Good evening.

Um, and I'd like to ask the clerk to call attendance.

Oh, sorry.

Call to order.

We are going to open with prayer and the pledge of allegiance.

And this evening, very special uh lady near and dear to the city of NAMPA, former employee and her husband uh worked faithfully as our former police chief in the city of Nampa, for those of you don't know uh Alan Creach and um uh so Pastor Laura Creek is gonna open us in prayer and the pledge.

I'd like to ask uh those who are willing and wanting to participate to stand at this time.

Ms.

Bauer heads in prayer.

So Heavenly Father, we are gathered here as your stewards.

We ask for your wisdom and your guidance.

Help us to listen with open hearts, speak with clarity and kindness, and make decisions that we that are right and just help us to respect each other's ideas, build on each other's strengths, and work together harmoniously.

May your discussions be productive and your efforts bring good results, and may your bonds strengthen as all of you on City Council and the Mayor serve a common purpose.

In Jesus' name we ask.

Amen.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

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

Thanks, Laura.

I appreciate that.

Thank you, Laura.

All right.

Uh now we will do roll call.

Scog.

Yes.

Here.

Reynolds.

Rodriguez.

Here.

Griffin.

Here.

Five present, one absent.

All right.

And just uh just for the record, Councilman uh Reynolds, who is absent, did give advanced notice, so it's not like we're shocked that he's just uh MIA or that we don't anticipate him to join later for the meeting.

So he will be absent for tonight.

Um proposed amendments to the agenda.

I I do want to note at this time that there is a public hearing item.

The first one that is uh listed on our agenda, which is item 8.1.

That item at the request of the applicant has been asked to be uh postponed or pushed to a future fixed date.

So it is our intent when we get to that item to open the public hearing and then announce the date certain uh to continue that um item.

So we are not doing that at that time um but just announcing it this time under proposed amendments to the agenda that our intent when we get to 8-1 is to open the public hearing uh to not act tonight on that to respond uh to the request of the applicant to delay this to a future date for a continuance.

So uh other than that, are there any proposed amendments to the agenda that I'm aware of tonight?

All right.

If there are none, uh, would look for a motion to adopt the agenda.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All right, all right.

Now we go to the consent agenda, and you'll notice all the items are listed there, and look for a motion as well from council uh to approve the consent agenda.

So moved.

Second.

Okay, there's a motion and second.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Um I do want to just briefly note on the consent agenda.

Um, these items have been carefully reviewed by council, and we use the consent agenda as our friend to try to expedite a lot of the uh a lot, a lot of the items that are before the city so that we can expedite our business meeting, but please know that there's a lot of care taken on all these items.

Um do want to note that uh Mr.

Tom Turner is present.

Some thanks.

Uh you were reappointed in the consent agenda on P and Z.

Thank you for your service.

I know lots of late late evenings.

Uh, and I I know you're not doing it for the pay, because uh there's not really pay involved.

So appreciate your service, Tom.

Thanks for being willing to continue to serve in that capacity.

All right, moving on from consent agenda.

Um agency and commission reports um sub item three.

We don't have any uh planned on the agenda, however, do want to exercise a moment of privilege to recognize uh our CFO and our amazing finance team on the GFOA, which is the Government Finance Officers Association.

Um there's one award that they've gotten every year for decades, so that standard's been maintained, which is great, but there's a second award that you got as well.

So I'd I'd like the CFO to briefly uh make council and the public aware of the recognitions that they received this week.

Mayor, thank you.

The uh budget department and entire city uh received uh for the third year in a row the distinguished budget presentation award from the GFOA, the government finance organization.

Um it I believe is only one of two cities this year in Idaho that got it.

Um we submit a version of our budget, the completed approved council version to the GFOA.

They review it and send back a 20-page document telling us what they think about it up and down, left and right, and offer suggestions for the future.

But uh this was the third year in a row we've received that, so it's a compliment to the city and to the finance team for doing the budget in a way that provides clarity and meets the basic standards uh that allow for a little more in-depth discussion of the budgets.

So I want to thank my team and then also the city departments that work with us.

Awesome.

Uh thank you, Doug and team.

The budget book for the city of Niampa is amazing.

It it's on the website.

So if the public's watching this and wants to see what exactly this book looks like, uh you'll you'll be up late reading.

I was up till 3 30 last night reading.

Not the budget book, I was reading other stuff.

Wow.

But um got up at seven.

So I'm operating on three and a half hours of sleep.

The adrenaline is okay.

I'm not tired yet, it's gonna hit me later.

But um the budget book is amazing, it's extremely detailed, and it's just not a bunch of spreadsheets and numbers.

There's also narrative on what every single department division within the city at the UPA does, uh, goals, accomplishments.

But the way that it's compiled and constructed, the GFOA has recognized the city of Nepa for putting together a good budget book.

So uh that's published for dissemination, not just to council and the budget process, but for the public and consuming, and and we have an archive there of prior years, so you can look back and see what the city of Napa has done.

I I often refer to the budget book to uh re-familiarize myself and remind myself of what went on in the past.

So that's just a helpful tool.

So thank you, Doug and team.

Uh, you're to be commended for your work.

Thank you.

All right, for staff communications, which is item 4.1.

Um Rodney Ashby.

Uh you are up.

And uh thanks for what you do, uh Rodney, and look forward to hearing from you tonight.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Uh just a report on planning and zoning commission's uh decisions on January 13th.

So we had quite a few consent agenda items, so I'll go through those kind of quickly.

Let me know if you have any questions about it.

Um final plat approval for Ridgeview North, number one.

Uh uh subdivision final plat approval for Swainson's Hawk Arbor, number one.

Uh final plat approval for Grand Central, and then uh extensions for a CUP for unlimited solutions yard and nursery.

This is off of Greenhurst and Happy Valley Road.

Um for a contractor's landscape office with outdoor storage of planning materials.

Uh, then a first one-year extension for subdivision short plat approval for White Pines Townhouse, and then a second one-year extension for subdivision preliminary plat for uh Northland subdivision.

So those were all the consent agenda items, and all of those were recommended for approval or approved if that was appropriate.

The extensions as a reminder, the extensions are a uh uh approval basis for the planning and zoning commission, and then the um final plats are um recommendations on to you, and that was on your consent agenda tonight.

Uh we had uh five different public hearings that night as well.

Uh the first one was an annexation and zoning and subdivision preliminary plat approval for regatta crossing.

This is for 58 single family attached townhouse dwelling units, 100 single family detached dwelling units, four commercial lots, and 22 common lots lots.

This is near the southeast area of uh Eustach Road and North Side Boulevard, and that was recommended for approval uh with five yeses and one no.

Uh condition the next one is a conditional use permit for Mason Creek RV, and it's an expansion of an existing RV park, and that one was recommended for approval umanimously.

Annexation and zoning and conditional use permit for summer breeze.

Um this is just one one parcel assisted living facility.

This is where the Greenhurst Nursery used to be on Happy Valley south of Greenhurst.

And that one was recommended for approval unanimously.

Next is a preliminary plat for Greenhurst Cottages.

And this is off of Sunny Ridge Road in Greenhurst.

And this was for 43 cottage style single family detached dwelling units.

Uh this has been approved in the in the past as a concept, but then this is the preliminary plat for it.

And that was unanimous.

And then the last one was zoning text amendment to repeal and replace the city code Title 10, Chapter 23 for signs, and uh that will be coming to you on in March.

Um all of those ones I just mentioned will be coming to you in March on March 2nd.

And that's all I have.

Thanks, Rodney.

Appreciate that.

So you can tell um things remain busy in the planning world.

So thanks for what you and your team does, Rodney.

Really appreciated.

All right, we're gonna move on to new business now.

And item 51 is an action item to authorize the mayor to sign a change order with Knife River.

Um Crystal, you have this item.

Um would you like to present to council?

No.

Okay.

She's she stands available if there's any questions, but this is a change order uh in the amount of 122,088.95 cents.

And this is to deal with the Phyllis Canal.

So moved.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second, and this is a roll call vote.

So I'd have the clerk take roll.

Gog, yes.

Bills, yes, Rodriguez.

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Okay.

Action 52 is to authorize budget reallocation of 250,000 to pay for an emergency replacement of a culvert and authorize the mayor and public works director to sign the task order with Ardura for the culvert rehab.

Um, this is Elijah Drain at Pine and Lincoln.

An amount not to exceed $89,000.

So $89,707.

I do want to note that this is pending a reallocation in the FY26 budget.

Um I have spoken with CFO uh Racine and we we keep a running and tally of these items, but we're essentially asking for your approval on this authority, but it still needs to be formalized in the budget uh amendment, which will will come at a future time.

Can you can you just briefly um brief council on that?

So what we're doing is a slight difference from prior years is um as we seek to use existing budgetary authority for non-budget items.

We'll come to council for the approval to do so, and then we will bring that forward as part of the amendment.

So it might be like a zero-sum game where we're just moving it from one project to another, but it will come before council for their approval, and we'll track each of these changes that allows us to get it back into our budgetary system to make sure that we are uh keeping both the council apprised and keeping good track of the budgetary authority.

Mayor.

Yes, Councilman Griffin.

If I could at this point, do we know which budget that'll come from or which project it'll be taking from?

Uh great question, Councilman.

Um Crystal, would you like to handle that?

Yeah, Mayor.

Testing.

That is brutal.

Sorry to the public.

Uh Crystal will come to the mic up front.

I apologize for that.

Um, Mayor, Councilman Griffin, thank you for the question.

So this was a is a drain, so it's a liya drain, which means it's 50-50 shared between irrigation budget and streets budget.

The 250,000 dollar that we have called out right now for annual stormwater is out of the streets.

So I will be coming also with a budget amendment for the remaining 440.

It's gonna take all in to get this one completed.

Um, part of that will come out of irrigation, part of that will come out of streets.

And is there any specific projects that it will be taking from?

I know we allotted those funds specifically for something else, and now that we're having to reorganize because it is an emergency, just curious what that's going to take from.

Mayor Councilman Griffin, um potentially if I'm being honest.

So, this is one of the projects that I shared at the December 15th staff com when I spoke about Elijah Drain and I said, hey, there's two that we already know are emergency repairs that I'll be coming before council.

I also described two more that I said we're watching, which will could also be uh emergency repairs.

The annual stormwater project, typically we pick one project each year based on highest need at the time.

Um this is this year's project, so we're not going to do another preventative maintenance or a lining of some sort because this is taking precedence over it.

And Crystal and Council, I believe, mayor, I believe we also have a contingency in the budget built to absorb such emergencies in the streets budget, perhaps not in the irrigation, but I know we do it in the streets, so the intent would be uh lacking a specific project to take it out of the contingency budget that's already built in, and then uh failing all else in the irrigation.

If needed, we can pull that from fund balance, but that would come before council.

And I I don't think we'd need to, though.

Mayor Hogbloom.

Uh yes, Councilman Rodriguez.

Um this is for both of you, Crystal and Doug.

Is it possible to leave the budget intact with the with the way it is now and use part of the CIP monies to pay for emergencies like this?

When you say CIP, if you're talking about the impact fees, no.

If you're talking about our capital fund that's CWP, that's essentially what we're doing.

Oh, we're not going to we're not going to increase the budget.

We're going to keep the budget exactly as it is and just transfer authority from one project to another.

That's the whole intent here is to make sure we're not increasing the budget.

And if they were going to increase the budget, the action item will be written such to say this will be an amendment, an increase in funding, and then they would explain where that funding is coming from.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Mayor.

Yes.

One final question.

What is the the standing balance of that contingency budget in the streets department that will be taken from?

And will you anticipate we plenish that for next budget cycle?

So I think it was $800,000.

Mayor, Councilman Griffin.

I think it's $600,000.

We just approved part of the contingency budget being used in the change order that was on item right before this 5-1.

Thank you.

Well, good questions.

Uh council, I uh appreciate the distinctions that are made that this is a budget reallocation, so it's not um it's not a net increase over the bottom line dollar amount that was approved in the budget, but in the spirit of transparency, the there's line items that are enumerated in the budget that are approved.

And so when there's a significant pivot like this, which is a reallocation, the contingency is always going to be the first resort, and then if you exhaust the contingency, you're gonna have to say no to something else.

And I'm my guess is I think along as councilman Griffin was asking, um, that there would be council interest, I think from staff, and I would also ask that staff includes what what are we saying no to if we get to that point?

Um, and are we inviting input from council on that decision to staff have a recommendation on bumping on a priority issue?

But obviously, when you have these emergency replacements, it's it's not something that was foreseen, and you're having to uh exercise some agility within the budgetary framework, and so I appreciate um staff um bringing this forward and um this would be a reallocation and uh within the budget.

So if there are there any more questions from council, if not entertain a motion and move to approve, second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve.

This is also a roll call.

Thank you, Crystal.

Yes, Jingula, Bills, yes, Rodriguez, yes, Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

All right, we're moving on.

Section uh item 53.

This is also a task order with color associates uh associates for the Purdue and sewer trunk project extension.

Um the amount not to exceed 521,000.

This was approved in the 500 uh in the FY26 budget.

So moved.

Okay, we have a motion, second, second.

Mayor discussion?

Yes, councilman Griffin.

Just one question just regarding the the budget as a whole and the project as a whole.

Are we at this point on track on time and in budget?

Have there been any constraints that we're going to foresee in the future budget that we need to offset?

Are we allocating properly and project skin done within the budget that we anticipated?

Great question.

Uh John, would you like to address that?

John Spencer Water Director of Water Resources, um, Mayor, Councilman Griffin.

Um, currently they are on budget from their an initial estimate.

And actually, it's slightly been reduced once we've gone to some of the contracts.

Um I would defer to uh Doug on the overall budgeting.

He's been working on the overall project and the budgeting and the financial side of that.

So this is probably one of the more complex projects because it requires funding from multiple sources and takes place over multiple years.

So we are completing the presentation of how that budget will look like, how it will take place over the years, and where the funding source will be by year for each section.

Right now it's looking to be on track.

There's nothing deviating, but finance has partnered and will continue to partner with wastewater to track the spend by funding source and by year to keep it within the project.

Appropriate time, I think this will come before council to present that valuation to you.

Thank you.

Great questions.

Any other questions?

We we do have a motion and a second, so we're still on deliberation.

And if there's any question, any more questions for Director John Spencer.

Okay, you can have a seat.

Thanks, John.

Okay, council.

If there's um no further deliberation, I'd ask the clerk to proceed with the roll call vote.

Scog.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

All right.

We're moving along.

Uh 5-4 is what's next.

And this is authorizing the mayor to sign a contract.

Um, I believe that's pronounced La Riviera Inc.

for an annual irrigation replacement.

Um this is an amount not to exceed 739,761 dollars.

This was approved on the budget, and this was also subject to a bid process.

Um council has any questions.

This would also go to Director John Spencer.

So any questions from council or a motion.

Mayor, I move to approve.

Okay, we have a motion.

Second.

We have a second.

Any discussion.

Okay, no discussion.

The clerk will take role in this as well.

Scog, yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

All right.

We are moving to our last um item under new business.

Um that could be confusing.

There are items also on the agenda beyond new business, but we have public hearings and unfinished business.

Um this is a discussion item.

And I I want to emphasize that this is a discussion item and this is not an action item.

Okay.

Council is not taking action tonight.

Um this is to bring into kind of the put on the public record discussions among multiple agencies, um, mostly us and the NAMPA school district, about the possibility of a land swap and what those properties might be.

The packet involves a lot of that information.

And so I would say what would be helpful tonight in this in this discussion phase is is to again note this is not a public hearing, so we're not opening up to the public for three-minute comment on this.

If if we were to proceed to contemplate this as uh as an actual formal action, it would go through a public hearing process in which the public uh we would be obligated to solicit public input, and we would be happy to receive public input um on this item.

The public is allowed to send comments.

Some of the members of the public have sent letters uh indicating uh some of their thoughts on this.

The packet also includes uh some letters, including a letter from say Bay Ruth, for example, uh supportive of this framework.

So we are definitely soliciting public input to to determine whether or not we want to proceed with further exploration of this framework.

And tonight uh is an opportunity to kind of lay out what the terms are, may be, what uh what flexibility there might be within the terms that the council would potentially find acceptable as well as uh the NAMPA school district, which we appreciate.

So uh Director Cody Swander, uh, why don't you uh kind of tee it up for us and let us know um the the details on this item and and I uh Nampus School District's also present to provide some input and this is really an opportunity for council uh to you to ask questions and and and you know explore the possibility of this.

So Cody.

Thank you, uh Mayor City Council.

Good evening, Cody Swander, director of Napa Parks and Recreation.

Um Mayor Hogabin did a fantastic job of uh teeing this up for me.

But um back in June, you may have um, I don't think councilwoman Scog has received the letter because she wasn't in the sea quite yet, but you may remember a letter coming from NAMPA School District with a proposal for some sort of a property swap for lands that city maintains in its parks and recreation system known as rodeo park and stampede park for in exchange for approximately 43 acres that the school district owns on the corner or near the corner of Airport Road and Robinson Road in in East Nampa.

And uh with that um proposal, there's been lots of discussion um with the school district back and forth between Nampa Parks and Recreation Department and what the needs would be from our department and whether we would support some sort of a swap and um or would not and what that may look like going forward.

I have uh Courtney Stoffer and Will Barber here from NAMPA School District, and I'll turn some time over to them to kind of present that proposal to you.

Um I think that my role here is to reiterate that um the benefit I see in in this proposal as uh NAMPA Parks and Recreation Director would be uh the obtainment of the 43 acres that is needed for a future soccer type facility for City of Nampa, a need that we've recognized in our uh impact fee CIPs and other areas, our master planning efforts as a as a need in NAMPA, and this is one uh possible way to perhaps achieve that.

And um, and then the other reason that um I'm here in support of this kind of uh conceptually is because of the relationship that the school district um has voiced that they would prefer uh that they would like to carry forward with the user groups, the primary user groups anyway, that utilize rodeo field and Stampede Park, uh, namely American Legion Baseball and Napa Bay Ruth baseball, softball.

So with that, let me turn some time over unless there's questions initially to uh to the Napa School District team.

Great, thanks.

Courtney.

Just identify yourself for the record, please.

