop in the future, there is water available nearby.

And um emergency services until such time as the property is annexed into the city, all emergency services will continue to be provided as they are currently being provided to the site.

So our joint powers agreement was established in 2005.

I've already given you a quick summary of that, but um the city uh responds to every rezone or every CUP that the county goes through that is within that impact area.

So it's really critical that we provide as staff that we provide the comments for their decision that reflect what your decision would be, and that's why we go through that pre-annexation process to get your take on it before that happens.

So the pre-annexation process, the application the application is evaluated by NAMPA City staff, the NAMPA Planning and Zoning Commission holds a public hearing, the NAMPA Planning and Zoning Commission provides a recommendation, the NAMPA City Council holds a public hearing, the NAMPA City Council makes a decision and provides a recommendation because staff provides that to the can to Canyon County Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, and that's based on your decision tonight.

Um the agreement that we have with the county stipulates the layout, the or excuse me, with the property owner would stipulate the layout, the densities, and any other conditions required by council.

So this is a way to lock in place what you what you want.

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

I think I skipped over that where the idea ideally it would be that they would put it as a condition.

Whatever our recommendation is, they would put it as a condition.

Um so pre-annexation key points, building permit is still handled by Kenyon County Development Services, so we don't have anything to do with that at this point.

Engineering is handled by Canyon County.

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

Um ideally, the city's recommendations will be incorporated as conditions, and then annexation is a requirement at time of being contiguous.

It's an automatic thing.

Great question, Mayor.

City Council, that is a great question.

So the what we've established in our code is that they will have to go through our same process of annexation.

However, they pay up front.

So this pre-annexation process, it it's a double charge, so that they are prepaying for when the annexation occurs, and we just go through the process.

So same, you would still have to meet all the criteria listed in code.

It has to be contiguous, has to match the comp plan, all of those things, but it's kind of locked in place with a development agreement.

So applicable regulations.

But there's some you have to screen from view, some outs outside equipment, storage of equipment.

That's our design codes as well as in the BC zone require that.

Could I ask a quick question?

As I was just looking over that.

So this is a unique piece of property.

And the way it's laid out, because it actually says permitted and non-permitted, and then it says nurseries.

Yeah, this is we don't consider this a nursery.

Um it's it's a little different, but if they chose to do that in the future, they that would apply.

Okay.

Keep going, thank you.

Okay.

Just to confirm that was his intent, though, correct.

In a few years you wanted to do retail sales, so it would be considered a nursery.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

We just can right at this moment we consider it a landscape business.

It's just a service business.

Okay, um, so these are the setbacks and things that apply to a BC zone if it were coming into the city today.

Um, I don't think we're gonna have any concerns here.

He's not proposing to build buildings right up against this the property line or anything.

Um, here is still in the BC zone.

Commercial properties, parking, and loading facilities shall be distant at least 20 feet from intervening streets edge.

So that um that would apply in this situation.

Um then code would require at the time that if he if they were to annex into the city and then have the standards apply, these are the standards that would apply to them if they were to build a building in the city.

Um, we would just recommend this on to see to the county that they would require this amount of parking as part of their development.

Um I think I've touched on this, but they do need to screen from view uh any outside um equipment or materials, um, and anything that's left to gravel needs to be screened as well.

So I think I have a map in a second here, but um I might get to it in a second.

Uh correspondence, NAMPA development engineering conditions.

There's pretty standard comments here, but the ones I've highlighted, I think just deserve a little attention.

Existing access points at Robinson Boulevard and Airport Road shall remain.

That's already been addressed.

Um, and then seven shall construct a side path along the street frontage in accordance with current adopted specifications and policies at time of property development.

Uh again, the recommendation from planning and zoning was that that be delayed until after annexation.

Canyon County Development Services just pointed out they're going through the rezone process, and that this would go into that packet for for their consideration.

Um building department and code compliance both had comments that I think really apply to when it comes into the city.

They're concerned about is it in a condition that we need it at as we take responsibility for it.

And and we're not we don't have that yet.

It's gonna be a while before this would come into the city.

Okay, so here's uh a public comment we received is that um the person next door at 6507 Airport Road.

Okay, so here's a public comment we received is that the person next door at 6507 Airport Road the only request I have they only the only request they have is that they install a six-foot tall solid plastic almond color fence and maintain.

This will reduce sound and dust.

So the red line is what they were requesting be six feet.

However, um design review code does not allow residential fence style when seen from the public view.

However, if applicant builds a fence to design review standards along the public view, which is green, they could build the residential fence requested abutting the neighbor in the dark blue, but they can't be in front of the building, so it needs to be behind the line of the building.

So the dark blue would be where they did that residential fence line.

Um and and I think the applicant's ready to speak to this as well.

But uh the green would be where they could screen from view, have a design reviewed fence that has multiple materials, and it um it's kind of decorative fencing, so it's a little more expensive of a fence, but um that's how they would handle that in the BC zone.

Can ask a question on this fence along the red line?

Um is the neighbor the one right there on airport road?

So I'm confused.

Why would we have a fence that goes next to a field?

I can understand they're asking for a fence for dust, probably by their home, but that's a very long area that goes into a field.

Is that the neighbor's field?

Um that's all one property.

It's all one property.

Okay.

That's interesting.

Okay.

Interesting.

Okay.

Okay, and then I also received another comment.

Um, and I'm that's in red and then crossed out.

I just wanted to the applicant spoke with this uh neighbor, and they were confused about which property it was and which business they were talking about.

So once they spoke to the applicant, they sent me a letter stating I'd like to withdraw my concern, but it was in your packet, so I just wanted you to be aware of that.

That was withdrawn, and then they said they supported this.

Okay.

Is that the same neighbor with the fence?

No, this is a different neighbor.

Okay, different one.

Okay.

Um, okay.

So in speaking, this is the applicant's stated interest for the conditions.

In speaking with the neighbors, certain condition concerns were raised that I think will be addressed with the conditions I'd like to implement.

I would like to install a fence to block visibility from our bulk materials and equipment yard.

I would like to install the fence eight feet in height on the south and east ends of the property on the frontage, six foot height would be desired.

Another concern was dust control, which we would address with covering the traffic areas with the property with clean gravel or recycled asphalt.

We would want to install bathrooms for employees and potential customers that would be determined by the health department, and that will also be required as part of their building permits if they if they pull any permits with uh with the county.

Um, and then so they just again I think the key here is that they are willing to build a fence.

Um, they'll need to comply with our fence fence standards that are in place in our code.

Um code allows gravel on the portion of the property behind the primary structure that are screen from view with a designed review fence or wall.

Um, I think we've talked enough about this, but that's that's where the fence could go.

Um, these are the proposed conditions.

These are not different than what uh planning and zoning recommended, and these are all in your packet.

I'm happy to go through them, but they essentially they they cover everything we've talked about.

And then I added this one.

I forgot to add this in your staff report, but this was presented to planning and zoning as well.

Property owner authorizes the city of Nampa to annex the property following the property becoming contiguous to the city boundaries, just kind of a protection for us.

So these are the three or the four criteria for pre-annexation.

The project is consistent with the NAMPA comprehensive plan and future land use map.

The project proposal meets city standards and code requirements.

The proposed pre-annexation is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary, and then if requested, the NAMPA board of appraisers formally recommended utility connections to the development to the NAMPA City Council.

And then if requested, the NAMPA board of appraisers formally recommended utility connections to the development to the NAMPA City Council.

So on the number four, there's no request for utilities at this time, so that's not applicable.

Number three, the pre-annexation is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary.

That is certainly an area that you have flexibility to discuss and and decide on.

The the first two though are pretty straightforward.

The comprehensive plan would allow this, and the proposal meets the city standards and code requirements as proposed with the conditions.

But those are all in your packet, and I'm I'm happy to cover them if you think you need to, but essentially I I've just described the conclusion as well.

I think it meets the comprehensive plan, the codes, and it's up to you to decide whether it's uh in the interest of the public.

And with that, I also have a uh decision for denial if you choose to go that direction, a conclusion for denial, and then here are a couple of motions for your consideration.

