Thanks for taking my call.

Well, okay.

Good evening.

Welcome to Nampa City Council meeting, and uh we'll call the meeting to order.

Our first uh item is invocation with Pastor Keith, and he'll also lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Father, thank you for the opportunity to be here.

Tonight it's an honor to be able to offer the opening prayer for this meeting tonight.

I'm thankful for each person that is uh standing before me.

I thank you for their commitment to our city.

Our city needs leadership in times like these.

And Father, it's been a traumatic uh time over the last few months.

But Father, what I hold on to in crazy times is that you've never been out of control.

And Father, that our time, our city belongs to you.

So I just pray for even in this meeting that you would give wisdom, direction to God that that even what takes place tonight and in the weeks to come would be a means to bring the city together.

Father, for what you're gonna do here tonight, we'll thank you.

And I pray this in the mighty name of Jesus, our Savior.

Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, roll call.

Here, Tingula here, Bills, here, Reynolds, Rodriguez, here, Griffin, all present.

So tonight we have two proclamations, and the first one is Idaho Gives Week and Autumn, we're gonna allow you to come up.

And so we're appreciative to your leadership.

It sounds great.

Uh what's already transpiring.

So from the office of the mayor, uh, whereas nonprofit organizations help build and sustain healthy communities in our state, enhance the quality of life for Idawans and for others throughout the country and the world.

And whereas over 7,000 charitable nonprofit organizations based in Idaho contribute significantly to our economy by providing services to our communities, employing over 79,000 Idahoans, and producing total revenue of over ten point three billion in service to our communities.

And whereas Idaho's nonprofit leaders often are entrepreneurs, create new solutions to problems and fill previously unmet needs in the areas of health, recreation, and education, research, arts, social services, and more.

And whereas Idaho Gives Week serves as a time for Idahoans to join together with one voice on one day to contribute to and amplify the efforts of Idaho nonprofits.

And whereas the nonprofit sector acts as a responsible steward of charitable dollars to achieve a diverse range of missions and goals, and whereas nonprofit organizations win fulfill their missions by advocating on behalf of those who cannot advocate for themselves.

Now therefore, I David Bills, Council President of the City of Nampa, Idaho, do hereby proclaim May 4th through May 7th, 2026 in the City of Nampa as Idaho Gives Week.

And I encourage all residents to continue to recognize and support the many nonprofit organizations in our community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Council, if we will, we'll gather for a picture.

And Autumn, can you just share with us what took place already today?

Yes.

So today is day one of Idaho Gives.

We kicked it off at I think it was 1259 a.m.

yesterday or something.

1 a.m.

very early.

I was not up for that.

Um but we kicked it off for the first time in the 14 year history.

We reached a million dollars before noon.

So we're well on our way to two million.

Idaho showing up Shark.

Oh my god.

Let me start again.

Pastor Keys, we're gonna have you come up.

Okay.

Well I'm back just a little too far.

Okay, here we go.

Shar, we appreciate all the work you and your team do, and it helps keep us organized.

Folks, if you don't realize what goes on in the clerk's office for so much citizens and the help, and then just the orchestration of council meetings and planning zoning meetings, et cetera, that get organized and things put together, it is greatly appreciated.

So whereas the Office of Professional Municipal Clerk, a time-honored and vital part of local government exists throughout the world, and the office, and whereas the Office of Professional Municipal Clerk is the oldest among public servants, and whereas the Office of Professional Municipal Clerk provides the professional link between the citizens, the local governing bodies, and agencies of government at other levels, and whereas professional municipal clerks have pledged to be ever mindful of their neutrality and impartiality, rendering equal service to all, and whereas the professional municipal clerk serves as information center as on functions of local government and community, and whereas professional municipal clerks continually strive to improve the administration of the affairs of the Office of Professional Municipal Clerk through participation in education programs, seminars, workshops, and the annual meetings of their state, prevent province, county, and international professional organizations, and whereas it is most appropriate that we recognize the accomplishments of the Office of the Professional Municipal Clerk.

Now, therefore, I, David Bills, Council President of the City of Nampa, do hereby proclaim May 3rd through May 9th in the City of Nampa as Professional Municipal Clerks Week, and further extend appreciation to our professional municipal clerk and to all the professional municipal clerks for the vital services they perform in their exemplary dedication to the communities.

Again, Char, we're grateful for you and your staff and what you guys do.

So pictures hide from this.

She doesn't get to hide this time.

Oh I wanted to say thank you, and um, I do appreciate my team.

They're a great team, and I did want to give um come some kudos to Amy and her staff.

If you haven't seen the little video that's on our Facebook page, um, it's awesome.

And uh that was Amy and her team.

Actually, I saw it and I really liked it.

Good job.

Yeah.

It was good.

Good job, Amy.

Oh, it is remember that to acknowledge her as well.

So uh public forum.

Is there somebody here or anybody signed up to speak uh for three minutes?

Um council president.

We do have one sign-up, and that is Melissa Robinson.

Okay.

Of course, you know, my name is Melissa Sue Robinson.

I serve as a national executive director of the National Association for the Advancement of Transgender People really growing now.

I am also resident deeply invested in the future of NAMPA.

I'm here tonight to ask you to take a straightforward practical step, adopt a local non-discrimination ordinance that includes sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.

This is not about politics.

