It's great.

Good to go.

Good evening.

Uh Nampa City Council.

Uh we're calling the meeting to order.

Our first order is uh what we traditionally have done at City of Nampa, and that is an invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pastor Dustin Yankovich is here.

If I get the order mixed up.

Well, let's pray.

Father, I thank you so much for the opportunity to be here.

Father, I thank you for how you are at work.

Uh in all things, Lord Jesus.

Father, I thank you, God, that though things surprise us and are uncertain for us, Lord Jesus, nothing takes you by surprise.

And Father, I pray that you would be with uh our council men and women, Lord Jesus, I pray that you would give them wisdom and insight.

I pray, Father, for their leadership.

I pray, God, that you would help them to lead with character and integrity, God.

I pray, Father, as they uh meet tonight and discuss the different issues facing the city, that you would help them to do the very best that they can to make the best choices with the information that they have, Lord God, and that you would superintend and guide the process, Lord, of the impact of their decisions, Father.

Uh tonight we do lift up and continue to lift up the the Hogabum family, Lord Jesus.

Would you be with them?

I pray, God that you would encourage um God, his wife, his children, Lord Jesus, and thank you, Father, again, just for the leadership that he's shown, Lord, just in the couple of months and really uh honestly the years that he has served here in the city of the Amber.

Jesus, I pray that you would be with uh David Bills, encourage him, Father, as he leads uh the council at this time through this transition.

I pray, Father, that you would give the council and whoever the the people are who are making the decisions, Lord, give them wisdom as to who should fill in that mayor's seat, Lord Jesus in the interim.

God, we ask all these things in your name.

We thank you for your goodness.

We thank you for your son Jesus.

Um ask it all in Jesus' name.

Amen.

Here.

Whereas the month of April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, which provides an excellent opportunity for citizens to learn more about preventing sexual violence before it can start, and to show support for the NAMPA Family Justice Center, which promotes safety, self-sufficiency, hope, and healing to survivors of abuse and the other numerous organizations and individuals who provide critical advocacy services and assistance to sexual assault survivors.

And whereas the City of NAMPA acknowledges sexual assault affects women, children, and men of all racial, cultural, and economic backgrounds, and holds that all persons have great intrinsic value and are worthy of the hope, healing, and support available to all people.

And whereas, in addition to the immediate physical and emotional costs, sexual assault may also have associated consequences of post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, depression, homelessness, eating disorders, and suicide, and can be devastating for not only the survivor, but also for the family and friends of the survivor.

And whereas the city of Napa believes no one person organization, agency, or community can eliminate sexual assault on their own, but is committed in to working together to educate our entire population about what can be done to prevent sexual assault, support survivors and their significant others, and increase support for agencies providing services to survivors.

And whereas the City of NAMPA is committed to being a safe and healthy community where people prosper and strongly supports the efforts of national, state, and local partners, and of every citizen to actively engage in public and private efforts to prevent sexual violence.

And whereas it's time for all of us to start conversations, take appropriate action, and support one another to create a safer environment for all.

Now, therefore, I David Bills, council president of the City of Nampa, Idaho, do hereby proclaim April 2026 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month, and call upon all citizens to join advocates and communities across the country in taking action to prevent sexual violence.

Adria.

Excellent.

I have a few things to say.

Is that okay?

Um Council President Bills and Council members, thank you very much for this proclamation and for supporting the work that is so near and dear to our hearts.

At the NAMPA Family Justice Center, we care deeply for victims of sexual assault.

We have 11 sexual assault nurse examiners and four advocates that are on call 24-7.

In collaboration with law enforcement, this team serves all of Canyon County and responds to calls at several local hospitals to perform forensic exams.

We also perform forensic medical exams at the Justice Center.

Exams at the Justice Center offer a comfortable atmosphere.

Without the institutionalized hospital environment, we can streamline the exam process for the victim and for all professionals involved.

It is our goal to offer support, comfort, and empowerment to victims of sexual assault during exams and to provide options for wraparound services such as counseling and support groups.

During 2025, depending on the court the quarter, 50 to 80 percent of clients who received a forensic exam also received additional wraparound services.

Advocacy changes lives in a positive and life-saving way.

Our mission is to promote hope and healing to these victims.

We are honored to offer these services to victims of sexual assault, and we appreciate your support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Amy.

Yeah, and you have a new position.

Well, folks, bear with because we had a pretty good meeting a week ago, and we'll endeavor to uh move this meeting along as well in a good fashion.

Maybe a couple of bumps here and there.

Need to we have a uh proposed amendment to the agenda.

We're adding new business item 4.1, which will be heard right following uh the public hearing of 3.1.

And uh the applicant for public hearing item 37, Prescott Farms has requested a continuance to July 20th, 2026, and that continuance request will be considered when the item is heard.

So I need an action on adopting uh the agenda.

So move second.

Been moved and seconded.

All in favor say aye.

Consent agenda.

Any comments or any changes there?

Otherwise, need a motion.

So move.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

So we're at item uh three public hearings, and that's what most of you likely are here for.

Uh just as a quick reminder.

Uh if you plan to speak on a particular item of public hearing, we'd ask that you would sign up ahead of time so staff can uh determine and follow that.

Uh you have three minutes to speak, and there's a timer behind the screen facing the podium.

You'll come to the podium and you'll give your name and your address for the record.

And then you'll have three minutes.

We ask that you keep it uh within that three minutes, otherwise I have to cut you off.

Don't want to do that.

So public hearing uh action three one.

It's a variance to Nampa City Codes 1034 10 B6 to allow for the relocation of an existing chain link fence.

1033.4C3 to allow for a reduction of the landscape buffer width along North Side Boulevard and 10-19-5.

And 10-20-5.

16156 North Side Boulevard and 8925 Birch Lane.

For the City of Nampa, on behalf of Mountain Crest, Idaho LLC, analgamated sugar property owners.

Crystal Craig.

Thank you for taking the time today for the record.

My name is Crystal Craig, Director of Transportation for the City of Nampa.

I am the applicant for this uh variance request.

First, I want to talk a little bit about the project location.

So the I'm going to call this Northwest Nampa, but it's really northwest ish NAMPA.

Um it's north of I-84 off of North Side Boulevard.

Um just to the west of this is the Midland Marketplace area.

Um North Side is classified as a principal arterial and Carcher is c classified as a collector.

The variants uh requests that we are having today.

There are four of them, um, all located in chapter 10.

So there's 10-19-5.

C, 1033, 4C3C, 1020, 5C, and 1034 10B6A.

It's a mouthful.

All of them are basically saying the same things.

We are asking for a variance of the 10-foot setback requirement from the property line and a variance of the type of fencing required in our new code.

Specifically the use of chain link uh and chain link slats on um street frontage.

Here's another review of the requested actions and the four variances that we are requiring.

This is for the completion of two projects that we have.

Both are identified in our master transportation plan.

North Side Boulevard is a critical freight route for the city of Nampa, so improving both of these corridors is really important to us.

The first project further to the south is the roundabout that we're installing at North Side and Carcher.

This is being done with a freight grant through the Idaho Transportation Department.

Total cost right now is about 5.7 million dollars.

The grant is 5.2 million dollars.

Just north of that, we are widening North Side Boulevard between Carcher and Birch.

This is being completed through an EDA grant.

The EDA grant for that is just shy of three million dollars, and the total cost of that project is 6.1.

So while they are two distinct projects, I'm going to bring them on together as one because they will be constructed very close to each other since they butt up.

Give you a little scale of reference of what that looks like.

If you guys have not driven it lately, it's a very built-out corridor.

The fences are currently located on the property line.

Some of them are located within our property line, and I'll get to that a little bit later.

You can see that the buildings are very, very close.

In order to get four lanes of traffic through this, we have to have a variance to the code, or we will have to relocate buildings.

The cost of that is so high that it will likely kill both of these projects.

The project to the south, this is what we are doing right here.

We're installing a roundabout at North Side Boulevard and Carcher.

The reason that we chose a roundabout in this location instead of a signal in this location, which is currently a signal, is there wasn't enough room on that north leg in between the uh holding holding tanks.

North is heading off to the right on this picture in order to get the necessary lanes in.

Roundabouts are nice because you can kind of shift this one shifted to the south, as you can see slightly, um, in order to accommodate those those turning movements.

This roundabout will also be larger than our typical roundabout.

Normally we design them for just a regular tractor trailer, so a WB67 is what it's called.

This one is designed for a truck and pups, so doubles to go through it.

Here's a rendering, a conceptual design of what it's going to look like if the variance is requested and we continue moving forward with the project.

The project to the north, um, again, as you can see, the parcels are very, very built out.

So this is a slider version.

If you guys would like the interactive version, there's a QR code that you can scan to go to our city's website and see it.

They're very, very cool renderings.

The right hand side you can kind of see what it looks like, or the left hand, and then the right hand side is a rendering of what it will look like when if and when we continue to move it forward with this project if the variance is granted.

Obviously, the one on the right does not match our setback variances, and it's because that structure is there.

Even further to the north, so this is north of the railroad tracks, gives you a better idea.

We're doing pedestrian improvements.

This roadway is even so narrow in order to get just the cars in, we can only put pedestrian facilities on one side.

Um, so it's it's a very, very narrow window that we're we're working with here.

But the new improved intersection will show our roadway, we'll have two lanes of traffic in both directions.

I'm gonna give you a scale of what we're asking.

Um the fencing variances that we're asking, are some we're gonna move them back three feet to 40 feet, I think, in the most egregious places where you get closer to the roundabout.

But this graphic right here, that red line or dark orange as it were on the line, is the existing uh fence.

The orange line is where we would like to relocate them to in this instance.

I will say this fence is currently located on our property.

It was not put on the correct property line, so we're just removing it and replacing it with like in kind.

Same thing.

This is moving south along the corridor, so this is amalgamated's property on the left.

Again, you can see slight variances in where the fence fences were versus where we would like to put them.

We are just replacing with like in kind.

Both of the property or all of the property owners, there are four impacted property owners for this project, have requested the chain link fence.

Right now, they have most of them have chain link with the privacy slats on them, and some of them have the razor wire on top of it.

So we are not looking to change anything from what is there currently today.

And then the last is down here as you get closer to the roundabouts.

You can see a little bit more egregious fence relocations, but we're putting them at the property line in order to keep the businesses operational as best as possible.

So a little bit of the why behind this.

Um all the properties right now are zoned uh either heavy industrial or light industrial.

Umside boulevard going north has no dedicated right-of-way limits, and all of the properties have that existing chain link fence that I spoke about earlier.

Some of them do have the slats, uh, some of them just have barbed or have barbed wire on top, and uh none of them have landscaping as required in our new state code.

All of these projects in order to have the project move forward, it's going to require property acquisition.

And right now, the current contracts are drawn up that the property is contingent upon putting back the chain link fence, and that is at the request of the property owners.

The total estimated cost of both of these projects is about 11.8 million dollars.

If the city opts not to grant the variance, and we can't come to a consensus on what type of fence goes back in, the projects will likely stall and die, and the city will will be required to repay back all of the grant money.

And with that, I will stand for questions.

We didn't start my time limit, but I don't think I went over seven minutes.

We're good.

Crystal, thank you.

Are there any questions for Crystal on this?

Not seeing any.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Christy.

I was gonna get there.

It's just taking me a minute.

Please bear with.

That's all right.

Thank you, Council.

My name is Christy Watkins.

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

Um, thank you, Crystal.

That was an amazingly thorough description, and I can skip to kind of the meat and potatoes of what we're talking about here.

Um, this is the area of the project, as she stated.

These would be the applicable regulations for a variance, the five criteria that you will need to look at to determine whether or not a variance is appropriate at this time.

These are all the different code sections that they're asking for variances to, and ultimately, what this will do is allow them to just reinstall chain link fence at a new location after the widening is complete.

There really wasn't much correspondence received on this because the city of Nampa has been working with multiple agencies on this project already, and there were no concerns for this type of request.

These are the conditions of approval.

These are the facts that are listed in your staff report.

So a 15-foot wide landscape buffer along Northside Boulevard and Carcher Road are required by city code.

The comprehensive plan designates all of this as industrial.

The property is within industrial zones.

Manufacturing and food processing are allowed uses there.

This is the result of the City of Napa North Side Boulevard widening project.

Um the request is to relocate the chain link fence.

Any newly installed fencing must currently meet city code, which is um design reviewed fencing with two materials and appropriate screening that does not include chain link with slats.