Mayor City Council.

Uh my name is uh Courtney Stoffer.

I'm the assistant superintendent of operations for the Napa School District.

With me is Will Barber, who is our district uh athletic director as well.

Thank you for taking some time to allow us to come and visit with you.

Uh again, we are here on an exploratory uh mission from our dist from our district office and from our trustees.

Uh as was presented, we we conceptually have talked about some ideas of a potential land swap that would benefit both the we think that would benefit the city, our community, and the school district as well.

Uh we have identified some of those those properties as far as has been mentioned as well with our airport property and then also with the city properties.

Um, our our intent is really to get um some ideas from the city council of what uh their their thoughts are initially.

Uh before we all go and invest a lot of time, energy, and effort in in even some money to acquire some of the things needed if it is uh not something that the city council is interested in.

So it is something again that we're here to just explore and answer any questions that we can.

Uh some questions will we might have some answers for, and some we may not, because that's why we're here to find out if if there is indeed uh enough interest to move to the next steps of acquiring uh more detailed information.

So with that, Mayor, I I I think that's the basis, and I am happy to answer any other questions that may be out there.

I'm I'm sure there's several, uh, but we would we would love to at least uh uh take those in and answer those and also prepare if we don't have some of the answers for those as well.

Courtney, well, good to have you here tonight.

Um I I'll ask a question and and of course council can ask some questions.

Can you can you, in quick summary, just answer the the big the big question, the why, the white question.

Yeah.

Yeah, the why question.

Um in the NIMPA school district, uh, NAMPA High School has uh not had any of their own fields for quite a long time.

We have partnered with the city and also with American Legion in uh renting uh rodeo in uh also with partnership with the parks with West uh Park to uh facilitate our softball programs.

So currently the high school, NAMPA High School does not have any of their softball or baseball facilities on site.

So that was kind of the genesis of uh where this came from.

Um I know there's been conversations over the years of just uh litmus tests of the district's um uh properties that we have if there was any interest and and there hasn't been in the past, and and now that our board did um authorize me to start looking for uh potential uses for um uh our land and swapping out some of our assets for other assets.

So that's really the the quick uh background of it is the need was generated uh to have our own fields with inside the school district.

Mayor Hugamone.

Yes, Councilman Rodriguez.

Uh thank you.

Uh I know this is the just the big the the beginning of the whole process.

So um do you have I have a two-fold question.

Number one, do you have a study of the impact to our community?

Should you take over this property and and should we take over the the uh the land for for soccer?

Now keep in mind that I used to be a soccer coach at Skyland High School.

My granddaughter is on the United States Olympic junior team in soccer.

So I'm really related to soccer.

And I really like that when I heard that there was going to be a soccer field that is sequ I mean, that is that is close to the soccer availability, like in Boise.

And uh and in Caldwell even in Brothers Park.

So do you know the impact, uh, fiscal impact plus the social impact that it would do for you and uh for us?

Mayor and uh Councilman Rodriguez, I think that's a great question.

Have we done in-depth no?

That's part of the things that we have discussed and wanting to know if there was an interest level for us to initiate those.

Some of those can it cost uh cost us, and we wanted to make sure that there was interest before we came and presented some of those ideas before we include costs.

So the answer is at this current time we don't.

We have some ancillary components, but nothing as far as a formal study.

I see follow-up, Mayor.

Yes.

Well, I know some of this property uh, especially the Boys and Girls Club and the Hispanic uh building are in somewhat of an array of uh border lines.

Um how would you take care of those?

Mayor and Councilman Rodriguez, we we do recognize there would have to be some uh land divisions that take place within the city before that would be the appropriate um uh parcels identified.

So there would have to be some parcel separations as well at the city level.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yeah.

Um exercise.

Oh, Councilman Griffin's trying to turn the mic on.

It's still red.

It stays red.

But I can hear you though.

No, I that's why I tap it before to know.

Councilman Rodriguez's mic is green.

I don't know if you want to see the question.

He's lucky.

No, I know it works.

Oh, you can hear me over there?

Okay, good deal.

All right.

I got uh three questions if I could, Mayor.

Yeah.

Uh the first, who owns the northeast corner of the property?

I know it's cut pretty uh two-thirds and one third.

Who owns the upper third of the property?

Mayor and uh Councilman Griffin.

Um I do not know off the top of my head, I know how to find it, but I have not um But it's not with the school district.

It is not.

No, that that whole parcel that you have been identified in red is the school district uh parcel.

We do own another subsequent parcel that is right on the corner of the roundabout.

There's another 10 acres, which we have purposely wanted to keep it.

I'm sorry to interrupt, just for the record.

Um Cody's gonna pop on so that the public can see what we're talking about.

So the public is uh the packet is publicly available as a public document, but just so the public can follow along a little bit.

So go ahead and proceed, but um, I just want to give a little bit of time for Cody to try to get going and then he'll have that up here shortly.

So sorry, carry on.

Thank you.

Well, he's pulling that up.

I would just then make a comment.

Uh I would like to see a deed restriction applied that this will maintain a community benefit and baseball fields or the sorts uh in continuance.

So that's the only comment I really had.

Um the 10 acres in the corner.

I'm sure it'll pull up on the screen, but right in the middle of conversation.

I know.

Mayor trust uh excuse me, I'm used to trustees, so I apologize, Councilman Griffin.

Um again, going back to first your comment, we we would anticipate some of those, and also we would also from the district side of things probably have some deed restrictions for the our property as well.

Um so there's some mutual component, which we understand that that could be a component of it.

And even in our our initial letter, we we recognize that as a possibility as well and are aware of that that would be something that the city could be interested in.

It is again going back to the uh original uh comment from uh Councilman Rodriguez, this is that what we would look at for as far as the property that we're interested in.

Uh we do not have interest on the rest of those properties.

Um then to the subsequent conversation where the uh the district property is, which is the next slide.

Uh down on the corner of airport and um let's see, there it is.

Airport and Robinson at that new roundabout.

Um you'll notice there's a canal that is in the the right next to that uh roundabout.

That 10 acres uh right there is uh district owned, and we'd like to maintain that uh for future expansion is needed on on that side of town.

So that's uh some of the studies that we have uh would suggest that that might be the only use for this land would be for an elementary school, as our high school and and middle schools are in enough proximity to be able to cover the load of students.

Thank you.

And then I I have a difficult time as well, not calling you Mr.

Stopper.

He was my high school principal.

So he he he can share a lot about it.

If you would like me to vacate, that's the guy you go to, right there.

Um topography was my final question.

What's the topography of the project and how difficult this likely will be for Cody?

Would it be to be able to create soccer field spaces on this project property for the project that we desire with that and potential costs that you foresee right now?

Yeah, and ballpark numbers are good.

Yeah, mayor and and um councilman Griffin.

I don't have a number for you.

I did propose this to um one of the landscape architects that we work with on other park projects just to get like a field number count.

He looked at the topography.

He said that it would likely take um some grading work to do, but was feasible to do and not out of the realm of possible.

Thank you.

And grass can sufficiently grow there, it's not an issue there.

Mayor Trustee Griffin.

They did it again.

Councilman Griffin.

Uh it's currently in farm right now, so it's growing things right now.

So I we don't anticipate any issues of growing grass.

And it has been farmed for several years.

Um so I do we do not anticipate that.

Thank you.

All right.

Um thanks for answering answering the questions.

Mayor.

Yes, Councilwoman Jangula.

Thank you.

This is for Cody.

Cody, how many soccer fields do you think that we can get on this parcel?

And then what is the timeline do you think until we have that built out?

And does that meet the need for what we're wanting for this area?

Mayor, um, councilwoman Jangula, that's those are great questions.

Of course, we haven't done as far as a concept level.

The what I had the architect, let's see one.

We have 13 fields basically roughly placed on here.

They sized all the way from full-size soccer facilities to kind of the smaller um age groups because a soccer field varies in size based on the age demographic utilizing it.

So I think that we could fit that number on there if we were to utilize it to its max capacity.

If we wanted more larger fields, then of course the number would shrink.

Um the timeline on it is is um also in question.

One of the things that we are currently exploring is if this property swap were to happen, dollars that have been earmarked in the city's parks impact fee budget, instead of using that money to purchase land, um, it could hopefully, and this is the answer I'm waiting for from the impact fee consultants is whether that those dollars can be used to actually develop that land.

Although purchasing and developing is in the impact fee as line items for a sock future soccer facility.

Um, which one could happen first?

I'm waiting for an answer for, but I believe the answer would be yet that that those dollars would be available sooner than later to at least start a phase of construction.

How many acres that involved, um, you know, how fast those dollars were eaten up with infrastructure such as frontage improvements, um parking lots, um power and infrastructure is yet to be known.

Does that meet our goal for what we're wanting for that area?

It does.

We were side we were trying to look for somewhere between 40 and 50 acres roughly when we were looking for parcels of property.

Um NAMPA's hot spots for areas of our community that are underserved by parks are in East Nampa and North NAMPA.

And so this um this hit in a uh geographic area that was beneficial for our master plan as well.

Thank you.

Mayor?

Yes.

Just a follow-up to Councilwoman Jangula's question.

Thirteen parks with sufficient parking, or would that encompass 13 full parks on the property, not including parking?

Um we do have the area designated in the in the rendering for parking as well.

I don't have a uh specific councilman griffin for stall numbers or anything like that, but we would uh certainly want to um provide adequate parking because this area of town has no on-street parking available.

Thank you.

And then one final question in regard to the city center, you could say the residential area, how many minutes of a drive would this be to this location?

15, 20, 25.

It really uh mayor uh councilman Griffin.

That's a difficult question.

I didn't take uh I didn't start at City Hall and head that direction, so I don't know that answer.

I did uh look on the map from like the it we are one mile from current city limits as as you head back to the west.

Thank you.

Or this old dog counselor 10 and a half minutes.

Exactly.

Uh right.

And 32 seconds within five to seven seconds, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Mayor.

Yes.

Cody, we have that timeline with the CWI um space for that 10 years.

Would this potentially be done within that time frame for us to shift the use from there to this?

Uh Mayor at Councilwoman Jangula, I believe it could if that was our priority and spending impact fee dollars, um identifying those projects.

There's multiple projects more than can ever be um funded on our CIP.

So it's um traditionally we have gone wherever the priority is for those.

So if the completing the park within that 10-year window is the priority, um I believe we could get there, yes.

Um I was just gonna say I don't know about the rest of the council, but I'm about ready for another conveyance, so maybe we should keep that as an option.

I'm just joking.

I'm just joking.

Um Cody, I I asked uh Niampa kind of the why, and I think some of the questions maybe from council um the the public might not be fully fully aware of the arrangements that currently exist, but the the soccer fields in front of CWI are utilized by uh is it Premier Sports League, and there's hundreds of kids who play soccer, and so the city has worked to provide that space, and I want to be clear that's not a parks and rec league per se uh on the Saturday Soccer League.

Um just like Babe Ruth is not a city run league, right?

Um we we facilitate space and and recreational activities for nonprofits and other entities that that take the organizational uh obligations to ensure that the hundreds of kids in our community have a safe place to play and recreate.

Um but as Cody mentioned earlier, a soccer, a soccer park, a destination soccer park is next um on our on the city's priority list as councilwoman jingula referenced that there is a clock ticking on the arrangement with CWI.

That's not a permanent or a hundred-year or a thousand-year arrangement for the use of the soccer fields.

That's uh tenure uh is Councilwoman Jangula referred to.

So um I know that there's lots of parents who have kids playing soccer that are concerned about what the city is proactively doing right now to ensure that the approaching a thousand kids playing soccer will have a home a decade from now.

And right now, it the the best answer is we're working on it.

But that that's partly maybe behind the why um that that Cody and the city is is contemplating um the school district.

I would say the impact fees that were referenced earlier are really important.

As you're aware, impact fees are based on a capital improvement plan.

There's legal framework that you're collecting those impact fees only to be spent as contemplated and is enumerated, and I asked Cody to reach out to Tischler Bice to get an answer on this, which is very important to me because impact fees have been collected contemplating the purchase, the land acquisition.

We weren't contemplating the possibility of a swap where we have the land, and and can we use and expend the funds that have been collected under that premise to expend on the build-out of the park?

That's a very important.

Um I'm hoping that there's a favorable response where there's flexibility allowed for that.

There would also be a net formula that would likely have to be at play here because the city would be technically offloading on its asset inventory, the acreage that is going gaining this acreage, and you just do some simple math, and that would be the net gain.

Uh, there might need to be some formulaic um work done on how the impact fees could potentially be expended just on that net differential.

Um I know that's very technical, but those are very important aspects to how the the dollars and cents might move on this.

Uh deed restrictions were mentioned earlier.

Um I I I if I heard the council uh or school district um appropriately deed restrictions are sort of anticipated or would be considered um to the extent I what I'm curious is council, how important is it to you uh that any potential land swap that goes to the school district that there's deed restriction on on those properties, that the properties be used and you know uh you know in its current state or some recreational flexibility and how important would that then be that any land that the city also gets is um re refrained, you know, constrained to recreational uses only.

Um I'm kind of asking that question of council.

Mayor?

Yeah, yes, okay, hot.

Let's go to councilman bills and then so a couple of things.

Uh as council may remember when we uh had discussions about land acquisition, the acreage price uh in the marketplace has exceeded what we're able to collect in impact fees, so the trade makes sense.

We can't get enough money in uh to make the purchase of baired land for park.

And so this idea is uh very helpful and workable for what uh the city is wanting to do.

And uh so that that part's really important.

Uh the second part of it is um as far as stipulation, uh there should be a stipulation that uh what we're trading is going to stay in its uh similar use.

I don't want to say actual from the standpoint that I believe the school district would need to have uh flexibility on how they write uh their agreements with the groups using the the park.

I don't suggest that city council get into that per se.

would be need would be a part of the trade and uh stipulation on the deed.

So uh councilman Griffin.

Mayor, just uh a perspective from this seat.

I would like to see the deed restriction similar to what councilman Bills had stated.

I know that Mr.

Stauffer has a a good heart for baseball and the program playing there when you were in high school too, I'm sure gives you the sentimental aspect.

When he's gone, I hope the next person feels the same way, but we never know.

So that's why I would like to see that maintained.

I would hate to see us trade one community benefit for a soccer field and then have that go away.

So I think baseball's as as important and as um influential for the youth as soccer fields would be.

I would like to see both now in our community, not one or the other.

So from my perspective.

Very good.

Uh I personally uh love baseball.

Uh um did not play soccer very well, but I I pitched.

I I love baseball as well.

And I know hundreds of kids love soccer, and so um, as you referenced uh councilman um part of the appeal, just personally uh speaking, is that the uses on the recreational uses would continue generally as is without the city having to assume uh the cost liabilities of maintenance um while also being able to expand to a soccer uh field uh within the 10-year horizon that we have before we lose the guarantee of use on the CWI.

So um this would be a net gain, even though you subtract maybe the acreage that goes to the school district from the city's portfolio to the community, it's not different because they're still getting the the beneficial use.

So it would uh on the whole, it's a net improvement to uh overall quality of life.

I think um council, I well sticking for myself on this.

I and I think council would share the sentiment.

We we care deeply about the historic uh use of American Legion uh baseball, and they are very much appreciated as partners.

Um played American Legion.

There's uh uh not here in Nampa in the state that we don't name Southern California.

Um play at American Legion, and I remember our road trip actually, it was this was the first time I went through Idaho.

We went through Idaho, Montana, South Dakota.

Um so you know, great memories of what American Legion and that that tournament does.

We also value Bay Broof, but also value the school district.

It is kind of awkward to have your home campus without a varsity baseball field on the campus.

And um, everyone's been good partners, the city with American Legion with the school district, and that arrangements worked, but I understand from the city's perspective there's a willingness to um solidify sort of a permanency in this arrangement, and thus why an asset is is being contemplated to offer offer up to the city in a swap.

Um, so any other questions or thoughts from council hoogmas?

I do have one.

So um so Cody, I I I know the city wanted to invest in that property.

One would be uh we we we've been talking about easier access into Rodeo Park and and the baseball diamonds and behind, but unfortunately there's only one way in and one way out off of Garrity.

Um do you foresee ever the city of Napa making it easier access?

And then I have a follow-up question.

Um Mayor and Councilman Rodriguez, I I just don't know how to make that happen.

Um, if I can flip back to my previous slide real quick, I'd like to point to something on that.

Okay.

As you can see, that the road frontage is pretty limited on the property, longerity other than going through the ballpark itself, there's just not an option.

And then off 11th Avenue North, um, making that connection without stepping into the four softball fields is just something that just I just can't I can't picture how to make that actually work.

So I think that access is gonna continue to be an issue there.

Okay, so now this goes back to the city to this to the school district.

Ms.

Offer, is it be would it be uh would you be wanting to address this issue I just spoke about and maybe go through a different avenue of easier access.

And even if we go through Snake River uh background there.

Mayor and uh Councilman Rodriguez, I think it's a great question.

We anybody that's visited this area knows that it's it's it's uh an interesting uh experience, yeah.

Let me put it that way.

Um one of the things that does uh that is attractive to this particular parcel, not only for its assets of the the ball fields is that it surrounds Snake River Elementary.

We already have property that borders, as you can see on three sides to this property.

So now when we look at uh the package, if we did proceed to move forward in the council and the city and the school board moved forward with the land swap, we would now have a bigger parcel that we could look at different options to figure out a way to to offset some of the things that you've mentioned.

So, yes, it is in our interest level.

There are several different options that um we we have uh on the surface level scratch, but we have not gone beyond that to identify um the entrance components.

Now we have talked a lot about uh parking and how we can create additional parking, but now having the school property associated with it, we do have other opportunities.

We're not limited to the current uh boundaries that are currently there.

So we do think we can have some solutions to that in the future.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

That's that's all I have, Mayor.

Thanks.

Mayor, one quick question for Cody.

Cody, um, do you know how much it costs the parks every year to maintain this property that for the Stampede Park in Rodeo Park?

Uh Mayor and Councilwoman Jangula, I don't have it exactly figured for this property, but I do uh an annual estimate on um property cost per acre, and not it's it's not exact science because not every acre costs the same to maintain, right?