It's about whether people in our city can live their daily lives, go to work, find housing, and excess services without fear of being turned away simply because of who they are.

Right now, there are gaps in protection.

That creates uncertainty for residents and for businesses.

And uncertainty is not good for a growing city like Nampa.

Cities across the country, including many in our state like ours, have addressed this issue at the local level, which includes Meridian and Sandpoint and Boise.

They've done it not to make headlines, but to make sure their communities are stable, fair, and economically competitive.

Because the reality is this businesses look for communities where the rules are clear, where workers are treated fairly, and where everyone has a chance to contribute.

This ordinance helps send that message.

And just as importantly, it reflects basic Idaho values, fairness, personal responsibility, treating your neighbor neighbor with respect.

The ordinance I've submitted is measured, it includes clear definitions.

It respects religious liberty, it focused first on education and mediation, not punishment.

It is designed to work for NAMPA, not against it.

No one should lose a job, an apartment, or access to a business because of who they are.

Uh that is something we can all agree on.

You have the opportunity tonight not to divide this community, but to strengthen it to provide to provide clarity, to provide fairness and to show that NAMPA is a city where everyone is expected to play by the same rules and be treated by those rules equally.

Excuse me.

I respectfully ask that you move forward this ordinance that I've submitted to you forward for consideration and public hearing.

Thank you for your time and for your service to the people of Nampa.

I really appreciate it, and so does everybody else.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there somebody else who maybe didn't sign up?

I would like three minutes to speak.

Good evening.

Jill Hallow 603 West Crimson Loop Nampa.

I'm excited to share with you a report that's kind of on the record about the water summit that I attended a couple weeks ago.

I sent you guys uh a copy of my notes or my summary, but um I thought everyone might like to hear where we're at with water.

It's kind of important.

Um so it was reported at the water summit, Treasury Valley Water Summit that there's an estimated 30 to 50 percent decline in snowpack by the late century.

We're declining.

They showed us a graph, and it's just like we're getting more rain and less snow.

We had a snow melt early, particularly this year at 10,000 feet in March.

So uh what they're hoping to do is to promote um conserving water and storing water.

Um storage is happening big time at Anderson Ranch Reservoir and Cat Creek Reservoir.

They've raised the the dam 23 feet to hold more water back, and they're pumping water from Anderson Ranch up into Cat Creek Reservoir for extra storage.

So storage, storage, storage is what they talked about.

The other thing that they talked about was conservation, and that sort of lands with all of us.

Um you know, we're told the aquifer is in good shape, and maybe it is right now, but with conditions declining in the future, we have to conserve and try to bring back our aquifer as much as we can.

So I made a suggestion, and I don't know if Amy saw this or not, but I'd like to suggest that the city of Nampa raise water conservation awareness by providing a water gauge page of some sort on their monthly newsletter based on statistics collected from the water the the experts that we could see that through the summer, so we'd be reminded.

Also, Zanzo's on I think the 31st of May is doing a class on how to be water smart for watering lawns.

So if we could just bring that awareness, it would help everyone, and as we know, oh I have 26 seconds.

As we know, seeds, seed production brings a billion and a half dollars to our county.

This county is unique because of its climate, and we're number five in the world for supplying seeds.

So if we mess up, the rest of the world suffers.

So thank you.

There's somebody else who didn't sign up but wants to speak.

Yeah, my name is Ray Booze, 2017 South Secretary here in Nampa.

Could you state your name again?

Ray Booze B O Z.

Um I'm just gonna piggyback a little bit on what she said there.

Before my wife and I moved here, we were looking at Arizona, and there's a place there, arid zona.

You probably all heard that.

They have cisterns going in for water recovery, and there's something in storage that I think we could look at as a city of having particularly some of these newer developments that are coming in, huge amounts of water gonna be used there, maybe have some situation where uh cisterns can be uh installed almost in every house or every other one and recover a lot of this rainwater.

Um that's about it.

Just an idea.

Thank you, Ray.

Mr.

Chair, we do have another speaker, Amy Bowman.

Amy.

Good evening, Council President and uh Nampa City Council.

My name is Amy Bowman, Director of Communications, and I just wanted to um honor Mayor Rick Hogobohm.

He had uh arranged uh before his passing to have early voting here at NAMPA City Hall.

And so it is happening today, was the first day.

The last I spoke, we had about 50 people that had voted today, and so please take advantage of early voting.

It's happening Monday through Friday, 8 to 5 through next Friday.

And so please help spread the word because we would love for it to be successful here in NAMPA.

It's the first time to my knowledge that it's happened here at NAMPA City Hall.

So thank you.

Amy, thank you.

Amy, Council President.

Has there been a post main on Facebook and all the social medias yet?

Yes, we have done that, and it's been in our newsletter, and uh, we did add it to stories, but we'll continue to encourage that out.

So yeah, welcome to share that to your pages as well.

Appreciate it.

So, Amy, we appreciate you as well.

Sometimes we don't get to say it, but here you're at the front of the podium that uh you do an excellent job.

Oh, thank you.

And you are an exceptional individual to put up sometimes with all different varieties of happenings, etc.

that come in.

I don't think folks fully experience, realize, or take you into consideration all that you deal with from the PR side and communication out, communication in.

Thank you very much.

I'll borrow a line from Chick-fil-A.

