Okay, it's six o'clock.

I would like to welcome everyone to the city of Nampa March tenth, two thousand twenty-six planning and zoning commission meeting.

Uh just want to thank you for coming and being a part of our meeting and helping us um shape and do good things for the future of the city of Napa.

So uh I'd like to start with a roll call, please.

Copeland, here Kirkman?

Here.

Morgan.

Keyhouse Turner?

Here.

Daffer.

Miller.

Here.

Garner.

Here.

Seven present.

Thank you.

Rodney, Council Actions.

Mr.

Chair and Commissioners uh Rodney Ashby Planning and Zoning Director for the record.

Um the council had four items that I need to report back on.

The first one was Deer Flat Ranch number one final plat.

Uh that was recommended for approval by you on the twenty-fourth of February, and it was approved.

Uh the next ones are public hearings.

The first one was the sign code that you had recommended approval for.

They approved that as well.

Um that was mostly just for clarification of a few content changes for the sign code.

Next was annexation and zoning for uh Regatta Crossing and the preliminary plat as well.

This is the uh southeast of Eustach Road and North Side Boulevard.

And um this was recommended for approval by the commission and um it was approved by city council on a four to two vote.

And then uh the last one was annexation and zoning and a conditional use permit for summer breeze.

South of uh Greenhurst and um on Happy Valley on the the west side of Happy Valley um for an assisted living care facility.

And that was recommended for approval unanimously by the commission and it was denied um by city council unanimously.

Thank you, sir.

Chairman yes I'll make a motion that we approve the consent agenda second it's been moved by Garner second by Kiho to approve the consent agenda all those in favor any opposed consent agenda passes okay we will move right into our public hearing portion of the meeting um if you haven't been here before um the applicant will come up they'll get seven minutes to propose their um proposal uh tell us about what they want to do um then we'll turn the time over to staff they have an unlimited time to tell us about what they see about regulations codes things like that um and then we'll turn the time over for public testimony each each person in the crowd will it'll be allowed three minutes to testify um when you come up to the mic please give us your name and address for the record um speak clearly into the mic and as you're sitting in the audience if you could please keep your voices down as the meeting is being recorded and broadcast um on the internet um any background noise makes it sometimes difficult to hear um online and in the recording so um with that being said we'll move right into the first uh hearing item annexation and zoning to RS6 and BC uh potential development agreement planned development subdivision preliminary plat for Breckenwood subdivision at zero Canada Road 017500 11th Avenue North for Becky Yazigira representing TBC landholding the applicant here all right my name's Becky Ozagary my address is 4818 West Camp Street in Boity Idaho so I'm here to present the redesign of Breckenwood subdivision so um as most of you know we we went before you and uh you guys approved it but then council denied it for various reasons um which we'll go over in this presentation tonight so Breckenwood just as a reminder is located um just off Canada um we're just south of Eustach Road um as you can see the proposed subdivision really blends nicely with the subdivision to the south okay and so the Breckenwood redesign um so this is kind of what we got with what we're proposing now so the proposed zoning designation is RS6 um with BC with a PUD the lot configurations uh we're proposing 296 single family detached residential lots for commercial lots uh 44 common lots and with a residential density of 3.62 dwelling units per acre um all homes will be single family detached um with detached sidewalks um tree lined of course throughout the entire neighborhood um we'll have a minimum of a two-car garage in each home um so the uh initial planning and zoning hearing approval recommendations um so we we got approval um from you all uh with with the with the conditions that we're going to participate in the Perdium uh sewer project on Eustace Road um we're gonna provide gravity sewer solution to canon creek subdivision which means we're gonna abandon the sewer lift station that's already there which is gonna affect um multiple subdivisions in the area um for the better um we're also going to improve the pathway along 10 mile creek um and dedicate a pedestrian bridge over the the creek there and then we're gonna add a northbound left turn lane to Landry uh from caneda um so here are the utilities so what we're proposing like I mentioned earlier is we are prep we're going to abandon the um the sewer lift station that serves um the caning creek subdivision that alone is gonna save you know canyon creek and the Kedeo and all the other subdivisions in this area a bit of money in their HOA dues um and then we also plan to extend the sewer um off land rail water we'll we'll be going into the site as well um we'll obviously tie into the existing uh PI system um for the city and all stormwater will be retained on site um so what we plan on doing so I I believe it was here um last time we we were conditioned to um put a right uh a right what is it a right hand left turn lane there we are um on Canada and so we are going to go ahead and do that um so that will help with traffic

We'll obviously tie into the existing uh PI system for the city, and all stormwater will be retained on site.

So what we plan on doing, so I believe it was here last time.

We we were conditioned to put a right uh a right, what is it, a right hand left turn lane.

There we are on Canada, and so we are going to go ahead and do that.

Um so that will help with traffic, um, tremendously help with traffic.

Um so as you can see here, we have a dedicated turn lane, um, also acts as a stacking lane so traffic could go through on both Landry and Canada.

Um so it's kind of what we're proposing there.

Um so here's Landry Street.

Um so uh one of the the comments from city council was the there was a concern that there wasn't a large enough buffer between Canyon Creek subdivision and our proposed subdivision, and we just kind of want to show here that we do have 130 feet from fence to fence, um, which will act as a really nice buffer between the two subdivisions.

Um so here is I mentioned um that we had made some some design changes, and and so I kind of want to highlight the new design versus the old design.

So what we've done is the zone, we've changed the zone to RS6.

We um before we were proposing RS4 with R D and B C.

So now we're proposing RS6 and BC.

Um we've reduced the density to 3.62.

Um we've also reduced the lot count to 296, so that's 56 fewer lots.

Um we've we've removed uh all single family uh attached, so every home is going to be detached.

Um we have increased our our open space to 18.9%.

Um we've also added a ton of amenities.

Um we've really made this this development sparkle.

Um so we're adding a pool, a clubhouse, a dog park, a covered picnic area, um, and we've increased the open space.

Um we've also expanded the circulation.

Um so we have two miles of internal pathways throughout this entire this is not even including the sidewalks.

The sidewalks, we are with the sidewalks, we have five miles of of sidewalk, and then we have two miles of internal pathways.

So we've we've really enhanced this subdivision.

Um so, like I mentioned earlier, so we've increased the amenities.

Um so we've included a community pool, dog park, um, an outdoor workout loop, um, and a picnic area.

So, like I said, we had increased the open space.

Um, so now we have a total open space count of 16 acres, which is an equivalent to 8.7 football fields.

Um we are we've added a neighborhood pool, like I had mentioned, with a clubhouse.

Um, this will give you know residents the opportunity to interact with each other and have a little fun.

The this pool we have added in one of our Eagle subdivisions, and the community just loves it there, and it looks really nice.

Um, so like I had mentioned earlier, we are putting in um an outdoor fitness station with a with a pathway that will kind of go around the creek, and so this is kind of what that looks like there.

Um so we have a neighborhood dog park, is another amenity, um, a cover picnic area, um, and then a pedestrian bridge, which is going to be spectacular for the residents, and it'll add a lot of connectivity between the two neighborhoods or the areas.

Um, and then here is our fitness loop that we're proposing.

And like I said, we have 2.4 miles of meandering pathways and five miles of internal sidewalk.

Um thanks, and I'll stand for some questions.

Questions.

Yep, so those those were the amenities.

Um, like I said um before, let me just kind of go back to that slide.

So here, um, so one of the reasons was the density.

And so they they wanted us to go with an R6, and it was it was stated R6 in this in the meeting.

And then which reduced the density.

And then they wanted us to increase our open space before we were proposing 15.7.

And we now have an open space count of 18.9%.

And then we had proposed originally for the amenities, just a tot lot and a picnic area.

And so we changed those amenities to add a pool, a clubhouse, a dog park, and a cover picnic area.

Okay.

And then, yes, there's there's a lot of changes to this.

And then the other the other bit of it was they felt that the two halves that were kind of separated by the um by the creek.

They felt a little bit disconnected.

We hadn't proposed a pedestrian bridge over that.

And so we came back with a pr they came back with a suggestion of adding a pedestrian bridge, and so we complied.

Traffic was a concern, and that the right hand that the turn lane did help satisfy those concerns.

We actually also did reach out to bottles.

Mark bottles, who is bring up a little of that aerial map.

So you can see here it's the property just right to the west of us there.

Um so we are in kind of talks with them to add a road that will kind of that will that will sit north on their property and then connect to 11th.

So we are working with bottles to get that road going through there.

Yep.

Thank you.

That's all.

Mr.

Chair, I have a question.

So you had a community meeting for the old design.

Did you go back to the community, have another meeting with the new design, and what was the responses?

Yes, yes.

Um we had a second neighborhood meeting, and the responses were were great.

Um, you know, there were still concerns about the traffic, and they weren't excited about the commercial, but there's nothing really we can do about the commercial aspect of it as it is for in the comprehensive plan.

Um we we were immutable to take it out, but the city wanted it.

Um but yeah, they they really liked the the reduced density um and then the the compatible lots.

Um they really like those too.

The amenities.

Yep, the amenities as well, yeah.

Yeah, because I mean we're we're basically matching amenities.

They have a pool, we're proposing a pool, they have a lot of internal pathways.

You you know, we have pretty similar amenities.

So we're just really mirroring their subdivision at this point.

So they won't be coming over and using their pool.

They're gonna have their own pool, that's why they're yeah, all right.

Okay.

We'll call you back up later if we have questions.

Thank you.

Damien Thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners, Damien Snodgrass, associate planner.

The applicant's request tonight is for annexation and zoning for RS6 and res single family residential and BC community business zoning districts, potential development agreement under a planned unit development and a subdivision preliminary plat for the Brackenwood subdivision.

This one did come before, and we can cover that in the history.

But the concept is for the 296 single family detached dwellings, four commercial lots, and 44 common lots.

So going over to start this off, the property details um and some of the history on this property is that there was pre-application meeting held in 2024 discussing a PUD for single family detached, two unit townhouses, B and BC commercial.

Um in October of 2025, the previous application was denied with some concerns, and those concerns were regarding traffic uh with Landry Street not being connected through to 11th.

Um the qualified open space meeting but not exceeding the 15% criteria established by code.

Um I believe they were 15.7 in the original plan.

The storm bases storm basins being used as qualified open space and within their open space calculation.

Uh since then the open space amenities have been relocated to outside of the retention areas while they're still used as qualified open space.

They're not actually happening within those basins.

Tot lots as an open space element.

The new amenities include a pool and clubhouse outdoor fitness loop, pedestrian bridge, dog park, covered picnic area, and those additional two miles of pathway system.

The connectivity between two sides of the development, and so they did, they are proposing a bridge across the 10 mile creek.

Town home parking was another topic of concern within that hearing with city council within this new application.

There are no townhouses, so there is no need for extra parking outside of what is required for each single family home.

And there was density concerns with this, the two-family residential and the single-family detached development in conjunction with what is currently out there.

The former application was 4.52 dwelling units an acre, while the new application is 3.62 dwelling units an acre.

Both were with and the allowable of the residential mixed use.

So the current jurisdiction of status is currently within Canyon County and requesting annexation under the residential mixed use designation.

To the north, it's undeveloped.

Over to the west, it's undeveloped.

To the south, we have followed by spring shores to that west.

To the south, we have the Canyon Creek.

To the east, we have undeveloped land as well as a little bit to the northeast.

The Murphy development has been recently approved, and it doesn't quite show up on the map yet since they're going through that process, as well as some of the utilities that are within the area.

So the proposed RS6 and single family residential zoning and the BC community business zoning are permitted zones under the comprehensive plan future land use map designation.

Within the residential mixed use designation, you need between five and fifty percent commercial space.

So that is why I've spoken about from the applicant.

You can completely remove the commercial space from this designation.

There needs to be some sort of commercial element within it to create a mixed use environment per code.

And here are some of the applicable regulations just for the annexation and zoning.

As well as applicable regulations regarding subdivisions, the community business zone, and the residential single family zone, all of them so forth, in this case RS6.

As well as applicable regulations that are within APUD.

So one of the big differences between this application and the prior application is they have added in a planned unit development, which allows for some deviations from the code, some leniency within the code, and ask for some exceptions.

Within that, in turn, there has to be a more cohesive project, and there's a little bit more when it comes to the open space elements and some extra qualifiers.

Very similar to a master plan community.

And with that, we have some correspondence from the engineering division.

They provided some comments regarding the legal descriptions and some of the dedication of ride and things that they will be looking for.

And I'll leave some specific comments or questions to Daniel if necessary.

Regarding traffic, access, things of that nature.

From other agency comments, uh we received a comment from Nampa Highway District number number none of number four.

Um start that this proposed um annexation is not within their jurisdiction, uh, but they did provide comment about the new and residential and commercial lots and the anticipated effect on the safety capacity of the highway system within their jurisdiction and request that the city mitigate traffic impacts from this and other developments through impact fees and development exactions to address the future needs identified.

Valley View School District provided comments over the concern of capacity within the schools and the influx of students within the valley with the new developments that are going on and listed some of the developments that are happening within their jurisdiction.

NAMPA Fire District provided some general access and water supply comments that are attached in the staff report.

