Okay.

Okay.

It is six o'clock.

I'd like to welcome everyone to the City of Nampa Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, December ninth, two thousand twenty five.

Uh Madam Clerk, can we start with a roll call, please?

Garner.

Miller.

Here.

Turner.

Here.

Keyhoe.

Here.

Morgan.

Here.

Kirkman.

Here.

Salman.

Here.

Copeland.

Here.

Eight president.

Thank you.

Rodney.

There's uh Rodney Ashby playing and zoning director for the record.

Um, just want to report on a couple of things for city council uh that occurred last week at their uh council meeting.

The first item is just two final plates that you had recommended approval and uh were approved.

And so both of those went through East Ranch, uh, number one and East Ridge View number four.

And then um we had two public hearings, a vacation of a easement and it's just a small portion of uh the easement.

Um this was at two two one eight Jody Avenue and that one was approved.

The second one was a variance, uh request for um a parking uh to not have any parking requirements and to allow a four-plex on a substandard lot size at uh seventeen sixteen uh second street south.

And um that one was denied.

That was one that was done without permits, uh converted a duplex into a four-plex and the garage into a living quarters, and there was concern from uh the fire department and building department about safety of the building and um and again it was substandard lot size and no parking.

So um those that one was denied, and that's the only things I have to report on council.

Um it's my pleasure to just recognize uh one of our commissioners who has been here for two uh terms, and this will be her last um last meeting, Peggy Selman.

Um I I just wanted to just maybe highlight with all the public here and online um what a commitment that is.

This is a six-year terms, and she served two of those terms.

That's 12 years of a lot of hard work and no pay.

And um what a what an amazing thing for for people to volunteer.

I just have so much respect for you, you all who sit up there in those chairs.

Um, you do this out of the goodness of your heart and love for your community, and I just thoroughly have appreciated working with Peggy.

She has served as the chair of this commission in the past.

I think you were vice chair as well before that, right?

And uh again, just want to recognize her.

We have a card for you, and then I also have uh a little gift from the department to check for all your back pay.

Yeah, this is uh in place of payment.

Um so that's that's it.

Um this shows the years that she served on the commission and and has her name with a big S on it, and we sure appreciate you.

Thank you so much.

And a card that most of you have signed.

If you haven't, maybe grab her aside afterwards.

I don't know.

Thanks, Peggy.

Yeah, thank you, Peggy.

Good job, Peggy.

That's cool.

Okay, I would entertain a motion to approve and adopt a consent agenda.

Second.

Then moved by PPH second by Kirkman to approve the consent agenda.

All those in favor?

Any opposed.

Motion carries.

Okay, we'll go ahead and get right to our public hearings.

Um just a few things.

Uh the meeting is being recorded, so we ask that everyone in the crowd, since our is a large group of you today that everybody be quiet.

Um if you need to talk to each other, please whisper and do it as quiet as you possibly can.

Um because when you speak, the microphones in the room pick it up, and so people that are online or in the recording, it kind of makes it uh sometimes not audible.

So just be it as quiet as you can.

Um for the public hearing items.

The applicant will come up, they'll tell us about what they want to do.

Uh they get seven minutes to propose their project, to tell us about their project.

Um, then we'll go to staff.

Um the staff has unlimited time to tell us the city's views, thoughts, uh, codes, things like that on the item.

And then we will open the public testimony up.

Um there is a sign-up sheet in the back.

If you haven't signed up, you're more than welcome to do so.

If you don't sign up and you decide you do want to speak, we'll give you opportunity to speak when the sign-up sheet has been run through.

Um each person will have uh three minutes to speak and only three minutes, so please make your notes and stick to them.

Um after you have spoken, you can't speak again.

You get one chance and one chance only for each item.

If you want to speak on multiple, that's fine.

Um if you want to get up and just say that you agree with things that have been said, that's fine too.

Um it'll be noted on the record.

Um please again um don't shout or make comments from the crowd.

Um we want to respect you, and we ask that you respect us as well as the person that's speaking.

Um so when you do come up, we ask that you give your name and address for the record, and please speak clearly and directly into the mic so everything can be picked up.

Um after the public has spoken, the applicant has a chance to come back up and answer questions, and then we will close the public hearing, and uh we as a body will deliberate, discuss, and make a decision on each item.

So first item 3-1 and X annexation and zoning of right away along Cherry Lane to IL and RS4 next to East Ranch Subdivision for Idaho Holdings LLC is the applicant here, Mr.

Chairman.

Yes.

The applicant will not be with us tonight, just due to the nature of the application, being only the dedication of right-away.

Okay.

So I will just turn it over right to you then.

Thank you, Damien.

Alrighty, so the requested action item for today is the zoning annexation and zoning of a right-away for this was East Ranch subdivision.

This was missed at the time of the initial annexation due to some inconsistencies in the legal description.

So we're just trying to pick up the rest of this right-of-way to expand the road and do those improvements.

This one's pretty standard, but due to the nature of them wanting to get through their processes, they brought this forward to us earlier.

We received no correspondence on this application.

And as far as the findings, it meets all of the same findings that the original application came through as and it is within our area of annexation and it meets all of our current criteria for annexation and zoning, and it is matching the development that it initially came in with.

Recommended conditions are of approval as that they shall comply with all city codes, policies, and standards at the time of development.

And here are your potential motions.

Questions, anybody?

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

We do.

We have David Sanchez.

Okay.

Mr.

Sanchez here.

Yes, not.

Okay, is there anybody else in the crowd would like to speak for against or decided on this specific item?

Okay.

It's been moved by Kirkman, seconded by Garner or Turner to close public hearing.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Okay, public hearings closed.

Oh so this is this is just kind of a cleanup, it sounds like there's no comments or anything.

I'll go ahead and make a motion.

Excuse me.

To recommend approval of annexation and zoning of right-of-way along Cherry Lane to Light Industrial and RS4 for roadway adjacent to the parcel next to East Ranch Subdivision.

For Idaho Old Holdings LLC with recommended conditions and proposed findings.

Second.

It's been moved by Kirkman, seconded by Selman.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Okay, action item number two.

Conditional use permit for home occupation gun-related sales and service and RS6 located at 1836 East Cellbridge Street for Jacob Lambert.

Is the applicant made?

How are you guys doing?

Good.

Good.

So I'm just going to essentially be naming address.

Yes, name and Jacob Lambert and address as 1836 East Sellbridge Street.

Where I'm gonna be ordering and building handguns or rifles for customers.

There's there's really never gonna be more than one person at the house at a time.

I live on a corner lot, so I have quite a bit of space for people to park.

We're not gonna have any like gunpowder or anything hazardous or explosive stored in the garage.

And the only other part of my house that will be used for the business is gonna be my office where my gun safe is, so I can store firearms safely.

So that is the idea of what I'm gonna be trying to do with my house.

Question?

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, I have a question.

Um where will you be assembling them on the property?

Is it is it in the garage or is it a uh separate building out back or it'll be in the garage.

Okay, yeah.

Okay.

If we have further questions, we'll call you back up in a bit.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Damien.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

Name is Nodgrass, associate planner.

The requested action item tonight is for a conditional use permit to obtain a home occupation for gun-related sales in a residential zone.

Some of the property details, it's under the medium density um residential designation.

It's currently zoned RS6, surrounded by RS6 zoning with the current utilities to the property.

Pretty standard uh subdivision home.

Here are some applicable regulations.

Here are ones around home occupations and home occupations with conditional use permit.

And some of the regulations that will be put on this if this were to be approved as a home occupation.

And here are the applicable regulations for a conditional use permit.

We'll cover these in the findings.

As far as correspondence, we did receive two comments, one from the building department that it has been reviewed, and there will be some conditions that come along with the residential permit in order to bring the property up to code to have a um sales of this kind within the process, as well as one public comment from a neighbor that was it was regarding the safety of gun sales near her home.

In essence, she purchased her home recently and very uh not enthused about gun sales in general.

I spoke with her on the phone.

I also reached out to Don Peck at Nampa PD a little bit later after the staff report was already submitted.

Um as far as he can tell, they don't track the kind of information, but we don't have anything on record of home occupations leading to any police cases at this time.

So just a little bit of research on that.

So here are some of the proposed conditions of approval that will comply with all city codes, policies, and standards with building regulations.

So this includes all of those that will be covered in the RES permit for building.

Um that the owner shall maintain all regulatory permitting licensing and operational procedures as required by law.

So this is that FFL, ATF and everything of that nature.

Um that the conditional use permit shall be granted at with the applicant at the current subject location, so it's not transferable to another person or to another property, um, and that a home occupation permit must be completed with planning and zoning to follow all of those other regulations or any other conditions that are recommended by the condition commission.

All right, so here are the findings that the proposed use is supported by the NAMP comprehensive plan, really not applicable to this application type.

Um, that the design construction operation and maintenance of the property and project shall not will not adversely impact the intended character and appearance of the general vicinity.

No changes will be made to the outside of the home, it'll keep that single family residential nature.

Uh that the proposed use is served adequately by essential public facilities and services.

The current home already is connected to utilities and has adequate services.

That the proposed use will not involve any activities or processes, materials, equipment, and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any person's property or general welfare by reason excess traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glares, or odors.

And again, there's no changes made to the outside of the property.

It'll have to follow our standard home occupation regulations that keep the intended single character family of the home.

And here are your potential motions, and I will stand for any questions.

Mr.

Chair, I have a quick question for clarification.

Uh when you said the NAMPA PD didn't track that information, what information specifically were you referring to?

So I I reached out to see if there was just anything that he could remember or any sort of tracking around gun violence stemming from a home occupation being at the at the residence.

Okay.

Um maybe mishaps within the sales and same things of that nature, but he said that they didn't have anything like that on record of anything being dangerously connected to somebody selling guns out of their home.

Probably only time they'd hear about it is if there was a crime or something that was committed.

Okay.

Anybody else?

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

We do.

We have David Sanchez.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Sanchez here.

Anybody else like to speak for, against or incited on this particular item.

Yeah, I got Mr.

Lambert.

Can you come back up?

We've got one more question for you, please.

Can you explain to us outside of the city what uh government entities would be overseeing your gun sales and what different types of inspections and things you need to do to stay in compliance?

Um, yeah, the ATF and they will they'll come do an inspection before we get our FFL.

Make sure that we're in compliance with all of their rules and regulations.

Um some of those rules is like having a security system and the house, having lockable, all my firearms locked up and all that stuff, which I have.

I have a security system and my safes.

Um and then that's the only government agency that will be um kind of overlooking my business in a sense.

Um but then uh I mean obviously the sheriff as well.

If I have multiple handgun sales or anything like that, I have to submit copies to the local uh police chief or sheriff, so um that as well, technically.

And would you have any comment to what this lady was concerned about sales in her neighborhood?

You can help ease her um concerns.

Yeah, I mean, um you know I guess the the only time that there would be a risk would be if I was in my garage making firearms and somebody came up to collect theirs.

Um I'm armed all the time at my especially at my house because I have kids, my own kids there, so um and if it's at night, um again I have a security system, I have a dog, um all my guns are in a safe that they will not be able to get into before police arrive or before I will do something about it.

So that's all the questions I had.

Anybody else?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, I would take a motion to close public hearing.

So move.

Second.

Then move by DAF or second by Keyhoe to close the public hearing.

All those in favor?

Aye.

We opposed.

Okay, public hearing is closed.

What do we think?

Well, we've seen multiple, multiple, multiple, multiple C UPs for this very same reason.

And we've never had any even the police department confirmed that we've not had any problems with it.

Um it seems like it's something the community wants to have because we got so many people doing it.

I don't know, they couldn't stay in business if they weren't making money at it.

Anybody look up for new business, here's an opportunity.

Also with these C UPs, excuse me, if this one was approved, there's also a an avenue for somebody who has a legitimate complaint to come back to the planning and zoning department and actually, you know, they're complaining on this particular C UP.

So there's always that option that that's if there's something going on there that shouldn't be concerned.

I know that we've had these come up a lot.

We don't generally ask the same questions, but I like to make sure that it's put on the public stickers so that when people have concerns that haven't heard these before get to hear that there's other government agencies inside the city that they have to answer to things inspected by.

I can't think of any reason why I would deny it.

I'll make the motion then.

Who's carrying?

I uh move to approve the project as data on screen.

Second.

It's been moved by Dapper, second by Selman.

All those in favor.

Any opposed.

Okay, motion carries.

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

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

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

Okay.

Annexation and zoning to BC, RMH, RML, RD, RS4, RS6, RS8.5, and RS12 zoning districts.

Man master plan community with development agreement at zero zero zero zero zero five nine one one zero zero zero five seven zero three five seven zero five and zero East Greenhurst Road.

Zero zero and zero South Happy Valley Road.

Zero zero zero zero and zero South Robinson Boulevard and zero East Locust Lane for Sean Brownley of Trilogy of Trilogy Development is the applicant here.

That would have been crossing.

Good evening, members of the commission.

My name is Bonnie Leighton.

I am with NV5.

I'm part of the development team here tonight to request your approval of the annexation and master plan community known as Orchard Acres.

And with that, I will start here.

So Master Plan Communities, we've been here before.

The minimum acreage is 40 acres within the city per code, and then it goes up from there.

What we've really tried to do here with our project is designed this project around smart growth principles.

We have a mix of uses, including some commercial, a variety of residential home types as well as open spaces, pathways, and amenities.

We have done this consistent with the comprehensive plan.

And so just as a quick overview, this is a vicinity map of where we are located.

So we are on the east side of Happy Valley Road, the west side of Robinson.

We uh Greenhurst uh is on our northern and northeastern boundary, and then we straddle uh Locust Lane a little bit.

Uh this project is in close proximity to a number of schools.

We're approximately a mile and a half from Columbia High School, uh half a mile from East Valley Middle School, and just over uh two miles from uh Ronald Reagan driving the path.

Um also we are about as the crow flies uh about a half a mile from Osborne Park.

That's a large city park, it's 11 acres, and that was actually developed in the city of Nampa back in 2006.

So great amenity in the area, public amenity, um, and then uh number of schools uh adjacent near our project.

There's also a couple of charter schools that I have listed here.

Um transportation plan, I think that's always a big one when we're looking at uh growth in a new area.

Um the city has done some extensive planning and actually some extensive development in the area.

Uh as you will see, there are some principal arterials that are marked in red.

We have some minor arterials that run north south as well as some collectors.

Uh Greenhurst in this area is a collector.

The uh dark red dots on the screen are all roundabouts that have been completed.

So that's pretty fantastic in this area.

It still feels um like it's becoming a developing area, so that infrastructure has already been put forward and in place.

Um there's also some preliminary designs for an overpass at Robinson Road and railroad CHAC, and our plans have tried to accommodate that as well.

Quickly get through here.

So this is the future land use map.

You can uh see our the outline of our project.

We are um there's still a mile to the east of us, is where the area of impact line is established.

That was actually established back as far as at least 2007, um, and it has remained uh that area of impact ever since.

Uh this is a little bit close uh closer view.

Um so within our project area, there are actually uh three different future land use map designations that we are uh designing to.

So the city has asked in this area, we would like to see this type of development, and our proposal complies with that.

Um just to see how this would fit in for the zoning of the area.

So uh Greenhurst has some commercial uses, actually the out parcels along Greenhurst.

There's a um the Napa Meridian um irrigation district is has a yard there, um, there's a Bible church, so we've got some commercial uses and some higher density uses along uh along Greenhurst, and then also along Happy Valley Road, we have some commercial.

So we're really trying to propose a development pattern that's uh similar to what has happened in the area previously, and as we kind of head to the northwest.

Um let's see, so the community details, and again I'm running through this pretty quickly.

So our master plan community um the goal is to really allow for a more cohesive and connected uh development.

This property is fairly irregular-shaped, and so this is really where a master plan community comes in to be very helpful.

We're looking at developing this in four different neighborhoods, each with various phases.

This is a long-term plan to develop 273 acres over the course of a couple of decades.

So as you saw from our submittal application and the staff report, these are the zoning districts that we've identified.

So we've got almost 20 acres of commercial for this area.

And see we're also transitioning the density.

I think you saw that in our application.

So the higher density, more intense density uses or closer to the collectors, and then we transition in from there.

So along with the roadway exhibit I previously discussed, we are also providing some new collectors through the site to really help move traffic and keep the community connected.

And then along with that, there's plans for pathways and open space.

This is really important when it comes to providing a real livable community.

Again, with a master plan community, you you have an opportunity to see how these spaces are connected, how each of the neighborhoods flow together, and how the residents can access very areas various areas of the site.

And quickly on the architectural character, basically, we will be building homes and structures that you see in some of our other communities.

Very traditional architecture appropriate for the community.

And with that, I'm happy to stand for any questions.

Yes.

Go ahead.

And show us or begin where we're going to start and where we're going to end.

Commissioner Keogh, that is a very great question.

We are actually going to start in the northwest corner of this of the project.

And I believe there it will go, it's let's see.

How can I?

I don't have a pointer.

Can you help me out?

So it'll be in that area, yep, and then we'll swing down what we need to do is uh develop a secondary connection point.