So um, but on average we're um around $7,000 per acre to maintain all of the park system.

Okay, thank you.

Um question for Cody on on the parcel that we would be potentially receiving.

You mentioned it's a s how far from city limits is it?

I believe it was uh right at one mile.

Okay, so there's there's limitations on utility access.

Uh yes, Mayor, I believe there would be, you know, there's there would not be sewer um connection um and perhaps city water connection.

So Mr.

Mayor, if I could.

Um the school district actually um a number of years ago extended water and sewer to that site.

And so there is utility access um at the site.

Okay, good.

That was clarification.

I was wondering.

Um thank you, Daniel.

But it would it would potentially be a city-owned park, but not in city limits.

That's it.

There is um there is the property to the north of this that we have had discussions about with for development, and so the they would the property to the north of them would be contiguous across the freeway.

And so as soon as that comes in for development, which is something that the that property owner has been in contemplating, this property would then be contiguous and annexable.

Okay, very good.

Um feedback.

Um we still have time, council.

If you have any more questions, um we we will move to public hearings shortly there after six, but do you want to allow time on this?

Um good council.

So I I don't see angry pitchforks up here from the dais um thinking that this is an outrageous uh consideration.

Um I would say that the the questions you've answered have given some feedback to to council.

Um I would say the next steps would be to uh contemplate this um formally uh and go through a formal process.

There will need to be details um that have been alluded to, referenced earlier about potential deed restrictions, what that language would look like um and drafted, and we would need to uh um appropriately address those issues um uh uh moving forward.

But I think Cody, is this kind of give you the feedback?

I know Cody was just hoping they try to get a sense, and I think the school district as well, whether the this is kind of DOA or if there's that's dead on arrival for those of you don't know.

Um or or if there's potential future consideration.

Um Mayor, do you want a motion?

I think this is a discussion item.

It's just it's just a temperature reading.

Temperature reading, if if there's a lot of um uh opposition here, I think they would there, you know, you can read into that, and this would probably not move forward anymore.

It also gives me some uh direction on how much time uh to spend with staff and contemplating the finer details of this to bring back before council.

So I'd make a motion that we uh continue to explore the possibility of this uh trade.

No motion.

No motion.

Uh trying to give an indication so we know where we're going.

Yeah, probably disappoint order to just say uh have an informal vote or input on it.

We're good.

I'll move it forward and I I would not want to put council in a position to say you're absolutely for against this position because the details still need to be still need to be hammered out, but um I I would like to see maybe some potential flexibility.

But I I would like to see maybe some potential flexibility.

I know the the city's intent would be soccer parks, soccer fields on that park, but I don't want to complicate things.

I know that we're we might be able to squeeze in, possibly a small parcel for other, I would say very clearly public sector benefit if there was a need for a police substation.

I know our preference is north of the interstate moving forward, but I talked to Chief Huff.

Um right now, based on the land value that uh councilman Bills is saying, it's it's hard to be pretty picky and preferential right now.

You want to try to be strategic, but we don't own all the land, and you have to have a willing seller, and the parcel size needs to be consistent.

But clearly, as a growing community, police, fire, uh, there's multiple entities that are looking to do land acquisition for uh public use.

But the primary, I think the primary goal of this would be in the parks and rec portfolio as soccer fields uh with the looming horizon.

Yes.

And mayor, one uh point I would like to add that I might not have made clear earlier is uh we envisioned this park not strictly soccer.

I may I envision it being more of a community park, like Midway is where baseball is the focus.

However, there's still playground elements, shelter elements, community elements that make it a destination site other than just for soccer.

Perfect.

Yeah, those are that's helpful.

The amenities that you would associate with the park.

Mayor Hogaboom.

Yes.

Um I'd like to say publicly that I'd like to take a better look at this.

Yes.

Yes.

That's all.

All right.

Well, gentlemen, I with with no further questions.

I think that concludes.

Oh, Councilman Griffin.

Just a couple points for me before we move forward.

I'm fine moving forward and get more of the the details refined before it comes back for a final vote.

I would like to see the deed restriction language on that and the project cost as well as the impact fee breakdown.

Worst case scenario, we'll give the school district a dollar and say that.

And we'll use the impact fee dollars to buy it.

But and then the timeline if we're able to meet that goal of 10 years.

I wouldn't want to see this built out prior, likely the 10 years, so we're hitting that mark for the transition from CWI over, but I'm not picky there either.

I just want to know some of the fleshed out details.

Oh, great input, councilman.

I think I would I would look for a potential phased approach based on the the cost and the timing.

You might be able to derive some immediate beneficial use with let's say a playground structure in the near term, and then have that progress out with the soccer fields based on cost.

And we also need to get clarification on the use of impact fees and other things.

So that's all very good input.

So we will we will progress forward with future consideration of this.

Uh thank you, gentlemen, for what you do for the Napa School District for being present tonight.

Uh thanks, Cody.

Um, you guys uh that concludes this discussion item, so you may be seated.

Um I do want to acknowledge that there's that there are members in the public.

I I don't want to create a public hearing item where we're inviting members at this time because this was just a discussion item on this item, but there will be um when there's formalized future consideration of this uh continued public input on this item.

So I just don't want any members of the public feeling that they're being excluded from giving input at this time because it's just uh discussion item.

Um there are no proclamations tonight, which was item six, and so we're gonna move to seven before we move to public hearing.

I know that's scheduled at six.

I do want to state again um for the public.

Some folks, members of the public just uh um arrived, and if you are here for item eight one, we are going to open public hearing, but then uh do a continuance to a future date on that because the applicant has requested a continuance.

So the intention tonight is not to deal with eight one.

Uh you can stay and you can trust and verify that that in fact will take place.

But if you are here for 8-1, that is what the intent will be.

So you don't need to stick around if you don't want to.

Um not telling you to leave on 8-1, but just saying that that's what the intent is on 8-1, just as a courtesy.

Mayor, yes.

Could you tell the public what 8-1 is specifically just in case they don't know?

Yes, 8-1 is uh annexation and zoning um uh in a zoning uh comp plan text amendment uh to the highway 2026 specific area plan.

So on Prescott Lane, so it's the Prescott Lane development.

So that's that's what 8-1 is, and that one's gonna be continued.

All right, this time is our public forum.

So NAMPA residents wishing to speak on a non-agenda item.

We'll have three minutes, and we do ask when you come forward to identify your name and address, please.

And we do have some signed up.

Uh so clerk, would you please call an order that you have?

Mr.

Mayor, our first speaker is Lizette Soto.

Hi Lisette, how are you?

You'll have three minutes, and as soon as you identify your name and address, then the clock will start.

All right.

Okay.

My name is Lisette Soto, and I live at 503 South Daven Creek Loop.

And tonight I just wanted to bring some things to your attention.

So I'm gonna go ahead and read what I wrote.

That's okay.

Thank you.

So good evening, Mayor and City Council members, and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Um driving the roads of our wonderful town sometimes can be a little on the confusing side.

Um moment we may see a sign that shows us our speed limit to be a certain number, and in a matter of blocks, that speed is no longer accurate.

As in literally a blink of an eye, it has changed to either a higher or a lower speed.

And this is without warning.

So many of the city roads are like this.

So while driving, I can appreciate how the city of Nampa has traffic signs posted that help and alert motorists that a change in the speed limit is forthcoming.

As we can see on 12th Avenue while coming back from Cuna on the north side, as we exit Interstate 84 approaching third, thereby allowing the motorists sufficient time to reduce their speed.

On northbound 11th Avenue, just past Cherry Lane, north of the school, there is a speed limit sign that has flashing lights that also alert the driver from quite a distance away the speed limit change.

On South Band Canada Road, there are posted signs to the change and speed limit due to the construction in the area.

These are but a few examples of where the city of Nampa has rightfully and appropriately set a precedent alerting drivers of upcoming changes and speed limits.

However, I believe that leaving City Hall on Third Street South and at 35 miles an hour and then abruptly reducing the speed to 25 miles an hour within a short block and a half distance creates much confusion for drivers.

Not only because of the precedent set by the city as mentioned in my previous examples, but also because it is surrounded by busy thoroughfares that segue into the downtown business district.

Ideally, there should be better signage around the NAMPA City Hall and the business district.

It would be beneficial to all drivers, locals, and visitors to the city alike.

So happy to share those if you'd like.

So I have the some that are just they go from the 35 to the 25.

Um it's like a literally a block and a half, and then we've got the speed limit ahead signs that come in handy when in the city.

Um I have another one that's got the speed limit to coming up 45.

And then here's the school one that has the flashing light.

Oops.

And um, and then we have these that are the temporary ones, which obviously show that you the city does know that it's needed in some areas.

So my suggestion Mr.

Mayor time.

Oh my time.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, so here's my suggestions for the city.

Um, just so that we can get those out into the business district.

So thank you so much for your comments.

Uh you just showed that you can pack a lot in three minutes, I'm prepared.

Um I would ask if you can turn those exhibits over, Crystal.

Would you be willing, Crystal Craig?

Um, is our director of transportation.

Okay.

And we can collect those, and of course, it's a multi-jurisdictional effort.

And we do have an amazing sign making facility within the city, our traffic division.

Okay.

Um, and I think that this is something we take in under advisement.

I don't want you to feel disrespected in bringing these comments and then not have an answer because the public comment is really just an opportunity to hear you and not invite conversation or discussion, but your input is greatly valued.

I know you took time, prepared those comments and those exhibits, and um our staff, I will follow up with our staff.

I appreciate you.

Thank you, thank you, Lisette.

Yes.

Mr.

Mayor, our next speaker is Melissa Robinson.

My name is Melissa Sue Robinson.

Um 15 Fifth Street North, Unit 210, Nampa.

Okay.

I had it right open.

Where goes here?

I'll find it.

Do you um sorry?

I don't want to we we can wait for you to find it, or we can swap.

We have someone else I got.

Do you want to follow the next person so you can you have some time to find that?

Okay, thank you.

All right.

You're not losing your place online.

We're just gonna pop to the next person.

All right, uh clerk.

Our next speaker is Brian Person.

Is it up here?

Yeah, that is fine.

Yeah.

Or no.

Oh, I don't you're live there.

You just can't.

You think that you think the TV is gonna fall over?

No.

Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.

I I know.

I think I think your intention is for us to see it.

Okay, yes.

Okay.

Okay, we're we're fine.

Yes.

So once you state your name and address, then you'll have three minutes as well, Brian.

Hi, um Mr.

Mayor, members of the council, thank you for the opportunity to be here tonight.

My name's Brian Pearson.

I'm at 17754 Polar Away in Napa.

And the purpose for me being here is to bring to your attention the uh rock placing company that is off of Eustach Road uh west of North Side and immediately backing up to North Side Estates, as you can see in the photo.

Um as the name implies, they are uh uh really a quarry operation.

They handle rocks from the size of small automobiles but heavier uh to small rock and the and the in um incoming rock loads are offloaded and then rock are dispatched into trucks.

As far as the noise goes, it doesn't take much to imagine what uh six to eight to twelve inch rock dumped into a steel bed of a truck would be, and that's what starts at 6 a.m.

Uh at least five days a week and sometimes six.

Um the noise also is augmented by constant backup alarms and vibration is another aspect.

Um I'm gonna say that when they offload the larger rocks, it would register on a Richter on a seismograph on the nearby homes.

It it the vibration is that severe.

Some of the residents say that the vibration is worth worse than the noise.

Light uh beginning at 6 a.m.

a lot of the equipment has lights for uh backing up and going forward.

It shines over the the fences that you see and into the windows of of the adjoining bedrooms.

So how did we get here?

Um five or so years ago, there was uh annexation and rezoning proposal for this parcel.

We said it doesn't fit with the with the comprehensive plan because it's a severe or abrupt change in land use and it would be incompatible with adjoining uses.

Nonetheless, it got approved.

We took a look at the um development agreement.

There were 30 permitted uses listed, 25 of them have no business, in my opinion, up next to the back of homes.

Uh yeah, there were uh the development agreement for this one um of those 20 of the 30 permitted uses.

The one closest to this is uh building materials.

This is not building materials.

Uh Franklin Building Supply sells building materials.

Home depot one end of it sells building materials.

This is a quarry operation basically.

In the development agreement, we asked for a buffer.

We have a few hundred feet between this and and heavy and light industrial.

Um we got a 30-foot buffer, as you can see in the photo, 30 inches tall, a six-foot vinyl fence, and a few trees.

So the development agreement didn't work out very well for us either.

Um the development agreement includes two provisions of city code, one having to do with, and it uses the term obnoxious or obtrusive, noise, vibration, light, radioactivity, or the things.

This touches basis of all of those, each one of those.

Another provision of city code in the development agreement is you can't have materials that are stockpiled within view of the address street, nor any other public street.

This has stockpiles five times the height of the fence.

So these houses along the along the back of the property, their enjoyment of their homes has been compromised.

This is winter time when they get out in their yards.

What's it gonna be like?

Who's gonna buy them if they choose to move and sell?

Values have been compromised as well.

My suspicion is that just got away from us.

I just don't think the city of Napa would purposely do this to people.

I think this one just snuck through the cracks that you know perhaps the the the use wasn't understood.

Something happened, something went something went wonky.

Okay, um, thank you, Brian, for your testimony.

I'm sorry to give you a little extra time to kind of wrap your thoughts.

I could tell that you have a lot more thoughts.

I want you to know I am in receipt of your correspondence, the city staff, and they are um looking into this, looking into this matter, and we're um currently um reviewing it.

However, the the zoning implications, allowable uses is a bigger conversation, and um that is something that planning when we amend um the allowable uses.

That's sort of a living document, and it's always adjusting and changing.

And I've had some preliminary conversations with plan zoning staff about um uses that are permitted that maybe should be a CUP, um, maybe some uses that should be permitted that aren't permitted, and and so that we're always looking to try to dial that in because of feedback like this.

That's very helpful to try to review compatibility of uses and proximity and buffer zones.

Um appreciate your testimony.

I I don't know if you intend to leave that.

I'd like to put it on your wall.

Okay.

I would have I I uh thanks, Brian.

Uh I uh you you can take the exhibit with you uh if staff wants to take a picture of it or whatnot.

Um I think Mark Stoyer um not send that picture to us.

Uh no, that wasn't in the letter.

I'm not a very good drone pilot, but I can I can do better than this.

If you have that picture in a JPEG and you want to send it to us, then we we can uh just add that.

Okay.

Is it is it fair to mention it, and I I want to stay well within bounds and I want to be respectful, but it just seems like somewhere in there there could be a golden rule of uh planning and approval.

If decision makers wouldn't live next to it, why should they expect other folks to especially when other folks were there first?

Is that is that fair?

I I understand the concern again.

That's that's an ongoing review of compatibility of land uses.

I I appreciate your feedback, but we're we're not prepared tonight to have a discussion on that.

I would invite you to next time we go to update the uh the zoning map and allowable uses, which council does approve and own to provide input at that time and review it.

We definitely welcome citizen input when we review that at that time.

And then and then also good engage.

I I have some ideas to fix this.

Yeah, I'm I'm sorry, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but we we've we've gone past the three minutes and it's it's turning it into more dialogue, and I I don't mean to be disrespectful, but yeah, we're gonna move on.

But the conversation will continue in another format, and we do invite your input further at that time, and we'll look into this.

Thank you.

Councilman Hills, did you okay?

Mayor, I think there's a beautiful white space right there on the wall if he wants no, I'm just kidding.

All right.

So I think our final speaker is Mr.

Mayor, yes, it's Melissa Robinson.

All right, do you have your uh comments pulled up?

Okay.

Do I have to say my uh address and name a rover?

Okay.

Melissa Sue Robinson, 155th Street North, Unit 210 here in Napa.

Okay, and this is entitled The State of Napa, a vision for 2026.

Good evening, fellow citizens, business leaders, and neighbors, um, Mayor Hoganbaum and Council members.

We stand here in 2026 at a defining moment for Nappa.

For years we've watched our skyline change and our populations swell.

But as we look at the state of our economy today, we see a picture of growing pains.

A city that is striving in an opportunity, but feeling the squeeze of its own success.

The current economic landscape.

Today, Napa's economy is anchored by a diverse and resilient foundation.

We remain a powerhouse and food processing and agribusiness, producing 90% of the world's sweet corn seed, while our manufacturing and tech sectors continue to expand.

Our unemployment remains low, hovering around 3.2%, and we've seen a 7.5% decrease in unemployment insurance taxes this year, are providing much needed relief for our local businesses.

However, we cannot ignore the cliff.

Our city leaders have warned us about.

Our 2026 budget requires the use of foregone taxes, just to maintain essential services.

Our housing market, while stabilizing with a modest three to four percent appreciation remains a barrier for many young families with median prices in Cain and County still climbing.

We are a city that is working, but we are also a city that is straining.

Um strategies for improvement include uh to ensure NAPA doesn't just grow but prosper.

We must focus on three strategic pillars.

Number one, uh investing in homegrown talent.

We must double down on partnerships like those between the College of Western Idaho and local industry leaders.

By aligning our Idaho Center for Advanced Technology ICAT with the needs of companies like Micron and Amazon.

We ensure that the high-paying jobs of tomorrow are filled by the NAMPA students of today.

We need a workforce that is future ready, particularly in megatronics and healthcare.

Number two, revitalizing the core of our downtown business improvement district is a vital engine.

In 2026, we must prioritize the form-based code to streamline redevelopment by transforming under utilized spaces in the mixed use hubs.

We create a live work environment that attracts the creative class and keeps retail dollars right here in NAMPA rather than flowing out to neighboring cities, meridian and boising.

Number three, infrastructure and smart growth.

Growth must pay for itself.

We need to leverage the North Nampa opportunity zone to attract private capital and our distressed areas, creating jobs where they are needed most.

Advocate for uh fiscal responsibility at the state level supporting initiatives like the enduring Idaho plan to ensure our schools and roads can keep pace with our population without breaking the backs of our taxpayers.

The conclusion, the state of NAMPA's economy is strong, but it's at a crossroads.

We can either be a city that's overwhelmed by its growth or city that harnesses the growth to build a more stable, affordable, and innovative community.

