Okay.

It is six o'clock.

I'd like to start by welcoming everybody out to the City and Ampa Planning and Zoning Commission meeting January 13th, 2026.

We greatly appreciate your attendance and your input on all the items that are before us this evening.

Garner?

Here.

Miller.

Here.

Staffer.

Turner.

Keyhoe.

I'm here.

Morgan.

Here.

Kirkman.

Here.

Copeland.

Here.

I've present.

Six.

Thank you.

Six.

Uh Rodney, report on council actions and communications.

Mr.

Chair and Commissioners Rodney Ashby planning and zoning director for the record.

Excuse me.

We had um it's been a a little while since we have reported on city council action items uh 5th of January.

They didn't have any public hearings.

Um they just had some um ordinances that they've read, so nothing to report on that one, but I do want to report on the um the December 15th meeting, which has been a while ago, but uh quick update, subdivision final plat approval for Spring Hollow Ranch, subdivision number five.

Uh you had recommended approval, and that was approved.

Um subdivision final plat approval for Magnolia States number two.

You had recommended approval, that was approved.

Subdivision final plat approval for East Ranch subdivision number two, uh that was recommended and uh approved.

Um then public hearings.

We had a comprehensive plan map amendment um from medium density residential to industrial for eight parcels located off of Florida Avenue and Iowa Avenue.

Excuse me.

And you had recommended that for approval.

And that one didn't go through.

Um comprehensive plan map amendment from medium density residential to low density residential, annexation and zoning to RS eighteen and uh zoning map amendment from RS six to RS eighteen uh subdivision preliminary plat for crosswoods estate subdivision, all of that you had recommended approval.

That was approved as well.

Uh the text amendment for the comprehensive plan and uh zoning map amendment for the form based code in the downtown and that all went through.

Uh you had recommended approval for that one as well.

And finally the annexation of zoning to BC, RMH, RS4, IP, and a master plan community.

Um this is the um one off of Cherry Lane and Eustach.

Uh Mark Bottles project, that one was recommended for approval and the that one was approved as well.

That's all I have.

Thank you, Rodney.

Appreciate it.

Uh would entertain a motion to approve and adopt the consent agenda.

Second.

It's been moved by Kehoe, second by Kirkman to the top uh consent agenda.

All those in favor?

Any opposed.

Uh we'll go ahead and move into our public hearing portion of the meeting tonight.

Um just as a brief overview.

Um this meeting is being recorded and streamed online.

So if you could do your best to keep quiet in the crowd, any loud uh talking in the crowd is amplified online and in our recording, so it makes it difficult for those online.

And if we have to go back and listen to the recording later, um kind of hard to hear.

So please respect those that are at the mic and respect us and we'll respect you too.

Um to start the applicant will come up.

We'll get seven minutes to propose their project, and we'll have staff report.

They'll give their findings on each item, then we'll open it up for public hearing.

Um the when you come up, if you could please give your name and address for the record, and then we'll give you three minutes to tell us what your thoughts and uh feelings are on each item.

Um then we will close the public hearing and we will deliberate and make a decision on each item.

So once you have spoken, that's all you need to say.

So you get your one three minutes, and that's it.

Um, if you have somebody else with you and you think of something later, pass the note to them and they can ask that question for you when they come up.

So we will go ahead and get started.

Mr.

Chair, hold on, just a quick second.

He's got something.

Oh, Ronnie's got some.

Go ahead.

That's I think you're gonna say what I was gonna bring up.

Yeah, um, I'm sorry, that so this is uh the first meeting we've had in January, and so at this time every year we elect or re-elect uh the chairman and vice chair for the commission.

Um I forgot to mention that in here, but that's uh one-two B on your agenda.

I think one of the reasons why it says review is because since Tom is not here and we have not filled Peggy's vacated position.

We were gonna ask you guys if you wanted to wait, or if you wanted to do that tonight.

Difference to me.

It's not statutory, is it?

Um it says that we need to address it.

It needs to be on the agenda of that first meeting.

This first meeting.

So you could continue this to uh another date if you choose some organizations it's statutory, that's what I was wondering.

Yeah, if this is okay.

Well, I would just propose uh the should I make a motion do whatever you need to do.

Uh Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

Or make a motion that we or I nominate uh Commissioner Miller to continue in his role as chairman.

Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Besides me.

Oh, wait, I don't say who's in here.

Okay.

Um Rodney, do you have any idea what time frame is for filling Peggy's seat?

I I do.

Um so uh a couple of things I can report on.

Um first of all, the uh new our new mayor, Mayor Hogabohm has agreed to appoint uh or recommend for appointment um Tom Turner again.

So he will be uh that will come before city council on the 20th.

Um this next week we are scheduled to uh interview uh the only candidate for um the open peggy's open seat.

Um we had to we found that when we Ron left um we lost and we didn't keep track of that very well, but we lost someone from the impact area.

We need somebody representing the impact area, and so we had to re-advertise for that, and um we only had one applicant.

So we've just got one applicant we're gonna interview next week, and if it all turns out we'll we'll take that to um city council on the 20th as well.

All right.

Well, I guess it would be it wouldn't be the 20th, it'd be the following city council meeting.

Okay.

Yep.

Do we have any?

I'll nominate Commissioner Gardner to continue as vice chair.

Okay, it's been moved by Commissioner Morgan, second by Keyhoe to nominate Commissioner Garner as the vice chair.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Okay.

Looks like we're on some review.

There you go.

Was anybody from city council watching so they can know how easily this can go?

They need to watch all of our meetings in that case.

Doesn't have to be difficult, does it?

Smart money.

Yeah, probably.

Okay, so first item on the agenda 3-1.

Is annexation and zoning for 37.74 acres into BC.

Uh RD, RS4, and RS6 zoning districts with corresponding right-of-way, potential development agreement, and subdivision permanent plat for regatta crossing subdivision at zero Eustach Road.

Is the applicant here?

Good and come on up.

All right, Chairman, members of the commission, hello and good evening.

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

My business address is 5179 South Bovin Avenue, Boise, Idaho, 83716.

And this evening I am beyond thrilled to present to you our application for Regatta Crossing subdivision.

So first, I would like to welcome you to Regatta Crossing.

Regatta Crossing is envisioned as in a vibrant, welcoming community shaped by its natural connection to water.

Framed by two irrigation laterals, the site offers a rare sense of movement, calm, and openness.

An experience that has inspired a relaxed yet refined waterside theme.

Thoughtful architecture, natural materials, and native-inspired landscaping come together to create a neighborhood that feels timeless, livable, and distinctively special, a place residents will be proud to call home.

Here in this slide, you can see the entry monumentation that is a showpiece feature at the northwest corner of the site.

This monumentation has been intentionally designed with the future roundabout in mind, serving as a both a gateway into Regatta Crossing and a visual anchor along this important Eustach corridor.

Now I would like to welcome you to our main entrance into Regatta Crossing, which offers a gentle nod to the community's primary monumentation, overall design theme.

This entry is intentionally welcoming and understated, creating a transition from public roadway into the neighborhood.

So with Regatta Crossing, we're requesting an annexation, a mix of zoning, and a preliminary plat.

The lot breakdowns are as follow.

I have four commercial lots, 58 townhomes, 99 single family, and 21 common lots.

Our gross density will be 4.16 units per acre, with our diverse residential lot size ranging from 2600 square feet up to 8,205 square feet.

Regatta Crossing is designated as residential mixed use in the City of NAPA's comprehensive plan.

This designation envisions a well-designed connected communities that provide long-term value to residents and the broader community.

The vision is delivered through a mix of housing, walkable connectivity, access to jobs and services, and well-designed gathering spaces supported by quality architecture and landscape.

And this Regatta Crossing embodies all of these long-term planning goals I just described.

The site is uniquely positioned along Eustace Corridor, adjacent to existing planned industrial areas to the west and south.

And as one of the really the last remaining residential opportunities in this area.

Regatta crossing plays a key role in meeting the housing needs of a nearby workforce.

So consistent with the residential mixed use designation, Regatta Crossing is requesting a diverse tiered zoning pattern that provides appropriate transition throughout the site.

First, BC, located along the Eustac Corridor, supporting neighborhoods serving commercial uses, and the corridor activity.

Two, we have RD, nestled adjacent to the commercial area, allowing for attached townhomes that serve as a transition from commercial to residential uses.

We then have the RS4 located at the center of the development, that provides traditional single-family residential homes.

And then finally, we have our R6 along the outer edges of the site, creating a larger lot, single family homes that provide compatibility and buffering to the surrounding areas.

This step-down approach creates a logical land use transition, supports walkability, and alliance with the city of Napa's long-term planning goals for residential next use.

So to better understand how the site fits into the broader area.

The site is located with an area experiencing steady residential growth and employment expansion.

To the north and east, the site is surrounded by established and improved single family neighborhoods, including Heartland, Sweetwater Glen, Fall Creek, Merriweather, Magnolia Estates, and Kinghorn Place, totally more than 1,100 existing and planned homes.

To the south, the area is designated for future commercial industrial uses, supporting long-term employment opportunities.

And to the west, land planned for industrial mixed use development has emerged as a growing employment hub.

Major employers such as Knife River Construction, Stowe Manufacturing, JTS Manufacturing Convoy Supply, and Project SPUD anchor this area and support the evolving character of the surrounding community.

Eustake Road is planned to be expanded to a five-lane arterial to accommodate future traffic and reduce congestion and with the roundabout planned at Northside Boulevard intersection as part of city's adopted corridor improvement strategy.

These upgrades are scheduled for completion by 2030 with construction already underway on portions of the corridor.

To support these improvements, Regatta Crossing is dedicating 582 feet of right-of-way along Northside and 1,115 feet along Eustake Road, enabling future roundabout and long-term mobility.

The project will be constructed in three phases with timing dependent on market conditions.

Peliminary estimates estimates anticipate phase one and fall 2027, phase two and mid-2028, and phase three in 2030.

This phasing aligns with the planned Eustach Road improvements, anticipated for completion in 2030 as well.

Emergency services and public safety are a top priority for this community.

This commitment is dedicated demonstrated through two dedicated fire emergency accesses, which I did coordinate and talk to the fire chief about.

The first access point provides an additional emergency access connection to Eustach Road, improving response times and redundancy.

And the second access point onto Northside Boulevard is a fire only emergency access bridge, restricted exclusively for emergency responses.

Together, these access points enhance site safety, emergency response efficiency until future access connections are available.

We recognize the importance of maintaining a strong commercial presence along Eustac Corridor, a key gateway in economic corridor for the city of Nampa.

To support this vision, 2.26 acres across four commercial lots are reserved along Eustach Road.

With our tiered zoning approach, we transition from commercial to our attached townhome product.

These homes provide a worry-free living with low maintenance upkeep.

These homes provide all the comforts with open concept layouts, chefs' kitchens, and ample backyards.

Our final step down in the site's tiered zoning approach consists of R6 zoned single-family homes.

These spacious residences are situated on larger lots, allowing for generous front and rear yards, and providing the opportunity for three-car garages.

Additional overflow parking has been incorporated throughout the development to accommodate special events and peak park parking demand, as shown on the slide.

Four strategically located parking pads are distributed across the site and are connected via the internal pathway network, ensuring convenient and safe pedestrian access.

Uh-oh, there we go.

Go back one more.

Usable open space is a top priority, forming the foundation of the community's amenities, pathway, and overall connectivity.

Regatta Crossing provides 5.76 acres of qualified open space at 15.26%, with additional landscaping areas, including our northwest corner.

Our grand total is 11.81 acres for a total of 31.29%.

Pathway connectivity and walkability is also a priority within Regatta Crossing as seen in our pathway exhibit.

Purple depicts our community sidewalks.

Orange depicts our micro pathways that fan out throughout the site for a total of 4,300 linear feet, and green illustrates our eight-foot community pathway that provides connection along the two laterals for a total of 1,870 linear feet.

Now to the good stuff.

The central gathering area serves as the heart of Regatta Crossing and is intentionally designed to foster community connection, recreation, and everyday interaction.

Centrally located within development, this park provides a shared space where residents of all ages can gather, recreate, and engage with one another.

The minity provides a multi-use open lawn, sport court, shaded pavilion, ping pong table, volleyball court, barbecue pits, and seating areas, all connected to be integrated pathway network, creating an active yet comfortable space for everyday use and community gatherings.

The central gathering area supports walkability, quality design, and neighborhood livability consistent with NAMPA's mixed use vision.

Finally, our multi-use pathway offers passive recreation with landscape seating areas that create inviting places to rest, gather, and enjoy the outdoors.

And to quickly summarize, regatta crossing is a thoughtfully planned mixed-use community designed to provide a balanced blend of housing options, generous open space, intentionally designed gathering areas.

The development also incorporates neighborhoods serving commercial uses, creating a walkable environment that supports daily needs within the community.

Overall, Bergata Crossing embodies the key principles of a well-planned mixed-use development, aligning with the city of NAMPA's comprehensive plan by promoting connectivity, livability, and long-term community value.

And on that great note, I'd like to thank you all for your time for your thoughtful consideration this evening and the opportunity to present our project.

And I would love to have a recommendation to city council if at all possible.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Oh, I made it under 10 minutes.

I have a question for you, please, if I may.

Yes, Chairman.

Your letter to us, you said you had a neighborhood meeting in the Warhof Elementary School in October 6.

Yes.

And you said approximately four people were in attendance.

What is approximately four mean?

I I'm pretty sure there was four, but in case I didn't have the right number, I always I put approximately just in case.

So maybe you had three or five.

No, I there was four, yes.

Okay.

For sure.

That's that's all I had to ask you now.

Thank you.

Yes, absolutely.

Thank you.

Okay.

We'll call you back one.

Okay, okay.

Yes.

How many people are in 10 us here tonight for this meeting?

How many of you raise your hand if you're here for that for this application?

So that's approximately seven or eight, nine, ten.

Okay.

Just curious.

Okay.

Damien.

You're up.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

Damien Snodgrass.

All right.

The applicant's request today is annexation and zoning for 37.74 acres for BC, RD, RS4, and RS6.

The concept is for 58 single family attached dwelling townhouses, 100 single family detached dwelling units, four commercial lots, and 22 common lots.

And this will be a recommendation to city council.

So some of the property details currently it is within Kenya County under the residential mixed use designation.

To the north, we have some RP zoning, which is the residential professional.

To the west, um, we have more Canyon County, followed by some industrial to the west and to the south.

We have county parcels that are undeveloped, and to the east, we have counties that are undeveloped.

The history of this project is that in April 2021, a request for annexation and zoning was denied due to no path of annexation, another project that didn't come through.

So there was no path, as well as in December of 2023.

Um there was pre-application meeting held to discuss zoning to RPRML RMS R and RS, and in 2024, a request for annexation and zoning to RP was denied due to density concerns.

So the proposed RS4, RSX, RD and BC zonings are allowable under that residential mixed use.

Sorry.

And on to correspondence.

And that's a typo up there.

Um, but for this development.

Um it comes to that, there will be some dedication of right-of-way as well as the sewer and water and things that are in the street.

There are some recommended conditions of approval, and we'll cover those in those recommended conditions.

However, any further questions on that, I'm going to defer to Daniel.

And as far as other correspondence, we did receive some comments from the NAMPA Fire District.

They are not opposed to this.

They did want to see some compliance and explore other options when it came to access for those emergency access.

And then we received a comment from NAMPA GIS regarding some changes to some street names and addressing.

From Valley View School District provided over the capacity of schools and the influx of students within the district.

Nampa Police Department provided some comments regarding the commitment of funds and about how many officers and support staff they'll need.

Nampa Parks and Recreation is requesting that the developer grant a permanent easement 20 feet across the bank for a multi-use pathways on the south and east side of the Perdam Gulch and the northeast side of the Mason Creek for the Pradam pathway and the Mason Creek pathway.

The Nampa City Forester requested some change in some alternative tree species.

Nampa City Long Range provided a comment.

So delve into this one a little bit is so the intent of the comprehensive plan under the residential mixed use designation is that it is to have 5 to 50% commercial space within it.

This application does acreage-wise provide 5%.

However, the buildable lot size does not equate to 5% of the development, and that's why they do not support this application.

If you take the buildable lot size, it comes out to like 3.8% of the development because most of that zoning is dedicated into right-of-way.

And that's the concerns we saw from them.

We received one public comment regarding an irrigation pond at the southeast, and the citizen is just requesting that a fence be built between the pond and this development, as well as a late comment, and the citizen provided their own conceptual drawing and provided concerns around the development.

It's a pretty lengthy one.

This is attached in your staff report.

Mr.

Chair, quick question for Daniel.

That fence wasn't a request to fence the whole pond around the whole pond, or just an east side side.

I believe it's just on the side that's facing the development.

Okay.

I thought I had read somewhere else.

Okay.

And here is here is a preliminary plat as covered by the applicant in their presentation.

And under that analysis, um does provide those commercial lots, the common lots, the residential lots.

It does meet the qualified uh open space and it does meet the density requirements of 4.19, which is between the 2.51 and 8 dwelling units per acre allowed within the residential mixed use.

Staff analysis for RD.