Thank you, Rodney.

Yes.

So Rodney, is it uh workable that we would have a uh lack of better words, a development agreement between us and the applicant that would say this is how certain issues should be built out and what standards.

So rather than getting county standards and then one day annexing to the city, that improvements are being put in to the city standards.

Yeah, that's that's exactly what we're proposing.

Okay, so that that part's there.

Um then so do we would if this is approved, are we actually executing and recording a pre-development slash annexation agreement on the property?

Yeah, so um mayor and council that we don't necessarily record an agreement except in the form of the development agreement.

So I I guess the answer is yes, because we're gonna put all of those the findings, the conclusions, the conditions all into a development agreement so that it locks it in place.

What would be required?

So if the property was sold at some point, yeah, it's recorded and that's disclose what was previously placed upon the property.

That's correct.

Okay.

Uh final item I have is for Daniel.

Um the question is is that it would seem Robinson and Airport Roads a major deal, realizing right now it's got the roundabout, but future plans of South Robinson Corridor, which you brought before council many months back.

So it would seem that plan and reference to it and the ability to obtain or an agreement that we would have the dedicated right-of-way that we need from this corner.

Um at this point, I so Crystal was the has been the one handling the Robinson corridor plan.

I'm not as familiar with it.

Um I would say that I don't know that we are in a position to know specifically what right of way we would need through there.

Um I believe the highway district is who did that roundabout.

And let me I just remember you did a presentation one evening on all the different sections of Robinson south of the freeway.

Looking looking at the right-of-way that was acquired for that roundabout, it does appear that the um roundabout was acquired with adequate right-of-way to expand that to a dual lane roundabout in the future without need for additional right-of-way.

Um that being said, if the um corridor plan were to call for something else, a um signal looking at the location that this um roundabout was shifted to the east some, and so if it were to go some different direction than a roundabout in the future, um, it looks to me that there is not a significant amount of right-of-way that we would need from that property, um, except potentially at the very south end.

Um, but even there, I I think we're pretty safe with that.

I just think we we need to add some language in there that would have that corner dealt with.

And that if we were to do that, obviously we would need funding for that as well as plans developed enough to know what those right-of-way needs are.

Um, and as we take public testimony in that, I will look and see if I can find that study, the Robinson corridor study, and see if there's enough detail there to facilitate that.

Yeah, my concern is being able to have something identified so if the property owner makes improvements, there the improvements aren't going in where some future right-of-way is needed, that's acknowledged.

That's that's what I'm trying to avoid as a future conflict.

Yep, and and I looking at that, it appears that the assuming a dual lane roundabout there, that right-of-way has already been acquired.

Um, I will see if I can pull up the Robinson Road corridor study and and see what it shows in that area while if there while public testimony if there is any.

Thank you.

And and mayor and council, I'll just add that there is a 20-foot landscape buffer that's required.

So we couldn't have a building in that 20-foot landscape buffer behind the property line either.

So there is that flexibility sometimes that we've used in the past to say, okay, we have landscaping there, but in order to expand this roadway, we're going to need to take some of that landscaping.

So there is a little bit of buffer there that we can work with in the future.

From the standpoint of the applicant if he sets up a landscape business there, retail or subcontract.

Um those lines need to be identified.

Sure, yeah, to know.

So if there's any improvements going in, it's not tear out and have to move one bit.

Yeah, correct.

I guess the question for the applicant is first of all, do you agree with all the conditions that have been put here?

And secondly, are you aware?

Have you guys discussed the potential roundabout, not roundabout, but highway 16 southbound corridor?

If it were to go through there, that's what Councilman Bills is referencing, the potential widening of that road.

So I purchased the property from the highway district after the roundabout was put in.

So I'm pretty certain that they've considered what their future plan is with Robinson Road.

Um obviously I can't speak for them, but that's I I can tell how far they've set the property line back a certain distance.

So to me it appears that they've kind of accounted for that.

Um as far as the conditions that um I think the commissioners place last time.

I was in agreement with those if that's what you're asking.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions for Rodney?

Mayor, yes.

Rodney, this is in the current comprehensive plan, it's community mixed use, and yes, BC is part of that, but the focus it said providing community-wide needs.

And I don't know if I'm just missing the vision of what this is gonna be, but I'm not sure how that fits.

Can you help me understand that?

Sure.

Um, thank you for that question.

The in the um in the facts um my findings and facts.

I can't remember which bullet point it was.

Um, but I basically stated that the business is providing services to the entire valley.

So that is how I handled that question.

That you you're right, there's some subjectivity there, and I the only way I could think of how this fits into that category is that it provides services for the entire community.

And if they opened it up for retail, you know, sell of trees and nursery, it would bring people from all over to this location.

It wouldn't just be a neighborhood center.

Rodney Um just follow up on that.

So right now, what I'm understanding is that they're basically gonna have it's kind of more storage for their landscaping equipment and such.

And eventually in the future it could broaden that and be a store, nursery, something, but for the time being it's storage essentially.

Yeah, I mean they're running their business out of there to they have materials that that they use to go do their landscaping business.

So, yeah, there is storage of materials, you know, maybe it's gravel or um you know, bark or or you know, dirt, whatever, potting soil, whatever it is, they have those things there to do their business.

But um I'm I think the intent here is to open it up for retail services long term.

Thank you.

Yes, councilman.

I suppose my question is for the applicant when he returns to all wait until he's got the okay Mayor.

Yes, Councilman Dales.

Uh, on the screen is the uh right-of-way roadway section for that section from our uh corridor study with the highway district that was adopted.

It has a hundred and five foot uh width for that five-lane facility.

They have the highway district acquired adequate right-of-way from this property to accommodate that.

Okay, great.

Thanks, Daniel.

That's great.

Okay, mayor, one more follow-up for um Rodney.

I know the commission recommended the year time frame for the sidewalk.

Do you think that that is wise for us to do, or should we do it effective immediately?

Well, um, mayor and council, I it's a tough question.

There it's it's out there a ways, and um so my I guess part of my concern with requiring the installation of sidewalk right now, is that if ever we make any major changes to our master plans, then it might not match at the time that it actually annexes into the city.

Uh, an example of that is when we went to the side paths, and I hope that that's a long-term solution, but that was certainly a change from what we had in the past.

And so to me, that there's just not a lot out there that's it's it's not gonna connect to anything.

So I think personally it just feels like it's appropriate to do after annexation.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions for Rodney?

I think we'll move to public testimony and then we'll come back with further questions afterwards.

So Madame, no one signed up stating they wanted to provide public testimony on this item.

Okay, is there anyone here this evening that had intended to testify on this item?

Okay, seeing no one.

Carlos, would you like to come back forward and provide any closing comments and answer any further questions?

Thank you so much.

I would be a little concerned about the sidewalk uh condition happening before annexation just because I know the plan is to widen Robinson, and just for the stated or the statements from Rodney too.

I I think that might be kind of a waste of dollars.

Um I think there was another question for me.

Council, do you have any other questions?

Yes, I'm sorry, Councilman Griffin and Councilman Griffin and then Councilman Bills.

It's in your projection, how long do you think it'll be until you have retail or nursery space set up in this facility if we were to approve this tonight?

My hope would be that I get through the county and within the next year to two years, have that up and functional with after we're done building shops and offices for for those sales.

And that community benefit, would you have cucumber plants or any kind of food that you'd provide, or would it be strictly for residential?

I I think we would have fruit trees for certain, um, maybe even do Christmas tree sales.

I know that um with the fireworks stand, even though you know we're not through this process yet.

We were granted temporary permission through the county.

There was quite a showing um to the fireworks sales.

We had events for kids and things.

There was a lot of community involvement there for the direct area.

I know that doesn't fit city of Nampa yet, but where we're at, it it seemed to be a good fit.

I would also state that we do provide a lot of services to the surrounding area.

I've been in the area pretty much since my early 20s.

I'm 44 now, so about 20 years, and we've provided services to that area for a long time.