Tell us what those areas are, what the density is in those areas, or what type of housing is allowed.

Okay, so we will have so the orange is the commercial area, then we'll have some high density as we've noted on the plan, there will be some apartments up in the very north northern portion.

That's correct, thank you.

Then we'll go to a medium high density below that, where we have a combination of cottage homes and townhomes.

So those are smaller units to help try to provide some affordability in the area.

Um then the green is uh more of the medium density uh residential, yeah.

And so we'll start Rodney.

If you can put your hand back over to right there, yeah.

So that north will be our first neighborhood, and that would be the first community that is projected to be multiple phases, five different phases.

So and if you think about the timing of each phase, just building out that first neighborhood, maybe if I go back to the neighborhood exhibit, that might so cedar mill would be our first neighborhood.

So that would be the first of four neighborhoods, and that cedar mill phase will have five phases in it.

And so I would anticipate that the other neighborhoods would be similar, maybe three or four, depending on the size.

If things go better than you anticipate, would you accelerate your plan or will you wait another couple of years before you start the next phase or what?

Commissioner Keyhouse, so we would um I guess the short answer is if things are selling out there, then yes, we um you know we would try to keep up with the market and the demand in that.

I mean that would seem like a good business practice.

All right.

Um likewise if things slow down, then we would adjust our timing accordingly.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

Other questions?

Yeah, Mr.

Chair.

Um can you go back to the traffic or the infrastructure drawing you had one of the earlier slides?

Oh, yeah.

Let's see.

Would that be it?

Yeah, so I'd heard of this overpass at Robinson.

What's this proposed collector you have on there?

The oh that's that's part of the regional planning.

It's it's proposed at in the future to connect.

It's not part of our project, it's part of the master plan uh community or master uh street planning.

Uh should I ask Daniel?

Would that be better if I asked Daniel about it?

Yes.

Um it it's a it's a master plan, it's not something that we're planning on doing, but it uh staff can probably answer that just as well as I can.

I'll hold that question.

Okay, other questions.

Um so I'm looking at the phases on here.

So you have phase one, which I'm assuming is the commercial that you're gonna start with.

Um and that's gonna be on Happy Valley.

And then phase where are the single family homes?

What phase will that be in when you start building the apartments and higher density up north?

It's gonna touch Greenhurst there.

Okay, um, okay, Commissioner Kirkman.

I I could try to answer this the best that I can.

So phase one will extend all the way from Happy Valley out to next to the commercial that you see that's adjacent to Greenhurst.

We have to provide two access points in order to meet um fire code.

So that is going to be the first phase.

It's gonna literally go across pretty much on the yep.

And Rodney, I don't know if you can kind of scandal from here to here.

My question is where in this phase one are this do you have single family homes that are planned in phase one?

We do have um some single, we do have some single family homes planned in phase one.

And that's phase one of this first neighborhood.

So up front, we're going to do um their smaller lot homes, but in phase one, that's uh that is the plan.

Phase two would be in that portion.

Um Rodney, can you write move your hand just right there a little bit to the right?

Right there is no over back.

Right there is phase two.

Sorry that we don't that we don't really have a good pointer that works, but so that's phase two of this neighborhood.

Um, and then we work into the center with phase three, um, and then phase four along the southwest.

Phase four would be along the south.

No, sorry, Rodney.

I'm talking just about the first neighborhood.

Well, I'm looking at it, I'm looking at it here, the phases that are planned out in our document.

I was just I just wanted to make sure.

So you've got in phase one also, not just commercial, but you've got high density plus medium density, correct?

Single family homes also.

Yes.

Okay.

Probably should have just started with that question.

Yeah, so we're we are trying to provide a mix, and it's not just all one thing at once.

I think having the uh the need for that um secondary access point is important, but it also really allows us to develop the project you know, with that different variety.

Um that's not typical for a lot of the projects I see, but in this case it gives us the options to do that.

So this might be a question that you won't be able to answer, but I would um and and the markets could probably gonna drive this more than anything else, but what type of commercial do you think would would you are you guys looking at, are you guys looking at in that commercial area in phase one?

What type of commercial?

Um, Commissioner Kirkman at this point, um, you know, it would be uh uh like neighborhood kind of retail and office space, um, something that's more local to the neighborhood.

There's not a lot of that out there.

There's a couple of gas stations as you kind of go north.

Um, but it would be services that would uh serve not only this community but um the existing developments.

And again, the market would drive that more than anything else.

I'm just uh it wasn't uh a couple years ago, there was a commercial just a mile or two down the road on Greenhurst that didn't really pan out, but for a restaurant, that type of a thing, and so just curious what your thoughts are on that commercial area.

Yeah, so we so we've um uh you know requested the business uh commercial uh zone and then would be open to um whatever is allowed in that land use uh in the land use chart according to the zoning code.

Okay.

That's all I have right now, Mr.

Chair.

Okay, sure there'll be no slave.

We have anything further, we'll call you back up.

Thank you very much.

Okay, Rodney.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair and Commissioners.

Rodney Ashby, planning and zoning director.

Um you've heard I I don't need to spend too much time on this one.

Here's the location.

Um they've shared their purpose already and um highlighted the um the densities, the different types of densities.

Um so I'm not gonna spend too much time on that either.

Um they've shown these different elevations of the different styles of housing that they're providing.

Um this gets to the comprehensive plan.

So this is the city's plan for what we direct um growth to follow.

And uh the comprehensive plan shows this as residential mixed use and low density residential.

These are this is a really big project, 276 acres.

We don't typically get this big of a project, and so um our city council has really um requested though these we look at master plan communities for these types of developments, and so that's exactly what they've done to provide a diversity of housing um housing styles, and um provide some different land uses in there.

So that is what's being proposed.

Uh you can see the aerial here with the zoning.

Um so to the west there is RS 7, and to the south is RS 8.5, kind of wrapping around that subdivision that was recently approved in the last five years or so developing out.

Um those two locations are where they're eligible for annexation.

That's how we get that path of annexation.

Both both sides there.

Um to the east is large lot single family residential.

Um to the north is large lot single family residential and NAMPA meridian irrigation district office and maintenance yard, and then Union Pacific Rail main line along Greenhurst.

Uh to the west is large lot, single family residential agricultural farmland, terrace falls estates subdivision as RS 8.5, and then to the south is large lot, single family residential agricultural farmland, terrace falls estates subdivision, and then of course I I didn't put on here to the to the west, of course, is the RS 7 uh sub city subdivision as well across Happy Valley.

And then of course I I didn't put on here to the to the west, of course, is the RS7 sub city subdivision as well across Happy Valley.

Utilities in the area.

And then we've got a 12-inch water main in South Happy Valley Road and East Locust Lane.

And a 12-inch pressure irrigation main in South Happy Valley Road and East Locust Lane.

And there's several different locations there.

So I broke this down just so you can see the different amounts of zoning for the project.

Again, this is this is hard a lot of times to put it into perspective of how big it is.

Um BC or community business zoning, 19.5 acres, 45.26 of RMH or the high density residential, 35.68 of the limited multifamily residential, and then 6.33 of the RD, which is the two-family duplex zoning, and then RS4 is the single family, and that's 43.02 acres.

RS6 is 57.96, RS 8.5 is 51.72, and then RS12, which is their largest lot, single family residential is 14.58 is what they're proposing.

I also analyze their open space.

Um, but I I want to um preface this with the fact that a lot of this is although we look at it at this phase of the project at master plan community, the actual implementation of it will occur at plating stage.

So we will have we will make sure that each plat that comes in is following the general concept if this gets approved that it'll follow the master plan community and that it will follow all of our standards for qualified open space for the connectivity for pathways for lot sizes and for densities.

So with that in mind, I did look at this.

Um they did provide a landscape plan at this stage, and um the it appears to meet the 15% qualified open space requirement and will be required to uh when we get the plaques.

Yeah, go ahead.

Um the 15% of open space.

Do you know about how much that would translate into acreage for this full project?

Well it's 15% of 276.

I don't do math, that's what I was asking.

That's why I've got a calculator.

40 acres, about 40 acres.

Yeah.

Of open space, then okay.

I bet other people in the audience are going like this.

So I appreciate all the mathematicians in here.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, 41.4.

So that's the size of the minimum size of a master plan community is 40 acres.

So they're providing that much in just a quality.

Just an open space.

Yeah, okay.

So they will be required to.

And then amenities that they've already offered on the plan are three clubhouses and pools, a barbecue grills, shade structures, dog park, um, workout stations, multiple, uh, pickleball courts, multiple, basketball court, and pathways, and then just open space and um and playground as well.

So that's their landscape uh plan, kind of overall open space, um, qualified open space, and then here's their details of where each of those different amenities would be going.

Again, developed out over many years to come.

And um, just a quick note on that.

Um, you could recommend as part of the um the approval, you could recommend that they use a development agreement to lock in place when uh a certain amount of open space would be required.

So keep that in mind as you make your recommendation one way or the other.

Um, you can um identify when that would be required, how much percentage of open space would be required within the first phase or the second phase.

Okay.

So our comprehensive plan, we looked through it, and there's there's a lot of information.

That's all in your packet.

I've provided a whole bunch of references to the comprehensive plan in your packet.

But essentially, it goes over master plan communities and why they're so I would say beneficial.

This is what our city council has asked us to do because they provide these things.

A variety of land uses and housing options.

They provide open space, a central park, trails, and amenities, such as structures, playgrounds, water features, sports courts, gardens, etc.

Again, this is all from the comprehensive plan.

Walkability, they emphasize walkability, roadway connectivity, and attractive streetscapes, and emphasize buffering with landscaping between the different land uses that they provide.

So if there's commercial and residential, they emphasize the need for the buffering with landscaping.

Again, the the variety is done internally, so you can you can use master plans to buffer from existing subdivisions, and then as you transition, because it's part of a plan, a master plan, then you can get into those greater densities, maybe a little bit away from the existing single family homes that are that are already there.

So that's that's some of the benefits of master plan communities.

It should contain multiple zones, uses, densities, and housing types.

Allow alter alterations to lot sizes, bulk requirements, setbacks, building height, and placement of structures.

We haven't heard anything about that at this point, but they that is a possibility in a master plan community.

Um and then density allowance increases by 20%, and then you can reduce the minimum lot size by 20%.

Again, I haven't got a plat to analyze that, but we would do that at that time.

Um PC ratio in RMU designations, over 50% shall be residential and no less than 5% should be commercial, and it appears that they're complying with that.

And then MPC ratio of land uses in a mixed-use development uh development not located in a mixed-use future land use designation, may propose a mix of zoning designations and uses.

Up to 30% of the land area may be assigned a zone that does not match the future land use designation.

I think if we go back to the future land use map, you can see some of that area down here.

That provides them a little bit of flexibility because it's our outside of the RMU designation on the map, but they still have some flexibility with an MPC to get 30 up to 30 percent different uses in that area.

Um next is connectivity requirements.

Um they need to provide pedestrian and bicycle access through and between land uses.

I think they've they've shown that.

Um bulk requirements may be altered by the commission as part of the MPC review and approval process.

Um qualified open space, 15% with at least two elements, and what I would recommend in this case is that you tie what they proposed in their landscape plan uh into a development agreement so that we lock that into place.

That's what they would be providing.

All right, so annexation code.

This is outlined in state law, and essentially it's the the well, the first three plus the one if it's applicable.

Uh, all private landowners have consented to annexation.

Um property shall be contiguous with city limits.

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

Um the zoning criteria, very similar.

The proposed map would be in harmony the map amendment, or in this case of the assignment of zoning would be in harmony with the city's currently adopted comprehensive plan and the land use map.

The proposed map amendment would provide for a proposed use or set of uses that would be at least reasonably compatible with existing adjoining property uses.

And again, there's some subjectivity in that.

That's where you get a little bit of subjectivity in this criteria.

And that's somewhat subjective as well.

So that's why we have a commission to analyze this and look at the comprehensive plan and see if it's compliant.

Okay, so just going through the purposes of each of these zones.

This is all in your packet, but again, the single family zones are primarily for single family residential with some allowances for things like townhouses and duplexes, but not getting up to four plexus or triplexes in the RS zones.

Primarily our RS is for single family.

RMH is your high density.

It's intended to be your apartments and locations near services and roadways.

Then the BC zone.

RML, I should have put that on there.

I don't think I think I forgot to put that one on there.

RML is very similar, is just limited, so it's not as high of density, but it still needs to be near the commercial services and near roadways.

Is there your community business zoning district and provides all a huge range of commercial services?

So then we'll jump into correspondence.

We received correspondence from multiple agencies.

The first of which was the NAMPA building department, and essentially saying that they need to follow city code.

That's done through the permitting process, and even that'll be quite a bit later on in the in the process, but they will also have to file for a demolition permit for any demolition of structures on the property.

NAMPA Fire District listed several codes that must be followed.

That also is handled through the permitting process.

They they review each of the permits, and then they analyze this and indicated their intention to be within five minutes of five minutes and twenty seconds from this location if they were called to it.

And this development is located approximately 3.4 miles from NAMPA Fire Station 2 with an approximate response time of seven minutes.

So a little bit beyond their response times that they'd like.

They analyzed the comprehensive plan, looked at all the different references to master plans, and then analyzed it to see if it complied with those references in the comprehensive plan.

And then they stated this based upon the above reference language, the project appears in compliance with the NAMPA comprehensive plan and the associated future land use map.

We did receive a couple of public comments.

We also received a couple more that you have on your desk.

And so they they were printed and put on your desk for your review.

The first one is Joy Lewis on North Robinson Road.

They were opposed to the development due to the following concerns.

Traffic, vehicular accidents, and general growth of the city, but particularly near them.

Those full comments are in your packet.

Just wanted to make sure that's clear to the public.

David Flemings uh from Victoria Falls subdivision.

They were opposed to the development because of traffic impacts on Greenhurst Road, Happy Valley Road, and Locust Lane, and then traffic congestion in the area already is excessive at peak hour times and when trains stop traffic flow.

Uh the resident also requests a detailed traffic impact analysis be completed.

Uh Rodney.

Yeah.

Yes.

Quick question.

Where's Victoria Falls at the subdivision?

Is that on Locust, one of those two new developments?

And then there's a new another one on the other side of Locust, right?

There's two fairly new ones out there on the okay.

So Victoria Falls is out there off of Locust.

Okay.

Okay.

Um and that is it, except for the conditions.

I just basically incorporated each of the agencies requests for conditions into this, and um, and then have my proposed findings.

Um essentially I'm looking at this for the criteria.

Does it comply?

Does it meet the comp plan?

Does it meet the standards listed in code?

And based on that, I feel like it it met all of the cond the criteria.

Um and I've listed out the facts that are related to each of those criteria there.

Happy to cover each of those if you would like me to um otherwise here's a couple of potential motions for your consideration.

I'd stand for questions.

Mr.

Chairman, yes.

Rodney, um we didn't hear from one particular department, and there's some questions concerning that department.

You know why in the last couple of meetings we haven't read any communication from them?

Are you talking about the police department?

Yes.

Yeah.

Um I don't know why.

I've um I've had um conversations, several conversations, uh, in the last six months asking for uh comments.

I can do it again, uh, make sure that they know.

I think that there was some transition just recently uh in their department and who would be responding, but um maybe because this is such a I I don't I I better not speculate.

Yeah, I don't know.

Well, uh I'm not asking to speculate, but but but look at it from our point of view.

We're trying to make a decision, and the people out here are gonna say first off traffic is gonna be a problem.

So where's the report saying that yeah, there's 35 accidents, so there's no accidents.

Where's their report saying they have 75 speeding tickets or no speeding tickets?

How can I make a decision without an if that's without that information?

Um well, the only thing I'd say is that our engineering team looks at the traffic.

Uh that is their responsibility to review that and and take a look at traffic impact studies.

But the police report would tell me how efficient the traffic development is in their planning.

Oh, there you go.

So what do we got back then, Mr.

Traffic Engineer?

So Mr.

Chair, Commissioner Keho.

The applicant has submitted a traffic impact study.

Um that is not required at this stage, but they have proactively uh submitted that.

We are working on review of that.

Um and you know, we've had comments back and forth a couple, and we're close to uh finalizing that report um and having the final um version with the required improvements that the development will be required.

Typically, a traffic impact study is not required until the platting action.

Um, and so that is the typical process would be that the platting action where the the here is a hearing as well, would have the finalized traffic impact study and those reports in.

Okay, but what you're talking about is your expectation of what's going to happen in the future.

What I want to know is what's happened in the past.

What kind of traffic problems do we have already?

So if you would like uh while we're hearing public testimony, I can certainly pull up the accident history in the area to see if there's anything red flags from an accident history perspective.

Um, and I will let you know after the public.

I would appreciate it.

I think we'll be here for a while, so take your time and Mr.

Chair.

Um one caution I would have is that um we'd be careful about um we can't require that a development fix the problem that is already there.

I that it's legally not possible for us to do that.

Um we can require that they cover any added impact they have on the community.

And so while it's helpful to know, and I I understand why the question is being raised, it's it's helpful to know how the traffic is right now, what the speeding is like.