So the lot sizes for the RD zone are between 26 and 3200 square feet.

However, because these are platted as townhouses and they will be subdivided more.

The base lot size for the actual structure will meet the density requirements as defined by the RD.

And all of the lot depth and width will have to be met per city code.

For the RS4 and RS6, we saw a proposed lot sizes that are well within the allowable uses by those zones.

And again, the lot depth and width will all have to be meeting that code.

Again, that qualified open space does meet the required as per city code, the 15%.

And we're going into the findings for annexation that all private landowners have consented to the annexation, that the property shall be contiguous with city limits, shall we enclaved by other properties so annexed, that the NAMPA comprehensive plan includes this area of annexation, and that when applicable for annexation of all roadways, all portionally highways lying partial or wholly, so on and so forth, shall be annexed.

Staff found these all to be met through the affidavit.

It is contiguous to the north, and the NAMPA comprehensive plan does this, and a net memorandum of understanding is between the highway districts and the city.

Now the applicable criteria for zoning, that the proposed map amendments is our would be in harmony with the city's currently adopted comprehensive plan and comprehensive plan land use map, that the proposed map amendments is R would provide for a proposed use or set of uses that would be at least reasonably compatible with existing or joining uses, and that the proposed zoning map amendments is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary.

So with this, we provide some of the relevant facts as in the staff report.

Um some of this is just city codes describing the uses that the comprehensive plan encourages mixed use developments with those commercial and residential uses.

And within the NAMPA comprehensive plan, it defines those residential uses.

All of the structures within those BC zoning areas will be subject to the city design review.

Um currently, right now there is a need for housing within the city of Dampa, and there is projected needs for housing in within the city of NAMPA.

There will be utilities available to this property, frontage improvements will have to be conducted.

Um the big more controversial one is that it does meet the five percent acreage for commercial zoning, however, it does not meet the intent for the comprehensive plan, so this is at the discretion.

And with that, I provided two sets of findings one that it meets these criteria, however, so on and so forth, because it meets the acreage for that RMU designation, and one conclusion that says, well, because of the intent of the designation wasn't met, it does not meet that criteria.

Um this is everything that's needed from engineering.

This is the construction of sewer water mains.

Um that the dedication of right-away and things of this nature shall be done, that the applicant owner shall comply with all city policy standards at the time of the development, and some big ones is the construction of that pathway and the easements for the NAMPA parks and rec department, the alternative tree species, and just contacting the fire district about those emergency access points, um, and any others that the commission may recommend.

Here are your potential motions.

I'll stand for any questions.

Yes.

Um Damian, following up on Jeff's question about the fence, it's a request to put the fence in there.

Do they have to do that, or is it just strictly a request and they can decide yes or no?

Right now it is just a request.

Um, it can be made a condition by the commission, I believe.

Um if shall impose that.

Um right now it's just a request.

We get it as a comment.

And so that was the request.

Um the applicant may be able to speak more to whether they've made an agreement, but it could also be a condition from the commission or council.

Okay, I have another question for Daniel, and then I have some questions for the attorney.

So let me just walk through them and then I'll get back, okay.

Daniel, did you read the letter from uh John Chapman?

No, I have not reviewed that specifically.

You have copied the application there with that letter.

Um I have a copy of the packet.

Do you remember which do you have which page it's on?

Oh, it's in the middle someplace.

Right.

Like 340.

Approximately 340.

It's about page 300, 302, somewhere around there.

Okay.

And while you're looking at that briefly, I'm gonna ask you to turn to a couple of questions, okay?

Okay.

I'm sorry, I I misspoke earlier when I spake was speaking to you.

I did find two more questions to ask you, okay.

Um Ballet View School District sent a letter in opposition, sort of, to this application because of the overcrowding and potential overcrowding of schools.

And they list 19 different um subdivisions in the vicinity that are going to have or already have um somebody's families, which is quite several hundreds of them.

If I voted no on the application because of the dis the information from the school district, would that be a valid reason to to say no, or do you have to have something better than that?

That makes any sense to answer your question.

I understand that this application is simply an annexation and uh zoning issue that's before um the commissioners tonight.

If if annexation is a concern, there's always an opportunity to recommend and denial of that to the city council.

Um so you can consider a myriad of concerns that you might have with recommendations if um schooling might be a concern of yours.

Again, just kind of clarify um why annexation would be recommended.

We you would be recommending a denial for the annexation.

Okay.

Also, there was a um a letter from Forestry, I believe it was that said that several plants that they had recommended that they were planning on putting into the subdivision, they were recommending that they not use those plants because they're for various reasons not viable or not a good choice.

If the developer says tough on putting them in anyway, or they say they want to put in palm trees, even though the forestry division says no, is there any weight to that, or is it just up to the developer to do whatever he wants to do?

Commissioner Keogh, although that's a specific question, and I'm I'm not particularly familiar with restrictions on certain types of trees and and that those types of specific questions.

I can say, and I recall um staff presenting recommendations or um conditions to put on approval.

Um that could be something that could be considered um as a condition if if the commissioner so choose.

Okay.

Thank you.

Well I have with you.

Daniel, you got there yet?

I yes, I'm reading through it now.

What questions do you have?

Well, what do you think?

I mean, they they bring up some good points.

Um they in the past have reduced the density, but not enough according to this letter.

Um there's also right-of-way issues on Northside Boulevard.

Number of different things in this letter that's almost kind of pertinent to the application.

I didn't know what professionals would think about it, you being all professional.

Um I've I've reviewed the plat and the the access locations meet our um policies for uh access there.

Um I'm not sure specifically when he's talking about um you know what what ideas he has floated for various different accesses.

That's not something that I uh have specific knowledge of what he's proposing.

I believe he's here and may be able to testify to that during his testimony if he chooses to.

Um based on my review and the traffic impact study that has been done, um, the access points that uh they are identifying um are are acceptable to the city staff.

Okay.

More than here.

Thank you.

That's all I have, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Chair?

Yep.

Um, just want to clarify, Damien, on the five percent thing.

Is the ambiguity because our code doesn't match the intent of the long range plan, or do they not meet the letter of the law in our code?

Uh it it it's a little bit ambiguous because it says five to just fifty percent is required to be commercial, so it it does meet an acreage-wise because the road and the right-of-way is all dedicated as BC commercial zoning, so it meets that five percent.

It's just the buildable lot area doesn't.

Um, so that's why we received a comment from long-range planning that it doesn't uh meet the intent of the RMU designation because that buildable law area is not five percent.

Looks like we're all gonna say Mr.

Chair.

Yes, can I just uh provide a little bit more clarification?

We we are looking at this and trying to make that change um for future in the future so that there's not that discrepancy between the the comprehensive plan and what the code requires.

Um essentially um we say it needs to be commercial, five percent be commercial.

We don't say whether that's zoning or whether the use has to be commercial.

The concern there from the long-range planners is well, if you zone the entire roadway in your subdivision BC, are you meeting the intent of the comprehensive plan to have commercial uses in your in your in your subdivision?

No, that's not what's happening here, but there is a good portion of um of the BC zone that is roadway, and so their concern is it's not meeting the intent of providing the land use of commercial follow-up.

Um you may have said this if our code was clear that it was the buildable area, and they did that calculation.

How close are they?

Are we at 4.8% or are we at 3%?

We're right now it's sitting at like three eight.

Okay.

Mr.

Chair, a question just for clarification.

The Nampus City long range planning, is that part of Nampus City's planning and zoning department?

Okay.

Because it almost sounded like it was a separate little group of folks that okay.

Mr.

Chair, yes, that's correct.

They are part of our team.

Um they are just focused on developing the comprehensive plan.

That's Doug and Brianna's son, and they are they're looking at long range, and then we we ask them to comment on these projects that are current projects, current planning projects, but to look at it from our perspective of a long range planner.

Mr.

Chairman, can I uh Rodney, you said that that's not what's happening here.

What what did you mean by that?

I I mean specifically.

So did they not know about the road or the five percent or how what did you mean when you said that's not what that's not what's happening here?

Yeah.

Um Mr.

Chair and Commissioner.

Um yeah, the the comment that I made is just that they uh I was just creating an extreme example if a subdivision came in and they were to zone everything, uh all the road, all the um common area as BC, but they don't use it for the actual commercial use, then that would be an extreme example.

That's not what they're doing.

They are providing commercial spaces.

What there are what they are doing though is providing five percent of the zone as commercial, not necessarily five percent of the commercial area that will be used as the land use be used as commercial.

And would it be denied if they weren't allowed to use the road?

Um city code, yes, that would not be consistent with our city code if it if it didn't include the roadway right now, it wouldn't meet the five percent.

Okay, okay.

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

We do.

First is Robert Simpson.

Okay.

I'm Robert Simpson, 8713 Usteek Road, Nampa Ido 83687.

Uh two issues I'm concerned about.

Uh could we have a uh back up the the plat of it?

Back up there.

Uh if you'll notice there's only one access for the public in and out of the site, and that's on Eust Road, just uh to the east of or to the west of where I live.

And I come out on Eustake Road now, and uh sometimes the traffic is backed up past my driveway.

So I have to go one way, I can't go two ways out of there.

I'm concerned with that one entrance, and I understand it's required for that entrance to be uh exited only to the east.

They can't exit to the west, and that uh will make it even worse than it is now.

Uh second issue with that, it shows a roadway going to the east into the field just to the east of it.

And uh the concern there is that gonna be fenced off completely, a solid fence across that roadway at this time.

There's uh agricultural land on the other side, the farmer will be farming.

My property is on the other side of that, and if knowing kids, they're gonna be going through that if there's not a solid fence there, and there's a liability problem.

There's problems with the uh uh water because there's a pipe comes out about that big around out of the ground, it goes down into the ground about uh ten feet.

If kids get down in there, there's a problem.

So there's a lot of problems there if they don't have that as a solid fence along there, and those are the two issues I really have at this time.

Thank you.

Next is Nicholas Shields.

Good evening, Chair, good evening, board.

Um I live on uh 8767 Eust Road, which is that little white square.

But that driveway right there, at the moment there's a dip in the road, and there's a slight rise coming up.

The speed limit along uh Eustack uh on that section is 50 miles an hour.

Um people tend to uh do about 60, sometimes 70 miles an hour, and you can't see them coming past the.

If you have a subdivision there with traffic coming out of that um exit, there's going to be accidents, a lot of them.

Um people don't pay attention.

My wife was rear-ended on the at the stop sign uh a short while ago, and the driver said he um didn't think she was gonna stop.

Um he must have been texting or something, but that is a major liability, that exit.

Uh said traffic coming extremely fast, and there's a dip.

You can't um to the east of that driveway, you can't see people coming, um, especially if they're going fast.

Another issue is the emergency services, as it is at the moment.

Um I don't think the emergency service could handle that subdivision.

Um then there's the water.

Is that subdivision going to be on city water?

And can the city is do they have enough water for that subdivision?

Um we are on a well, and before the subdivision on the other side of the of the other um the north side of Eustach went in, our water was pretty good.

Um now it's deteriorated, and the water table um has dropped dramatically.

Uh I don't think people consider the weight of a subdivision.

Uh there's an awful lot of concrete and everything else, and I I think it's really damaging the water table.

And we rely on that water table.

We rely on the on our well.

Uh then there's a school.

My uh grandchildren go to the school there, and at the moment it's pretty full.

So I don't know whether that um the schools could handle that additional uh children.

Um and as uh Bob said, the uh access along that road, it's um the road cannot handle neither north side nor Eustick.

It can't handle the existing traffic.

Um between about six and eight o'clock in the morning, between north side and all the way down, um, it's a solid line of traffic.

We cannot get out of our driveway.

Um the people, some unknown reason they don't want you pulling out in front of them.

So if they see you there, they will speed up.

Um traffic won't let you out.

So at a certain time of day, you eat you have to go the opposite direction to that to which you want to go.

Mr.

Chair Time.

Thank you.

Oh, am I out of time?

Okay, sorry.

Well, thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

John Chapman.

Hi, my name is John Chapman, and I live at 1770 North Side Boulevard, Nampa 83687.

So I put an application of a uh opinion of what I wanted to see done at this property in your notes.

I'm hoping most of you read it because I didn't want to go back and read through the whole thing again.

That takes up my whole time.

Um I do want to acknowledge the fact that the subdivision from a visual standpoint looks really nice.

But I've tried to get the entities involved in it to uh talk about putting a different entrance exit to go off to north side and lower the density, and those issues have been covered several times, and that's why they've been turned down so many times.

And they they're pretty reluctant to have me be a part of any of the planning, and I just live just to the west and uh south southwest, sort of and our family's been there a hundred years, and we don't intend on doing any more development in the area we're at.

Um we've got third and fourth generation there, and fourth generation's looking at using the let remaining area we have there for uh nursery type setting.

He's a he's a national uh landscape art uh landscape architect, and so uh he's gonna develop a business there, and we just don't need that higher density up next to everything.

The uh north side estates was started as a low density subdivision just to the west, and uh it really needs to reflect that type of development right now, I think, along with having an entrance to North Side.

I know they'd have to buy more property from me to do that, but we've offered to try to talk about that, and it's never no response have ever come about.

So I'm here to answer any questions for a few minutes if you don't have any questions.

There's also the the fire department.

I've read what the fire department says about these emergency entrances and stuff, they don't like them.

And uh I think this uh approach to this property is incorrect.

I think you can do it differently in five years from now, you might be able to consider this and say, okay, we'll get enough stuff going on here so there's enough roadway and there's enough traffic flow ability to handle this.

But I and my recommendation it was just if there's a way that you can postpone this out to 2030 and then see if this type of design would work there at all.

Otherwise, I'm willing to work with them on a lower density, but they have not responded to that.

I guess I could ask if it has everybody read the letter, I send her.

Yep.

Yeah, we get the packet usually Thursday evening or Friday morning.

Yeah, and I went through I went through the packet several times.

So no quick.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Brian Person.

I am uh Brian Pearson, PERSON.

I live at 1775 Polar Away in Napa, so we're just directly across uh North Side to the west.

Um, you know, I want to respect that the role of the commission is not to presuppose what the council might do, but I think a significant metric of this project is that almost something identical from an external impact standpoint was placed before the council two or so years ago and they rejected it as it's been discussed here.

I looked at my notes from that meeting, and it was based on density and concern about that single point of ingress egress and the safety of that point uh in proximity to the intersection of north side and eustack, and that's with and without uh roundabout coming.

It I don't know what the numbers are, but I'm gonna having been at this for a while.

I'm gonna guess that city council approves what 90 to 95 percent of the proposals that come before it on annexation and rezoning and new subdivisions, it's got to be up there.

So the fact that this one uh did not pass muster is significant to me, and it's largely unchanged again from an external standpoint.

Uh a few things that come to mind, traffic.

If you do the traffic institute multiplier for single family homes, roughly 10 multifamily homes, roughly eight.

This is another 1,500 vehicle trips per day in and out of that congested point, which is going to be a challenge for the same reasons expressed earlier.

What has changed since the last time this was proposed?

Um, several hundred, uh 1,100 or so additional uh residential development uh homes, living units, either there uh already built.

I think it's across the street to the northwest.

There's 15 eightplexes coming in and 64 homes or so additional loading on that intersection.

This 2030 development of Eustack coming west.

Um I'm dubious of that.

If you pay attention to the signs, uh Knife River has until September to install the sewer between only Madison and Franklin.

A half mile stretch is gonna take much much of the rest of the year just to install sewer.

I just I just can't imagine, and I think you're gonna experience this, it's not gonna march westward with uh with uh haste that uh folks think, and that also um keys into the widening school impacts.

I that's been mentioned, and I was grateful to hear that.

I read in the paper that uh Valley View School District finally found their voice.

And when you all approve the 1,500 apartment units on the southeast corner of Canada and Eustach, they their letter in essence it doesn't say this, but in essence, it says where are these kids gonna go to school?

And that's the same issue here.

So the same concerns exist.

Um I'd like to emphasize again some of the points made earlier.

I just I just can't see the fit.

I can't see the readiness for this.

And I in terms of infrastructure, school uh support services, etc.

I just in my line of work at least, I just I just haven't experienced an instance where if you let a problem get big enough, it it solves itself.

And we're just I mean, you name an aspect of services, infrastructure, et cetera.

Mr.

Chair time.

It's uh as an aside.

My comments are over, but it's just kind of an interesting lesson in the person.

Thank you.

Brian Patterson.

My name is Sorry, my name is Brian Patterson.

I live at 917 through Eustach Road.

I'm just to the west of the property here that they're talking about developing.

Um there's a handful of different things, at least three that I can I can come up with.

The reason why this shouldn't go through.

The first one is the traffic issues.

Um literally, I sit at my front door sometimes.

I look out to Eustach Rose and say now is not a good time to leave.

We constantly are stuck in a situation where you just can't get there from here.

And it's a combination of the traffic that's there and also the development that's happening.

They close roads consistently.

If you don't know which direction you can go, and that continues to force more uh traffic.

If this was proposed after the roundabout was put in to begin, they the traffic problem would probably resolve itself.