Um there is no landscaping proposed for these locations.

There is no room for a setback for the fence at these locations.

Um property owners prefer to keep the chain link to be consistent with the remainder of their own properties.

The property ownership and the city prefer not to lose any more property than is necessary or create a situation that is substantially different from what already exists.

Nampa Highway District No.

Has reviewed this and has no concerns.

Uh the engineering division has reviewed this and has no concerns.

ITD has reviewed this and has no concerns, um, and it does not create any known additional safety health or welfare concerns.

In fact, it will it will uh actually improve that corridor.

So based on that information, these are your potential motions, and I'll stand for any questions.

Thank you, Christy.

Any questions for Christy?

Thank you.

Now, do we have anybody signed up?

Not the president.

We do have an advanced sign up, and that is Brian Warwick.

You'll state your name and address.

You have three minutes.

Uh name is Brian Warwick, address 138 West Carcher Road, Nampa, Idaho.

I'm a representative of Amalgamated Sugar.

I'm the assistant engineering manager.

Uh Councilman Bills, the rest of the council.

Uh, we appreciate working with the city on this project.

It's been a very collaborative effort with us.

Um, we reviewed uh Miss Watkins' staff report, and we concur with her conclusions on that.

Um we want our place to look good as well, and the chain link is the standard that was set years ago, and we just want to kind of stick with that.

So we really didn't have anything other than that.

Excellent.

Any questions?

I don't think we have any.

We appreciate it and appreciate your cooperation.

We appreciate algamated.

So anybody else here who would like to speak to this issue.

Seeing none.

Staff, any closing remarks?

Crystal.

Mr.

President, I move that we close public hearing.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any discussion?

Need a motion.

Mr.

President, I move we approve the project as stated on the screen.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Any other discussion?

Clerk will call the roll.

Gog.

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

So with that, we're going to go to new business item 4-1.

So 4-1 is an action item, and it's to authorize staff to proceed with negotiations for right-of-way acquisition required to construct the roundabout at Northside Boulevard and Carcher Road and wide Northside Boulevard north of the roundabout two, and including the intersection with Birch Lane, up to the estimated amount of million eighty-nine thousand six fourteen point seven six.

It's approved in the FY26 budget.

Second.

Do you need to hear from Crystal any further?

Hearing none, uh clerk will call the roll.

God, yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Tingula.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Next is item action item 3-2.

It's a vacation of a 1.07 acre portion of the right-of-way on East Flamingo Avenue through the St.

Alphonso's campus on parcels addressed as 04104 4211 4280 4400 East Flamingo Avenue for Russ Hepworth with the land group representing Trinity Health.

And Russ.

Are you here?

Yep.

So we need to have you state your name and address, and you have seven minutes to do the presentation.

Presentation, pretty quick.

Russ Hepworth with the land group.

As stated in this application, this is uh approximately 1.07 acres of uh right-away that we're just proposing.

Well, St.

Alphonsus and Trinity Health is proposing to vacate uh due to prior construction of uh this parcel that is already moved or relocated these roadways.

Uh and so they're an attempt to clean this campus up, uh remove that existing right-of-way, and this is the first step in uh doing so.

We will after this propose um new dedications of the existing roadways and the configuration that they're at, and then proceed with additional layout uh of the campus to allow for their expansion as required.

And I stand for any questions you may have.

Council, any question.

Think we're good.

So at this time we'd ask if there's anybody here who would like to testify on this item.

Nope.

I sorry.

Staff, sorry.

Christy, I've forgotten you twice in a row.

That's not good.

Third time you'll have flowers coming your way.

That's all right, I won't let you forget.

Um, thank you, Council Christy Watkins, Principal Planner for the City of Nampa.

The request before you this evening is as stated, the vacation of the portion of right-of-way that you can see here that now runs through the St.

Alphonsis Medical Campus.

So the property is considered to be in the health care district.

It is surrounded by health care zoning, BC, which is community business zoning, and IP, which is industrial park zoning.

In March of 2017, this property was rezoned to HC, and at that time the hospital campus redeveloped and built with new building expansion, new parking areas, and the realignment of Flamingo Avenue.

This is the applicable regulation for vacating a right-of-way.

Engineering has reviewed the right-of-way vacation and legal descriptions and find it to be accurate.

They also would like to work on the legal descriptions and documentation for dedicating the right-of-way as they are aligned now, as mentioned.

These are the conditions of approval, which talks about that dedication of right-of-way.

So staff notes that a vacation is permanent.

If a vacation were to be approved, it would still apply even if the property were to redevelop in an alternative way.

Vacating this right-of-way is necessary because Flamingo Avenue has been realigned according to Nampa City Standards.

The old right-of-way is no longer in use and is covered over by a parking lot, and the area is needed for future expansion of the hospital facility.

So the fact is that this does meet state code in vacating right-of-way, and it is necessary so they can continue their expansion.

Staff can recommend that that council adequately approve this vacation.

And these are your potential motions.

I'll stand for any questions.

Christy, thank you.

Council, any questions of Christy?

None at this time.

Now we have the opportunity.

Council President, I move we close the public hearing.

Second.

Any remarks from Oh, yeah.

Applicant.

We're good.

Okay.

Once again, Councilman.

I move that we close the public hearing.

Second.

We have a move and second for public hearing.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Mr.

President, I move that we approve the project and stated on the screen.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Any discussion?

Clerk will call the roll.

God, yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Phil's.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor.

Motion carries.

Our next item is uh 33.

So variance and uh variance from NCC 10-8-4.B and 10-85.A.

Establishing a minimum side yard setback of five feet and a rear setback of 15 feet or five feet for accessory structures and a vacation of five feet by 50 feet portion of public utilities along the western property line.

Approximately 136 feet from Bahill Drive right away, both in an RS6 single family residential zoning district at 520 West Bahill Dry.

Original concept construction of an RV garage at zero feet setback along the western property line.

And is the applicant here?

Can you come forward and state your name and address?

And you'll have seven minutes.

Thank you.

Um thank you, planning and zoning staff and the city council members.

My wife Tanya and I purchased our home approximately five years ago and have enjoyed our neighborhood, our neighbors throughout our gated community of Bahill, City of Nampa, along with our Idaho life experiences here thus far.

We can't imagine living anywhere else at this point.

As we're now in our next chapters of life, we are wanting to enjoy more of the beautiful features and scenic areas Idaho has to offer as well as surrounding states.

This is leading us towards acquiring and utilizing a recreational vehicle as part of our journey.

You will see from the submitted information the site plan that our particular site accommodates an RV garage very well if placed in the reflected location.

It's fed by a long and level driveway pushing it to the rear of the property.

However, with a pie shaped lot and a long single story style ranch home, this leaves a very narrow area to be able to re to locate an RV garage on our property.

While this sets up for a perfect location, a variance would be needed to enable to construct the RV garage, which would also then require the west wall of the structure to be built on the property line, aligned with the existing structural CMU retaining wall and footer, which was approved and constructed about 29 years ago.

Thus, we're not able to accommodate required setbacks noted in the NAMPA code.

Our current existing garage corner is approximately 18 and a half feet away from the face of the retaining wall, leaving just enough room for the driveway to feed an overhead door for the proposed RV garage access and entrance if it were the full 20 feet wide.

The retaining wall is constructed a fully filled concrete CMU and with an applied stucco appearance to match the home texture and color.

It varies from four feet tall above grade to six feet tall above grade, and there is a differential grade elevation of two to three feet on the other side of the wall from our driveway grade, retaining the grade of our neighbor's property uh elevation.

There is no drainage issues or concerns to be considered as this condition works well as designed over the last several decades.

The HOA CCNRs state that accessory buildings are allowed, but that the roof line must connect.

Thus, we have designed the roof line to connect in adherence with the HOA guidelines while maintaining access to our beautiful backyard from the driveway.

And in the form of a breezeway.

The HOA CCNRs also state that RVs are not to be parked, stored, or left in driveways or on public streets for more than a few days unless previously approved by the HOA.

This is the reason for our desire to construct a proposed RV garage.

As noted in the submitted materials for the variants, you will notice a letter of approval by the ACC for the Bahill subdivision approving the design and placement of the proposed RV garage.

Regarding our neighbor of the West, in which we share the property line, you'll also notice a letter in favor and approval of the RV garage, mitigating any concerns or objections they may have.

We have discussed our plans with them preemptively, and they're very much in favor of the RV garage being built and located in that position as it provides even more privacy between lots and to their pool area.

The purpose for the requested variants and PUE vacation is to ask for consideration to be able to one construct the RV garage on the west property line versus a five-foot setback, which would eliminate our ability to construct the and possess the RV garage at all due to lack of space.

And two, to vacate the five-foot by 50 foot section of the PUE as it would be under the constructed portion of the RV garage.

The PUE currently resides on both sides of the retaining wall and on both properties for a total width of 10 feet.

The vacation would be for the 250 square feet on our property only.

The existing approved permanent retaining wall and footer were already constructed on the property line and within the PUE originally.

In communication with all utility companies providing services for our neighborhood as well as the neighboring developments, no utilities are located in this PUE, and all areas surrounding the Bay Hill subdivision are already fully built out as of two plus decades ago.

We have also obtained the attached PUE relinquishment letters from each provider as requested and as part of our applications for the variance in the PUE vacation.

According to Chapter 24 variance code requirements listed, allowing for a request for variants from the setback stipulations, we believe that we meet all of those requirements in our request to be authorized to construct an RV garage for the attached drawings and site plan on the property line as reflected, allowing us to be able to incorporate this helpful feature onto our property for our use, as so many of our surrounding neighbors and neighborhoods are able to do.

We're asking the planning zoning staff and city council members to remember render a vote of approved regarding the requested variants and PUE vacation.

We are seeking so that we may proceed in completing our construction documents, procure a building permit, and begin construction on the RV garage for our use.

Thank you for your time and attention and considering this matter, and I'm happy to provide any additional information at this time or any additional questions.

Great.

Thank you, Greg.

Uh we're gonna have just a few questions for you here.

I would anticipate.

So council.

Any questions on this?

Mr.

President, I have a couple questions.

Mr.

Reynolds.

Greg, uh you're gonna use that existing retaining wall as uh the stem wall for the shop.

Is that what the plan is?

There's a thought that the footer that's constructed and the fully grouted CMU wall is potentially usable for a portion of the side walls of the garage, but that'll be tested by a structural engineer.

We've already determined that there is a spread footer at the bottom of that.

Uh and so for the light loads of the of the uh structure, we may be able to salvage a portion of those walls on the sides, and if not, we'll demo those down to the footer and enhance the footer as needed as if it were just a brand new structure.

Okay.

And one follow-up, Mr.

President.

Yes, sir.

Um the other question I had was I saw the letter from your neighbor in our packet and the letter from your HOA, and I assume you have a good relationship with that neighbor.

Um during construction, if you have a zero setback there for crews working on that uh west wall, um the only thing I can see is potential issue of having an argument with your neighbor, and then you're not able to work on your building, and um that's that is a concern because then they come to the city and they want the city to fix their problem.

So I guess maybe if you could speak to that relationship you have with your neighbor, it would set my mind at ease that you're not gonna end up in a legal battle with them.

Sure, thank you for the question.

So we have very good relationship with Jason and Andy, uh, our neighbors.

Uh he was very agreeable to uh put the letter of approval in the packet.

Uh I've talked with him preemptively about the constructibility of that and told him that I'll need to construct a temporary fence on his side of the property to give me about five feet, and that we would need to dig a footer, pour it, pour a foundation wall, backfill it, and then put his grass back, and then probably have kind of a temporary walkway through there until we get the structure uh built and sided and stuccoed, and uh he actually we actually had this conversation a couple weeks back in preparation for this hearing, and he said he didn't have any issues with that.

So, would you have some kind of an ongoing like an agreement uh that went with the deed if uh you sell or he sells that would allow that building to be maintained?

Uh we haven't addressed that.

I mean, we can we can do what we need to do.

We haven't addressed that to this point.

Thank you.

Other questions?

Councilman Bills?

Yes.

Um I had a question of um do you have a timeline?

I didn't pick that up anywhere in of how long you are you would be on your neighbor's property.

Yeah, good question.

Thank you.

Um so assuming we get approval, uh, we need to go ahead and um we already have a survey, so we need to go ahead and draft construction documents, probably take us four to six weeks.