Um we I would just caution us to be careful about assigning um this development to correct it or to be responsible for that in any way.

Mr.

Chairman, if I may speak and James and IT, is this working?

Okay, our lights aren't working on our two mics here.

So just to echo Rodney's point, um, when it comes to the impact, yes, you can do prospective impact mitigation fees, right?

But that's only for certain infrastructure that they'd be impacting.

And yes, to Rodney's point, um, it's often the case when you look at these decisions.

This is a legislative action decision.

It's annexation and initial zoning, and oftentimes you think okay, that's just carp watch, anything and everything can be put on the table as a reason.

Um it's more open than you see your CUPs, variances, right?

The playbooks a little more open here for you what you can do, but you're not allowed to just do everything you want.

There is some limitations, and it can't arbitrarily put a burden on a developer that they didn't create for that concern.

So just to put a final point on Rodney's your um assertion here.

Thank you.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, um he brought up something that I was gonna allude to also about the traffic, and and with all due respect um to our engineering department.

When we're looking at a project this big, we know that it's big because we've we've seen it here.

We don't know exactly what's gonna be in, how it's gonna look when it's developed out, what's commercial and housing and all that, but we know it's gonna be big.

So I understand the the requirements of a of a TIS at the point that it's required, but it seems like sometimes we get the cart before the horse on these on these big projects like this.

Logic logic dictates, and anyone who drives that area, and I do every about 87 times a day, knows that the traffic is I mean it's it's it's obvious.

So I I don't understand, and maybe I'm getting ahead of myself, but I don't understand why we wouldn't have some type of a traffic impact study, even if it was just general to to refer to when we're being asked to consider the annexation.

I and I understand it's just the annexation.

We don't know exactly how it's gonna build out, but we got a pretty dang good idea.

But having that information, as well as what Commissioner Keh was talking about, as well as the you know the police activity and all that other kind of stuff out there, and I know that's gonna come down, but again, that's that's what I'm saying.

Sometimes it feels like we get the cart before the horse because it's already getting if this is approved tonight, it's already annexed in.

It's you know, and it and they're they're they're good to move down the road.

And then we look at the plating and all that other kind of stuff and have those hearings at that time.

Again, it just seems like sometimes we don't act in a logical in a manner.

And I'm throwing up I'm throwing all of us under the please.

Yeah, please please it's but again, I I think these are legitimate concerns, and I think we're gonna hear obviously some of those tonight, but uh but again, and I understand the the the legal process a lot, but I don't know.

I guess I'm just looking for validation or make it chair.

And I don't even know who I directed that comment to.

I I did invoke engineering's name, so Mr.

Chair, Commissioner Kirkman.

Yes, they have already undertaken a traffic impact study, um, and it is under review.

So why don't we have that to consider before we make this decision tonight?

I guess that's that's more of my question.

Generally speaking, um those are things we look at at the plating time when we know the lots and and that um from a master planned community standpoint, oftentimes what the uh the other ones that have come through, they have provided a scope of what they will study in the traffic study, but not a full traffic impact study.

Um and so that's generally what uh the practice has been for those that have come before this one, um as to if it's the commission and the council's will in the future, we can certainly look at a code change that requires a traffic impact study at the time of annexation for a development of whatever size the commission and the council feel appropriate, but that would take a change to our adopted policies.

Okay then I appreciate that, Daniel.

Yeah, I guess to keep on the theme of traffic.

I think there's going to be some comments on it tonight, so I hope we could start with a common understanding.

So I've got a couple questions.

Um what is the that Robinson overmass?

I know we're not here to debate it tonight, but it's currently in design.

So the um we are working on grants um and that we have design work underway.

Um it is preliminary design work.

We're not designing construction drawings today, but we are working towards the construction of an overpass there at Robinson over the railroad tracks.

Um no, we would anticipate grants for construction as well going forward.

Um but those obviously grants are subject to being awarded them, so I don't have a specific we're going to build it this year in our capital improvement plan.

Um the estimated construction year is um 2028 to 2030, probably.

Um I I think that's pending grant approvals and and that uh would would be what we would be looking at.

Okay.

I meant to look this up before the meeting, but the highway 16 interchange.

Is there a connection straight from Robinson?

Or do you have to go up to Franklin and then go to 16 and then the the city is currently working towards a southerly connection to that interchange?

Um that is something that um we are actively pursuing with uh the highway district and with the um the highway district partnering with us, we're lead on that and working with ITD to push that forward.

Um I don't know when that will um ultimately be a thing, um, but that is something that the city is pursuing, recognizing the need for.

Okay.

Can you speak to that proposed collector that was on the yes?

So the proposed collector, um, that the proposed collector on the map um would actually not cross the railroad tracks, it would come uh towards the railroad tracks and then head north back up towards Amity is what the proposal in the city's um future uh street map shows rather than it just coming across and connecting there at Greenhurst.

So it would connect with Amity or Happy Valley?

Uh no, it would turn there at about the half mile point and run north to Amity.

So there's already a small road there, is it the same one?

Yeah, it would be an improvement of that in the future.

Approvement of that road.

Yeah.

Oh, so it's not going to connect them to that intersection.

No, it would not connect into that intersection.

It will not connect to Happy Valley or Greenhurst.

It will go come over, run north to Amity.

Okay.

And be a mid-mile collector.

Oh, that's true.

Uh I believe so.

Okay.

Um does.

Sorry, I'm almost done.

A little noisy.

Um is there anything in your capital improvement plan for the whole Greenhurst Happy Valley railroad?

So uh Greenhurst and Happy Valley, I don't have anything in there currently.

There is currently a roundabout there now.

Um our capital improvement plans are five-year plans.

Um, obviously, with a build um, you know, a 20-year build that we're talking about here as we go through and projects drop off and projects.

I would anticipate uh city improvements to that uh roundabout uh to improve that.

The traffic study that they've identified uh has identified improvements to various intersections that will be needed uh due to background traffic that the city would uh likely undertake during that time frame of development of this property if approved.

And I'm more I'm more interested in your plans for the railroad crossing than I am around about.

And so that's why we've targeted one at Robinson, and then we obviously have the one up a uh King's Corner.

And so that would provide two two opportunities there in the southeast corner of town for crossing the railroad tracks at a non-grade separated or at a non at a grade separated crossing.

Okay.

Mr.

Chair, can I add a question to his?

What about uh locust and happy valley?

Wasn't there a roundabout or is there a roundabout plan there?

So there is a roundabout plan there uh as part of the developments that have happened, the Harvest Creek, the uh Terrace Falls, and the uh Victoria Fault.

No, Terra Salls.

Um and Southern, not Southern Ridge, um New York Landing, those developments have contributed to uh a fund that will ultimately build that.

Um it was likely that when this when the plates come in for this development, it's likely that we'll be we would require contribution to that intersection to to end up building that.

So no timeline, yeah.

Yep.

No, we're all good.

Okay.

They're all good down there on that again.

Okay, madam clerk.

We have a sign-up sheet.

I know we do.

We do.

We have 18 signups.

Would you like to do a couple on deck?

Yeah, let's do a couple on deck.

Okay.

All right, our first speaker will be David Sanchez, followed by Amber Abersturi and Tanya Gratham.

The famous David Sanchez.

So we can figure it out.

There's no David to figure it out.

Maybe he had to leave.

So Amber.

And please read your name and address.

And just street address.

Yeah.

My name is Amber Aberistery, and my address is 4475 East Salmon River Street.

I actually live just across Happy Valley from the proposed development right there between Locust and Greenhurst.

My husband and I bought our house there just over 16 years ago.

Um Commissioner Kehoe, I was just gonna note that it's actually the Canning County Sheriff's Office that usually responds to traffic accidents and things in that area.

So might need to get information from them.

Um but I signed up as not you know not having a for or against, and so some of that is because my husband and I have four kids, two of whom are theoretical adults that I would like to have them be able to buy a house someday and move out of my house.

So I'm not necessarily opposed to the development as is.

I think you know we need housing.

Nampa's a great place, and I understand people wanting to live here.

Um, you know, and I think as we've all noted, this is a really big development, and I am actually going to, of course, mention traffic impacts.

And I do understand that there's some existing problems, but as well when you're looking at whether something like this is in the public interest, considering that you already know that there's stress in that area, and then considering that the city was not able to get the transportation bond passed, um, sources of funding are limited, and just ask that you keep that in mind.

The development that's already happened in the area has been very aggravating for both the impacts of the construction and the traffic.

And I actually just shift my work schedule so I work nine to six now, so that I don't have to try to drive Happy Valley any time between 6:30 a.m.

and 8 30 a.m.

So um, and I would really rather not try to work from like 10 to 7.

I like to be home for dinner.

So and as much as you know, I'd like for us to have the funds to just be able to fix all of those things, we don't.

And so that's just something to think about.

And then I was also going to mention that I don't know if the school district is consulted for comments.

Um, but we are one of the few areas where the schools are actually pretty solidly full.

Um, some other parts of NAMPA they have a little bit more capacity, and so I just encourage you to look at that as well.

Um have I all my kids have gone through the NAPA school district.

I've got one in elementary and one in high school right now.

Um, and that can be a big impact.

That's all I had.

Thank you.

Thank you.

No.

My name is Tanya Grantham.

I live at 2117 South Church Hill Drive.

Um I'm here at uh HOA vice president for the Triple Crown Estate, and we are wanting to make a statement for this.

I'm reading less than a mold.

I'm not here to oppose the growth.

I'm here to oppose reckless growth.

That ignores the realities of our infrastructure, our safety, and our communities' needs.

Our roads department can't even maintain core roads that we already have.

Remember President Bush asking Nampa to fix the roads on a national speech?

Still not done.

Adding thousands of homes, apartment complexes, and shopping areas will overwhelm roads that are already unsafe.

Greenhurst backs up over a mile at lights, and the railroad crossing is a hazard.

If you have the overpass over at Robinson, the ambulance has to go there.

So that's a delay in response time.

Drainage is failing, new houses are being built so close remediation companies.

I'm getting nervous, sorry, are already finding mold due to poor drainage.

Where is the planned runoff management for this ecosystem?

Our irrigation system is struggling, water pressure drops at peak months, and taxes keep rising.

If thousands of homes are added without upgrades, families will face shortages and higher bills.

I live in a subdivision that's over 20 years old near the proposed area.

The city approved an LID to remove our lift station and connect it to the city sewer.

After a year or more, there's nothing been done.

We've contacted the city multiple times with no reply.

Why approve thousands of new homes and apartments when existing projects are unfinished right near the proposed area when other apartments are already built and yet not full, and more are being built down Happy Valley and Railroad.

An example of this problem is NAMPA ordered an upgrade of the wastewater treatment facility to meet EPA phosphorus limits and new water quality standards for Indian Creek.

The project cost 182 million, one of the largest in NAMPA's history.

Because the city had not set aside funds through infrastructure planning, it relied on bond measures and utility rate hikes, requiring a vote that felt forced because of mandatory compliance.

If residents hadn't approved it, Nampa would have had to face penalties, which would have been pushed onto the taxpayer and lost the ability to discharge treated water legally and lose lose situation there.

We had to pay no matter what.

This is a sign of reactive planning instead of pro-planning.

When will this stop?

Police response time has gone from five minutes to about 30 to 45 minutes in my area.

That delay can cost lives.

My son has almost been hit four times at the bus stop this year.

Fire services are strained, hydrants fail.

The one at the new division down by Happy Valley, I saw a hydrant fall all the way in the ground, and it sat there for months before it was fixed.

Unusable.

It took forever to get it fixed.

Homes are packed so tightly, one fire could destroy an entire block.

Do you remember Columbia Village in Boise in 2008?

19 homes destroyed.

One BSU professor perished.

Growth without investment in emergency services is dangerous.

On behalf of Triple Crown Estates and its homeowners, I urge you to pause this development until the city can guarantee infrastructure, emergency services, school needs to be.

Growth never comes without safety.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Bob.

Next we have Bob's son and Mary Joe Antill.

Followed by Scott Miller.

Bob Sohn, 5401 East Terrace Falls Court.

Everything in the confines of these four streets is low density right now and very low density.

We are definitely the definition of the city of sprawl where we're at.

We all understand that progress is moving forward and that land will be developed, but we're asking for consistency, which I believe is a rule.

Consistency to keep all the low density detached single family homes in that area.

Under local land use planning act, I believe that we have to ensure that the development is compatible with the surrounding area.

I don't believe it is.

We are getting more and more increased traffic down on locusts due to the traffic on victory and amity.

Everybody keeps going south trying to get the boise.

The fire marshal says it's 3.2 miles to the fire station.

It's 4.2 to the center of the block.

And if there's a train, he's not coming down greenhurst.

He's got to go five.5 miles to get around.

We only have one engine covering that whole Southeast Quadrant right now.

And you want to add 6,000 people.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I live in the new Terrace Falls development that butts up to the proposed development.

Let me say, start out by saying I'm not opposed or against development of single-family detached homes, which are low density.

Most of the land, homes, the land and homes in our area are large lots, at least 12,000 square feet.

We do not live in area where there are multifamily homes, rentals, condominiums, or townhomes.

We moved to this area just for that reason.

The traffic in our area is already impacted with the development of this proposed property.

It will hugely add more resident and construction traffic.

I've sat in traffic on Happy Valley for at least 15 minutes, which can back up all the way to Locust Road when the train is stopped or residents are making their way home from work.

What type of infrastructure is in place to not have the traffic be even more impacted?

Also, the development across from Terrace Falls on Locust Road is expanding.

They are finishing putting in additional roads and multiple detached single family homes.

How will your how will the development with most of the homes being condominiums, multifamily homes, further impact the quality of life and safety?

We were told that the water supply is already low in our area and not to use our city water to water our trees, lawns, plants once the irrigation water is turned off.

Which and with your proposed development, where is the extra water going to come from?

We were attracted to NAMPA because of the low density large single-family homes and lots in our area.

If we wanted to live in a high density area with condos and town homes, we would have picked a different area like Meridian or Boise.

Thank you for your time.

Good evening.

Okay.

A couple of the items that I want to talk about have already been covered.

I'm sorry, Scott Millar, 704 Sherry Lane, NAMPA.

I think instead of the apartments, this community needs senior housing.

We need, if you're going to build small houses, have a 55 and over community in that area instead of multi-level multi-dwelling units or apartments.

Second of all, water, as the lady just spoke, is it's an issue that's here.

Eastern Idaho is crying for water, Arizona, Nevada.

You should, if you approve this development, make sure it's a drought tolerant, low water usage irrigation.

Because the Boise River system only has so much acre feet every year.

We've been blessed to have wet winters lately, but after a wet cycle comes a dry cycle.

And drinking water is another huge thing.

Where are we going to get the extra water for all these houses?

We don't have a drinking water reservoir on the Snake River or the Boise River, and the aquifer out there is not going to support all these extra houses.

So you're going to have to come to a place where you realize do we service the people we have or do we make everybody suffer for the lack of water?

Lastly, is the road infrastructure will not handle thousands of extra vehicle trips a day out there.

The city has to put some money and some effort into highway design, highway ingress, egress, and the other thing I would strongly recommend on this development is the developer pay for a fire station out there in this community.

I think that's only fair because you cannot save lives if your emergency time is more than five to seven minutes.

You're gonna lose people, the city's gonna get sued because there's not proper emergency EMT services out there.

There's not gonna be enough water out there, and there's certainly not going to be enough irrigation water out there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yep.

Hi, my name is Taylor Barron, and I own the property at 2613 South Rhine River Court.

I have been there for six years.

Um I'm not opposed to the development, but I do feel like we're lacking a lot of the planning.

Um and this, so I just have some questions and concerns.

So the first one is I do not want the main entrance to be across across from ours.

We enter on the Happy Valley side, and based on the plans, it looks like that probably can't even be moved.

But I have had to actually stop using that entrance because of all the building of the developments to the south.

Sometimes I can't even get out of my neighborhood anymore, and so I am concerned about that being one of the main entrances, and I've already moved my route, and it's very difficult to turn left out of our neighborhood.

Um I also let's see.

So I am curious like who's responsible for the road winding.

I heard you guys talk about, you know, some of these developers are responsible for like a roundabout, but what about the actual road widening to the interstate?

I've lived here for six years, and when I first moved there, I honestly don't want to live there because it was kind of far, um, but I had no choice.

Um, and you know, I had a choice.

Well, I didn't have a choice because of the the housing situation, and so I bought there and now my commute has gone from seven minutes to during peak times, it's easily 15 minutes, and I've actually sat at the roundabout just too north from us for like 15 minutes waiting for my turn because so much development has also happened to the west, and those people are now coming east, and we can't even get a turn to to keep going, and it's really difficult, and so I just would really like some help.

I know it's not this development's fault that we have this congestion, and it's actually multiple developers.

And so, how are we gonna address this and how can we widen this road?

Because that's the ultimate issue.

I don't care about the development, it's gonna happen no matter what I want.

But can we make our you know quality of lives better um by addressing these situations?

Um I'm curious.

Can the schools, you know?