Um second portion that I want to talk about briefly is if you look at the south corner uh bottom of the triangle there, there are at least eight lots, and I believe there's actually more than that, but at least eight lots that actually lie in a floodplain.

Have you ever watched a hurricane or uh flooding in an area and and scratched your head and wondered who approved a house to be built in a floodplain?

Um those eight lots in that bottom corner are in a floodway or in a floodplain.

Uh those people, even if the flood never comes, are gonna have to pay roughly around a hundred dollars a month to flood insurance as long as they have a mortgage on that property.

Uh, unless they have some um the uh intent to raise that property and get it out of the floodplain, that that's gonna be a constant issue for about those bottom eight lots.

The third thing is uh that I want to uh bring up briefly is I spent uh a little over four years on the value school district school board.

Um we start I started off early before the 08 uh thing that slowed everything down.

At that point, we were experiencing 13% growth.

We had to build an elementary school every other year.

Uh we were pushing back a high school constantly, and every time we had a new building that we needed to build, we prayed that we could get approval on a bond.

That money doesn't come free, it doesn't come, it isn't an automatic thing.

We don't just get money to build schools.

Uh all that has to go out on into a levy, it has to be passed.

Those are getting harder and harder.

If you sit there and look at what's going on out in uh Idaho today, more and more bonds and levies are failing.

Um is fortunate that most of those do tend to go through, but the amount of money that has to be spent to build those schools is incredible.

Um there's even the density of this this development.

I'm not sure the the uh property taxes coming off it'll actually offset the cost that are that'll it'll entail uh to try to educate those students.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate your comments.

No more sign-ups.

Is there anyone that would like to speak for against or go ahead and come on up?

Sorry.

Um good evening, my name is Ellie, and I live at 8848 East Hyacinth, Nampa, 83687.

I'm in this art Heartland subdivision that's addressed directly across from Eustach Road from the proposed Brook crossing.

Um before I address the specifics, I wanted to address uh something pretty critical.

Um, the fact that Eustack Road um that it does not eliminate the comprehensive plans, compatibility requirements.

Idaho law use defines adjacent properties to include those across the street, and more importantly, the NAMPA 2040 comprehensive plan explicitly states that compatibility with existing development will be an important consideration for new developments.

We will not be distant neighbors.

We share the same intersection, the same visual corridor and the same market area.

When homeowners look at Heartland, they will see regatta when they consider purchasing in either development, they will compare them.

The developments are functionally adjacent regardless of the streets between us.

Heartland is zoned RS7 single family residential with 7,000 square foot lots.

We have established homes and a good amenities, and um this application proposing 58 attached town home units plus a hundred single homes.

Um with for a total of 158 um will increase the it's a significantly higher density than in our area.

Um the mixed housing type combined attached homes with detached single family represents a fundamental incompatibility with Heartland's established RS7 character.

The NAMPA comprehensive plan requires compatible adjacent land uses, introducing town homes density directly across from us, um it violates that principle.

Um the property values in our neighborhood um have been recently established.

We had um a home sell for 650,000 in um October and 649,900 um in that same area.

Um this this establishes us as um a higher end subdivision um and uh uh above the median home prices of Kenyon County, um, which is 435,000.

Um in the Stanford University research analysis, thousands of properties found in higher income neighborhoods.

The property values declined 2.5% when lower cost housing was introduced and nearby.

So for the average home in our subdivision that represents a 16,250 loss in value per home with the 75 homes in our subdivision that it it um it equates to about one 1.2 million dollars in lost value.

Um endurance holdings is a production builder with documented quality issues in multiple canyon county subdivisions with public records showing problems with with this.

Um the this development, this proposed development, it will materially harm existing NAMPA residents who invested in the Heartland based on what what the zoning was when we bought it.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Anyone else that would like to speak on this item?

Okay.

Would you like to come back up?

My PowerPoint back up, thank you.

Um, um, I'd like to thank and acknowledge the neighbors for their comments, and um I have spoken to some of them, not all of them, um, some um like Mr.

Chapman on a few occasions, and I appreciate the time they've taken to share their concerns.

So, first thing I wanted to go through, let's go through the commercial real quick.

So it wasn't brought to my intention till Thursday afternoon last week that we were not meeting the 5% intent.

And I thought, wait a minute, let me get my engineers to provide a um an exhibit so we can fully understand.

So you can see on the bottom here, everything in pink to the center section line of the road is designated for BC commercial.

And um can't see the bottom part, but we're right now at um 5.99%.

And I guess I leave it in your guys' court and discretion on how you want to handle it.

But when I look at the commercial, and if I were just looking at it individually, we have to do landscaping, we have to provide parking, and we have to provide access to the commercial pieces, which that that's what we are doing, and we feel it it is meeting the intent.

Now, if you guys disagree, you would like to condition us to make changes to make sure that the 5% is actually available in the building envelope.

Um, we're okay with that too.

But again, it was really brought to us um late Thursday, and so um this is um the exhibit I was able to um produce for you.

Mr.

Chair, let me if I could just clarify please so the 5.99% you're including this the parking and the street and yes, so all the parking excluding the Eustick right-of-way, taking that out.

Yes.

The 3.8%.

I think the building envelope actual usage.

Yes.

But then again, like I'm saying, if you look at an actual commercial development, it there's more beyond just the building envelope.

We have to have the parking, the landscape, all that all those all those nuts and bolts that are needed for the component.

I just wanted to clarify the disparity in the number of the case.

Yeah, so I do want to bring that to your attention um and clarification.

Um, real quick, I did speak to the owners to the east, um, the Simpsons, and we will definitely have fencing all up along the eastern border without a doubt for um for to keep people from leaving the property and also aesthetically just it it's just better to have the fence.

Yes, and I'm happy if you guys need that conditioned as well, but um that is our intent.

Um as far as Mr.

Um Commissioner Keyhoe's comments against for the landscaping, we're happy to make any adjustments when we submit for construction plans to meet the necessary um City of Napa requirements.

We won't see any palm trees.

What's that?

So we won't see any palm trees.

No, I know palm trees, I promise.

All right, yes.

Um, speaking on those two comments, let's take let's talk about Valley View School.

So northwest of the site, 1.5 miles um near Highway 26.

CBH has um entered a memorandum of understanding with Valley View to donate 12.40 acres for an elementary school site.

So this commitment for this area demonstrates that the applicant's proactive response to the district's needs and the long-term investment in serving the future needs um for this growing area.

Next, let's talk about Does that come with the building?

I don't believe so.

I think it's just land, yes.

But it's a start.

So let's talk about a little bit about infrastructure.

So, as previously noted, the property is a key stakeholders in the planned improvements along the Eustace corridor that you guys have planned.

It's a major thoroughfare from um from the city limits from Caldwell all the way to Highway 16.

And we feel that with this development for Regatta Crossing will be providing all the necessary right-of-way dedication, frontage improvements, included including curve, gutter, sidewalk to help um implement that long-term vision.

I am hoping that once the roundabout does come in, that will help with speeding.

I I'm hoping the traffic concerns that they have that will help um alleviate.

And again, this is a key piece, key right-of-way that's needed for that that we're happy to um dedicate with our um plats.

That's um now let's change gears to Mr.

Chapman.

And I've met with Mr.

Chapman a few times, um, him and his brother, they're both lovely to speak to, and we've had some good conversations.

Um, but Mr.

Chapman um at the time of selling the property CBH homes, the site he knew would be intended for future redevelopment.

And Mr.

Chapman liked to see the site developed kind of his way.

He wants the one acre lots.

And unfortunately, that desire does not really combine with what my clients' development intentions are, nor does it fit the city's comprehensive plan.

This is supposed to be mixed use.

We're supposed to have a net density of at least 2.5.

So when I spoke to Mr.

Chapman again numerous times several times, I kind of at first talked to him and I said, Can we compromise?

Can there be a midpoint that we can maybe start a conversation?

And Mr.

Chapman um just made it very clear that he wanted to proceed his way, or it was kind of the highway, and no other discussions of road access points and stuff were given, which as a property owner, he completely has that right, and I totally respected that.

So unfortunately, that's kind of we kind of ended conversation at that point.

I did try though, I did ask.

Um let's talk about density.

So we really truly feel looking at the mixed use, looking at the need for the commercial, looking at it as a smart growth land use perspective.

We take the commercial and we really feel like there it needs to transition in density.

That's why we have the portions of the townhomes.

That's why we have the RS4, and then it transitions to the RS6.

So I have it really tiered to step down to support those commercial needs and then work our way down.

Um we feel it it's appropriate, it's exactly what you're asking for for residential mixed use.

And um we feel that it's the right fit for the site.

Um I have one more second.

That would I just want to talk about the one access point.

So the access point for the one access point is important because we're taking access onto a major arterial.

We don't want to have numerous access points for safety reasons.

So really, this is the smartest um possible position is to have the one access.

Once those other parcels um actually one of the last remaining parcels to the east when the Simpsons um do redevelop it after they're done farming, that will provide that interconnection that we need.

But having any more access points would just be unsafe for that um planned of a roadway.

Again, thank you for your time.

If I missed anything, please let me know.

Chairman, I have a couple questions.

That's okay.

Um, what about those floodplain houses?

Oh, yes.

Um, Chairman, um, commissioner, yes, for those eight units, and we can maybe talk to Daniel a little bit more, but we'll have to submit specific um floodplain applications.

I believe this the lots will have to be raised to get them out of the floodplain um zone.

So there are uh applications that we will have to proceed um get approval from from the city of Napa, FEMA um before we can get building permits on that site.

Okay, I have one more question, but can I ask the attorney a question following up with that?

So if we put in to the conditions that they have to build those up to take them out of the floodplains so that the people don't have to pay pay flood insurance, and then something happens after the people buy the houses, who's responsible for that Commissioner Copeland.

So if you put in the conditions that they need to be built above the floodplain, and your suggestion is that despite those conditions and despite those homes being built above the floodplains, there's still an incident.

Is that what you're is that what you're talking about?

Yeah, perhaps they are not built built to perhaps not exactly, you know, maybe not to code exactly.

Okay.

Um again, speaking hypothetically, I it's that's all I'm asking.

It's hard to foresee the city's liability necessarily in that.

It seems like there might be a lot of other facts that would kind of uh lend itself to changing the analysis a bit, but um again, if there's problems with the with the building structures and they're not up to code, there's potentially lots of different issues in there somewhere, but um particularly with a floodplain issue.

I don't foresee any city liability if you know that's been a condition back before the preliminary plot was even approved.

Daniel has a comment, Mr.

Chair, Commissioner Copeland.

Um I as the city floodplain administrator, when those building permits are pulled and when we review the construction drawings for that subdivision, uh we would be looking at what the base flood elevation is and having those filled above that, and then when those homes are built to remove those lots from the floodplain, they have to have a surveyor come in, survey those, verify they are that they are at the correct elevation, and submit those documentations to FEMA, and that's all the process processes that are uh handled through the engineering department and and are verified prior to anything being put in.

Perfect, thank you.

Thank you, Daniel.

And then my last question for you is there three entrances in and out of there, or just the one?

There's three, right?

Total, just one on that one road that they were talking about.

Chairman, um, Commissioner Copeland.

So we have one access point, and then we have two emergency accesses, one off of Ewestick and one off of North Side.

So those are not for public use.

No, those will not be, those are strictly for emergency access.

You can only turn one way out of there.

I is that correct?

Someone said I don't think that's correct.

I think Daniel can that is not correct.

That would be a full access.

Um the traffic study does not indicate uh requirement to restrict access left turn.

They one of the conditions of approval is that they actually put in left turn bays for that uh approach so that they can go both directions.

Okay, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

There is two future access points out of the development, correct?

So there are two rooms.

Mr.

Chair, there are actually three.

There's one on the southeast, southwest, and then two on the east side, the cul-de-sac at the bottom is designed and the right-of-way is done such that that would be able to be extended through as well.

Thank you, Daniel.

Mr.

Chairman.

Yes.

Daniel, while we're on the subject.

The applicant made a statement about the number of uh access points, the more you have the less, the more dangerous it is.

If you only have one is less dangerous.

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

Um the the space that they have there is not, they don't have enough space along Ustick to allow for two accesses.

Um if we were to allow for two, the proximity that they would be in would be below what our policy requires.

have one is less dangerous think about that um I don't think that's exactly what she said um the the space that they have there is not they don't have enough space along mu stick to allow for two accesses um so if we were to allow for two the proximity that they would be in would be below what our policy requires so in this instance with the spacing they have um the one access is the the best alternative that's like that that's what you meant that's what I meant yes anybody else have questions for the FPM no okay thank you thank you all thank you so much I would take a motion to close public hearing that move second and motion by Kiho seconded by garner to close public hearing all those in favor aye any opposed public hearing is closed okay uh Daniel with a development like this on Eustach Road would this development cause speed limits to be lowered potentially um that is certainly something that we can look at and we can do a speed study and and look at that um I don't without a speed study I don't know whether or not that would be something that um we would implement but we can certainly um you could condition the the applicant or we can do it as a city staff I can talk to traffic about doing a speed study there.

In the TIS it wouldn't say anything about speeds uh the traffic impact study does not necessarily do a speed study uh they do when they're looking at the um functionality of the intersections and those types of things they do look at the speed limits in that um as part of their analysis but they are not looking at a they do not do a speed study that would identify whether um it's appropriate to reduce uh leave the speed limit the same increase or anything like that okay uh next the roundabout at that intersection what's the schedule on that so I I knew that one was going to come up so I talked to Crystal our transportation director they are looking at 2030 for that roundabout okay um and of course uh city water city sewer for the subdivision yes this this is on city water and city sewer pressurized irrigation is what it's proposed to be uh there is not a requirement to um add new wells or anything in the area for that um the other uh neighborhoods around there was a surface water irrigation station that was put in with heartland um but there has not been a new well in that area since the Valley View High School went in uh when we put in well 20 uh which is there at the southeast or southwest corner of Valley View High School site um and so there's been no new um groundwater uh diversions in that area by any of the developments that have happened out there so hypothetical question um in a subdivision in an area like this and we all know this area of town is growing very fast um a lot of new subdivisions go a lot of more different water usages um when those subdivisions hook up to the city more water is drawn out of the city wells that are in the area um that could potentially lower the water table if that negatively affects the people who have current wells on then they just need to hook up to city water or redrew their real redrill their wells so when we put in our new our domestic wells we are typically much deeper than um an individual property owners wells often are um and not knowing the characteristics of the well that was mentioned um I don't know the depth on that well and so I can't really speak to what effect that may have we do do analysis on those wells when we put them in on their zone of influence and and at their max drawdown what they what that zone of influence and cone of depression on the water table looks like to make sure that we're not um impacting those however if there are um wells that are you know depending on the depth there can be some fluctuation uh due to the changing characteristics of you know field flood irrigation to lawn uh irrigation and and that um but that's typically on much shallower wells um you know not necessarily something that would be down into the the deeper aquas I guess my main reason for the question is just to assure that the city does in fact look at those things just to help prevent it's not something you just yeah we're gonna hook it up willy nilly and it doesn't matter if it affects you or not there are processes and things in place that and that's not to say that there could not be some impacts but you know generally speaking that would be on shallower wells that they just are not they're they're into the upper aquifer not not down into one of the more established aquifers thank you

There are processes and things in place that and that's not to say that there could not be some impacts, but you know, generally speaking, that would be on shallower wells that they just are not they're they're into the upper aquifer, not down into one of the more established aquifers.

Thank you.

Questions for staff or Mr.

Chair, I have a couple of questions.

Um probably for Rodney or Dan.

So back in 2021, when this first came to the city for annexation, it was denied.

And it was denied due to no path of annexation.

What does that mean at the time?

If you could go in your way back machine and any idea.

Um from my knowledge of reading the staff report, there was another application to the north that hadn't been annexed in yet.

So because that didn't get annexed in this one didn't have a contiguous.

Oh, so you literally mean no path, like the literal path.

I see, I see.

So it wasn't touching the city limits or anything like that.

Okay, not a way forward or something like that.

Okay.

Um then in 2023, um, it was brought again as a pre-application meeting, but in 24 it was denied again due to density concerns.

Well, it seems to me there's a lot more density out there now than there was back in 2024.

Do you recall what the the specific concerns might have been around the density issues back then?

Was it a different type of uh from the limited I knew from the the staff report, it was just density concerns around the RP zoning, and uh there were some multifamily units there, and it was just density concerns around the multifamily.

Yeah, they were they were asking for a different zoning than they are currently, and in that zoning they were asking for there's the potential for higher development or higher density development in that zone.

So that's why the concern was there.

I I think I would guess.

Well, I was in this chair in April 2024, I should remember too.

So I'm not faulting you for not remembering okay.

So I just wanted to clear that up.

Um that's all I had at this point right now.

This really it's more for my own own information, but I asked Rodney about the five percent, and then she said she brought up the landscaping and everything that everybody has to put in.

So I just want to clarify the thought process for the not the comprehensive plan is that five percent is actual buildings, or is the five percent include the parking and the landscaping?

I mean, I'm I'm I'm confused about that.

I guess I'm confused about that.

Mr.

Chair, um commissioners.

Great question.