And looking at the NAMPA site, it appeared that the building permit process was possibly four to six weeks on plan review.

Uh, and then we would you know, at the earliest start construction, probably two and a half to three months from now, and then that's it's about a eight to ten week build, start to finish on that because it's fairly simple.

Okay.

It's four-sided, and we can pretty much get it in clue uh enclosed pretty quick and finished on the outside.

Be back back on our side of the property lane.

Right, thank you.

Um as you're looking down the future uh driveway to the building.

And the elevation shows uh your roof trusses extending beyond the walls.

And so you're gonna have an overhang.

Correct.

So that overhang will be over the neighbor's property.

When building department did their review of the application, they made notes as to uh the things that they would need to see on the construction documents, which would be no openings on the west side, no windows, that that would need to be one hour construction, that there would be no overhangs on the on the eaves that would be over that, and so that will all be addressed on the construction documents.

Okay, those are in the notes.

I just wanted the clarification that you were aware that there's gonna be those type of requirements.

Right.

All right, okay, good.

Thank you.

Um see the building doesn't is it large enough to require fire suppression.

Did that come up in any of your reviews or discussion?

No.

It didn't come up, and it's not required to have fire suppression.

Thank you, Elijah.

Yeah.

Council President, council.

Um, in the review, it does not require fire sprinklers in terms of the size, it's below 3600 square feet, so there's no need for it to be uh fire sprinkled, and the access is good directly with it.

Size-wise and height uh ground ladders are sufficient to perform any sort of uh fire tack needs on fire ground activities, so there's no need for any other additional access request.

Okay, great, thank you.

Mr.

Hector, I think we're we're good.

We'll let you uh have a rest for a moment.

Okay, and then we'll uh see if there's any others who have to staff report and uh so Terry.

Thank you, Council President Bills and Council members.

My name is Terry Friend, associate planner for the city of Nampa Planning and Zoning Department.

Um, project tonight had a nice introduction.

Thank you.

Nope, too far.

Um location is in the Bahill subdivision, which is surrounded by other subdivisions, including Ridge Crest Estates, Shalomar Terrace, Morning Sun, all of those are in the RS6 zoning district.

The applicant uh desires to construct and utilize an RV garage on the west side of the property, which contains his single family detached dwelling and an existing garage.

Um, what you see here is an approximation of what that new garage would look like, estimated to be 20 foot eight inches wide, 50 foot long, 16 foot high.

And um on the left side of the screen there you can see an uh you know a visual of what that retaining wall looks like now.

We just saw this picture, um it shows uh you know the property and the um situations that exist that are making this vacation and variance request necessary.

Uh that property is a wedge shape, it's narrow at the front and widens as it approaches the rear property line.

That shape makes it pretty difficult to add things next to what is a long um ranch style house and the existing garage.

Um and that existing retaining wall is about 18 foot six inches from the corner of the garage as it exists today.

So to facilitate the physical restrictions on the site, the RV garage needs to be located just beyond the existing uh garage building, towards the back of the parcel there, and access to the garage is gonna be um the entire width of the driveway area between the corner of the existing garage and the property line.

Um however, the Bahill uh subdivision plat does indicate a five-foot wide permanent easement on both sides of the property line of the shared property line there.

Um, and city code requires a five-foot setback on the side property lines for an accessory structure.

And just to add a little more complication to the site conditions, the homeowners association regulation does require that an accessory structure be connected to the primary structure by a roof line.

So the architect has designed out this breeze way with a cover that will connect the two buildings.

Here is the applicable code that shows those setback requirements in the RS zoning district.

And our code requirements for a variance.

Um variances are allowed when there's undue hardship because of special site circumstances that deprive the property of privileges that are commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and the variance is not in conflict with the public interest.

So that's what we're working on tonight.

And these are the actual variance criteria to be for a variance approval.

And here's the code related to variance.

We do have city code that address it, but it refers to the state code requirements for vacation.

Correspondence for this was included in your packet.

You'll see the letter of support from the architectural control committee for the Bahill subdivision.

You'll also see the letter of support from Jason Avram, the adjacent property owner.

The building department has provided specific applicable code sections that will need to be addressed in the plans submitted for the new RV garage because the building will be constructed at the property line.

The applicant will be required to follow all applicable building codes.

Doing so will mitigate any concerns related to the proposed project being detrimental to public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties nearby.

Engineering had no objection to the vacation or the variance request.

The applicant will need to supply legal description for that vacation area, and that'll be checked by city staff.

And uh the applicant will also secure support.

Oh, sorry, has also secured support from Idaho Power Intermountain Gas and Spark Light, and again, NAMPA Engineering had no concerns.

The following three slides detail facts that we've already covered, so I'm not gonna repeat them there.

I did just want to point out a couple that are related to the conclusion paragraph, and that would be if the variance or the vacation applications are denied, the applicant will not be able to construct the proposed RV garage due to the property constraints.

The constraints to the subject property are unique to the shape of the property and the location of the existing structures.

These constraints would not normally apply to other properties within the Bay Hill sub.

The constraints to the subject property are unique to the shape of the property and the location.

Nope, sorry, I already covered that.

Um the request was processed according to the Idaho State Code for vacations, and the applicant's gonna be required to meet those building codes, which is gonna help mitigate any concerns regarding detriment to public safety.

That is our conclusions based on the facts found in the staff report.

The conclusion shown on the screen indicates that the variance criteria have been met and support the approval of both the variance and the vacation requests.

Um are met at the time of the building permit, and the council may add any others as applicable.

And here are your potential motions.

Question for you.

One slide I missed and I couldn't quite see.

Are we requiring an easement be recorded?

I did not include that as a condition of approval.

It seems like for someday there's a likelihood that either property is gonna transfer to another ownership, and it should be noted that that easement is this project and the easements there and the maintenance thereof.

I'm thinking that that needs to be a requirement.

So in terms of a motion, I I didn't see for sure that we had that as a requirement.

So down road, it will just help uh future property owners, it'll get disclosed in the title report.

There's an easement there for that.

Uh in your uh slides, I saw where we have uh the requirement regarding the drainage easement, and so or to make sure that drainage is not going on the neighboring property, and so that that would be a an item to make sure that's part of the uh permit side of it as well, or the CO to make sure that was included in the building departments um it was their requirements.

Yeah, just want to make sure that yep, we're following through with that.

So we'll s we'll we'll plan we get to that point on the uh agenda or the item here, but I just wanted to make sure that we had the easement issue clear that we need to add that as a requirement.

Terry, thank you.

Yes, anything else?

Not at this moment, we'll open it up for the um Terry.

I do I I do have a question for you.

On a structure this size, is it required by code that they have a door, like a small door that goes to it, like it is presented?

I don't know if that's a code requirement.

They have included it, and I think they're doing that as a convenience to have a walk through door that goes um is accessible to the house.

Sure, yeah, and I and I get that, and it it's beautifully designed.

I'm just curious looking at the encroachment into that um that five foot setback.

If they did not have that, would that five foot setback would it not encroach into that five foot setback?

Do you know?

Thank you, Councilman.

Um that the door, the mandor is on the opposite side of the so the easement in the setback area that we're talking about.

Thank you so much.

Yep.

Other questions for Terry?

Thank you.

So we're going to uh open for public testimony if there's somebody here who would like to uh testify on this issue, and we're gonna ask for sign-ups.

Nope, I'm out of order again.

That's okay.

There are no sign-ups.

Excellent, Mr.

Hector.

Do you want to provide any follow-up comments?

Yeah, I think I can probably address the topic.

Thank you, council members.

Uh a couple topics that came up about the recorded ease about recorded easements or recording an easement for I I think what you're asking is about the portion of the building that would be sitting on the setback and over the PUE.

Is that what the question was?

Yes, sir.

So that you're while we're granting an uh a variance so that you can go forward and get permit and go through all the process, but from a recordation of that that easement has been uh partially vacated along with uh an easement for maintenance of the westerly side of the building on the adjacent property, um, and then to confirm if there's a need for drainage easement at all.

Your drainage is supposed to stay on your side, but uh so from my side there needs to be a document uh with your engineer or you know, to to define that, and it just needs to be reviewed just to prevent future problems when you're no longer the owner or your neighbors no longer the owner of their property.

Uh there's not a surprise type of deal.

Correct.

Yeah, thanks for clarifying that.

We we just to answer part of that question, we did have a uh thorough survey done.

engineer or you know to to define that and it just needs to be reviewed just to prevent future problems when you're no longer the owner or your neighbors no longer the owner of their property uh there's not a surprise type of deal correct yeah thanks for clarifying that we we just to answer part of that question we did have a uh thorough survey done we had a legal description produced for that portion of the building that sits over the PUE and within the setback and so we can definitely record that as part of the construction documents for that port for that part of the question correct and your surveyor will provide you a legal for that easement we have that so then there's also the access easement that's actually going to be needed to be recorded on the neighbor's property to provide for access to maintain your westerly wall so in 10 five ten years you go to paint or fix something that you have the right to go on the neighbor's property to do those repairs or fix it.

Okay and succeeding buyers and sellers that needs to be recorded to prevent from having a problem at a closing and a title report showing an encroachment of some sort that's hasn't been dealt with very good we can provide that and on the drainage we can also include on our construction documents that where the retaining wall is their grade is much higher than ours and it's purely divided by the retaining wall which is higher than that so there's no drainage issues there and then where the where the walls stop and it goes farther north their their yard is divided by a big berm from mine so there's not even any drainage issues in that area so what we can do is include in our civil documents those maybe some topographic elevations that would show that we don't have an issue there for drainage.

That would be helpful that way building departments able to see it and when they get to the site for that first initial inspection uh as far as your excavation work then it will be clear as to what's going on and that there's not a problem that holds up your concrete floor yep we can provide that I'm glad to do that.

And then and then the roof drainage that you're gonna take that drainage some way down and around and to your property and so it just needs to be clear in your presentation on the building prints where that water off your roof going to the west property line okay question came up about the width of the building and uh the man door that's in the front you could eliminate the man door but we still don't have enough room about the smallest RV garages that I've seen are about 16 foot clear inside to get a full 12 foot door into them and have enough stem wall on each side of the door to to meet kind of the structural load of the front of that building so we thought about removing the man door but it just it didn't it we still couldn't get the width that we needed and so we just needed to stick with the whole 20 foot because we would be down in the 14 or 15 foot range which isn't enough room for a 12 foot door so unless there was other comments I think I addressed everything came up.

Mr President yes so just for clarification Mr Hector um do you foresee a problem um getting your neighbor to give you an easement that would be a permanent thing that easement that would go across his property because if we if we move to approve this and we have that as part of our motion then it'll have to be that way before a building permit can be issued so do you see foresee a problem with that?

I don't I mean he and I have not discussed that but um just for a little bit more information and I actually left some of their approval notes in my narrative that's in my packet and then did not say those in my presentation and I just to keep the length down but they're very much in favor of the building going where it is because it gives them more privacy in their yard and he actually would like to build an RV garage on his side of the property as well but he doesn't need a variance because he's got a lot more room than we do.

So I don't foresee any kind of a problem with just a maintenance access easement and it's a stucco finish on that side and so you know our house is 29 years old and virtually zero if any maintenance on that stucco surface anyway so I I don't foresee a problem doing that.

Uh and it's a stucco finish on that side, and so you know our house is 29 years old and virtually zero, if any, maintenance on that stucco surface anyway.

So I don't foresee a problem doing that.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Thank you, Mr.

Hector.

Thank you.

Council President, I move to close the public hearing.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any council discussion president?

So when we make a motion, if we'll include the easement requirements that we discussed.

Um I have a question for you.

Just because you have more knowledge in this area than I do.

Is this something that you are comfortable with, knowing all the specs and the variance issues in which Councilman uh Reynolds just brought up?

I have comfort with what is being asked for as far as the variance and work.

Uh it's why I've raised the issue about having the recordation of easements so future property owners aren't at odds or aren't at the city in some years to come saying why did the city approve this but didn't provide for access.

So I just want to make sure that for the sake of property ownership hereafter that those documents are recorded, so future buyers uh of either property are aware of what transpired at this point in time and the project time uh and they know that they're buying that property subject to certain limitations.

Mr.

President.

Yes.

I'll make a motion to approve the project as shown on the screen, and add uh with uh the approval would be um as long as he gets uh easement from his neighbor to the west that would give him uh a maintenance easement that would be five foot.

I think that probably clear enough.