I don't have kids.

Um, and you know, can these schools accommodate this without further need for funds?

And or I'm gonna have to keep, I feel like I'm gonna keep seeing these bonds and levees because you know, we keep adding all these people, and who's responsible for the increase of population?

Is it the taxpayers?

You know, someone made a comment the other day that, oh, well, more houses equals more taxes to pay for these things, but I feel like I keep then why do I keep seeing all these bonds and levees?

And I don't know.

Um I'm very curious about that.

I feel like it's really unfair to put the burden of these developments on the Kenyon County residents who can't even afford most of these homes anyway.

Um the city continues to increase our utilities and our property taxes, and we're seeing minimal benefits from that.

And so I just have a concern for all this growth, and why would we plan for the road issues after we approve it?

That just makes no sense, and I know that you guys have kind of asked that question too.

And so that's just my request is that we address this traffic issue because we still have tons of development happening to the south and to the west, and two developments to the north of me and more to the east, and what are we doing about it?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Naureen Nunez, David Duval, and Walter Eggles Egletston.

Good evening.

My name is Marie Munes.

I live at 5547 East Victoria Falls Drive.

And I'm very much against this proposal.

Single houses at least they'll be paying taxes, which NAPA for me is pretty bad.

Um but multifamily units are just they're not a welcome plan for me.

Uh this also highly affects locust, as we discussed, you discussed low cost, happy valley road, Robinson, and Greenhurst Road, which obviously is going to can increase the traffic tremendously.

I live on locust.

So for me to try to make a left turn onto locust in the early morning hours or late afternoon hours when people are coming and going from work, is um is dangerous to say the least, and I'm waiting there a long time.

Uh this the drivers go so fast, they're just speeding by my house that I never know when I'm gonna hear a crash.

And someone mentioned something about crashes and ambiences earlier.

When the ambulances in the tracks go by my house, they're mostly going to accidents on low cost and happy valley.

So that's what I see most of the time that I'm home.

Um we also have the that we discussed the railroad tracks at Robinson in Happy Valley, which will cause traffic jams.

I'm I'm going over those railroad tracks at least three times a day, so I've been stuck in it.

Um possible accidents, and if you're at the at the Happy Valley Low Custom and then if there is an emergency, how are you gonna get the fire truck or the ambulance when there's a train going by?

And sometimes those trains just stop and you just have to sit there and wait.

So, you know, we moved to Terrace Falls about a year and a half ago.

Um we looked because we like the single dwelling, we like that it was small, and we had just we had never lived in a town before, it was always in the country, and we like the the style of it.

Had we known that a huge amount of people would be moving in so close to us, we would have never moved here.

Please reconsider this decision, this plan and find another way, another area to build.

I I'm asking you also don't vote on this tonight.

There's too many unanswered questions regarding this.

Um by the way, I did not get an invitation to or a notice in the mail to this.

I learned it from a neighbor, and um I'm looking at maybe there's several other people in our neighborhood that I don't see here that didn't get notices either.

So and one last thing.

Um somebody's talking about no commercial around the area.

Well, you just have to go down Greenhurst, and as soon as you get to um Southside, there's restaurants there, there's stores there, there's um gas stations there.

So if I have to go to some place faster, Mr.

Chair Time before I go.

Okay.

Well, thank you all.

Thank you very much for listening.

David Duval, Walter Eggleston, and Mandy George.

Evening, Mr.

Chair.

My name is David Duvall.

I live at I work at 5525 East Greenhurst Road, which is Namp and Meridian Irrigation district.

Okay, I could thank you.

Uh again, my name is David Duval.

I work at 5525 East Greenhurst Road, which is Namp and Meridian Irrigation District.

And I'm also neither for or against, but I just wanted to make home in some of the safety concerns that I've seen.

So the irrigation district has been there for the last hundred years and obviously seen a lot of growth uh going around us.

And I've been at the district for 21 years.

So but in that time, we've made improvements, not just to our shop, but to Greenhurst itself.

We've uh petitioned Nappa Highway in the county for some kind of signage.

We have some heavy equipment coming and going out of our shop.

The uh signs work for a couple of years, but then we actually got a turning lane in there, but all that did was turn it into a high-speed passing lane.

And uh as I'm pulling in the shop in the morning, about six in the morning, I'm trying to turn into my shop and people are passing the uh people headed headed east as I'm going west.

So we've had some some near misses, some near near collisions.

Um police have been a help out there, and I know they do stay busy when they're out there.

And again, like a lot of the other uh uh public has said there's a lot of traffic issues, which I'm not gonna beat that dead horse.

So if there is, if this is approved, I'd ask for not just a turning lane, but a like a deceleration lane going into this new development.

Uh while we tried that turning lane, did it did not work, and it uh I believe it failed miserably.

So another thing is I don't know if we can put an island in there as well on Greenhurst to kind of help with that uh a pat turn of that turning lane into a passing lane.

Uh one of the last concerns I have is around my shop is vandalism.

So we have a lot of equipment uh from the our patrons or have bought.

So I do have concerns with that.

There's some uh I think some apartments or some medium density just south of us at a common area.

That's right next to our fuel shed, so I'd like some kind of protection for my district and its patrons.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name's Walter Eggleston, 4500 East Brooklyn Drive.

I live in the Bridgewater subdivision.

And I think we've discussed the traffic enough already.

You know that it's bad.

Uh I can't get out of the subdivision some mornings of quite a long time because it's backed up all the way from the roundabout.

A lot of that is to do with school buses that go between the two schools that are that are uh there and that's that part, but but uh I kind of got another problem, and it was dressed a little bit there a little while ago.

But we're out on the corner there of town, and we can't seem to get the police department to come out there.

Uh we we're waiting till the kids are racing on their motorcycles up and down the streets there sometimes after dark at night, and we can I I've I went down to the police station three times, said can we get an officer to come out there?

He can set my driveway if he wants to to stop some of that.

But uh you guys could somewhere here, somebody who'd have have a little pull to to get a little bit more help with the police department because you know if we get this new subdivision in there, and I'm not really opposed to it.

I'm opposed to taking good farm ground out and making it into something else, you know.

We need that farm ground.

I was raised a farmer, and and and I think the farming is is very important, but uh anyhow, that's my two bits worth.

Thank you, Sue.

Next we have Mandy George, Josh George, and Brandon Flazer.

My name is Mandy George.

I live at 4648 East Thomas Mill Drive.

I'm in the Bridgewater subdivision, which is right down the road from where this is at.

Um I guess my question is is how many of you have drove those roads during rush hour traffic?

Been stuck between or at 7 a.m.

when the train stops, 6 p.m.

coming home from work, and you wait forever.

It backs up almost a half a mile, clear up to our subdivision.

According to the Nampa Highway District plan, five years, so 2030 is when the Robinson and Greenhurst overpass is projected to start.

That will close that road for probably 18 to 24 months.

That traffic will move down to Happy Valley.

Currently, the road can barely handle that traffic.

Turning lanes are only into the subdivisions.

One of those entrances is at the vineyard subdivision.

There's no turning lane to turn into there right now.

It's right after you get out of the roundabout.

Locust Grove in Happy Valley is a horrible and dangerous intersection.

My kids have been in an accident on that intersection.

Trying to get out on that road during rush hour traffic is impossible.

It's also misaligned if you've ever drove in that area.

The road, it it doesn't go straight.

It literally has a jog in the road.

Makes it that much more dangerous.

And people are like, oh, it can go really fast.

Step on the gas, there's a car accident.

I did request records for traffic accidents, as you had mentioned.

I was told by the city of Nampa that they can only do a small intersection.

I was told to reach out to Canyon County.

That was November 21st.

I still have not received those records.

I'd be happy to share it once I have it.

Speed limit, speed limits on that road is around 45 miles an hour on all of those roads.

We know if it's 45, they're going well above 45.

You can hear it.

Nothing on the happy or nothing in Nampa Highway District or the City of Napa documents indicate that there's any plans to widen any of those roads currently, or add turning lanes.

Along those sub or along every single subdivision, that's where the kids line up every single day to get on and off the buses.

That's also where the vineyards, the vineyard subdivision children line up right next to where that proposed entrance is at.

I've seen multiple people blow past stop signs for those in that particular area and and all the other areas.

Trying to improve or to approve all of those homes, 784 homes, 624 apartments.

I can guarantee you the traffic won't, it won't work, it won't work.

So our request is wait till the Oprah pass is put in.

And also do something with the intersection at Locust and Happy Valley.

Growth is inevitable, it's going to happen, but why can't we be smarter about doing this before this is all implemented?

Thank you.

Oh Brandon Plaiser and Ray Booz.

Brandon Plazier, I live at 3166 South Clearwater Avenue in Nampa.

Um council members, I have three points of concern I'd like to speak on.

First, traffic.

According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers, a single household generates eight to ten vehicle trips per day.

With a number of units proposed, that translates to thousands of new vehicle trips every single day.

NAMPA's own transportation master plan identifies multiple corridors in this part of town operating or at near level of service D, which is a threshold for unstable traffic flow.

This increases congestion and creates unsafe driving conditions.

Second, emergency response times.

The National Fire Protection Association recommends a four-minute response time for life-threatening medical emergencies.

Nampa Fire Department's publicly available data shows that several NAMPA stations already average over six minutes for certain calls.

This is a 50% increase for over national fire over the National Fire Protection Association's critical benchmark.

When we talk about congestion caused by thousands of daily trips, we're not just talking about inconvenience.

We're talking about measurable increases in preventable and irreversible medical emergencies.

Third, police staffing and crime.

The FBI's uniform crime reporting program consistently shows that when population density grows faster than police staffing, property crime rises 10 to 20% within the first two years.

NAMPA police department staffing ratio is already around 1.2 officers per thousand residents, which is below the nationally recommended range of 2.4 officers per thousand residents.

Adding hundreds of new residents and new businesses without increasing police staffing creates exactly the conditions where theft, vandalism, and vehicle break-in spike.

Finally, NAMPA's long-ranging long-range planning documents clearly state that infrastructure should be in place before major density increases, not years after the problems began.

I'm not against growth.

I am against unplanned and unsafe growth.

I respectfully ask the council to slope this proposal down, require infrastructure improvement first, and ensure that safety standards, not developer timelines, guide your decision.

We deserve growth that actually strengthens our community, not strains it.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Ray Booze.

I live at 2017 South Secretariat here in Nampa in the Triple Crown Estates, which is just west of the Happy Valley Greenhurst roundabout.

And I'm not going to beat the traffic thing to death, but it took me 40 minutes to get here because the train stopped.

Just jams up to everything and we'll go on to something else or everyone else is pretty much touched on the uh a lot of the things.

What do I don't?

Is it possible to get up the vicinity map?

Vicinity map is what he was talking about.

If it was possible to pull that up.

So you've seen the new homes that are going in there.

And if I recall the numbers right, um, there's something like 500 uh single family residences.

There are 13 acres of um apartments and townhomes.

And that is going to be, I don't know, if you look just to where it says Columbia High School.

That's just about where this other development is going on right now.

Yeah, I was at the city council meetings for that, and this is just diagonal from this other huge thing that's going on uh proposed.

So right now, um what they've got built their two-story homes, you can jump from roof to roof.

You you look out the window and you see your neighbor's wall.

Someone that's got a single story home, he's never gonna see the sunlight.

High density stuff.

It just doesn't belong out in this neighborhood.

Someone had already mentioned it's not compatible.

This was actually not compatible.

City council was split on the boat.

The mayor decided to go ahead and approve it, and then ask the developer, could you please possibly eliminate some of the apartment?

Um you had mentioned something about getting the cart before the horse.

The horse before the car, whatever it was.

That's uh a lot of what's happening.

And if we end up having this development, getting everything that it gets that one has got what it's already in the process of we're gonna reach a situation on which we really consider the long-term effects of noise.

Everybody makes a little bit of noise when you have 500 homes here, 1,500 more residences right there.

That creates an inner city hum, a noise that never goes away and just starts, it's there forever.

So uh if you're gonna develop this, please get rid of the high density stuff, even mid-density, or possibly start looking at different ways to define my low and medium densities because this is the wrong conduct.

In the wrong area.

Loretta Sharitz will live at 4510 East Alderstone Street, across from Happy Valley from where the subdivisions going in.

Um living next to farmland, you knew eventually it might become a subdivision, so I accept that, but I am opposed to this because I don't want high density in my neighborhood.

I moved out to the country because I like the country.

I lived in Chalice, we had a thousand people there.

This neighborhood is more than the entire city of Chalice.

If I wanted to live in California, I'd move to California.

I feel like that's what we're creating in NAMPA.

I grew up in Boise, I'm I'm an Idahoan, and I don't even recognize my state anymore.

It's it's a place I don't want to be.

And I felt very hurt about that, and I'm hurt about the farmland.

This is farmland that you can never get back.

It's beautiful farmland, and we're just selling our souls to the devil and selling it for the highest to the highest bidder.

And I feel like we have not done our community a service, we're not doing our children a service.

We're creating a place that nobody wants to live.

And you may have these high density apartments and townhomes.

People don't really want to live there.

That's not really the home dream that people have.

They want their own home.

They want a home that they feel like they have time to grow old in.

These are not that.

So I I wish that you guys would turn down the high density, make it a place that people really want to be.

If I had my way, I'd buy the farmland myself, and it would never be subdivided.

That's not reality.

But could we do better?

I think we can.

I think we all want to live in Nampa for a reason, but not this way.

Please turn that down.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Mary Speck, and I live at 4451, East Thomas Mill Drive.

Um, I have never done this before, so forgive me, but um my frustration, I think, is this process.

So um I live directly across the street, but about eight houses in.

So technically, I did not get notice that this subdivision was going in.

And I find that so hard to believe and understand that this subdivision, which will fundamentally change the nature of that entire area.

The people that are gonna be changed don't know until it's annexed, and then they can come in and say, well, we don't want, you know, we want five apartment buildings instead of seven.

But like right now is the important part.

We're we're talking about annexing this gorgeous farmland that Napa is known for.

So is NAMPA just gonna be a city, like and any other city?

Like, what do we have that's special?

But we have special is our farmland, and we're just giving it away.

When I listened to um the woman representing the development, or um she talked about, oh, we're gonna get the the all this green space.

But the green space is the minimum.

The very, very minimum.

In my mind, this is a treasure, and we're we're we're like, oh, sure, sure, sure, sure.

Take it for the minimum.

We should be the maximum.

Like, how can you make this land better?

Yes, development has to happen, but we have a resource, a treasure, and I feel like we don't treat it that way at all.

Um she mentioned the traffic and the roundabouts, they're already bad.

So I didn't hear her talking about adding anything new in.

So what's that gonna look like?

Um I can tell you that I follow social media very closely.

No one is for this.

I I read a lot of people against it.

I went to my HOA, they didn't even know this was happening, and it's directly across the street.

How is that possible?

So um that's my frustration, and I know you guys are doing your best, but I I just I don't understand why we're giving away the farm so easily and so quickly.

And the lack of infrastructure is exactly right.

Everything that everyone says is what I experience every day.

And I'm representing my neighbor who couldn't be here, and I can tell you that there are many, many people that feel this way that you're not hearing from them because they're not in the room tonight, but but they're out there, trust me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our last speaker that has signed up is Hubert Osborne.

Good evening.

My name is Hubert Osborne.

I live at 4199 East Switzerway in the Bridgewater subdivision.

I've got uh some particular things I think need to be changed.

Number one, I'm absolutely opposed to the high density.

My wife used to call them rabbit hutches.

It is completely different than anything in the area.

Number two, uh these people in the rabbit hutches will uh have kids, some of whom will go to the East Valley Middle School.

What provision is made for them to cross the street on Happy Valley, sometimes in the dark, but all but always at high traffic times.

Seems to me that's a very unsafe condition.

And my favorite topic these days is uh I would ask that uh each of the uh dwelling units be handicapped accessible accessible, it could be through the garage, the back door, or the front door, but why would anybody want to deny uh uh the older people in uh in NAMPA access to their home when my wife was not well testified I would have to carry her across the threshold.

I don't think that is fair, and that you guys can change that if you want.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else like to speak?

And if somebody beats you to the mic, just wave me aisle, please.

Thank you.

My name's Steve Bixler, I live at 1905 South Robinson.

Um I'm very much opposed to this development for many reasons.

One, our farm grounds going away, and we're never getting it back.

It would just be gone.

Um this is building uh there's two very large farms just uh north of this development still.

Um you're talking about the uh Robinson deal.

I live on Robinson, that's gonna affect me.

It's gonna affect all the farmers on Robinson.

You know, it's already hard enough to get a tractor out there to get between fields.

You can't hardly do it.

Now we're gonna build five-length highway down through there.

Just gonna make it even worse.

And then their accident rates are gonna go up, and uh we already have issues with that.

So I uh personally think that the impact of the uh vehicles, just like everybody else.

There ought to be some pre-planning to this stuff.

Seems like everything we do is 20 years behind.

So we fix something, but yet we're still way behind where we should be a fixing it.

It don't get fixed in time, and then when we do, we're still behind.