It's my pleasure.

Thank you.

Very good.

Very good.

With that, uh, we're going to uh move into our agenda.

And uh we need to adopt the agenda.

Is there a motion?

So moved.

Uh all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Consent agenda.

Motion.

Council President, I would like to pull something off if I could.

No, you can't.

Okay.

Up to the chair.

16 BB, please.

16B.

Okay, one six B B.

We'll talk about separately.

Is there anything else?

Need to be moved.

Subject to 16 BB.

Need a motion.

So moved as amended.

Consent agenda.

Second.

Got a motion and a second.

All in favor?

I so at this time we're gonna uh discuss that item.

So councilman Griffin, your concern.

I just wanted to get a status update that everything has been on the uppity up with the Rocco's Road House.

I know they had been brought forward to us last time for consideration on the renewal, and that there's been no incidences or any kind of updates regarding uh how they're operating by police or by the clerk's office, whoever might have it.

Yes.

Um council member Grippin said that I would be able to answer that um when a renewal comes into the office.

Uh we do contact other departments, including police.

So they um provided approval.

And uh as you can see, uh they did have some points, but their probation and their points will expire next month.

Thank you.

Question President.

Yes.

So does the report does the police department and do they have a report on when they did check bar check and check the facilities over the last year?

Okay.

Whichever one you like.

No, it's on, sorry, council president and councilman.

Uh we do not directly schedule checks for those.

Those are done intentionally periodically through our patrols at night and on the weekends.

Um speaking directly of Rocco's, there was two follow-up meetings, reference their points.

Um to my standards, they've actually gone above and beyond to make sure that their staff received additional training.

Okay, thank you.

That's what I wanted to hear.

Thank you.

Any other questions, thoughts, comments?

Need a motion.

Council President, I move to approve one six B B.

Second.

And motion and second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Moving on to staff communications, Rodney.

We're not able to do that.

Thank you, Council President, and and Council Rodney Ashby, planning and zoning director for the record.

Um, I just want to report first on the planning and zoning commission decisions, and then I'll jump into our our uh density report, quarterly density report.

So the first one that uh was considered by the planning and zoning commission was a subdivision final plat approval for uh mana commercial park, and this is eight commercial lots and four common lots for an anticipated um mixed retail office and service use.

And this was uh approved by the planning and zoning commission, and this was on your consent agenda tonight.

Um next is are the public hearings.

Final plat approval for uh Manna Commercial Park and this is eight commercial lots and four common lots for an anticipated mixed retail office and service use and this was uh approved by the planning and zoning commission and this was on your consent agenda tonight um next is are the public hearings we had three public hearings that I want to report on and these each were for uh comprehensive plan amendments either text or map amendments and as you recall we have the ability to request the comp plan changes every six months that's by state law um we have to allow them to uh request that every six months and we do the full six months and not allow anything until that until then to just provide some um some consistency with our planning efforts so that we're not changing the long term vision of our our community every couple of months so that's the intent and we had three of those applications the first one was from staff to just clarify when a PUD or MPC is necessary that's a text amendment in the comprehensive plan and that will come before you that was recommended for approval and it will come before you on June 15th and we'll give you all the details then the next one is for Madison Ranch uh estates this one is a comprehensive plan map and text amendment annexation and zoning to BC RS6 and um this was uh at zero Madison Road located southeast of highway 2026 and Madison Road and um this was changing from RMU to M medium density residential so RMU's residential mixed use to medium density residential commercial to medium density residential and then um one commercial lot and then the annexation and zoning for three 323 detached single family residential lots and 51 common lots um so planning and zoning commission considered this and they actually recommended denial of this one because they were proposing to reduce the commercial area near highway 2026 from what we had in our specific area plan and our uh our comprehensive plan they were concerned about reducing that amount of commercial uh along that major corridor and um felt that that was the most appropriate place for commercial so that will come before you still um on July 6th 2026 and you will hear from the applicant at that point the final one is a comprehensive plan map amendment uh from industrial to commercial for 2.6 acre portion and annexation and zoning to IL zoning or light industrial zoning for 15 acres and BC zoning for 2.6 acres for a future subdivision uh at 4300 East Victory Road located southwest of Victory Road and Happy Valley Road where those RVs are being stored right now RVs and boats and things just south of the airport runway.

So this one was recommended for approval and this that was unanimously and this will come before you on July 6th so um now moving on to our our density report here the preliminary plat report is shown on the screen there kind of all over the place we've seen more on Southeast NAMPA than I I think we have in the past a little closer view here maybe Christy can you advance that this isn't working there we go so there's the northern section you can see the subdivisions that were uh proposed there just a reminder these are longer term they're out there ways and they can be developed over a long period of time in phases so we really don't pay too much attention to this these preliminary plates just because we're not certain they're going to move forward or if they are it's going to be a while before they they develop out but what we really focus on is try to focus on the final plat.

So can we go to the next one which is the southern section of these preliminary plats okay there we go thank you so this is the southeast area of our community and again you can see some of those were like in this case the Cider Mills one was withdrawn and here's a list of all those projects here's the final plat report um this surprisingly all over the all over the board here got a lot in North Nampa but some in southeast NAMPA and a little bit in southwest final plates are um more imminent so they're coming uh sooner than the preliminary plates there's the northern section the southern section and then there's

Here's the final plat report.