Um, the the intent of the comprehensive plan is the same as what how we see um uh how how do we describe this?

Like whenever we discuss commercial use, we include the the lot.

We include the the parking, the landscaping, everything in that.

So it's the intent of the comprehensive plan isn't to only be the building, it's intended to be the lot as well.

But if you go beyond that, that's the question, right?

Where did you talk about the roads and things like that?

The roads and yeah, exactly.

The buffer uh for the subdivision, should that be included in that?

That that's that's a subjective uh decision that you have to make here because we don't have clarity in the code.

Because the code doesn't currently specify that's correct, yeah.

So all we can go on is that comprehensive plan language of saying he would like to see five percent minimum of commercial in these developments.

So I just personally I feel like there's enough ambiguity in this right now that you have a lot of flexibility to determine what to do in this situation.

We're gonna clarify that in the future, but I think you have the ability to make a decision here.

But on the note, it was the applicant mentioned it was 5.99%, including the parking lot for the commercial and including the road, though.

So yeah.

I mean, I think that it's only 3.8.

Just the building.

Is does I think that includes the parking lots too.

The whole lot.

That's includes the commercial lot.

That's what I wanted to clarify.

And it sounded like there was a there was uh there was a difference between that those numbers.

Why are those numbers not the same then?

Mr.

Chair and Commissioners, the three point I'm doing the math, that's the thing.

That's why the math is all wrong.

Yeah.

So the 3.8 um percent it includes the lots, the commercial lots.

It doesn't include anything beyond those commercial lots.

But the lots include the parking, the lots include the parking and the landscaping that goes around the sub the the specific commercial development, but not it we're not including in that 3.8%.

We're not including the access drive, which is zone BC, and we're not including any of the landscape buffer along the edge of the subdivision.

So it's outside of the law.

So all that equals 5.99% of what is correct.

All right, that I got it.

And that was all.

Thank you.

Other questions, thoughts, concerns.

Well, I think uh just on the on the five percent issue, uh the applicant made it very clear that they were willing to move to that five five percent.

I think the the acquiescence to to meet that condition is if if that condition was on there.

I'm a little hesitant.

If it's in the code at five percent, I know there's ambiguity in the code and two, it's it's not a hundred percent clear.

That's why it's not I I don't feel like the developer is trying to pull a fast one on the stretch.

I didn't think that at all.

So my biggest concern was the floodplain, and if they're gonna take care of that for those homeowners, and that's small by the FEMA, because I mean we've had that in Boise lately where they thought they weren't on the floodplains and the something didn't happen and they're not you know they're not taking responsibility, so that's a big deal for the homeowners that are gonna buy it in the future.

Um I do have some concern on the on the strain on the schools.

Um and there's a couple of uh gentlemen that talked to that.

Uh you know, that's a sometimes we sit up here and we think, well, that's not our problem because that's a school district problem, and they have to figure out how to address whatever growth is happening around them, and and that's that's true to an extent, but we'd be I mean, if we said if we did that, we'd be sticking our heads in the sand and and just thinking, hey, out of sight, out of mind.

So I really I am concerned about the the strain on the schools.

I I appreciate the the land that that is being offered out there, but that doesn't come with a school.

You know, it doesn't come with a building and trying to get a bond passed.

Hey, we tried in the NAMPA school district too, and it didn't fly.

They're difficult.

And the gentleman is correct.

It is harder and harder to meet that threshold for even to keep the schools in existence operating with levies.

Well, I think I think on that point, um, and I'll say it.

I'm a little concerned that the NAMPA school district has empty buildings that they're closing other uses for, and then right next door within the city limits of NAMPA, um, there's a school district that is way overcrowded.

So how come we can't realign some borders, boundaries that's adjusting and I know that's above our discussion.

I just think the kids are gonna have to go to school somewhere, so uh they have to live somewhere.

So do you not give the families places to live because we can't keep up with our school.

I mean, there's such a but I understand the schools because I don't want my children in classrooms with 40 for you know 45 people or whatever, but I just I always think that I mean, really that that is like a school district thing, they should rezone that stuff so that we utilize what we have.

I think it's one of those things when when forced, nobody wants their kids to be going to a school there where there's 50 kids in a class.

Nobody wants that.

And I think when it gets to that level, something will have to be done, and that's gonna be up to not us at that point.

I mean, we're a land use body and we can think about some things and we need to be concerned with some things, but that's kind of outside of our realm of decision making and if that's the case, then why do we reach out to the school districts for comment?

That's a good point.

I mean, we should just not even reach out to school district because frankly, what you're saying, if we're not I'm not saying that we should make decisions that on this commission for the school board.

That is, they're an independent, they're a taxing authority, they're an independent uh district, so you know they they need to make sure that you know I get I get it.

However, we're just sticking our heads in the sand if we don't consider the impact that what we do on this dias right here affects others.

That's why we reach out for comment.

Um well, I think that the interesting part is is that what we have was we have an owner that has property that he purchased and he has a plan for what he wants to do to it.

But can we sit up here and say no, I'm sorry you can't do that because the general public are not willing to vote a bond through so we can have a school that the kids could go to.

You're at that I think you're reading more into what my comments are.

No, and I'm yeah.

I'm not saying no, we shouldn't make a decision based on it.

I'm just saying we should take that into consideration.

No, what I think that's the challenge is that we can't sit up here and punish a landowner and say no, you can't do that because the people don't want to build a school.

Because that's not fair to him, right?

I mean I understand that, yes.

I'm not gonna my decision isn't gonna be based on overcrowding at East Canyon Elementary.

Right.

I just think that's it's a consideration though, and I understand that that has to be that has to be considered.

Um just as we consider traffic, yeah.

Location.

I mean, do we deny a uh an applicant, a landowner because there's too much traffic and it's not right, it's not a right fit.

Yeah, we have before.

Were they donating some of the land for the roundabout there you stick to the was that correct?

I don't know if they would call it a donation.

It's a yeah, I mean it's their land though, right?

And we're getting it.

Yeah, they can call it whatever they want.

Yeah, there will be a roundabout then.

I was just thinking in my head about the business thing, because that'll be part of it, kind of.

So Mr.

Chair, can I ask one more question of our city engineer?

Please would your preference be if the city got its way that you had an access off of north side as well.

Um it would I I certainly always appreciate having multiple ways in and out of a subdivision.

Um I understand that there have my my understanding is there has been discussions at some point about um purchase of additional right-of-way or additional ability to access there exactly how those went.

Um sounds like there may be some discrepancy between the parties on how those discussions have gone.

Um if if there is an ability to do that, I would certainly um prefer to have multiple full accesses into the development.

Uh that will come in time as the property to the east ultimately will development develop at some point in the future.

Now, when that might be, uh, you know, we can only speculate.

So it seems like you would prefer two entrances.

The fire department would not prefer these emergency accesses, they would prefer full access as well, it seems like.

But these are I want to clarify between preferences and requirements, I guess.

Are they mean they're meeting the code?

They their current proposal meets code.

Yeah.

That's gonna be the challenge, is I think I agree with everybody that this is Can we have part of the condition that they put in another access road?

Well, I think or is that not part or is that not require them to purchase more land, correct?

Well, not because there's no there's a fire access there.

Yeah.

But it is let me clarify there is not on the current property they own, there is not the ability to add a second full access.

Because they can't cross the it would require it is too close to the intersection.

It would require acquisition of additional property to place a full access out to north side.

That would have to go further further south, correct.

Further south on north side, yeah.

Okay.

So while we would prefer it to be better with regards to fire access and traffic access, it's not it's not feasible without more property because of the irrigation easements, is what I'm saying.

And and just say on a property and proximity.

Proximity to the intersection, yes.

Okay.

Well, that makes it more challenging to use that as a finding for denial because you can't require somebody possibility of the and like Daniel said eventually.

10 years, 20 years, 30 years down the road when that East project of the South develops, there will be a access.

Right.

Access anywhere else for that piece of property.

And Mr.

Chair, on that note, I think that's sometimes what a lot of people who listen to these and even us forget is that this is a 20-year project.

It's the they're not gonna be, you know, 500 more students going to East Canyon elementary next year next year.

Yeah.

According to their comments, there's still capacity at all three of those schools, elementary, the junior high, and even ridge view.

62 at the high school, 282 at the middle school, 148 at the elementary school.

So maybe hopefully we'll cross our fingers between now and whenever it's needed, I can figure out what to what to do.

Well I if it still feels too dense to me for that area.

I think they've got it phased well within.

I mean, if you just kind of zoom out, we're right at the tail end of this U stick before we get all into the industrial, right?

So it's not like we're phasing into higher density stuff, you know, it's gonna be kind of just this pocket of higher density among what's what's basically gonna be stuck between RS7 and industrial.

And I think the thing like she's pointed out is that they've wrapped it with the highest the the lowest density is all the way around the entire property.

So from the outside looking in, you're gonna see you know RS six, but all the densities on the inside inside of the development, and then get again think about what is the future land use call for.

Not calling for RS eight or seven, you know.

I think to piggyback on what Mr.

Morgan said, you know, the use takes at some point in the next what however long is gonna be built out to five lanes, and that might be at that time a better opportunity or a better time for a development like this to come in with that much.

I I like the plan.

I like how it's dense in the middle and then less dense on the on the outer.

I don't have any problem with how the how the layout, the layout, just right there on Eustac and Well, and I guess I guess my thought on that is how long is it gonna take U stick to develop out, and then how long is it gonna take this project to develop out?

I mean, are we talking uh four or five year discretionary period, or is it a 15-year discretionary period?

I don't care.

Uh Damien, can you go back to the applicant's presentation and bring up their phasing plan?

I thought she said what the build out was.

Yeah, I think she did.

Well round about 105 years, two or four years.

I thought she said it was gonna be finishing up about the same time, if I remember right.

Mr.

Chair Commissioner Gardner, you are correct.

She was the discussion was that their final phase would be around 2030.

I guess my point is we've sat up here and we've talked about how Ustix gonna be different in the next five years because once highway 16 gets done, right?

It's gonna become a major arterial.

Is that the right term?

Arterial for that one.

Um so, but this is I guess my this is not right next to 16.

Like we're getting what is it five miles?

Closer to north side it freeway than it is sixty.

Right.

That and that's that's my point is I like the I like it having the more density, higher mixed use, closer to 16, and as that's as we move west, scale that down.

That's that's my thoughts on the density.

It's it's I don't I you've made a good points.

I I don't hate how they've got it tucked in the middle.

That's what we like to see, the higher density in the middle.

Um it still feels like a little too dense for this, as far away from 16 as it is, and as close to the what I'm considering the end of that, which is kind of the industrial part.

I don't I don't like the access, but I don't think we can deny it on those grounds.

Could we deny it on those grounds?

So Commissioner Keogh, your question, can you deny it on those grounds?

Again, this with this annexation and zone application, the commissioners are just making a recommendation to city council.

So City Council ultimately will need to make a decision on all of these different components when they come before them.

And again, there'll be another public hearing.

So they'll have to make decisions on quasi-judicial decisions and then also legislative decisions.

Quasi-judicial decisions have a certain requirement to um, you know, analyze the facts based on certain statutory requirements and do and judicial legislative requ legislative decisions are um made based off of um not necessarily statutory requirements.

For example, you can have an annexation that's it is um legislative, and they're allowed to kind of make decisions based on all of these different uh issues discussed.

So in terms of what the planning and zoning commission can approve or recommend approval or recommend denial based on, uh you can make a recommended denial based on all kinds of different things.

The requirements for city council is a little bit different than that.

So we could say no and they'll say yes.

They could say yes.

Unfortunately, for things which you'll hear again later tonight, like a conditional use permit.

The planning and zoning commission is the is the final decision-making authority on those issues.

But for an annexation such as this, it will still go to city council for ultimate approval or denial.

And they have those requirements to consider things that are legislative or quasi-judicial, and those come with statutory requirements.

I'm not meaning to be evasive with your question.

I'm trying to kind of explain this.

At least she didn't say it depends.

Yeah.

I've removed that from my vocabulary, at least I've tried to, so I mean, is it fair to say if we're gonna recommend that I understand it doesn't matter what we do, but here tonight, but if we're going to recommend that they deny it, we ought to give them a good reason for that recommendation.

Certainly, and so that's what's uh and that's fair to say, and so I think um the previous conversation about making conditions of approval that are almost impossible or require um you know uh acquiring more land, it's making a little bit tough on the developer to to achieve those conditions ultimately for approval.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, can I just add a quick note?

Uh just um what we've encouraged the commission to do in the past on these is it just as exactly as as has been stated, you want to give the city council information, facts, and conclusions that help them to make their decision based on your recommendation and the facts that you present.

So um just an encouragement to remember to look back on the criteria for annexation and the criteria listed in code for zoning.

Those are your guidelines, they're your boundaries to stay within in order to stay within city code sure.

Um question for Damien.

Um the minimum density they could have here is two point five.

Is that what I heard earlier?

The and the residential mixed use, it's two point five one to eight dwelling units an acre that are allowable.

Okay, and they're proposing somewhere north between four and five.

Is that I can pull it back up, but 4.18, I believe.

Little little bit above the four.

Yep.

Okay.

So zoning-wise, they're actually quite a bit less than what they could.

They're less than what they could do, but we could even do less.

Down to down to 2.5.

And that would help with their traffic mitigation with the only one exit.

Yeah, less cars going out.

Yeah, but less of a problem.

I'm gonna take a shot at a motion here.

Yeah, it'll be 230 if you don't hurry up, so um and then we could Mr.

J you can open it for discussion if you want after a second, but I moved to recommend approval of the annexation and zoning for 37.74 acres.

I'm reading this because I want to add a couple of um well, I moved to approve the project as stated on the screen with recommended conditions of approval and the proposed findings.

With a couple of additional com um uh conditions.

One that the applicant increase the commercial, I'll just say space.

Is that what is that's the right way?

Buildable area area.

Yeah, from three point eight percent to at least five percent.

Now we can go back and forth on what that includes, but we're we just want to move from the lots buildable lots.

Second condition would be to install fencing, solid fencing all the way down the east spine of the property from Ustick all the way down to the collection pond.

Uh-huh.

That was it.

Those are the only two conditions.

Was there anything else that we had discussed?

And if I could just speak to that motion real quick, or maybe we just need a second, but since there's a motion on the table.

Or not okay.

It's been moved by Commissioner Kirkman second.

Before we vote, Mr.

Chair, can I just speak to that motion real quick?

So the reason that I wanted to move from the I added that condition from three point eight percent to five percent is simply because you know it it's in our code.

It's not specifically defined yet, and that's what's gonna happen later on, but I think we I think it's good practice to be consistent and stick to what's in our code.

If we keep making it if we start making exceptions or you know, kind of I I think we just moved down a slippery, we we get on a slippery slope kind of thing.

That's the only reason for that.

And and based on the applicant's uh uh presentation where it where she had mentioned that the that they were willing to do that.

So anyways.

Okay.

It's been moved in second.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Okay.

I don't think so.

I think we should moving forward.

Okay.

So maybe we need to do a roll call.

Let's just do a roll call roll.

All right, let's go.

No, do it.

Okay.

Miller.

Yes.

Turner.

Oh, just kidding.

Keyhoe.

Aye.

Morgan?

No.

Kirkman.

I copeland.

I aye.

Barner.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

It is seven forty-six.

We're gonna take a five-minute quick break.

Let those leave and for others to use the restroom.

Back at seven fifty-one.

Mr.

Um, I think that would be a little bit more.

I mean there's all these things that you know.

Okay.

Seven fifty two.

One minute past.

Is everybody back?

Everybody's back.

Okay, we'll go ahead and move on to uh action item three dash two, a conditional use permit for an existing R V expansion at Mason Creek RV Park, eight oh seven North Franklin Boulevard and an RA.

This is to replace a previously expired conditional use permit to expand the R V park to a total number of sites from seventy-six to one twenty.

Is the applicant here?

There we go.

Can we please get your address?

Oh, sorry.

Yeah, the address of the park.

Mine, four two two West Sherman Street and Boise.

We got the Idol part, yeah.

Okay.

Perfect.

Uh, I'm sorry, did you want me to tell you about the the I haven't done this too much, so did you want me to tell you about the uh the expansion or okay.

So as I mentioned, we're here for your approval of the uh conditional use permit to expand the park from seventy-six to a hundred and twenty or more sites.

And I want to acknowledge up front that I've heard the concerns raised by our neighbors, and I take them seriously.

And I also want to share some context of what's happened at this property since we acquired it.

When we purchased Mason Creek five years ago, we inherited significant problems.

Since then, we've removed the previous management team that allowed conditions to deteriorate.

We've had to evict multiple residents engaged in drug activity and violence.

We've removed numerous uh inoperable RVs that had accumulated on site.

We've cleared dead trees and shrubs and abandoned vehicles from the undeveloped expansion area.

Um we even demolished a single family home on the property that have had become dilapidated.

The resimment residents who remain today are some of the best the park has seen since it opened.

We've worked hard to change the culture and conditions here, and we're committed to maintaining those standards as we expand.

I mentioned this because some of the concerns raised from our neighbors uh reflected conditions that existed before our ownership.