So, you know, there's big development there on uh uh Amity in Happy Valley.

That's all going in there.

Um there's another one just south of that on Happy Valley.

They're building in there.

You know, we're we're building a lot of stuff, and we're not fixing any roads, we're not fixing anything to move people, we're just congesting it.

And the 16 deal on Robinson, if they ever get that new put through, that's just gonna create you you're just shifting the traffic.

So you're gonna take this traffic from Happy Valley, you're just shifting it a mile east.

That's all you're doing.

It's not helping anything.

We're just shifting it around.

So Happy Valley is a shot to the freeway.

Right now, Robinson is not, but there's no plans for Happy Valley to be uh widened or anything to move that traffic going north and south.

So um water is another big issue that uh that we're gonna start having.

Our aquifers are only gonna support so much.

We're lucky here.

We've always had water, never had an issue, but it's gonna come a time when we do, and then where are we gonna be?

Then we'll really be in trouble.

So I'd really like to uh ask that you uh really think about this before you annex this property.

And I have one question for the lady that was up here earlier.

She said there was two accesses, they had to build two accesses on the first phase.

Where are those accesses on the map?

I'd like to like for her to show the place.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name's Emily Cormello.

Um I live at 4317 East Jennifer Drive.

I'm in the Vineyard Point subdivision.

Um, my access points are one of them was into that division, that then the new proposed subdivision.

And as other people have stated, it is it's very hard to turn left.

Um, but I also want to mention that it's really hard to even turn right after coming through that roundabout on Greenhurst and Happy Valley.

And there's actually a pothole right off to the edge of the side of the road as you try to slow down to make the turn into my subdivision that hasn't been fixed.

And it's it's concerning because you're trying to slow down to make that, but there's there's people coming up behind you really quick.

And so, and also that's where our bus stop is.

Um, and so I have the safety concerns.

Um, if that new proposed subdivision is built, um, how long before that becomes another roundabout like they're doing in Meridian off of Eagle Road.

Um, my friends subdivision has been blocked since July 1st, and they have to drive through.

That would leave us one access point into Vineyard Point while they fix that entrance, which is dangerous.

Um we need to have two access points to our subdivision.

Um also I would like I'm not up I'm not completely opposed to new growth.

I understand it, but um I would like the new growth to be water conscience.

My subdivision, the HOA won't even let us put artificial turf in our front yard.

I would prefer not to water that part, but um I would like our new subdivisions to be um water conscience and is this um it was beautiful, um, that lots of green space, but that's also a lot of water.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good evening, my name is Kristen Giles.

I live at 4482 East Alderstone Street, um, right across Happy Valley from this proposed subdivision.

Um I'm here tonight because I'm concerned my husband's concerned.

As you've heard tonight, our neighbors are concerned.

Um we moved here about three and a half years ago from Boise.

We moved here to get away from the city.

As one of our neighbors said tonight, one of the reasons we moved here was because of the low density.

I love our large lot size.

I love our next door neighbor who lives a good distance away from us.

We love her, but we love the distance.

We're not looking for living in the city.

That's why we moved here from Boise.

I was born in Boise.

This is my home, and I chose to live in Nampa.

Within the last year, um, when we first moved out to the area, we would take Happy Valley to the freeway to get on I84.

We both live and work in Boise and choose to live in Nampa.

Um within the last year, we've started taking going the opposite way and going south on Happy Valley and taking Locust Lane into work, and we we get on the freeway at 10 miles every day, and that's the way we come home as well.

Um I've seen the increased traffic in that area, and I'm like, people are on to us, they're doing the same thing.

It's not sustainable growth.

Um the applicant mentioned that there's already extensive development.

She's right, I will not agree disagree with her.

Um we we've mentioned the three subdivisions that are around locust link grain lane.

There's also a subdivision or maybe two on the um north side of the tracks that is still actively growing.

Um it's it's just concerning.

I think we need to focus on keeping up with the growth that we already have before looking at approving future growth because we already have these concerns, and most of these subdivisions are just starting.

Um the applicant noted that there's a need for gas stations in our area.

I did a quick Google search.

Um, the three closest gas stations are within five minutes of my house, and I would imagine they'd be in within five minutes of the the proposed subdivision.

Um the closest one is 1.2 miles from my house.

I don't have a problem driving five minutes to a gas station if I've been driving 45 minutes to work and back every day.

I mean, it's it's not a concern.

I don't, I think we have enough retail gas stations, all that kind of stuff.

I'm not um I don't want more.

Um I'm concerned about the fire department report.

Um the gentleman noted that the goal is five minutes and twenty seconds for fire department response.

And at this time the fire department, their estimate was seven minutes to get to that area.

I did a quick Google search.

My house to the nearest fire department, it is seven minutes without traffic.

So if we're looking at the traffic that our neighbors are talking about tonight, um, you know, a train um that roundabout backed up because they'll come down Greenhurst to get to our neighborhoods.

We're looking way beyond seven minutes.

Seven minutes is a best case scenario.

Mr.

Chair Time.

Um I just ask that um you listen to our concerns tonight.

We're already experiencing significant growth.

We're not keeping up with the current um approved growth, and um I just thank you for listening to our concerns tonight.

Thank you.

Anyways, my name is Kathleen Gibbons.

I've been pleasured to be here once or twice before in the past over the last 20 years that I've lived here.

Um I've been we moved here in 2008.

Uh 3818, East Green Springs Court in NAPA in Clear Springs 1.

Mr.

Kirkman, he's one of my neighbors, but he's in the next subdivision up.

I am in a hole.

I am I have to go through Royal Meadows, Bridgewater, Clear Springs, South Ridge.

I have to go through all the subdivisions to be able to get out of my subdivision.

Okay.

Now I am gonna be 70.

My husband's gonna be 80.

We do not travel during the traffic times in and out of that subdivision, our subdivision.

We just don't.

We let all the other people who need to go to work, need to go shopping, whatever.

I travel Monday through Thursday, and on the weekends, I try not to travel, but maybe on Sunday at around three to six.

I used to live in Temacula, California.

I moved there in 1979.

Nobody lived there.

Nobody.

There wasn't even a street signal coming off the highway.

It was just stop signs.

I moved out in 1990.

Uh I guess 1990 because of the growth.

Because it grew so fast.

The schools weren't prepared.

My son wanted to play football.

So I was chased out of Temecula.

Then I moved north.

Then I went to LODA.

LORDA California.

I had to move out of there too.

Okay, just too much growth.

So my husband retired.

I came out here for almost a year back and forth, driving the whole nine yards, and found NAMPA, and we loved it.

The sidewalks closed up in 2004.

Nobody was on the roads.

But now the traffic is atrocious.

We're out in Southeast Nampa.

It's not fun.

The roads are only sand and oiled.

We have not had any new pavement on any road that I have ever seen except for on the roundabouts.

All right.

In front of Adams Nursery is the worst road I have ever driven on.

It is so fun.

I am, I just pull my hair out every time because I think something's gone wrong with my suspension on my truck because my husband's hitting his head on the headliner.

Okay, it's terrible.

You're laughing, but you know what I mean.

It needs to be fixed, please.

Nonetheless, the left's the rights coming in and out.

I have learned how to go all back roads.

All back roads.

I don't hit Happy Valley.

I don't do Robinson anymore.

But think about it.

Once Robinson opens up down there for that freeway, it's gonna be right past dam.

They're gonna cut right into that highway 26, whatever they're doing, and get right on the freeway.

So Robert's time is crazy.

So anyways, happy holidays to everybody.

Please don't allow this.

Please deny, deny, deny, until you guys can figure out what's going on out there.

And also, seven maples isn't even built yet.

Here's another one.

And the road at East Oklahoma Avenue, please make him widen that road now for the elementary school.

Okay, buses can't get in and out.

It's terrible.

It's atrocious, another one besides Adams, okay?

Anyway, Merry Christmas.

Thank you.

Good evening, Council members.

My name is Laura Stewart.

I live at 3115 South Happy Valley Road, next to what used to be the iconic Greenhurst Nursery, which is now a wasteful seven acres of land, which breaks my heart.

I wanted to come tonight to share a few things.

I know the traffic situation has been beat to death.

I will say when I bought 3115 South Happy Valley back in 2010, I could turn left out of Happy Valley without much trouble.

It takes me over five minutes to turn left and sometimes right, more time at peak traffic hours.

So I am concerned about the traffic.

I understand growth is coming to the valley.

It's not stopping, unfortunately.

If I had it my way, um, I would ban everybody from moving here.

I am an Idaho native.

But I am not in charge, unfortunately.

So I would ask tonight that you guys would not make a decision until you have all of the information.

As far as the police uh response time goes, I will say we had an incident at our home earlier this summer, um, middle of August.

There was someone that wandered onto our property who was high on meth.

It took both Napa Police Department and the Kenyon County Sheriff's Department over 30 minutes to respond because there was so much traffic.

This was at 8 15 in the morning.

It took six of them to wrestle this individual to the ground.

She was a 16-year-old girl and she was 100 pounds.

So I do ask with all high density homes that are being built and all of the other development.

This is something to take into consideration.

I understand that not everybody that is purchasing these homes will be having addiction issues or other problems, but that comes with growth, and with growth we must manage issues.

My other issue is that farmland is going away.

I realize that we cannot tell a farmer to not sell his property.

Um my husband comes from a farming dairy business family.

My son is a chicken farmer.

He has over 4,000 chickens that he has a commercial chicken farm.

He has to rent.

He's 23 years old with an ag business degree, but he cannot afford to buy land over here at all in this state.

He is having to look at what are his options.

So I ask, what are we to do with this intentional growth that we are putting in?

How is a 23-year-old boy who has dreams of becoming an entrepreneur and who wants to grow his business?

How is he able to do that?

How are these new young families?

How are they supposed to be able to purchase a home to grow in and to provide for their families if things are so high and out of balance?

And I think when we have more growth and less of our backbone of agriculture that Idaho is founded on, we have a huge imbalance.

So I would ask the council to really look at what's happening in the city of Napa.

I've lived in NAMPA my entire life.

I'm almost 50.

I miss my city of the way that it used to be.

And I do understand again, growth is happening, but make it responsible.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

My name is Brett Turner.

I live on 5387 East Victoria Falls Drive.

Um relation to Tom Turner that I know of.

Um I won't take too much time.

Everything I've been thinking of has already been said, but just please consider the prospective impact on the traffic, the fire department, the police, um, the schools, and I know you can't control everything.

I I know that growth of some of these things have to has to happen when the growth of the developments happen, it kind of goes hand in hand.

You have to have the people there to pay for these things.

Um our taxes help pay for that.

The uh I know there's impact fees um that have to be considered, so just please take a look at that carefully, and the agriculture land turns into something else when it's worth more uh than the ag land to put crops on it and the higher density of an area of an acre of people living on it, it makes it more valuable.

So more agriculture lands gonna be turned into developments when it's uh higher density.

So I'm not against development, but just consider the density impact and how you're gonna make it work, and that's all I ask.

Thanks.

So I'm Alan Gross.

Uh my address is 3318 South Robinson Boulevard.

So I'm the guy that owns property, they got to put the overpass on.

Um I know traffic is the big deal for me.

It's one of the big deals.

Um if you look at the design though, you come over the overpass, you go directly into a roundabout, you go back to the west, hit another roundabout.

And if you I would say my humble opinion, it's designed to move traffic north and south, not east and west.

I think you'll still have problems moving traffic east and west because you gotta go through two roundabouts to hit Robinson.

So if you're coming down green earth, you have to hit a roundabout, then you go to the south southeast, hit the second roundabout, and then you have to go back up over the overpass or the other way anyway.

It's not a nice clean cut.

But you asked earlier about traffic situations in that area.

Um since I've been there, or since I sit in here remembering, there's been three deaths at uh locust and robinson.

There's two deaths at Robinson and Green Earth.

There are been seven accidents in front of my house.

So the roundabout has helped some of that, but I want you to know dad doesn't include all the new traffic.

That's happened in the past with a lot less traffic.

And then my other concern is if this does go through and water becomes an issue.

I want to know that the developers want to pay for a new well, the replacement well if it goes dry.

I know South Boise that's a big problem, but I don't want to I don't want to be penalized for something they do.

So anyway, that's my two cents thanks.

Anybody else?

Hello, my name is Richard Antill, and I live at 541 Southern East Falls Court.

And I wanted to talk about a couple of things.

The first to me is uh the big issue is water because of the um situation with the irrigation district and the fact that we can't we're not supposed to water a plants once that goes out.

Umscaping costs a fortune these days, and if everything dies, you know, you gotta replace it.

Second is I wonder what the city or what the state of Idaho is going to do about power.

All these new homes are gonna require power, either electric or gas, or both.

Do we have enough power?

The business is taking a lot of power for their I AI generation.

Will there be anything left for us, or are we gonna have to uh pay extra to build new infrastructure for that?

And I think that's a big issue besides the traffic.

The other part about the traffic is last winter we had a pretty good inversion layer.

And when you have 200 cars sitting at a road roundabout or at a railroad crossing, um it it sort of makes a little bit of pollution in case you haven't noticed, and you know, it it becomes hard to breathe.

I do have emphysema, so to me it's sensitive.

Um it's something that you really need to think about besides the traffic is the pollution that is contributing to everybody in the area.

Those are my concerns, thank you.

Thank you.

Cindy Bixler, 1905 South Robinson Boulevard.

My husband's family has been there since 1972.

I've been there about 30 years.

The change that's happening is devastating to us.

That's a dead man walking right there.

He had a piece of equipment breakdown out in front of our house on Robinson, and all the jack wagons that are driving this area anymore, almost killed him.

It was scary.

But it's something that everybody should be aware of.

Something has to happen with the police or somebody has to stop the crazy driving right now.

It's gonna kill somebody.

It already has, it does.

There's been many accidents.

We're right where Lake Hazel dead ends.

People come flying right across there, right into private property.

It happened two weeks ago.

Kid on a motorcycle.

Granted, he was drunk, but probably saved his life because he was probably nice and relaxed.

But it's terrible.

Couple of points I would like to make.

I challenge the developer to tell us how they're gonna widen Greenhurst Road to allow for any traffic.

The railroad tracks are here, the irrigation district is here, and there's no room for them to go.

There are things that are in the way of widening the road.

So unless they buy all those houses that are right along the road there and knock them down, they can't widen the road, and that's not gonna help traffic in the east and west.

Not a bit.

So ambulance had to come from Middleton.

Now, fortunately, he wasn't in an emergency situation, and he survived that trip.

But that was five years ago we didn't have enough ambulances, so it's not gonna get any better.

And where does that money come from?

The school bonds and levies, the ambulance bonds and levies, the the uh police, not police station, but the jail, all this stuff.

You know, the latest school bond levy is gonna cost us with our small 23 acres about 1,700 a year for two years.

And like 4,000 people showed up to vote on that bond.

Mr.

Chair Time.

Um, one question.

How much rental versus homeowner in this development?

I'm very curious about that.

And um ambulance, police department, fire and schools.

Those are all hugely impacted with 1,500 residences.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Good evening.

Um Tim Dyke.

Live on 4322 East Alderstone.

Just across to subdivision across Happy Valley.

Moved there 20 years ago.

And we live next to Osborne Park, so I wanted to recognize the farmer that gave his land.

Okay, sold land for Osborne Park that we walk down every day.

So thank you.

And I think if I had one thing to emphasize of what everybody has said is please get rid of the high density.

Now I began 20 years ago riding my bicycle down Happy Valley to go work at the airport.

I can no longer ride that happy valley on a bicycle.

It should be made into a four-lane, the amount of traffic on it.

But as the traffic man said, we really can't fit that into that area.

Okay.

One last comment has not been dealt with at all, but uh in the planning for this subdivision, you included uh uh bike walkway along the canal, which is wonderful.

That's what we should have been doing throughout our entire NAMPA history.

And around NAMPA Park, I mean round Osborne Park is a walkway, but it doesn't connect with any of the walkways along the rest of NAMPA.

So if uh there's not a map up right now, but if we make this uh subdivision have a walkway, where does it connect with the rest of the walkways, bikeways that go through NAMPA?

For about 20 years, we've approved many subdivisions in this corner of NAMPA that did not allow for the bike path, the walking path to be connected with the main one on the other side of town.

So please consider that.

The main connection would be at the intersection of Locust and Happy Valley.

That's where the trail actually comes, so that goes by Osborne Park.

That's my only comment.

Thank you guys.

Good plans, and thank you guys for serving me.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Um Rodney, how should we handle questions?

Because I've got a lot for staff, and maybe some of those will answer some that we have for development.

Do you want do you want staff to answer questions first?

Is that what you're saying?

I think the applicants make them well and I I think I think that I've got two pages.

And probably got a lot of the same questions written down.

Well, but most of them are staff related.

There's a lot that I don't think she's gonna be able to answer that are Daniel and staff questions.

So we're happy to do whatever you want to do.

I think if we get those out of the way, maybe it'll make it easier for um.

So Daniel.

Um for this development.

What would be the road required improvements um required by the TIS, and when would those need to be implemented?

So Mr.