This surprisingly all over the all over the board here.

We've got a lot in North Nampa, but some in Southeast Nampa and a little bit in Southwest.

Final plats are more imminent, so they're coming sooner than the preliminary plats.

There's the northern section, the southern section.

And then there's the list of developments.

And you'll notice single family units were 1374 and multifamily units were 112.

So predominantly single family dwelling units that were have been approved in the last year.

And that is all I have.

We had no uh short plots this quarter.

Council President Randy, thank you.

Councilman Reynolds or uh Rodriguez.

Yes, thank you.

Uh this is uh I'm gonna ask you and Doug for a preliminary report on over the last year how many of our new subdivisions, new homes, multi, yes, those have begun paying to property taxes.

And how much of property taxes uh do they pay also?

And I know you don't have it today, Rodney, but but I'm trying to give you an idea of what I want and Doug is in how much again has the city paid to have these projects connect to the city, or how much of the city is paid out for those for the completion of those projects.

Okay, and then I'm and I'm excluding impact fees.

Well, I I could respond, uh council president, I could respond to that second one.

I'd have to come back with the the first one though.

Yeah, if you got a short answer, okay short answer is we don't pay, um those are paid by the development themselves.

So we any time they connect to our utilities, they they are the ones making those payments.

Yes, yeah, okay.

However, the other view the other one we'll I'll have to research and come.

And I don't know whether that's now, Doug.

I mean, we don't know how much that is yet.

Well property.

It's it's included in the new construction values we include in our budget every year.

So we can get a list of the properties for new construction every year, and then we've got to sort out which ones are high density, which ones aren't.

That would be the little bit of an exercise.

I imagine it could be done though.

Well, I keep keep in mind that a plat's approved.

But until construction of improvements have gone on and subsequent house building, that the tax side of it has minimally changed.

Because the tax at that point is still bare land.

If it's being farmed, it still comes under ag exemption.

And so while it's sitting there in a holding pattern, there's not taxes.

The city is deriving some taxes, but minimal compared to build out.

Yes.

I I understand that.

And I'm not referring to these you have before, because these have not been completed.

I'm I'm I'm referring to the subdivisions that have been completed.

And the and and then the new housing has started paying taxes.

That's what that's what I'm referring to.

Okay, so what you're after is the project first phase is in, 40 homes are built.

Yes, sir.

What's the income to the city of Nampa off of that particular new plat?

That's correct, sir.

Okay.

I don't know how the how how hard that's going to be to do because we don't have the the full numbers in yet, but I'm thinking about that.

Depends on the time frame.

If you're talking the current year, it's harder to get because there are occup certificates of occupancy that come in that give a partial year's property tax.

And then the next year they become fully part of our new construction income.

And I can get a list of those, but then it's going through and sorting identify which property is high high density and which isn't.

So I don't know that Kenya County tracks that would have to figure out some mechanism to well tie their lots into our system to take the house is completed in February.

It's sold in March and April, and the moment they do they they occupy the residence, that's when the taxes start, right?

Right, it's a probated version.

That's what we're the first year.

That's what I'm looking at to see what actually payment doesn't come until December.

That's true.

And then it's split to the following June.

Exactly.

So from a receipts point of view, it's anywhere from six, twelve, eighteen months after an occupancy that a municipality or other government jurisdiction is going to receive the physical funds.

Yes, sir.

If you want a total list of the occupancy permits that Kenya County's recognized, that's easy to get.

But it will be the total total list of everything.

Yes.

Okay.

Oh well, I'm I'm just trying to figure out whether next budget year.

Um council president, and just kind of figure out what we kind of have to look at and what we have available if we can say it beforehand.

That's all I'm trying to say.

Right.

So from this morning's uh director's meeting.

Uh Doug brought up status of where things are at and information that's gonna be coming forward to us and in part of our budget work uh side.

So he's waiting for final numbers, as I understand from the county.

Right.

We we had a preliminary meeting with Brian Stender uh several weeks ago, and he has the preliminary new constructions, not the certificates of occupancy, but the new construction that's applicable for the FY27 budget year.

Um they will spend between then and then until mid-June going through 70 pages of requested adjustments.

So a person gets their property tax notification, they go in and say, I think it's too high, then the county has to go through and review each of those.

There's like 70 pages of those.

Well, I won't get the final number until probably just before we do the July um budget workshops, but by June I will have a very solid number, and it's likely to be very similar to what we had last year.

So that's that's where I'm starting on budget.

I'm using last year's numbers as the base.

It might go up a little bit, it might go down a little bit, but very similar to last year.

I think that was 46 million last year in property tax.

That's the total.

The new construction portion prior to adding in the the foregone was about 2.3 million dollars.

Pardon me.

There were two values.

We had we had the three percent we took, and the new construction was about 890,000 last year, those dollars.

So that 890 for new construction will be very similar in 27.

Might be up a little bit, might be down a little bit, but in in the ballpark there.

Okay, well, that just uh an idea.

Yeah, with 389, it it's the easy calculation for us right now is budget's holding the line.

Yes, sir.

That's the easy thing to do.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rodney.

And so I think just so I'm clear, I I'm not gonna be providing anything after today.

That's your fine on finance.

It's okay.

Thank you.

You can go there, probably moving on.