Let us choose to be the city that invests in its people, protects its agricultural roots, and builds a downtown that reflects our pride.

The NAMPA way has always been about hard work and community and 2026.

Let that work lead to us and we're a prosperity.

Thank you, fellow citizens for listening.

City Council and Mayor Hoganbaum.

Renee.

Thank you as well.

I appreciate you packing a lot in your time.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um I think that concludes our public forum.

And again, there's future opportunities if you want to comment on any item.

Including items not on the agenda, as was referenced tonight.

And uh do appreciate the citizen input.

Everything from traffic safety and signage to compatibility of uses and proximity of residential to uh a shout-out to form-based code, Roddy.

You gotta appreciate that.

So that concludes our public forum, uh, which is section seven.

So we're gonna move to public hearing.

Um we're gonna go to item eight one.

And uh do apologize we are starting a little past six, but we're gonna make up some time because the first item we are going to uh Preston Legal look to you for some help on this.

Uh, we want to formally open this item and then look for a motion to for continuance.

Would you please walk us through that?

Yes, mayor be happy to.

Yeah, we will open this matter for public hearing and put a placeholder in it.

We'll continue it to a date certain, as I understand that is for Monday, March 16th, and that will be part of the public record.

What that means is there won't be a need to republish a notice or incur costs for it, and so it's an efficiency tool that the law allows us to use.

Um, with that, um, what would happen next is to have a member of council make a motion to continue, remember to a date certain March 16th, um, as in a as an action item.

Action just never know.

Mayor, I move that we continue uh uh public hearing eight one to date certain of March 16, 2026.

Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

Um we will take roll call on this, the clerk.

Yes, bells.

Wellriguez.

Yes.

Pingula.

Yes, Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

All right, very good.

So 8-1 is continued to March 16th.

Um, and um, we will move on to item 82 at this time, which is um a request for variance.

And I believe the applicant is present on this item.

Um, I'm not gonna read all of A2, it's it's there listed, but uh the applicant, you have seven minutes uh to tell us a little bit why you're seeking this variance.

So good evening.

Good evening, thank you for your time.

My name is You can bend that down if that's a little there.

You know, it's a little flexible there.

If you just state your name for the record and your address, and then yes, my name is Cassandra Hernandez here with my spouse Reyes Fernandez.

Our address is 11335 West Flamingo Avenue, Nampa, Idaho.

Um, we are here requesting a variance for the property listed at 11373 West Flamingo Avenue, Nampa, Idaho.

We are asking for a variance to maximize the lot size in an RS6 zone.

The property itself right now currently has a dated home.

Therefore, we are looking to update or reconstruct this home.

But before we do that, we are looking, we are asking, respectfully asking that the variance be allowed to maximize the property size.

The property itself, the proper lines that themselves were established prior to many of the current zoning regulations, and as a result, does not conform to today's lot size standards.

Strict application of the current requirements would create an unnecessary hardship on us by limiting the ability to improve the property despite the fact that the similar uses and structures already exist in the immediate area.

By granting this variance, it would not neglect negatively impact the neighborhood or adjacent properties.

It will not impact the road density or traffic patterns either.

In fact, it would allow us to allow the home to better align with the surrounding area by supporting the needing improvements and enhancing the CREB appeal and property value.

We request that the variance the requested variance simply allows for us as the property owners to maximize the use of the land.

For these reasons, we respectfully request approval of the variants.

Very good.

Any additional comments?

You still have time?

All right.

No, that's great.

I think you covered it all.

So you will have time at the end after we we go through the process to come up and provide uh closing remarks.

Okay.

So thank you.

You can have a seat now and staff will come up.

Thank you, Mayor and Council, Damian Snodgrass, associate planner.

The requested action item for the night is a variance to the maximum lot size within the RS6 zone.

Um the nature of this application.

If the home was just to be renovated, it wouldn't have to go through this process, but demolishing the home and replacing it with a new one, it would have to conform to those standards, hence why the requested application is before.

So history of the project.

And so with that, it could be subdivided or the existing home could be renovated or going through this process with a variance, potentially doing duplexes or things like that with multifamily.

All in all, the applicant decided to go with this today.

The property zoning is RS6.

Around it is RS6, and to the north we have multifamily RML.

And within the RS6 zoning district, the required lot size currently is 6,000 to 12,000 square feet.

So here are the applicable regulations for variants.

We will cover these.

And here are the criteria for that.

Literal interpretation, interpretation, and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.

That there are extraordinary site characteristics applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property, which do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same zoning district.

That literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of the other properties classified in the same zoning district.

The granting of the variants would not constitute a grant of special privilege and consistent with the limitations on the other properties classified in the same zoning district.

And the granting of the variants will not be detrimental to public health, safety, welfare, materially injurious to properties or improvement in the vicinity.

And here's some more of those applicable regulations just defining that lot size requirement.

So for correspondence, we received a couple comments from the NAMPA Engineering Division, provided comments that the frontage improvements, this is Kerb Gutter Sidewalk, should be improved should this application be accepted.

Um as long as complying with all city codes and policies.

Nampa buyer district provides the general access and water supply comments regarding this application.

Nampa building department requires a demo permit if the original structure is to be demolished.

Here are the recommended conditions of approval that they should follow all those city codes and policies, including Title IV, and that the requirements that are imposed by the building department with that demo permit.

So this would cover all of those stated.

So the addition of a new house would have to meet those current codes and setbacks and things of that nature.

The privilege has been granted to others in similar situations.

Lots of pros would have to meet all of the building codes.

The maximum lot size regulation is required to prevent uh perpetuating density, so either density is too high or too low.

Um there's currently a single family home on the parcel.

There's no known traffic identified from this variance, and the variance does not create any known additional safety or health concerns.

Here's a potential finding for meeting those criteria.

And here are your potential motions.

I'll stand for any questions.

Mayor?

Yes, councilman bills.

So is there a mobile home on the property as well?

Uh at this time, not to my knowledge, that would be a question for the applicant.

Okay.

It is just appears possible from the aerial that's in our packet.

So that's why I'm asking the question.

To my knowledge, it's just a single stick built home, and then the property was split um in 2019, I believe, where the current applicant exists and the resident right behind it.

But the property itself, I believe the house is vacated right now.

Um Damien, I question I I I find it interesting.

Usually finding these applications of variants to allow higher density, uh, right, to try to put a few more homes on lot sizes that are slightly smaller than our minimum.

This is uh uh the other end where um they want less density.

They're asked basically asking for permission to have a bigger lot than because we have a maximum sort of not to exceed.

Um understand that there was already a lot, a unit on this existing parcel.

Um is the policy of the city when you're having the demo and rebuild that you have to get a variance um even if there's sort of a grandfathered arrangement on the unit.

I don't know if I'm articulating that right.

Um I I just want to understand the process that we're having people go through.

So at the time that the building is demoed, it would be a change of use, and that new structure would have to be current codes and policies.

We do have legal non-conforming instances that would regard in the original structure.

Um we have legal nonconforming applications that can come through the city that if that structure was still there and sound and burnt down that they could rebuild it as it is.

But since they're planning on demoing it, we would want it to meet all of the current codes and policies.

And in this instance, it also happens to be the lot size.

Gotcha, thank you.

Any other questions from staff uh or from council for staff?

Mayor.

Yes.

Damien that multifamily bits to the north, is are those duplexes, or what is what is that?

That's a four-plex development.

It's uh debelled north and developed south.

It's the one just south of the home depot when you go down towards Flamingo.

They're all four four plex pinwheels.

Okay, thank you.

Mayor, yes.

And I need clarification.

I live right next to this house.

Uh it's a brand new build.

So is the the house that's going to be going in going in front of the brand new home?

So there'll be two homes on the same parcel.

Or are they two separate parcels?

Yeah, two separate parcel.

So one drive aisle will be for one home and then there'll be a separate entry.

Councilman Griffin, sorry.

Um I guess I'll ask when you can.

Uh or maybe during the rebuttal phase.

Thank you.

Maybe you could give details of what's happening if it's two separate parcels or not, and give maybe a little background of I believe in 2019 um the parcel was split, so there is a newer build on the back.

There's a flag lot, so there is that access.

I can go back to the photo.

Um, currently the applicant stated by their address lives on this flag lot.

It's just right behind that, but the darkened squares around the parcel in question.

So this front house would have to meet the new current codes and standards, and the new build is the one right behind it.

Okay.

One follow-up question, if I could, Mayor.

Yes.

Are they using the same drive aisle or will they be going off to the west?

And I'll save it for the applicant if need be.

I'm going to defer to Daniel and whether they will allow them to or not.

Staff can answer this question.

Our our discussions have been that it would use the same driveway.

Um is our discussion so far.

Um when they do their building permit, we'll do the official review and that and and see whether they're proposing something different, but from an access standpoint, um the the discussions we've had would be that they they use the existing the new driveway uh for the the yes, the the flag lot driveway would provide access to both lots.

Mayor, if I could follow up.

Have we gotten permission from the other property owner that that is allowable for them to use that driveway?

I if I remember correctly, they own both lots at this point.

Thank you.

Oh no, you're fine.

I I just I for me I think it could be a significant fight in the future if they sell one property or not the other and they're sharing the same driveway.

And and part of that process in the lot split, I believe there was an easement dedicated to allow for that.

If not, then we would require that easement to be in place prior to a certificate of occupancy on the new home.

On the west side rather than on the east.

Thank you.

Thank you, staff.

Any additional questions?

All right.

Damian.

Thank you.

I think we're we'll move now to public testimony.

So clerk, is anyone signed up to speak on this?

Mr.

Mayor, we have no one that didn't advance sign up for public testimony.

Okay.

No advanced signups.

Is there anyone present wishing to speak on this item?

Going once, going twice.

Okay.

All right.

So that uh usually have a motion to close public testimony before we move to the rebuttal.

Sorry.

After the applicant comes back, we close public testimony.

Okay.

Thank you for the reminder on that closing.

So this would be time for the applicant to come up and offer any closing remarks and also stand to answer any questions that council might have.

Oh thank you so much.

And if I may to answer your question, so we are the property owner, we own the property one one three three five, and we are also the property owners of one three seven three.

Um we have no intention to sell.

I uh if our grandchildren are children in the future, that is their discussion.

But as far as the our forever plans, but are we have no intention of selling?

Um we are aware of the condition set.

We agree with them.

We plan on on um making the curb appeal better.

We we need to update the home.

We want it, we want it to be aesthetically pleasing to align with the other homes, the new bills that are coming into the area.

So that's that's that's very fair.

We we agree with that.

Mayor, if I could.

You have a beautiful home in the back, by the way.

And I uh I'm not going to tell you which direction I'm going to vote, but I'm very in favor of looking at curb appeal improving in this.

Are you opposed to having that easement placed on the west west side if there is a future date that that is needed to be a driveway to allow that as a term of condition upon the variants approval?

And let me would you be okay if we committed that area on the west side to become a drive aisle if in the future it is sold and it's two separate properties owned by two separate owners.

Do you have any opposition to an easement placed there?

No, no opposition.

Thank you.

Yes.

Because we don't plan on selling it.

Okay, I just want to make that point.

You know, and our whole again, our hopes and dreams are that our children and our grandchildren will also stay with the home.

That that is the vision that is that is we have set.

But again, we that's something that that will be out of our control in the future.

So on our part, no opposition.

Very good.

And and for clarification from staff, um, you had said that is for COO to be issued an easement would be required on that existing drive lane.

And I think Councilman Griffin's asking if they they they wouldn't be opposed possibility to an additional easement, but that's just your contemplation.

Okay.

For clarification, if we require the easement be placed on that west west side, they don't have to use that as a driveway.

They can it just when it has to be sold, it has to be dedicated, or do they have to conform to knowing that's a driveway, not building a house around that space?

So the the driveway would be the east side, the driveway, the the concrete driveway they put in with the the newer home in the back.

That's the driveway that they would utilize.

As you look at the the configuration of that, you can see where they've bumped it out on the the north or on the south side of the lot we're talking about.

Um and so it's it's really been set up for that use already.

Um it's just a matter of implementing that, and we'll verify that the easement is dedicated so that if in the future it does sell, there's that legal right there, and they maintain that use.

So, mayor.

Yes, clarification the curb cut that is existing off of Flamingo would go away once occupancy or is issued on the new residents.

The the existing drive approach on the west side of the property would go away and they would utilize the driveway on the east of the property.

Because if I'm seeing the map right, there's a drive cut directly from the main street.

There are two, there are true drive approaches there currently.

Right.

There is the asphalt approach on the west side of the property, there's the concrete approach on the east side of the property that is part of the flag lot for the newer home that was developed.

Right.

Um if for some reason they chose to um want to utilize the west side, they would have to close the east one.

If they are going to continue to use the west east one, we would close the west, but they would only part of the property boundary adjustment was that in the mission.

Correct.

Okay.

So thank you.

Mayor for clarification.

Yes.

In my mind, I was thinking there would be a continuing of two accesses.

Not one that necessarily will get used off the west side, but if that lower poor property one three seven three was ever sold, that somebody would have a separate access to their property rather than going through the driveway owned by whatever the other house number is.

And that's the desire of the applicant, or that's a city requirement.

And you both are okay with that.

Yes.

Okay.

That's what I wanted to clarify.

And I think for that's why I'm trying to further clarify too.

That uh and when does that become effective for them?

So we would we would work at that at the time prior to the certificate of occupancy being issued on the new home on the parcel in question tonight.

So they would still be able to use that west access until they got occupancy in the new home and then that will be closed off.

Correct.

And so as they do that construction work, that will obviously take out that approach and deal with it that way.

And you're aware of that.

Yes.

Thank you.

All right.

So thank you for standing to answer some questions and offer your your closing remarks.

Do you have anything final that you want want to say before we have you sit down and close the public hearing?

That's all.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Mayor, I make a motion to close public hearing.

Second.

Okay, there's a motion and a second.

Uh all in favor?

All right.

Public hearing is closed.

Mayor, I make a motion to approve the variance uh as noted on the screen.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion to approve the variance as noted on the screen.

And a second.

Any discussion.

Okay, all right.

Uh we'll take roll call vote on this.

Yes.

Tingula.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Okay.

Thank you to our applicant.

Yeah, I hope that your children and grandchildren get to see that dream live out.

So I think we all have that dream.

Uh council, I know we have one more public hearing item.

Um, I would also be sensitive if you'd like to take a quick break.

I see the clerk nodding.

So uh we're we're going to thanks for your patience.

We're gonna take a quick uh bathroom break for about five minutes, and then we'll we will recommence with item eight three on the agenda.

All right.

So we stand at recess for five minutes.

Thank you.

Oh no, yeah, you don't need to be able to get a lot of people.

I'm gonna verbally gavel us back in order.

I do have a physical gavel, but I may use it in the future, but we're good.

You're a respectful group.

As is council.

So with this point we're gonna open um we're gonna resume our meeting.

Thanks for allowing us a brief recess.

Um the next action item is public hearing um eight three, which is an annexation setting request.

And I believe the applicant is here.

Kylie Kennedy of Cole Architects.

Um is the applicant present.

All right.

If the applicant would come forward at this time.

Uh my name is Jeff Hatch.

My address is five one one nine Briar Crest Drive, NAMP Idaho eight three six eight six.

And to some extent I consider this a a cameo presentation.

I'm not the applicant, I'm not the architect, but I will be presenting on their behalf.

Good to see you.

Uh here's an area of the subject property.

We are on Midland and Lake Lowell, uh to the west.

Uh twelve buildable lots and a common area, the congregation of the common area is towards the north on the northeast corner.

Let's do something.

As far as looking at the future land use in this area, we have a medium uh density residential space, which has a range of the R Sones, which they are proposing one of those.

So it does meet with the uh the current future land use map.

We have kind of a range of R six with some Enclave parcels.

Um and then I did pull a couple applications, Millwood Pines, similar.

You have an R four that was approved adjacent to R S six.

So from a future land use, the RS4 seems amenable.

But I will uh stand for any questions at this time.

Um Council, do you have any questions for the applicant's representative?

Mayor.

Yes.

I know previously this application's come before us.

Can you explain to us or flesh out what the changes were from the previous hearing to now?

Uh Mayor Hogbone and Commissioner Griffin.

I don't know a lot about the history of this application, but I do know that it was a higher density that was previously proposed based on the feedback of planning and zoning, they have approved this application, uh recommended approval.

And this is of a lower density nature than what was previously proposed.

Um hold on, council.

I I'd like to ask um and you'll still have time.

I'd like I think it was mentioned that this came before us before.

Um so it sounds like some council members bring pre-existing experience with this item.

I know that there's a new councilwoman, new mayor.

Um I would like legal to just maybe coach us a little bit on the parameters for deliberation guiding this decision.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'd be happy to weigh in on that.

Um this might be a little bit of a refresher from our discussion last week.

Um this is a quasi-judicial hearing, and though there have been prior applications, each of those were distinct separate applications.

What's before you tonight is a distinct application with its own set of new facts, materials, and as I say, a new set of four corners.

So your discussion, deliberation, and decision tonight must be confined to tonight's uh materials.

Notwithstanding what came before or carry over knowledge, you gotta park that that judicial restraint and really focus on just what's here tonight.

There will be uh some procedural notes touched on the staff report about that history.

That's just for procedural awareness, but for the substance, you gotta stick it to the four corners of what's here before you tonight.

Okay.

Thanks, Legal.

I think that's helpful, and I didn't intend any disrespect, Councilman Griffin.

I don't take it.

I I know that you have some prior familiarity, but as I'm hearing legal, we we need to approach this like we're looking at it for the first time.

Would that be appropriate legal as a framework?

Yeah, that'd be appropriate.

Um the legal term is de novo, and that's how we would treat this.

It's a clean slate, if you will.

Okay.

And I apologize.

I I hadn't realized that you were a whole new applicant.

I thought this was a previous project that we had heard, and you were bringing it forward with amendments made.

So I'll ask you like new questions.

Are the lot lines?

I don't know how to say continuous for the property owners to the west as they are on your project.

Are the lot lines similar or are they going to be crossover?

Uh I don't know how to say almost I don't want to see T intersections, but I can't tell from the packet, the presentation you just gave us.