Chair, there will be multiple improvements that their TIS has identified.

A number of them are turn lanes at various intersections, um, some intersection improvements to existing intersections and relatives like that.

Um in the traffic impact study, um, it identifies the triggers for those, and at what point within the development they are required.

So they they look at okay, this improvement is triggered by the development.

At what point within the development do they need to have that in?

Is that with the first phase, the second phase, or typically they will just give us a number of units uh that then when they cross that threshold, the phase that builds that that number of units would be required to implement those improvements.

Okay.

Uh second thing.

Can you explain where the entrance would be?

A lot of people have a concern about the entrance across the room.

Rodney will put up the the uh and just explain why engineering and department wants it the way that it is.

So typically when we look at intersections um and approaches out to the existing roadways we we try to align those with the existing roadways that are there so that we minimize conflict points for turning movements and that will also um trigger uh turn lanes at those intersections to um help operations at those intersections that's one of the ones that I know as I've looked at that it requires some turn lanes there at that entrance at Vineyard Point.

The other entrance that they are looking at is out to Greenhurst Rodney if you can so those are the two entrance points with that first phase that they were discussing and then obviously they have some other entrances out in those latter phases.

Okay.

So they will be required to meet city code for the frontage improvements on collectors and on arterial roadways the they are required to put in sidewalks and turn lanes as warranted by the traffic impact study or widening as is required by the traffic impact study.

Oftentimes the lane widenings are triggered at the intersections for those turn lanes but may not be triggered on the roadway it the intersections can handle a lot of traffic or or the the roadways themselves with proper turn lanes can handle quite a bit of traffic compared to the intersections and so typically the intersections are improved first and then later as the traffic volumes increase we would do full widening to add lanes for capacity and that would be done typically through if if not triggered by the TIS for the development it would be done through impact fees that the developments pay um at the time that those improvements become warranted.

Okay.

Is there any way that that will ever improve um the the challenge there is that that is our adopted level of service is level of service D.

That's that was set when we did our initial impact fees and so our impact fees that we collect are to maintain that level of service.

If the city wants to improve and adjust our our minimum levels of service that we look at we have to fund the the city not the development community not the impact fees we have to fund those improvements to raise that level of service on the existing system in order to then be able to collect to that higher level of service.

And as we're all aware the the funding for roadways within the city in the state of Idaho is challenging and so I won't say that that will never happen but that will be something that will require some new funding mechanism be identified to help facilitate that.

Okay.

And that's irrigation as well as potable.

So when we when a farm ground comes in as a subdivision those surface water rights are um trans we annex that property with into our municipal irrigation district and the existing water rights that are utilized for flood irrigation are then um routed to irrigation pump stations that put that into the pressurized irrigation system and so with the addition of this property it would bring the existing surface water rights with it that would take care of that when we look at this plaque we'll look at um whether or not it triggers the need for a new pressure irrigation pump station that would then be um funded through impact fees to develop um I would anticipate that with a development this large we are probably looking at a new irrigation station that the developer will build and we will fund through impact fees and then those surface water rights would be used at that pump station to irrigate the the development and other developments within the within the area.

Thank you.

Oh, on for uh domestic potable water.

Um there's been some conversation about you know the not wanting uh the use of that for irrigation.

Um the reason behind that the city, we we maintain two separate irrigation or dip water systems.

The domestic potable water system, which is uh all taken from groundwater wells, and that, and then we have the pressurized irrigation system that is uh combination of some groundwater wells and mostly surface water uh pump stations.

Um in this area uh our domestic ma water master plan has identified a the need for a new well generally in the southeast part of town, but not for a number of years.

Um and so our existing domestic water system um has capacity um beyond what what the existing development utilizes.

Uh when we get the actual plat application, we will run models and verify that um whether or not uh there is a trigger for a new domestic well.

If there is, again, that would be something we would work with the developer to identify a location and then to fund through our impact fees.

Okay.

Um sidewalks uh two schools.

So the sidewalks are are challenging in areas where we do not have full continuity of the development property.

Um as you can see on this uh plan, there is a portion to the northwest um where the it is not a part of this annexation or development application.

Um so getting sidewalks and that through those areas can be challenging at the time of plating or uh as a condition of annexation.

Um that is something that you could um place as a condition that they um place the sidewalk within that area to allow that to get to the intersection of a roundabout um that would uh provide continuity of pedestrian facilities from there all the way to the uh East Valley Middle School.

Um I would anticipate though that this would be an area that far enough away that it would be bust rather than you know walking, but that's there may be somebody else that could speak to that.

Well, I I think I think more than anything what I was looking for is just kind of an explanation so people understand that that's also would still be county property.

So it's hard for the city and hard for us and hard for city council to make any kind of requirements because it's not city land, hasn't been annexed until that happens.

There's not really any avenue for the city to require sidewalks to be built on that county property.

So I think that's what I think is hard for some people to understand why does a subdivision go in and the curb gutter and sidewalk goes in, but then it stops and then it starts again and then it stops and it starts again, especially up and down Greenhurst.

Umce this is so close, it's familiar to everybody that's here.

I think that's just kind of a clarification.

So thank you.

Mr.

Chair, can I ask legal just a quick question on that?

Would we would we be able to put that thing loud?

Would we be able to make that a requirement that in order for them to get this annex that they would have to put that sidewalk across somebody else's private property that's not even in the city?

Could we we couldn't make that a stipulation on this at all, right?

Or am I thinking wrong?

Commissioner to put up Mr.

Chair, if I follow up on that.

So where this and this where the entrance and egress comes out onto Happy Valley right there, right across the road, there's an entrance into the other neighborhood.

So one of my questions was gonna be so happy Valley right now is is Happy Valley is it a shared jurisdiction with the county or do we own the west side and they own the east side kind of a thing?

One second, let me pull up my map here.

If this property were annexed.

So Mr.

Chair, Happy Valley in that area has been annexed into the city limits, so the the roadway itself jurisdiction is all within city of Nampa.

Okay.

Um as to a hawk at that location, um that's something that if we wanted if if the commission wanted um my recommendation would be that uh you request or require that they do an analysis to see if there is a warrant for that at that location.

Um we don't want to put things in that don't are needed because that that adds to the city's responsibility to maintain, and if it's not something that's warranted, um it's it's an expense to the city um for maintenance as well as then there's an expectation that um it's paid attention to and oftentimes if it's underutilized um people it becomes background noise and is not does not necessarily improve safety uh because of lack of use, and so people are tend to notice that pay attention for a while, and then when they see it's never used, it it becomes background noise and and can potentially be an issue.

So that's why we don't look at putting we we do not like to put things in that are not warranted um per the engineering standards.

So if if you were to want to look at that, my recommendation would be that uh you require that they do a warrant analysis to determine if one is appropriate at that location.

I think okay.

I I think a crossing there would be much more appropriate than a crossing at the roundabout.

But a pedestrian crossing.

Okay.

Um yeah, police higher response and how and when are they added per subdivision development?

That's more for Rodney, maybe.

Well, so uh the one other question that for the Commissioner Keho had.

Um I have looked at the accident history in the area.

Um there is nothing that um stands out as uh heavier accidents than we would anticipate in the area.

Um and so I I don't see anything that from an accident history standpoint that would be a red flag for the for the development.

Thank you to Jenny on that.

So wait a second.

No, I answered the question.

So now I have another question.

Uh Mr.

Chair, if I could.

So um what is heavier accident mean?

Injuries.

So property damage.

When we look when we evaluate uh accidents, we're looking at the last five years.

We don't that's generally what we look at.

And and as I look at that area, um the number of accidents at the at that intersections around there are not they're they're more fender benders.

Yeah, they're they're normal numbers for the number of accidents.

There is one fatality at the intersection of Robinson and Locust in the last five years.

However, the highway district has recently put a roundabout in there that will has addressed um safety concerns there and will significantly reduce um injury accidents, roundabouts are very good at reducing injury accidents.

And so, and what the what the data that you were looking at was that both NAMPA PD and County?

That is the data that is reported to the state, and it includes Nampa data and highway district and sheriff's county office.

Yes, thanks.

That that was Mr.

Chair, I think your question was when do they get contacted?

Is that clear?

No, and so in in a development like this or any and we see in comments from police we're gonna need zero eight officers and fire department will say we need 1.3 officers with so many staff.

What at what point are those officers added?

Yeah, great question.

question was when do they get contacted is that no one so in in a development like this or any and we see in comments from police we're gonna need 0.08 officers and fire department will say we need 1.3 officers with so many staff w at what point are those officers added yeah great question um so it's it's not a clear cut black and white answer but what happens is over time they're they're accounting for all of the development that is occurring and they're saying hey we're we're trying to build our case for new uh new staff to be put in place um what they do though is they don't look at development um at time of building they've they're not looking at what development is coming in the future they're looking at what is needed right now so they look at the population they look at their numbers and they say hey we're at 1.2 we want to be at one point whatever and or two point whatever and and so then they make that request each year to the city council and request for more funding so that that's how that's budgeted uh the fire district is a little different it's a district now it's separate from the city um and so they um they have their own funding source and um and that's handled on on their side uh in both of those situations though development does um res give additional funding to those both of those so in property taxes our property taxes primarily go to the police department so anytime there's new development those property taxes the revenue that's received from um development comes to the the police department to help fund that um but again that's a a city council decision at budgeting time each year and Mr Chair I would note that 2.4 is not the number that the city is targeting um that is at least within the budget hearings that I've been in that that's much higher than the number that our police department puts forward.

Thank you.

And I guess last question or one of the last green spaces and requirements and what is the city's thoughts about Xeroscape.

This great opportunity for me to share some things um so I was a part of the committee that uh handled the drought that it's called a drought task force um a couple years ago when we had uh what was could potentially going to be a significant uh drought for the state of Idaho and in this area specifically and during that process we identified um some codes that could be changed to allow for a much more water friendly development and requirements um we don't uh uh it was noted that an HOA has restrictions on turf the city doesn't have a restriction on turf we have some turf samples that we um have identified that would be um that look a lot like um grass here native grass um and so we are um we encourage that whenever possible um there is some requirement for uh turf in uh live turf in the um buffer areas the landscape buffer areas but we have a now we have a a maximum that they can provide of turf and then the rest of it has to be bushes or um less water intensive um plants so we've come a long way in the last couple of years since that drought um and we have um some standards in place for development to have uh water wise um uh irrigation systems uh so that we check those to make sure that they are um are connected so that when there's rain that it doesn't water too much our our one of our biggest problems in the city is that we water too much you know HOAs will often overwater and will run into our gutters and into our irrigation system we don't want that so these uh newer systems are designed to address that concern thank you okay we're ready I'm ready shouldn't say we're she's she's coming up can I ask just a quick question to staff go ahead it's gonna be fast um so what do you say what's gonna do you wasn't there a proposed fire station at some point for Southeast Nampa I thought there was maybe it was something I was dreaming a proposed fire station for Southeast Nampa there the fire district owns property at King's Corner um I I don't know when their plans are but they do own property there at King's Corner and um where 2nd Street comes in on Southside there.

Thanks.

All right.

Thank you, Commissioners, again, for your time this evening.

And I do want to also thank everyone that testified tonight.

I know it's it's an important issue and this area is changing.

So I appreciate the public coming out and voicing their concerns and their thoughts.

That's something that the city requires.

So and I know that there's some other publications that come out.

So those signs were up.

Hopefully, people saw them.

If they didn't, that's unfortunate.

But I wanted to be clear with the commission that that was the case.

And if you look at the image on the left hand side of the screen, you can see the red dashed line.

So that's the area of impact line.

That's the planning line.

What do we want to see?

You can see where the zoning is right now, parts of the city that have annexed.

Some of it goes all the way out to the line to the um to the eastern uh boundary.

You can see our little project there down at the bottom below Greenhurst.

Um, but really when we look at that, this area of impact, that's the planning uh document from uh, as I mentioned before, that area of impact line was set back in 2007.

It used to be medium density over in that area, and then some lower density, and as the cities evolved, um the planning documents have guided us towards some more mixed use uh uses out there, so not just residential, but some mix of higher density residential and some commercial.

So that's what we really look to when we develop our plan.

As I mentioned, um we are in compliance with the comprehensive plan.

I think that's your first charge is to look at that and say, does what they're proposing in zoning um designations and uses match that staff has found that that the answer is yes.

I understand that this is farm ground out here.

It's been planned for a long time to change.

Um on the west side of Happy Valley Road, those subdivisions started going in in the early 2000s, as I mentioned, Orchard Park, which is a large um city park, was developed in 2006, and so as we've built out to Happy Valley Line, this is the next progression to that.

Um of course we get to roads, and um what I would like to point out in the staff report, um, and there were several recommendations, um, but what you will see is a pretty comprehensive um discussion on what those improvements are.

Some of those are code uh requirements or policies that are set.

Uh Greenhurst, for example, um, we are required to widen that along our frontage.

Um it's a 40 foot from center line, and there's very specific details outlined in the city's policies of what that half of road section would look like.

Um along Greenhurst, we're almost improving 3200 lineal feet of that roadway.

So it's a pretty significant, we stretch almost from uh Happy Valley to Robinson Road, and then likewise along Robinson Road, that's a 50 foot from center line.

And um I did a quick take off, it's almost 2,000 lineal feet, so basically from Greenhurst all the way down to locust.

There's a couple of out parcels, but really um I think staff did a great job of covering that as well that there's turn lanes that will be warranted.

Um the TIS there's uh there's one that's been submitted as we bring in plates, that would be a requirement to make sure that that lines up and um as staff has mentioned that uh a number of units typically triggers what improvements are required when uh locust lane.

We've got both on the north and on the south side um 655 lineal feet, that'll be widened to 50 feet from center line.

Same with on the south side, we're doing uh 55 lineal feet, and then Happy Valley Road, we've got a section of that that's uh 510 feet, and again that's a 50-foot widening.

So we're dedicating um a lot of uh right of way for this that will help to improve that.

We often hear um folks say that they're concerned about that and Mr.

Chair Time Um, if I may quickly finish.

Um so I want to be mindful of that that um a lot of improvements around the valley on projects that we work on.

Um these right-of-ways um often only get improved with developer participation.

Water conservation was another um uh concern.

Uh we have developed other projects that are water conscious.

I think the city, a lot of the cities in this uh valley have done a great job over the last few years of changing their requirements.

It used to be 100% grass everywhere, didn't make sense to me either.

So it's nice to see that those changes are made.

Um I think staff covered um water concerns, power we work with the utility companies, um, fiscal analysis that's often part of when we bring in a plat, the city does uh fiscal uh fiscal analysis of that.

So if folks aren't um that was a comment, and if folks aren't aware of that, that does happen at the platting stage.

And um other than that, I would just you know like to say that you know really thank staff for their time.

Thank you for your time.

Thank the public for your time.

We look at these planning documents.

It's it's a lot sometimes for folks to look at.

I think city council has really put forward instead of getting pieces parcels individually to have a more comprehensive look.

It allows us to provide for more uh connectivity, and you're not seeing things piecemeal, you can see how the entire project comes together, how the open spaces relate, and um I I think uh at this time we're um in agreement with the recommendations from staff and uh request your approval this evening.

So with that I can stand for any additional questions.

Is that any good question?

I have a question at what point and what phase will the roadwork be done, and will it be done in chunks or all at once?

Uh Commissioner Copeland, so uh typically what happens is the frontage improvements happen with the associated plat.

So as I mentioned, we were gonna start in the northwest corner.

So the Happy Valley improvements would be part of that.

Um and then as we as we phase that project.

So Happy Valley is part of that first phase and same same out to our connection to Greenhurst, so there would be some turning lanes.

Um the some of the frontage on Greenhurst would probably come with the second or third phase of that.

Um, but we are required typically to do that up front as as those plats come in.

Okay, yeah, and pieces that as the plat is.

That's that's correct, right?

So you wouldn't do all three 3100 feet at one time.

Um probably not, but that would be something that would be a requirement, maybe at the at the preliminary plat stage, um, and depending on what the traffic impact study says at that time when we submit that plat.

And staff might want to chime in on that as well and how they've done it in the past.

I agree.

It is typically built phase by phase rather than you know all loaded in one phase.

Okay.

Um as the developer, I know it's not a requirement, but as the developer reached out to the fire department of the school district and had any discussions with them.

Uh Commissioner Daffer, so um the fire uh department did provide a comment letter.

Um I I would I would think that there was some conversation with staff on that, but I know there was a comment.

Um they were um they hadn't seen where we had broken out the mix of units, but um there will be impact fees.

Um there is as uh Daniel mentioned at Amity and Happy Valley, I think it is that there's a piece of property that's owned by the fire district.

Um, but I'm not aware of any conversations as far as the school district.

Typically, those letters go out to the school district as well.

I didn't see a comment from the district.

I I I read the start before I was curious if you guys had had extra conversations and wanted to give you credit for it if you had, but uh not that I'm aware of, but maybe someone else on that development team has had those conversations.

No.

Thank you.

There's a slide in your presentation when it shows the community what the open space okay.

Um it's right at the very beginning, I believe.