Uh new business.

Uh 5-1 is a request for reconsideration on uh annexation and zoning to BC and RMH and on down through uh for the property located at Greenhurst, Happy Valley, Robinson, and East Locust.

And uh so asking for reconsideration on orchard acres.

It's important to understand this reconsideration is not a discussion of the project or the public hearing.

The issue before us for a reconsideration is the applicant through their legal counsel believes that there were some issues within the process that they see as being able to needing to uh open up the public hearing and having some correction of record issues, et cetera.

And that's a very summary.

Um so they're asking in a cordial way to for us to uh uh vote affirmatively to uh place them back on an agenda item in the near future, and to allow them to uh come before us in a public hearing setting to address the issues they believe uh were not fully addressed.

So it's not about for the project, not for the project.

This is on procedural uh give opportunity uh or not to uh the applicant to uh revisit some of the issues.

Preston, anything further you want to add?

Council president, thank you.

Um I think you summarize it pretty well.

We don't see these all too often, so it's always helpful to have a quick refresher.

This is very much a procedural vote tonight.

It's not a substantive one.

What the hearing will was on February 17th, that's kind of blocked out of your mind.

You're here looking at just the four corners of this reconsideration letter, and that's the basis of your decision tonight.

Um if it's granted, there will be a hearing at a later date, and at which time evidence, um, materials and further testimony will be had at the proverbial, a second bite at the apple.

It is uh a remedy in our code that is provided for land use applications.

Um so yeah, pretty straightforward on a procedural note.

Um it's just the letter of reconsideration that you received.

Okay, council president.

Yes, just for clarification from legal, if I could.

Within the letter, it's specifically emphasizing the point that the annexation portion is what they're contesting.

I'm trying to scroll to that number two.

Oh no, that's the wrong portion.

The first issues about the violation of due process, it's emphasizing the annexation portion of our decision.

Because it was filed jointly with an annexation and sown zone change.

Are we just reconsidering the discussion over annexation or its entirety with annexation and zoning both factored?

Council President?

Yes.

Uh good question.

It is the entirety.

Um, it's the whole reconsideration for the whole proposal.

So, yes, it's the initial annexation request and the requested zoning uh that they've sought with an annexation.

Follow up if I could, Council President.

Yes.

Because they were applied for together, if we found that zoning wasn't met, but annexation was, which is what they're contesting.

Should we then in the future be separating two votes out, one for annexation and one for zoning?

I know procedurally in the past we've done those both together because why would somebody want to annex into the city if they can't get the zone change for what they're desiring?

So I'm just trying to think in the future to avoid this issue.

Uh and as the motion maker getting quoted a few different times, I just want to be sure we're doing it proper in the future as well.

Council President?

Yes, first yeah, it really the applicant is the one who decides what package they want to present.

Um it could be very simple, it could be one uh you know, one dimensional, could have multidimensionals to it, and so that that's really an option that they get to choose.

Um, you know, how it was processed here, satisfy the application criteria through our planning and zoning staff.

And so that's permitted to present it the way they did.

Um the nature of it where there's an annexation piece, that is the first threshold decision, as you know.

Does it is it annexed, and then after that, then other things can be considered.

Um, and that's fairly typical to put those together.

Final question, council president, if I could.

Final.

Thank you.

Because they package it in a way that it was annexation and zoning, wouldn't the denial of one be the denial of both, or should we have procedurally done a denial on the or the approval on an annexation denial on the zoning and left it up to the applicant to ultimately sign?

Yeah, I would just defer to our reason statement, our reason decision letter that spells out in a footnote there the reason why the the decision letter is written the way it was.

Annexation is the threshold question, and that's addressed in there, I think pretty uh pretty clearly.

So that I think we handled it appropriately.

Thank you.

Are there other questions?

Council President?

Yeah, again, this is a procedural deal.

This is uh occasionally comes before us.

Sometimes it's considered a courtesy to allow the applicant to come back, and they've stated their reasons for it.

Uh, but it's not a requirement, as I understand.

So uh it's kind of which direction best foot forward or door shut president.

I would make a motion to uh uh grant a request for reconsideration.

We have a motion.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Any further discussion and to be clear there really is no further discussion on unless it's a procedural question, um, not about the application or anything really in the letter.

Yep.

And it's a roll call vote, clerk call the roll.

Cog, no, gingula.

No, Rodriguez.

No.

Griffin.

No.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Or opposed.

Um two in favor, motion fails.

So Preston, you'll be uh responding with the letter to these folks.

Or is it coming from the clerk's side or what's the notification?

I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

Typically, I'll send an email just letting them know I'll send that tomorrow and uh just letting them know that it was denied.

Okay.

I'm not sure if if planning and zoning do any other additional.

Next item on our agenda is uh 5-2.

It's an action item to authorize council president public works director to sign a work package amendment to the CMGC agreement with IMCO KRC joint venture for the Pertham sewer trunk project extension.

So work package two and uh amount not to exceed 15 million and some change.

It's been approved by legal.

It's uh prove it's a pending approval in the budget amendment package that's being put together.

John Spencer.

Council President, I'll make a motion to approve this item.

Is there a second?

Second John, we're gonna let you stand or sit for a moment.

Uh council president, I do have a question.

We have questions.

You're coming forward.

Thank you.