Are the lot lines going through as if they were back-to-back properties adjacent similarly to that of the West?

Or are there multiple properties stacked within?

So there's two property owners to one compared to who's already there on the west side.

Okay.

Thank you, Councilman.

If you can make clarity of that, if I had a white board, I definitely could draw it.

That's fine.

If you want to take it in in phases, but you understand the question.

Councilmember Griffin, Mayor Hogbome.

Um the subdivision before you today has a single access.

Uh the balance of the subdivisions around us have uh kind of looped access points because this is an enclave piece of property.

So when you have you know a turn in a road or a meander, those uh nuances that come with a larger subdivision of you know, say 100 uh uh lots don't have perfectly straight lines.

So to answer your question specifically, uh the lines of this subdivision are set up based on the current code of that RS4 and the current requirements for fire life safety.

Um they don't hold a lot of nuance to um the property boundaries to the West.

With that said, if that is something of interest to the council, we could certainly look at chamfering or adjusting property lines to a line where they terminate on that westerly boundary if that's desired.

I think that that's something that could be accommodated.

Hey, Mr.

Hatch, if it's not too much, um it's your presentation.

Do you mind like going back to the slide just just for visual reference?

Um that right there.

Yeah, gotcha.

Thank you.

Mayor?

Yes.

Councilman Griffin, yeah.

Do you see the lines just north of that?

That's what I'm trying to confirm.

So those lines right there are the property lines that are adjacent to these.

So they'll have so they'll have like one or two neighbors in the backyards.

Do you see that?

Yes.

Okay.

And I just trying to hear from the applicant if that is a confirmation of what's there.

Kind of hard to see.

Okay, any other questions for the mayor?

Applicant?

Yes.

Council SU.

So what's the width of the lots?

Mayor I'll go on.

I'm not the only one who couldn't read this in the document.

So 4150.

Some 35.

What's the width down there through the lots?

Councilmember bills.

And we know the width of the lots, so I could have that answered to you for deliberation.

Well, we can't read you'll have a closing uh applicant will also have an opportunity to close.

So this could be helpful.

Councilman B.

And plus we have public testimony that you'll also be responding to.

Yes, councilman.

Everything on that western portion is 41 between a range of 41 and a half feet to 40.76.

So basically 40 feet wide all the way down.

Correct.

Until you get to that northern two properties, and then that's 40 and 40, almost even 40.17.

Thank you very much.

Councilman Griffin has very good eyes.

I zoomed in on Adobe.

I did not see that before.

Thank you.

Um any other questions for the applicant?

Because I believe your presentation is concluded, and you're standing for questions, and of course, you'll have an opportunity for closing remarks and rebuttal.

Okay.

If there's no other questions for the applicants, representative at this time.

Uh you can have a seat, Mr.

Hatch.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh you'll be back up.

And Christy Watkins is providing the staff report on this.

Good evening, Christy.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Christy Watkins, principal planner for the city of Nampa.

So just for clarity, the action requested from you tonight is for the annexation and zoning to RS4.

It is not for a preliminary plat.

Okay.

That preliminary plat, should you choose to approve this zoning, would then come back later just to the planning and zoning commission.

So this may be an opportunity to place some conditions on the annexation.

So in this, the comprehensive plan is medium density residential.

The property is currently in Canyon County and is zoned R1.

In September of 2024, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval for 12 single family lots and three common lots in December of 2024.

City Council denied the annexation and zoning to RS4 for 12 single family lots and three common lots.

In November of 2025, the planning and zoning commission recommended approval of this proposed annexation to RS4 with a development agreement.

It is the South Creek subdivision.

It is all single family detached homes.

To the south is uh Lake Will Avenue, and um an RA zoned property that is a large lot single family detached home.

To the east is RA zoned property, which is also a large lot single family detached home.

And to the west is RS6, which is also the South Creek subdivision, mainly single family detached homes.

The um utilities are available to this property, water, sewer, and irrigation, all right there in Lake Lowell.

Um the preliminary plat will be fully evaluated when it is submitted at a later date.

Um but here is some information about it.

The property is enclaved in this area.

Um therefore it can be considered to be in fill property due to its location size and the immediate availability of services.

The future land use designation is medium density residential, which has a density of 2.51 to 8 dwelling units per acre.

The uh project, the concept plan for this project proposes 5.82 dwelling units per acre, so it does fall within that range.

Lot sizes will be evaluated during the plotting process, um, but shall be required to meet city standards in the RS set RS4 zone, excuse me, the minimum lot size is 4,000 square feet, and the maximum lot size is 8,000 square feet.

This project proposes lots that range from 4707 to 5218.

The lot width requirement is 30 feet wide.

The smallest lot width in this uh project is 40.76.

After this property dedicates the right-of-way, it will be under two acres.

So for developments with a gross acreage of zero to 1.99 acres, it will have to provide at least 5% in qualified open space.

This concept plan proposes approximately 7,000 square feet, which is 7.8% open space.

So it does exceed the requirement.

So for correspondence, um, I believe that there were many new comments that were received today and were placed on the desk in front of you.

Um in opposition and some in favor of the project.

Um the ones that we received uh prior to this meeting and were able to make it into the presentation.

Kevin Rushton is in favor, believes our community needs more high density projects, affordable housing for young people, and projects that maximize the return on our infrastructure.

Uh Pam Gowana is opposed due to excessive density and incompatibility, parking and loss of privacy.

Tony Angle is opposed due to high density.

Zachary Piper is in support because NAMPA needs a device diverse range of housing.

Smaller lots are well suited to residents seeking lower maintenance living with neighborhood character.

Isaac Norby is in support.

NAMPA needs a diverse range of housing, it will increase the tax base and provide jobs.

The building department gave their standard uh comments.

If there is any demolition that needs to be done, they will need a demolition permit, and then any new building will have to comply with Title IV building regulations.

The engineering division does not oppose this application and provided their standard comments.

There will need to be dedication of right-of-way on Lake Lowell Avenue.

Frontage improvements will need to go in at the time of the development.

There are not enough lots to require a TIS or a traffic impact study at this time.

Development is required to address any project trip or triggered impacts not accounted for in our master plan, or if an impact is triggered sooner than planned in our master plan.

And the fire district states that this is approximately 2.9 miles from fire station number six with a response time of seven minutes, and uh would require an increased personnel demand of 0.03 firefighter positions.

So for annexation, there are four criteria that need to be used in determining the appropriateness of annexation at this time.

Number one, all landowners have consented to this annexation.

Number two, the property is contiguous to the city limits.

Number three, the comprehensive plan does include this area within its area of annexation.

And number four, the property is subject to the city's agreement with the highway district.

There are three criteria to be used in determining the zoning.

The staff findings of fact are listed out in your staff report, but the three criteria are that this request is in harmony with the comprehensive plan.

Because the RS-4 zoning is uh allowed in the medium density residential disignation.

The proposal would provide for uses that are deemed to be compatible with adjoining properties.

Um RS zoned properties are compatible with RS zoned properties.

The proposed zoning is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary as the NAMPA comprehensive plan defines compatibility and infill uh and they are both in the same land use designation.

They meet the density requirements and the development standards are compatible to each other, and it will bring utilities into this, make use of the utilities that are already there, excuse me.

These are your recommended conditions of approval as outlined in the engineering memo.

And these are the potential motions for annexation to RS4.

I will stand for any questions.

Council.

Yes, Councilman Bills.

Uh Christie.

On your list of favorable and unfavorable to this project.

Did they provide addresses?

Are they adjacent to near this project or are they elsewhere?

Councilman Bills, um, I believe that a couple of them did have addresses with them.

I did not look them up on the map at the time.

Um I don't know that the ones that were in support were necessarily adjacent.

If that helps.

Um, some of them didn't have addresses.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Griffin.

The reason I believe I started nitpicking all the way down to the plat map is because of the language stating allowable 12 units.

Is it part of our motion to allow the 12 units, or is our motion simply to allow RS4?

Councilman Griffin, Mayor Hogeboum.

Um you have a couple different things here.

Um you can use a development agreement in this case to place conditions on the preliminary plat as it goes forward.

Um or you can just annex and zone it RS4 and then have the preliminary plaque follow later.

So and the language is different.

That this is why I asked the question.

What we read off of our agenda on what was on the original screen said RS4 as well as 12 units and three common lots.

Here it's only talking about annexation and zoning to RS4, but not necessarily talking about the 12 lots.

So which is our guiding light?

So um Councilman Griffin, we we put the original concept up there just to kind of describe what's being proposed that could go into a development agreement.

It isn't necessarily part of your motion.

Um your legal motion at this point is just the annexation to RS4.

The original concept that's listed on the staff report is just to give you an idea of what they are proposing for a concept.

Mayor, one final question.

If we wanted to amend our our potential motion, would we have to re-notice and have a re-hearing if we wanted to move in the RS6 direction rather than RS4?

So, in order to avoid that, can I could we have a motion that says we limit two?

Six lots and four common lots that are mayor.

I I'm just a little hesitant on this conversation without having public testimony first.

Well, I uh the reason that I bring it up now before public testimony is from my perspective, before even getting to public testimony.

I don't think we met muster on certain elements, but I'm saving that for deliberation.

I'm just trying to flesh out questions.

If we were to approve or deny, I'm not gonna say I'm going one direction or another.

I want to know before I hear public testimony what we're even able to decide tonight.

Um yeah, you would not be able to change the zoning in your ultimate decision.

We'd have to go back through and we'd have to have them resubmit a new application with that request.

But we could allow the zoning with a development agreement capping the amount of lots allowed on the project.

Yes.

Thank you.

Mayor, if I might.

This might be a good time to make a clarification.

I'm sorry I didn't do this earlier.

This does have a mixture.

You do have a quasi-judicial element in the zoning.

And Councilman Griffin's question got on that point.

You know, could there be amendment?

That's for later discussion.

The annexation piece, that is that legislative hat, right?

That's uh that you wear.

So there's a little more uh freedom in the standard for an annexation, but there is that mix of the zoning on the back end if it is approved.

Um the principle is still the same.

This is a new application, has distinct facts that none of us have heard yet.

There's still some testimony, probably.

Take those in as you bring it in.

Um take but to take it as a whole.

Um I would just caution to exercise some restraint, taking the uh the information here tonight as much as anything.

Thanks, Preston.

Any other questions for staff?

Mayor.

Yes, Councilwoman Jangular.

Thank you.

Christy, did you say that the fire response was seven minutes?

Did I hear that right?

Uh Councilman Jangula, that is yep, what it said.

Thank you.

And then am I reading right that the property just to the north of this um number 608?

Do they have three backyard neighbors?

Glasses back on the page in the packet.

I just got off of it.

Let me go back.

So uh councilwoman Jangula.

We will go back to um page 349.

Okay.

I think here.

Um there is a property directly to the north that looks like it's kind of in that kind of bulb out there, and it's kind of triangular.

So it has a very, very wide backyard fence.

Um, and it looks like it probably does line up to three of the lots that are on this concept plan.

Two two residential, one common.

No, it's three.

It's three residential.

That's the same thing.

I guess you're right.

If you zoom way in, that lot line does slightly come over.

So it would be four.

Three residential if you count the little maybe corner of the north west lot, the two center lots, and then the common lot.

Christy, do we know if they're proposing single family or um, I mean, sorry, not single single level or two-story on here?

Do we know?

Uh Councilman Jangilla, that has not been discussed at this time.

Yeah, thank you.

Um just to pause real quick.

Question for legal.

Um if I'm understanding correctly, the the the question on zoning um is is really kind of bound by the applicant's request.

They're um I'm hearing questions of staff to try to contemplate um sort of the proposed.

I I don't know if you would call this a plat, and I'm hearing staff say this is not uh I know we're we're really looking at the exhibit and making some opinions based on it.

So I'm I'm I'm trying to understand the the relevance or uh the consideration of council on this with those exhibits by the applicant and in in the packet if if what we're to consider or not consider.

Um thanks.

I and thanks to the crowd for me just wanting to ensure um new mayor just want to make sure that we stay on track.

Um yeah.

Make sure this is on and and Rodney and Christy, feel free to chime in as needed on this.

Um what you see here, it's it's a little bit, I think this has been brought up that you know is it a chicken egg, is it the horse, the cart situation?

What has been presented is really just some concept maps for you.

Um it's not a binding plant, it's not the final product, uh, it's more conceptual.

Um what you can get an idea of what it will likely be.

Um Ronnie and Christy, clarify me, please.

But with the zoning, you can you got an idea of that base, right?

Or the 4,000 square foot.

So you know you can't get much more creative outside of that.

Um this does have a legislative decision element to it uh that creates a little flexibility on what you foresee being the product, but just know that there is no final um proposed product yet for you.

Gotcha, very good.

Any other questions for staff?

Quick question, Mayor.

Yeah.

So uh if the plat was flipped, so the drive aisle was on the west side versus the east side, is that uh in our prerogative or no, that's not how it was presented.

So we're same as zoning, it's yay or nay to the to that plat layout.

Mayor, if I might.

I'll defer to be.

Um the the access point as we have reviewed it.

Um if they were to put that on the west side of the property that places it too close to the existing roadway with the way that they have configured this, it would allow for future in fill development of the adjacent property to the east as well without um necessarily needing to act add another access point to um Lake Lowell.

And so that is the as staff has discussed this with them in this and previous applications.

Utilizing the east side of the property for the dry vial is is what fits within our access management policy.

Um and so would be our recommendation.

Thank you.

Yes, Councilman Griffin.

To write on the coattails of that question, then wouldn't it still be too close to the access with the property to the east because there's still drive access for a single home, not necessarily a neighborhood, but and we when we look at in fill developments, um, we are looking at not necessarily today's condition, but longer term in that ultimate condition.

Um there is um there is a difference for us when we look at you know separation from a single family home single driveway versus a roadway that has um much more traffic coming out of it.

Um and so that yes, there are um spacing issues either way, um, but this is from an access management standpoint.

This is the preferred alignment for the the city staff and our policies.

So if we're setting the precedent now on this project, will all future projects that potentially get annexed into this city be all putting their access points to the eastern portion of their property lines if they choose that RA RARA So those properties are already annexed, and as they come in, we will have to evaluate what they are requesting to do to determine what is the most logical and best access situation by placing this proper this it if approved by placing the access on the east side of this property.

It allows for potential to utilize that for those properties to the east of it as well.

Um limit the number of new approaches we would be looking at.

That makes sense.

Thank you.

I'm hearing no other questions for staff at this time.

All right.

Mayor Christie.

Thank you.

Oh, yeah, I have a point of clarification.

Yes.

Uh council gangster.

Identify yourself for the record.

Sorry.

Elijah, what's in the app fire department?

Um Deputy Fire Marshal.

The response time that you have on there is the old response time from station two, 2.9 miles, seven minutes.

What I neglected to give Christy, it was the updated time, which would be from station six, which is three minutes, one mile.

I like that better.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for pointing that out.

Because certainly that that's a factual matter that needs to be clarified on the record.

I was intuitively thinking, I was like, I hope station six is dispatching closer.

Uh the traffic's gotten out of control, Mayor.

Some minutes.

One mile.

That is always a true variable, yes.

All right.

Well, at this time, we are going to move to public testimony.

And the clerk has notified me that we have 12 members signed up to speak.

You'll be given three minutes each when the clerk says time.

Some of you saw earlier.

Uh allow some generosity to kind of finalize the thought if your mid thought it's not to um carry on with multiple sentences in the paragraph.

Hate to be literal on that, but I just want to respect uh we're trying to provide an equitable framework so the public testimony is treated uh fairly for each member of the public.

Um you come up, state your name, your address.

We will start the clock after you um state those those items.

So go to the clerk now to uh assemble the public testimony at this time.

So who's first?

Mr.

Mayor, our first speaker is Rafi Kassar Kasartian.

And on deck is Jessica Selko and Sherman Williams.

All right.

So you if it those who's on deck and in the whole, if you want to stand or just be ready to pounce once uh once the testing is done, so we can move officially through.

Hello, sir.

How are you?

I'm well, thank you.

All right.

Same thing.

Great job with the last name.

It was really good.

Uh my name is Rafi Cassarjan.

Uh I live at 821 South Cove Lane in Nampa, right across the street.

Um I want to start off by saying that uh we are not against growth.

Uh we are against growth that is incompatible, unsafe, and not in line with the character of our neighborhood.

So one of the biggest things is traffic.

Uh Lake Lowell Avenue is already heavily burdened.

Uh residents struggle daily to exit driveways and side streets.

This is documented, lived reality.

Uh, this proposal funnels all the cars through one single access point onto the congested road.

Even with on-site parking, we all know how high density developments function in the valley.

Overflow parking will always spill into the streets.

Narrowing lanes, blocking sight lines, slowing traffic, and creating real safety hazards.

Approving additional density here will make an already difficult road even more dangerous for those who live and travel in this area.

There are eight existing single-family homes on the west side of this property, all on generous lots that match the established pattern of the entire surrounding neighborhood.

This proposed layout is not proportional to that pattern.

It introduces a density level that is simply not fit for the area.

Uh compatibility is not a matter of opinion, it's a planning requirement, and this design does not meet it.

Last time this project came before you cancel council directed the developer to meaningfully increase lot sizes.

Instead, the developer shifted the fence forward, eliminated roadside parking, and rearranged the same number of units in the same tight footprint.

This was compliance on paper, but not in practice.

Meaningful uh compatibility requires either reducing overall density or expanding usable lot space, not cosmetic adjustments.

This is now the third or fourth attempt uh each time with only superficial changes.

The builder has consistently ignored neighborhood concerns and the intent of your previous direction.

The truth of the matter is that the developer will build the units, sell them for a profit, and never return to this part of town.

And we as the residents will live with the traffic, congestion, parking overflow, and long-term decline in neighborhood cohesion.

During the planning and zoning discussion, affordable housing was brought up repeatedly.

This is an emotional argument, not a factual land use justification.

Regardless of this project, calling these units affordable doesn't make them affordable.

Nampa routinely requires new construction to match and complement surrounding homes.

Approving this project would do the exact opposite of it.

It would insert an incompatible design to a neighborhood where it simply doesn't fit.

We're not saying don't build.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Under time.

That's impressive.