So you you lead me the one last question, then would a condition limiting your fireworks sales, would that be a uh significant hindrance to your business practices currently on that land?

No, and I guess it would be important to try for that for me, but I don't personally sell.

I just lease the space to them.

Thank you.

I am aware that you had um other nonprofits that were there selling.

I happened to stop there this year, and there's cookies and lemonade stand and other things that were there this year too.

Yeah, yeah.

Thank you.

Okay, councilman Bills.

So follow-up is we had uh submission given to us about uh solid waste, far as the debris, concrete, tree stumps being stored and piled along with uh the weeds getting, I guess, a little along the way.

So I guess the key is we're gonna have stipulations to a certain degree you're not in the city, but you're gonna need to somewhat act like you're in the city.

Of course, I think to answer that too.

You know, once we receive violation from the county, we kind of put a pause to all development.

So, as far as some of that is processing our materials that we pull off a job sites, we have to kind of transition screen those materials, haul off said mixed materials, all as one material to whatever landfill or recycling plant.

So that's a process, but that would be behind fencing or buildings or things like that.

You know, so I I think if we were able to continue what I had planned to do, much of the concerns would already be resolved.

One last question mayor, if I could just based off of your letter, I just want to reiterate again.

You have no opposition to fencing along that backside.

It would it would already be done if I knew what I was allowed to do already.

Thank you.

This is kind of an irrelevant question that you have a beautiful barn setting there.

Are you gonna continue to keep the barn and integrate it into your work?

I'm not certain yet.

I've had an engineer look at it, and we're kind of evaluating whether it's gonna be cost effective or not.

It doesn't appear that it's going to be.

Um, and the county has stated that if we were to use it utilize it for anything, it would have to be brought up to code.

And so I'm not certain if I'll be able to feasibly do that.

I know all the neighbors have commented that they would like that to remain, and if we could incorporate it, I'd like to.

Yeah, that's great.

Thank you.

Yep.

Okay, any additional questions?

Okay.

As long as we don't have any discussion that involves our applicant, I would stand for a motion to close public hearing.

So moved.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, council discussion and motion time.

I mean, I'll make a motion to approve the pre-analization and pre-zoning.

And uh I guess the only other thing would be the fans and Carlos said you would already do that.

There's my motion.

Second.

As proposed on the screen.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

Is there any additional questions or comment?

Seeing none, roll call.

Angula.

No.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Haverfield.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Five in favor, one opposed.

Motion carries.

There you go.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

I hope I have a new place to buy cucumbers from.

Yeah.

Other than Edwards and Boise.

Drive over your shop.

Okay, we're ready for, I believe this is our last public hearing of the evening.

And thank you all for waiting.

I'm sorry that it's a late night waiting for you guys.

This is 8.4.

It is an action item.

It's annexation and zoning for approximately 68.5 acres to an RS4 single family residential, approximately 9.38 acres into two family residential, and approximately 3.9 acres into community business zoning districts with corresponding right-of-way, potential development agreement, subdivision preliminary plat approval for Breckenwood subdivision at zero North Canada Road and zero one seven five zero zero eleventh Avenue North.

This is for Becky.

Becky, how do you say your last name?

Thank you.

Representing Stanley Welton and Todd Campbell Custom Homes.

The original concept is 68 single-family attached town house, townhouse dwelling units, 284 single family detached dwelling units and four commercial lots and 38 common lots.

So is our applicant here this evening?

Thank you.

Um West Camus Street, Boise Adaho.

Um so good evening.

I'm here to present um applications for annexation, zoning and preliminary plat for Brackenwood subdivision.

Um the project site is located north of Landry Street between Canada Road and 11th Avenue.

The project site is within two miles of several large number of employers that include Amazon, Pepsi Beverage Company, Walmart, CWI, um, car dealerships, the cheese factory, a semiconductor fab, and and several other commercial businesses, making this the perfect location for a project with a mix of housing types and smaller commercial businesses.

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

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

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

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

Here's the current zoning map for this area.

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

Canada Road is a principal arterial and Eustake is a minor arterial.

As the area builds out towards Eustach and 11th, the comprehensive plan calls for more density and commercial uses.

To support this transition, we're requesting RS4 RD and BC zoning, which will provide a compatible step up from the lower density neighborhood to the south while pervert while preserving the residential character.

Breckenwood subdivision has been designed as a mixed use development on 80.78 acres.

The project will consist of four commercial lots, 352 residential lots, and five different housing types made up of 68 twin town twin homes, 87 40 foot wide lots, 3345 foot wide lots, 150 or excuse me, 145 50 foot wide lots, and 19 60 foot wide lots.

All three 152 residential homes will have a two-car garage and driveway.

We'll be providing 24 additional on street parking spaces that will be located near the twin homes.

In addition, all sidewalks and the subdivisions will be detached and tree-lined, keeping up with the look and feel of the existing development to the south.

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

This will be developed in seven phases.

Um each will take about a year and a half or so to complete.

Um so the next couple slides um will detail the the commercial and the five different housing types.

So starting at Canada, we're proposing four commercial lots consisting of 3.9 acres with a proposed zoning designation of BC.

These four lots will have one ingress egress on Canada and then the secondary off Landry.

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

Each unit will be individually platted and sold.

Um they will be front loaded with two-car garage and driveway.

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

Um so moving west, we're proposing 284 single-family homes with four lot sizes ranging from 40 to 60 foot wide.

Um, the yellow lots represent 40 foot wide lots, the pinkish beige indicates indicates 54 foot wide lots, and the light beige shows 40 50 foot wide lots, and the brown denotes 60 foot wide lots.

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

Um each lot will be front loaded and include a garage and driveway.

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

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

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

Centrally located amenities include a picnic area, two playgrounds, all linked by meandering pathways that enhance the walkability throughout the neighborhood.

All sidewalks will be detached and tree-lined.

The landscaping will incorporate shade trees, ornamentals, and low water plantings.

Um, so as for the roadways, uh, this development plans to construct 21 new local roads.

All local streets will include a four-foot-wide sidewalk, a six-foot parkway strip, and curb and gutter.

Um, Fort Hall Ave will have a 25-foot landscape buffer, a 10-foot pathway and an eight-foot parkway strip.

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

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

Um, so for the utilities, um, a major benefit or benefit of this development is the removal of an existing sewer lift station, um, which is currently serving the Canning Creek subdivision.

We'll be we'll be providing them with a new gravity sewer line.

Um we'll bring sewer from 11th down Landry.

Um water will come from an existing stub in Canada, and we'll bring a tie um and we'll tie into the city's existing PI system and Canada.

All storm model water will be retained on site.

And that's all I have.

I can stamp some questions.

Questions, Mayor.

Yes, Councilman Bills.

Uh so on uh East Landry is on the half section, so there's been uh submission of comments that it was represented that Landry was going to tie to 11th Avenue North, and then that's been changed.

Uh what's what's being proposed?

Yeah, so we're not bringing Landry all the way through.

So we're bringing sewer through Landry, and I believe water is going through there as well.

But we we will not we will we are working with the fire department and we'll work with the city to see if we can make a secondary fire access, but we will not be part of we don't have enough roadway there to provide an actual um you know half half section.

So do we have a regional diagram that shows the traffic if possible it'd be helpful because that's a that seems to be a major issue that uh you've got a half landry's a half street, it appears.

Is that correct, or is it a full section?

So we let me just go back to that roadway.

Um so here you can see so to where the the west side of the development ends, we're just gonna build out that half section, or we're we're going to be um improving that, I guess.

Um, building our half.

Um Landry.

It will be, yeah, sorry, it will be a full section when we're done.

We're just building the other half.

Does that make sense?

And then once it kind of goes a little more west, that's kind of where we don't have enough.

So you don't have the acquired right-away.

I don't know that, yep, exactly.

But at the same time, it could be built from a fire lane point of view.

Yeah, and and that's what we would work with the city, Daniel, and maybe you can answer that question for me.

Yes.

But in terms of circulation, all the traffic's gonna is gonna exit onto Canada.

Is that right?

Correct.