NAMPA GIS added some conditions regarding the change of street names and addressing to be done before the final plat.

Umpa planning and zoning, the landscape review.

Um there were just a couple notes regarding using the city approved tree staking diagram and needing an irrigation plan to actually irrigate those trees and those open space amenities.

And then from the NAMPA police department provided a comment regarding the commitment of funds for officers, um a commitment of 0.89 additional officers and 0.46 additional support staff.

And the NAMPA parks and recreations request that the developer grant a permanent easement of 20 feet from the top of bank on 10 Mile Creek and dedicate that to the city.

Alright, now we'll delve into the plat.

So here is the proposed preliminary plat.

Um to the east of it, we have the commercial lots, and then the rest of these are single family detached dwellings with the different colors.

Uh they are all just different sized lots.

They're still under that RS6 zone, um, but the colors are to indicate the different widths of the lots that they're proposing within that zone.

Here's the analysis of the PUD and the preliminary plat since they're coming cohesively.

Uh they have the four commercial lots, 44 common lots, and the 296 RS6 single family lots, as well as the internal roadways and that qualified open space being 18.9% of the site.

The gross density of 3.62 units per acre dwelling units per acre falls within the range of residential mixed use, which is 2.51 dwelling units an acre to eight dwelling units an acre.

So this falls a little bit shy of the middle.

Um for the analysis of the RS6 zone in its entirety.

So within the RS6 zone, you need a lot that's between 6,000 and 12,000 square feet.

However, one of the allowances of the PUD and MPC code is that you can ask for increase in density or a decrease in lot size as bringing in an application as such, and that can be by the margin of 20%.

So with their lots, they are proposing lots ranging from 4,807 square feet to 10,137 square feet.

Um the allowable 20 cent 20% reduction of lot size would bring them down to 4,800 square feet.

So all of their lots do fit within the allowance of code to have a reduction in lot size for some of those lots.

Um the density falls within the allowable density and the lot depth and width all meet code as it currently states.

So when it comes to the open space, the the project includes a 15% qualified open space that is per NAMPA city code.

Um it meets and well exceeds that expectation with the 18.9% of gross acreage of qualified open space that is proposed within this application.

Here are the staff findings for annexation.

All private landowners consented to the annexation, that the property shall be contiguous to the city limits or enclave by other properties, so annexed, that the NAMPA comprehensive plan includes the area of annexation, and when applicable for annexation of roadways, all portions of highway lying partially or wholly to be annexed with contiguous parcel less by express agreement with highway maintenance district and indicates otherwise.

Staff has found these to be net.

We have the affidavit from the landowners.

It is contiguous to the south.

It is under that RMU designation, and all of the highway districts are under that memorandum of understanding.

Here are the applicable criteria for zoning that the proposed map amendments is R would be in harmony with the city's currently adopted comprehensive plan and comprehensive plan land use map.

The proposed map amendments is R would provide for a proposed use or set of uses that would be at least reasonably necessary, reasonably compatible with existing and adjoining uses, and that the proposed zoning map amendments is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary.

Some of the relevant facts is we have the code sections that describe the zones that will be in there, as well as the mixed use type as defined by the comprehensive plan, um, which defines residential mixed use and commercial uh community mixed use of having available community services and commercial services within reach of residential areas, um, as well as the comprehensive plan defines compatible relationship between adjacent and nearby buildings with the streetscapes and having that look and feel of the community.

Um the structures within the BC zone will be subject to the design review standards at the time of those building permits.

Um we will have require a 25-foot landscape buffer be required installed along the Canada Road as a major arterial.

The 15% open space within this project has been met, um, and there are readily available utilities to the property, and any traffic access and frontage improvements will be addressed and at the time of building construction and if this were to be approved.

With that, staff found that these criteria were to be met.

Here are some of the recommended conditions of approval.

These are the ones indicated by engineering of the dedication of right-of-way, um, coordinating the sewer improvement lines with the per damn drunk trunk on you stick, um, vacation of any on-site septic systems uh that the developers submit that traffic impact study, as well as those that were listed in the comment agency comments stated previously.

Question.

Yes.

I have a question.

The applicant stated that if you could go back to the preliminary plat map.

Yeah, right there.

The applicant, I if I understood what she was saying.

That northernmost east-west road that stubs to the west.

She had mentioned, I think this is the one she was talking about that she was in talks with Mark Bottles to make sure that that goes through to 11th.

But that's kind of superfluous, isn't it?

Because they're gonna have to connect to that stub street anyways, whatever's built there.

Is that correct?

So we'll we'll have to um we'll try the other one.

Um the the applicant uh you'll want to confirm with them during their rebuttal phase, but my understanding is that they are in discussions of acquiring a route to be able to extend that out to 11th Avenue as part of this project.

Um I see is what they're working on.

Um, but you'll want to clarify that with the application with the title.

Thank you.

Rebuttal.

Any other questions?

Wait till later, too.

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

We do.

We have one speaker, Kevin Knoll.

Okay.

Name is Kevin Knoll.

I've 1117354 North Fort Laramie Way in Fairhaven, the development just south of this development.

Uh I am telling you the truth.

I was opposed to this last meeting we had.

I was grossly opposed to it, but they have changed quite a bit, and I appreciate the egress that they've done, the amenities that they put in.

I'm almost jealous of some of the amenities they put in.

But there is one problem I see on this, and that's the commercial, the four commercial lots.

Why would you put commercial lots in a residential area?

It just doesn't seem right to me.

And logically, you you have many areas down there, JCPenney across the across the freeway, but they're still not being used, and they want to put more commercial lots in a residential area.

That I've talked to many people in the development, they all agree with the commercial lots, are not a good idea, as far as I'm concerned.

But I am like I said, I'm very pleased with the changes they've made.

Oh, and by the way, this meeting that they had with the community.

I didn't hear about it, or I would have made these these statements at that, but it wasn't posted enough that or put on the face on the Facebook page or whatever, but I didn't see it.

There's one other thing I'd like to talk to the I'd like to submit to the council or the one the city council is the egress onto Fairhaven.

The main there is a room enough that they could put some turn lanes there.

Because right now, if you're going northbound on Canada, and you're stopped to go into the Fairhaven, and you you're gonna block cars behind you because they can't get around you.

And that's just a suggestion that you go ahead because there is enough room that you could put some turn lanes right there in front of that that egress and there at Fairhaven.

That's all I've got.

Thank you.

Thank you, appreciate it.

That was the only sign up.

Okay, is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak?

Go ahead and come on up.

We'll just take you one at a time.

So just go ahead and come on up and name an address for the record.

My name is Brian Woodhouse.

I live at one 17392 North Flat Avenue.

And my concern is regarding the um irrigation water.

Well, the last five years, my fees have increased 38% without any increase in efficiency to the irrigation system two years ago.

I had to re um redo my when I my watering times because water pressure is insufficient in the morning.

Um the same thing happened this last year.

I'm wondering is it this development going to put a further strain on the irrigation system or if there's any plans to improve the irrigation system via more pumps or more efficient pump?

Thank you.

Yep, thank you.

We'll ask that.

Okay, next.

Actually, that's what I'm up here for is put another star to the letter that came in from Victor.

Uh he well pointed that uh last time the developer was here.

Uh I said Greg Markward, didn't I?

Name and address for the record.

6109 West Mayfield.

Yeah.

Yeah, name again, sorry.

Greg Mark Ward.

Anyway, um, so last time they were here, one of the biggest concerns is the traffic.

And so it seems to be a address, but we is that gonna is that turn pocket plan gonna happen before the development starts because there's gonna be a lot of construction traffic going through there.

It's already an issue.

Uh the gentleman just mentioned the the entrance to uh New Haven is uh our uh fair haven is uh may have room, but right at Landry, there's no there's it's difficult now uh to try to turn into there, and so we had added traffic.

So I bring it back to the question too about the uh commercial property.

I don't see parking that we're if this is commercial, where are where are the customers going to be parking or uh what kind of impact is that gonna have on it if we're already having an issue coming in?

What it what's gonna happen there?

Uh I too or we two were we're not invited to this community function or uh to address the the new new plan.

Um yeah, I I think that's the biggest concern is uh the traffic impact that uh that's gonna apply.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Yep, when come on up.

Hi, my name is Barbara Davis.

I reside at 6473 East Path Drive.

And I want to first and foremost thank you and thank the developer for listening to us.

It's not often we get to hear people actually listen and take what we say into account and make changes.

I really like what they have done.

I'm afraid, and said we kind of complained in the beginning that they would use our pool, but we might now end up using their dog park.

It's pretty cool.

Um, but one of the things I did want to mention too was irrigation.

So, as mentioned, that's a big thing.

We have very little pressure.

Um, the turn into the main main fair haven was also on my list.

Landry going all the way through is still a concern.

So if that's gonna happen, um, how could there possibly be another way that we could offer an entrance into this new subdivision, maybe on the north side of it where the four commercial lots are.

Maybe there's a turn in off Canada that goes into that side of the subdivision because agree the four commercial lots, one don't seem to quite make super sense within our residential area, but again, no parking there, and you would still have to turn into landry in order to get into those commercial spots.

So that's all of the the lower subdivision and now this subdivision going in again off of one main road, plus whatever those commercial locations are, is a big concern.

And uh I also didn't get the invite to the extra little meeting they had.

So maybe it was just the people in the front of the sub who got it, those of us in the back definitely didn't, but um, I applaud the changes that were made.

Like sure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else that would like to speak for against or undecided on this item okay, seeing none, Missier.

Would you like to come back up?

Since the last time you said not as pretty as I was a couple minutes ago, right?

Dean Waite, 2154, East Timber Trail Street, Cuneido.

I also work for the developer.

Um, to answer a few of those questions.

First, I want to talk about um the landry punching through.

We would love that to happen as well.

We met with three of the neighbors there, Asamundy bottles and Corey Barton that all have property surrounding us.

Um, and we don't have a solution right now that will be part of this project of landry punching through.

We are working toward that.

We do we have proposed two different ideas to bottles who owns that property directly to the west of us.

Um, and the other option is to go south over the Asamundi property, and um we we have not got a proposal that works, but we are trying to work toward that end.

And we are we're actively working with bottles there in agreement that eventually they're going to develop and are going to try to help us provide a solution.

We just don't have that in agreement yet.

Um the Purdom Sewer project that was talked about.

I've been working with Mark Steuer for over a year.

Almost, I don't know, year and a half, but we are part of the private portion of the private public partnership that's helping build that up.

You guys know that's a significant 30 million dollar plus project.

And we are uh with approval of this project, we will definitely be contributed to the private part part of that and and helping to build that two mile plus uh sewer trunk line.

Um the storm drain question that came up.

We are we did add 3.2 acres of common space that will help uh put our storm drain in areas that won't directly impact with some of the amenities.

So that that was one of the the things that council was asked us to do.

Um and then from the community, some of the remarks that were just made, commercial and residential area.

It can work well.

I've lived in neighborhoods that have some neighborhood commercial with low impact uh commercial uses.

Some of them may even have offices there for an insurance sales or that.

Um parking will be on site on those commercial lots.

It will not uh be parking in the neighborhood.

And we do propose that they take access directly off Canada if that's what we would prefer for and I'm sure the commercial people would as well.

Irrigation.

Um I'm not an irrigation pro, but in whisperings with my uh engineer, he is proposed or stating, and we we state that um being on the edge of irrigation is not helpful to pressure, and us being involved in looping through will actually improve the pressure for for the our neighbors to the south.

There'll be more in the system rather than on the edge, and the connection fees that we pay will help improve NAMPA's uh irrigation system in that in that area.

And uh there were a couple of remarks about the our neighborhood meeting for this.

It was posted as per city standard, and we did invite all that that uh we were required to, and and hopefully people the voice that they shared was shared at that meeting.

Uh the the traffic and the commercial were two things that that were not uh that that are not anticipated to be liked by the neighbors, and we we think we're addressing some of those.

We the improvements of having Landry built out to full collector size, I think will be surprised some of the neighbors of how much that helps.

Having both a right and a left out onto Canada, and then both a D cell lane and a left turn lane going north and south.

Those improvements are gonna help a lot of for the traffic coming in and out of there.

Um I think that's the the things that items that came up, I'll stand for any questions as well.

Pretty much answered everything that I had.

There was a question about the connection to Fairhaven south and a possible turn lane.

Is that something that I think that's part of this project?

I'm assuming they're they're talking a little bit further south.

Okay, I I don't know.

It was just it just came up in the public testimony, that's why I wanted to make sure.

Yeah, I'm I'm assuming they're talking about there's room that that's not part of this project.

Yeah, good enough.

That's his request.

South south of where maybe okay, great.

I made that suggestion to the council.

Oh, that but that's a whole different thing.

Okay, we'll just focus on this one.

Sorry.

But at least we got to clear it up.

Any other questions?

Well, thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you, appreciate it.

Yes.

Make a motion we close the public hearing.

Second, and move by Garner, second by Kirkman to close the public hearing.

All those in favor?

I mean, opposed.

Public hearing is closed.

Daniel.

Yes.

Um pressurized irrigation.