Thank you for your comments.

Mr.

Mayor, our next speaker is Jessica Selko, and on deck is Sherman Williams and Suzanne Roberts.

A little I I have I totally agree with everything Rafi just said.

He did that very eloquently, and I'm not going to do so well.

Um so I did owe everything.

Everything he said makes complete sense and is on is is truthful.

The part of the truth is that I've owned my house for 10 years, bought the house when there was horses across the street.

The old late old lady and husband lived there.

She had a cute little flower garden in the front, and the horses out, you know, grazed off the land that the um Gordon would go and open the irrigation and flood irrigation, and and that's what I looked at.

And I I honestly don't want to look at 12 houses across the street.

It doesn't fit.

If you look around, everything's RA and RS6.

And even RS6 being the smallest, or I'm sorry, the minimum lot size is 6,500 square feet.

My parents own a piece of property in Nampa, just a few streets over, that's 956 square foot home on 6500 square foot.

Today's value on Zillow is 300 or 297,000.

I did the math 30 years with today's interest rates, break it all down.

You'd have to make 85,000 a year to make the 28% mortgage rate.

You'd like to make it to be able to pay for it.

I can't do that on my income as a single income.

It's not affordable.

And that's really what it boils down to.

It's not affordable.

And I mean, there's a lot of things that come into play with this project, but it's it just it's not compatible.

It's it's not affordable.

That just needs to be taken off the table.

It doesn't it doesn't make sense.

And um my time's not going, so this is really distracting me.

I don't know how much longer I have.

You gotta make it um but um can't part of what planning and zonings for this project, this whatever being submitted, planning and zoning.

I listened to it today.

Um I went back and listened to the meeting from November, and every one of them said yes.

They all were voting yes.

None of them liked it though.

They voted yes because it's infill, period.

And I understand that you want to you know continue to fill in what we have here and not grow outside city limits and that kind of thing, but this is not a good infill project for this neighborhood.

Maybe in other areas, great, but if this project that's being proposed is not it's not suitable.

Um and the distaste that was left in in one of the planning and zoning members' um comments was that the current owner who's been the owner for four years, he has neglected the property.

He called it neglected.

Well, he's neglected it.

The only time he's been out there to do anything on any of the the land at all is the week before coming in front of you guys or coming in front of planning and zoning.

I watch it.

I watch it every day, and nothing happens over there.

So thank you.

Thank you, Justin.

Mr.

Mayor, we're gonna have IT take a quick look at the clock because it was working earlier.

There are gentlemen right there.

We want to make sure that just so you know, we want to make sure that you can see the time as it sticks down.

So you can make it.

How much time do you say?

Yeah, 20 minutes.

Three.

Oh, come on.

I guess I don't need that.

You pack 20 minutes into three.

I don't need to because the first guy did it for me.

You have the legal right to use your three minutes to say exactly what was said previously, but if that's don't feel the pressure to have to speak, I'm not discouraging you to speak, but if if you just want to say you know, I stand in agreement with what's previously said and note your opposition or uh support for the project, that's an option that you have as well.

All right.

I my name is Sherman Williams, I live at 702 Spruce Creek Drive.

My back lot, my back property, but it's up against the east or the west side of this property.

And to uh Councilman Griffin's questions earlier, either my property or the property next to me will have three neighbors on their back line.

So I'll go from one to three neighbors to have to deal with I agree with everything that the first gentleman said, and as well as the uh young lady that spoke before me.

A couple of things I'd like to talk about before uh I sit down is that um the neglecting is ever since they've turned off he hasn't irrigated.

We have trees that are dying on both sides of the property.

And the improvement, one of the improvements that he did was after the neighbor on the east had tree limbs fall, dead tree limbs fall on their vehicles, I guess.

He went down there and trimmed up a couple of trees, but it is just in horrible neglect.

So I'm gonna tell you this.

I uh I am for the annexation, only so we can hold him accountable to clean it up.

Um, but I'm against the construction of anything more than eight homes.

And I think on a previous council meeting or or uh planning and zoning meeting, it was there was a recommendation that we probably would approve it.

I know most of us would approve it.

I think all of us would approve it if they would approve it with eight homes, just like the eight homes that are on Spruce Creek Drive, and that way they would match up density-wise.

So I would approve I I would approve.

I would uh agree with annexation, but not with this many homes.

Uh two other things would I say about the neglect.

The bug infestation is off the scale from all of these these trees that are dying.

Um I cannot enjoy anything in my backyard anymore because there's so many elm seed bugs from these trees that are that they're actually in my home now.

Um the trees are dying.

I think I mentioned that.

Um I'd say approve, approve it with a maximum number of homes that Councilman Griffman kind of talked about.

Um but second thing is city should just buy it, make it a park.

Nice for the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Williams.

Appreciate your comments.

Mr.

Mayor, our next speaker is Suzanne Roberts, and on deck is Craig Everett and Sandy Dashio.

Hey, good evening.

Hi, my name is Suzanne Roberts, and I live at 5383 South Farmhouse Place in Boise.

And I'm here for a different view of this project.

I see it's really emotional, and I understand that.

Um I own a commercial retail business group in NAPA, and my husband and I have had a history of operating small businesses in Nampa for over 50 years.

And I see the whole need today is for affordable housing, and everybody is saying this can't be affordable housing.

The reality is it's gonna be as low as you can make it, and when you have services already in and can build a house for less, it directly equates to a lower price home and more affordability.

And I think the whole strength of the business community and the residential community are all part of the picture, and you can't have a strong small business community without having more density and more infill building in places like this, and I think to keep the integrity of our business community to keep small businesses healthy, we need more density than probably we would like.

Thank you.

Thank you, Suzanne.

Question.

Suzanne, uh Ms.

Roberts.

Uh Councilman Bills has a question.

Pardon?

Question.

Councilman Bills has a question.

So you live in Boise?

I do.

And you have a business in Napa?

Right.

How did you learn about this annexation request?

I am familiar with uh uh one of the young men that that owns the property.

Okay.

And learned about it that way.

So you have no direct involvement in the property or what takes place here.

No.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mayor, our next speaker is Craig Everett, and on deck is Sandy Dashell and Joe Morrill.

If you don't mind, I I sometimes need to stay on a little bit to let my back get realigned.

Um I don't mind.

Your name for the record, your address, and then your time will start.

My name is Craig Everett, 11871 crested view court in Nampa.

Um I think this is a modest proposal to increase from eight to twelve houses.

It'll allow the developer to get rid of that eyesore.

It is really horrific.

When you drive down Lake Lowell, it's the worst looking plat on this in the city.

And allowing him 12 houses does make it more likely that there will be more affordable.

And um, I have a similar property that I'll be wanting to rezone, and we'll expect that uh rational amount of property slightly more dense is better than letting it sit as it is.

That's everything.

Well, thank you, Mr.

Everett.

Appreciate your comments tonight.

I think uh Mr.

Mayor, our next person is Sandy Dashiell, and on deck is Joe Morrow and Catherine O'Long.

Good evening, excuse me, good evening, uh Mayor and City Council.

My name is Sandy Dashill.

I live at 718 South Bonneville Drive.

I am against the high density housing proposal.

I would be in favor of eight housing units with an extra 12 on-street parking spots.

This development does not comply with the Napa 2040 comprehensive plan.

City Council previously stated that 12 housing units was not compatible with the surrounding subdivision or the RA lots in RS6, which are next to the property.

This development has 5.83 dwelling units per acre, and the comprehensive plan states that any development over five dwelling units per acre should be a planned unit development or part of a master plan community.

The developer has not listened to any of the neighbors.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um quick question for legal.

Am I am I allowed to ask a question of staff at this time or should I reserve that?

It's in response to the comments.

I just I I would ask, I think it's fair to ask staff right now if it's directly responsive to a citizen's comment.

Okay.

Um I I just want to make sure there's some there's some references to specific plans in the city.

I just want to make sure that um those statements are accurate if they're if there's some nuance that needs to be stated on the record.

I I certainly want to make sure that there's appropriate time to staff doesn't necessarily I mean we could of course ask staff after all of public testimony, but since in real time it's kind of fresh, I um would ask that I think the 2040 plan was referenced and some other details.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, and and counsel Rodney Ashby planning and zoning director uh for the record.

Um it this is a hard topic.

Um when someone says that something does or doesn't match the comprehensive plan, there's lots of aspects to the comprehensive plan we have to consider.

First of all, the future land use map uh is kind of the biggest teeth, the most teeth we have in the comprehensive plan.

And this the zoning fits within the comprehensive plan designation of medium density residential.

So I can say with very clear clearly that this the zone matches the comprehensive plan's future land use map designation.

Future land use map designations are used to try to create compatibility.

So we don't have an RS4 and an RS22 in the same designation on the comprehensive plan, future land use map.

But we do have RS4, RS6, and RS7, and even RS 8.5 that are in within a kind of a range that that all kind of fit together within that range.

So the medium density residential designation is intended to create some compatibility just in and of itself.

What zones are allowed in the R in the medium density residential designation.

And so when we talk about compatibility, there's lots of different ways you can achieve compatibility.

But compatibility, as I've as I've clarified before, doesn't necessarily mean sameness.

Landscaping, lot shape, lot size, architectural features, height.

So I I can't necessarily disagree with the people saying that it's not compatible, but that's a subjective decision that you have to weigh out in all that narrative in the comprehensive plan.

Okay.

Thanks for that clarification.

I certainly wasn't trying to invite um preferences on the issue.

That's subjective.

It was it was mostly the reference to specific data points within the comp plan.

So all right.

Um next up.

Hello, sir.

How are you?

Good.

Um my name's Joe Morrow.

Um my address is 1500 Lake Low Avenue.

I live two homes, two homes down the street, and I'm concerned with the lot size and the impact of the overflow of the residents' cars, trucks, and trailers parking outside of this development, which would overflow onto Lake Lowell and into the neighboring subdivision, the road Spruce Creek.

Um we all know that uh with these in fill projects that you guys have approved in the apartment complexes, we always see that there's never enough parking, and the parking ends out on other streets.

Um this type of overflow parking uh impacts the neighbors with new congestion and interferes with the driver's sight lines of entering and exiting our streets.

I'm against the lot density, specifically the lot width and buildability on these narrow lots.

What kind of house can you really build on this width of a of a lot?

These lots are about as wide as this desk that you're sitting behind.

Uh I'm concerned you can't build a quality two-car garage home, which is going to force more parking along both sides of my property.

Just because the lot meets a minimum square footage, doesn't mean it's they can build a quality two-car garage home that will fit this narrowness.

The last developer proposal by a proven and sound builder, Blake Wolf, was denied by city council because the city council felt that the narrow 12 dwellings was not compatible with the adjacent properties, uh, which are R6 or bigger.

With tonight's development proposal, um, they've only increased the lot size of before by 12% that they're claiming, and this is due to uh smaller grass spaces, a tighter fire turnaround at the end, and have eliminated uh all the street parking um from the previous development proposal.

This development proposal does not match up with the surrounding subs, and they're trying to cram too many homes onto this property.

We would be happy with eight lots.

Again, there will not be enough parking, and the overflow is going to end up in my subdivision.

My last point, I have a question for city council is on lot nine, the corner lot at the turnaround.

Will this meet the legal setback because of the road on the side of the lot?

Um thank you, Mr.

Moreau, for your comments.

Um with council like clarifications of the lawyers question.

Um staff, would you provide a response to that when maybe after we'll we'll we'll we'll try to conclude public testimony and then just keep kind of a tally of some items that I brought up.

Of course, the apply applicant will have rebuttal.

Can we confirm that that was the correct lot that they were trying to reference to lot nine's in the center of the project, not necessarily at that end substreet?

Which one are you talking about?

Could you come up, please?

Thank you.

Just so we can get your voice clearly.

I mean, I can't read the print, but it's the last lot on the left.

Um of all the ones that are stacked from Lake Lowell.

Yeah, that one right there.

What what lot numbers that?

10.

10.

So with a road on the side, doesn't the setback now need to be 10 feet?

Five, it's not five feet on a road, I believe, on a side of a house.

I think Victor Rodriguez brought this up last time.

So to understand the question, Mayor, and maybe clarify your concern about lots 10 meeting the five-foot setback, or if it's set to a 10-foot setback because it's next to a road.

Okay.

Yeah, I think.

Did you not in agreement?

Does he understand?

Okay, I think we're good.

Actually, Councilman Bills.

The lot, the long skinny one there at the end of the T head running north-south.

There's gonna be at least a 10 or 12-foot setback along the west boundary, yes, no, for utilities or anything, allowed to go down to five feet.

Okay, that's a change for yes.

We we have removed the requirement for a 12-foot boundary easement.

That is no longer in in our codes and policies.

Thank you for the clarification.

Brushing out the cobwebs.

All right, thank you.

Next member of the public to testify.

Mr.

Mayor, our next speaker is Catherine Olong, and on deck is Pam Gaona and Lisa LaFleur.

Hello.

Hello, good evening.

Good evening.

For clarification, my last name is Long, not O Long.

I don't know how that got misconstrued.

Apologies, it was an unintended.

I'm sorry, what was the spelling of that?

L-O-N-G.

Okay, so yeah, they accidentally did that.

They added an L's.

Stuff happens.

It's okay.

Okay.

My name is Catherine Long.

I live at 640 Spruce Creek Drive and Nambaha.

Um, my backyard, but uh on the west side of the property.

Um are you going?

Members of the city council, Mr.

Mayor, thank you for hearing me speak this evening.

Um I believe that this proposed property um will help our neighbor neighborhood grow responsibly.

I think there's a lot of emotional um rebuttals going on here, and uh I think it should be looked at more as a community as well as neighborhood.

Um I think it'll help our community grow responsibly.

Um I think it's going to um uh bring in well-designed, hopefully, um housing rather than leaving the land underused, and as it is.

Um I think it supports entry-level homeownership in the area, which helps younger families, local workers, and longtime community members to stay in NAMPA.

I believe that that NAMPA does need a little more higher density properties to accommodate those people.

Um I think that the property will uh create local jobs uh in construction, trades, ongoing maintenance from start to finish, and it'll help keep economic activity in our community.

I think the additional housing units increase the city's property tax base, which means more revenue for schools, parks, roads.

I think the rezoning will also fill a housing gap in Nampa, which uh making a good mix of lot sizes under RS4 helps meet uh demand for smaller lots and manageable yards, which some buyers are looking for.

Because the sites near existing infrastructure, the impact, you know, you guys already know that.

It's better because it is everything's to the property.

Uh the developers' plan to me shows a thoughtful design, adequate buffering, landscaping and compatibility with existing homes in the area.

This shows the rezoning is well considered and will maintain neighborhood character.

That's my opinion.

As a resident, I believe that a successful project will strengthen the community ties, encourage new families to move in and support local schools, keep our neighborhood vibrant.

I support this rezoning because I want to see NAMPA grow in ways that are sustainable, neighborhood friendly, and inclusive.

And this project to me aligns with those goals.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask that you approve the annexation and the rezoning to RS4.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Mr.

Mayor, our next speaker is Pam Gaona, and on deck is Lisa LaFleur and Tim LaFleur.

Hi, my name is Pam Gayona.

I live at 632 Spruce Creek Drive, and my property directly abuts the proposed subdivision.

So very near and dear to us and personal.

Sounds like most of my neighbors covered most of the points that I wanted to cover, talking about the density, we do feel like 12 houses back there is too many.

We're also very concerned about the parking, so I want to echo those concerns because a lot of the infill ends up being overflow parking into the neighborhoods, and we are concerned about that.

And then this is already touched on, but I want to uh restate that beyond that site plan.

I have significant concerns regarding the property stewardship.

For years this site has been neglected, suffering from lack of irrigation, unchecked weed growth.

We watched mature trees die, becoming standing hazards to the neighboring homes.

Um I've lived in my house for 27 years, so we've been there for a really long time.

And the previous owner, they um they irrigated it and took care of it, and they would graze horses and cows and whatever to keep the weeds down.

So that's kind of where we're coming from.

That's what we had behind us for a lot of years.

Um I guess what I'm worried about now is that what we've seen so far from this homeowner is that he's uh reactive rather than proactive.

It's been a red flag for us.

Um we're asking, we're being asked to trust a high density project to a developer who's not yet demonstrated basic responsibility of maintaining an empty field.

Um, most likely the houses are going to be two-story houses directly on our property lines, giving some of us two or three new backyard neighbors at once.

Um, and this requires a high level of trust from a developer that I don't think is earned by this developer.

Um, so I guess I'd really hope that we stick with the original ruling that eight or nine houses is more appropriate on this land than twelve.

Um, so yeah, that's what I'm asking.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mayor, our next speaker is Lisa LaFleur, and on deck is Tim Liffler and Ciro Gaona Hello.

Hello, good.

My name is Lisa LaFleur, and I live at 626 Spruce Creek Drive.

Uh, the last time this was brought to City Council, it was denied due to density and incompatibility.

We keep bringing that up.

We know you're not supposed to legally kind of pay attention to that, but Matt has owned the property the entire time since 1922.

So we feel that every single thing that has come up for approval, he's not about it.

Um the builder was told by the council that they wanted eight or nine homes rather than 12 during the PZ meeting in November.

Matt was asked why he had come back with the same amount as had been proposed before.

And he said that council said to make the lot sizes bigger.

So rather than reducing the number of houses as requested, he made the lots bigger by narrowing one of the common green spaces as well as the fire turnaround lane and interior roadway, which eliminated the east side park parking lane.

He also said there was uh he was trying to match what is currently there, and that there was an apartment right down the way, which there is not.

So that was weird.

Um providing affordable housing has been a recent selling point for this proposal, but in order to have affordable uh housing, the builders have to actually offer affordable prices.

We have no guarantee that these homes will be listed as affordable prices, or that any out-of-city money will come in and scoop them all up, offering more money than most Nampins can afford.

During the November 12th P and Z meeting, two members voiced their concern about this very thing.

One member said he didn't have faith that it would go any further than their approval, meaning the promise of affordable housing.

Another member actually said he was not in favor of this build, but that he would vote it through, and he did.

Um it's not compatible with connecting neighborhoods or anything else in the area for that matter.