So, Mayor, Councilman Bills, um, the the subject property has a 25-foot wide strip of land that extends all the way to 11th Avenue, um, but that is not wide enough to provide a um roadway access beyond likely a emergency access out, uh, and they would be building a um access road through there for the sewer access for maintenance there, and so yes, we would work with them on the potential for an ingress egress for emergency services, um, but it is not wide enough in its current configuration to put two lanes of traffic through there with only 25 foot of wind.

So, from a from a city requirement, at least experience in the past when you had 260 homes going in, there would usually be at least two, if not three full-size street accesses to multiple streets.

Mayor councilman Bills, we have identified stub street locations ingress egress and emergency access within there within the development, um, and the the engineers have have proposed that that meets the codes for the fire department for the 30 units and having secondary access.

Um there is so from a code perspective, they have met all the requirements.

Uh their traffic study when they did their evaluation for the traffic study did not look at Landry being connected when they did their evaluations of the intersections and identified their required improvements for that.

Um based on those the the improvements necessary to mitigate their traffic coming out onto Landry have been identified and are in the conditions of approval.

Okay, I appreciate that.

their evaluations of the intersections and identified their required improvements for that and so the based on those um the the improvements necessary to mitigate their traffic coming out onto landry have been identified and are in the conditions of approval okay I appreciate that I just it just seems like it's uh there's just gonna be a lot of traffic going in one direction to one spot which has been contrary to other developments in the past um the other question I have is that it it appears from your submitted drawings that your greenscape areas which in one map the open it says open space and it's blue site based on the lines is that your storm drain um systems thank you I apologize I stole the screen okay I apologize which on your individual sheets it would indicate there is uh storm drainage pipe being put in around the perimeter of all these green spots is that correct am I reading those drawings correct um mayor council member um we this this is not depicting any sort of storm on this no this is just a rendering here okay well um we will have storm throughout the site though um not depicted it is in our preliminary plot where storm will be um just not depicted on the the landscape rendering here I just got to get to the drawing then I think uh for council sake it's 1165 of our packet eleven six eight um eleven six five because it's broken up because of the the width it looks to me like there's a common area there and I can't tell it says S D so I I'm taking that to mean storm drain and there's storm drain piping in the perimeter it appears you have sand and grease tanks at locations and piping going to a perimeter storm drain system I'm trying to verify if that's correct.

That yes that's that's what I believe yes I don't have the plot in front of me but I so there's uh one part of your project that uh the storm drain takes up basically the whole green space and it would appear that you're calculating the same green space into your 15 percent mayor council member um Bills we there is a provision in code and maybe I'll let staff take this over that does let us use storm water uh in our open space calcs mayor councilman bills that is correct there are um provisions in code that dictate design standards and that for when a storm drainage area can be used as qualified open space um and so in our review of the um specific construction drawings in that when we look at those storm drainage areas that's where we verify that if they are within the qualified open space areas that they've identified that they do meet those criteria there's obviously not specific um construction drawings for them at this point and so we've we look at them in a general standpoint now but then at the time of final platting and the construction drawings that's where we are verifying compliance with code that the areas that they have identified for open space meet those qualifications to be utilized as storm drainage and qualified open space.

Okay so I'm just trying to understand I understand that's the code and the the assistance there and but if you look at block six the whole thing is storm drain and so where's your landscaping trees capability so you're on block 11 or 10 there's three okay so it appears all the greenscape is taken with storm drainage and you wouldn't be planting anything in in that area and I guess what I'm looking at is is we're we're we're barely meeting the 15% requirement and we're making use of most of the greenscape for storm drainage which is going to require pipe systems and those pipe systems are fairly close to housing so I'm and I'm not seeing the room for planting so I I'm I'm just seeing some

And I guess what I'm looking at is is we're we're we're barely meeting the 15% requirement, and we're making use of most of the greenscape for storm drainage, which is gonna require pipe systems, and those pipe systems are fairly close to housing, so I'm and I'm not seeing the room for planting.

So I I'm I'm just seeing some possible conflicts, and I understand some of it quote meets code and there's duplication of space, but it's an it's an item for me that I wanted to find out about.

So in areas where they are proposing subsurface disposal, we would not allow trees or that type of thing in areas that um stormwater basins like they are showing here, uh, we would not restrict the planting of trees within those areas unless there were subsurface elements to the design.

Right, but so the landscape side requires for a certain amount of trees and that side of it, but if a if the bulk of the green space is with uh piped and gravels beds, pretty tough to plant the trees and meet that requirement.

That's what I'm just trying to look at.

And and graveled beds would not necessarily meet the criteria to be multi-use and allowed as qualified open space.

Um so these would be in order to meet those, they would be vegetative grass bottoms, that type of stuff, and which would allow for trees within them unless in certain small pockets that they you know have some subsurface under there, um, and then they could shift trees around to meet the qualifications.

Does that mean that then it's a de Yes okay?

So then how do you have playgrounds in there?

So I noticed that there's playgrounds mentioned in here, so I um so if you sorry, please um yeah, let me just hop in here, Mayor Council members.

Um so we do have an improved landscape or a staff approved landscape plan.

If somebody could bring that up here and we can kind of go over that.

Well, that's getting pulled up if I could.

Daniel, what's the code section that talks about the allowance of storm water retention being part of the green space?

Um it is within the engineering process and policy manual in section.

Um here's the landscape plan.

Is this the landscape plan you're looking for?

Thank you, yes.

Um mayor, council members, is you can kind of see here.

So on that west side where the big kind of square is there in that middle there that you shaped, we have a playground there with some benches, and there will be a pathway that'll run all around the perimeter of that.

Um, and then kind of on the east side on the east side of the canal, um, we have another another playground right there with some benches and pathways and whatnot that'll run meandering through that area.

So you'll have a um a bridge over the canal.

We are not gonna build a pedestrian bridge, so they're gonna have to you know walk on to landry.

There's gonna be a 10-foot wide sidewalk on landry.

Um so they'll have to walk around landry and then and then we'll have a pathway, you know, sidewalks and pathways on the other side.

So for the people that are living on the east side, what percentage of open green space do you have for the east side of 10 Mile Creek?

I don't know that off the top of my head what the percentage is, but I mean you could you can kind of see not adequate, it doesn't mean code if you just isolate 10 Mile Creek is separating, it's like two projects and the other part of Mayor, it was on my list is so I'm looking at uh just the east side section of your plat.

Um specifically looking at your 36 wide lots back up to the business commercial, uh so you have um it's either lot 2C or or 32 or anyways, maybe it's 12 C next to lot 11.

My concern is is um you've got some what appears to be common area parking for those town homes, yes.

Yes.

And whether lot eleven should be also another parking area in order to meet the requirements for the number of town homes.

So mayor, council member bills.

Um yes, so these are all these these well, they're not gonna be town homes, they're they're gonna be single family attached.

Um so they're gonna have a two-car garage.

Um it would just be like a single family home.

Well, from a real estate point of view, that's called town homes.

Because it's uh they're adjoined, so you have a separate legal description, yes, based on your lot numbers.

Some do it by AB.

These will be individually platted and sold, and then we'll have a two-part garage and driveway.

I understand, but if I'm understanding from the right up that the construction is attached walls, firewall in between.

Yes, that is correct.

Okay, so um what I'm seeing is is whether there's enough parking for your lots 13 through 18, and whether that should be additional parking for guests.

So it's an issue that's been on other plats, much smaller than this was adequate parking for uh adjoined properties, and so consistency.

Uh I think that's an issue that needs to possibly be looked at.

One of those things.

So since this is their presentation time, and we have not gotten to staff, correct?

So we'll keep it to questions.

Thank you.

Because thank you.

I know.

So um, are there any other questions for the applicant?

Uh mayor, really quick.

Um, where did you say that those tot lots work?

Yeah.

Um that square.

I think I'll bring it up.

It's the square that says 19 C that's right.

That be correct.

Yeah, it's green.

Yep.

So yep, exactly where he's pointing, and then on the on the east side there, just across the can the canal.

Where where's the across the canal?