Anyways, the comment or what's quoted in there is it says community amenities that will be enjoyed that can be enjoyed by everyone.

So my question is gonna be is this master plan community going to be governed by an HOA?

Is that the intention?

So enjoyed by everyone that lives in the community, right?

So Commissioner Kirkman, um there are some improvements that we will be required um to make that will be public amenities that will be open to everyone.

There's a pathway along Ridenball that will be a public uh part of the regional pathway system.

Um there are uh if you look in the staff report, there are also some um pathways along some of our major frontage roads that will be part of that.

Of course, um there will be pathways throughout the community that I anticipate people would use that are maybe not residents of the community.

I mean but typically it would be for the folks the residents in the c in that community, but there are some public facilities as well.

Okay.

Uh I think that's all I have right now.

I did have one question about that.

About the green space that you're at, uh they had you said it was about 15% from what you figured it was.

So my question is since you're doing this in phases.

Does 15% have to be with each phase or overall?

Uh Commissioner Copeland, that's a that's a great question.

Um and that's something that we would probably be directed by staff when we come to the preliminary plat.

It could be a condition of approval of this application.

I think the way that we have phased this and the neighborhoods, we've got large chunks of open space in that first northwest neighborhood that could really serve a bulk of the residents.

The multifamily areas that we've designated will also have their own open spaces.

Um city has some requirements for that, and so as those site plans are developed, um, we would make sure that we're complying both with that city standard as well as uh for the overall community.

But they would be looking at that at um individual plat phases for that.

Okay, thank you.

I'm sorry, you have one more question.

No, you were you anticipating one that's we just know you maybe.

Anybody else?

I have some for staff, but probably after we close public hearing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Mr.

Chair, I move to we closed the public hearing second.

It's been moved by Commissioner Daph for a second by KiVo to close public hearing.

All those in favor?

Aye.

We'll closed public hearing is closed.

More questions for staff, thoughts.

I'd have a quick move if I could for Rodney.

Um this wasn't a master plan community, Rodney.

The zoning codes that they're asking for.

Um those all fit into the future land use map of what what we've chosen to be out there, the high density multifamily, the lower density multifamily is what been planned for that area, right?

Mr.

Chair and Commissioner.

Um master plan community allows some land uses that would not typically be allowed.

So residential mixed use is actually the medium density residential densities.

So MDR densities are 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre.

So with the um multifamily housing that they've proposed that um that allows them to get that.

Otherwise, they wouldn't have been able to.

And so it would require some uh commercial and a minimum of 5% of multifamily residential.

But it's a smaller section.

It's um it's basically this little section right here that would require that multi-family component, but just a small component of it.

Um so what they've done with the master plan is they've kind of just relaxed the strict rules about where that can go, um, and they put their multifamily in some different locations.

Um in addition, the low density residential, um, it's it's pretty much in line with where the low density is already being shown on the comprehensive plan.

So really no concern there that but the um the high density is is something that only can be achieved through the master plan community.

That's what I'm trying to confirm is so if it wasn't a master plan community and somebody just came out and say they like a north quarter, northwest quarter of this, and just did a regular development, they wouldn't be allowed to have this much high density in there.

Not this much, correct?

Mr.

Chair, if I was gonna ask uh one of the same questions, so does no, sorry to spend your thunder.

No, because I'm gonna follow up with something.

So I'll wait till Rodney's done wait till you have the patient.

Other questions or so Rodney, this question is just uh along the same line.

So listening to your response to uh Commissioner Turner, does compatibility even matter with a planned community with a master plan community?

Compatibility with surrounding areas, since they can massage the the rules for density within that master plan community, Mr.

Chair and Commissioner, um yes.

The answer is yes, compatibility matters.

Um you it's hard in the scale of these types of projects are so much different than what we're used to.

When we approve a multifamily development, we're thinking directly next to it sometimes.

Um thinking directly next to it is a single family development, right?

But when you have a master plan community, it's it's much bigger, and so it allows them to have their own transition into their high density residential.

So that's what you need to look at is did they provide that transition?

Um the another point to make here is that their density is it's not higher overall than what would have been allowed.

It's actually lower than what could have been allowed without the master plan community, but the placement of that, it can be connected through roadways, through pathways, you can use landscaping to make this connection and put your high density with internal to your developer.

See, and I think that's where I have one of my one of my concerns is the high density on the edge of this development where there's not really it doesn't seem like there would be that much of a trans.

And we're in the deliberative part of this.

So uh there wouldn't be it doesn't seem like there would be that much of a transition from what's surrounding this master plan community to this high density.

I get it that that's such a huge project, but the whole point is to is it like Rodney was just saying is have that higher density and internally more internally or away from more of the surrounding area.

That's just something I I don't see when the deliberative, I mean it looked pretty good to have it in the middle and set it out on the edges where everybody else has their single family homes, and we have a housing shortage, and I know everybody's dream is to own a home, but it's not on it's not on the middle.

It is in the middle.

Where can you bring that back to the city?

So are you concerned with across the street from on across the street on Greenhurst?

No, I'm I'm concerned that it's touching Greenhurst and the development, there's houses there.

If it was more in the middle, like where the phase, I don't know if you have Romney.

I had the wrong, I had the wrong color.

So I'm gonna do that.

I take that back.

I I was looking at it differently.

I thought I was looking at different maps.

No, okay.

So he he I think correct me if I'm wrong, Jeff.

You're talking about that purple on the very north.

Right at the end of the day, yeah, where the multifamily housing is the high the higher density.

What what with what I was just hearing from Rodney was that with these master plan communities, those higher densities would be more internal, so that would have it'd be a little bit more compatible with surrounding noise, even though it doesn't follow the same rules as a typical development.

So if you look at it on the map changes things a little bit, Mr.

Chair.

Um just just point out clearly the the pink area here is the development, right?

And what they're proposing for higher density is right here.

Right.

So just want to be clear about where that's even railroad tracks.

Railroad tracks, yeah.

Yeah.

And then the commercial properties.

Yeah, let me just quickly turn on the comprehensive plan.

So this is community mixed use.

Right.

And this allows for some uh some larger sized commercial and um some multifamily.

That's what that corner would allow.

But that not being part of the master plan community, then we're looking at more of a compatibility issue with those houses right across the street.

Happy Valley.

But that's down the road.

We're not even that's zone commercial.

Yeah, the corners are well.

He said it could be multifamily housing and also well, no, the park that's already annexed is commercial.

Right there on the corner?

Yeah, mean or just for clarity.

The the these lots right here are not annexed into the city yet.

But this one is this is commercial, commercial, and then this would be uh commercial slash multifamily, and then this would be the multifamily as proposed in the master plan.

And then there's this one that's RS 18, I believe.

My eyesight's getting bad at this time of night.

All right.

So their higher real high density is basically up against great years in the railroad track.

And then the other one.

They do have an internal goes in from there, it goes into the rest of their higher multi-family.

Yeah, and seeing and seeing that property on the corner right there that's across the street from commercial.

I mean, I could see how you could if we were talking about this at some point, but we're not, but how it would transition to what would possibly be built right there where that arrow is if this project was approved down the road.

So I I get that, I get to where the flow is and stuff.

If I could please and I know we all like to see the farmland, we all love it, but it's not our job to tell farmers what they can do with their property.

If they decide they want to sell it, it's up to them.

We can't tell them no when they've got to keep this farm property, so we can't step in and sell them that.

Um I do have some major concerns because I live right there in that same area uh with the traffic with everything that's coming in north of the railroad tracks already, and the rest of the multifamily and stuff that's going up Happy Valley closer to the freeway where we wanted it.

I mean, it's just gonna get worse, and I do have some reservations with adding this much more traffic.

I know it'll take ten years or so to build this all out, but the roads will change by then.

But man, we've we've approved quite a bit just north of the railroad tracks there, and Happy Valley is not getting any wider anytime soon, so I do have some reservations with the traffic issues, Mr.

Chair again.

Commissioner Turner brought up a point that I was gonna bring up, and that was that was the farm.

That was the no no no I uh that was the farmland, and I was thinking as people were testifying that those who brought up the concern about farmland for the most part are actually living on what used to be farmland.

So I just found out a little bit um but the traffic, it's an unmitigated disaster right there, and at Greenhurst and Happy Valley, and that train comes through.

Everything that these people said tonight is absolutely true, and I would actually add by times two.

Um because it is, and especially with school, you got school buses rolling up and down or stopping and starting, and you've got the train that comes and goes.

Yes, you do have King's Road Crossing, which I use all the time.

It's a little bit more convenient for me, but you have you can't even get to King's Road down Greenhurst in the morning.

Um to go over the railroad tracks.

And it with the overpass at Robinson, it's gonna end up being the same way.

And I don't necessarily even see of course we're not in the even in the design phase for that overpass, but that's gonna be tight because the railroad tracks in Greenhurst run right parallel, not too far from each other.

Um the traffic, this is just I don't know, I'm really concerned about the traffic, and usually I say, you know, traffic is traffic, it's gonna be there.

I'm concerned about the the potential for injuries and all that.

Unfortunately, we can't mitigate stupidity because you're still gonna have people that are going too fast and not yielding and not stopping and passing school buses and everything else, and that's that's just stupid people.

There's nothing really the city can do.

We can put in as much control as we can, but so that that concern's always gonna be there.

But it's exacerbated at this roundabout.

It's just this roundabout is too close to the railroad tracks.

We just we need an overpass.

Is that this railroad track crossing?

I am glad that they finally fixed the going over the track so your car doesn't fall apart when you come over when you go over there.

But um somebody mentioned that the backup on Happy Valley from Amity was about a half mile, it's not.

It's it's probably all the way to locust.

If there's and that that's about a train because coming down Amity, I can see it back.

See the lights just a stream of lights all the way down to at least green ours.

So I that I really have that's my biggest concern about this is the is the traffic.

Mine's weak.

So funding-wise, because of the way that the state laws are written, what are our options for improving roads besides raising taxes?

Um getting grants which we are which our transportation group is very successful at doing.

Um the challenge obviously is that there are a lot of capacity grants that allow for improvements for capacity.

There are not very many maintenance grants.

And so that's some of the challenge with with the roadways is that um the way that the grants are set up, there's not a lot there for maintenance of existing roads.

Um it's really set up heavily on the side of um you know safety improvements, um, and those types of things are a lot of the grants that we get, and then larger capacity type things.

Yeah, traffic is a much bigger discussion than tonight, but um I know it's a valid concern.

Yeah, more uh sorry, Mr.

Chair, more so for this particular project in this particular area, I believe.

It you know, it's like a it you can't have your cake and eat it too type of a thing.

You know, we we expect and and we do, we growth it's imp I think personally it's impossible for growth to pay for itself.

It just it it's too expensive.

But we do have growth paying for some.

I mean, we have impact fees and we require certain things for developments to go in and all that kind of thing, and so it does pay for some, it's just never gonna get to the point where it pays for all of it.

Um and I think that's where I'm at right here is that there's not enough gonna come out of this development or really any of the other developments to get to the point where we need to improve that intersection to the point where I think we need it to be.

And Daniel was just saying that.

We just you know we don't have the money for it.

My gosh, I I just but more so I think it's just for this intersection and this area.

Yeah, uh Mr.

Chair, well one thing I will note the the development has accommodated for the uh needed um areas that the overpass at Robinson would need.

Um we have coordinated with them and they have planned for the the roadways that would need to be uh dedicated in um as the overpass comes down and then the reconnection out to um Greenhurst.

We have coordinated with them and they have planned for the the roadways that would need to be uh dedicated in um as the overpass comes down and then the reconnection out to um greenhurst uh they have uh accommodated those within their plans per the concept drawings uh that we have at this point Mr.

Chair we just wanted to mention the frontline chairman counsel with Kirkwood's chairman commissioner whatever at least I've been called a lot worse uh you know you were taught you were just mentioning you know growth fan for growth and the problem with that is like some people said they want their kids to be able to buy a house here and the more dollars you tack on impact fees the higher those prices go and the more people we push out of the market they end up out in notice or Parma and then they're driving that much farther to get into town and you know I've got clients that are now look buying and pay it in fruitland because they just can't buy anything here and so now you're adding a half hour drive just to get them to Napa.

So and the other thing the other side of that is too once those houses are built they're paying a lot more in taxes than that farm ground.

Sure.

So to keep adding more and more impact fees sorry it's a pet peeve of mine drives up the cost of houses and it just puts more people that farther down the road before they can actually buy their own house.

I mean we're up to 40 40 years old before people are buying their first house and that's ridiculous in this country so I hate to see impact fees adding up but I I understand they've got to pay for some of the things that have to be done but just keep at people keep saying growth needs to pay for growth and unfortunately that just isn't gonna work because if you do there's nobody probably in this room that could hardly buy a house in this town so you can't just keep telling developers everything's got to pay for everything in order for it to go in because it doesn't work.

I have I have three major concerns with this project after one was the the compatibility and I think I'm solved on that so that's not really an issue for me at this point.

But emergency services you know there is there is a big concern about whether or not emergency services would be able to get there in time.

If they if there is a train coming I don't care how loud their siren is going or how bright their lights are they're not going to stop that train.

They're not gonna have to go down they're not getting the traffic out of the way as a package they're gonna have to go down to Kings Road or come from you know down there by Skyview where the the fire station is down there but that's a concern and that's why I was asking about that proposed fire station out there because there's just that's an area of town that I think is underserved with emergency services um to a point and I think adding this many residents of course it's going to be 10 to 20 years build out I get that and by then maybe we'll have a fire station out there maybe we'll have some additional police support or or whatever but until then that is a concern for my for me is emergency services and then the other one was the traffic infrastructure and I just go back to and I know I'm not pointing fingers or blaming anybody here but it would be really nice to at least have a general idea of the impact to the traffic in this area I know we can't be specific because it's not going to be almost not going to be built out but I have at least have some idea you know that we can look at um that was so that's another you know as far as a traffic impact stay uh study um and then some of you know a couple of people had mentioned the schools and so I I don't want to speak for the school district certainly but I I do note that the schools it is interesting in this part of town this we're not overcrowded the school district is not overcrowded our schools are not overcrowded.

However in this part of town the schools in this part of town are more at capacity than other schools in the in the school district but they're not at capacity so they could absorb some I just don't know how much and I'm again I'm certainly not going to speak for the school district but I'm not concerned about the schools and the capacity to absorb more kids necessarily from this project but uh I just want to mention that since a couple of people brought that up Daniel Mr.

Um would we want to then open back up the if we were to provide more information at a later date prior to them making a vote, uh would we want to open the public hearing or uh just from yeah, process wise for if we were to that were the commission's will to postpone a vote till we come back with some more specifics from the traffic impact study.

Yeah, commissioner or chairman, uh at this point, I think it'd be up to you and how you want to run it if you'd like to have public comment on that additional information, more than welcome to do so.

Um if you'd like to take it in, just says a body, you're welcome to do so.

Um this is just a recommendation vote that you're passing on.

What is non-binding in that nature, uh, but it is to be informative to city council.

Um but there is a need for that additional information, um, you're welcome to have other public input on it and continue the public hearing.

You wouldn't need to have a new um notice submitted out like we did for this, though.

Um we could just say the date certain and take it up at that time.

Okay.

We didn't have those stupid railroad tracks right there.

I I would I feel a little better, but it does run road tracks that's kind of problems with the intersection.

And to the safety of the fire and ambulance data will get there with that intersection aroundabout block with any direction, you're not getting anybody through there.

Yeah.

Mr.

Chair.

I think so.

My biggest concern is the emergency services.

That has been since the start of this presentation, because I that that makes a lot of sense to me that if they're exceeding their recommended amount, we need to make sure that gets fixed.

But to me, that should delay the preliminary flats, not the annexation, in my opinion.

Um I'd be for it looks like the developer would be forward delaying um, and I'd be okay with that.

But I think that at the end of the day, land use law is the struggle between personal property rights and city government, and how do you control that?

And I think the process that we have in place is far from perfect.

But it's the best we got, you know, and everybody has opportunity to say.

And matter of fact, the opportunity to start saying something was probably years ago.

But here we are.

We've got a future land use map in place, we've got a comprehensive plan in place.

A landowner has presented a plan that follows all the rules we put in place to control property rights.

I struggle saying, well, the road's not wide enough because the city didn't pay for a wider road to say no, you need to delay that.

Emergency services is something I think is legitimate.

And but again, I think that that's more of a uh preliminary plat delay than an annexation delay.

But those are my thoughts on it.

Mr.

Chair, I I kind of like where that's going, and I'd like to ask our attorneys I may seem like we have more discretion at this point than we do with the plat with the preliminary plat.

Is that true or not?

What uh chairman, if I might speak to that point, yeah, preliminary plants are a little more science space.

There's a little more cut and dry.

There's not a lot of play in the joints, but here this is a as a legislative policy angle or aspect to it.

So there is a little more, like I said earlier, playbooks open a little bit more.

Um but keep in mind uh as Commissioner Dapper said, and this is just before the enlightenment of the uh commission here, uh nothing in this decision is bypassing a requirement of review.