We've demonstrated through our actions that we're serious about operating a clean, safe, and professionally managed facility.

In letters from our neighbors, uh there were two specifically.

Mrs.

Hensel expressed concerns about privacy and visual buffering along the residential boundary.

And I'm prepared to commit to installing solid uh solid privacy fencing adjacent to residential properties as part of this expansion.

This directly addresses the request made in her written testimony.

Additionally, she and another neighbor, Roy and Joan Shockley, expressed concerns that expansion might require opening or activating uh city easement adjacent to their property that has never been used.

And I want to be clear that the expansion as it's proposed does not rely on that easement for access.

All access to the expanded area will be from the existing park off of Franklin Boulevard.

Furthermore, we will track each resident's occupancy period to ensure RVs no RVs remain in the same space beyond 180 days.

The terms of their stay will include this requirement, and the residents will receive advance notice of their deadline.

Those who can't or won't comply will need to leave the park.

The staff's report makes it an important point that the expansion area is currently landlocked and access uh has no access except through the existing RV park.

If this expansion isn't approved, that land will continue to sit vacant, underutilized, and as staff noted, open to trash, vagrancy, and unsupervised use.

We've already invested in cleaning up that area by removing dead vegetation and abandoned vehicles, and approving this expansion allows us to put that land to productive use with proper infrastructure, utilities, and management oversight.

The alternative is continued vacancy with no realistic prospects for alternative development.

So commissioners, I'm asking for you to approve this conditional use permit.

Uh the commitments I've made tonight regarding the solid privacy fencing on residential boundaries, non-use of adjacent easement for access, and documented and a documented 180-day space management system in our business plan.

Mason Creek R V Park has been operating at this location since 1991.

And under our ownership, it's become cleaner, safer, and better managed.

This expansion allows us to make productive productive use of landlocked property that currently serves no purpose while providing options that our community genuinely needs.

So with that, um I'm happy to stand for any questions you might have.

Please.

Sir, when did you put this property?

In uh 2021.

Um I believe we close in March, so we're coming up on five years.

Any other questions?

Okay, we'll call you back up.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Christie.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

Uh my name is Christy Watkins.

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

The request before you this evening is for a conditional use permit to expand an existing RV park from its current 76 spaces to potentially up to 139 spaces, depending on the final layout with the plan that will come uh through the process later at 807 North Franklin Boulevard.

This property was rezoned with a CUP for an RV park in July of 1991 and has operated as such since then.

Um they were also approved for expansion in February of 2020, but no plans were submitted, so then that approval expired.

Um this property was originally addressed as 923 7th Avenue North.

That is what is in the original ordinance.

It is now referred to as 807 North Franklin Boulevard.

The comprehensive plan is medium density residential.

The zoning is RA, which is suburban residential.

The surrounding land uses and zoning to the north is BC.

To the south is RA and BC, to the east is BC, and to the west is RS6 with single family residential homes.

There are public utilities available to this project, and the property has access available on North Franklin Boulevard.

These are the applicable regulations.

There are quite a few.

Any citizen complaint or city citation related to a non-compliance with the conditions of a conditional use permit shall be investigated by city staff.

The applicant or owner of the subject property will be contacted by city staff, and if the complaint is found credible, material, and not remedied, the CUP shall be revoked.

I just wanted to make sure that that was on the record in case there are any complaints that come forward later.

Other applicable regulations would be for the RA zoning, the most important one as underlined here.

Minimum side and rear property setbacks shall not be less than 10 feet wide, except where utility easement is recorded adjacent to a side property line.

In that case, that would be larger.

So I wanted also to make sure that everyone was aware that those side setbacks would be 10 feet and that those spaces are not allowed to be right up against the property line.

As far as correspondence goes, there were a couple of letters received that had some concerns about the narrow dead-end roadway.

They were concerned about children's safety, fencing and visual buffering, which I believe he addressed again.

Trespassing incidences into the neighbors' yards, hoping that fencing and buffering and filling in that empty space will help with that.

Concerned about public safety, zoning compliance, infrastructure capacity, enforcement of existing conditions, protection of long-standing residential uses, and respect for neighboring property owners.

Mrs.

Hensel require requests the following conditions be placed on the project.

Installation of a solid continuous privacy fence, not chain link.

Prohibition of opening or activating the city easement adjacent to their property for public access.

Required setbacks for RV sites, trailers, vehicles, and storage areas.

Enforcement of RV stay limits and correction of unsafe, unsanitary, and unmanaged site conditions.

Further correspondence from the building department, normal Title 10 building codes.

Fire department, they do not oppose this application.

They have stated that this development is located approximately 1.2 miles from fire station number one with an approximate response time of five minutes.

The parks department has requested a 20-foot easement along Mason Creek for a pathway.

The police department listed out the calls that they receive in this area.

They project to add 117 people, new residents.

They're not really considered to be residents, but more people to the city of NAMPA's current population.

Therefore, they are recommending a commitment to fund.015 additional officers and.08 additional support staff.

NAMPA Engineering does not oppose this application and has their standard comments for hookup to utilities, floodplain conditions, and impact fees.

So the parcel in total is 14.58 acres.

They have 76 lots now or spaces now, and they in this hand-drawn concept, they can potentially go up to 139.

Now they will be required to give us dimensioned layout.

So it may not be 139 by the time they get done measuring all that out.

So the proposed density at 120 spaces is 8.2.

With 139 spaces, it would be 9.53.

They're still level within code for that.

For parking, each lot will require one parking space and alternative parking for visitors as required.

Additional spaces are proposed in the concept plan.

So this is our code that we're going to be looking at when they submit the plan for review.

So I don't have to read the entire thing.

So as stated, maximum density is 22 recreational vehicle spaces per acre for an RV park.

They're original proposal well with 120, it would only be 8.2.

So they're not anywhere near that 22.

And then with 139, they're still not anywhere near the 22 that they would be required to have.

Then with the plan that will be drawn out.

So for the proposed findings for the CUP, the comprehensive plan does not address the need or the use of RV parks within the city limits, so that is a non-applicable criteria.

However, because of the caveat in chapter 32 for RV parks, it says that one can expand with a conditional use permit.

This has been a long-standing RV park in our community.

RV parks are not considered to be full-time residents, and they should not provide convenient and functional living space for those residents.

The remaining property is undevelopable, undevelopable in the RV park and remains if the RV park remains in operation as it is at the rear of the property and has no access other than through the park.

Most of the site that is to be expanded into is located within the 100-year floodplain of Mason Creek.

As noted, RV parks are proven to be a draw on emergency services.

They do not, or an individual traffic impact fee assessment shall be for performed and coordinated, but they are assessed at a lower impact fee than regular commercial projects.

City code only allows for an RV to be placed there for 180 days.

Neighbor observations indicate the appearance of permanent residents via non-movement of the RVs and landscaped areas around said RVs.

City code compliance addresses non-compliance on a complaint only basis.

And 102512 provides the criteria for a revocation of a CUP if any complaints are submitted to our department.

So we've got building department.

Again, public comments are referenced there.

Fiscal impact study indicates that long-term use of a property for an RV park has a negative benefit for the city, where a short-term use of a RV park has a smaller benefit to the city.

RV parks are assessed at a very low impact fee due to the lack of permanent structures.

Since the RVs are not considered permanent structures, no impact fees are assessed on individual RV spaces.

So these are the proposed conditions, and I believe he addressed a few of those for you in his business plan.

These are the potential motions.

If you recall, these two guys came in here, and they had a long list of things they were going to do to improve the applicant.

I mean, approve the park.

Do you know if any of those things were done?

Uh Chairman and Commissioner Keho.

Um I tried to carry forward as much from that original CUP approval as I could.

Um some of the things I believe that they stated um were kind of above and beyond what our code requires.

Um and again, those code requirements will be assessed at the time when I have a dimensioned plan to look at.

Um so those same amenities and some of the things that they talked about in that public hearing um weren't necessarily offered up with this application, but the plan when they submit it is going to have to meet our code.

Yeah, basically they weren't done, I guess is what it means, right?

What I'm sorry, which which person are you referring to?

So basically, no, nothing was done because the property was sold after that.

Yes.

Yeah, sold a year later.

Yes.

Yes, so okay, yes.

So those things were not put in place.

We never received the.

So for the last four years, the new owner didn't do anything either.

They've been cleaning it up according to their statement, they've been cleaning it up.

No.

Um, Commissioner Morgan, it expired.

So it's not transferable.

Um it expires after six months if no other plans have been issued in the meantime.

If we get the plan to review um within that six months, it locks that conditional use permit in place for an indeterminate amount of time.

Um if they let it go for six months and don't ask for an extension, then it just expires the new owner was under no obligation the day where they weren't under any conditions, and now they're coming in to do four years later.

Their own thing.

Still they're because now they need the expansion.

They didn't need the expansion until now.

That's what the CUP is for.

All the never mind, that's all right.

Thanks.

Um Mr.

Chair, if I can ask.

Please, I guess I already started.

Um the easement on the back side of the west side of that property.

Um is that intended to be used?

I can ask the applicant if I need to.

Uh Commissioner Morgan, um, when I spoke with him earlier today, he indicated that it was not intended to be used.

They aren't going to be adding another access point.

Is there any way we can condition that or would that be illegal?

I'm going to defer to Daniel on that one.

Um I I believe you could condition that.

It is a public right-of-way, it's not an easement that runs through there.

They are public right-of-ways that were platted in the long distant past.

Um, but I as a condition of approval if that's something that you feel addresses the concerns.

I I don't see an issue with conditioning that they take no access from those public right-of-ways.

I mean, can we if it's a public right-of-way, can do we have that authority to just close that off as a condition and uh in one applicant's application?

I maybe that's a question for the attorney.

Commissioners, I'd be a little cautious to make a condition that is restricting um public access to those roads.

So again, I would just point back to those four criteria that are before you, and and that would be your guiding bite for making the decision.

And ultimately, if it doesn't uh fit within those four, I'd I'd recommend we steer clear of making that a reason for denial ultimately.

Mr.

Chair, a kind of a follow-up to that too, with CUPs.

Um, Rodney, this might be a question for you.

I don't know.

Um are there certain CUPs that have been approved in this city that garner a little bit more attention from the city than others?

I'm trying to frame the question as I mean there's there's some CUPs that are like, hey, this is you know, this is pretty straightforward, it's gonna be clean cut, whatever, and and doesn't really attract a lot of attention from the city as far as checking up and making sure that they're following the conditions of the CUP.

But then there might be some other CUPs that are a little bit more suspect that require maybe a little bit more attention based on police activity or things that might be going on.

Does that happen in your experience, Rodney, with the city as far as CUPs go?

Um Mr.

Chair and Commissioner Kirkman.

I I don't uh for the most part, we as a city don't go out looking for compliance with CUP after it's gone through its initial building permits or because of staffing um for staffing, but also yeah, I would say that that's probably primarily why.

Um however, whenever we see something that is a concern, we um uh I think you've had Sean Nichols in here before testifying from the building department who works 30 percent for the planning department, and he he is responsible for following up on things that are of concern.

So that's the first time just in the last couple of years, first time we've had somebody actually assigned to be following up on things like this, but it only comes up if we know about it, and so our conditional use permit uh zoning uh language.

Uh the this the language in code says that we need a couple of people within proximity of the property to make a complaint and then we go investigate and then we enforce.

And so if it's found to be credible and they don't comply with the criteria or the conditions listed in the conditional use permit, then we I revoke the conditional use permit and they have to come back to you to overturn that decision.

And I'm glad you explained that because that was one of the reasons I asked the question too, because um the concerns are brought from from citizens then and you know from complaints from people affected by that CUP.

Okay.

If if there were uh an inordinate amount of police responses to a particular um property that has a CUP on it, would that trigger uh maybe your department to look into something, even though there's not a complaint there from the citizens, or is that um it depends?

I hesitate to say that.

Uh I'm not an attorney.

Uh but um yeah, it it depends.

I I think if it's related to the conditional use permit, such as a uh gun gun sales or something, uh gunsmithing or something like that.

If it's related to that conditional use permit, then absolutely we we would look into that and do the research.

If it's um you know, if it's a barking dog or uh I don't I don't know, that's probably an extreme the other direction, but um then if it's not related to the conditional use permit, then no, we don't pay too much attention to that.

All right, that's all I have.

Okay, we'll go ahead and open up the public testimony portion, Madam Clerk.

Do we have the sign-up sheet?

We do, we have one Clint Taylor.

Okay, my name is Clint Kaler.

I live at 908 Fifth Avenue North.

Yeah, but I know 83687.

Everything that was said today already, including with the owner, is good enough for me.

I just came here today to make sure that the fence was a big deal.

So you know, put the pins.

Couple neighbors um weren't gonna show up today.

They're looking at the fence as well as thing.

Owner says he doesn't mind, but the pins that was in the condition in 2020, just hoping it was here today as well.

I'm the neighbor, you guys have any questions, let me know.

Otherwise, I am okay.

Okay.

Thank you for your time.

Appreciate it.

Okay, Mr.

Steve, you want to come back up and answer some questions for us.

Okay, fence.

Where exactly are you thinking of putting a fence?

Um again, according to the neighbor feedback, um, and I think it would look aesthetically pleasing to put it along the residential order.

So if you're looking at the screen, it's where the cursor is.

Um that's where most of our residential neighbors are, and we'd be happy to put a I don't know, white vinyl fence, privacy fence along that.

Um I think there was uh in one of the comments I didn't want to see a chain link.

Neither do we.

That's fine.

We'd love to see uh something that looks a little better than that.

So along that route makes a lot of sense.

Um and then possibly that little bit um below it as well.

The the rest of it is more commercial and and Franklin Boulevard so I'm not sure it makes sense.

And you have the the Mason Creek right there too and it doesn't seem to make sense to put if it's there.

Okay.

Yeah I do.

What do you what are your plans to to improve it more beyond what's already been done.

I mean do you put 35,000 trees in you're gonna build a swimming pool you can build a race track with the kids playing what are you going to do for the for your share?

Yeah I think this is a good opportunity to to make improvements at the park.

You know what we've done over the last five years is try to clean it up and make made improvements where we could but I think going through and installing new units is a great uh especially for landscaping and fencing a way to beautify the property.

Well the the other app the other um CUP back in 2020 was going to include paving the roads had they been paved they haven't been paved um I I don't recall seeing that in the previous approval um I I I did see fencing was involved in the last one not surprised to see it here and again happy to do that but I don't recall that being in the previous approval.

But you're not you're not thinking of it either then you know it's I I think with nice gravel it would have it would look great.

I mean I think if if you went through the park right now you would see it's in pretty good condition.

That would be a pretty enormous expense to pave the entire park and while I want to make it look really nice I think there are other ways of making it look really good.

Well if you just even pave the roads I mean you had to pave the pads but you got an entrance road and you got access between the different pads the main course you know we're looking at right there.

I mean it's not talking about paving every individual uh lot but the the pathways between the different lots in the entrance and the exit yeah that that's what I was referring to too I be you you'll see their little grass um I can't read that whatever is what was it's it's just uh requirement it's a requirement well and then it's portions not the entirety okay uh well so again when we bought the property we had a lot of work on our hands and we we weren't prepared to uh to kick off the construction but I'd like to see that happen in the next 12 months the whole thing I'm not sure how long it'll take to get the plans to you guys I'm sure as you know civil engineering takes quite a long time these days so but it's in the near future I yes I think you're not looking five years down one correct correct yes and then the 180 day thing that's quite a bit do you guys have something in works that make sure Mr.

Chair can we get her to can you can't speak into the mic we can't hear you very well.

Sorry um I was asking him if the 180 days if they had some sort of process in place to make sure that there weren't there more than 180 days because that that came up more than once on on the staff's report.

Yeah so we have a management software that we put move in dates into and and names and contact information and we're going to be including move out dates as well that way we get notifications when we're 30 days out for example and we can share that information with the resident okay so you guys are like they wanted to you guys do come comply with that there's not any permanent residence there.

We will uh you know I I can't speak for the past right you know a lot of the residents there as I mentioned they're we've worked hard to really cull the best ones and it it is kind of a shame to ask them to leave if we had to um but that is something that has been addressed and we're gonna be working on I mean you only have to leave for a little while right that does that also means that they don't move from one spot to another spot correct within the park.

Within the park.

Within the park no I think they probably could that's that's I mean technically the the the code doesn't address that it just says they can't be in one spot for 180 days.

Right.

They could be in the spot next to it.

As a management as an owner and a management of this property are you going to allow them to move from one spot to another spot after 180 days to circumvent the I what I believe is the intent of the code.

It's kind of like when you move your house, you you clear out a lot of stuff.

And I I think for the way I interpret it is making sure that they don't grow roots in the park, essentially.

And that's something we plan on and working on and addressing in the future.

So the answer is you're not.

But to ask them, I guess to answer your question, ask them to leave and never come back.

I I don't know that that would be something that would be realistic to do.

I don't know that any park does that.

Well right.

I the the intent of the code is that it they don't become permanent residents in an RV park, period.