Second we have a motion and a second, any discussion council president, and to the motion maker if I could.

Is that process significantly difficult?

Is it easy?

I've never personally done it.

I don't know how long that delays them, what what added burden does that add to get a maintenance easement?

Uh it doesn't add hardly anything.

They're surveying engineering firm will prepare the legal description.

They partially already have that, so it's a simple deal, it's a standard easement document uh giving the property owner access.

So it requires him to get the the signature from the neighbor notarized, and then it will be recorded once they've done that, then that's a checkoff for the building department.

Thank you.

Council President.

Yes.

It's not a requirement.

This is something we're trying to make sure that it's going to be compliant with the neighbor's property.

Is that what what you're saying?

It's it with the neighbor not here testifying, it's a confirmation that there's agreement between the neighbors to do what's being asked for.

And uh, but more so it's also uh helpful for future owners of both properties.

One day there will be a change in ownership, and it will be known that there's access to maintain uh the west wall of this new structure.

Okay, I I I think Mr.

Hector has done a heck of a job on preparing this report.

Sir, if you ever want a job, I know where you can get one.

I don't know what you did before, but you're very exact with this information.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Other comments or questions.

Clerk will call the roll.

Yes, Bill.

Yes.

Rodriguez, yes, Griffin.

Yes.

Scog, yes, Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Great.

Hopefully this will be successful for you, and things will go well.

Thank you.

By the way, what did you do on for work?

I'm curious.

There you go.

Give it away.

Good practice.

Our next public hearing is 3-4.

Say pre-annexation and pre-zoning to BC community business zoning district at zero highway 2026 and development agreement approval for parcel.

And for Steve Tyson with hatch design architecture representing Matsy Investments LLC.

The original concept is 22,000 square feet commercial building on 1.84 acre lot.

And is the applicant here?

And for the record, if you'll state name, address.

Yeah, President, Council members.

My name is Steve Thiessen.

I'm representing the applicant, Hatch Design Architecture, located at 200 West 36th Street in Boise, Idaho.

Let's see here.

I figure out how to work this thing.

Oops.

I have to be patient.

Okay, thank you, Ronnie.

Okay, um, this is the location of our project.

Uh it is it is located at on the northwest corner of 2026 in North Franklin.

And it's just um just within the area of impact.

There it goes.

A future land use for this uh project.

It is commercial, and what we're proposing is a screen printing business, and it's going to have a very much a retail look to it, though it's um a lot of it's warehouse and a lot of involved in they're actually doing the screen printing in the in the business there.

And this is the highway 2026 specific area plan.

You can see we're located in the commercial zone with the agribusiness uh emphasis, and this uh particular company deals a lot with agriculture.

Um we supplied a list to the city with 87 customers that are represent ag and its ranches, its cities, states, uh the state, and um a lot of a lot of things like that.

So and this is our site plan.

We have um had lots of discussion with ITD on the access.

Um initial discussions are that they're happy with that.

I know that cross access is also come up, and we are willing to have cross-access with the neighbors of the west.

We just haven't seen a plan yet from them to fully integrate that, but we have been in discussion with them.

Also, uh Highway District 4 has requested access off of Franklin, which you see on the north of the plan.

And we're just kind of leaving that open for now because they there will have to be some negotiation with the ditch company with the irrigation company and how they make that work, but we are leaving space for that.

And this is short and sweet, and it'll stand for any questions.

Council, any questions?

Yeah, council president, yes, yes, sir.

Um Steve, did you go before the canyon county planning and zoning commission on this?

Uh President of uh Councilman Rodriguez.

Um it is currently being looked at.

We have they are waiting for your decision before we are heard for our conditional rezon to uh commercial.

I think it's C1.

I see it.

Yes.

Yeah, okay.

I was wondering about that.

So they're waiting for this to you guys for the council to make a decision and then they'll move forward upon that application.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Welcome.

Any other questions?

We'll see if there's anybody else who wants to comment on after staff report, and then we'll have you back.

All right.

Thank you.

Hi, Doug.

Yep, good evening, Council.

Council members Doug Critschfield, principal planner over long-range planning.

Um this project's been in the works for several years with us.

Uh we've been uh speaking with the uh applicant and the uh applicant's uh client about their uh uses and the land uses in the area and how that would fit the comprehensive plan.

And that most of the base is in the agriculture industry.

We did some research on that, and the list that they provided us and the research that we did supports their claim.

And I'll provide that list for you in just a moment here.

This is these pre-annexations are a little bit different, as Councilmember Rodriguez was asking about.

This is a process that we take the applicant through so that they have the opportunity to be compatible with other properties as they develop in the area in this in the city.

But what this does is that when the city limits are adjacent to this property, their property lines adjoin, then this property will automatically be annexed into the city.

That's already arranged as part of this process.

So if the preannexation is approved by NAMPA City Council this evening, when staff reviews the report from Canyon County in their process there, staff will indicate that that has been approved and that the project can move forward.

If it is denied by this body, then the city staff will recommend denial to Canyon County of their process that they're going through.

So the regulatory framework for this is that this will be pre-annexed and pre-zoned to BC, which will allow the uses that they've proposed to you this evening.

And we will be asking that the applicant adhere to these specific NAMPA city codes here that are listed on the screen, and they've agreed to do so.

Excuse me, about the property itself.

It's located approximately a half mile north of current city limits.

There is some development interest in the area, so it's very likely that this could annex into the city of NAMPA in the very near future.

You notice that the part that was removed from the NAMPA impact area up along the Boise River does not impact this property, and so therefore it's within the impact area.

Per the joint powers agreement, then we are given the opportunity to do this process.

You'll note that it's commercial in the comprehensive plan and the specific area plan for this area.

It's it's an agribusiness designation.

Both of these designations are very similar in the types of land uses that they offer, uh, again, with an emphasis on agribusiness in this area is part of the 2020 specific area plan, 2026 specific area plan.

This is the list of the agricultural customers that they they work with.

Umestablished agricultural entities and institutions in the area, and uh they're repeat customers for this client.

Uh you'll note that this is also a permitted use in the BC zoning district, so that when this does zone, this will be a compliant uh compatible use.

The surrounding uh property details are that this is primarily ag there's some production ag in the area.

There's a gas station across the street near Franklin Road.

Um so there was some conversation about the encroachment permit.

That's all being worked out.

That will largely have to happen through the county in their approval process to ensure that that uh access the property is accessed and buildable at that time.

Um if the if the one condition here in the engineering details, if the property is annexed prior to construction on the site or receiving permits through the county, then the applicant will be required to go through the city of NAMPA for those connections.

And so we did receive some correspondence on this.

Uh you'll note that in your your staff report.

I think of the um most of the agencies were in approval and and again requiring that they have access to the site.

The fire district had no opposition, but they did state some specific requirements in the regards to water supply and fire access for the site.

Terms of long range planning, we've reviewed this against the comprehensive plan and found that it is it meets the intent of both the comprehensive plan and the 2026 specific area plan.

The conditions of approval include those previous codes that were mentioned, as well as the requirement for access from the highway district and ITD and other requirements from engineering.

I could review those with you, but we've largely spoken about most of these facts this evening.

Um so with that uh conclusion for approval was uh placed in your staff report.

Um we could review that that's up for your review if you uh wish to do so.

Otherwise, the motions are before you and I'd be glad to take any questions, Doug.

Thank you.

Questions, Councilman Rodriguez.

Thank you.

Uh Doug, I have uh one half mile south of 26 for water sewer and utilities, correct?

Yes, and this is crosses 26 now on the north side.

So one question is are we obligated City of Napa to pay for that extension of our utilities?

Or is that going to be paid for by the impact fees derived from this project, or is the company going to be paying for these?

Yeah, uh thank you.

Um Chair and Councilmember Rodriguez.

Um I'm gonna ask our city engineer who just walked out the door.

Um I would have to ask him about the specifics on the details of uh the provisions for those utilities.

I know that there are uh in the works there's access being provided by by ITD to cross 2026 with those utilities, but in terms of costs, I would have to ask her.

Yes, and that was the third question I had was have you received permission from the highway.

Well, uh is it NAPA highway district or is it the Department of Transportation?

It's ITD.

ITD okay and and then if so will they compound the cost uh to us or to the company?

Okay, okay, yeah.

I guess we'll wait.

Other than defer to engineering, I'm sorry.

Nope.

Just want to make sure you got answered other questions for Doug.

Doug, thank you.

Okay, I'll endeavor to uh have you back if we need to okay?

So we're going to uh ask if anybody's signed up.

There is no one signed up.

No one signed up.

Is there anybody here who would like to speak or testify on this particular item?

Seeing none applicant for any closing comments, uh President, Councilmember Rodriguez.

What did the city engineer show up?

I was just going to speak to as for now.

We are proposing well and septic.

We have already spoke with CDH, and they would allow septic until uh services are brought away.

Then as development brings them along.

I'll step back.

I'll go uh President uh Beals.

You said CEH, who's who's that?

Oh, Central District Health.

Oh, I see we've discussed that with them and the type of waste that this company produces.

We would be able to handle that with septic until we're able to connect.

Okay, thank you.

Daniel.

Yes.

So the question came up about sewer and water extension and who's paying that.

And uh so if you could give us some guidance there.

Okay.

Uh Daniel Badger, City Engineer.

Um, Council President, Council members, the uh sewer and water for this area, water would need to be extended up Franklin at some point in the future.

Um sewer would come up Madison and then serve um to the northwest to serve this property.

Um for the for their proposed use.

I would agree a well and septic will be adequate um in the near term and likely into the future.

Um we do have development go out that direction and bring that at such time as those systems fail.

Once the sewer and water are there, uh, they would pay the connections, pay the connection fees and connect at that point.

Um, but this will be development-driven sewer and water as as larger projects happen in that area.

Okay, thank you.

Council President, I move to close the public hearing.

Second.

We have a motion to close public hearing.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any discussion?

Council President, I move the approve of the project as presented on the screen.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Clerk will call the roll.

God, yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Next is our uh action item 3-5.

And uh annexation and zoning to RS7, single family residential potential development agreement and subdivision preliminary plat approval for Hudson Yard subdivision at zero and zero and 3319 East Sheep Mountain Lane.

And necessary right of way.

Bonnie Leighton representing endurance holdings and Thomas Murray.

Original concept 59 single family detached residential dwelling units and six common lots on 21.51 acres.

Bonnie good evening, Council, Council President.

I'm Bonnie Leighton at 5561 East Hoodal Drive in Boise, Idaho.

And I am here tonight on behalf of property owner and the development team to request your approval of our applications for annexation zoning and preliminary plat for Hudson Yards.

Quickly, we are designated in the RD zone of that of the NAMPA future land use map that includes zoning designations of RS4, RS6, RS7, and RS8.5.

We're here tonight requesting an RS7 zoning designation.

And in that future land use designation, the density is in range of 2.51 to 8 dwelling units per acre.

As you can see, there is development surrounding us currently under construction to immediately on our eastern boundary is a project that's uh RS 8.5.

Um so this is just sort of giving you a sense of where we are in the city.

And let's see, so um as the staff report mentioned, we are enclaved, our street uh network would connect into the existing um and planned streets in the adjacent subdivision.

And so for our site plan, as uh you probably saw in the staff report.

So we're um not quite 22 acres, and we have um we're proposing 59 residential units.

Um there's one existing home on the site which will remain.

Um so we've parceled that out.

Uh we are providing for um common open space in compliance with the code and a density of 2.74 dwelling units per acre.

So we are just over the minimum allowed and but that's certainly not at the maximum allowable density for a project of um of this size.

Um included in our project, we will have some sport court, uh sport court there that you can see as well as a shade structure and then walking paths and some green open spaces uh for the residents to recreate in.

Um there's the canal on our western boundary, which we will be fencing off, and uh there will not be access uh into that.

See so our preliminary plat just shows a more technical version of our lots.

Um they're in compliance again with the city codes and standards for this zoning designation.

Uh we'll be developing this basically in two phases, the majority of it being uh in the first phase, um, and that provides us again with connections to the existing um subdivision that's under development right now.

Um so in phase one we'll have the majority of the lots that you see in green there, phase two will be in uh the pink, so just a handful of remaining lots in the last phase.

Um we're planning single family standard uh single family detached architecture uh consistent with what we are building in the adjacent subdivision, so very homogeneous to the to the area.

Uh here's some more examples, and with that I'd be happy to stand for any questions.

Bonnie, thank you.