All the pieces that are required for any part of this development will go through its full fully vetted review.

Um whether you agree or not with the timing of it, that's a little out of our control.

We're subject to the procedure that's adopted right now.

And so you're working within that.

And again, there's different takes on that.

Uh but for this, there is there's a there is some wiggle room or some discretion here.

Um and if I may add on the emergency service, um, just to be clear, the the decision of how your response time is, what services you provide, that's a discretionary decision.

Um under Idaho law, um, there's not a statute that says every city shall have X uh emergency services and they have to respond within X number of minutes.

You have the power as a city to provide those services, and when you do commence an operation responding to a service, you're to do so in a reasonable manner.

And so there's any concern about the the legalities of it here, is this kind of put the city in a tight spot?

It's a discretion on how much emergency services a city wants to provide.

But when it commences that, like I said, then there's a duty to do so in a professional reasonable way.

And so hopefully that kind of um answers some questions that have been raised on the emergency service piece here.

Thank you.

I'll follow up then.

Let's say hypothetically then a commissioner likes this development but is concerned about the timing.

Is that a valid reason to deny an annexation?

Uh Chairman, this may sound like a lawyer answer, but it's not an invalid reason.

All right.

It is not an invalid reason.

Um even though it's a legislative decision, it can't be arbitrary, can't be capricious, uh can't be an abuse of this discretion that you're getting, right?

What discretion?

It's a legislative decision.

Seems like the So that's my that's my thing.

I I'm with Cody or Commissioner Daffer.

Thank you.

In that um, they followed the comp plan.

Um it's a good master plan community.

When this develops, I think this would be a good way for it to develop.

I really struggle with it developing this way right now.

And I think, like Commissioner Kirkman said, if it was anywhere in the city, not anywhere else in the city, in most places in the city, you would say, yeah, you get backed up a little bit at the roundabout, you gotta wait another minute to get through the intersection.

That's the that's the cost.

Because like we've said, the options are we raise property taxes to improve infrastructure, or we bring in development to improve infrastructure.

So most of the time the way that works is we bring in the development, it's painful for a little bit, but that's the money we use to improve the infrastructure.

And I know that everybody says, why don't we improve the infrastructure first?

And that's because we don't want to raise property taxes on the people who are already here and make them pay for it.

So in most cases, I am in favor of enduring the pain a little bit, letting those impact these pay for the improvements.

I just really think that this is a special case because of how that sorry, I'm pointing here on my screen, like you can see it.

Um that that railroad crossing is too close to that roundabout, and it's and it and like this has been said, it locks up that roundabout once it gets backed up there.

Um those things will change when the other bus goes in.

That's what that's where my questions at the beginning of the hearing were about.

If Robinson has a good connection to the freeway, and there's an overpass there, I think that I think it could help.

It does, like that.

What has been said in the in the testimony was yeah, it'll move all the traffic one block east, but that at least is at where there's an overpass and not around about a few hundred feet from the railroad crossing.

Um it just reminds me of if you guys remember what King's Corner used to be like exactly what I was gonna tell you.

You know, like and that was when Tampa had a population of 25,000 right?

A lot less.

So and heck, I I remember when that was being designed, I was anyway, yeah.

You don't need my backstory.

Um, but can we not do something creative like that at Happy Valley?

And I mean it would take eminent domain, which I don't love, but um take issuing bonds, which I'm not sure.

The the challenge with Happy Valley is the proximity of the intersection there and the the developed property around there.

Is it possible?

Yes, it would be significantly more expensive than what we're talking about at Robinson.

And at some point in the future, that may be the decision that's made.

Um but that's that's not the direction of the city at this point.

So Daniel, can you challenge me on that?

Does does building the overpass at Robinson and have the connection to the freeway there?

Does that is that gonna help?

Um yes, it will.

So there is um a study.

I was at a meeting yesterday, Rodney and I were um where IT is um looking at the South NAMPA or South Ada and Canyon County areas and connectivity.

Um one of the alternative or one of the scenarios they will be looking at is that state highway 16 connection and coming down Robinson, McDermott, whatever it ends up being um south and you know, a east-west connection.

Um but that's very preliminary at this point.

It's not something that um is going to lead to a project, you know at the snap of a ha drop of a hat.

Um, but it is the the planning process that's happening will help address all of that and inform the decisions and where dollars and improvements are are targeted.

Yeah.

And the and the problem is the first phase of this is gonna dump all the traffic on Happy Valley.

It's not gonna be until later phases that we're even connected to Robinson.

So it can still they need to take sewers through that, but this is this is just an annexation and zoning with a plan.

They can still rephase it later when they come with preliminary class, right?

So that's this isn't above plan, it's a plan that they've come up with for now.

What we are talking about specifically is annexation and zoning.

So we can get into the weeds on all the improvements, but none of that is actually planned out and paid for yet, right?

They're still being planned.

That's the case.

Why are we looking at these phases and roads and everything else?

Why not just annex the property like that?

Just simple.

That's the argument I'm making right now.

That information that one right there.

I think this is our last chance to slow it down though.

I I don't.

I think you could slow down the preliminary plans.

They bring a four.

If they if we annex it now.

If we annex it, it's in the city, they pay city property taxes.

They bring a preliminary platform where we have the same criteria to that we are making the decision on.

And if we feel like it's not the right time, we can say now it's not the right time.

I don't know that that's true.

If they bring in a plat that meets the code, but we don't have as much I yeah, Chairman.

If I may weigh on that preliminary plants, like I said earlier, they're really cut and dry.

There's not as much discretion or play in the joints.

When it comes before you need that criteria, uh at that time, there's not really many options to deny a preliminary plant if it meets that criteria.

Um in contrast to this one where there's um maybe more policy considerations that are allowed into this decision, unlike a preliminary plat.

Mr.

Chair, can you ask a quick question of our attorney?

Um I it is would it be possible to use a development agreement to tie some conditions for preliminary plates though?

Could you put a condition on each preliminary plat in the development agreement that they meet certain criteria?

Chairman, yeah.

I mean, that's an option that could be proposed here, I think.

If I remember right on this application, it didn't have a development agreement vision, but that could be proposed as a condition here.

Just to clarify, are you talking about timing restrictions?

Um I I guess I'm kind of open to all kinds of ideas, but I I was just thinking of uh if there are certain things you're concerned about for timing.

So for instance, if I don't know.

Yeah, please they can't do phase one until there's an overpass uh that would be that would be ridiculous, right?

That would be very difficult, but yeah, I something you could put some kind of condition.

I I wouldn't recommend that one, but that's that's honestly that's really the biggest issue is traffic.

instance if I don't know if I throw a hypothetical yeah please they they can't do phase one until there's an overpass uh that would be that would be ridiculous right that would be very difficult but yeah I something you could put some kind of condition I I wouldn't recommend that one but that's that's honestly that's really the biggest issue is traffic so I think Chairman what's difficult about that um is you're putting a condition that may be impossible for them to control conditions have to have some degree of relation to the project which you know I think there's a rational basis for Nexus here that with the crossing but how's the developer gonna see that through right and I knew it was out there when I said it up I would say though what what do you guys think about seeing whatever the traffic impact study looks like at this point right now.

So before the decision I I don't hate that idea what are you looking for I don't know I don't know what I don't know.

I don't even think that much right is it is is more information regarding traffic gonna change your mind significantly enough it could but like I said I don't know what I don't know.

I haven't seen that I I haven't seen what what what's there or what's already there or what might be there by the time because they said they're reviewing it right now if I'm not mistaken it's being it's going to be more traffic.

What proposed what improvements mitigations are going to happen because of the TIS.

And it won't be what you're looking for is like what intersections are they gonna have to improve based on the or what or yeah what do the roads look like I mean we know some of the things that have already been explained the widenings of trend lanes and all that kind of stuff.

But it's not gonna do anything anything to the roundabout of the railroad it's not gonna do anything to the greenhouse roundabout really I to me I don't uh it doesn't matter to me what the traffic impact is at this time point because we know what's there and they're they're not gonna be responsible for building an overpass of the railroad track so traffic's still just gonna get worse all right so yeah I mean they did bring a plan that fits with what we're asking for down there so I don't know.

But I agree with Commissioner Morgan it this might be the only time that we could but to kind of slow down a little bit yeah to slow it down until when though because they're never going to build out overpass it's well and we gotta remember too this is a recommendation.

That's fair yeah.

I mean let's be reasonable people get the I mean to recommend yeah and I agree 100% I'm just having a hard time it's a big project.

I love the master panel I I I like the magic time community and what what they can bring to the table and and you know the big and the all that great about a mile south.

Well we gotta remember too the commercial modes that this could potentially have um I'm not saying it will but it could potentially help with traffic what if they put a grocery store somewhere in there or what if what if because of this development a grocery chain decides to buy the corner piece of property and put in Walmart market.

And everybody says everybody says I don't want that but wouldn't that improve traffic up and down greenhurst would no it it it it increased it'd make it so much better if there was a Walmart there I mean every single one of these people in the audience would be in that Walmart.

Instead of it's about what you're saying is instead of driving up to Winco you would say or or down to Albertson's in Walmart that's on the corner of 12.

It's it's yeah if it's closer to your house you're more likely to go to it.

The concept is understood though I don't know what you're talking about.

And and Chairman in that hypothetical Walmart like this one would have to review its traffic impact study and pay for its reasonable impact dedicated stemming from its development just like any development and so every development goes through a process we have protections in place.

So if there is any spontaneous uh organic growth that stems from this it will go through the same process that the government intentionally wants them to go through reviewing traffic and other public activity measures.

So we can get Walmart to build the overpass.

Anything possible Amazon got rid of a roundabout so yeah Mr Chair I'll throw a uh um motion out there and we can just vote on it and see what happens I'm I move to reopen the public hearing and address this topic at a future date subject to whatever the staff recommends with what I use one of the open to review the traffic impact study.

With what?

To review the traffic impact study.

Is it necessary?

We wouldn't have to open it.

We can, but is it necessary?

I don't really see where that what the information is on that traffic impact study going to do if any given it's giving us um left turn lanes on Happy Valley hadn't fouled rehearsed from the deceleration turn lane, but it has it's not going to do anything to that roundabout.

It's not going to be any railroad track.

So really it's not going to address anything going north.

So you're no vote.

We can move down a row and how we know we can make no motion.

First of all, there's only a motion that's out there.

So the motion could die.

Or that I'm just trying to get the conversation started because I'm going to go home.

Up to the chair.

So the motion dies.

If Jeff really wants to, or Mr.

Kirkman really wants to take a look at that, we could move.

We don't have to reopen the public hearing, but we could move this to a later date, get that information, review it as a group, and then if it, you know, if you have the motion and it died.

No, he recommended it.

Oh, open public hearing.

Yeah, reopen the public hearing and everything.

So what we're talking about now, I the way I would look at it is we're just talking about delaying the decision to actually get more information, not opening it to the public.

Correct.

Look and see, wait and see.

Rodney, what are we talking about before we get that information?

Excuse me?

What we what have we what time frame are we talking about?

It's just talking to the applicant to see if I I'm looking at the 27th of January is when the soonest we could have a public hearing, but I don't know about the traffic impact study and how to do that.

We would be able to have the information for that meeting.

Okay.

Yes.

I move that we continue this discussion with the public hearing closed to January 27th.

We just got to discussing why they didn't want to open it.

Well I I think the reason if and correct me if I'm wrong, the motion was to continue this with additional information without a public hearing, is that's simply what it is.

Just additional information.

The information will be public.

But it's just some additional information we'd like to consider that's already been talked about in a public in a public hearing that that's already been testified to by by members of the public.

We just want to I just I if the motion is that we would just continue this, look at it on January 27th in a public hearing without public comment because we've already had the comment on all the traffic issues.

Chairman, if I may recognize and there is a motion still out there.

Yeah and you can withdraw it or keep it if you want.

Oh I'll second it so we can have a discussion on it.

Um if you wanted to, you could open up to continue to a date certainly, open the public hearing on the limited basis for responses specific to the new information.

If you want to hone in and trim down the comments so it's not so repetitive or going off on the other issues, and just responsive to what new data is specifically provided to you.

Um that's one way to try to bring that in if that's a desirable.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for public comment.

I mean I could sit here for three days and listen to the public.

I mean most of these comments would come up again because it's the traffic impact study or the park about time that was grabbed.

So I I like I don't dislike the idea of getting that information, but let me ask this.

Is there a certain amount of mitigation that they would be required to make that would keep you to pass or vice versa, if they you know what I mean?

And this would be a chance to present it to the public instead of just go find it, right?

Um I don't think it's going to affect our thoughts all that much if I'm being honest, but I think it's going to give a better public perception.

Mr.

Chairman, yes, legal supplement.

Because at this process, we normally wouldn't even have a TIS.

So just getting that preliminary TIS information to give us that are interested in it.

Then it wouldn't even be part of a public hearing anyway at this point because it normally wouldn't come at this point.

So it would just be some additional information that Chairman, you're Commissioner Turner, your point's uh not wrong.

I it's something that wouldn't be here otherwise.

This is additional information gathered based off what I perceive to be public comment.

And so uh it's really up to you if you want to open it up for a public hearing or take this information, recognizing you've heard the concerns, take the data as it comes in and continue deliberation and proceed to a uh recommendation vote.

I mean the way would you pull better, Mr.

Kirkwood?

I it's been moved and second.

There is a kind of need to vote on the without public comment.

Correct.

Correct.

I don't know, call for a vote.

I I don't I can I please I I do not I don't feel good about introducing more information to the public record without opening it back up.

And I know that's opening up the can of worms.

I I don't like adding another meeting everybody has to come out to again because there's already gonna be another meeting they all have to come out to again in front of city council.

We're just taking up more people's time coming out to hearing after hearing.

Unless I'm not saying don't do it, but it needs to be we need to make sure it's warranted and we're not just delaying for the sake of delay.

Yeah, not kicking the clock.

Like I say, I I don't think what we've learned is gonna make any difference because it's not gonna have any there they're not gonna be required to do anything north of this, so it's not gonna change any bit of the traffic issues that we're mostly concerned about.

So I just seconded it so we could have a discussion or decide about it.

Okay, so shall we?

All right, will you repeat the motion?

Yeah.

Motion was to uh uh continue this discussion first of January 27 with the public hearing closed turner no Keho.

No Morgan, no Kirkman?

No, Salman, no Copeland, no Dapper.

Yes.

Miller?

Guess what?

So seven of those not even fails.

Can I make uh can I ask a question on that?

Uh here public hearing was in the motion.

Is that that's different than public comment?

Because we're we're having a public hearing, right?

That's right.

Yeah.

Chairman, this is a public hearing.

The comment is an aspect of the public hearing.

Yeah.

So I I only said it that way because earlier we made a motion to close the public hearing.

So I said to keep the public hearing closed.

I know that this is a public meeting, but public hearings closed.

Oh, well, it would be, I mean, I'm not making a motion or anything, but it would be a public hearing without public comment.

You could we could restate it, just be a little clearer or clarify, you know, table the decision to a later date.

Um, which implies no, unless you want to open the public hearing piece, make that explicit, otherwise it's already closed right now.

But at that later date, we're back at the same spot where we're at now.

Right.

We haven't gained anything.

We'll just wasted more time.

That's up for you to make a decision.

Want to make the decision now.

Can you please bring up the motions?

Make it so it's readable.

Mr.

Um stated on the screen.

Second.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Well, I have I got I have to give reasons.

Because the infrastructure is not in place for this at this time.

I don't have a hard time saying this in a way that you can record, but maybe I can just go back to some of the criteria here.

Yeah.

Um go to the uh zoning criteria.

Because at this time the proposed zoning is not in the interest of the public.

Can you give me any more because of the primarily the traffic impacts in that area?

Yeah.

And yeah, and emergency response.

I've heard that up here.

And uh until those are improved.

Is that enough?

We've had a lot of discussion up here, so I I believe so.

Um yeah, if you can remember specific aspects of it, that always helps.

Oh because of the railroad crossing proximity to the roundabout at Happy Valley in Greenhurst.

And they're not currently being another way around.

Another good way around.

I will and with that stop just to clarify was anything about the lack of a traffic impact study as part of your reason.

Okay.

Not part of my motion anyway.

Clarify.

Yeah, I was just gonna ask him if he would repeat his motion, but can't do that again.

Um I can try.

No, I got it.

I got it.

I will I will second that motion.

Roll.

Dafford.

Uh no.

Turner.

Yes.

The motion was to deny delay, whatever.

So yes, I can.

Yes.

Kirkman?

Yes.

Salman?

Yes.

Copeland.

No.

Miller?

No.

Okay, five.

Motion carrying.

So it has been no more.

Well motion.

The motion on the table to deny it has carried.

Okay.

Yeah.

Recommendations.

Recommendations.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um thank you for participating in our meeting tonight.

We really appreciate your attendance and look forward to you appreciating in many more.

Peggy.

Peggy, it's your last one, Peggy.

Except for Peggy.

Except for me.

Yeah.

Yeah, I know.

I make a motion, we adjourn.

Second.

Second by Kehoe to adjourn.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?