Do you can you talk about that system at all or what might be happening?

So the pressurized irrigation system, uh, we have a number of pumps in that area.

Um, when a development like this comes in, we annex those water rights and are able to add those to the system.

Um, and that uh is in addition to what the applicant shared.

Um, additional looping does help the pressures, it reduces head loss in the system.

And so with that and the additional um water rights that we're able to allocate to those pump stations can help help attenuate that issue.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um can you speak to accesses before, after during development?

I mean, that's kind of tough.

But so the um the existing landry uh approach there with the um the width that it is now does not allow for those left turn lanes on landry and coming off, and then they will have some widening there.

Um the commercial approaches, um they will likely have to have some shared access to that, but they do have enough frontage that we will allow some approaches onto um Canada there, um at least one that would then be shared by those commercial properties, and so that would not necessarily push that traffic into that landry um street connection.

Um I would agree with the other statements that the applicant has made regarding the improvements that they will do um at that intersection will will help significantly to uh mitigate the the issues there.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions for Brandon Rodney I get you to speak to uh the commercial in residential.

I know the answers.

Yeah, you bet.

Um so this this topic has come up recently with our city council as well, and they're they're a little bit concerned about this.

Um when an applicant chooses a zone for commercial, they often will default to the one with the most options, right?

And that's BC zone for a commercial zone.

But we do have other zones.

They didn't request that other zone.

Uh, but one of those other zones is the BN zone, which is a neighborhood business zone.

And that's intended to be a little smaller scale, a little uh less impact to the neighbors.

Um I think on your desk you should have like a little three-ring binder that city council has asked us to have showing the two different zones, BC and BN.

Um what you can do is you can compare the two different land uses.

Um their concerns are what what I've heard is the the typical concerns about um uses that are near um residential, like um hookah bar, uh vape shop, uh smoking lounge or a bar.

Um what else are some of the other things?

Um BC zone does allow with a conditional use permit to have multifamily.

Um so some of those concerns have been expressed recently, and the city council on just one real recently um limited those uh land uses discussed, limiting those land uses down so that they don't have some of those uses um in a BC zone that's incorporated into a residential development.

Um Frankly, the the comment about commercial, I I understand because if if you're thinking about all commercial uses, you're it is there can be some commercial uses that are in conflict with residential, but there are a lot of uses that can be supplementary.

Um for instance, a coffee shop.

That's always a a really um one that people like right in their residential area.

And so there's a different uses in commercial that can be really supplementary to the residential uses, and it actually supports because they've had the connections in the subdivision to the commercial, it supports those commercial developments to be um sustainable.

And so um it frankly, um a lot of our comprehensive plan calls for this mix of uses.

People being able to provide services near their home so that they're not getting on our roads, not adding to the traffic, not causing maintenance issues, um they're really close by.

Um, but the uses do matter.

So I I would end with that.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

No, but I was just going to reiterate that was one of the things that I was going to talk about is the fact that when you put that commercial there, you are helping to limit the amount of traffic on the roads, which is everybody's gripe.

Nobody wants the traffic, but also nobody wants commercial by their houses.

Um, but if we were able to move some of that stuff closer to us, that limits the amount of trips that we have to go.

And unfortunately, a lot of our commercial is central in one spot, so everybody has to go to that one spot.

Um I live just down the road from the neighborhood market, the Walmart neighborhood market, right?

And like that's surrounded by residences.

There's nothing else other than that on that corner.

Everything else around it is houses.

But I go to that thing, I don't know how many times a week I go to that, you know, when it's right there.

That's what's awesome about it is that I would have I don't have to go to the marketplace.

I can go right down there.

Um and so that's a good thing when we get some of that commercial and they're supplementary to the residences.

That's a good thing to have those because it does help mitigate the traffic concerns that everybody has.

Thank you.

I think I like the changes.

Yeah, yeah.

Very important.

I think it's uh and hearing from the community, they appreciate the changes also.

I get the commercial areas, but you're gonna see things like uh dentist office or insurance or small restaurants, small restaurants, something like that that's gonna do like Rodney was saying, it's gonna complement that area rather than add to um add to any mess there.

So I like it.

I think uh as Daniel spoke, I think the traffic things that they're gonna do just there on landry.

I think that's gonna make a lot bigger difference than anybody realizes.

Um having the decelerate lane and then the turn lane both, and then a right and left out of landry on to Ken 8.

I think that's it's just gonna make a lot of difference.

So I'm happy with that.

I think the other thing is that if they had their way, they would have land repunch all the way through.

But unfortunately, you have other landowners that are you have to work with to make that happen.

And I'm glad that they're committed to making it happen.

Yeah, so it while it may not happen during this development, at some point it's going to happen, which will help immensely too.

Yes, no other comments, and I'd make a motion to approve project as stated on the screen with recommended conditions of approval and the proposed findings.

I'll second.

It's been moved by Keyhoe, second by Kirkman to approve the item.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Motion carries.

We will move to action item 3.2 annexation and zoning to IL at 1712, 1820, 0 and 0 East Iowa Avenue for David Snow to continue to operate the Clearwater Landscape Construction Company.

Is the applicant here?

Took a minute to get I'm Carrie Smith.

Um, I reside at 17741 Linden Lane Caldwell 83607, and I am Mr.

Snow's um representative for this um application for clear water landscaping.

So this is a request for annexation and zoning to light industrial development.

This is not a new um business, nor is it for speculation.

Um Mr.

Snow has been in business in Caldwell since 2001, but he moved his business to NAMPA in 2006.

Um this current location was purchased in 2014, so he has been operating the business there in Canyon County for 12 years.

The property is currently used for storage of business vehicles, trailer parking, and equipment.

Um it also is home to plant and nursery materials that would typically be used for a landscaping business, including irrigation and landscaping supplies, um, mold soil and aggregate.

Um the requested use.

Um one of the analysis that you guys have to evaluate is does it fit the comprehensive plan?

And in December of 2025, the city council did approve a future land use map change to industrial.

Um they also changed the property to the north, um, also to light industrial.

That is a seed business that has been um there for a very long time.

So, in our opinion, this is a very nice transition for a light industrial use from the a little bit more intensive um seed business to this landscaping business.

Another important thing to note is that this is essentially an enclave to the city, and so bringing this property into the city does um bring it into the oversight of the city, and um that will help also with um creating some conditions for compatibility with some of the residential neighbors that are to the south of the property.

One of the things that I talked about during the um comprehensive plan map change was how Mr.

Snow has really been a good neighbor to the people who live in the area.

If they've had any type of needs for whether it's roads or landscaping, and they've made phone calls to him, he has been a good neighbor and went over and provided those services to the neighbors.

Another important factor there is a residence on the property.

And that is a home for one of the employees who provides security and oversight of the property.

And so also for an area like this, I think that's also important to make sure that we have someone on the site taking care of the area.

I actually have known him since I think middle school or high school.

But he is a gold sponsor at Ridgeview, and so he believes in supporting the community.

And like I said, he's been a part of the NAMPA community for a very long time.

So in closing, oh, I should have also noted we have reviewed the staff report.

We um totally agree with the staff report, the conditions of approval that have been placed on it.

Um we are in support of.

All right, now we'll call you back up.

Thank you.

Okay.

Damien.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners, Damian Snodgrass.

Um, the applicant's request tonight is annexation and zoning to IL Light Industrial Potential Development Agreement for these parcels here along Iowa.

Um, and the annexation is in order to annex this current business into the city to operate that clear water landscape construction.

So some of the property details.

Um, the property is currently under the Canyon County jurisdiction.

Um to the north, we have IL Light Industrial, to the west, we have county parcels that are undeveloped, to the south we have some RS12 and RS6 along with Canyon County parcels, and to the east, we have Canyon County parcels that are undeveloped.

Umperty as stated in 2025, December of 2025, a comprehensive map amendment was approved to change the designation for medium density residue medium density residential to industrial to facilitate this annexation and to bring the northern seed factory into compliance with the uh zoning that it has.

And over here, this is a handmade one.

It happened recently enough that the map hasn't actually changed.

Um, but all of this area is under the industrial designation now.

Here are the applicable regulations for annexation and zoning, as well as the applicable regulations for that IL chapter, as well as the agricultural land use type, the the plant nurseries, and that landscape construction is an allowable use under the IL zone.

We received some correspondence that engineering division does not oppose this application and has provided some comments around the classification of the roads.

Um, that a TIS study will not be required in this, as well as the utilities that are within the area.

NAMPA Fire District provided some general water supply and fire access comments.

The NAMPA building department provided some following conditions, um, and these are regarding the nursery or similar spaces, providing accessible parking spaces, paved and code compliant accessible routes, um, that they need to update their occupancy permits and bring these into code for commercial uses as well as residential uses and have an analysis of those buildings.

Here are the recommended conditions of approval that the actant owner shall comply with all city codes, policies and standards at time of development and redevelopment of the property, and this includes all those permits as defined by the building department.

Any on-site wells be abandoned, removed, that the property be annexed into the NAMPA municipal irrigation district at time of connection.

Developer shall in construct frontage improvements along Chicago Street along with accordance of the NAMPA City Code, um, that the name of a the developer shall coordinate with the NAP development engineering regarding any required traffic improvements that the owner will be required to provide approof of approval submitted to Southwest District Health of any for any existing on-site septic tanks or drains, and that the owner is required to have an IDO licensor or a very paralegal description of the right-of-way, and any others at the commission may recommend.

Here are the findings.

So annexed that the NAMPA comprehensive plan includes this area of annexation, and when applicable for annexation of roadways, so on and so forth.

With that, staff found these to be met through the applicant owner supplying the affidavit of legal interest that it is contiguous to the north with the IL and to the east, that the NAMPA comprehensive plan includes this area of annexation under the industrial designation, and that any highways are under a memorandum of understanding.

For the applicable criteria for zoning, we have that the proposed map amendments is R would be in harmony with the city's currently adopted comprehensive plan and comprehensive plan land use map.

That the proposed map amendments is R would provide for a proposed use or set of uses that would be at least reasonably compatible with existing and adjoining property uses, and that the proposed zoning map amendments is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary.

The comprehensive plan defines that compatible visual relationship between what is existing, what is proposed, and that in section of 5.9 of the Nampo City Comprehensive Plan, it defines light industrial as industrial uses that are less impactful to the surrounding area, and that light industrial uses are less impactful than a heavy industrial use, which would also be allowed by this designation.

That the proposed properties will be subject to the design standards and building code required for the proposed industrial uses, that a landscape company has been operating at this location within the county.

Um, and more of that definitions of how industrial is defined within the comprehensive plan.

So staff found that the criteria for zoning to be met.

Here are your potential motions.

I'll stand for any questions.

Okay.

Portion, Madam Clerk.

Do we have any assign up sheet?

We do not.

Okay.

Is there anybody that would like to speak for, against or undecided on this item?

Ms.

Smith, do you have anything to add?

No.

Okay.

Here?

Yes.

Take a motion that we close the public hearing.

Second.

And moved by Garner, seconded by Keyhoe to close the public hearing.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Okay.

Public hearings closed.

Thoughts on this one.

I was just thinking that seed company must have gone in there like 1800.

It was probably on the edge of town when it went in.

10 miles out of town.

10 miles out of town.

I think this is a good infill.

It's it certainly meets the surroundings.

I mean, it's compatible with the seed company right next door.

Well, only has been operating out of there for quite a while already.

So kind of just makes sense.

And I agree it's the kind of use that you want to have around your house.

You can go down there, walk down there and buy something, and take it back home and plan it.

Too convenient.

We spend a whole line down there.

And you can't have you can't find a better business that has a bunch of trees and landscaping everything.

Right either.

That's it.

Mr.

Chair, if there's no other comments or discussion, I'll move to recommend approval for the project as stated on the screen with recommended conditions of approval and proposed findings.

Second.

It's been moved by Kirkman, seconded by Keyhoe to approve this item.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Okay.

Motion carries.

We will move to our next action item 3-3.

Annexation and zoning to RS4 and RS6, RD and BN zoning districts, potential development agreement, and preliminary plat subdivision for Sagewood Subdivision at Zero and Zero Lewis Lane for Kelly Black, representing more family living trust, and Corey Barton is the applicant here.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Kelly Black, Bailey Engineering, 868 East Riverside Street.

Yes.

Perfect.

Is that a better much better?

Thank you.

Great.

Eagle, Idaho.

Here on behalf of the applicant to present the Sagewood subdivision.

We are seeking annexation and zoning with preliminary plat approval.

This is a 33.72 acre site located east of South Side Boulevard and north of East Lewis Lane.

This site is within the area of impact for the city.

The future land use map from the comprehensive plan has this site designated as residential mixed use.

The residential mixed use designation calls for medium density residential development, ranging from 2.5 to 8 dwelling units per acre.

And the comp plan states that small residential lots are encouraged.

In addition, the RMU requires 5% commercial.

Nearby, we have a Fenway subdivision to the northeast.

This is a subdivision that is currently under construction.

To the west is the New Horizons Dual Language School and the South Side Boulevard Methodist Church.

To the south and the east, there are county parcels and Brookhaven subdivision.