Not that I would just don't just disagree with this motion.

I just want to clarify.

Um the estimated project costs.

Please advise what inspection slash public involvement/slash easements at the price of one million six hundred and seventy-five thousand.

What is that?

Council Pennsylvania President Bills, uh Councilman Rodriguez, John Spencer, Director of Water Resources.

Um that is um precisely what is described as far as the need for public involvement.

There are uh easements needed for the construction, so the purchasing of those easements.

Um those are the the costs associated associated with those items.

Oh, that's what that's for then.

Yes.

Okay, because it says inspection and public involvement.

So there's also inspection costs associated with the project as well.

Yes.

Okay, okay, thank you.

That's all I have now, President.

All right.

Any other questions?

Call the rule.

Scog, yes.

Bills, yes, Rodriguez.

My council president, I have a question for you.

Okay.

It says foregone taxes, Y-25 approved budget of 1.6.

Did we approve a foregone of 1.6 foregone?

Two years ago, yes.

2% per capital and 1% for operations, primarily for the um Eustach canal, the the wastewater development along the sticke road.

Okay, so that's already we took it.

We took a vote on that during our budget time.

Yeah, thank you.

Yes.

Thank you, Doug.

Griffin.

Yes.

Jingula, yes, Reynolds, yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Let's see.

John uh we'll know here in a moment.

Uh so uh action uh on item 53 is to award bid and authorized council president to sign contract with Hobson fabricating for the NAMPA wastewater treatment lab hoods project amount of 190,000 461 approved in the FY26 budget.

Mr.

President.

Yes, I just want to comment uh being in this field in a roundabout sort of a way.

I was shocked at the numbers.

Um this is a good number that we got back from Hobbs and Fab.

So uh I think this is a this is great for the city of NAPA.

So I would make a motion to approve this item.

Second, we have a motion and a second, any other discussion.

Clerk call the roll.

Scog, yes, bills, yes, Rodriguez, yes, Griffin, Jingula, yes, Reynolds, all in favor, motion carries.

Our next uh item is public hearings.

We are 10 minutes before the hour, so unfinished business.

Unfinished business, thank you, sir.

Yep.

So we're headed up to item seven dash one.

So this is a uh first reading of ordinance for development agreement modification as presented there for multi-tenant buildings and GB One.

And uh the request is for us to pass under suspension rules.

Council, you'll recall this was before us months ago.

And uh it involves the property out on Franklin.

Sure, you're smiling at me, so I'm making a mistake or okay.

Don't smile, Shark.

If she frowns, I'm not worried.

So this is out on Franklin Road near Robinson and Franklin.

And this is an office park where they came in and asked for variants and shift parking and to do things to get the next phase in.

And they now have their apparent drawings and other work uh put together, so we're now seeing this.

Is that correct, Rodney?

Okay.

So you can read.

Second.

We have a motion and a second to pass under suspension of rules.

Clerk will call the roll.

Scog, yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Well still have eight minutes before the hour.

Dinner break.

Bathroom break.

Oh yeah.

Sorry.

Thank you, Shar.

We're gonna break for eight and eight minutes.

Better because it's just gonna be you and I sitting here.

I'm just focused on being ready for the first time.

I know, me too.

We're like, okay, here we go.

Oh, yeah, going off Louis.

Okay, it is uh six PM and uh we have uh three public hearings this evening.

Our first public hearing is an action item for pre-annexation and pre-zoning to BC community business.

Thank you.

And uh zoning district and development agreement addressed as zero highway twenty twenty six and the applicate uh applicant Jeff Hatch representing Shoemaker properties and Valley Pentecostal church.

Uh original concept open air RV storage.

Jeff.

Can you turn the Jeff Hatch with Hatch Design Architecture?

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

And Jeff, if you would just pull that microphone just a little further closer.

Thank you very much.

Good evening, Council President Bills and Council members.

Thank you for your consideration of our pre-annexation and pre-zoning application this evening.

The subject property is on the southeast corner of the intersection of Prescott Lane and twenty twenty-six.

Parcel A is perceived for commercial use like a gas station sometime in the future when it could be annexed.

Parcel B is the uh location of the future church that we're working with.

And parcel C is currently proposed to be open air storage in the county for the time being once we move into the city and can get utilities, we intend to do something that's complementary to the zone that we would then be uh undertaking.

And so this is trying to really minimize the impact uh while we're in the county and then be able to build on that fairly quickly when we move into actual annexation to the city.

Well Jeff, I'm gonna interrupt you just a sec.

Could you define open air and provide a little more on the third item you just mentioned?

That's the one that's ambiguous to me.

So while you're going forward it helped if you define what is open air uh storage mean.

Yeah, so open air storage would be the definition of Canyon County's allowable outdoor storage without any you know physical structures constructed.

So we'd be constructing roadways, we would be constructing uh potentially security fences based on what Canyon County wants.

But the intent would be to really minimize the impact to that land until we can get utilities and actually do development.

Okay, so it's not actual putting down gravels and storing RVs or that type of thing.

Um it would be to some extent that uh uh council president bills.

Yeah, the intent would be to utilize the land for the time being while we wait for annexation to come, and the intent with the open air being there is we would be buffering it from 2026, allowing the church to proceed with their construction in the meantime and uh utilize that land for parking, uh anything that Canyon County would allow based on the proposed use that we would be doing through Canyon County.