So that is the tot lot where he this where he's pointing right now is a tot lot.

That's correct.

Yes.

So you have one in phase two and then phase four and five.

Yeah, that's correct.

Okay.

Okay, yes.

Just to reconfirm, looking at the phase four and five taut lot on the west side.

There's two sections that were diagrammed in our graphic of saying a stormwater retention in be is it the full lot or is it in between that tot?

And if it's the full lot, are we putting a playground within the storm water drainage area?

Can you that's what it looked like to me?

That's why I was raising the question with all the perimeter, all the perimeter.

And then I was tracking, I just want to hear into the microphone that they're gonna put a tot lot in a stormwater basin.

So, Mayor, uh commission Councilman Griffin.

Um that does appear that it is at least adjacent to it without final design plans.

I I couldn't tell you 100% sure that it is within that, whether that's elevated and then the stormwater pond um drainage area is around that meeting the qualified open space uh items which are found in Title 10 27 6 um and in within our drainage policy.

So sorry to leave you again at the podium and going to staff.

Would a tot lot be allowed in the bottom of a stormwater basin?

Um you're gonna have to let me look at code for a little bit and I will answer after public testimony.

And I think there's going to need to be some changes made to this code section later on.

I don't know, Mayor, if you want to make that lift or we should wait till after the new year, but I don't think this should be included as green space in my mind as I see it right now.

Thank you.

Okay, so I think we're gonna move out of your presentation.

Thank you so much.

We're gonna move to staff report, and then we'll move to public hearings and then we'll have comments.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Damius Nodgrass, associate planner.

So I'm gonna try to get through the bulk of this so we can get back into the questions and get those comments, concerns.

But the quick analysis from staff is the applicant request is annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat for RS4, RD, and some BC zoning for 68 single family attached townhouse style dwelling units, 284 single family detached dwelling units, four commercial lots, and 38 condom lots.

So property details currently it's within the county to the north and to the west and to the east.

There are county parcels that are undeveloped, and to the south, we have that RS7 single family residential Canyon Creek.

And with that, we have some utilities within the area, 10 inch gravity sewer main and landry, 12 inch water mains within Landry and Canada, and 12 inch irrigation mains in both Landry and Canada.

History of the property in 2024, there was a pre-application meeting held for a PUD on this property.

Um, with this application, there is no PUD.

So currently it is within the residential mixed use, which within this designation, RS4 and RD and BC fall under that compatibly.

Within residential mixed use, you need between five and fifty percent commercial space, and this application does contain that.

We'll cover these in the findings.

The RD two family residential, the BC community business, and the RS8 uh RS4 single family residential, and the dwellings of single family and single family attached are allowable uses within those residential zones.

For correspondence, we have a variety of comments from engineering regarding access, regarding sewer, water, everything of that nature.

Um, these are in your staff reports, and I will refer to Daniel on any questions regarding any of those matters.

All right, correspondence from other agencies.

We received some general access and water supply comments from the fire district.

These are attached in the staff report.

Um, NAMPA GIS had some conditions regarding changing the street names and addressing to meet their addressing plan for the future.

Valley View School District, they provided concerns over the capacity of schools and the influx of students in the valley, and then showed some of the developments that are going on within their area and within the school district and how it concerns them.

NAMPA police department, uh, they're asking for a commitment of funds and officers, which is the commitment of 1.4 additional officers and 0.73 additional support staff.

Nampa Parks and Rec is requesting that the developer grant a permanent easement along the top bank of 20 feet along the 10 mile creek so that it can be dedicated to the city of Nampa as part of the City of Nampus pedestrian bicycle master plan.

Um then we did receive a public comment, and this was commented just following the planning and zoning commission meeting, and it was in summary regarding access, traffic concerns, and issues with the development.

It is a pretty long one, and it is attached in the staff report.

All right, now into the meat potatoes.

Here's the proposed zoning.

We got the RS4 all to the west.

We have the RD buffering from the BC commercial zone.

For staff analysis, uh, we have the four commercial lots, which is 2.82 acres, the 38 common lots, 15.16 acres, 68 town home lots, which is 41.76 acres, and some of the internal public roads, and the total open space coming out to 15.7%, which is qualified, which is above the necessity for code, and all of the zones fall under that comprehensive plan designation of residential mix use.

So as far as this goes, it meets that.

And for the parking at commercial uses, these will be determined at the time of the commercial building permits.

Parking at the time for the residential will come in at the RES permits since none of these will be commercial permits since they're only two attached units.

So staff analysis for the RD zone.

Currently within that, the proposed lot sizes before the townhouse split are between 6,706 square feet to 6,899 square feet, and these lots all fall within compatibility for the RD zoning, and all the lot widths and depths meet code.

Staff analysis for the RS zone for that RS4, all of the lots meet the correct size, lot width, depth for that RS4 zoning.

And the open space meets that 15% that is necessary by city code.

Alright, so the findings will start off with the findings for annexation that all private landowners have consented to the annexation.

Staff's found this to be met.

That property shall be contiguous to city limits or beyond clive by other properties so annexed.

Staff's found this to be met.

It's contiguous to the south.

That the NAMPA comprehensive plan includes this area of annexation.

Staff's found this to be met under that RMU designation.

And when applicable annexation of all roadways, all portions of highways lying partially or wholly annexed.

Um as a contiguous parcel, unless by express agreement.

The proposed annexation complies with the established memorandum of understanding currently in place with the city of NAPA.

All right, the applicable criteria for zoning.

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

The proposed map amendments is R would provide for a proposed use or set of uses that would be at least reasonably compatible with existing and joining property uses, and that the proposed map amendments is in the best is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary.

Below listed is the reasonable facts.

If we would like to pull any of them out, I can surely talk over them, and they are all listed in your staff report.

In total, staff found that these findings were to be met.

Here are the recommended conditions of approval that the applicant owner shall dedicate right of way as part of the annexation, that frontage improvements shall be done.

Development, the developer is responsible for providing gravity sewer to the Canyon Creek subdivision, and removing and abandoning the Canyon Creek lift station.

The developer is responsible for coordinating project sewer improvement timeline and construction needs of the future per dam trunk line in Eust.

Any on site wells and septic systems should be abandoned, that the property shall be annexed into the NAMPA municipal irrigation district, that the developer shall submit a traffic impact study prepared with the City of NAMPA traffic impact study policy.

And Daniel can speak on that because they did submit some of those that the developer shall comply with all city codes policies and standards, that the developer must adhere to any changes regarding GIS street names and addressing, and that the dedication of the 20-foot easement along the west side of Tamil Creek and dedicate any city of per the NAMPA pedestrian bicycle master plan.

Here are your potential motions.

I'll stand for any questions.

Questions, Mayor.

So on the pedestrian bicycle paths that's being required, are they physically putting in the improvements with the development improvements?

Yes, they would be required to construct that with the phase of the subdivision when that goes in.

Okay.

And then uh on the BC zone lots, are those having direct curb cuts off of Canada?

As we've reviewed that, they will have the one connection, one one driveway, and then cross access across and then a driveway on landing and on landry.

So one per each lot.

No, one for the four.

Okay, so collectively it is required to develop as a center, even though there may be individual ownerships.

There would be required to have cross access across those four lots to facilitate traffic through through to each lot.

Yes.

So it's not a cell one lot, and that lot develops out and does its thing per se.

Um could as long as it had a joint.

It could as long as the the access is provided through there.

I'm just trying to see not a whole bunch of commercial accesses on North on Canada, or I mean, yeah, can Ada.

Correct.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

I have a quick question on the I'm looking on page 166.

And uh, is 10 mile creek included in the open space?

It's green, like the open space is.

Is it factored in?

It is not it's in the actual open space exhibit, it does not have that as part of the open space.

For sure.

Yes.

Okay.

Council, what other questions do you have?

Mayor, yes.

Damien, is what's being proposed the same standards that meet for a master plan community?

So a master plan community is usually brought forward when you're asking for a reduction to the bulk standards, lot size density, things of that nature.

Um there are some additional things, which is meeting those two different like park amenities and things like that.