As you can see, this area has been developing in accordance with the comprehensive plan and the RMU designation with medium density residential and some commercial.

We are proposing four zoning districts.

Neighborhood business, which will be the commercial area located on the southwest portion of the site.

The rest of the site will have a mix of residential zones.

RD, RS4, and RS6.

The commercial portion of Sagewood accounts for 5.5% of the site, which does meet the requirement for the RMU designation.

The preliminary plat contains 173 residential lots.

48 are alley-loaded town homes, seen here in purple.

30 are front-loaded townhomes in green.

95 are single family detached residential, and those are depicted in blue.

We also have those seven commercial lots in red on the southwest corner.

Our density is 5.1 dwelling units per acre.

We have accesses from Lewis Lane, too.

We also have one connection to the Fenway Park subdivision on the northeast, along with one stub road to the northwest for future use.

As a part of this project, we had a traffic study conducted and submitted to the city for review.

The study found that the road network will be sufficient to accommodate the future growth in the area and the projected traffic, with the exception of East Lewis Lane and Happy Valley Road experiencing a delay for the eastbound approach.

The study recommended that the developer construct an eastbound left turn lane with a storage length of 150 feet.

In addition, I wanted to highlight that this development will provide $853,000 in street impact fees for the city, as is the current impact fee of 4,933 per dwelling unit.

Sagewood will have many amenities, including a neighborhood park in the center with a half basketball court, a picnic shelter, and seating, as well as several pathways and open areas throughout.

We are proposing two phases for this project.

Phase one will have 92 homes and will include the large park.

Phase two will have 81 homes plus the seven commercial lots.

Sagewood also has a number of pathways throughout the site, in addition to the sidewalks.

The pathways are highlighted in green and the sidewalks are in blue.

Here are some examples of the homes.

You can see both the single family detached as well as the townhome product offered by this builder.

I also wanted to give you a look at the interiors that this builder offers.

This builder does a really lovely job with their homes.

And as Idaho's largest home builder, their success is directly tied to delivering homes that meet the needs of the local residents.

With that, I will stand for questions.

Questions.

Yeah, just a clarification.

Uh Mr.

Chair.

Your comment about Lewis Lane and Happy Valley.

What were you?

Were you going to do anything with that intersection or was it a requirement that yes?

There is a requirement that uh a mitigation for Lewis Lane and an eastbound left turn lane onto Happy Valley.

That came up as a part of our traffic study.

Could we just have you put in a roundabout or something there?

Offset.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate the clarification.

Yeah.

Thank you.

We'll call you back up if we have any other questions.

Thank you.

Okay, Christy.

Yes, uh, thank you, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

My name is Christy Watkins.

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

The request before you this evening is for annexation and zoning to multiple zones for the Sagewood Preliminary Platte on Lewis Lane.

You will note that the plat has been revised in your staff report.

There is the revised layout since it was first advertised because they did increase the size of the usable commercial area on the south side.

So the proposed zoning is 11.6 acres of RS4, 7.8 acres of RS6, 11.2 acres of RD, and three acres of VN.

That's the total zoning boundary.

The property is located in the residential mixed use designation on the future land use map and is currently under the jurisdiction of Canyon County.

This is a broader view of our comprehensive plan.

And I just want to take this moment to talk to you a little bit about the south side of the city.

In this area, you can see where the colors end on this map.

This is our planning boundary.

That's where our planning boundary ends.

Everything to the south of that is in the Canyon County jurisdiction, and we have no plans to extend into that area.

I know that there's a lot of concern about extending into farm ground, and our planning boundary does not go to the south of the lake.

So I just want everybody to kind of get that image in their mind as we kind of move around the south side of the city and know that that there is a boundary and there is a limit to the area that we do plan to protect the farmland to the south.

I'm sorry, Christy.

Are you talking about area of impact the same as our planning boundary?

Same thing.

Those are not the same boundary.

Okay.

So the impact area is an area that is approved by Canyon County.

Um that there's an agreement between the county and the city to kind of work together in that.

And the planning boundary is an area that we plan for sewer and water capacity, and what kind of land uses we anticipate seeing in those areas.

Those do not have to be the same boundary.

So the area of impact goes much further south than our planning boundary or towards that end.

Um no, actually, the impact area is smaller than our planning boundary.

Okay.

Um, so the zoning to the north is RS7, which is the Fenway subdivision.

She kind of walked through that a little bit.

To the south is eight Canyon County parcels with single-family homes.

To the west is the Nampa School District's New Horizon School, which is still under Canyon County jurisdiction.

And to the east is Canyon County, also single family residences on large acreage.

I also want to take this moment to zoom out a little bit and show you some of the development that has happened under Canyon County approval.

Um, the yellow and the red is city zoning.

The rest of it is all under Canyon County jurisdiction, and you can see all of those smaller lots that have been approved through the county that are developing up towards this area.

Um the traffic impact study has been submitted and reviewed as she stated.

Um the TIS identifies the following project triggered impacts.

Lewis Lane and Happy Valley Road, eastbound left turn lane with a minimum of 150 feet of storage length.

And along Lewis Lane, they will be required to install a 10-foot wide side path with drainage.

Um, interior to the subdivision, there are two streets that will need to provide traffic calming devices because they are very long and straight.

The city's water and sewer and pressurized irrigation systems do have adequate capacity to serve this property, and the project will need to coordinate to provide a sewer stub to the New Horizons school property at the western boundary of the subdivision and provide access to the sewer for the properties at the corner of Southside and Lewis.

So in the MDR neighborhoods for this project, um, that would be the RS4, the RS6 and the RD zoning.

There are 16 common lots and 173 residential lots, which she described as 48 alley-loaded townhouses, 30 front-loaded townhouses, and 95 single-family detached dwellings.

There are seven commercial lots in the BN zone.

The BN zone equals three acres, which is 8.9% of the gross project area.

The usable commercial lot area is 1.85 acres, which is 5.5% of the usable area.

Those uses will be reviewed through 1032 for the allowable uses in the BN zone at the time of building permit submittal, and they will be subject to design review.

So 15% qualified open space is required in the platted areas.

They have 5.33 acres, which is 15.81%.

The original landscape plan was reviewed by the city forester, and there were some comments made about alternate species of trees because of some diseases that we've got in some of those tree types.

A revised landscape plan has been submitted and will be reviewed by that forester to make sure that we've accomplished that.

On this 33.72 acres with 173 residential lots.

The gross density is 5.13, so it does meet the requirement for the MDR.

The properties developed in the BN zone will be reviewed at the time of building permit submittal.

The RS4 and RS6 zones, so lot sizes within the RS4 zone can range from 4,000 to 8,000 square feet.

The lot sizes shown on the plat range from 4,032 to 5,634.

The lot sizes within the RS6 zone can range from 6,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet, and the lot sizes shown on the plat range from 6,000 to 8810.

The lot width and depth for these lots all meet code.

In the RD zone, three to unit townhouse can range from 9,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet.

The lot sizes shown on the plat range from 9,000 to 9,850.

Those are the base lot sizes, and they will be divided for each townhouse per unit based on the style of the building.

The four-unit townhouse law area can range from 12,000 square feet to 18,000 square feet, and the lots shown on the plat are 12,000 square feet to 13,004 square feet, and those base lots can be divided per unit as needed.

These are the applicable regulations for annexation in zoning.

So for annexation, there are four criteria that need to be met in determining the appropriateness for the annexation.

All private landowners have consented to this annexation.

The property is contiguous to the city limits.

The NAMPA comprehensive plan includes this area of annexation, and the roadways are subject to the agreement between the city and the highway district.

There are three criteria needed to be met when determining the appropriateness for the zoning request.

The proposed zoning, there are four, are in harmony with the city's currently adopted comprehensive plan in the residential mixed use designation.

The proposed plat does provide for a set of uses that are compatible with adjoining properties.

The project and the zoning is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary because it is proposed subdivision layout that will extend city utilities.

It will install frontage improvements, it is compatible with the surrounding uses, and it provides needed commercial opportunities in this area, and it complies with adopted city codes.

So for correspondence, we did receive some correspondence from the public.

A summary of their concerns include losing agricultural areas.

Infrastructure does not support this, danger to the school nearby due to traffic.

This project will reduce the value of their forever homes.

Concerned about drainage onto their property, concerned about their water rights, cutting off their views, infrastructure is failing.

Project does not match the comprehensive plan by undermining the ag conservation goals.

Emergency services are strained, growth should pay for growth.

They highly doubt the utilities have capacity, compatibility with adjoining neighbors, and then there were some uh some studies attached to your staff report that went along with those comments.

Um GIS had a number of road changes.

The engineering department has completed a view of the preliminary plat and provided comments regarding traffic access, utilities, drainage, and irrigation.

I already talked about the foresters' comments.

Um from long-range planning, the project appears to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan and the future land use map.

In the police department says that this project is projected to add 475 new residents to the population.

They would recommend a commitment to fund 0.59 additional officers and 0.31 additional support staff.

The NAMPA Fire District does not propose or sorry, does not oppose this application.

This development is located approximately 3.7 miles from fire station number two with an approximate response time of seven minutes.

The impact fees collected on behalf of the fire department for this project will be 1,267 per single family unit for an approximate total of 225,526 for the development at build-out for the fire department specifically.

Since this subdivision will add the 475 residents, this will cause an increased need of personnel of 0.5 firefighter positions.

These are the conditions of approval that are listed in your staff report.

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

First, I want to say thank you, Christy, for showing us the future planning map and explaining that a little bit.

A whole lot.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, I have a question, and maybe this is not time to ask it, but I will anyways.

Why wasn't there traffic mitigation like a turn lane included in those?

And then also the New York landing when Alma coming out onto Happy Valley, but with this one, that is a requirement from the TIS.

Why the inconsistencies, I guess is my question.

So the TIS for those developments did not trigger a improvements at Lewis and Happy Valley.

But those developments did not trigger anything at Lewis and Happy Valley.

Okay.

I have follow-ups, but I'll hold them.

I appreciate it.

Christy, is does the city have any rules about not connecting, having connected connectivity from this to the elementary school so the kids don't have to go out and around.

I was looking at it, and they've got a little green spot space on the north and the south, the back up to the school.

Would they be allowed to have access so that students that would be going to that school could just go?

Um thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and uh Commissioner Turner.

So that would be an agreement between the developer and the school.

Um I'm not sure how NAMPA School District feels about providing that kind of connectivity.

Um I know that there are other school districts that are concerned about safety and being able to monitor entrances onto their property.

Um this is a magnet school, and so I don't know that a lot of the students from these neighborhoods will be attending this school specifically, so I'm not sure how much of a benefit that might be to them, but um this would we would certainly welcome it, but it would have to be an agreement between the school district and them.

Other questions.

Okay.

Thank you, Christy.

Open it up for the public testimony.

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

We do.

First, we have Jim Martell, and then second we have Denise Martell.

Okay.

I'm Jim Martell.

I live on 9880 Atzland Drive, which is south of Lewis Lane, across from the Sagewood application.

My concerns tonight, among others, will be traffic.

Surprise.

I remember last year during Napa City elections, some campaigning to slow development until the infrastructure is upgraded to handle the growth.

During the February non-wet winter weather, I have walk for exercise, Lewis Lane Roadsides between Happy Valley Road and Southside Boulevard gathering the scattered trash items.

After I read the annexation postage sign, I started counting the vehicles each midday for one hour.

The vehicles in nine days I averaged count of 120 vehicles per hour.

I became aware that many of the vehicles were non-passenger cars, large pickups with trailers, some hauling trash to the landfill, commercial vans, vans with trailers, many trucks, and semi-trucks with large trailers.

These large vehicles probably, in my estimation, were 20 percent of the traffic doing 50 miles an hour along Lewis between Happy Valley and South Side.

I wonder why these large trucks are using Lewis Lane.

This application combined with the 100-acre development just to the east on Lewis Lane.

Combine those two with the density is 512 houses.

I advise that there will soon be more growth in our area.

I know of 110 acres on Happy Valley Road south of Lewis, non-farmed for sale parcels, uh 70 acres south of my property of on farm parcel for sale.

So with the density that has been approved, you're looking at 1,340 houses soon to be applied inside of the planning area.

Currently, a commuter from this area using Happy Valley Road at the railroad costume can be stalled in a mile-long line between Amity and the railroad.

On the south side of the track, the gridlock includes the Greenhurst roundabout.

Developments growth impact fee should and must build a railroad overpass on Happy Valley Road.

The annexation with more traffic needs to understand that Lewis Lane and the Highway 45 intersection is a problem.

I know way outside of the pictures, but I have watched these large vehicles try to access 45, and I have pictures of those back tires of those trailers leaving the pavement and dropping into the irrigation ditches on both sides of that pavement.

Now this type of growth extends further than Mr.

Chair Time.

Wow, that was quickly last time.

Thank you and good luck.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Denise Dringall.

I'm sorry, I just married the man.

Denise Martell, my handsome husband that delivered this.

I live at 9880 Oslin Drive, and it is directly across from the subdivision that we're talking about.

By the people and for the people.

Thank you for allowing us the time to voice our concerns about this development.