Now that uh application has to still be reviewed by planning zoning with Canyon County and approved through the Canyon County Commissioners, they may apply additional restrictions on that land.

But uh at this time we're proposing um allowed use in the county, which would be outdoor storage.

So that would be like uh to some extent gravel.

Some like a couple other places not too far from this area, a couple miles mile over or whatever.

Uh open air being its gravel and its RVs parked there and stored there in a fenced enclosed area.

Yes.

Yeah, and based on the county codes, they have I I think it's like a hundred foot setback from Prescott in 2026.

So they're intending for these to be kind of tucked in to the southeast corner.

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

Please continue.

Oh, interesting.

It has like one more slide, but it's not come out for some reason.

There we go.

Okay.

Uh so the pre-annexation criteria, it's kind of broken down into three things.

The project is uh needs to be consistent with NAMPA's comprehensive plan and future land use, which we're in agreement with staff on their recommendations for our land use and uh the comprehensive plan.

Uh the project proposed meets city standards.

Yeah, the applicant is in agreement with conditions of approval outlined in the staff report.

And the proposed pre-annexation is in the interest of the public, it's reasonable and necessary.

So again, the area continues to grow, and the proposed use provides a service to the surrounding community until we can formally be annexed into NAPO.

Um, and then we did have discussions about utility connections, those are not available at this time.

And I will stand for any questions.

Any questions for the applicant, Jeff Hatch?

Okay, okay, thank you.

Jeff, we appreciate this.

At this time, is there folks signed up on this hearing?

Yeah.

Thank you.

Always ready to get to the next slide.

Doug.

We need your assistance.

Because I'm forgetting you.

Thank you.

Uh Council President Bills and Council members Doug Critschfield, Principal Planner, uh, Nampa Planning and Zoning Department.

Um the project this evening, uh, this uh 40-acre site is located on Highway 2026 and Prescott Lane.

Uh this is a pre-annexation, and I just wanted to run through with the council a little bit on what a pre-annexation does for the city and what it does for the applicant.

Uh so we're under a joint powers agreement with Canyon County that they will uh give consideration to the city's comprehensive plan map designations when making decisions about land uses.

Um the pre-annexation process really involves going through uh the planning and zoning commission and the city council for approval.

If this is approved tonight, when Canyon County sends us a review letter asking for a review of the project, we'll indicate that it went through a pre-annexation process and that we have a development agreement in place.

Uh and that we will request that the county honor that development agreement and any conditions that are placed on the site from the um approval this evening if it's approved this evening.

If it's not approved by the the city council, when that application letter comes to us, we will ask for denial of the project.

So this really gives the application the applicant some assurance that the city will ask for approval of this project.

But ultimately, it's Canyon County that makes that decision.

We are just a recommending body to the to the county vis-a-vis this joint powers agreement.

So the impact areas you note was changed back in November by Canyon County, and it was brought down to Highway 2026 and over to Franklin Road, and that was removed from our impact area.

This project sits on that border now.

Well it becomes contiguous to city land because it then places a presence by the city of NAMPA on the 2026 corridor, which is an important economic corridor for the city.

As you can see, the the comprehensive plan designation as well as the specific area plan designation or community mixed use, which allows for regional commercial uses.

It would allow for a church, a gas station, it would allow for storage units if it was zone BC and had a conditional use permit.

It would allow for those types of uses.

Also requests some multifamily on the site, and the applicant has indicated that they would be willing to comply with that requirement of the specific area plan.

The request has been mentioned this evening to zone it to BC in the future when it becomes contiguous and that BC zone meets the requirements of the community mixed use, land use designation, and would not create a spot zone.

The zoning district, BC zoning district, allows for those things that I had just mentioned earlier with a conditional use permit.

However, because the applicant would be going through the county, they would be receiving their entitlements from the county.

The city then would have the opportunity to comment at that point on whatever's proposed.

Excuse me, it shouldn't be 16.

101 16A3.

And that's one of the requirements of the code.

So there are no other storage units within 2500 feet of this site.

So there were none of observed by staff.

In terms of the surrounding land uses, the applicant mentioned what's in the area.

See Franz Wittdy's commercial development.

We anticipate more commercial development along 2026 as we've are moving along here with the development of that roadway.

Just wanted to highlight some areas.

So 2026 is a principal arterior with Prescott as a collector.

It's anticipated that Prescott will be a write-in right out.

ITD is willing to work with the applicant on another access to the site.

That's something they would have to negotiate with ITD.

Traffic impact study may be required if this generates more than 100 new vehicle trips during any during any peak hour.

So that's hard to determine until we know the actual land uses on the site.

Water and irrigation are half mile away, and sewer would have to come up Prescott Lane from Elm Lane and following the development path.

They would be a higher cost of the utilities at such time as the lot annex is into the city of Nampa.

So that's uh they would become available to lot prior to annexation.

Uh the owner then could connect at that higher rate.

Um the developers shall adhere to currently adapted standards and road sections, which include a 10-foot wide side path along Ontario and Collector Roadway, so Prescott and Highway 2026.

Um we did have uh one public comment that was uh approved of the pre-annexation from uh Darrell uh TAIG, I think that's how you say the last name.

And then ITD gave us uh some comments uh as I had mentioned earlier, they're willing to work with the applicant on access.