This does meet some of those things, but since they're not asking for a reduction of any of the bulk standards, a master plan community or a PUD wouldn't exactly be necessary.

Staff advised against it because there was no necessity to facilitate that.

It meets the codes in every other way.

So if it were, let's hypothetically say it was being proposed as a master plan community.

What differences would we see?

So in my experience of doing master plan communities, we've only had five or six of them in the city.

They're usually asking for that reduction of a bulk standard of at least something, whether that be a lot size or an open space or a setback.

Those are things that come with the MPC that make it that way.

They're usually a lot larger applications.

This one could be an NPC or a PUD, but they're not asking for any of those reductions.

I just make it necessary to do so.

Yeah, I mean it's with 68 acres.

Um there any other questions at this time?

Okay, seeing none.

We'll go ahead and go into public hearing, then we'll come back with any final questions.

So mayor, we have one person that requested to have public testimony, and that is Victor Doughty.

Thank you for waiting all evening.

Sure, it's been great.

Thank you.

My name is uh Victor Dowdy, 6182 East Mayfield Drive.

And uh I speak in opposition to this proposed development and annexation.

I believe it has uh a fatal flaw.

There's only one way in and one way out at the corner of Landry Street and Canada Road.

One point of ingress, one point of egress.

Congestion and safety are major concerns at that intersection, impacting the quality of life for current residents.

Why shoehorn this development onto land that is limited accessibility?

What's the hurry?

What's the rush?

Why not wait until the developer has control of enough right-of-way to ensure safe and uncongested access?

The city has no obligation to move forward with his annexation.

Annexation is not guaranteed to any potential developer.

If the city is going to wipe out several more parcels of precious farmland, the least we can expect is a proposed use that complements the existing neighborhood without compromising our safety and quality of life.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else?

Was that the only sign up?

Is there anyone else here this evening that had wanted to testify?

Yes.

Thank you for sharing name and address.

Mark Mitchell 1235 Landau Way, Napa, Idaho.

Um, looking at this diagram of stuff, I I do have a few questions.

As far as the street width, are we talking on landry?

Is that just two lane?

No center turn lane?

And then Canada is two lane, correct?

No center turn lane at this point in time.

Is there going to be an expansion of that?

Are is there any?

I mean, is the setback off land route only 20 feet?

Is that what I heard?

I think thank you.

So, Daniel, if you'll write all these questions down, I'm going to ask you to answer these questions when we get done.

Those are huge concerns.

I I and I applaud them on their design because the townhouses are pretty cool, and I understand for we do need that kind of thing out there.

Maybe, but to the south, I do not see that kind of can condensity of homes.

What is is that subdivision to the south and R.

And this is an R8 up to an R eight?

This is a four.

This is small.

This is smaller?

Yes.

Okay.

So I I don't know.

I just that's a lot of traffic on two lanes.

And I agree with the gentleman that just spoke the ingress and egress.

That is that's huge.

It's just gonna be a cluster muck.

Another traffic cluster muck in NAMPA.

That's exactly what this is gonna be.

So um great idea.

I applaud your effort to applaud the design, but um no, our infrastructure is not built to handle that subdivision at this point in time.

Thanks.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that hadn't intended?

Yes, go ahead and come forward and give us your name and address, and you'll have three minutes.

Name is Killem Knoll, 17354, North Fort Laramie in Napa.

The name last name is spelled NOEL, by the way.

Think of Christmas, and you got the spelling right.

I agree with the last two comments.

The infrastructure for the for off of Landry and off of Canada is not there.

It needs to have turn lanes to go into that because I've been in Fair Haven for four years.

I know what it's like going out of that off of off of Canada.

Going if you're turning right off of Canada, going south, you'd you're fine, you're turning left a little bit that way.

And if you're coming on Canada, going north and trying to turn into Fair Haven.

You can't, you don't have a turn lane to turn into Fair Haven, and it backs up, can back up drastically.

And so I gotta agree with the last two comments.

Those roads are gonna have to be developed bigger in the turn lanes to have that.

And the last comment is on the commercial properties.

Some people I've talked to in the development are in disagreement with those commercial properties.

I don't think that's proper to have commercial properties that far in to a residential area.

That it's just not conducive, and if you're gonna be turning off of Canada, that's another egress problem, another backup problem.

Another thing I'm concerned about, you've got it's your zoning for smaller area, smaller congestion in the houses.

We have a pool in Fair Haven.

We all we already have problems with people trying to get into that pool.

It shouldn't be in there.

This is just going to compound that problem.

And if you're not punching through to 11th, just egress problem again.

That's all I've got.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that had intended to testify tonight that didn't get signed up?

Okay, see no one.

This is an opportunity for our applicant to come back and provide some closing comments.

My name is Dean Waite.

Address is 2154 East Timber Trail, Kune, Idaho.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Council members.

I'll try to address some of the questions that came up for parking.

Um specific to those townhouse lots.

There is two, a two-car garage on each of those lots and a 20-foot driveway.

So there are four spots for each individual lot.

We do meet code city code with each of those lots.

The amenities that we're there was some question about whether they are in a storm drain basin or not.

It is not our intention to build a tot lot in a storm drain basin.

Uh, obviously, without full design of the storm drain and knowing groundwater and the full full actual design, we can't say I can't tell you for sure that that spot's going to be not going to be storm drain, and we're gonna put a top lot there.

Once that design happens, we will finalize that and make sure that it's done by per city code, and it is not our intention to put those in the bottom of a basin for sure.

There was some question about Landry.

Landry is a full collector, uh it will be built out as a full collector when we are done.

It is right now a half plus uh collector built out to serve the subdivision to our south.

We will complete that as a full collector.

There will be four access points onto that full collector road from our subdivision.

Um again, yeah, we're meeting the the requirements for that.

Also, um there was some question about the access at Landry where it comes onto Eustick.

When we were in our planning and zoning meeting, they did ask that a condition be added that we do a left turn northbound left turn lane onto Eustick.

That was or not onto Canada, sorry, and I didn't see that as part of the conditions, but we are open to doing that.

We we choose we want to do that left bound north turn lane or northbound left turn lane onto Canada from Landry.

We do agree that that would help and and are open to that condition.

Um wanted to mention that yeah, right.

Currently, this the U Stick corridor is under construction.

I'm sure many of you are aware of the the work that's being done there.

It will be widened out to a five-lane road, and we we hope to move our traffic mostly toward that, and with the new connector coming in there.

That's I think it's gonna really help traffic in that area.

And that's why we think the northbound left turn lane is important to this development and will help be helpful.

And I will stand for any questions.

Thank you.

Council, do you have questions?

The applicant.

Yes, if they could just speak to the connection between the two, I think it was made.

It feels like it's two separate projects.

Yes if they could just speak to the connection between the two I think how it was made it feels like it's two separate projects and in consideration of the open space as well as just the connectivity of a community why wasn't there or was it investigated to have a connection either by foot bridge or otherwise to connect those two communities with each other.

We we felt I guess in our mind they were connected based on the 10 foot pathway and the the roadway that goes through there it was not a part of discussion that came up in our meetings with the staff and so I I guess that's my answer to the question didn't didn't come up and it's a pretty big drain so it would be a significant build out to to provide a footpath over that I don't know that we're completely opposed to it it just had not come in it was not part of our initial design.

And was is there any plans or vision for you utilizing that drainage ditch as pathways or green obviously I don't know how long the distance is from one end to the other and it might just be a a quick path but even for some of those neighbors or the neighborhood rather than going out that way going along the green belt along the canal and there is a one of the conditions was that we provide the I don't know if it's in the right away of the ditch but that we do a 10 foot pathway along that for yeah on both ends.

I think it's just on the west end is that correct I think it's just on the west end thank you.

Any other questions mayor yes council and then um as far as the green space goes I I personally am not a huge fan of tot lots I think they're very underutilized I when you're cramming this many people in one space I would much rather have something that is community centric where people can collaborate and hang out and do something so we like pickleball courts we like basketball courts things of that nature or pavilions where people can actually conjugate and then the footpath over the drain I would like to see that I just feel like it's too separated.