I've been in the valley for 35 years, 25 years in that home.

It's a five-acre ranch with little ducks that go in a row down the road, and uh horses and cats, and we've got chickens and all kinds of stuff on that subdivision.

It's a farm community on that subdivision.

So I thought I would just come up with three bullet points for ease pros, cons, and concerns.

So I'm going to start with the cons, and it's going to be a surprise to you to know that my first concern about this is traffic.

Um try getting through South Side when school is coming out of uh out of uh school or going down to work at 8 a.m.

when you've got one train that goes this way, and then as soon as that gets by you, you've got another one coming this way.

Um, or leaving the rec center and waiting forever to get on to on the 12th.

Holy cow, this is not the NAMPA that I moved into.

Um you're proposing more homes.

That's more people.

That's more added cars, sanitation trucks, you name it, not to mention what Amazon delivery trucks are going to do to those roads.

I suggest that you take a step back and look at the traffic congestion and how we can fix that before you go forward with more developments.

The people are still going to come at some point, but there's reasons why we should look at it.

Um he mentioned agriculture.

Uh I I'm concerned about that too because we've got so many farms out there, the farms go away, the alfalfa goes up in cost, and that's an economic issue for us.

I'm running out of time.

Um of the biggest things that I can leave you guys with is my concern for safety.

And it relates to traffic obstacles.

Um, whether it's northbound, wadded up on Happy Valley Road from Amity to Railroad for no reason, or the trains that stop on the track when you have a loved one in the car and they're running out of oxygen, which happened to me.

Try finding an alternative route that you can do within a reasonable amount of time.

Deaths can and will happen if you don't address these infrastructure issues before you approve adding more subdivisions.

And I say that from experience, a good friend of mine was in a severe horse accident.

And he died because the ambulance couldn't get across because the train stopped.

Am I out of time?

No.

Okay.

The only thing that I have to say is is that even though we're in the county, we look at you know what goes on in the city.

And um second.

The mayor campaigned on the fact that we were gonna slow growth.

I don't see anything but explosions out where we are.

Thank you so much for your time.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Next we have Janie Burns and then Jenny Rube.

My name's Janie Burns, 990.

I'm right across the street from Lewis Lane from the proposed subdivision.

Traffic, of course, I could talk about ad nauseum, but I won't.

I will say how grateful I was to hear about the other proposal earlier today, in which the density was reduced.

I highly recommend that we look at not having town homes, which are an incompatible use in that neighborhood.

There aren't any town homes that I'm aware of until you get up near uh well way up by the uh by Garity.

And so we don't need that kind of density.

We could reduce it.

We could also look at the safety, which I think is absolutely critical.

We don't want to be in the news like Caldwell and having people having kids run down in the street.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Teresa Stevens.

I live at 3523 East Lewis Lane.

And it's my understanding that they're gonna have two entrances into that subdivision off of East Lewis Lane.

That's gonna create a lot more traffic.

I can't hardly get out of my driveway as it is right now, and that's just gonna cause a lot more congestion there.

And the problem that I see is there's more building going on than there is to the roads.

We don't have enough roads for the amount of things that have been approved as it is.

And my suggestion would be to tone down on the subdivisions and start fixing the roads to to where they can handle the traffic that we already have.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

And then Julie Sipes.

Developer earlier said that this area is it fits with the area.

We have a farm, and most of the people around us are farmers.

Um we have farm equipment that needs to get into our um field in order to um cut the hay, and it's already dangerous as it is, and we have a hard time even getting people to come out there.

And if we add more developments out there, that's just gonna create even more issues.

And we're not the only ones with hay fields, there's hay fields all around us.

So it is very much an agricultural area.

There are some neighborhoods that are very low density, not high density, not town homes.

Town homes does not fit with the area whatsoever.

And also, I wanted to bring up the traffic as everybody else has, but I live right on the corner of Lewis Lane at Happy Valley, and I can look out my kitchen window and see that corner.

There have been some very severe accidents on that corner.

Um, there have been deaths, there have been severe injuries, I've seen the jaws of life come out there.

It's very dangerous because it's offset.

Also, the speed limit is 50 miles per hour where they're um gonna put this neighborhood, and there's a hill there, so it's very dangerous for people driving through there, you know, they're not gonna be able to stop in time when people are pulling out from this neighborhood.

So I don't think that the neighborhood business fits either, but I know that's part of your plan because it just doesn't fit with the area.

I moved out to the country so I could be in the country.

We have eight and a half acres and not fit, in my opinion, with the area.

Um, I do have a petition that I had 15 neighbors sign if you would like to see that as well.

Um I have concerns about emergency services and such too, because it does take some time for them to get out there.

So that again goes to safety.

And just in general finally um the NAMR comprehensive plan states that development should be compatible with surrounding land use.

I don't think it is should protect public safety.

This is not protecting public safety um should avoid overcrowding which is not doing that and should ensure adequate infrastructure and I don't believe there's adequate infrastructure either in this area.

So I would just ask that you consider these things and as some others have mentioned maybe lowering the density of it if anything I mean of course I'd prefer not to be there at all but at the very very least to change these lot sizes much smaller or much larger and not have town homes because it really does not fit with the area at all.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you appreciate it.

Who's next?

There's now one out yeah yeah go ahead and come on up gay Stevens 3523 East Lewis Lane.

Lived out there about 35 years and when I first got there it was 35 miles an hour got that heel almost got hit like three times since they raised it to 50 and there's some people they give more than 50 miles an hour.

Yeah maybe 90 you know and when I pull out the driveway three different times almost got hit.

I'm telling you right now that this is not a yeah situation.

You know something has to be done with it.

Way too much traffic you know if you get up early in the morning like I do there's so many cars going back and forth and I lost a lot of animals out in that street.

And my concern is that when my neighbor I asked he told me he sold that property I said well how much you sold that property for he says I sold it for 999 thousand dollars.

I wish I would have had the money to do that because I wouldn't want it you know for that purpose there but uh our neighbors they see all that traffic and they know it's dangerous on the corner of Lewis Lane in Happy Valley a 15 year old girl she got killed there because of the the traffic going both directions they it pulled out in front of a pickup front school kids most important thing is that um we have to back in and we have to pull out to get out out of our house and with that subdivision across the street way too many people and um I hate to see it and my neighbor here she she's been here just as long as this my other neighbor over here she's been years she sees it too she pulls out from uh first and sometimes when she pulls down when we pull out there's a car right behind us because they don't do the speed limit they go faster.

That's all I have to say thank you thank you appreciate it.

All right uh Tim Bozier uh I live at 9975 South Three Ranch Lane.

Um overall the subdivision like you say I understand that this will happen at some point and I think many of us here understand that it will probably happen the issue for me would be density um I think that that is uh very packed in right there um and I also see a huge issue with the safety so basically the entrance furthest to the east that is when people are pulling out of there people are coming up over that hill I wouldn't even think that that's a a third of a mile from where you crust the hill to where you're pulling out like I say I live right at the bottom of the hill on the south side of Lewis and it's a drag strip for people they're doing 80 90 miles an hour so uh recommendation would be to add a turn in and out lane for or a turning in lane for people um giving them just a little bit of space um the CBH did a subdivision down the road um further west towards the highway uh right across from the charter school that subdivision seems like it'd be a lot more compatible to what we're seeing where there are larger lots instead of town homes they're doing some multi-generational stuff we understand home prices are very expensive so that might be a good alternative for them to utilize and keep those lots a little bit bigger um and make it a little bit more compatible to of course what we see in that area um and you know those are my only uh recommendations right there is maybe a turn in and out lane and um changing those to a little bit bigger lots I think overall the subdivision um can work uh but definitely lower the density a little bit um and be a little bit more compatible to what we're seeing down Lewis um

We understand home prices are very expensive, so that might be a good alternative for them to utilize and keep those lots a little bit bigger and make it a little bit more compatible to, of course, what we see in that area.

Um, those are my only uh recommendations right there is maybe a turn in and out lane and um changing those to a little bit bigger lots.

I think overall the subdivision um can work uh but definitely lower the density a little bit and be a little bit more compatible to what we're seeing down Lewis.

Um I lived in the Lava Springs subdivision down the way, those were third acre lots.

I'm a builder, my brother's a builder.

Um we built homes in the Osprey Estates subdivision, which is on the uh southwest corner of Lewis and Southside.

Um that feels a little bit more like what we're seeing around there, those are third acre to half acre lots.

Um I think it's definitely something that can be done.

Um I would just really ask that uh we look at maybe increasing the size of those lots and bringing in something different, like a multi-generational, which I think is really gonna help the community more where we can get two families living in the same house together.

That's probably gonna help the affordability a lot more than townhomes, in my opinion.

Um, but those are my only recommendations, and I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

I have a question for you, sir.

Sir When you call the local law enforcement agencies to report these vehicles going 80, 90 miles an hour.

What do they tell you?

You know, honestly, I'm I'm not calling um, you know, I might give them the old man wave a little bit.

I'm not calling agencies.

Uh we do see it a lot.

I've gone up and talked to our neighbor up above us because sometimes it's their kids, you know, our neighbors' kids that are the ones speeding right there, but it is a huge issue.

And okay, like I said, I haven't lived here for very long.

Um I've lived in this property um for just over two years, and like they were saying, I've seen the flashing lights many, many nights from where people drive down Lewis and they miss that happy valley.

I don't think a turn lane is gonna help there.

I think a roundabout, unfortunately, might be the safest route because I have seen the lights many times.

I see the dirt where people go flying off of that road.

Thank you in that area.

Thank you.

Thank you guys.

Right.

Yeah, there's a few people.

Good evening.

My name's Tyler Bozier.

I live at 293 East Snake River Drive.

So I live in uh Lava Springs community, which is just further north, up Southside.

Um you look at a community like that, the majority of those lots were quarter acre lots.

Um you look at the parks, the amenities, the clubhouses, you know.

I I commend this group on the first hearing tonight.

And what you were asking of that developer.

I was I'm a home builder as well.

I'm a developer, I'm a born and raised local here in Nampa, but I was thinking about the restrictions or the comments you guys put on that development, probably cost that developer millions of dollars.

But the reality of it is it created a conducive community to the environment around it.

The reality is is that subdivision was surrounded by other communities.

That's not what we're talking about out here.

This is surrounded by farm ground.

Um if we want to talk about you know its relationship to the other communities around it, Ospreay Estates, like he stated, those are third and a half acre lots across Lewis.

You're only allowed to get a two-acre minimum on your on your properties there with Canyon County.

I think it, you know, everybody stated it.

I'll state it again.

That hill right there on Lewis.

I've seen a truck stopped at the bottom, Jack knife trying to get in there, a car launch off that hill and flip over into the pasture.

I think there needs to be some serious thought about uh, you know, again, I I think the community will be developed.

I think there's room for that, but we need to do it right.

We need to do it conducive to the neighbors around it, and we need to keep traffic in mind.

The only other comment I would make is the commercial requirement here.

Um I know that Nappa Fire is looking for a fire district out there.

Maybe there's potential, or sorry, a fire station out there.

Maybe there's potential, and I've actually brought this up to fire district to look at that as a potential fire station location instead of commercial.

It's struggling to see why commercial would make sense out here, literally in the middle of the country.

If we wanted to put a fire station next to a school and next to a church, maybe that makes sense.

But dentist office or restaurant or whatever.

I mean, again, we're we're out there in the country.

Um I'm not an anti-growther.

I make my living off building homes.

I've worked for Corey Barton on my way up to becoming a builder myself.

He builds a great product.

I know they'll figure this community out, but I do think you guys should take a serious look at the surrounding properties and also the look at the traffic that's on Lewis there because I think it's going to create some real obstacles.

So thank you guys again for your time tonight.

Thank you.

I'm Judy Battershell.

I live at 3515 East Lewis Lane.

And I've lived there 47 years.

And we've always known that this pasture or the field across from us would be developed like this, but um it's kind of been a shock to see what they have planned, especially with town houses and and commercial businesses and stuff.

Um I would like to add that my driveway is right across from the driveway that they have proposed out of the um the this neighborhood.

And my biggest fear is of course the hill, because people fly over that hill.

And if you've got a school bus stopped at that entry, they're not gonna stop for it.

There's no way.

Yeah, so I think it's a huge danger.

Thank you.

Um I was just with the commercial zone, I was kind of happy when I saw that it was zoned BN, but hasn't haven't they like snuck in making it bigger?

Because originally it was proposed to be way smaller than it than her proposal now.

I find that very disingenuous on her part.

The townhouses in front.

Um, I mean, I don't want to be a Nazi to tell them what to do, but why don't they put the townhouses in the back so it impacts their neighborhood and not ours?

Because they want the high density traffic to flow out of their neighborhood faster than impacting the neighborhood in there so they can sell their houses for more.

Um I don't understand when did they do the traffic study?

Because I think she mentioned there was a traffic study and that it was kosher.

Um I didn't see any of those little little things that they put across the street to count cars and stuff.

I don't know when that traffic study was done.

I didn't never noticed it.

The population density um for each lot or acre.