Council, any questions?

We'll have you back in a few minutes.

Thank you.

Christie.

Thank you very much, Council.

Christie Watkins, principal planner for the city of Nampa.

As stated, the action requested from you this evening is for approval of annexation and zoning to RS 7 with a preliminary plat for Hudson Yard subdivision at 3319 East Sheep Mountain Lane.

So this property is currently located in the medium density residential designation on the future land use map.

It is surrounded on the north by a BC zoning across the New York Canal.

That BC land right now is currently vacant and has some canyon county subdivisions with single-family homes.

On the south is RS 8.5, which is the New York landing subdivision, and two Canyon County parcels with single family homes.

To the west is RS6, which is Lava Springs subdivision, and two Canyon County parcels with single family homes.

On the east is RS 8.5, again the New York landing subdivision that is currently under development.

So engineering has stated that there is no in impact study required for this property due to the number of lots that are being proposed.

So they won't even be required to dedicate any right-of-way at this time.

Water, sewer, and pressurized irrigation shall be put supplied to the site through the existing and proposed lines installed or being installed with the New York landing subdivision.

They have adequate capacity to serve this project.

Sewer will be provided through the New York landing subdivision and be serviced by the New York Landing Lift Station.

The city is in negotiations to take over the New York Landing Lift Station with a latecomers agreement to reimburse the development that installed the station.

The developer shall provide documentation that the existing pumps in New York landing lift station are adequate to serve this property without any upgrades.

So the staff analysis of the preliminary plat.

The required density for the medium density residential is 2.51 to 8 dwelling units per acre.

On this 21.5 acres with 59 single-family lots, that's 2.74 dwelling units per acre, which does meet that density range.

The lot sizes in an RS7 zone can range from 7,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet.

These are shown at 7,04 square feet to 11,395 square feet.

All lots meet the lot width and depth requirements by code.

There is 15% qualified open space required for this plat.

They have provided 3.91 acres, which is 18.18%, with a sports court and walking paths shown on the landscaping rendering.

The city forester did have some recommendations or requests for different types of tree species to be shown on their landscape plan, which would be part of their conditions of approval.

Nampa co-compliance has indicated that there is some solid waste accumulation on this property, and they would request that that be removed before we complete the annexation.

That will also be a condition of approval.

The engineering division has provided comments regarding traffic access, utilities, drainage, and irrigation.

The NAMPA building department requests that any buildings here meet Title IV building regulations.

And the police department has indicated that with the addition to the population on this project that they recommend a commitment to fund.02 additional officers and.1 additional support staff.

The fire department has indicated that this development is 3.3 miles away from fire station number two with an approximate response time of eight minutes.

The impact fees received for this will be 1,267 per unit for an approximate total of 74,753 from this development for the fire district.

It will increase a personnel demand of 0.17 firefighters positions.

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

Staff has found that all the landowners have consented to this annexation.

The property is contiguous to the city limits.

The comprehensive plan includes this area within its area of annexation, and the property is subject to the city's agreement with the highway district.

To determine the appropriateness of zoning, there are three different criteria you must uh find to be met.

This request is in harmony with the comprehensive plan.

The proposal would provide uses that are deemed to be compatible with the adjoining properties as they are all residential.

The proposed zoning is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary as the comprehensive plan defines compatibility as any property that falls within the same land use designation, and it meets the density and development standards that are compatible to each other and with city code.

These are the recommended conditions of approval.

And these oops passed it.

And those were your motions.

I'll put them back up on the screen.

Do you have any questions for me?

Thank you, Christy.

Council, any questions for Christy?

President.

Yes.

Christy, did you say response time was eight minutes for fire?

Yes, that was the response in their memo.

And which fire station would serve this?

Crosserty fire station number two?

Thank you.

Are there other questions?

Christy, thank you.

At this time we're going to uh open for public testimony.

If there's somebody here who would like to speak to this particular issue, I get a there is no one that did sign up.

No one signed up.

Is there anybody here who would like to speak to it?

Yes, sir.

As you come to the mic, we'd appreciate if you'd state your name and your address.

My name is Jim Vandersy.

I live at 4304 South Lava Springs Loop.

And uh there's uh some concern with with traffic backup with with a development like this.

And you know, I we don't have any problem when I say we, there's uh quite a few neighbors that are along uh uh the uh housing there are just off the road on the on the first exit, uh which would be coming up the south side boulevard.

The exit there is the traffic backs up beyond that oxy, and then people start cutting in to the lava springs loop there, and they circle over and come out on the exit on on Flocus, and they're speeding because they're trying to beat traffic, and there's been some close calls so far, but nobody has lost an animal or there's just been uh people speeding down that straightaway to get over to the other exit in lava springs, and people might be backing out of their driveway, and they and they have been some close calls of that respect.

But um, our concern is that as we get these developments developing and that becomes an exit route for somebody, it um it creates a extreme hazard because they're they're um the exit the uh expected speed in there is 20 miles an hour, and and some of the times they're doing 35 or 40 coming down that stretch and get that other exit so they can beat the the traffic that's at the stop line.

I'm just wondering if um if you've considered what you could do with that just to alleviate the uh the traffic coming through the lava springs loop there, it's difficult to preclude somebody using a public street uh at issue is is for the association to make uh contact with uh our police department, and they have a trailer set up to advise people what their speed is, and uh it helps uh curb the issue for a period of time.

Occasionally I've seen or uh watched uh police actually set in a couple of places to help encourage uh a change.

Daniel's gonna speak to it.

Um go ahead.

So council president, uh we do have a traffic calming policy that we can go through if the HOA wants to contact me.

That's I'm I'm the point person for that uh where we can look at traffic calming in a neighborhood and I can run him through the process or or the HOA rep through that process if they have concerns.

Excellent.

Thank you, Daniel.

Well, that's a better solution right there to approach the HOA, and if the board would uh move that direction, having installed some of those uh elongated humps or calming devices, they definitely work.

Uh so the main the main drive going through the subdivision.

If that if that's uh approved uh and working with Daniel Badger, our city engineer, that would help.

Yeah.

Well, I just just want to uh make sure that we don't have some kind of a an accident, a severe accident, injury, or even a death accident if they're speeding through there if we can figure out a way to slow them down or or discourage them from trying to beat the traffic and and I don't know what you've got planned in the future for that uh cross where uh locust and south boulevard come together, but with that stop sign there and your traffic backs up, it probably uh and I don't even know if a traffic circle is is would be considered in that area to help alleviate the traffic, but somewhere down the line with all these developments that are coming into play at that point, and there's gonna be a lot of traffic.

I don't know whether it's a roundabout or signal that's slated for that intersection, but it's it's on the agenda or it's on the okay.

I I figured it'd be guys would be looking at that down the road.

Yes.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else who would like to speak to this particular item?

Not seeing anything, Bonnie.

Would you like to come back up?

Thank you, Council President Bills and the rest of the council again.

Um thank you for the testimony.

Traffic we know is um an issue all throughout the city is uh as we're growing here in NAMPA.

Um I know there are some improvements that the city is looking at doing in the area.

Um we've reviewed the staff report.

We're in agreement with all of the recommendations and com conditions of approval for this project.

Again, it's an enclaved piece um that will connect into the existing and uh developing subdivision to the east.

Um let's see.

And with that, I I think that's it.

I don't want to take up too much of your time, but respectfully appreciate your time this evening and request your approval of our project.

Bonnie, thank you.

Thank you.

Council President.

Yes, questions, just a few follow-ups.

If I could question okay, thank you.

Bonnie, just the remainder of that project on the southern portion of the property.

Is that anticipated to be developed at the same time as this, or is this going to be phased out to finish the whole loop together?

Uh President Bills, Councilman Griffin, when you say this piece, maybe you can flip back to that.

Thank you.

So are you looking um we have the eastern portion and then we have that southwestern portion below the enclave area that's going to remain county?

Is that southeast or western portion already approved and being phased out?

And is it going to be developed at the same time as this, or are we having trucks go out and then come back in and then go out and come back in?

Um it's my understanding that that's already approved, and um so that would go first and then and then this would.

I think that's also probably why we're doing such a large large phase in that first phase to sort of knock it all out.

Thank you.

President?

Yes.

Bonnie, just curious, how was the neighborhood meeting notice just seeing one person?

Our South Nampa folk are usually very passionate and they show up, which is great, but with only seeing one name, I'm just curious.

Yep.

So we just had um uh a younger couple with a small child, it was uh right right on site or right at the edge of the stub street.

They were just kind of curious as to what was going on.

Um I think they had a question about access points, which maybe if you can um flip to the map you christy.

Um so we just talked about that and told them it was gonna be like the homes that were that are already under construction and being developed, and they were like, okay, sounds great.

So the meeting itself, how did you notice it?

Do you know how the meeting itself was noticed?

Oh, yep.

So I noticed I did the neighborhood meeting notice in uh compliance with the code, and then um we posted the site in compliance with the code as well.

So people were noticed um and given the opportunity we didn't have anybody show up at planning and zoning um to testify about this project at all, and I believe we received unanimous approval from this one as well from the planning and zoning commission.

So really quiet for a change.

Thanks, Bonnie.

Council President, I move the close of public hearing.

All in favor?

Hi.

Hi.

Any discussion?

Council President.

Motion.

So I think this is good planning to be able to have the eight point five factored in the seven to give options to the whole neighborhood.

And I also like that it's coming at the same time that the development is being developed, so we're not having construction going in and going out and dealing with the headaches.

Uh in perpetuity with other projects being developed.

So thank you for bringing this forward.

And if no other comments, I believe.

Okay, we're gonna call our meeting back to order.

Yeah.

All right, we're going to uh continue our meeting and we're at uh item three dash six public hearing.

It's an action item annexation and zoning to R D two Family Duplex Residential for Parcels and associated right away with a development agreement at twenty-one zero two South Midland Boulevard in Southwest Quarter of Section thirty three for Jennifer Reynolds.

The original concept is for future subdivision of the property into six lots, maintaining the existing home and development of townhouse style multifamily buildings.

This is an item that uh we missed in March sixteenth uh meeting and so it's now before us this evening.

And if the applicant is here, we would ask you to come forward.

Um my name is Jennifer Reynolds.

Um my address is uh twenty-one oh two South Midland Boulevard, Namidaho.

I currently reside there at this time as well.

Just pull that forward.

No.

Okay, perfect.

Thanks.

Um or most of them are.

Um in the future plans.

So I'm just requesting to annex into the city for um again for future development um as medium residential um with the purpose of subdividing the property into um we've had a few discussions, but I think we finally settled on six lots um to be able to build town house style um residential dwellings.

And um so with that, um I again I've already spoken with the planning and zoning committee.

Um we've already uh discussed with the fire department about having proper turnarounds.

Um I'm aware that it lies within the Boise Cuna irrigation district as well as the Namper Meridian um irrigation district.

Um I've spoken with the Namper Meridian irrigation district as they own what is the Heron Lateral that runs um center of the property.

I've already discussed with them about moving this and relocating it to the south property line of that uh of my land there so that we can then um pipe it and um cover it and use it as a roadway into this uh the subdivision there that we'd be building.

So um with that um we're aware that we need to bring in a civil engineer to design that to relocate it as well as um to make sure we're fulfilling all of the proper code um for each of these things.

Um at this time uh of course that's not being presented because I'm not I don't have the preliminary plat.

Um so we're not requesting that approval on that today.

So today is just to annex into the city of Dampa.

So annexation and zoning only at this point.

Correct.

And are you open to a development agreement?

Um yes, we've already discussed that.

Sorry, I meant to mention that.

Um planning and zoning and I have already discussed that.

Uh as soon as we have your approval, we'll be drawing up that development agreement.

Um we are aware that the existing structure at this time for phase one.

The intent is to keep that in phase two, we'll be uh removing that to build further.

Um and we are aware that whatever may occur first in that development agreement.

Um the city does have right away from 50 foot of center road, um, which uh the present structure may lie within that um from what we're looking at.

And so in that development agreement, we will um include whether they um widen the road first or whether I get to phase two first, whatever um comes first that they receive right away in that.

So correct.

So it could also require the improvements uh be installed at the time of the first phase, which could impact the house staying for very long.

Yes.

Improvements as road road widening improvements.

Oh, to bring in the the other um housing units is what you're saying.

Like Daniel's slipped out for the moment.

No, these in I just didn't see him.

So we'll we'll get clarification so that you know and uh so council president, uh council members.