So that was just some feedback I was thinking councilman bills.

Yes so have you done a soils report yet on the property I'm sure yes yes and do you know where your water table is the F Wise there yes there's it's obviously we're doing our our monthly investigation of that but yeah there water tables have been recognized and found and that's where the initial preliminary design of the storm drain is showing on there we don't fully design it at this point but no I understand that I'm just just based on a couple of the comments I it seemed like a question mark whether you'd actually done that yet so no it has been done I think the question is interpreting what we're looking at on the map.

I I believe the qu on the the common space east of the ditch is that where you were thinking that the tot lot was or the amenity was down in the storm drain no I didn't I didn't think of depressed storm drainage I see it it appears to me your drawing indicates a lot of pipe but that's an interpretation on my part it's not delineated why all those lines double lines are shown other than looks like sand and grease tanks and and pipe in there which means storm beds.

Yeah and if you look at the layout of the common space that that I'm speaking of the one on the east side of the uh ditch I think the amenity is tucked into the corner so that the storm basin can go around it if that's what I understand the intention is there and obviously or not obviously but our intention is not to build it in or on the storm drain for sure and so yeah and we're open to I mean I don't know that the city suggests what you do for amenities all the time but we're if there's something that you want that we're not proposing we're open to that suggestion as well.

We don't if I could just we get suggestions.

Well I tell you I've seen tot lots built right next to storm drains it's awful because if a parent is sitting there trying to even be with her child or somebody in a wheelchair they could roll off that storm drain it's really not a good design because I think if it's a depressed basin if it is and I would recommend with a I mean and this is council's decision but I'm I'm looking at like I see town homes put right next to an RS7 subdivision town homes right you've got a road there Landry but you've got town homes and then you've got RS7.

And then the uh open green space is the bare minimum and it's also your storm drains so they should be drained storm bed I mean they should be flat with things on them because it's really you've done a very minimal in meeting code the same way with parking if you've watched any of our planning and zoning hearings you would see that there's a very strong recommendation that when you have that many town home units that there's parking provided so I think I saw how many parking spots were there um was there 24 for how many units 68 above the four per lot.

So I think I saw how many parking spots were there.

Um was there 24 for how many units?

68 above the four per lot.

Well, I know, but I I have to say I live in a town home.

Okay.

I have those four per lot.

In addition to that, we have half that amount of units, and we have at least that or more parking.

So you've really hit the bare minimum.

And so coming in, I will just say candidly.

Um, I really support you guys wanting to sell your property and what you want to do.

At the same time, one of the things we're looking for in the city of Nampa is not meeting the bare minimums, but doing something that's awesome.

And and I and I'm gonna be really really candid.

I feel like you've just met the bare minimums.

You've got the highest density, the bare minimums on parking, the bare minimums on open green space.

Instead of saying we're gonna build something awesome, and figuring out how to do that, I it's almost like you've come in at the bare minimums.

And I'm just being really, really candid.

But I just just so you know where what I'm sitting here thinking, and I don't, I may not vote at all.

Understood, Mayor.

And from our perspective, we're right in the middle of the proposed density by the comp plan.

We're not pushing the envelope there.

We met with staff and we wanted to present what something we thought is an awesome project, and uh two different perspectives.

Um, but yeah.

Maybe it's because we look at a lot of projects sitting here.

We get to see quite a few that come forward, but thank you.

Any other questions from comments?

Okay, if there are no questions for our applicant and we don't need to have any discussion, I would stand for a motion to close public hearing.

So moved.

Yep.

All in favor?

Aye.

Is anyone opposed?

I did just close.

Okay, I'm gonna pause a second.

I didn't let you have the last say.

And I just made a mistake though.

I need to reopen public hearing real quickly.

Do you felt like I I want to make sure that I didn't cut them off too, Doug?

Mayor, but before you open it back up, maybe just ask if there was something else to add.

Was there something else to add?

We just want to let you know that we're open to conditions.

If there is something else to add, then let's reopen that.

Okay, let's I'd stand for a motion to reopen public hearing.

Again, thank you.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay, thank you.

Go for it.

We are open.

If you have some specific conditions that you'd like us to consider, we're definitely open to that and and would consider that and be willing to listen to those and probably most likely agree to them.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Okay.

And with that, I would stand for a motion of close public hearing.

Second, all in favor?

Aye.

Thank you, council, for bearing with me there.

Okay, what is the will of council?

Mayor.

Yes.

I'll be the first to state, and uh when I had saw Todd Campbell's name come across our agenda, I was very excited.

I we have a couple of your town homes in Cascade, and they're exceptional products.

So I just wanted to be sure to state that the quality of the build is very good that you do, and so I I want to emphasize that first before I jump into anything else.

I think the green space has met the standard, but it is minimal.

I think the density I get nervous with RS six, let alone RS4.

And uh with the college being there, you can make the argument, but what is surrounding it is RS7, RS7, RS 8.5.

Um, we might need to consider what that looks like on the east side of uh at home center boulevard or Canada, and say, is that really where we want high density?

Because it is giving misdirection, I believe, to some of the developers.

I don't like that the storm drain is is factored into the landscaping, and I think that needs to be a code change that we need to look at after this point, and but I'm not weighing that against you here and now because that's what code says.

So I'm I'm trying to be thoughtful on how to move forward.

I think ultimately the density is the concern for me.

Um not the product, not the quality, the schools are a factor for me, the density is a factor for me, the connectivity is a factor to me.

You would have I'm sure be an amenable to those conditions, and whether it's a reapplication or we continue and ask for changes to be made density-wise.

I don't know that we're gonna be able to get to that jump.

It might have to be a full board reapplication, but connect those communities.

I think that's something that's important.

So those are my thoughts for now.

Mayor, yes.

Just an encouragement because I will echo what Councilman Griffin said.

Your products are great, and this is exactly the type of thing that we are wanting in NAMPA.

We hear a lot from the public, and they're very loud sometimes when they say they don't want so much of one product.

And this is the diversity that we're wanting to see.

So I appreciate you guys coming and bringing this.

So we're on the right track.

I think we just need to rework some things, but I think this could be a really great project.

I live right in this area, and though I'm the only councilman that lives on the north side, so I probably drive this area more than everyone, and I can definitely speak to Victor and Kevin's concerns on that on the road there on Canada and how that gets congested.

So I do really like the the BC on the end there.

I I think that that's a good fit.

Um I'm a little bit worried about the RD that does butt up to the south just because of the homes that you have just south of there, like mayor was speaking to.

And then also I want I want to see connectivity of the bridge or something to connect those two.

I don't want to say parcels, but it almost feels that way.

Just the two separate almost subdivisions, bring it together, create some continuity there.

And then um again, I don't love totlots.

I really just like people to be able to enjoy the area where they live, so they don't feel like they have to leave to go to the park or leave to go do something, but they can do that within their community.

I like to see that more.

So the walking paths are always good, the higher green space, the actual amenities, and that um the subdivision just south has a pool, as was mentioned.

Um I don't think that that's necessarily a good fit.

Uh not everyone wants an HOA that has a pool, but just something to where they can you know do some activities within, I think is very valuable.

So thank you for bringing it forward.

I think we're on a good track.

Those that would be my feedback.

My my feedback would be is that uh council would table this and allow the applicant to uh come back with uh possibly some modifications based on comments and questions uh this evening would be one option.

The other would be uh you know, for a motion uh but I I think there's a there's partly a denial uh being considered and whether it's better to table and give some opportunities for some rework.

I I was just gonna defer to legal on this and the action that might be a recommended action from a legal standpoint.

Mayor and council, it sounds like to me the the changes that you're proposing that would garner a positive vote are something that would ultimately require you to remand this back to P and Z anyway.

Um so I think that continuing it for two weeks or a month is actually probably gonna cause delay.

Um but but um anyway.

I think you can do either.

You can do either.