I'm not sure how you guys rate that, but um, the first guys that did their first proposal today, I'm in love with those guys.

Why doesn't she lower hers down to the 3.2 instead of the five-point uh debris it or is three 5.7?

They could lower it and they'll still make money.

Um and I think one of the gentlemen mentioned about the uh the train crossing.

I leave at six o'clock in the morning and I still get stuck there.

Happy Valley just is way overloaded at this point.

When I built my house uh 22 years ago, um I didn't have to have to deal with that, but just the impact of the neighborhoods now that are just to the north of us are already really slowing it down and making it um bad, discomforting um to travel down that in the mornings.

But um I know it's coming, but if you guys could just be kind to us that live there right now and make the density lower and make the BN area smaller or even a fire department, that's awesome.

Um we've never had a fire or any kind of emergency at my house, but I know the response times like really takes quite a while to get to us.

Um thank you very much.

Just uh I just um I just beg your guys' consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Anyone else?

You're okay.

Go ahead and tell us that again when you get to the mic.

Michelle Cassio, 9975 Tearsell Lane.

Or right on the corner of Tearsell and Lewis.

Um, I'm a little shy, so sorry, I'll be really nervous.

Um we are on that hill that everyone's talking about.

When we're trying to turn in onto Tiercell, it's dangerous.

It's kind of hard to see whether someone's coming up.

If they're going really fast, you know, faster than they should be, there can easily be an accident because when you're coming up and trying to make that left, you just can't quite see.

You can't if they're going slow enough, you know, you'll be able to, you'll be fine.

But having all of these um the townhouses, that's a lot of density right there.

That's a lot more people coming out up in that area.

And like my husband said, I don't everyone says, you know, the commercial will be compatible with the neighborhood, but the commercial is never in the neighborhood that they're developing.

We weren't looking for this kind of neighborhood when we bought out there.

There's different types of people in the world, you know.

It doesn't make sense to put this high density housing on Lewis.

High density is for areas where you can actually walk to get your groceries, walk to do, you know, to go to the movies.

That's that's what high density neighborhoods are.

You know, if you look at Europe, you know, you can walk to the little grocery store.

We don't have that stuff here.

If this neighborhood is supposed to be able to support that commercial, why isn't the commercial in the neighborhood?

Why is it out towards the outskirts of the neighborhood all the time?

It's always facing the people who have the rural living.

You know, we wanted the quiet area, that's why we bought out here.

So I'm just hoping that you will take into consideration what everyone else in the neighborhood said.

The neighborhoods down by the um closer to the highway.

Those are Osprey is great, it's a great example.

Those are examples of things that are they're a better fit for our area.

It just makes more sense, and that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Nope, nope.

You've had your table.

Sorry, really good.

One time.

Nope.

Sorry, sir.

It's not how it works.

Anyone else?

Okay, Miss Black, would you like to come up and answer some questions?

Kelly Black again.

Just wanted to thank everybody for coming out.

I appreciate all the feedback, and it's an important part of the process here.

And I did want to take the opportunity to address some of the feedback that we've received from the community.

Um, so first up, I wanted to talk about safety.

So, safety is definitely a part a priority, and um part of that discussion is how infrastructure is funded.

So, capital improvements for fire service, such as stations, apparatus, and equipments are funded in part through development impact fees and are collected at the time of building permit issuance.

So for this project, each single family home will pay a fire district impact fee of 1,1200.

Sorry, 1,267.

So the development will contribute approximately 220,000 directly to the fire district for capital improvements.

Um, nearby developments have been approved and have similar response times.

Um, new development again provides a funding mechanism that does allow the fire district to expand infrastructure and improve coverage over time.

I also wanted to speak to the farmland, but we understand and respect the community's desire to preserve farmland and agriculture is an important part, an important part of the region's history.

Um, however, this site is within the planning boundary as discussed, and it is designated for medium density residential growth growth with some commercial.

Um the designation from the comprehensive plan does reflect the long-range planning process by the city to guide where housing should occur and community grows.

The proposed project Sagewood does align with the city's vision for development in this area.

Now, on traffic, we definitely hear the community's concern regarding traffic and traffic evaluations are part of the application process.

As mentioned, um projects are reviewed by a traffic engineer who evaluates the traffic generation, roadway capacity, and intersection operations.

The study for this project was completed and submitted and accepted by the city.

And I think I mentioned in my presentation that again at full build out, the road network can accommodate the traffic, with the exception of the East Lewis Lane and Happy Valley Road, which is will experience a delay for the eastbound approach, and it has that recommended improvement for the eastbound left turn lane that the developer will be constructing.

So I also mentioned in my presentation too that in addition, the developments do contribute impact fees, and this development will contribute 853,000 for street impact fees to the city.

But an important goal for community planning is to provide a range of housing options, and not every household can afford or wants a traditional single-family home.

Town homes provide opportunities for first-time home buyers, young professionals, small families, and even downsizing seniors who want home ownership with less maintenance and smaller footprints.

And density does help pay for infrastructure.

And it's it's a good planning opportunity to bring things together.

And providing a mix of housing types is a goal for this residential mixed use designation.

I did also just want to circle back to the comprehensive plan and discuss how this does fit in with the planning area and what was designated within that future land use map and within the comprehensive plan for this area.

And that's how we set about the design.

We use that guide, and we landed on this development.

And with that, I'll stand for questions.

And I do have my engineer here as well if there are questions for him.

I have a question for you on the density.

Yes.

Um, with all the comments that you've heard tonight, all these people that came out here, you couldn't see in your heart to reduce a few homes to give them more bigger spaces.

I I do feel like uh the density is a good density, but if the city feels otherwise, um, you know, the first application we had tonight.

Um it might be something to consider what happened with them.

I don't know if saying it happened with with you because you haven't been to city council yet, but understood.

And again, this we're at 5.1 is our density, and the comprehensive plan does have this at 2.5 to 8.

So we're falling in a a good middle center for this.

Thank you.

Chairman, I have a question.

I was noticing on the plat map there that um all of your green area is basically in the middle.

So the townhouses don't really have any green area that's near them, and that's where you mentioned young families.

Um, you know, so what about your green area and your amenities?

Is there any spreading out of that?

Any way that and then maybe discrease a little bit of that because that's that's half of your density is townhomes.

You are out in the country.

So you're gonna have less desire out in the country for townhome dwellers than you are nearer the city.

So to me, I'm just wondering if you have considered more single home dwellings and less town homes just because of the fact that of the area that it's at, even though it does fall into the comprehensive plan.

At this time, in my opinion, most people who want a town home are probably not gonna want to be out that far in the country.

Now, I'm not probably empty nesters, that's that's the exception.

I mean, I would buy something like that out in the country, but and but if you do have young kids and stuff, more green area seems like it should be around where you're gonna have the children, so they're not running through everybody else's yards.

So that's just a comment and a suggestion.

Thank you.

Yeah, we did centralize the open space primarily because it is asked for quite often, but um, and we do have a couple of side little pocket parks near the townhomes.

Uh, but and then we have some townhomes that are actually on um near the the park right there.

But we have found that centralizing it is desirable.

Okay, and that is part of why we made that design choice.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions?

Are some of those green areas the drainage areas?

That's a great question.

I would like to ask my engineer to come speak to the drainage preliminary engineering cloud.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, uh commissioners, uh, my name is David Bailey with Bailey Engineering uh office addresses uh 868 Riverside Drive and Eagle.

Um so this project actually has seepage beds in it, so we don't have the the um the drainage swales in there, so there won't be any of the open space that's that's dedicated to drainage on the project.

So that's the way we have it designed at this point.

So those are usable as far as green space.

All of the green space that we're claiming is green space is usable, yes.

Thank you.

Um while I'm up here, we're probably gonna get with the um with the site distance question for the eastern entrance that was brought up on there.

So I'd bring that up.

So the Ashto site distance requirement for that eastern entrance is about 550 feet.

Um that would be at some point that'd be east of the the canal as close to the top of the hill as you're coming up from the from the east towards the west, which would be the concern of someone coming out of that entrance and taking a left turn out of there onto the road.

It's about 550 feet.

Um it's about 540 feet to the crest of the hill there, and the actual site distance would start before that because you have a three and a half height limit.

So I think we'll make that that uh easily on the site distance that that's actually why it's over there instead of at the east far east end of the site.

Uh we could move it a little bit farther to the west on that.

Uh and when we design these, we try to look at where those intersections are compared to the houses across the road.

So we're not shooting straight into a house across the street uh on the other side.

Um, but that's the answer to the question on the site distance.

I think we make that we'll do the calculation again when we do the final design on it.

Mr.

Chair, can I have a good follow-up to that?

That not being an engineer and numbers are not my friend, but does that site distance calculation include the speed on that road, the speed limit?

It does.

It's that's for 50 that's for 50 miles per hour.

550 feet site distance for 50 50 miles an hour.

Yes.

With the hill.

Well, it's the site distance, I mean, with the hill, the site distance includes taking the geometry into account and having that size and distance be a person in the vehicle with a three and a half foot eye height of eye could see that intersection from that point, given the geometry on the road.

That I understand.

Yeah, but it does include the speed limit then the calculations does.

Yeah, yeah, okay.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other questions.

Okay, anything else you'd like to add?

No, I just like to thank the um staff and the community again for their input and ask that you consider this, and if you have some particular um conditions in mind, put those forward appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Second it's been moved and seconded to close public hearing.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, public hearing is closed.

Mr.

Chairman?

Yes.

Can I ask Christopher question?

Please.

Christy, um, looking at the calls for service for law enforcement.

There were five barking dog complaints.

And there were three PD accidents.

Listening to these people tonight, there's probably 60 accidents.

What what's where do we get off so far on the numbers?

Um, so I have pulled up and looked at the uh accident history in that area.

Um, and looking at that, the accidents on Lewis itself, there are two at the intersection of South Side and Lewis in the last five years, and and this is we're looking at the last five years.

That's what we consider when we're looking at safety issues and that.

So at the intersection of Southside and Lewis, there are six, and at the intersection of Happy Valley and Lewis, there are two.

Um, none of those accident volumes.

None of those accident volumes are um in the concerning range for the city or for really any roadway jurisdiction where would have those are low enough volumes that those are just standard typical type things, not anything that would cause concern.

Um the volumes of the roadways um out in that area um have adequate capacity to serve the proposed development, including those lots that have been approved previously with other developments.

I I don't know where you live in your life, but I used to live up in the mountains in North Carolina, and they had these same situations where you have hills and curves, and they had a system in the roadway when there was a car coming, it would flash a sign.

So somebody in the opposite direction, quarter of a mile away.

So those those would be implemented if site distance were not able to be met.

Okay.

Um that would be the only time those would be appropriate if the required site distances are met, those are not things that are done unless there were an accident history to support the need for that, which again there is not in this location.

So the speed limit though is 50 miles an hour along the road, those roads.

That currently it is in the highway district, and I believe that is correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, just quick follow-up to that question.

Were those um numbers from Canyon County Sheriff's Office or those are actually from the state?

So the state aggregates all accident data for the entire state, including counties, cities, everything.

And so that five-year period would be the years of 2020 through 2024.

Um this year we'll get the 25 data uploaded here in a couple months, and we would look at the rolling data there.

But um looking at at what we see here, um again, there's not a concerning volume of accidents within that area.

Those numbers came from the state, though.

They they come from the state's database, which includes City of Nampa data, Canyon County data, all of the law enforcement agencies are required to report to that.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Mr.

Chair, I've got a question for Daniel.

He's got the mic.

Yep.

I know if this was approved along with the others that have been approved on there.

We'd only city would only be on the north side of Lewis.

But is there any way we could work with the county to maybe get this with the amount of cars that are gonna be coming out on this to get it back down to 35 to help?

I mean, we don't have the jurisdiction over it probably yet, but so we could certainly um have that discussion with them.

There are portions of this road that will likely ultimately have our utilities in it, and so we would take those portions over um from the highway district.

Uh speed limits are not set um based on desires, they are set based on data.

And so um it would require a speed study to to show a need for a change there.

Um and certainly as we as development happens, we we look at speed limits and um do those speed studies as those developments happen to determine if changes are needed to speed limits.

Um but that's that's not something that necessarily unless there's a um geometric reason with the roadway configuration or something, those typically would lag behind the actual development because we want to see driver behavior um contributes to those those studies as we look at them.

Thank you.

Again, Mr.

Chairman This is a very fascinating point, and I don't want to get too deep into it, but just looking at the change in speed limit on Happy Valley between Amity and South Side.

I believe that changed before the development started going in.

What precipitated that change?

Because it was 50 miles.

I mean, it's still there's like a 20-foot section that's still 50 miles an hour, but closer you get to Amity it changes, and closer you get to greenhurst it changes.

You have the high school there, obviously, that had precipitated some changes along the city.

On the other side, on the north side of Amity, I'm talking about between Amity and Greenhurst.

Um those developments are going in now.

That change that speed limit changed before Sticks even started flying.

Uh I would have to go back and look at that one.

That that may have been done by the highway district prior to it coming into the city of Nampa.

Um I don't specifically remember changes to Happy Valley that were triggered by development.