So those that have been there for years, I don't know if they're grandfathered into the code, you know, if they're grandfathered in before the code went into effect, or well, I don't know.

I think the concern is that those that are in the park will find a loophole to stay there after the 180 days, whether it's moving their trailer, leaving everything else there, and moving their trailer to another spot or whatever the case might be, but I don't think that's the intent of the code.

I I just that's just my opinion.

There's no legal interpretation or anything on that.

Could you please run?

Yeah, I I mean we we had this discussion a couple of years ago, several years ago, I guess, where um city council was concerned about RV parks and as we've already discussed the calls, the services were and were not receiving financial support for those services because they're not permanent, you know, they're not permanent, so they're not paying those property taxes like uh a stick-built home would do.

So um, yeah, the intent is it a couple of things I would say is just safety of the residents and making sure that this isn't a structure that's falling apart and a fire hazard because it's just there for long term and then you route electrical to it and in unique ways or uh whatever it is, and um so it's safety for the residents, and then also just trying to encourage this to be a recreational lot.

So our recreational RV lot is intended to be this place where people are transitioning through the community, and I I think that was the intent that I heard from city council um when this came a couple years ago.

Park as it is now, the the the residents, the lots that are there, do they have hookups?

They have sewer and they have electrical that will you be putting it into all the expansion lots as well?

Yes.

Okay.

Uh a couple questions.

One, just want to confirm you're not having you don't have any intent to access on the west side.

No, I in fact I hadn't even thought I didn't even realize that was an option until it was brought up as a concern.

Okay.

I I mean, quite honestly, I I like I like the access we have right now, and I think that might only complicate um finding the place really.

It's pretty obvious where to go if you want to find a space there.

Thanks.

And then the other question is do you intend to do 120 spaces or was it 139?

Well, yeah.

So this was the concept that was brought five years ago, and I thought it looked good.

And if you add up all the spaces, it's 139.

As Chris, you mentioned it may not be that um, you know, once uh everything is factored in.

I I'm not quite sure what it would be, but based on these plans, which I think are also pretty conservative density-wise, it's about 139.

Won't be more than that though.

I um I look by looking at the plan, I don't know how you could, but maybe so 139-ish maximum.

Yeah, I've I've looked at the plan several times.

I don't see how to to do more.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And motion by Garner second by Morgan to close the public hearing.

All those in favor?

Any opposed.

Okay, public hearing is closed.

Thoughts?

Yeah, uh, Mr.

Chair, can um Christy or whoever's got the controls over there.

I can't see, I can't even see Chrissy.

Is she even here?

Okay, there.

Um can you put the the letter from the from the correspondence from the citizen back up there who had some of those conditions?

I thought they were pretty uh the correspondence.

And she was making Yeah, there you go.

Um she requests the following conditions.

So the installation of a privacy fence, not chain link on all residential boundaries.

The enforcement of RV stay limits and correction of them safety.

That's kind of why I was asking that question about the CUPNE.

I think those are reasonable conditions, if not already.

Except for the one on the public access, right?

Because well, I think I think it's kind of one of those deals where if he if he puts the fence along the entirety, then he chooses.

Just make a condition the fence can't have any gates in it.

Well, and yeah, otherwise it'll open the gate in direct through.

But it putting the fence just to clarify, putting the fence up there across that, is that restrict is that the public right away that is being restricted with that fence up there?

Because it's not a public right-of-way from this road into his into that property.

Daniel on the way.

Mr.

Morgan explained it to me.

We couldn't wait for you guys.

But he had a picture, he had a visual that he showed me, so it was easier to do.

I think I think with staff's conditions, everything's met except for the fence, and he's already agreed to do the fence.

So I don't think it was included as a staff condition, was it?

Well, that's perimeter fencing and landscaping.

Should we provide?

Yep, perimeter fence fencing and landscaping should be provided.

Yeah, okay.

So it is.

So I think everything that's in there is already in.

So I don't think we need to make anything special.

Nope.

Just want to make sure they they were pretty reasonable conditions, and apparently they're in there.

So you want to jump back to the motion real quick?

Sorry.

If there's no other well, I've I have a question.

The one back in 2020, it kind of went to the wayside because this you know, after six months, nothing had been done, and then it just went away.

What's to prevent that from happening this time?

Is somebody gonna go look within six months to make sure these things are not being done or are being done or what's what's what's our keyhoe?

Uh we don't really have any control over that.

If they don't submit a plan for review, which would come to you as a business item to say they've met all of our code requirements.

Um if they don't submit that plan in six months, this expires again.

And yeah, but then what happens?

They just continue discontinues the way that it is, it doesn't expand.

At which point they couldn't get permits to expand because we wouldn't have approved.

Yeah, but we still got an ISO sitting there.

I want to I want to get rid of the ISOR.

Can we approve them?

Can we could I make a motion that Commissioner Keyhoe call Mr.

Stevens every day show up?

I'll I'll be glad to drive by.

I mean no, I think that's a reason to approve this is so we can have some.

Can move forward, can improve.

Improve and we can keep an eye on it, have some leverage.

So with that, I'll move to approve the conditional use permit as stated on the screen with all recommended conditions of approval and findings.

Second and moved by Kirkman, second by Morgan to approve this item.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Reluctantly aye.

Any opposed.

This C UP 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 this CUP until the appeal period has concluded.

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

Okay.

Good evening.

Jeff likes 1119 East State Street, Eagle Idaho, 83616.

Thanks for hearing us tonight.

To give you a quick background, this is an annexation and zoning to an RX6.

RS6 with a conditional use permit for an assisted living facility for nine plus beds, maximum of 13 beds.

Give you history.

We've got some history with everybody here.

Came in about a year ago as the assisted living.

Pulled that application before we came before you came before you with a new application for a rehabilitation center, pulled that application, met with the neighbors.

Due to the neighbors' concerns and our clients' concerns, that application also was pulled.

We reapplied for the assisted living facility, and so that's where we are today.

Let me get organized here.

Currently it is in the county, which is why we're here for the annexation, and then the rezone the zone in itself of the RS6 zoning.

The existing site currently has a single family residence with a basement on it.

Access comes right up a Happy Valley Road for just a driveway there.

Proposed site again takes access off of Happy Valley Road with an installation of seven parking stalls, six regular stalls, and one handicapped stall.

So that's sewer water away from the well that's there and connecting all that into Happy Valley Road.

Just to give you an idea of how the layout is, it is 13 beds right now, maximum of 13 beds.

The staff report has put a limit of 13 beds, and we do agree with that.

Staff report condition.

So the garage area.

Excuse me.

Pointer doesn't work.

Yeah, pointer doesn't work.

Garage area is in the lower right-hand corner there.

That actually gets infilled, and that's where we create more space for beds itself.

There's also an outdoor area in the upper right-hand corner of that screen.

That also gets infilled to create some bedrooms there.

Except for the like I say, the addition of the infill in the garage and infill in this upper elevation there.

We infill that area with some walls to account for the new for the new beds.

So the residential field will still remain the same.

We do need to install a new ADA ramp to access the facility, which you'll see there kind of on the front area.

So during our neighborhood meeting is what I want to bring up, and I'll go over some of their points and how we addressed their concerns.

Exterior lighting was a concern.

Facility management, there was concern on how many how many people will be there during the time, right?

There's three employees during the day and two and two employees full-time at night.

Um there was a concern uh due to submitting for an assisted living, pulling it back, submitting for a drug rehabilitation center, pulling it back, putting back in.

There's a concern that we would get approved for an assisted living and then be able to pull that back and switch to a rehabilitation center.

And just to put it out on record is that is not the intent, and that is not how a conditional use works.

A conditional use works, and you guys all understand it stays with the use.

And so if the use changes, that conditional use will expire and have to get a new one.

The concern for the residences is that we put that in our conditions of approval.

Um, Christy actually has put that in under the condition of approval number one, um, and we agree to that as well.

Um there was concerns about parking.

Um there will be no parking signs stalled, sorry, installed along the the street there.

Um, everything will be internal.

Uh landscaping maintenance was a concern, just keeping up on the trees.

You know, that the owner has agreed to keep up with landscaping, and that's you know, a city code thing as that gets out of hand.

You know, code enforcement can come out and tell them.

Um the facility is for aging adults for that, and those are from 55 to 90 plus.

You know, it's not for younger aged residences.

Um there has been concerned about fencing.

Um, and if any fencing is broken, that will be fixed.

We'll also put up a wrought iron fence around the front of the property just to keep people from going out into Happy Valley Road.

Um P we talked about that.

Um the basement use is also another one.

And I there's I don't know if that was in the Christian staff report or not, but the basement is not to be used as another residence, either for a live-in caretaker or for the people there.

The basement, and this is building code.

Um, the basement because of access and egress is only to be used as storage, and we agree to that.

Um the owner here is is considered is is you know committed to the neighborhood and committed to be a good neighbor.

Um, and we will stand for any questions.

Questions.

Okay, doesn't look like we have any.

We'll call you back up.

Not a problem.

Thank you.

Actually, Christy.

Sorry, I'm skipping a step.

Thank you, uh, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

I'm Christy Watkins, principal planner for the city of Nampa.

The action requested from you this evening is for a recommendation of approval to city council for annexation and zoning to RS6 with a CUP for an assisted living facility for up to 13 beds.

So the comprehensive plan designation on this property is medium density residential.

The RS6 zoning um, the zoning district does fit into that medium density residential designation.

It's currently in Canyon County and it's enclaved by the city limits, so it is eligible for annexation.

The surrounding land uses and zoning um to the north is RS6, which is Bridgewater Estates.

To the south is Canyon County enclaved large individual lot.

Um to the east is Canyon County Eggland, and to the west is RS6 again, Bridgewater estates.

There are public utilities and services available to this property.

And according to 1032 of Nampa City Code, an assisted living center or home does require a C UP in the RS zone.

These are the applic applicable regulations for annexation zoning and for CUP.

Um engineering made some comments.

Um when they annex, they're going to be required to dedicate a certain portion of right-of-way along Happy Valley Road.

Frontage improvements will be required at the time of development.

That includes landscaping and sidewalks.

Traffic impact study is required for any project that generates more than a hundred new vehicle trips during any peak hour.

A TIS will not be required for this project.

A turn lane warrant analysis may be required when we see the plans.

The city currently maintains all utilities in this area and has capacity to serve it.

As far as public input goes, we did receive some public input from a couple of people.

Um concerns include increase in traffic, no turn lanes on Happy Valley, too many people to retain a residential appearance and operation.

Property values will go down, location of the facility in proximity to their backyards, emergency response times for individuals who may need care quickly.

It's fairly lengthy out there.

Needs to be in a more suitable location and uh not within proximity of the bus stops.

The building department has a full list of codes that this will need to comply with and will be reviewed at the time of building permit.

The fire department does not oppose this application, subject to compliance with their codes as well, and that's access to the facility and around the facility.

So we did a little bit of analysis on the layout that they're proposing.

Um for parking, it will be calculated at a rate of one per five beds plus one per regular employee based on the designation of a nursing or convalescent facility and will need to be designed to meet city setbacks.

Um care for special needs individuals as stated in the comprehensive plan.

The proposed assisted living facility will not adversely impact the appearance of the general facility through design, construction, operation, and maintenance because it will not change its residential appearance.

Um Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and finance of housing based on race, religion, national origin, sex, handicap, and family status.

And as for compatibility, assisted living facilities with eight beds or less are permitted in residential areas without a conditional use permit.

Due to this request exceeding the permitted eight beds, additional compatibility criteria may be addressed.

This is currently a residence and it will remain a residence according to our definition.

So for annexation, there are four criteria that need to be used in determining the appropriateness of annexation.

One is that all private landowners have consented to this annexation.

The property is contiguous to the city limits.

And it uh through the MOU with the Nampa Highway District, um, it does meet criteria number four.

For zoning, the proposed map amendment is in harmony with the city's currently adopted comprehensive plan because it's proposing an RS6 zoning, which does fit within the medium density residential designation.

Um the use is at least reasonably compatible with existing and adjoining properties because it will remain residential.

The proposed zoning map amendment is in the interest and of the public and reasonably necessary because it does provide a service and it will bring utilities and infrastructure improvements to this area.

There are four conditions, uh four criteria for the CUP.

The primary land use is supported by the NAMPRA comprehensive plan.

The design construction operation and maintenance of the property and project will not adversely affect impact the intended character and appearance of the general vicinity.

The proposed primary land use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, and the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment, and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any person's property or general welfare by reason of excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors.

These are the recommended conditions of approval.

As stated, um, we did cap it at 13 beds and stated that any change from the outlined use will require a modification to the conditional use permit.

Um, everything else is an engineering um requirement.

And these are the potential motions.

I have broken these out in a way that you can improve approve everything all at once.

You can deny everything.

You can approve the annexation and deny the C UP if you choose to do it that way.

Those are your three options.

I'll stand for any questions.

Chairman.

Can you make it bigger so I can 4,271 square feet?

I can't zoom in, sorry.

4271.

327.

I always want to see the bedrooms and both it is 11 bedrooms and 13 people, so some people have to double up.

And would that be not our problem?

Yeah, I guess.

Yeah, maybe need to answer the question.

Yeah, do we have a sign question?

Yes.

The first is Mandy George.

Hello.

My name is Mandy George.

I live at 4648 East Thomas Mill Drive in Nampa.

If I open my front door, I can see that facility.

I did write a letter in, but I just wanted to like make a couple of other points.

Happy Valley Road, as it's been mentioned several times, is an absolute disaster already.

The speed limit is 45.

The area that they're putting that they want to approve this in is right next to a bus stop.

My kids get on and off that bus every single day.

So do multiple other other kids.

Your speed limit is 45.

You're adding a different additional traffic to that area.

There's no turning lane.

I just think that's an it's a disaster waiting to happen.

They're saying seven parking spots.

They're gonna put signage out.

The area that we're concerned about is where the bus stop is.

There's no signage that's gonna be put there.

I um I didn't see any signs out indicating that this meeting was happening.

The only reason I got the notification is because I signed up from the city to get notifications.

I called yesterday to ask about it.

I was told that the sign blew away.

What?

The sign blew away.

Ooh.

Blew away.

And I was like, okay, so what happens with that?

Uh the gentleman, I think his name is Damian.

Um, he said, I'll go put another one out.

So he did go put one out.

Um, unbeknownst to us, we didn't realize that it was a 11 by seven sign, not much bigger than this piece of paper.

Um when I went to the City of Nampa's website, I pulled up your flyer and it said that it needed to be a four by four-foot sign.

When we called in and asked about that and spoke to someone about that today, we were told that this is actually only for um developers, that this doesn't pertain to residentials.

My question is is if we're going to the city of NAPA's website and it's supposed to be an area where we can go and get clear information.

Why does that not say this on there?

Why is someone who is a big developer?

Why do they get a big sign that tells the public what's going on?

Why do we get an 11 by 17 sign?

Which I might also mention when we went and took a picture of it, conveniently.

His trash can is now in front of it.

His trash can has never been on this side of the facility.

So now his trash can is blocking the sign that nobody can read.

Quite honestly, there's signs all over the place.

I can read the signs for uh picking up dog poop.

We want your um diabetic supplies, we'll remove your junk.

We can see all of those signs.

We can't see this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, so I want it denied.

Next.

Josh George.

Noted, thank you.

Laura Stewart.

Good evening, council members.

My name is Laura Stewart.

I reside at 3115 South Happy Valley Road, right next door to the property.

I'm here to oppose a request for the annexation and zoning and the CUP for the summer breeze assisted living at 3023 Happy Valley.

Um, confirming earlier today when I walked into planning and zoning, um, I did talk with Christy, she was very helpful.

I appreciate that.

Um, I was curious about the umbrella term of assisted living.

What does that exactly mean?

Um, I was confused.

Um, I guess it could include anything such as elderly care, sober living, drug and math rehab care, any of those things once it is approved for this.

Um I realize that Jeff Likes brought up a little bit of that earlier in his um presentation, but I still don't think that this is a good idea.

What exactly kind of assisted living is going to be happening at 3023 South Happy Valley Road?

Um currently, right now he the applicant is a certified um facilitator for the home, a certified home facilitator for the residents, and I guess he has one resident currently living there with space for four more beds.

This was confirmed by David Kone from the Department of Health and Welfare earlier that today.

So I'm wondering if there is already a CFH in place, why the need to change and increase, um, especially when the applicant I believe already has four or five other facilities in the Treasure Valley.

Um so and also in light of the the recent fraudulent developments happening across the United States with multiple issues with daycares, recovery centers, assisted living, you name it.

Um I think that we should be diligent in making sure that any business of this kind of nature that's taking federal and state funds to to be rezoned and possibly get um uh annexation is thoroughly vetted.

Um I think that that would be a good thing.

Um last year I do know in the spring of 2025, the original concept was for the assisted living, and then it was changed to the drug rehab, which was rock bottom recovery, um, which was met with great opposition as Jeff Likes stated from the neighbors.

Um, and we had both written and attendance at the meeting.

Um they are now back to their original request.

Um, what is to say that it may not become some kind of a drug rehab in the future?

I realize that they may have to come back for that, but the door is already open for that.