The discussion we've had with the applicant is that um we would be looking at roadway improvements um with that second phase with the existing home that's there.

Um the proposal would be that when they develop, they would want their their desire as they've expressed would be to develop the back first and then the front portion um at a later time when when they're ready to demo the house or when a um a roadway project comes through.

So the discussions we had with them was that we would defer those sidewalk in roadway improvements.

Midland is an arterial, so the only improvements that they would be obligated to be would be the 10-foot side path.

Um and so we would be willing to defer those until that second phase is developed.

Okay.

Let's see.

I'll let it that simmer for a moment.

Thank you.

Anything else you'd like to share with us at this moment?

Um not that I can think of.

Okay, so we'll have uh the public hearing as you've seen, and then we'll have you back uh thereafter.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Rodney.

Thank you for standing up and looking this way.

Thank you, Mr.

Uh President and City Council Rodney Ashby planning and zoning director for the record.

Um just want to remind you this one is just annexation and rezoning, and then the option of a development agreement is definitely one of those options you have to work with.

Um this is not a plat at this time.

So some of the concept for number of units, number of um lots, that's still conceptual, right?

We don't have the plat before us, um, but you can restrict that through conditions of approval and through a development agreement as as you've indicated already.

So here's the location.

Um let me move forward.

The comprehensive plan is shows this as medium density residential.

Um, I forgot to mention that the planning and zoning commission did recommend approval.

This one was um not my project.

So I'm taking it over kind of at the last minute.

So he wrote the staff report and did most of the presentation.

I'm just trying to finesse it at the last bit here to try to address some concerns that I saw.

So to the north is RD, two family residential four-plex units.

This was approved at a time when RD zone was considered a part of the medium density residential designation.

And it allowed for those fourplexes to excuse me, it's still in RD.

RD is allowed in the medium density, but now it's also allowed in the high density residential designation.

And that's because at that time, fourplexes were causing these the densities to exceed the medium density range of eight dwelling units per acre.

So fourplexes went in, met the standards, met the code, comp plan densities were exceeded.

And so after several projects came in like that, we were we proposed a code amendment to require that fourplexes in the RD zone not be included in the medium density residential designation on the comprehensive plan.

That amendment was adopted by city council, but this is an example just to the north is an example of one of those projects that got approved prior to that code change and that uh comp plan change.

So there's that one to the west is RS7 single family residential.

Let me scoot forward and show you the zoning here.

There's that RD to the north.

Um to the south is Kenyon County parcel uh undeveloped or residential in nature, large lot, and then to the east is RA, suburban residential large lot uh property.

January of 2025 was the pre-application meeting.

Um there was some complexity there, but essentially they came back with uh a couple of different options.

You've probably seen some of the staff report talking about townhouses, but if there's only six uh six parcels on a future subdivision and up to 12 units, that that's probably duplexes rather than townhouses.

But again, this is not a subdivision before you.

This is just the annexation and zoning.

So that's a little bit confusing to the public, and if you read that staff report, it's a little bit confusing because there's different numbers thrown out because it's not a subdivision at this point.

But if it were six uh six units, excuse me, six lots and twelve units total, it would need to be a duplex on each on each lot in order to qualify and and meet with code.

Um if it were divided up into 12 lots, it could be done as well, but though those likely would be the townhouse style up to four units, is what is allowed in the medium density designation.

Uh utilities in the area are all there.

I think I can show you that there.

Here's the subdivisions in the area.

I've I've talked about some of those already, but uh in case that's an interest to you.

Um code for annexations.

This is out of Title 50 of state code, uh separate from the LUPA or local land use planning act.

So this is your threshold criteria, as we've we've told you recently.

That threshold criteria is does it uh comply with the standards in 522?

Um that has to be of consent to annex by the private property owner.

Um that it has to be contiguous with city limits.

It uh has to match the comprehensive plan and um and whenever applicable, they have to have the roadway uh annexed in as well.

We have an agreement with the highway district for that scenario, and then zoning criteria.

You've seen those before uh in harmony with the comprehensive plan, um reasonably compatible with existing and adjoining property uses, and then the amendment would be in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary.

And then the amendment would be in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary.

All right.

So the RD zone, as I've said, this is for just townhouses, but then RD is a duplex zone.

So you could do duplexes as well.

That's not listed here, but should be.

NAMPA code compliance identified that there's some weeds on the property that need to be addressed.

They like to have those done be prior to the annexation.

So that's a condition of approval.

Nampa City long range planning found that it was consistent with the comprehensive plan narrative and future land use map.

So we did receive public comments.

We received multiple comments in the last couple of days.

But these are the ones that met the deadline coming in.

And what my just quick review of the comments that we received are very consistent with these the opposition that we've received in the in the packet.

And most of those are regarding the number of dwelling units.

There was that confusion that I mentioned in some of the material that was submitted in the packet.

And then some concerns about traffic as well.

And there's that.

Again, these look like townhouses to me, but it would we'd need to look at this at the time it comes in.

The lot is 1.66 acres.

When you take out the right-of-way, it's 1.53.

So maximum density allows eight dwelling units per acre, and the maximum density in this property would be 12 dwellings.

Right-of-way dedication, landscaping, and parking will reduce that.

So you never really know at this point without a true site plan how much how many units will be possible until you put all that parking in there and the landscaping.

Also depends on what they choose to do.

If it's a town home development, there's guest parking required.

So that also changes the site plan.

Okay, I think that's pretty much it on that slide.

So these are the findings.

And finally, we have the memorandum of understanding with the NAMPA Highway District to address the need for providing services for the roadway.

And then the applicable criteria for zoning, you've seen these before.

Essentially, I've underlined some key takeaways.

The RD zoning is compatible with the comprehensive plan and future land use map.

It's um the compatibility is defined in the comprehensive plan.

That doesn't mean that there are other factors that can't be considered as part of this public hearing, but the comprehensive plan does define compatibility, and that is defined within the zones that are allowed within the comprehensive plan designation of medium density residential.

The schedule of uses in 1032 allows for the proposed development depending on what they do.

They'll have to do frontage improvements, open space and amenities, and city services and utilities are readily available, and traffic infrastructure improvements are either in place or required to be completed as part of this development.

So with that, here are the recommended conditions of approval.

And uh those are all in your packet.

I'm just gonna highlight one, number seven, enter into a development agreement, including a concept plan showing no more than 12 dwelling units with required parking, open space landscaping dry aisles, and other required site improvements, and then dedication of the 25-foot public right-of-way.

And with that, I there's a couple of motions for your consideration and stand for questions.

Rodney, thank you.

Can you go back one slide?

Just one to that development agreement.

Yeah.

Because I think we're gonna need to look at that slide and the one previous.

Um from the standpoint of development agreement, the 12 max units.

So there need in my mind, there needs to be language that would specify that the single family home is removed, and so there's not an ambiguity that it's 12 new units, and we leave the existing type situation.

Yeah, um, great great point.

Um, yeah, and what the comp plan and what code would allow is 12 max.

You couldn't have that uh single family on there as well to to make it 13.

So but could you have the single family be one of the 12?

So a single family massive site and then 11 townhouses or uh whatever you want to call them townhouses or six five duplexes, Mr.

President?

Yes.

Um you could um you could have a single family as long as you're meeting all the standards for lot sizes and you're meeting the standard for parking and all open space, all of those requirements would have to be in place.

That's gonna be tricky in this scenario, um, but it's possible.

With the exception of right-away, I see my concern is is trying to stage it phase one, phase two.

There seems to be an ambiguity on the right-of-way because the right-of-way needs to be dedicated and it's going through a structure, if I'm understanding, Daniel earlier.

Uh Mr.

President, Daniel Badger, City Engineer.

Uh, yes, so the the 50-foot right-of-way cuts right through the very front of that structure.

Um, and so that's where we've recommended the condition that at the phase two that or either at the time of a phase two of the construction there, or at such time as the city does a roadway project that does that, that that house has to come out.

The right-of-way is dedicated and and not there's not a requirement that the city purchase that right-of-way part of the annexation can and the development agreement obligates them to dedicate that at either of those time frames.

Um it's it's entirely possible that um you know we would have some of those frontage improvements done just not directly in front of the house, and so there may be some right-of-way portions that as they determine what their first phase will look like and where the dry aisle will come in for that.

We would have them do those frontage improvements at that time, and then for that phase two, then the remainder would go in when the house comes out, or that roadway project is done by the city.

Okay, so all that's under the concept side because we have no plat.

Right, and and that would all be evaluated at the time of the the plat.

They would, as part of the development agreement.

They would, as part of the development agreement, we are uh requiring that they do come up with a concept that shows how that would work, and that would come uh be incorporated in the development agreement and could come back to council, has to come back to council um prior to that being authorized for signature and the ordinance being completed.

Okay, that's why I wanted to make sure is that we're gonna close the loop.

Yep.

That we're gonna have the opportunity to see it and see the documents and not I'm just concerned about yeah, we got this agreement and property sells to somebody else, and that somebody else thinks, oh no, I was gonna be able to get XYZ and down that pathway that we've seen before.

So I I I think it likely that if the property sales that with the size of this, if the property were to sell first for someone else to do something, that the house would come out with the first phase and it would be done as one one phase in all honesty.

It would seem logical to do it that way.

Yeah.

So okay.

Thank you, Daniel.

Okay, it's president.

Yes.

For Rodney.

Application, understand that it came prior to the comp plan change.

How many dwelling units per acre were allowed or are currently in that northern project?

Um they I think the actual number is 11.67 dwelling units per acre.

I think it's 36 units.

Uh, and I I think that's how many were permitted.

And we scaled that back to allow eight dwelling units per acre with this new change.

Um yes, I mean it's not new, it's been you know, six years ago or so when we made that change.

But um, yeah, that would now require that only up to eight dwelling units per acre could be allowed today.

Thank you.

Other questions.

Thank you, Rodney.

At this time, then we'll take public testimony.

Do we have any sign up?

No, we do not have anyone signed up.

Is there anyone who would like to speak on this can come forward?

If you'll provide your name and address.

Hi, my name is Steve Tarter.

I reside at 1205 West Bell Knapp Drive, just to the west of this project.

So anyhow, uh I appreciate your dialogue um explaining all this because it was really confusing to me.

I saw these conceptual drawings and I figured how can they get 16 dwellings on this 1.6 acres?

I mean, it's kind of a unique piece of property, and the way they have the fence line up there at this time around the house.

I mean, it kind of looks like maybe that might be the point six or half an acre, and then the rest of it is where they're gonna put these dwellings.

And uh the concept says eight dwellings per acre, so that's 12 doors in that whole area.

So I I appreciate learning.

I always learn more every time I come to these uh functions like this.

Aubrey, thank you very much.

But in uh the engineering department, I've uh still got some concerns there about the uh the widening and the uh enhancement of Midland Boulevard because there's a couple telephone poles on that property that would be affected on this uh project as far as uh road widening and improvements.

So that's gonna uh to me that seemed like that would affect the house and how it exists.

So anyhow, that's just you guys need to consider all these factors.

I mean, I know originally we were all up uh up in arms about this development is oh, it's more houses, more cars.

Yes, it is, but it's still country property that needs to be incorporated within the city limits.

And uh and uh I applaud them for bringing in the city limits.

There's still more, two more parcels on the south side that need to be brought into the city limits, but that'll kind of help the whole community if we can kind of improve that section of uh our of our town.

So correct.

Yep.

So we're that's why we're concerned.

I mean, we want to make sure that it's clear as to well, the ultimate build out, and at the same time, if it's done in two phases, that 12 units don't get built before the house is removed.

So that or if they build four.

They capped at you know four to begin with or eight max or something to that effect.

Yeah.

So we're gonna we're gonna continue to work on the language that uh will go into that development agreement.

So at this point we just have we have to decide, okay, is this going to be annexed in so we can move to the next step?

That's the part of the process.

It's part of the process, but the big part of this process is the development agreement and how it's worded.

Not knowing what the applicant's plans are.

But we've we've seen that this type of deal gets started and then it gets passed off to somebody who wants to actually physically do the development.

And sometimes there's questions that arise or interpretations of what we've approved.

And so in this particular case, we're trying to, I believe, as council is uh narrow it down so there's no misunderstanding.

Yes, I appreciate that.

But I would agree.

So anyhow.

Uh that's all the banter that I have to deal with tonight.

So I appreciate your time.

Thank you for coming.

Thank you.