And I think it's gonna be suffocating having all those little all those houses kind of crammed in that little spot.

We've had 25 people the last uh on-site meeting on July 7th.

Everyone was opposed to the build, and in fact, every time we've had an on-site meeting, we've not had less than 20 people from the neighborhood to oppose this.

Ums Kathy here, um, do not live near the project or in NAMPA at all.

Um they seem to be realtors, contractors, or builders connected with Matt somehow.

Um or Tyler, Tyler Roberts as well.

Um there was a couple there at oh wait.

So during the last meeting, Matt threatened to put a pig farm on the property if we did not give him support.

He did that twice during that meeting.

There was a couple that was there at the last meeting, and they asked if the property owner was there, and Matt shrugged, acting like he didn't know who the owner was.

Um he's not been a considerate neighbor up to this point, and it raises concerns on what type of builder he would be.

Some of us lived in this property for 20 years or more.

We've raised our children and are now welcoming grandchildren.

We've survived snowmageddons, two drug houses, a random car fire, an insane mass infestation.

Mr.

Mayor Time.

You've finished maybe a couple sentences.

Okay, it's just real quick.

Uh, when the fields around us were developed, we share our garden harvests and help shovel our driveways in the snow.

We're there for each other for the good times and the not so good times.

This is our home, and we will be there for many years to come.

And I'm humbly asking you to oppose this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lisa.

Yes, Councilman Rodriguez.

Thank you, I didn't get your name.

Lisa LaFleur, I talk very low.

Lisa is it McClure?

L-A-F-L-E-U-R.

Oh, LeFleur.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just uh point of clarification, Mayor.

Uh does Tim LaFleur want to speak?

I'll just briefly take up more than 30 seconds.

I just had a question.

Timothy LaFleur 626 Bruce Creek Drive.

What does PNZ allow for the houses for the easement for the back of these houses to the fence line?

What is the easement have to be for these houses?

Anybody know?

Easement.

What does the easement have to be?

Yeah, how close can they build the house to the fence line offset?

Back is 15 feet in the rear.

So they can build so these all the houses on Spruce Creek Drive have probably a 30-foot backyard.

So now they're gonna have a neighbor, maybe three neighbors, 15 feet, two-story house looking into their backyard.

So that's one of my concerns.

I like to say I just agree with everything that everybody has said, and uh that's it.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Mr.

LaFlour.

And I oppose it.

Just for the record.

Mr.

Mayor, our last speaker is Ciro Gaona.

Mayor and Council members, my name is Ciro Gaona.

Live at 6th Street 2 Spruce Creek Drive, Nampa.

I oppose this development.

I agree with all my neighbors who oppose, and especially my wife since she's my boss.

And that's an unthank you.

Mr.

Guilla, thank you for your brief comments.

You're gonna take it a three minutes.

I still want to thank you.

So I was not reading this sound like thanks for resort.

I think that concludes uh those who signed up in advance.

Um at this time, this this would be a final call if there's any members in the public who would like to testify who are signed up.

And I see one hand going up.

So, sir, if you would come forward, identify yourself with uh your address, and then your three-minute clock will will start.

So start with your name and your address.

Sure, thank you.

My name's Steve Robb, and I live at 1723 Lake Lowell Avenue, just a few houses down the street.

I'd like to say that I'm against the development as currently proposed or the annexation.

I concur with the city council's prior rejection when you recommended that the property should only contain six to eight homes.

Most of the neighbor homes are RS6 and several RA parcels close in proximity.

In fact, when reviewing a broader mile plus radius around this area, I did not see a single RS-4 zoned property within that area whatsoever.

Next point.

Under the proposed design, with a very compact layout of many thin lots and a narrow road with parking only on one side with a lot of driveways.

First, whenever there's any family gatherings and there's several visitors trying to arrive, there's just not adequate space to absorb vehicles other than who lives there.

And secondarily, when anyone has a trade vehicle or their pickup truck and a trailer behind it, that's not compatible with the way these parcels are all laid out.

It's not going to fit, and I'm concerned that that's just going to um roll out of the development and spill over into the adjacent neighborhoods and side street and on Lake Low Avenue.

Um that approved this project, while several members on the board voiced similar concerns that it was too dense.

Others expressed the very strong desire to have the real necessity of approving the maximum density possible because we need more housing and we need cheaper housing.

This doesn't make the housing cheaper, more affordable.

It squeezes more in.

And that that seemed to win out over whether this project fits the character of the local neighborhood.

And the drive for we need more housing, one out in the mantra in that vote.

In conclusion, as a local neighbor, I'm not against developing this parcel.

However, I believe RS6 zoning for six or seven houses on this parcel would be a correct size, not the proposed four RS-4 zoning.

And given the high density that they're designing and the very minor tweaks that they made from version to version, that if this gets approved at RS4, we're going to get the original plan rammed down our throat again.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Ms.

Roe.

All right.

Was there anybody else present that also wishes to testify?

Yes, sir.

Good evening.

State your name and address.

Amazing.

My name is Lee Fisher.

I own the property right across from uh the southern part next to the RA.

Next to this lady right here.

Uh we're we should.

Um sorry.

Um Lee Fisher, uh 1512 West Birdloop.

Um again, I live behind this lady right here.

Already we get a lot of traffic and a lot of um blinding lights in our bedroom, which we line up with Lone Star.

I couldn't imagine what it's like if we had 12 neighbors, move right there.

On top of that, my son crosses that road daily, and it's already sort of a hazard for him.

I couldn't imagine what it would be like to increase that because truthfully, we don't know what the what it would be coming and going out of that area.

Down Lone Star.

And once again, I think it'd be a hazard not only to try to get uh a fire truck to come in and out, but where's everybody gonna park?

All right, think that's all and I I oppose this and agree with everybody here.

Excuse me, Mayor.

There's a question for you, Councilman Rodriguez.

Uh would you state your address again, please?

1512 West Bird Loop.

Oh, okay, thank you.

My property's right there.

Okay, thank you for that.

Yeah.

All right.

Anyone else who would like to testify on this matter?

So we will at this time invite the applicant, representative, to come up, and you will have five minutes at this time.

Closing remarks.

Mayor FMA.

Yes.

I think you put a note in whether there'd be more comments flagged for staff to answer.

Was there anything else that we need to put out there for the applicant to consider?

If not, I just wanted to follow up on that.

Yeah, Leo, I I think when I had previously mentioned to keep tally, we I think there was immediate response on that one item.

Because I think Councilman Bills had also asked for some clarification.

But I definitely, I think after the applicant's closing remarks, if there's any pending outstanding questions, of course, council has, and then maybe we'll circle back to staff.

Um Rodney, do you have something before we go to the Mr.

Mayor?

The only other thing that I noted was the PUD comment about requiring a PUD at this size of a lot.

I I just want to clarify there's no uh requirement in code that they would have to do a PUD here.

Yeah.

And then I I know there's briefly there's there's a comment earlier.

I think it was there's some level of slight subjectivity to it, but there are setback requirements.

So while it might feel like uh the property is literally on the property line, um there are some setback requirements, and certainly there's opinions whether those setback requirements are sufficient, especially if there's a two-story building next to a single story and whatnot.

I I do want to make sure that um we are not we're not contemplating um a house being built literally on the property line.

Um literally, okay.

So all right.

All right, Mr.

Hatch, um the floor is yours.

Mayor Hogabon and uh council members, thank you again for your consideration of this annexation application.

Uh Christy, do you have the slide?

Thank you.

We heard considerations of concern for parking.

Uh I think that that's something that the DA and the C C and Rs for this subdivision could address.

Uh there was also concern for lot size, which we do currently have uh two percent open uh space that is in excess that could be adjusted back into the lot sizes themselves.

Um I think the the overarching consideration were kind of two comments that came from from most of the neighbors, which was uh the concern for compatibility and uh uh affordable housing or mixed income.

And it it reminds me of uh growing up with a friend who lived in the Heartland subdivision, which is directly southeast across the street, right here.

That subdivision uh came in at these large acre lots, really big fancy houses, and then we have the uh lower density or or higher density that came in on the east, which to the concern of Commissioner Jangla ended up being about two to three lots adjacent to one lot in that subdivision, and as you carry south, it actually intensifies on the south side of that subdivision to about a minimum of three lots to one lot on that heartland subdivision.

So uh growing up, I had a friend who lived in this big lot subdivision.

We used to go over there because you they didn't put in fences yet, so you can play soccer and baseball, and then they started building the subdivision off to the east, and we were like, wow, that is like really really dense compared to this larger lot subdivision that's directly adjacent to us.

What came to pass is that a lot of our friends lived in that subdivision.

Um stemmed off and had a pastor that lived in that subdivision, and so that mixed income density of this neighborhood, they're all RS zoned properties.

Um is part of NAMPA, and that's you know part of the uniqueness of NAMPA.

So I I feel that the compatibility is subjective, as Rodney mentioned, but it's definitely a consideration.

Uh lastly, there was a range of property considerations of potential neglect to the property itself.

And I think the fact that the app can isn't here, the applicant's architect is sick, and I'm here as kind of a um uh fill in for that, really makes me feel like it would be appropriate if if this commission would would deem it necessary to put to have uh have a consideration to take these comments from the neighbors, uh table this layout, which you know the neighbors mentioned hasn't changed much.

I see that there's a great deal of opportunity, especially with uh council member Jingla's concern and consideration for the property to the north.

We have a little bit of movement for our common area and uh discussion on the density that they currently have to come back with something that you know hopefully the the neighbors, if if not the city can can uh support a more uh fashionable manner.

And so with that, if the if the council would would consider it, uh I would uh propose uh tabling this so I can bring this information back to the owner and his architect and make sure that they clearly understand the expectation and concerns brought forth tonight.

Um I have a question, Mr.

Hatch, just for clarification.

Is the court request to continue or to I'm trying to understand what what's being requested as far as tabling?

Um what what sort of what sort of action are you contemplating when you say if this would be tabled so that you can maybe go to the owner to address these issues.

Maybe legal could help too.

I I what what would a table what would a tabling literally require council's contemplation?

Uh Mayor, thank you.

Um if there's a desire to table this, what uh what you would say is you'd want to have this for continued for uh for deliberation to a date certain.

Um where we're in rebuttal time right now.

Um if I heard you right, Mr.

Hatch, you would like to take some of this information to the applicant and the representative.

Um what you could do, Mayor, is have the applicant representative return at a date certain to respond to these questions as a rebuttal continuation.

Um if there's new information that they seek to bring forward, um, that would we would want to open that opportunity up for the public to weigh in on it at this point.

It gets a little complicated at this stage.

Yes, I uh the potential complication.

I I certainly want from a due process standpoint to afford all the rights to the applicant as well as to the public to weigh in.

I think what legal is saying about potentially tabling going to the applicant when there's a couple of minutes left in your rebuttal time and we're we're about to wrap this thing um to continue to a future date.

I I don't know what the legal parameters are about allowing um the applicant some additional time to address us in person within the rebuttal, would it still be the rebuttal phase?

Um and then if there's new information presented, like at what point does it reach a threshold where we're just triggering for all of public testimony to restart again?

So I'm just concerned where if we're flirting with that potential line, or what the what the cleanest way of proceeding based on uh Mr.

Hatch's request of allowing the applicant some opportunity to digest this.

I know it's unfortunate they're not here, it sounds like there's sickness involved, but we've already progressed to the uh the you know, we're we're nearing the finish line on this public hearing, and I just want to make sure we contemplate the options.

So Rodney Um, do you have any?

Uh really I'd look to Preston for clarity here, but I I just in general, um, you can put conditions on a project like this at this moment, with it just can't you can't add more units, you can't change the zone or anything like that, but you could say, hey, we don't want to see any more than this number of units, or hey, we want to see this size of lot, you could put those as conditions right now, and I'm I'm gonna defer to Preston on this, but um, so I would think that you could continue this decision and the rebuttal and give them the opportunity to come back based on the comments they heard saying here's what we'd be willing to to put into a development agreement, and then that would come back in a uh a decision by council to approve that development agreement.

Rodney, legal what I'm hearing you say though, that I'm I'm trying to understand is that the applicant would be responding to some sort of guidance from council, which yeah, I think your envisioning would occur after Mr.

Hatch sits down and we deliberate to some extent.

So I I the concern I have is are we deliberating to provide guidance as opposed to certainly if if council wants to make a motion, there's no obligation to um accommodate the request that's being asked.

I'm just trying to understand the legal framework in which council may even consider options based on what uh Mr.

Hatch is requesting.

If it's all right, maybe I'll try to tempt this and if that answer some questions you might have right now.

Um you'd have a few options.

It's not uncommon for an applicant based off input to say, look, we we're receiving new information here.

We would like to come back to you addressing that with more time to digest it.

If you wanted to keep it really tight and almost hit a pause button right now, you could have that come back at rebuttal.

They would be limited though to only respond to testimony provided here tonight, not present new testimony.

The other option would be if you would all wanted to allow them to present additional testimony that's new, uh, the public would have a right, those affected persons to hear that.

And probably what that would look like is the applicant presenting their information again.

Um staff would have a chance to comment, the public would have a chance to comment, and then it'll be rebuttal.

So, in a way, a little bit of a do-over, but it might be limited in scope to just new information.

Um what Ronnie is suggesting here is also an option.

You have the ability here to uh make a decision tonight and let the applicant do with that decision as it will.

It has um options.

Uh we can request reconsideration if it's a denial, or if it's approved, um, the public also can weigh in on it.

That's still an option for you at this juncture.

So you do have a fork in the road.

And if uh let's say council were to deliberate towards an action of approval of conditions, even the RS4 with tightening the at with the applicant at that point, they could either accept those terms or request even I maybe that would be more awkward request reconsideration of an approval.

It's not uh without precedent that's happened, right?

Um it could be you know, hypothetically constraints can be too tight or whatever the case may be for for that type of you know reconsideration.

Yeah.

Okay, gotcha.

It's clear as mud or maybe some clarity, some nuance there.

Okay.

Mr.

Hatch, I just want to respect uh you know the owner, and I uh it sounds like sickness, it sounds like you're the substitute presenter uh uh called it an intelligence situation.

I like to use the word cameo.

Yeah, we know well, Mr.

Hatch, I I appreciate those comments, but I I think what I do is is um it it it really it's it's council's decision at this point.

So barring any final comments or questions for the presenter, I'd uh ask him to have a seat.

Uh no, Mayor, I I have a question.

Okay, councilmember.

Let's see the what I uh Mr.

Fisher wanted to know the width of the backyards that's gonna affect or butt up against the neighbors to the west.

Can you answer that question?

Repeating the information that council member Griffin mentioned earlier, they're approximately 44 to 45 feet wide.

And then of that, the setback, since these are deeper, narrower lots, could be something that's established above the uh standard setback and is pretty common for you know commercial to residential.

So having residential that has a higher density with a greater setback isn't is certainly not unheard of.

Okay, but if these are apartment complexes, then then you have more density for the backyard.

Can these be apartment complexes?

No, yeah, council members this is a single family.

This is just single family.

Okay, but well, well, some of the some of the folks mentioned uh apartment complex, and I want to clarify that's not what is here.

Yeah, I just wanted to say that right.

But but as far as the backyard, that that their backyard butting up against this project is going to affect them one way or another.

So I just wanted to make sure that they weren't right up against each other like we uh assume that that it would be.

Right.

Uh Mayor Hogabone and Councilmember Rodriguez.

Um, this would have to abide by uh the underlying zones setbacks, and if this council uh deems it appropriate to enforce a greater setback on that westerly side as a as a concession to the neighbors, that's certainly reasonable.

Okay, and and and I'm glad you clarified that this is single homes, not part of the complex.

Thank you, sir.

Yeah.

Mayor, if I could.

Yes.

Uh just to reconfirm kind of what I heard questioned, the setback is 15 foot on these, correct, from that plot.

So from us to the applicant.

Mayor, yes.

If I could uh if the comment would have been made at the very forefront that the applicant was sick or couldn't be heard today, and we would have done a continuance, then I would have been more interested in continuing it.

At this point, uh we've heard testimony, we've gotten a lot of feedback.

It would be tough for me to re go back through the entire hearing again.

So I think any questions for the applicant, though.

No.

Okay.

Okay.

Actually I do.

Okay.

To the extent that you know, and you can say no, and that's fine.

Uh I don't want you speaking uh unknowingly on behalf of the applicant.

Is the applicant opposed to eight units being a cap on this project?

Uh council member Griffin, I I don't know the answer to that.

Okay, that's fine, thank you.

And is the applicant opposed to keeping properties similar to the properties to the West, one story to one story, two story to two-story, and so on.

Do you know?

Uh Councilmember Griffin, to the best of my knowledge, he he intends to be complimentary to the area.

So I think to some extent that that was understood.

So I think he would be amenable to that.

Thank you.

Those are the only two that I had for now.

Any questions on this side?

Okay.

All right.

Mr.

Hatch, thank you for uh your closing comments.

So maybe seated Mayor, I'd move that we close public hearing.

Second.

Okay.

Uh there's a motion.

All in favor?

Okay.

Mayor, I'd make it public hearing is closed.

All right, Councilman Bills.

I would make a motion to deny the application.

Oh second.

Um there's been a motion and a second.

I need to ask for quick clarification.

Ms.

Master.

Are are there um do you do we require some stated reasons in the motion?

Yes.

Um it is extremely helpful about our staff, but also just for the record building, uh, articulate uh reasons why you're making that decision.

Okay, gotcha.

All right.

Mayor?

Um don't intend any disrespect.

I just I think the motion lacks some needed clarification in the second.

So I would I would turn to them to maybe clarify the motion in the second for reasons for the denial.

Mayor, if I could adding two likely, and he can agree or not on areas why it would be denied.

This part of deliberation.

I know I'm asking for the reasons.

And I'm gonna give reasons.

But he didn't make the motion.

I I yeah, I know, I know.

Okay.

I think council Councilman Bills is gonna hear what the secondary has to say and then it wasn't the second.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

All right.

So um we don't have very strict parliamentary rules.

I I do want to I think restrict comment from other council members at this time.

So we have a motion, a second that I think needs clarification for us to have further deliberation because um there's no stated reasons for the denial that need to be stated legally or findings of act.