Like I said, I don't want to get too far into it, but the same concern with this the more we get out into the country like this with developments, and you have these 50 mile an hour roads, you know, how quickly can that speed limit change?

I think is a good ultimately the change of the speed limits themselves are very I mean it's a it's a action of the um for the city, it's an action of city council with recommendation from the city engineer myself and the police chief.

And we base those recommendations off of data and established methods to to set speed limits.

Um the highway district, their roads are um they look at the same type of studies and stuff that we do, um, but they are set by their board.

Thank you.

Everything else out there that we've approved is at least RS6, right?

There's no other townhomes anywhere in any of that that we've approved down that way at is there.

I'm old, so my memory is not as good as yours.

So that's why I'm asking you can pull it up on the Ronald Reagan.

Commissioner Turner, I'm I'm with you.

I'm old too.

Umestly, the one here on the northeast side.

I believe his original proposal had some attached units in it, and then he came back with this RS7 single family detached.

Um I think the closest one is up on by Ronald Reagan, that development that's going in there has some town homes.

Yeah, right on South Side.

South side in Oklahoma.

Yeah, so that's that's a ways north.

Yeah, I think that's the closest part.

Okay.

I've just yeah, I was I drive down there all the time.

My daughter lives right down there up a little, so and I live on South Side, so I'm telling up and down that all the time.

But I'm just trying to think, and I know we got a lot that we approved recently, but I can't I just I'm struggling with allowing townhomes into a area this far south.

It just doesn't, to me, doesn't fit.

I mean, if we if we can keep it with the RS6 and everything else that we've approved, I'm more apt to agree with it, but I'm struggling with the townhomes in that thing.

Yeah, okay.

The amount of them, I think more than the fact that there's town homes, just that half of almost half of the development is town homes.

Yeah, I tend to agree there's there's a lot in this far south.

Right, and it's not anything conducive to the environment around it.

Well, yeah, it's not compatible to what's what's existing in my opinion.

Yeah, I think I think a lot of where we where we tend to to see and encourage is um those more commercially development developed areas, you know, near more commercial zones near the freeway, near a highway.

Um this is out there quite a ways as far as access to the freeway.

Um Happy Valley or South Side's your only ways, and both of those are already busy, so adding exponentially more.

There's another commercial lot that's right down on uh Greenhurst.

I mean uh locust and south side.

Yeah.

And that is already kind of been surveyed by the community.

That's not been met by a lot of goodwill.

Goodwill for uh of what was planned there, and so it still sits idle.

Yeah, there was a restaurant that was planned for that corner, and then it remember that went away.

I have a quick question for the attorney, and I don't it's been kind of brought up, but not specifically.

Um some of these developments out here in this end of town.

Um there's a lot of farming going on.

I know about the Right to Farm Act.

And I know um some farmers specifically that live in this area who farm seed, and they have to spray on a very regular basis.

And they are seriously considering selling out their farms because they have the right to farm, even though the subdivision is there, but because of the warning labels that are on their sprays that they have to put on every other day, they don't feel good about doing it.

If they continue to spray, how and could they ever be held liable?

Chairman, it's a good question.

Um, as you might expect, it's all fact-driven, right?

What type of spray the farm and the use and how when it was established, but Idaho's Right the Farm Act uh bars any state claims against this, you know, uh a farmer.

If there's any uh federal regulations over that and on the type of use, and if that's a matter of the manufacturer um having warning labels, that's a different matter.

But Idaho law is is very clear and direct on the right to farm that it will they will not be treated as a nuisance under state law or city cannot make them a nuisance.

Um what it doesn't address is some of the practical or business implications, I think, when it comes to the actual manufacture of the seeds or herbicide or pesticide.

And it is really a nuanced field and uh quite frankly a pretty litigious one.

Um that's kind of spooked some farmers, even with the Right the Farm Act.

We had the same conversation with that neighborhood that went in on the north side of Locust on the northwest side of Locust and Happy Valley, and and basically is like I'm still gonna farm.

I'm still gonna spray.

So well, it's it's some of those same farmers that are now getting nervous, I guess I should say.

Um just because they don't want to be held, you know, financially liable or any other.

Just the regular role going through it all.

Yeah.

Well, I think in my I just I just don't think the way this was this particular application presented as is, I don't think is compatible with this area out there.

I would like to see less dense.

I would like to see honestly, I'd like to see all single family homes and a little and less dense.

That hold on, that's just my opinion.

Uh, one of many up here.

And and uh, you know, traffic's always gonna be an issue.

I sure would like to find out who the person is that uh put locust and Lewis crossing Happy Valley at offsets, because I would like to have a conversation with that person, but I just don't understand why they didn't line up.

But that's the other and and one of the things I was thinking about was uh public safety, and as far as emergency response time, because we did have a conversation about a big development that was going in closer to the roundabout at Greenhurst and Happy Valley or Greenhurst and South Greenhurst and Happy Valley.

Forget where I'm at.

And and one of the main concerns was the response time because of the train, because of the roundabout and all that.

However, in this particular area, I think it's a little bit easier, not easy, but easier and a little bit more accessible for emergency response to get to this location.

Um just with the and the fire station on Happy Valley might be closer.

I can't remember if that's the one that was that was referenced in the staff report.

But the one over by Sunny Ridge, you know, they can come up Sunny Ridge or Power Line or whatever and get to it a little bit easier and not have to worry about that that train crossing and the and the roundabout.

But it nonetheless it's still a concern.

It would be nice to see a fire station out there in that area, no doubt.

Christy Mayor?

Please.

Do you have control of the screen?

Can you move out and to I want to see where the railroad?

I don't I I live on the west side of town.

I'm not familiar with this side of town.

Where's the railroad tracks in the legislature to this subdivision?

Long ways north.

Commissioner Kehoe, I don't have a a map that I can pop up, but Daniel's going to.

Okay.

Oh Rodney's one.

There's a question question, Rodney.

It's like two for the commercial on this proposal.

Five miles.

Could it, would it be accepted, or is it even possible to take that commercial or some of that commercial and actually make it a fire station?

I mean, is that even a possibility?

Ultimately, the the fire decision makes the fire district makes those decisions, not the city.

But what I'm saying is a fire station would be allowed in any zone.

Um so yes, the I mean, if the fire district were to choose to come and want to locate a facility there, the zoning would allow that.

Okay, thank you, Dan.

So it the commercial is part of the zone that they chose, and they can they eliminate the commercial if they chose to?

Um Commissioner Gardner, this is another one of those situations just like the one you heard earlier tonight where it's a mixed-use designation.

So they have to have at least five percent commercial.

The reason the area changed um from their original proposal is because they had factored in just the zone at 5%, not the usable commercial space at 5%.

So they increased the lot sizes to meet that usable area of 5%.

So the zone is 8%, but the usable lot area is 5%, and that is a requirement for that residential mixed use.

So we're the planning and zoning commission.

Can't we just declare it and have a beat?

So if this wasn't a mixed use and it was just strictly all RS six.

No.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, so the comp plan is RMU, they could change it to medium density residential, and they could do all of the RS zones that they have proposed.

Um currently with townhouses are single family homes.

They're just attached.

So they still could do all of the units that they're asking to do in those RS zones if it was an MDR designation, but it's not I'm uh Mr.

Chairman, I'm with most everybody.

I don't think the townhomes belong here at all.

Um, and I would be in favor of the subdivision if it was more cohesive with the surrounding area.

Um and so at this point, my recommendation would be to deny and have them go back to the drawing board if they want to and come back with something that does um feel like it belongs in this area with what's there now.

Um, and so at this point, my recommendation would be to deny and have them go back to the drawing board if they want to and come back with something that does um feel like it belongs in this area with what's there now, and especially with it being so far on our southern boundary.

Yeah, if we were closer to a I think like a highway 16 situation on the north end of town, yeah.

I'd probably feel a little bit better about it.

But this is just like you said, so far to our southern boundary and so far from anything that makes easy access to town to the freeway, anything else that it's just kind of hard to wrap my head around.

Yeah, that's where I'm at.

I'm all for you know trying to make things more affordable, but I just I just struggle with us being clear down there with all the farm ground.

And if we're gonna make it RS6 and keep it with everything else we've approved, okay, but the multifamily or the could not multi-family, sorry, but uh connected attached townhomes, it's just I struggle with it fitting down there, even though I like to have lots of options and try to make homes more affordable.

I I just don't I just don't like it in this neighborhood.

Yeah, the density is just too high.

Yeah.

I think with the density there and having more families, which means you gotta assume there's gonna be kids if you're packing some people in there, don't have any parks.

You have the one in the the the green space, but you have no place else to go.

And if you've got a 55 50 mile an hour road right on the exterior, you're not gonna have anybody walking back and forth or you know, I mean you're not walking down to their friend's house or or whatever.

Uh it with that amount at I don't know if it really makes sense to have that amount there.

Mr.

Chairman, when you say decrease density, what do you mean?

Number that you have in mind who decreased density to what?

Were you asking the commissioner and or everybody everybody?

Do we have an idea?

Something to think about if you're gonna if you're gonna throw out statements like that, then I don't think I would go less than RS6, right?

Well, but but I and I guess you could say that.

Um we looking for density per acre, so so many you know three, four because right now what are they at, Christy?

Five point one three.

I'd say three, right?

It's here somewhere.

Second, I'll point it.

Well, two.

Five point one three.

Some of the other residents seemed happy when the the other one switched to the three-point their one that was earlier.

Third or a half is what some of them said, right?

And that seems to fit out in that area.

Well, yeah, that neighborhood just north on Southside, I think is a third acre.

New York landing, I'm sure they're so uh when you talk about the the development farther to the north where they were talking about third acre and quarter acre lots, that is an RS6 zone for um lava springs.

Well, that's it.

I couldn't remember the name of it.

Oh, yeah, even quarter acreed.

Yeah.

And Osprey is county, right?

That's a county subdivision.

Yeah, Ospreay is county developed with um city utilities, um, but it is a county development, and um whereas in Lava Springs, whereas some of those lots are quarter and third acres, the majority are the six and seven thousand square foot lots.

Off top of your head, do you know what New York landing is?

It's an 8.5 zoning.

Oh, okay.

No, I'm not that fast.

I know numbers are not my friend.

What'd you put down?

Would you a third acre with I I would be okay with quarter acre.

Quarter acre even?

Yeah, I don't want to.

I mean that a density of four.

Sorry?

What is that?

A density of four.

Four by the time you do the roads and the green space and everything else.

And I'd probably even be happy with it, all at least a six thousand square foot lot.

But I just start getting into the town homes and they just they get so small that your density just increases so fast that no just thinking about the compatibility.

Um I don't think we've brought this up yet, but just the aesthetics.

When you're when you're on the south side of Lewis, and it's all farmland, no matter what direction you look, except north, and all you see is town homes.

Yeah, I I mean I know that's probably not a a big issue, but it is an issue nonetheless.

I mean, the further you get out of town, the the the less dense things become and the more space there is and the more uh line of sight you have looking off into the I you know it's just aesthetics.

That's kind of the the I why it being on the edge of the planning uh boundary is so important, right?

Because we know that nothing below it, nothing south of that is gonna develop out, and so that it's not gonna catch up to it, right?

It's gonna stay kind of right at that edge.

So you might see a tall silo somewhere, but so do we need Christy when we make a motion, do we need to suggest something like that, or is our conversation what what do you what would you like to see on that?

Commissioner Garner, it it depends on the motion that you're making.

If you want to approve it and add conditions, you can do that.

Um if you want to deny it, then you're just recommending for denial and giving you reasons for whatever your denial is.

So those city council.

And and just as a quick reminder, for annexations you have lots of flexibility to deny.

So there's not uh the pressure to give lots of details here for denial, but it's probably a good thing to provide them with something to work with.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, exactly.

No.

So I think uh yeah.

I I just think they need to take it back to the drawing board and make it more compatible with what's out there.

Sounded like a almost sounded like a motion.

Go for it.

They don't have it on the screen.

Click on a click.

If if a recommendation to deny, if a motion for uh recommendation to deny this, but with uh suggestions, could we add some maybe suggestions like go back to the drawing board and and come back with a less dense plan?

Could suggestions be added to a motion for a denial like that to city council?

I'll I'll tackle this one.

So it wasn't addressed to you, by the way.

An interview.

Um if you're doing a denial, what you've done right now, the del the deliberation piece, that's where you're putting out those suggestions, right?

That's where you're addressing the audience that uh for the applicant.

Um typically on a denial, you would explain the reasoning.

Um you're welcome to reiterate that again if you want as part of the motion, but that's part of the record.

Um again, if you were looking to recommend approval, but there were some changes you wanted to make, that's where you'd want to include that in your motion.

But on the denial, you're not denying you're saying I'm denying on the conditions of X, Y, and Z.

You're you're just saying I'm done recommending denial because X, Y, and Z.

There's a distinction there.

Okay.

Thank you.

Is that is that the main thing that everyone?

Yeah.

I mean about is the density and the townhouse.

Well, the town home sizes.

I just don't think it's compatible.

The subdivision that it connects to, Fenway subdivision, and it's RS7.

Yeah.