Council President.

I do have a question for excuse me, sir.

Question.

Um Steve, I didn't get your last name.

What was it?

It's Tartar.

I spelled that.

T A R T E R.

Okay.

How long have you lived in your in your res in your Bill Met residence?

At that address, I lived there five years.

Okay.

In the last five years, sir, have you noticed that your water pressure has reduced?

It's not as strong as it used to be five years ago.

Yes, it's gone down and it seems to fluctuate.

Okay, so we're talking about domestic water.

We'll talk about the irrigation in a minute.

At one time we had high pressure, so I had to put a pressure relief valve on the house so that it wasn't too much pressure for all the facilities in the house.

And since and now I need to almost turn it up because it's too low, I see.

How about the irrigation?

Is your pressure been reduced?

Or can you always use the irrigation water when you want to?

So you're going to say that.

Can you use your irrigation water?

Oh, it's any time you want to.

And is it at the same pressure that you had five years ago?

The irrigation water, yes.

Yes.

The house water, no.

Okay.

Because there has been complaints in in your neighborhood and in the area of Greenhurst of the water issues.

And I've been working with uh the uh civil engineers, Daniel Badger, about that pressure.

So uh that's what I wanted to find out.

Do you think that that another umdivision could affect that?

I know you're not an expert, but uh undoubtedly it would affect it when you start adding 10, 20 houses to it.

Yeah, I'm sure it could could affect that.

Okay, sir.

That's all I had for you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We got off a little bit on subject matter, trying to get some information, understand.

I think it's important to me uh for that neighborhood, sir.

No, I understand.

At the same time, if we got those type of comments coming to us, I'm just gonna sidebar real quick, then we want to get those comments passed to engineering.

Yes, sir.

And give them uh the info.

Yes.

So great.

Uh is there anybody else here who would like to speak?

Yes.

Name and address, please.

Good evening, Mr.

President and Council.

I'm Cheryl Higley at 12441, South Abbott Downing Wayne.

These are my concerns about this application and development and why I am opposed.

Per the comp plan, the maximum allowed in medium density residential, as we've talked about, is eight dwelling units per acre, which would mean the maximum would be twelve.

However, after reviewing the city council agenda packet, it appears that the number of dwelling units should be limited even more.

As noted in the letter by long-range planner Brianna Howe, Section 5.5.3, medium density residential of the comp plan.

Developments that exceed five dwelling units per acre should be a planned unit development or part of a master plan community.

Since this application is neither.

This development would need to be limited even further to no more than eight dwelling units, which is five times the 1.6 acres.

Otherwise, it wouldn't be in compliance with the comp plan.

Perhaps the applicant should have been required to resubmit an amended application that was within the acceptable density level so that there would be no confusion or misunderstanding about what is allowed.

Rather than accepting an application like this that started out with 20 units and had drawings of 16, it seems that it would be better for the applicant to solidify their plants and then apply so that all their time, energy, and effort will not be wasted, as well as that of the P and Z staff, the P and Z commissioners, City Council, and the members of the public.

If developing infill parcels is the goal, it would be beneficial for all concerned if the applicant could be successful on their first attempt by bringing forth a proposal with a reasonable number of dwelling units that will be more compatible instead of shooting for the moon and seeking as many doors as possible, which is what the narrative said.

Um if you decide to approve this project, please put an absolute limit on the number of dwelling units in the development agreement in doing research.

I found that the final plat for mallet apartments, which is the adjacent property, was approved for 36.

The final plat was, even though at the city council was approved for 32.

Um it was 11.62 dwelling units, which is well within the range of high density residential.

And I have a comp plan from that time, and medium density was only up to eight was the maximum for medium density residential at that time.

It seems this should not have been allowed to happen, but somehow it did.

Additionally, if you decide to approve with a development agreement, please stipulate a deadline for when it has to be signed by the owner developer.

As I learned from Rodney, that the uh DA for Shadow Creek has no signatory deadline and could be in limbo indefinitely.

This application is premature as it does not provide enough definitive details for the city council to make an informed decision, and therefore I ask that you would please deny it at this time.

Thank you so much for your consideration.

Thank you, Cheryl.

Council President, can you ask?

Yes.

Um, can I ask you a question?

If um, so since we're voting tonight on the annexation and the zoning, um, if the requirement um when she comes back was less units, say six units total or eight, would you be opposed to this or would you be okay with this development?

I would be okay with it with the within the comp plan range, which we're supposed to be following.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

So is there somebody else who wants to speak to this?

Mark.

Say again, don't look so disappointed on up here.

Mark Mitchell, one two three five five landowning.

Um, you know, Cheryl and I don't agree very often, but she had some really good points.

I do have a concern though or question is Rodney, you made comment it it was zoned for duplex and or maybe fourplex?

Did I hear that right or wrong?

I'm not sure, sir.

Rodney.

Mr.

President, the the RD zone does not allow for four plexes now within the medium density residential designation.

That is the comprehensive plan, the RD.

The RD is the zoning and the RD zoning fits within the comprehensive plan.

They could do duplexes.

Um lived in that area quite a bit.

I mean, we've got the sands across the street from the west.

To the east, we have more of a beginner subdivision.

To the north, you would have the fourplexes, and to the south, you would have some older homes.

There's some nice homes in that area as well, but you got Byron Game Ridge that built across the street.

So you're not going to have $600,000 homes there.

It just is not feasible, I don't think.

Um starting home in Nampo, Idaho, Canyon County is about 435,000.

That's our average.

That's our median.

So I could see duplexes.

Definitely, I hope and pray you don't say fourplexes.

I think we've got enough.

Um for that market, I would really love to see something in that area, because it's it's not in city yet.

Correct?

So when it comes in a city, something that would instead of being an ISO for future, could help benefit that part of the city, is really what I'm saying.

So gosh, I hate to admit this, but I kind of agree with Cheryl this time.

So anyway, I will leave that alone.

Thank you.

Mr.

Mitch, or Mr.

Council, President.

Mr.

Mitchell, can I just ask you the same question that I asked Ms.

Higley?

If it was um uh less units, would you be okay with that development as far as duplexes go?

You'd have to define less units.

Well, less than uh 12 units.

Or yeah, okay.

Because wouldn't it be is it 16 with fourplexes?

Or is it no the concept is duplex and uh the discussion has been restricting to 12 total units provided the house is removed.

Otherwise you'd be at eight units if the house remains.

I think the biggest reason I say duplex is because it it does open the door for maybe first-time home buyers.

Yeah, maybe they're 800,000, but they can rent one site and live in the other.

They can do that with an FHA loan.

Again, we're we're not seeing a plat, so we don't know if this are town homes, if these are single family homes.

We don't have that, but we want to get that information into a development agreement so it's well defined what what's being approved.

Thank you.

Thanks, Rodney.

Mr.

President, I just wanted to clarify, just make sure this is very clear.

No four plexes would be allowed in this location at all.

Triplexes or four plexus.

The only options they have are single family detached, single family attached up to four units and duplexes.

Correct.

Yes, thank you.

Council President and back to Ronnie.

Rodney, what's the difference between a four-plex and four single family attached?

Okay, great question.

Uh townhouses are individually possible to be owned.

They are on their own lot.

Though they share a common wall, they are individually owned.

And duplexes can all four be owned by one individual.

So duplexes are only two, or sorry, four plexus, I apologize.

A four plex is on one single lot owned by one entity.

Thank you.

If you'd like to come back to the microphone, state your name and address.

Nope, no.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Nothing personal mark, but it's not a good thing.

Sorry, I was I'm I was trying to help and be lenient, but I got you know it's okay.

It's all right.

We're learning.

Everybody understands we're learning here.

Yes, yes, staff.

Say again.

Mark, go ahead, your question.

I was final.

Well, is there somebody else who wants to speak to this issue?

We got two others coming forward.

Good evening.

Um council president and members.

My name is Doris Phillips.

I live at 220 South Ivy Street in Nampa.

Um so I had a lot of the same concerns that have already been covered by a couple of people, but definitely the density and um some of the ambiguity that's that's in here that you know is going to be later.

It would seem difficult to um disapprove something that's when you don't know exactly what all you're proving, but um I understand that some of that can be done step by step.

Um the other things that hadn't been mentioned yet uh much is about uh the traffic um from the number of units that will be out there coming out onto a road that is busier every day.

I drive Midland quite often, and um and if how that is going to be managed if there's going to be a roundabout or a light or um some way of of managing the traffic going in and out of there so that it's not um backed up onto Midlands Thank you.

Uh Daniel do we have intersection improvements in the preliminary stage?

Um mayor.

Mr.

President, um the intersection improvements for Midland and Greenhurst are in the design stage already.

Um they are preceding fourth and are in a forthcoming year.

I don't remember specifically the construction year, but I believe it's either next year or the year after.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Yes.

Margie Potter, 1811 North Cobbleway.

And um you council president and council.

Uh my the missing middle, you know, I'm always harping on that, so you'll never hear me not talking about that, Victor.

And I want to clarify with Daniel, what I think I heard was that before the house or before phase two gets done.

If that when that happens, if the road improvements aren't done yet, then they would be responsible for doing those road improvements.

Is that correct?

Mr.

President, um the intent would be that they would be able to do the first phase in the back prior to road improvements being completed, and then the second phase would trigger the the full their responsibility of road improvements, which would be the 10-foot side path, and then at some future date, then the city would come and do the widening on Midland when we did the mining for that whole section.

Um or if that happened before the development of that second phase happened, then they would have to take down the house and dedicate the right-of-way for him at that time.

And then you're saying that the city wouldn't have to pay them for any for the house at that board that for that right-of-way, is that correct?

Correct.

That would be a that's a condition of this annexation.

Okay.

So in my view, we're that would be saving the city money because we wouldn't have to pay for that right-of-way.

And so it that would come in the development agreement.

Is that what you're saying?

Um so I am in favor of that.

And to me, eight or twelve, honestly, um, I like there's so many nice townhouses that can be bought.

There's a lot of seniors that don't want to take care of a big yard, and I think this that would be actually a good um use for that area.

That's a lot.

Thanks, Marge.

Anybody else here wanting to speak on this?

So at this time uh we'll ask the applicant to come back up.

Um you want me to say my name again, or you're good?

Do I need to state my name and no?

Okay, sorry.

Um, so just to help put everybody's mind at ease.

Um when I submitted the original plat and the plans, my meeting back January of 2025, I was told 20 units.

So that's what that's based off of.

Um I have no desire of selling it and passing it on to anybody else to do this.

Um I'm endeavoring to do this on my own.

Um I have a brother who's a contractor, builds spec homes, and he will be my contractor on the project.

So we're we're going into this on our own.

Um, so I was not proposed with the idea of 12 units until the planning and zoning meeting before the committee.

And that was the first I heard of it.

And so I had to split second to make a decision on what I wanted to do.

And I'm fine with that.

I I'm not opposed to less units like that.

I just want to at one point in my life be like, hey, I did that.

That's amazing.

And and that's it.

It's really what it comes down to.

Um, the older gentleman that lived there for years um where I work, everybody knows him.

And um, so kind of out of honor uh for him, I work at the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, just to give you um an idea.

Um I I kind of uh redid the home.

And so to keep it a little bit longer, um, as I did completely remodel the inside, um, you know, it's kind of a desire of mine.

That's why it's set phase two, just to hold on to it a little bit longer while we work on phase one, um, the back part of it, and we have full intent of honoring all the codes.

Um, I do understand what has been presented tonight as far as um you know, eight units and and how that is basically what was changed, what about six years ago from what you said?

Um so I have no intent to follow the original plat.

I just didn't know ahead of time before I began this process as I was informed 20 units.

So I don't know if that kind of helps put folks' mind at ease.

Um I'm not opposed to moving forward with the annexation and meeting those, you know, whether that ends up being 12 or if there's a need, um, because we do want to make sure that we also provide um, you know, for future, you know, prospects uh and and have all the development for you know uh fire turnarounds to have um you know even a central area for children to play or whatever that might be.