So mayor, uhtorney Preston.

If I read what's on the screen, does that suffice?

Or is there have to be explanation beyond what's on the screen?

Mayor, councilman bills.

If you'll need explanation beyond that, uh simple because statement, and then articulate your points of what was presented and uh what you believe was reasons for denial another question really quick to help uh along this.

I is staff, I know there's suggestive language on approval.

I don't see suggestive language on denial, and I know uh this part of it might be just denying if I if I could direct councilman bills to page number if I can find it 351.

It lists the three facts applicable regulations D two three dot C dot one, two, and three.

You could find potential reasons that they don't apply to the applicable findings by the staff.

Mayor, those are also on the screen.

On the right, you would state inverted fashion that those conditions are f fail to be met.

But again, this would so going back to the motion or in the second.

Would you like to clarify and amend the motion?

Uh well, we'll do so.

Um I move to not approve the project, as I don't believe.

It is in 102-3 C1 harmonious with the uh plan and the neighborhood.

I don't believe the proposed map amendment uh provides adequate parking, off street parking, and I don't believe the lot sizing is workable with the uh may meet the letter of the law far as the zoning, but I don't believe it meets the intent of so uh Preston, you'll need to tell me if I'm off base or if you need something different.

Mayor Councilman Bills, uh it's really your rationale and reason for this decision.

What we your what the record is looking for is just more substance to it um so that the those affected parties can understand the reasoning behind it so that it's doesn't appear arbitrary.

The third item is I believe uh an RS4 under the current RS4 zone is a higher density than the original RS4, and therefore I believe uh these lots should be 50 minimum wide, and I think there should be at least eight to twelve off street parking spaces as we've required that on other projects that there be off-street parking and adequate room for residents and their guests to egress uh as well as ingress.

So I'd like to pause is is is all of us there to have included the motion.

This is the the record building piece.

Yeah, it's right.

This is like the deliberation of the I want to make sure we have a second if we're if we're good with those comments and then we can deliberate.

I concur.

Okay, all right.

So we're good.

Okay.

Mayor.

Yes, council woman changed.

Thank you.

Yes.

Um I semi-agree with um councilman bills, but I what we've heard from the citizens is that they're not anti necessarily or the growth, but they want compatible compatibility, and also they know that this piece of property has been somewhat neglected, and so they would like to see it maintained.

And so I would rather this come back for a come back either at a later time or a reconsideration for us and um have the lot lines aligned.

So one through six, but up and be in alignment with one through six on this other side, and then either seven, eight and nine, they can figure that and come back to bring it to us, or seven and eight, however, that needs to be configured.

My question for Rodney, um can we compromise green space for additional parking?

I don't love the idea, I'm just thinking.

Uh legal, are we you allow staff to answer questions during deliberation on a public hearing?

We have in the past it uh what you want to try to guard against is new information coming in that the applicant wouldn't have an opportunity to respond to.

Okay.

So I think Councilman Jingula has a very factual question on parking space and green space.

And Mayor, this is uh Christie's project.

I I think she can help me out here, but I think the applicant indicated, or excuse me, the applicants uh cameo representative indicated that uh they had up to two percent more than was required by code for open space.

If that's the case, then if if that's correct, then they could reduce that open space down to the minimum standard for open space and provide additional parking.

Thank you, Rodney.

So I would like to see those lot lines aligned so that the adjacent neighbors from behind will be in alignment, additional parking, and downsize it would downsize by three um units, potentially four.

That would be what I would hope to see.

Question uh again, sorry.

Thanks for being patient with me.

Uh just and learning the rules real quick.

I I want to understand that we need to frame it.

This is a condition or our comments and so forth is sub is a condition to annexation.

So there's a motion to deny with stated reasons, and I'm hearing in deliberation.

Sounds like good faith attempts if if these things were but but we're we're not really deliberating a motion to approve if these conditions are met.

It's more like you're you're being asked a yes no motion on the motion to correct.

And I I to what extent can the record reflect deliberation from council members?

I think it's maybe an all the branch if you come back to XYZ.

I I don't know if I'm reading too much into that, but that seems the spirit in which the comments are being offered.

If this, if this um, but we're we're not really crafting conditions of approval.

There's a motion to deny.

And I'm just wondering how much more do we need to offer up.

Uh Mayor?

Yeah, um, yes.

So uh and I'll come from left field on this point.

I actually would be opposed to a motion of denial.

And this is part of the deliberation of where I would get at, I would be more in favor of an approval with strict conditions, because likely the applicant will come back and be reheard on a different issue if today we can tighten down, and this is where the ifs come in.

I think it could be conducive to an RS4 if a few conditions applied.

If not, I think it should be a denial and the applicant should know to come back forward in the future with an RS6.

But if I potentially were to make a substitute motion, my motion would limit similar to what councilwoman Jangula had stated that the lot lines be similar to the property to the West, and that it would be capped at eight units on the property.

Uh that way the applicant can either choose to take that or not rather than going through another rehearing process on the denial to bring forward what ultimately they stated that they wanted, and I think that we all potentially could agree on.

So without trying to be competitive or disrespectful, I would be a no on the denial simply because I think we can put enough uh guardrails on an approval to still meet the needs of the community as well as council.

Is that a counter motion?

I would only if it would be respectful to councilman bills to have a substitute motion.

Yeah, and just from a parliamentary school kind of wise, right?

We have a motion, a second on the floor.

We can see that to the end, which is to call for a vote, and then if that motion were to fail, then we need another motion, or um the motioner in the second would have to retract their motion um or amend it based on on feedback.

I I do want to ask an important question of staff because I'm hearing some contemplation of things from the council deliberation.

Um if hypothetically council were to contemplate no more than eight homes within the RS4.

Um would eight homes in the RS4 still be within the S4 RS4 Um options without a subsequent need for a variance because of lot size.

Councilman Hogan, or sorry, Mayor Hogev.

Um I used to be a councilman, yes.

Yes.

Um they still have they're going to be dedicating some right of ways, so they're gonna lose a little bit of acreage with that.

Yes.

Um they are still going to need to have um parking and open space and all of those things.

So yes.

They would still meet the density requirements.

I just said no for creating a subsequent issue of keeping RS4 with all these other conditions to limit the zoning.

Uh so thank you for that clarification.

And that and that would go along my thought process, Mayor.

We have a range of 4,000 to 8,000 square foot lots.

I think we could fit eight 7500 square foot lots as well as meeting the green space in the turnaround.

So that's why this is the will of council.

I just want to make sure that the deliberations and the options that you all have before you're clearly understood.

So we have a motion.

Councilwoman.

Um just as a newbie question.

I'm kind of like you trying to figure it out, but you're smarter.

Um so are we voting on the actual planning?

I thought we were just voting on the zoning.

Are we throwing in the um can we do that with that or are we just doing the zoning?

And Mayor, Councilwoman Scott, I'll address that.

We are just voting on the annexation and the zoning.

Okay.

And think of the annexation as step one, if that is approved, and then there's a zoning that falls with it.

If the annexation fails, you don't get the steps two about the zoning.

So it is annexation, not any plats at this point.

That would be made at later time.

So mayor, yes, councilman bills.

If it's workable with uh councilman Rodriguez, I think it'd probably be best that I withdraw.

And we uh go forward instead of a deny, we go forward with an approval with uh a great deal of uh conditions uh applied to the annexation and to be a part of the annexation agreement.

Uh councilman Rodriguez, as you hear those comments, do you I do?

I'm I'm I'm I'm thinking about that.

Um the applicant said that he would want us some time to go back and figure this thing out themselves.

Now we're putting direction to him, which is okay.

He he needs to hear that.

And having given the applicant time to go over what he and the owner want to do.

We're giving them parameters.

So I'm I'm concerned about that.

Uh so well, what the what the applicant wants and the owner wants to do is what they've presented to us.

Yeah.

Um and so if we don't want to annex the property, we either stay with our motion or we annex with conditions, and they can then continue forward or they can step away.

Kind of pushing them up against the wall here.

So I mean I'm not sure.

Yeah, though I think Councilman Rodriguez, I think that that's your prerogative.

If you if you want a motion to approve with all these conditions, the applicant might not like it, but I think that you know they can request re you know, reconsider.

I know I know it's unique of an approval.

I think Christy, do you have to see over the mic?

Um, I just a development agreement is a contract between the applicant and you if you put those conditions on and they're too restrictive, the applicant then has the option of not signing it.

Correct.

Oh, I see.

And we drop the whole thing and we start over with a project that maybe would make it all the way through the process.

Basically a denial.

Yeah, you kind of set your terms, and if they don't agree to your terms, it it's then you're start over.

I I think um the other option is you you deny and the applicant may or may not ask for a reconsideration.

Um it's really a question of do you want to deny and have them uh come back what a fourth time and see if there's changes, if they're digesting a lot of this deliberation to try to see kind of what what the will of council is.

Um, or if you say, you know what, this is the third, is this the third time?

Uh you you say approval, but these are all the conditions, and they either agree to it or not.

But councilman Rodriguez, are you comfortable kind of retracting tracking the motion?

Councilman Bills, you're gonna re you're gonna retract for approval.

Then is that because I'm I hear what you're saying, I'm okay with that.

The motion for general I want to make sure what the oh okay.

So if you're agreeable, then we we go back to square zero and then we look for another motion.

Or or you could say you don't want to subtract it now, just call for a vote and the motion to deny either passes or fails.

Uh I'm I I'll go with councilman bills if that's what you want to do.

I'll say I'll I'll go with that.

All right, I'll retract my second.

Okay, we're back, we're back to step Mayor.

Ground floor.

All right, yes, councilman changula.

I want to make a motion to approve the annexation and zoning to RS4 with the conditions that the lot sizes align to the adjacent properties, and that it's limited to eight, that there is additional parking created on there as well.

You want to clarify uh additional parking number of parking stalls?

Um I don't know.

Christy, how many would one per lot?

If you're saying eight lots, then eight additional parking spaces.

Eight would would eight fit in that area and um again, they probably have to redesign the roadways because I believe they used to have some out on parallel parking out on access drive, but I think there's room, but mayor.

Can I can I just suggest maybe one thing to could look at is the requirement for guest parking for townhouses.

I know that they're um they're based on the number of bedrooms for guest parking.

I I believe uh actually that is just the regular parking, and the guest parking is what half a half of a uh stall per unit.

So if you want to follow a standard we've established for housing, that that might be the way you would do it.

It's half a stall per unit, so you would get four additional stalls total if you were to follow our current code for townhouses.

Okay, thank you.

Councilwoman.

Yes.

I I I would also like to see if you could tighten it in the area of the northeast corner.

I think it'd be impossible to have alignment there unless we allowed them to have a single property cross over those two properties to the northeast.

Because it would work if we're going Lake Lowell North, one, two, three, four, five, six properties similar that way, and then the seventh meeting at that property line all the way to the north would then cross two property lines.

And then if we had the property to the very north, about a third of the way through and over to the east, would be one property or property in a common lot.

I think it helps refine it down for them as well as leaving out any ambiguity of what they might be approved for.

Because if we say eight, they could say, well, then it's impossible for us to go here or here because then it would be crossing over two property lines in the northeast.

So maybe we need to go back to do the denial and let the applicant figure out what they should do.

That's what I see.

This is an annexation and a zoning, not a plat.

So we've got to stick to it's the certain little conditions if we're gonna go that way.

Otherwise, I'd like to go back to the denial and uh go from there.

So I think councilman Jane was working through.

I think it was I think she stated the number of units in total um that they would align with the lots.

I think councilwoman um Griffin is noting that the kind of challenge there, and I I do agree at that point.

It's um it's it's your it's it's your discretion whether you want to be that that clarifying in a development agreement um where then the plat would have to be consistent with those specific standards, which would go before P and Z, the plat, not come back before council, but it would still be consistent with that level of clarity, or it could just be eight units and allow flexibility, or again, I I think these would be whatever conditions you you intend.

It's your motion and a second, and council needs a deliberate, or you can just go to one denial, but I I I'm hearing that there's sort of a good faith attempt to kind of maybe stay on the record.

Listen, these are our conditions, and it's sort of a mayor.

What I I think would be difficult because we've seen it play out already, is what if we get another hearing for an RS4, and I think the uh allowing a development agreement where not necessarily that we design and maybe I can strike my points.

I think the maximum you can get on here is eight realistic is seven.

So if we limit it to that number, then they're gonna have to bring back, and I think that's part of a condition that we require is that we bring back a plat map for final approval as part of the development agreement, requiring that plat map that we get a look at that before final approval.

That's something that we're allowed to do, correct?

So, Mayor, in the past, um, when you guys have asked for a new concept plan that kind of fulfills that.

Um, I have given you a memo at the time of the reading of the ordinance, and basically you all take a look at it at that time and make sure that it falls within the guidelines that you've or otherwise you don't approve the ordinance and the development agreement that's before you.

Mayor Mayor Hogwann.

I I don't feel comfortable designing a development from here.

Um I'm still stuck on RS4.

It should be RS6 like the other neighbors' neighborhoods are so I think the developer knows our direction.

I think it's his right to be able to go back and fix this thing.

So I I don't know.

I that's right.

All right.

I'm gonna I'm gonna go back because we didn't get a second.

I want to try to honor what was starting to be articulated, and then we kind of moved into deliberation.

And I think that there are some extending circumstances on the nuances around this.

Okay.

I'm gonna go back to councilwoman Jangula and give her the floor to kind of state her preference on clarifying her motion or withdrawing the motion.

Yeah, I I don't I want to avoid another coming back.

So I'm gonna stay in a motion to vote to approve the annexation zoning to RS4 with the conditions of the six properties on the west side to align property lines with four additional parking spots and then the northern two lots.

The developer it can figure that out, however, that makes sense for their property.

Okay, so we have a motion.

Give me off street parking.

Four, four additional the town home.

Okay.

So we have a motion.

Is there a second to the motion?

I'll second.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second try to keep deliberation to the motion.

Um the clerk can help.

On the west side.

On the west side.

Flexibility on the two northern parts.

It was did the motion state a maximum of eight units.

I know the math adds up to that, but can we state maximum eight units on this project?

I understood that should be eight.

Yep.

Six and then two.

So yes, okay.

All right.

Any deliberation on this motion.

Council.

Okay, I'm gonna call for it both then on the motion.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

No.

Yes.

Four in favor, one opposed, motion carries.

Um it's it's no more than eight units.

Six are consistent with the west boundaries.

The two, there's flexibility and there would be a requirement for off street parking spots.

If they accept.

No, it was approved based on those conditions, whether the applicant meets us or not.

That the the yeah, so the preliminary plat would be noticed and they would have an opportunity there.

That's right.

Opportunity for public testimony.

Yes, at planning zoning council.

I just want to be clear, not here.

Yes.

Okay, very good.

All right, that concludes um eight three.

Wish you all good evening.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

So we've got nine one nine two.

Um I would as they're actually in the room, I I know we're we're nearing the end.

I would like a quick two minute recess.

I need a consolidate automatic.

Okay.

All right, we're gonna take a quick two minute recess.

We will regather.

I councilman Rodriguez is heading back, all right.

Just that one's under suspension approval.

So how much do I need this?

So hot over here I can't even tell you.

I'm serious.

Are you cold?

I don't need to read it.

Times are you heard Doug?

Times are the furnace bill.

Council's here.

Let's let's push through.

Um appreciate a little good natured laughter.

That's good.

That's good.

Um we got two more items before us.

Appreciate uh the perseverance of this council as we kind of close out um these two items.

And I I will heads up there there is a placeholder for executive session.

I will request that as well uh when we get to that point.

Um but let's first deal with nine one uh unfinished business action item.

This is to authorize the m the mayor to sign a resolution for a comprehensive plan amendment from medium density residential to industrial for eight parcels located sixteen twenty-seven, seventeen oh four, seventeen oh five, and eighteen eleven East Florida Avenue.

Zero, zero, comma eighteen twenty and seventeen twenty-two East Iowa Avenue for the city of Nampa and David Snow, and this was approved by legal.

Yes, there's a motion.

I was waiting for a suspension of rules.

No, not on this one.

Second by Rodriguez.

Okay.

Uh roll call on this.

The clerk will take the vote.

Yes.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Okay, nine two is an action item.

And this is a first reading of ordinance for vacation of a portion of an eight foot wide public utility easement along the rear property line of two two one eight Jody Avenue in the RS six single family residential zoning district for Wendy Mosher.

And this was approved by city attorney, and this is requested to pass under suspension of rules.

Consisting of approximately 19.7 square feet more or less, located within lot twenty of block ten of the new Carter Estates number four subdivision in the southwest one-fourth of section 17 Township 3 North, Range 2 West, Boise Meridian.

More particularly described below in Nampa Canyon County, Idaho, and directing the city engineer to alter the use in IRA map on other applicable maps accordingly.

And this also is a roll call.

Scog.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

All right.

Um council.

I'm requesting that we uh convene into executive session under two provisions under D.

Under D, uh, this is to consider records that are exempt from disclosures provided in chapter one, title 74 of Idaho Code.

Um, in brief, uh, this is to provide some information on a legal memo uh regarding uh operational policy within the city.

Um and under F, which is to communicate with legal counsel for public agency to discuss the legal ramifications of and legal options for pending litigation or controversies not yet being litigated but eminently likely to be litigated.

And this is also uh for legal to provide an update on uh pending um legal matters before the city.

Um so uh those can be combined into a single motion.

I do need um motion a second, and I believe four at least four yes four yeses of council to to convene under exec session under these two provisions.

There is there a motion I make a motion, okay.

There's a motion by Rodriguez.

Is there a second?

Oh second.

Okay, there's a second by Jingula Um roll call scog, yes.

You're given information only, correct.

No discussion.

There's no discussion needed.

It's it's an update from legal and myself.

We're just sharing an update with you.

Okay, I'll vote yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Rodriguez, yes, all in favor, motion carries.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Um we are gonna break into executive session, and the clerk will remind me we need a motion to adjourn, right?

When we move out and also to adjourn.

Okay.

Okay, I will do my best to provide that information for you.

Okay, okay.

And I need the time correct.

That notebook is right.

I need the time.

Okay, we are uh now in executive session.