So would it be a good one?

I'm just trying to think of if if the big if is if the recommendation to approve this with these conditions, what might those conditions be?

Is is my question to the commission.

Well, could we make could we make an emotion that said recommend to approve this with the condition that everything's changed to RS 7?

Yeah, that certainly could be one of the conditions.

Would that be that'd be an appropriate motion?

Um again, it's up for city council to evaluate that, take it into their own consideration.

Right.

And as is the case for any applicant, any time a condition is put on what's different than what they presented, that's a choice for them to decide, okay.

Can I accept that and live with it?

Or is that something that we do want to challenge?

Any applicant has that right or ability.

So if we made that recommendation though, then they could potentially say, okay, let's take that information, restructure everything before we go to city council.

Uh that that's a little trickier because um if it's materially different, um what's being presented to the council is this application, right?

And uh it it's a fine line because if you at what point is a project become so different fundamentally that it's not what the public had ability to comment on.

Um there is some there is a little bit of give and take on that.

Um as you might be aware, when there is a rebuttal session at the end, an applicant may offer up concessions.

Now the public didn't have a chance to hear that, and if it's so materially different in the public's eye, they have the right as an affected person if they qualify to challenge a decision that says, hey, this is too different.

I I I wanted a chance to comment, or it's not addressing issues.

So just know for applicant, public, and you um there the law does uh provide ways for you to voice your concern depending if this changes changes or not.

Yeah.

And and based on that, I think.

I'm gonna make a motion.

Okay.

Yep.

Go ahead, Rodney.

No.

Okay.

Sure.

I don't, yeah.

Now we're we're just discussing different options, but I yeah.

But that would that made it very clear for me, because that's where I was at on that fine line, because uh so here's here's my motion.

So I moved to recommend denial of the annexation and zoning to RS4 and RS6, RD and BN zoning districts, and preliminary plat subdivision for Sage Sagewood subdivision for Kelly Black representing more family living trust and Corey Barton because for this particular area, the density is too high and it is incompatible with the surrounding areas.

I'll wait for a second and then can I speak to my motion?

Well, I was gonna second, but I was waiting for you to finish.

Yeah, well it looked like you were still waiting to go.

So I will second that.

Okay.

So the motion has been made, it's been seconded.

So uh Mr.

Chair, can I speak to my motion?

Because just kind of an explanation.

Uh before the attorney explained that a little bit, that's kind of where I was at because I was wanting to recommend approval with these conditions, but I think there were so many conditions that would have been added that would have substantively changed the application that the public did not have an opportunity to agree.

So because of that, that's why I made the motion to deny.

So the applicant can do whatever the applicant needs to do at this at this point, and as it goes on to city council council, whatever, whatever.

So it's been moved by Kirkman, seconded by Garner.

All those in favor?

I me opposed.

Okay, motion for denial carries.

Chairman, maybe point of order.

Um I I again just I didn't hear any nay votes.

Is that right?

Correct.

For those we do want to do a roll call vote.

Okay.

Um so again, I think the record here reflects our it would have been a unanimous, but um, yeah.

So madam clerk, you go ahead and roll call.

Fiend.

Hi.

Copeland.

Aye.

Kirkman.

Hi.

Morgan, not here, Keyhoe.

Aye.

Turner.

Aye.

Miller.

Aye.

Garner.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

We've got one more.

Oh, you gotta go.

You gotta reque yourself.

I do it after you say the thing.

Okay, yep.

So we've got one more action item annexation and zoning to RS7 and potential development agreement at 1325 by 2019.

Wait, wait, wait.

It's too loud, yeah.

Sorry.

If we could ask if we could ask you guys to move into the lobby, thank you.

Did you call me?

I can't hear you.

Yeah, one second.

We're just waiting for everybody to clear up.

And we're sitting right next to him too.

So a couple of seconds.

The lobby's on the other side of those doors.

Very good.

Daniel's making sure they're moving out.

Okay.

Last item annexation and zoning to RS7 and potential development agreement at 1325 Chicago Street.

Uh annexation required by county in order to build an accessory structure on the property.

Mr.

Chairman, I need to recuse myself.

Okay.

Thank you.

Does that require on the room?

I don't think no.

She's just recusing herself.

Oh, she's okay.

Oh, I thought she was leaving altogether.

Like well, she might as well.

Oh the crowd.

But she's not gonna be here to close us.

Oh no.

Have a good evening.

Yeah, well.

Okay.

Now you can go ahead and come on up.

Uh my name's April Ramju Harrip, and I live at 1325 Chicago Street.

Um my husband wasn't able to make it here, so I'm kind of like winging it.

Um I'm gonna try to make this fast since we've been here all night.

Um in 2023, we bought this home.

The first line of the ad, I won't read the whole ad to you.

Um we went round and round about buying a house that didn't have a garage on it.

Um the Zillow ad itself in the first line is quince uh central farmhouse on a large uh lot with RV parking and a concrete 30 by 30 slab ready for a shop, which was indeed not true, which I don't find out till later.

Um when I start to try, I hire a builder and start to try to build, and I find out it doesn't match the setbacks because we're Canyon County, and I did reach out to the gentleman we bought it from because he did tell us it was all planned out, ready to build, which is the only reason we bought it.

Um I then got blocked on all social media phone numbers, fast forward later.

Um we'd already paid a builder, um, did the dirt work, excavation, everything.

Um and Canyon County tells me that in 2018 there was unauthorized land split on the property.

Um the gentleman that did it actually still lives behind me.

Um his entire lot was mine, and what he has now is 3.66 acres.

Um for that type of zoning, forgive me, I don't know what it's called.

Um, in Canyon County, you cannot split the property for under an acre, which he went ahead and did anyways.

Um it's 0.60 is what the property I bought is.

Um so Canyon County says no, you can't do anything on it, it's an unauthorized piece of land, and I'm like, great, you just bought this kind of really expensive house, whatever.

Um, and they gave me a list of ways that I could fix it, and one of those ways would to make it a full acre.

However, since I moved in there, the guy that lives behind me that split the land, he built a lake on this side of my house, the streets on this side of my house, and right up behind my property, um, a giant shop.

So there's no extra land to buy, unless I want to buy half of his lake that he dug.

So they suggested that I try to annex into the city of Nampa because part of my home, I don't know if it if there's a map you guys can see, but I think the east side of my house touches the city limits.

So I'm not actually really in the country.

In fact, when I looked at the house, I kind of thought it was City of Nampa anyways.

Um I was shocked when I found out it was Canyon County.

Um so anyways, long story short, we've paid builders, we've done all this stuff, and I cannot build, and I'm going to lose that money.

And the only good resolution is to annex into the city.

Huh?

Hire a good attorney to assist.

I did.

Um that's why so much time has passed by.

Um I went through the attorney's process.

I talked to several different ones.

Um I filed stuff with the title company.

So I didn't even know something like this could happen, honestly.

Um most attorneys didn't want to touch it because they don't want to fight Title One.

And I definitely don't have the money to fight title I have deep pockets.

And I also don't have the money to fight the guy that sold it to me.

Um, because you would have to prove um fraud.

You could prove negligence quite easily, but how long are you gonna fight that?

And it just in the long run, I mean we went round and round and round about it.

Um try to stay in litigation and spend thousands and thousands of dollars in attorney's fees.

At the end of the day, I would probably win.

But I don't know that I have the money to fight these guys.

They're much deeper pockets than I have.

So makes sense.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yep.

Okay, Rodney.

Mr.

Chair, Ronnie Ashby, Planning and Zoning Director.

She gave about a third of my presentation.

So I'll move pretty quickly through this.

It's in the medium density designation on the comp plan.

The surrounding zoning you can see here to the north is the county R1, to the south is County R1, to the east is RS6, Wildflower West subdivision.

And to the west is County R1.

And a little farther is an RS7.

City services, we currently maintain services in the area.

You see that there.

Right now, they're not seeking that.

In the future, when they would need to connect, they're they're available in these locations.

Excuse me.

So not the ability to expand.

This is uh for Commissioner Kehoe.

These are the subdivisions that he's asked for in the past.

Um just wanted to give you a sense of all the development that's occurred in the area.

Um and then this is annexation criteria.

We've had a little bit of discussion about this already.

Um we've been working with Preston uh Rutter, our uh city attorney to um to clarify this.

Um essentially annexation is not a part of LUPA, which is the planning act for the state of Idaho.

Um annexation is part of Title 50, and what has happened over time is we we have some criteria that they have to meet, but it's not the same type of discussion and decision making that you would normally make for like zoning, right?

It's more of a do we want them in here or not?

Is it reasonable?

So that test of reasonableness is based on court cases that have occurred.

Is it reasonable for them to deny it?

Is it or is it I guess reasonable for them to uh approve the annexation?

So that just a reminder that annexations are your your threshold criteria.

If you don't meet that, if you don't want to annex or you the city doesn't want to annex something, then the zoning and ever the plats and everything, they don't they don't move forward.

We don't have jurisdiction.

Um so that's you really your your first criteria you need to meet.

Um and then the zoning, you've seen those zoning criteria before.

Here's the um the applicable regulations for setbacks and and um accessory structures where they can be placed.

Um this will apply for the accessory structure, but not for the primary home that's already existing.

So even this um, which is our standard uh lot sizes for 7,000 to 14,000 square feet doesn't apply because it's an existing condition.

It's a legal nonconforming situation or um or use, I should say.

No, situation, excuse me, situation because it's the lot size.

So it's legal non-conforming situation.

Um if they were ever to subdivide this or uh lot split this again, um, they they would have to meet this criteria here.

But because it's just for a shed that they're putting up, this doesn't really apply.

NAMPA Fire District does not oppose the application.

They listed a whole bunch of criteria um codes that need to be followed at time of building permit.

Uh engineering division also listed quite a few of their general comments, um, and they're all stated in the staff report.

One of the major ones is there's no traffic impact study for this for a shed.

Um so they also listed conditions, and I've incorporated them into our condition slide in a little bit.

I am a little baffled, just frankly, by how um this all occurred when the county um recorded this law split and then they approved building permits for for the this lot.

That that seems really strange.

Um but it is what it is.

Um here are the proposed conditions, these are the engineering conditions and proposed findings pretty straightforward.

There, I probably don't need to cover these.

They they meet all the criteria that we've listed for annexation and then for zoning.

Um the RS the proposed RS7 zoning is in the area, it's consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Um it's compatible with the properties in the area.

Um, and then in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary because the comp plan talks about diversity of housing.

And here's a motion for your consideration.

Mr.

Chair, I've got a quick question for Rodney.

He didn't say he'd answer question.

Oh, yes, please go ahead.

Um have you looked at where that pad is sitting, it's already there, and it will fit inside the setbacks, so she's not going through all this and then have to rip that slab out and move it.

Uh we can't use the slab.

Oh it was poured incorrectly, so it doesn't meet the setback.

Oh, geez.

You'd actually have to cut the concrete.

So we have to start all over, which it would actually be next to where the pad is at, but it would meet the city setback.

Oh, okay.

I was just looking into that.

So just for the record, so that we get this on there.

Um the applicant stated that the pad needed to be removed, and they're pouring a new new pad and meeting the setbacks that are required by the city.

Thank you for that translation, Rodney.

Okay, any other questions.

Okay, Madam Clerk, is there a sign-up sheet?

No.

Is there anyone here that would like to speak for, against, or undecided on this proposal?

Would you like to make any further comments?

I I do have a question for the app.

Okay, real quick.

You have to step up to Mike and can you go back to that Rodney, that picture you were just looking at?

And it's just a quick question about the road there.

That access road to does that is that the access road for the back property, or do they come in off a so yes?

That is part of that.

There's an egress thing that was part of the There's an agreement then or an easement or something there.

Part of that road does actually belong to my property, but it goes to his property.

And um, yeah, so you got the easement filed.

Yeah, so this you can't block him off.

We did that right.

Yeah.

Well, he did call me this week because he got a letter and asked if I needed his permission to build.

And I'm like, you're the one that did this.

I don't need your permission.

Okay.

Um, but yeah, and he has dug a lake here in this big brown section next to that road, a very giant lake.

So I'm curious to see how that's gonna go.

But anyways, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Make a motion, Mr.

Chairman, to make a motion that we close the public hearing.

Second.

It's been moved by Commissioner Groner, seconded by Kihu to close the public hearing.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay, public hearing is closed.

I think she'll make an upstanding citizen for the city of Napa.

Uh hopefully we can help you out here as much as we can.

I hope so.

Fingers crossed.

So do you guys think?

I'll move to recommend approval of the project as stated on the screen.

Second, you get a guess.

It's been made by Ericman, seconded by Kehoe.

Oh.

He was just sitting further away from his mic.

Came a little bit faster.

And this is a recommendation to city council, then it's not uh it's not a decision here.

It's just in it.

Okay.

Yeah, one more step.

Okay.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

Thanks, guys.

Yes.

Okay, we make a motion closed public hearing.

Our meeting.

Nope.

No.

Permission to adjourn.

Second.

Second.

Okay.

Come on, guys, you're killing me.

So we'll move and second to adjourn the meeting.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

Thank you.