So we have full intent um to make it an actually appealable place to live and whether that be for senior living or whoever.

moving forward with the annexation and meeting those you know whether that ends up being 12 or if there's a need um because we do want to make sure that we also provide um you know for future you know prospects uh and and have all the development for you know uh fire turnarounds to have um you know even a a central area for children to play or whatever that might be so we have full intent um to make it an actually appealable place to live and whether that be for senior living or whoever so just that's all I have on that great that helps give a little clarification and uh so council president some things with uh staff etc was there a question there is okay is the canal currently covered is that a covered canal or is it an uncovered canal on the property um her lateral sorry heron lateral is currently uncovered it does run um from the north east um and kind of weaves its way through the property um where it ends um and becomes city of nampa and crosses under Midland to uh pump house there so we'll be reverting the um portion that comes in at the um the northeast side and just bringing it along the back portion there um the east side of the property line and then along the south side and at that point I've already talked to um my work as you just found out um and about the type of piping and everything that we need to do um to enclose that and actually make that um uh thoroughfare so for folks to be able to pull in and drive over but we don't intend to build over that um that way there it's easily accessible still so it is being rerouted the canal's being rerouted to be contiguous that with the property line not just going straight through the center of the property right okay thank you because I just I wanted clarification on are we only building on the northern half or the southern half and if so is the calculations accurate on the uh dwelling per acre if we're only using half the property so the full property is 1.53 acres pre or post reroute that's being used for development um it is um at this time it's 1.66 acres okay um when we move it that will become basically um you know where the infrastructure sits for folks to drive in and out of the subdivision there so but also just we don't want to put anything over the top of it um for the fact that it limits uh Nampa Meridian's your uh Namper Meridian irrigation districts ability to get in there if there's an issue or anything that comes up so they still have their easement as well so how much of an easement I'm just trying to get to the final calculation for the property and maybe this is for Rodney when you factor in not covering or using the portions of the canal how much of the property is remaining to be developed is it after we give the easement we don't touch that area where the canal is now flowing as well as the other right of ways is that 1.53 or is it less than when we factor that out Mr President and council um that that's gonna have to be analyzed at time of plat because at that point we'll have the actual easement from the district we don't have that at this point this is just annexation and zoning but we'll figure out that at the time.

And I I hope my thought process is being followed is it 1.53 what we anticipate it being after we receive those easements or we don't know that number no the 1.53 is the dedication after dedication of right of way along the roadway.

Okay.

So it could be 1.2 maybe even only an acre usable after the fact it depends on how they handle it if they pipe it that changes things dramatically but um it it there's a lot of factors that go into it I I'm not sure what okay but again just to just to be clear eight dwelling units per acre is the is the cap.

So if you reduce that with open space with parking with easements if it gets smaller and smaller you're still at eight dwelling units on a metal acre growth.

So automatically code applies in that sense it's not we're approving based off of the 1.53 it's this what we anticipate and it could be only six is allowed after all those things are found.

Potentially yeah thank you council member other questions yes go ahead uh council member griffin just to answer a little bit of that um the the right of way for Namper meridian to the other opposing side of the canal which would be uh the east and south side of it it is 30 foot from center and on the north and uh west side is 25 foot from center but if we do pipe it with the proper structural design and the civil engineer that we intend to bring in to do that um we can use that um as a roadway so yes Jennifer this is a cool project for you to take on with your brother we don't see very many grassroots type developments so I appreciate you doing it and stick with it this can be an intimidating process but I trust that you'll be able to work through it so keep going at it good job.

We don't see very many grassroots type developments, so I appreciate you doing it and stick with it.

This can be an intimidating process, but I trust that you'll be able to work through it.

So keep going at it.

Good job.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Occasionally we need an encourager.

I'm not always that.

I can be tonight, though.

Thank you very much.

Council President, I move to close the public hearing.

We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Council discussion.

Council President.

I think the first and foremost, uh I appreciate you being willing to be flexible with us as we navigate public concerns as well as staff concerns as well as moving forward.

I would uh hope that council, whoever is ends up being the motion maker on this, would be willing to have a cap of eight units.

I think that appeases the concerns of neighbors as well as uh potential heartache for the surrounding area, as well as I know it could potentially be less with the factor of right-aways and everything else dedicated parking lots and and grass space, just having that confirmation and writing in the development agreement to cap at eight.

And that's eight total units on the property.

Correct.

So if the house remains, there'd be seven new and one existing.

Correct.

Okay.

And um the development agreement is coming back before council, correct?

On the annexation part, so it's it would be looked at.

Mr.

President, yes.

Um that comes before you in consent agenda, usually.

You can always remove that from consent and put it on as a business item.

Is it possible for us to in doing a motion here to say it has to come via or is that difficult or rather than the council looking for that that is a little tricky if I might, Mayor?

Um in a way you're kind of binding the procedure of a future meeting.

Um, and at that point, who knows what'll the council makeup will be and and presiding officer.

Um it could be strongly encouraged or asked uh ask staff to flag that or bring that to their attention.

That's probably more appropriate to I'm Mr.

President.

I I am uh happy to do that if uh once this comes back.

Uh pressing and I will need to work through that development agreement with the applicant, and so we're gonna be talking about it quite a bit in the next few weeks if this gets approved.

Um so I will make sure that that gets flagged for your attention and city council's attention.

Yeah, I just think it's important that we not re-experience a couple of deals have passed where we think we're approving one thing and then uh via the development agreement or misunderstanding something else comes forward and well it kind of qualifies because they now have the zoning and so then it's kind of like an in run on the on the proposal.

Council president, yes.

One last question if I could for Rodney.

Uh do you have any recommendations for a signature shock clock on these development agreements that we might be able to implement?

I know the example of Shadow Creek was mentioned, so uh is there something in mind that you might have, if at all um to get the development agreement done, you mean to once it's done and sent to the applicant to require signature within a certain amount of days?

Um the engineer was just saying she'll need to come up with a concept plan.

So we'll need some uh significant amount of time to come up with that site plan.

Um so what a year?

Six months to a year is our recommendation.

Okay.

Then I would recommend for council if we could adding a signature shot clock when the development agreement is set to the applicant to be within a year of signing.

If that's the motion that somebody makes do we have a motion, Mr.

President?

Yes.

A question for staff.

Okay.

Can you respond to uh Ms.

Higley's comments that she made when she spoke about the project next door to this one that is not compliant with what city council had approved?

And um other comments that she rebutted breeze report.

I'm curious about that.

Mr.

President and Council happy to.

Um I was anticipating some of this question.

Um let's see.

So this is the property, uh Mallard Apartments subdivision to um 2000 South Midland.

Um at the time of approval, the comprehensive plan and city code allowed a density increase for the RD zoning district if four plexes were approved by council.

So it's not that the medium density residential designation changed.

It didn't change the the range either.

What what was happening at the time is that the RD zoning was a zone that was approved under the medium density residential designation.

So even in in this situation, the when they went to four plexes, it allowed them to exceed that eight dwelling units per acre.

So that's what happened here is that council at the time approved a uh fourplex and it exceeded that that dwelling units per acre.

It was a common practice before I came on.

Um it was pretty standard.

Um after we saw a couple of these, I started questioning does this make sense to exceed the uh dwelling units per acre allowed by the code or by the comp plan.

And we brought that code change to council.

You made the change, city council at that time made the change so that it has to meet the medium density residential designation.

So it was not outside of what had been done in the past for years and years.

It was not inconsistent with the direction that city council gave.

Um they approved a uh proposal with a concept of 32 dwelling units per acre.

They did not approve the plat at that time.

They did not, they did not go that far.

So when they came back and they said, hey, these are four plexes, you were meeting your lot size requirements.

Here's how many we can fit onto this property.

It was consistent with code.

So yes, I I understand the concern.

It it's valid concern.

It's been addressed for the future developments through the code change that was done.

The other comment that we heard is about um requiring a PD.

Um, no, this is a section of code that uh exempts the requirement for PUD because it's less than two acres.

So there is no um requirement to do a PUD in this scenario because code um exempts that you Rodney.

Mr.

President, I have one more question.

Okay.

I don't understand the need for uh the time frame on a signed development agreement.

To me, it's if they never sign it, so be it in if they choose to sell the property that's null and void anyway, if it hadn't been signed.

So I can you explain that to me, like what's the importance of having that signed in a reasonable time frame?

Mr.

President and Council, I I'm not sure I can.

Um I think maybe the concern is just that it's hanging out there somewhere and not moving forward, but I agree with you that um if this were to be sold and they decided not to move forward, um, that they'd have to go back through the process.

It doesn't ever finalize the annexation unless that development agreement is signed, and so it would stay out in the county if they decided not to sign the development agreement.

Clarification of development agreement once that's executed and approved by council is recorded against the property.

That's correct, it's part of the ordinance.

Yeah, okay.

Are they transferable?

Yes, development agreements stay with the property.

Okay.

Council other questions?

Uh yes, sir.

Thank you.

Um Rodney.

Uh to make it in contiguous with the other neighborhoods.

Do you I'm struggling with the zoning?

Because one from high density now you're saying to medium density.

So why not RS six?

To be more continued with the neighboring neighborhoods.

I know that's not up to us.

That's up to the to the applicant.

Mr.

Chair, I believe you don't mean contiguous, you mean compatible?

Compatible.

Is that correct?

Okay.

So the RS six decision or RD is the property owner's decision.

They bring an application forward.

We have a um a pre-application meeting where we provide them details about what can and can't be done.

This is an this is the uh pre-application meeting notes that uh we provided to the applicant uh at the time of the pre-application.

Um just notice they're 12 units on 1.5 acres, eight dwelling units per acre.

Um this is what they're requesting.

They're they're asking sometimes they don't know the zone.

Sometimes they'll come in and say, hey, I would like to get an RS6 zone, but I want duplexes or I want townhouses.

And we say, well, that's not really an option.

You if that's what you want, then here's the zone that you need to select.

And so that's kind of the negotiation part when we honey, it's not negotiation, it's just information.

We're just sharing information with them saying if this is what you want to do, then here's what you're gonna have to have to request.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, President.

Somebody would like to make a motion, Mr.

President.

I'll make a motion.

I move to approve annexation and zoning to RD for parcel R229740 and the associated right-of-the-velopment agreement at 2102 South Midland Volt Boulevard in the southwest quarter section of section 33 Township 3 North R2 W BM for Jennifer Reynolds with all conditions listed in the staff report and to adopt the proposed findings of approval as stated in the staff report and to put a condition in the DA that would limit this development to no more than eight dwelling units.

Is there a second?

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Is there discussion?

Questions?

Uh council president.

Comments?

Yes.

Um I first read through this, I really did not like this development, but I I now see that this annexation and zoning change is a good idea for this area if we are able to limit the units.

It's just not I I used to live in that area and I know that road is really congested, and so to keep that down is important.

And also for the look of the area as well.

I know there's empty ground near there, but there's still some really nice um homes in that area.

So I can I can give this my vote if we are able to restrict how many units.

Thank you.

Council president.

Of which what we've done is eight units.

Yeah.

If if there's a clarification that that's eight total units, including existing residents if the existing residents remains.

Would that be correct for the motion?

Okay.

Is there heartburn with that, Councilman?

No.

Oh, okay.

You've raised that three or four separate times, so I'm just curious if if the residents you want it bulldozed, and then we can have our eight or one plus seven.

No, I just want to make sure it's clear.

Okay.

So we don't come back a year from now or a year and a half and then go, whoops.

We we thought we were doing X and we ended up getting Y.

So that's that's why I'm trying to reaffirm.

Start getting into the details, trying to, you know.

Okay.

Other thoughts, questions?

We have a motion.

We have a second.

Clerk call the roll.

Gog, yes.

Gingula.

Yes.

Phil's Yes.

Rodriguez.

No.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Five in favor, one opposed.

Motion carries.

Council President.

Can we be sure to flag this for staff and strongly encourage them to let us know when it's on the consent agenda so we can pull it off?

I I think uh they've got that feeling uh strongly this evening.

So we appreciate staff helping us on that one.

Our next item is 3-7, and it is uh continued to date certain right now as July 20th, 2026.

And with that item, council, we have no need for an executive session.

No, councilman.

Hold it.

Council President, I move that we were continue that item 3-7 to July 20th, 2026.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Do we need a roll call?

I may work.

Yes, please.

Gog.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Jingula.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

All in favor?

Motion carries.

Now moving on.

Well, it's great to be corrected.

You learn a lot.

It's tough to navigate some day.

It's coming along.

Yeah.

Okay.

So again, uh the executive session we don't have a need for, so we're not going to take that item up.

My understanding.

So how would you do you want that denied or just that we're not doing?

Do I know that?

Okay.

Any other comments from council?

I make a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Second.

If we have a motion to adjourn, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion is adjourned.

Or the meeting is adjourned.