I ask as planning and zoning as a gatekeeper for this that you close the gate, and I oppose it.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, uh sorry, she had mentioned something like CFA from Hilton Welfare.

I missed that what that meant.

Thank you.

CFH.

Next.

Is there anyone else?

Go ahead and come on up.

My name is Michael Thod.

I live at 4633 East Thomas Mill Drive.

In Nampa.

Um my house is right next to it.

When I walk in my backyard, that house is right there.

And when we first built our house, it was supposed to be all you know, small families, place to retire to enjoy life, and having a big business like this right next to us, we're I mean, it's right against our property.

We do not feel comfortable with this.

We do not approve of this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yep.

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

Um, I also oppose this for a couple of reasons.

One is that um we were we met here um a few weeks ago and talked about the development that's gonna possibly go in on the other side of Happy Valley.

And one of the main reasons that was denied by you was because of um traffic and response time.

So why are you putting in an elder care home when the police and the ambulances have a seven, I think it's seven minutes that we said.

So it doesn't make sense from that end.

Um I also um think about the parking because they do have a large garage uh driveway in front, but if you have 13 guests, then you have possibly 13 more cars, which I guess leads to why they want to put no parking um signs outside.

And that doesn't make sense in a neighborhood.

So and there is nowhere else to park unless you come outside and you're now parking along Happy Valley or parking in the um entranceway to Bridgewater.

And the last thing I wanted to say is that I do feel sorry for my my neighbors who are um directly next to this because they're talking about lighting, and I'm sure that for liability reasons, they're gonna have a lot of lighting, and and our neighborhood is dark.

That's part of the you know the the joy of being there, and these poor guys are gonna have lights shining down into the yards.

It it it uh um really changes the character of the homes that they bought and thought they were gonna retire into.

And I think that is it.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Jeff, would you like to come back up?

Oops, sorry, absolutely.

Um I could tell there was a question on how you fit 13 residences in beds.

100 square feet per resident is the state requirement, excluding closets.

So if you have two residents per room, it's a 200 square foot room, excluding the closet.

So kind of help clarify that a little bit.

Just so to clarify with the neighbors, that sign is not posted by us.

That sign is posted by the city.

And so if it whatever size it is, if it blew away, it's not on us.

Again, that's a code enforcement issue.

Visitation during certain times of the year, Christmas, whatever, birthdays, those can be arranged as a scheduling deal as an internal mechanism with the residences and their families.

Again, fire had no opposition, even though we're a seven-minute response time from there.

I think you know they're trying to get better, but they did have no no opposition to that.

Um and again, we've just bring it up again, we are not a drug rehab care, nor will it be a drug rehab care.

And I think the conditions of approval specify that, and you know, we agree to that.

So uh we'll stand for any questions.

Mr.

Chair, on that note, if we could uh so what is the I mean you brought up the CFA?

Are you a certified family or CFH, a certified family house, home?

I'm an architect.

I'll have to ask what what is CFH is you're here representing the client.

So what I'm asking though is is will this be a certified family home, which then could at some point and incorporate maybe some of those other populations, like like drug rehab or whatever, like the like she's that is a very good question, and if you give me a second, I'll find out.

I have never heard of a CFH.

I do know health department comes in and monitors these.

Um, but I can find out if these guys we might need to come up to the hello, my name is Nav Jot Singh, I'm the homeowner and the applicant.

Um certified family home, it is similar to assisted living.

Um you can only have a max of four residents, so my plan was to convert it to a certified family home until it gets approved as an assisted living.

It's still seniors who needs assistance with activities of daily living, like medication administration, um dressing, meals.

But as a certified family home, whether it's four months, six months, whatever, until you get to that other certification.

Is there a possibility that under that designation that you could have somebody that's in in recovery?

No, it's for seniors who need assistance with daily living.

As a CFH, yes.

Okay.

And that's obviously monitored and enforced by Health and Welfare.

Yes, it is.

Sure.

So just to clarify on that, I think the building code definition of assisted living is narrower than the like the planning.

Like, right.

I'm like, I'm not saying that right.

But yeah, the planning and land use code for assisted living is much more broad than the building code definition.

So if they go get a building code, a building permit for being an assistant living facility, it's gonna be for seniors.

But is that I'm not an architect, but you're correct.

Okay.

It is for seniors.

Right.

Yes.

I'm gonna ask the other architect here to make sure.

I'm gonna check in.

Any other questions?

Okay, I think that's it.

Thank you.

Close public hearing.

I will move by Keyho, second by Kirkman to close the public hearing.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed.

Uh okay.

So as far as parking on the street.

I don't know who I don't need to ask for this, but if there was happy valley, sorry, yeah, it's close to the intersection.

Um, there was an issue with people parking on Happy Valley, then the neighbors would complain.

Um to police department, to planning and zoning, to how would that be rather or should it be rather?

Umless council were to uh designate a section as no parking, as long as they are legally parked and not obstructing the um travel lanes, um it's legal to park.

Um they are required and will if they get approved and go through the building permit process, they will be required to provide the code required number of stalls off the road.

Any roadway parking is not allowed to be included in that.

Um they would um as part of the TI they'll be required to um do some sidewalk improvements that will um affect that road frontage.

Um but uh again if someone were to be parked there as long as they are parked legally outside of the travel lane that's legal unless council were to um designate that no parking.

Okay.

Yeah, all the that that's part of being legally parked, okay.

To continue on that line of questioning, I guess.

Um the current southbound two lanes, would that would you anticipate that can because right now that stops basically right before that property, right?

Correct.

Would you just extend that out or would you leave that unimproved, or how would you see that going?

Let me look at one thing here.

That section of Happy Valley is an arterial roadway, and so the development would trigger them putting in the sidewalk, but not doing full curb gutter sidewalk widening or full curb gutter and widening there.

So I would not anticipate that that two southbound lanes would continue until the city comes through and does some full widening of Happy Valley at some point in the future.

Okay, because right now, from what it looks like, there would only be one lot between this slot and what used to be Greenhurst Nursery, which would which is got the improvements.

Is it looked like on the map that that enclave lot looked like it's there's annexed in front of it?

Yes.

Our codes have changed from when Bridgewater uh Vineyard Point, the River Meadows, and the Greenhurst Nursery improvements were done.

We do not require on arterial roads full improvement of the road until um at the time of development, unless a traffic study is going to warrant it, which this will not.

Um the reasoning behind that is because we end up with um like you have there at this where we have a piecemeal, some developed, some not, and the utilization of that pavement, we have pavement we have to maintain there that is not needed or well utilized for the traffic, and so that's the reason for the change that has happened in our codes.

Um and so this this would not trigger improvement of the pavement widening that would allow for an extra 150 feet of a lane that is is not going to be needed or utilized, but we would have to maintain it.

And so the only thing that so once the neighbors to the south, if they redevelop annexed and redeveloped, then we could have the continuous sidewalk or no.

If if a traffic study triggered it, yes, that would be required, but it's not and on an arterial roadway, it is not an automatic you do it.

Um it's it's triggered by the traffic study or by a uh warrant analysis and you know the city doing a full project.

Turn lane, kind of like it is on the other on the on Bridgewater now.

I will say that the number of vehicle trips from this is minuscule compared to anything else that is out there and would not trigger any required improvements.

Fair enough.

Okay.

Um Rodney, can you clarify some signage questions that were brought up?

Yeah, I uh Mr.

Chair, the the comment was about our website and whether we a couple of things actually.

The 11 by 17 um and the four by four sign and the difference between those two sizes.

So um in code that was um brought to the planning and zoning commission, you recommended approval um of this code went to city council, city council evaluated the code.

They agreed that the smaller projects that are not these really large ones could have that that smaller sign.

And the part of the reason we're doing that is because uh a sign uh to do to um build the sign and place it on the property.

It's not uh I mean it's not hugely expensive, but a lot of these projects that we have CUPs for are like daycares or we're gonna have three dogs instead of two.

So the requirement for the property owner to make that expense for a really large sign when really it it doesn't have the same impact as a major development.

That's what city council chose to do is they adopted the code that said city for those smaller projects like this when a CUP, the city would put the sign on the property, and we would put an 11 by 17 sign.

State code does not require that we put signs on the property, doesn't require it.

So city does that out of courtesy to try to get um try to get people aware of the projects going on around them.

Um and then when we looked at the website, um that website is designed for those developers that have to place a sign.

It's not designed for staff who can go and read the code to determine what size of a sign and where to place it.

It's we've got that internally, right?

And we have it on our city code.

The the website also references the full code, which outlines all of those criteria, all those conditions.

So I don't think that there's any intention of trying to deceive the public.

There's no intention of of trying to hide anything from the public.

Thank you for that.

Yep.

Um other questions.

I I'm a little worried about it changing the residential nature.

I know they're gonna try their best, but you know, you got 88 ramps have got to be lit.

Oh how's an ADA ramp going to change the nature of a residential?

Don't they have ADA ramps on homes that are inside the neighborhoods?

Yeah, if it's got wrapping around the back with lights and stuff.

That's the case for my grandma's house.

What what uh Rodney, what would be requirements for lighting on something like this?

Do you have any idea?

I don't.

Uh Christy, do you have an idea there?

Um well, lighting requirements in our code in general speak to um what they call shielding that directs the light down at a 90 degree angle so it doesn't spill onto other people's property.

Um there's generally a uh light evaluation or a light measurement plan done with the building permit that we receive so we can make sure that there's no spillage onto the other property.

Um, in a situation like this, could we require that no pole lights be installed and it's only residential style lighting?

Because when I'm when I'm imagining parking lot, yeah, imagine the big tall pole with the crane, and even if it's shielded, that's still not gonna completely solve any lighting issues or overall.

Absolutely, you could condition that.

Um the other thing we probably have to keep in mind is that just because you can see a light doesn't mean that it's spilling onto your property.

Right.

So, you know, there's a measurement tool that outlines that.

And if you feel like if they were to feel like the neighbors felt like something was out of line and it was spilling onto their property, we have measurement tools.

We can take a look at that.

That would be a complaint against the CEP, right?

That doesn't follow.

So if you wanted to place a condition to say, you know, low-level residential pedestrian level lighting, you can certainly do that.

Right here.

Yeah.

To finish my comment, sorry.

Yeah, good.

So would this aftermath?

Huh?

Just yeah, just a second.

I'm just responding to this.

Do they have to get a building permit and what would be required?

Like because you're talking about a photometric plan, right?

Where they have the site, then they have all the measurements to show what those light levels would be all over the site.

If that's not part of it, that is a way that you could condition it and say that they have to get a photometric plan to submit.

I think I wouldn't be as worried about this if it wasn't in combination with being on the very edge of town.

And I think the point about the response time is valid.

Um I think each those are my concerns.

I think th each of those two things together make me a little hesitant.

Um be happy to listen to you guys convince me why it's still okay.

I'm not I'm not saying we we must deny this because of that, but that's what's on my own.

How do you mean uh the the lighting part in connection?

Just because it's because it's two small concerns, it makes it a medium concern.

I guess maybe no, I mean uh like you said that it's on the edge down and the f in the response times.

Just those two things together.

It's just it makes it it's a little bit it's it's it's still residential, but it's a little bit more commercial residential.

Okay, I thought you were tying it together with the lighting thing.

I that kind of no.

Well I think I think the concern too lighting, I understand.

I mean, but when the neighbor across the street from my house and I live in a subdivision, when he turns on his front porch light, of course I'm gonna get some residential residual light.

Right.

But what I think their concern is mainly is they don't want to see three or four big parking lot lights that then light up their entire backyard, and there's no way to shut them off because they're on when the sun goes down and off when the sun comes up.

So I understand those concerns.

That's why I said if we have uh something.

Which all that's just in code already.

Residential lighting only.

And that's what they said they want to do.

Right, but that's not specified exactly.

So specifying residential lighting only.

Gets rid of those big hierarchying parking lot style lights that I think is the main concern.

So could you specify a height restriction?

What what's already in the building code?

I mean, we don't need to add more than what's already in there, right?

Uh Commissioner Morgan, I'm I'm not really sure as far as like dealing, and I mean the architects are gonna know better than I am.

Um, as far as like when you're dealing with handicapped individuals, if there's lighting requirements per ANSI standards, um, as far as our codes are concerned, they don't have to light anything.

Well, we're not worried about what they have to light, we're worried about a maximum lighting, I guess.

Probably and so as far as handicapped stuff goes, um, if the building code requires them to do it this level, that level, whatever, to make it safe, there may be a standard there.

I don't know what that is.

And I think you could probably, you know, with the deal that Matt said, I think you could probably light it just in a different way instead of putting a hierarchy light, you add three shorter lights instead of one big do we want to condition that, I guess.

Chairman?

Yeah, I think the architect or somebody said that or one of the neighbors that they're lighting on their own.

Or could we can't do that because of the closed public hearing?

Okay, I didn't know, sorry.

I don't I I don't think the lighting's a big issue.

I mean, I've got five lights in my backyard that are motion censored when they come on.

You can see everything in the backyard, but they're fence height, they're six foot, you know, they're at the fence.

Um and if any of my neighbors are listening, they all point down into the grass just in case.

So I don't think the lighting is that big of an issue.

I mean, this is still an RS6.

I mean, it's residential.

Yeah, there's gonna be a few more people there.

I my more I the question I had about lighting was there any requirements from Helton Welfare for a facility of this type when it comes to just safety concerns.

But I well, I think that's where we could limit the height.

Because I don't think there's gonna be anything as far as that goes that says you have to have a 12-foot high pole light.

It just says the lighting has to reach out.

You can put lights up and down the driveway and uh around the sidewalk and light all the the paths up and it'd be plenty, plenty lights.

So I really don't have any concern about the lighting.

And the parking, I mean there's I the traffic.

I mean, you got space for seven cars.

I doubt you're gonna have 15 car trips in and out of there part of the day.

Yeah, and a turn lane.

I'd rather see a turn lane at airport in Happy Valley than anywhere else in this city.

But what was the other concern?

Oh, the response time.

Um, I'm uh I'm not gonna sit here and pontificate on how the fire department operates, but there is a fire station at Sunny Ridge in Greenhurst.

So if there's a train coming, I'm sure the fire station on Happy Valley north of the railroad tracks will give them a quick call.

Say, hey, can you respond?

The other development that they were that someone had brought up with the concern about the response time, that was a whole different issue because there were so many that was a huge development and recently.

I really I really don't have an issue with with this.

I I do appreciate um the applicant uh listening to the neighbors because had it become uh an addiction recovery house, um that would that's a whole different ball game.

Um but the impact of senior citizens we're all getting there at some point.

Um low noise.

I mean, there's they throw a party good for that.

What scares me more than anything else is at two o'clock in the morning, somebody's in their bed smoking and sets the room on fire.

When you got 13 people, I know it's something, but that that's what scares me more than anything else.

With we have no control over that.

So we can live with that.

We should certainly live with this little bitty lighting problem.

I don't have an issue with that.

Anyone else have any go for it?

Okay, then I'll make a motion that we approve the project.

Is there was there anything on the lighting?

I just want to make sure that we want to add anything on the lighting.

If you don't think it's a deal, I don't think personally, but I'm just one of nine up here.

So I was just throwing out ideas about how you could ensure that it was gonna be taken care of.

But if it becomes a residential lighting style, residential lighting style.

And if it becomes an issue, certainly um bring it to Rodney's attention.

Um so I I moved to approve the project as stated on the screen, and we'll add the condition that the any lighting that's installed will be residential in conformity with other with other residences around that area.

Well, I think in conformity with if well if their neighbor doesn't have anything shielded, why would they need to have something shielded?

I think residential style should be residential style and conformity with the with the residences around that area is my motion.

Second it, it's been moved by Kirkman, seconded by Copeland to approve this.

Uh all those in favor?

Any opposed okay motion carries.

Yeah.

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 is concluded.

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

Thanks, guys.

Okay.

Next.

Can I have a comment?

Yes.

Item.

Maybe later.

No, I was gonna mention something about the bus stop.

There was some concerns about that.

They can request those move.

Okay.

Uh next item 3-4 subdivision preliminary flat approval for Greenhurst Cottages subdivision in an RMH zoning district.

Addressed is 2321 Sunny Ridge Road for Marcel Lopez Congress Group representing sunny acre partners LLC.

Applicant here, go ahead and come on up.

Yes.

How's that better?

Perfect.

Want to thank the staff.

Uh it's been a long time coming, I think.

We've uh gone through a lot of uh steps to get here tonight before you with this preliminary plat for our 43 residential lot parcel, which is located on the southwest uh corner of the intersection of Greenhurst and Sunny Ridge Roads.

My presentation is short, so I'll just go through a little bit of the history.

So the proposed Greenhurst Cottage is an infill development that's already gone through the key land use steps necessary to support this neighborhood.

Greenhurst Cottage neighborhood is designed to deliver a well-planned residential community that fits the intent of the existing approvals, provide attainable housing options, an efficient land use pattern, and a development that complements the surrounding area of meetings city standards for access utilities and public improvements.

In December of 2023, the city approved the initial annexation zoning and zoning to the RH RMH multifamily residential for the cottage cluster community with a PUD and the development agreement.