Um but um yeah, like I said, the changes you're talking about are probably pretty significant, and at that point you're gonna be back in this meeting, and then the question is can we go forward or the answer is no, you gotta go back to P and Z, so they gotta go back to P and Z and then come back here and have reheard again, probably kind of in the same vote either way, Mayor.

Just for clarification, then I've never heard of this reman to P and Z consideration.

Is that just a denial and they're gonna have to resubmit a full loan application, or can we say take your project back to PNZ change and this is the perspective I go to, I think it would be in my mind what I need for an approval would need to be significant changes on density.

Uh and I don't think that's feasible without a denial.

Can we remand back and say make some density changes and then bring back forward to us and still have it go through this application process?

You can I'd recommend that if you do that just to be uh conservative that you require at least the notifications to go out again.

Um you don't require a completely new application, just because it's kind of it's basically starting over, you want to make sure you're preserving due process on that front.

Uh so but that is an option.

The the requirement is an option because there's a requirement that if there's a material change after P and Z it goes back to P.

So I think likewise you also have the authority to remain.

Just speaking for myself, I absolutely do not want to send them back through the application process.

I don't want them to have to pay those fees and go through that all over again and meet with not that it's not a great visit with Rodney, but have to meet with staff all over and go through the checklist.

So but uh my concerns would be pretty significant on on density.

Uh so the remanding is an option.

I'd even make a motion for that if that's the desire, but um there's more comments to be had any further discussion from council.

I think there's too many modifications for us to make up here.

So I would remand back to plenty of the zoning.

Otherwise, I'll deny it.

Mayor.

Yes.

May I jump in here real quick?

Um I I agree with Doug.

I I feel like um it's significant enough changes that if if you're asking for um such significant changes, it it feels to me like it should go back through the process.

And I know that's more cost and time, but if we were to remand it, um we're we're putting a lot of staff effort into that process too.

And so uh I would prefer it's my recommendation that it just if you're if you're going to send it back to planning and zoning that we start over on the process with um with the recommendations that you've made already.

Much of a delay would that cause the applicant.

So mayor okay to answer that.

Yeah, yes, you may.

Okay, um so it's actually not a delay because we we already have to go back to the P and Z commission.

So if we're remanding it back to the PNZ commission, I'm scheduling that to go to them on their earliest available date.

I'm doing the same thing when we go back through the application process.

So it's it's just depending on when we can get it scheduled and when they submit their application.

Thank you.

So I think out of courtesy, first of all, thank you.

And I love hearing um the comments because it's very complimentary of the work that you do.

And um we uh pre uh greatly appreciate it, and I know that it's very difficult and costly.

That said, um, if you really watch our hearings, it's pretty evident the direction we're going.

This North Nampa area is important to the community of NAPA.

So I'm just gonna be really, really candid because when you come back, you want to get approved, right?

You do not want to go through and spend your time doing something that's not going to get approved.

We really are looking for phenomenal subdivisions in North Napa.

We are not looking for kind of cookie cutter stuff, and um, I think I'm hearing it from several that we kind of hit, we didn't come in with the best option for this area.

Um with that, I think that uh you met the minimums, but as you I think just what I'm hearing from Councilman Griffin, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but what I think I heard you say is storm drains and open green space, while they may qualify because this is an annexation and a development agreement.

I think what I'm hearing is we need great open green space.

That's what we're looking for is really great recreation.

I will say there isn't much open green space in your highest density area, and that's coming later.

So basically the people coming in in that phase, there's not much there, and there's quite a distance to get to any green space.

Um the other thing is parking.

My goodness, instead of under parking, make sure there's enough parking for people that are in those townhomes because they're gonna be parking somewhere.

I mean, it gets tough.

You need more parking than that.

Um, and then I think there were just other comments about the separation between the two.

From a council perspective, if there's any other remarks, we need to let them know because what we want you to do is to come back and get approved.

We don't want you to go to the work and then have something new mentioned.

That's why I'm being really candid.

Is there are there any other comments that they need to hear from council so that when they do come back, we don't come up with something new.

Yes.

I'll I'll jump at that opportunity.

I I frankly would like to see closer to our RS6.

Uh if not even RF7, but uh I could stomach the idea that uh the comprehensive map is telling you that this is allowed.

That's tough for me, the hurdle over, but uh it the density is too much for me.

I know this isn't part of the application process, but there was a negative feedback from Valley View School District.

I don't know what that looks like, but it might be worth having a conversation with them and having them neutralized somewhat if you're able.

Doesn't change the outcome of the decision for the area, but uh no feedback's better than negative feedback in my mind.

Uh and the connectivity's already been stated.

Pathways on both sides of that canal, I think are important.

Folks are going to use it and they're gonna walk it, and if there's gonna be a bridge, a part of it, I think they're just gonna do circles with their dogs or their kids on shoulders or whatever else.

I I know my family utilizes our green spaces, whether preferably along the canal just because there's ducks for our kids and everything else, and I think this could be a huge asset to your neighborhood.

And I hope my comments aren't taken as completely negative.

Uh it's just making a a neighborhood that I can imagine me or people like me and my age group would want to live in.

So that's my thoughts.

Very clear.

Yes.

I'm gonna disagree.

I don't think we should have kids near canals.

So I don't want the the the connectivity.

I worry about that.

So it's you mean it sounds good, but for the safety factor, no.

I I worry about the RS4.

I would rather have an RS six.

Um, but I'm gonna leave that up to you.

See what we come back.

I think for clarification, uh staff could probably enlighten us, but I believe a fence is required along the 10 mile drain, and that any pathway would have a fence between the pathway and the drain.

Canals, yes, but drains no.

For Daniel, I'll leave more of this committee.

Yeah, so on an on a drain, um, there is not necessarily a requirement for a fence along the drains along laterals.

There is um just because of the nature, obviously a lateral is a much more fast moving its entire purpose is to convey water quickly, um, whereas the drains are are typically lower volume and um not as more natural type of um waterway than a canal would be.

Thank you.

Rushing out the cobwebs.

Have a quick question.

So there is no fence along 10 mile in the subdivision to the south.

Is that correct?

There is not.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, so council, where are we going from here?

Mayor, I make a motion uh to uh deny for the screen.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to deny this application.

Is there any discussion further?

Seeing none, roll caller.

Yes, Reynolds, yes, Haverfield.

Yes is to deny, correct?

Yes, Griffin.

Yes, Rodriguez.

Yes, yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Thank you, guys.

Sorry.

Okay, let's move um before it gets any later.

Let's move over to new business and finish our next our last two items in new business.

And then we'll move to unfinished business.

So we are ready to move to item um five nine.

This is an or first reading of ordinance.

Before we go to this, um Doug, would you mind if I defer to you to introduce uh our discussions on this item?

I'm putting you on the spot, or would you like me to mayor?

I'm happy to uh take a run at it, and if I'm missing something, you can let me know.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Okay.

Council, I think it makes the sense.

Um at least talk about items five, nine, and five ten together.

Um they're separate actions, they'll have to be dealt with separately, but at least for the purpose of the conversation, they'll be overlap.

Um the items tonight are to conclude the conveyance process set out in the code uh by the adoption of an ordinance to convey the IDO center to CWI, followed by an action item to approve the actual agreement to do that.

Um I have not been directly involved in the negotiation with CWI on these, but know they have been back and forth numerous times between between uh city and and uh the College of Western Idaho uh with revisions and things.

The most significant documents as I understand it that are relatively new tonight are the conveyance and acquisition agreement itself and the deed restrictions, although I think that that document has been been a component of the conversation, was a component of the prior action approving the conveyance.

So I'm sure you've all had a chance to review them.

I know I've gotten some questions already, and um don't know if it makes sense to go through them section by section.

I think that would probably be um a little excruciating, but generally speaking, like I said, the ordinance is a is the culmination of and finalization of the process under the Adho code to do a conveyance without consideration to another public entity.

The purchase and sale agreement, I call it purchase and sale agreement.

The conveyance agreement is in broad strokes, sort of tracks along with a standard commercial purchase and sale agreement, and it's been modified to uh align with this particular transaction.

I'm happy to answer any questions, mayor.