Those were finalized in in May of 2025, I believe, when the city passed ordinance 4862 for those approvals.

So basically in closing, we're here tonight with the next step with the preliminary plat.

Um that conforms with the prior approvals, including the development agreement that's been signed by the city, executed by the uh the original land developers.

Um so we respectfully request the commissioner's approval of this preliminary plan for the 43 lots under the conditions outlined in the staff report.

Um we do appreciate your time consideration this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll call you back up one more.

Hey Candace, you're up.

Sorry, I apologize.

No, it's okay.

User error, it's late.

Okay.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

My name is Candice Fry, assistant planner for the city of Napa.

The request before you this evening is a subdivision preliminary plot approval for Greenhurst Cottages.

The original concept is 43 cottage style single family detached dwelling units on 3.06 acres.

The property details, the property is currently within Nampus City limits and is zoned RMH, multifamily residential.

The surrounding zoning to the north is BN neighborhood business, and that's Greenhurst Crossings.

It is in part of this whole development, but not part of this application.

To the south, it is zoned RS8.5, single family residential.

To the east is RD two family residential, and then to the west is RMH and RD.

The comprehensive plan designates this area as high density residential.

This property is annexed in zone two RMH, and the property to the north was also included in that annexation request, and it is zone BN, and that was approved in December of 2023.

So the applicable regulations, this one's a little different.

This project was approved and entitled back in December of 2023.

So that is the codes that we used for this analysis.

So it's not current code, it's back in 2023 when it was first approved.

So the lot size, the lot size in the RMH zone that was approved for single-family detached dwelling units, shall be 2500 to 5,000 square feet, and we will go more in depth later on in this presentation.

Staff analysis, the overall site area is 3.04 acres, and they are proposing a total lot count of 43.

And then the staff analysis of the plat, as mentioned before, lot sizes for single family detached dwelling units shall be 2500 to 5,000 square feet.

A PUD application was included in the original submittal and application packet, and that was approved.

And a PUD can increase or decrease the lot size by 20%.

So what you see on the screen is a breakdown showing if the lots were reduced by 20%, it would be this number, and then if the lots were increased by 20%, that number is also shown.

And then the largest and smallest lots that are included on the plat.

The parking, so according to the chapter 10, 264.

Umsite parking, they are required to have 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit, so two spaces per dwelling unit, and then the remainder of that is for guest parking.

We also have a requirement for covered parking.

The required number of stalls is 17.5 spaces, and the applicant is providing 108 parking spots.

Landscaping, the landscaping plan has been reviewed by the city forester and planning staff.

An irrigation plan was not included in the plan set, but it is listed as a condition, and it's in there as well.

Open space, the central common courtyard area was in the previous code, and that shall be at least 500 square feet per dwelling unit.

So further down you can see the 500 square feet times the 43 units, which that comes out to a minimum of 21,500 square feet for the courtyard area, and the number that they are providing is over 25,000 square feet.

The engineering department had comments on drainage utilities and access, and then utilities have the capacity to serve this property.

The fire district mentioned that this development is located approximately 0.2 miles from NAMPA Fire Station 2 with an approximate response time of one minute, and then they also had just comments of general comments for fire hydrants access and general compliance with the International Fire Code.

The NAPA forestry department had comments about requesting a different type of tree because the one they had in the landscape plan is not incompatible.

And the NAMPA GIS department had comments regarding the street names on the plat, and then the applicant shall submit an updated site plan to the City of NAMPA GIS staff for further review.

The NIPA police department provided a cost breakdown analysis of the development, and they recommended a commitment to fund 0.14 additional officers and 0.07 additional support staff if this project is approved to maintain current police service levels.

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

I don't have a question, but I have a compliment if my little flag hole with the checker flag.

It sure makes it easier to find where the application is with that on there.

Otherwise, great job.

Okay.

Is there a sign up sheet?

I think so.

Is there anybody who would like to speak for against or undecided on this proposal?

Okay, Mr.

Lopez.

Do you have anything to add?

Do you have any questions for Mr.

Lopez?

Nothing to add at this point.

Thank you.

Yes.

I hope nobody heard that.

No.

Okay.

No.

You just said it in the mic.

Now that I have my mic on.

What the where's the parking at?

They're not the parking spine islands.

They're not.

So I went through mine real quick, but we do have a nice little color site plan if we can pull that up.

Because I'm looking at pictures of a potential product, but there's no parking in front of them.

And then I'm looking at the flat map and all of the houses butt up next to each other.

Uh Chairman, Commissioner Kirkman.

So the individual units, if we can get looks like she's trying to get that up here now.

So yes, so you'll see the footprint of the building.

The homes will have a single car garage with an adjoining pad.

Um there's additional um guest parking on the northern private street.

You'll see there the little notch right below where it says block one.

That's additional guest parking.

Um, and then there's two additional parking spaces on the south side of the number lot 30 and 40.

All right.

It's just the this particular map I'm looking at was just had the rectangle outlined, so I get it now.

Not great.

Appreciate that.

That's all I have.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay, thank you, sir.

Appreciate you.

I would take a motion to close the public hearing.

Second.

It's been moved by Keyhoe, seconded by Garner to close the public hearing.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed.

Okay, public hearing is closed.

Here's my only comment.

I'm glad that this is coming to fruition.

I think NAMPA is ready for uh development like this.

And I take your steadfastness in keeping this thing moving.

I appreciate good addition to the city.

I agree.

I I talk about this, we talk about these things when we've when we see them, it's really nice to see them.

Thank you.

Um I agree.

I like it.

Um I think I must not have been following along super close.

Are we okay with them being so far under the minimum lot size?

Um Commissioner Morgan, there is a condition in there that requires for them to bring those lots up to the appropriate size of 2,000 square feet, and they have indicated they have indicated that they will do that.

Yeah, it's a condition of approval.

But I'm not the only one.

Okay.

Yeah, I like it.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, I'll make a motion.

I move that we approve the project as stated on the screen with the recommendation conditions and adopt potential findings as stated in the staff report.

Second then moved by Garner, seconded by Keyho to approve this item.

All those in favor?

I mean posed.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thanks for hanging in there.

Uh we'll move go ahead and move forward.

Item 3-5, preliminary plat approval for the amended portion of the reflections edge subdivision and RS4 zoning district and then RS6 zoning district for.

Oh, that's gonna be continued.

Yeah.

Uh applicant requesting continuance to February 10th, 2026.

Now we need to make a motion on continuing.

Okay.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, I'll make a motion that we continue item three-five to February 10th, 2026.

At 6 o'clock PM.

I've just I'll second the motion.

Okay, it's been moved by Kirkman, seconded by Garner to continue this item to the February 10th, 2026 meeting.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed.

Okay, we will continue.

Last item 3-6.

Zoning text amendment to repeal and replace city code Title 10, Chapter 23 signs to eliminate redundant language, remove unnecessary definitions, provide clarity, yada yada yada, yada yada.

Terry.

Can I say it was strategic to have all these people here tonight?

So this will go super fast.

Thank you, Chairman and Commissioners.

My name is Terry Friend, associate planner for the city of NAMPA.

The action before you this evening is for a recommendation of approval to repeal and replace the entirety of Title 10, Chapter 23, which is the code chapter that contains the sign code that applies to most of the city.

Just for clarity, chapter 23 does not include the sign code for the newly defined central NAMPA zoning district.

That sign code is contained in the recently adopted form-based code and is detailed in chapter 15, section nine.

In addition, there are some specialized sign code requirements related to our specific area plans that are found in chapter 31.

We're ignoring those two extras tonight, and we're only looking at changes to chapter 23.

Chapter 23 was last repealed and replaced in 2021, excuse me, 2021.

That is the year of the great zoning code rewrite where the entire zoning code was repealed, and all the chapters within Title 10 were replaced with new code chapters that were adopted across the board with ordinance 4617.

Since that time, we've made some minor revisions on three occasions to the sign code.

In May of 2022, we did some minor tweaks and fixes after the big rewrite.

In May of 2024, two code lines were added.

These codes prohibited signs advertising illegal activities and controlled substances.

And in June of 2025, um, we adopted provisions to allow for additional height for certain freestanding signs within 600 feet of the center line of I-84.

And then just most recently, um, the changes for the Central NAMPA zone also adjusted a couple of things related to the downtown historic notations within sign code.

So the main focus tonight is really about reorganizing the chapter and content of this chapter for easier reference.

I've been responsible for administering NAMPA sign code since September of 2024.

I process and route the sign permit applications, and I specifically am the person who reviews the proposed signs to meet whether they meet sign code or not.

So in that capacity, I have literally reviewed hundreds of sign codes for cities all across the country.

With that background, I can confidently say that our sign code allowances and gener are generous and they are business friendly.

And in processing sign permit applications, it is rare that there is a concern where the applicant isn't allowed to have their desired sign.

What questions I do feel though are questions about sign regulation details and code clarification.

And based on those calls and emails, along with my own difficulties reading and interpreting the code.

So the goal of this code is rewrite is to just reorganize the chapter for easier reference, revamp the charts so that they are easier to read and that they provide more information in kind of a one-stop shop.

And in addition, as we went through the code section by section, we identified redundant code sections and unnecessary definitions that could be removed, as well as code sections that needed to be clarified and simplified.

So when it comes down to it, what you're looking at tonight, the actual revisions to code requirements or allowances are really pretty limited.

I'm gonna try and go through those pretty quickly, but feel free to stop me if we need to just spend a little more time.

So the very first uh change relates to aligning building code requirements and the sign code where it relates to professional engineering being required at seven foot in height for any structures or freestanding signs, seven foot or taller will require structural engineering calculations, and that makes it the sign code align with the building code.

Uh the second adds a code to specify that there are times when alternate sign allowances and standards apply.

Um that happens occasionally when there are special requirements in a specific area plan or a comprehensive sign program for a development or other development agreement requirements.

So this code section says that can happen, and if it does, then the specific standards take precedence.

But if the specific code doesn't speak to a particular issue, then the standard code applies.

This code specifically makes those signs prohibited, which will allow our park personnel to remove them if that occurs.

Next, um, we're adding a code section that lists drive-through signage under exempt signs.

Drive-through signage has always historically fallen in kind of a murky gray area because it's not really advertising and it's not really generally intended to be viewed from the street.

So this just kind of cleans that up, making it so that this type of sign that provides direction will just be reviewed by the building department under building code, but it will be exempt from sign code restrictions.

We are also removing the limit to the number of directional signs for a property.

Um directional signage is an important sign for safe navigation of a property.

The current sign code recognizes that purpose and considers directional signage under the exempt sign, but then it puts a requ a limitation of up to two per property.

We want to go ahead and lift that so that some of our more complex commercial properties can utilize more directional and wayfinding signs for safe navigation.

This is the new uh code section.

It removes that limit to the quantity of sign while keeping the restriction to the sign area allowance, and then part B has been added to specifically address maximum height for any freestanding directional signs.

This uh code change addresses the size of a temporary line bond sign, which currently has been regulated to two square feet, but you can't actually buy one that that's that is that size.

Um they're typically 18 by 24, so increasing this allowance to three square feet really makes that um more in alignment with what's available in today's market.

Um code, um, it's designed to limit how we measure the sign area for a two-sided sign.

Um that calculation calculates only one sign face, but it assumes that the sign faces are back to back and parallel to each other.

This code says if it was five degrees off of parallel that we would have to count them as separate sign faces, but that is just such a negligible um degree that uh I've recommended we adjust that to an offset measurement of 15%.

Uh sorry, 15 degrees, which would still be negligible, but probably you would notice it in terms of how that sign area was calculated.

Uh my little depiction here is certainly more than 15 degrees, but that's the kind of thing that we're looking at is these triangular shape signs.

Now it makes sense.

Now it makes sense.

Okay.

These are not parallel.

No, thank you for the visual though.

That actually helped because I was trying to figure that out.

Um we have also uh recommended deleting this requirement that permanent readerboard signs be non-illuminated.

In all honestly, this is completely contradictory to other portions of the code.

Um I think it's really just an unintended outlier.

And then the last addition is to provide a definition and standards for what we're gonna call feather banners.

We recognize them, um, we see them all over, but they really just were not identified in code at all.

So we've provided a definition for what those are and some standards for that really align with the temporary banner alignment for the zoning districts where we would normally allow a temporary banner.

Um, and then the size limitations are based on sort of a mid-range of the available signs in that style.

All right.

Um excuse me, Terry, um on that specific one.

Is there a length of time that the temporary sign is allowed?

Or do we have that yet?

Um it is a quantity of one.

There is no time restriction on our temporary signs, and this doesn't require a sign permit.

So really we're getting down to you get one, um, and that is one per 50 foot of frontage.

So there are some locations that are going to be allowed multiples.

What happens when the sign becomes weathered and dingy and torn and we've got you covered.

Um we're not detailing all of that part of code, but it is in there.

Um we've tried to trust you.

We've tried to detail exactly what that means so that it's quantifiable and enforceable.

Some mostly they get so faded you can't read them.

They do.

Or shredded in the wind.

Yeah.

They are temporary by nature, if not by our code time restriction.

Um right, we are allowed to amend zoning code based on um Title 10, chapter 2, section 3.1, um, which says that um if the planning and zoning and the city council find that the proposed amendments are reasonably necessary and in the interest of the public and in harmony with the goals and or policies of the adopted um comprehensive plan, we can adopt a sign or sorry, a code change, which must make you wonder what the comprehensive plan has to say about signage, and it does actually speak to that.

There's about three paragraphs in there.

Um I boiled it down to the most applicable here, which I've highlighted in blue.

Um, properly designed and placed signs should provide an easy and pleasant communication between people and their environment and avoid visual clutter.

And two um two reasons to adopt sign standards is to ensure that the sign designs signs are designed, constructed, installed, and maintained to assure public and traffic safety, um, and to allow adequate and effective signs without dominating the visual landscape.

So I think we can safely say that the proposed changes do are reasonably necessary, they're in the interest in the public, um, and they do they are in harmony with the comprehensive plan.

Going the wrong way.

Um here are your potential motions.

I'm happy to stand for any questions.

I'm not sure.

What about the uh fan working with you guys?

Oh okay.

I found this on the wall.

Hey!

It thought I said Siri, not Terry, I guess.

Yes.

Um those type of signs are still allowed.

Um they are supposed to be permitted, and they have a 90-day per year use restriction.

That's what the current code says.

Cool.

Those feather fans or feather signs.

Um the the vis the triangle visual, the visual triangle, whatever what what is that?

Vision triangle.

Yeah, vision triangle.

What what is the vision triangle basically is construct anything within that 40 40 by 40 foot triangle on either side of the driveway?

You don't know.

So that you see traffic going each other.

Yeah.

But more often than not, those feather banners are blocking traffic.

They move them out to the corner of this of the street.

I know they're not supposed to be in public easements, right-a-ways, all that kind of stuff.

Um, but it's not specific.

At least I don't see it.

Well, it says minimum of five feet from any other temporary or permanent sign not allowed in public right-of-way easements or vision triangle.

But I mean, is there a vision?

If you use a vision triangle, every time you come up to an intersection, there'd be no signs.

Mr.

Chair, vision triangle that would cover that whole intersection.

Mr.

Chair Commissioners, the vision triangles are dependent on the speed limits on the adjacent streets.

And so you are correct.

They there are there are areas that yeah, you could have some problems getting any sign out near the edge of the road.

Typically when we're measuring vision triangles, if it's a stop controlled intersection on one side, we're measuring 13 feet back from the curb line, and that's where our triangle starts from.

And so as long as you're you're not having that right out on the street, you can get outside of that vision triangle fairly easily.

It's just when when they do place them right out there by the curb or the back of the sidewalk, that's where we end up with an enforcement issue of hey, you're in the vision triangle, you're causing a safety hazard, and that somebody's walking around with a pro tractor figuring out.

Well, we can.

I mean, we were gonna make a motion to have Kehoe called that's true.

He could eat he could actually be your guy for the vision triangle.

I had no idea I would know this much about signs at the end of today than I do now.

And I just I mean, I gotta commend you, Terry.

I mean, that's just a sign expert.

That's that's pretty dang cool.

It's worth getting up today.

There's a lot more technicalities involved with this than I ever thought possible.

Anyways, cool.

Is there anyone here that would like to speak?

You're the only one that is passing.

I told you.

I would take a motion to close the public hearing.

Yes.

I move to recommend approval of the uh we gotta close public hearing first.

I make a motion that we close the public hearing.

I move with close public hearing.

It's been moved by Garner, second by Morgan to close the public hearing.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Now what do we think?

I move to recommend approval of the code changes as stated for approval on the screen with the proposed findings.

Second.

It's been moved by Keyhoe, seconded by Kirkman to recommend approval for the code changes.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed.

What is your new job down there?

Uh Mr.

Chair, I would make a recommendation to close the meeting.

Good enough.

Second.

Make a motion to adjourn.

Adjourn.

Oh, to adjourn.

To adjourn.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded.

Let's go home.

Morgan.

I'll never make that mistake again.

Better not.

It's the most important motion of the night.

Absolutely.