Um the uh recommended condition approvals are in the staff report.

I want to point to number four, particularly, says that the applicant owner shall comply with city policies codes and standards in place at time of the property development.

So again, that adds some reassurance to the applicant and to the city about what's expected out there.

In terms of the facts and findings, uh those are stated in your staff report.

I'd be glad to take any questions if you have any about them.

The uh conclusion for approval.

I'm sorry, I skipped over the conclusion for approval, uh, same.

That's in the staff report.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

And here are the is the potential motion.

Doug, thank you.

Yeah.

Compliments to you because it was uh a good four to five, six years ago, where you were presenting for the city of Nampa on the north side there to outline those big parcels and to get them noted so that the day would come when folks would want to do pre-annexation uh ahead of services.

And I remember those days and those discussions sitting in a couple of different meetings, and uh, so I appreciate uh the efforts then and what it means now and the smooth transition that we're going through.

So thank you, President Bills.

It seemed a long way off back then.

It did, and it's here.

Some of us are gray, and some of us have less hair.

So I could feel the vibes.

You know me so well.

Okay.

So any questions of Doug.

Clerk, is there anybody signed up to testify on this item?

Mr.

Chair, there is not so Mr.

Hatch.

Council President Bills and Council members, thank you again for your consideration of our pre-annexation and pre-zoning um applications this evening.

Uh Mr.

Schumacher lives here, he's from here and wants to make sure that this development is meaningful in the future.

I think one consideration as we move forward in preparation of the land for what may uh be annexed in the future.

Um we're zoned for multifamily, we're we're zoned for a lot of things in that BC.

If uh there's any feedback as far as future considerations that we can you know start to look at pathways or access points that may complement that in the future, or definitely all ears to be complementary to what we're doing in the county, but to try to be as proactive as possible to make this a meaningful development for NAMPA in the future.

So I thank you for your consideration.

I'll stand for any questions.

Are there any questions?

Okay, okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Well, as been a in times past, and even though somebody didn't sign up, we still offer the opportunity, so I'm a little bit out of sequence.

But uh, is there anybody here who wants to testify or comment on this particular item?

Being none, so stand for a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

Second.

We have a motion.

All in favor?

Council discussion or a motion?

Yes.

I move to approve the project as stated on the screen.

I'll second it.

President.

Yes.

Planning and zoning team, with this being an opportunity for council to put any conditions on this at this time.

Is there anything that you recommend that we do?

We just don't see them very often, so want to make sure that we're doing it justice.

Councilmember President Bills and Councilmember Jingula.

We've we've placed in the conditions everything that we think is necessary at this point.

Thank you.

Any other questions, comments?

Clerk will call the role.

Gog, yes.

Cingula.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Griffin, yes, Rodriguez, Reynolds.

All in favor, motion carries.

So our next item is uh six-2, and it's an annexation and zoning to RS4, RS6, RD, and business neighborhood zoning districts, potential development agreement, preliminary plat for sage wood addressed to zero Lewis Lane.

And necessary right-of-way for Kelly Black representing more family trust in Corey Barton.

Original concept is 95 single family detached dwelling units, 83 single-family attached dwelling units, four commercial lots, and 18 common lots.

So is the applicant here.

Good evening, Council.

Kelly Black, Bailey Engineering, 868 East Riverside Drive, Eagle, Idaho.

Here on behalf of the applicant to present Sagewood subdivision.

We are seeking annexation and zoning with preliminary plat approval.

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

The future land use map from the comprehensive plan has this site designated as residential mixed use, and that's the purple area you see on the slide.

The RMU designation calls for medium density residential development and at least 5% commercial.

The comp plan also encourages smaller residential lots in this designation, which ultimately helps support the commercial development.

Nearby we have Fenway subdivision to the northeast.

This is currently under construction.

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

I'm gonna go back, I hit it too soon.

There are county parcels to the east and a county parcel with the Brook, a city development Brookhaven subdivision to the east as well.

As you can see, this area has been developing in accordance with the comprehensive plan and that RMU designation.

And Sagewood is a continuation of that alignment.

We are proposing four different zoning districts, neighborhood business, which is on the southwest corner, which will be the commercial area of the site.

The rest of the site will have a mix of residential zones, RD, RS4, and RS6.

The preliminary plaque contains 173 residential lots.

Highlighted in blue, we have 95 single-family detached residential.

Highlighted in purple, we have 48 alley loaded town homes.

Highlighted in green, we have 30 front loaded town homes.

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

This layout provides a mix of housing opportunities with the larger lots located along the north and eastern boundaries near the existing approved city subdivision and future RMU development, which creates the compatibility and continuity for existing and future development.

Lots gradually become smaller toward the south of the project as we approach the planned commercial area and Lewis Lane, which is a minor arterial.

The design reflects smart growth principles by encouraging a mix of housing, supporting walkability, efficiently utilizing existing infrastructure, and creating an orderly transition between residential and commercial uses.

We have two accesses from Lewis Lane.

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

So lots of options for residents to get their steps in.

Phase one is on the east, and we'll have 92 homes, and that does include the entire large park area.

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

Residents will have the housing choices from single family to detached homes and townhomes.

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

Now I sort of wanted to talk about our P and Z hearing.

At that hearing, the commission recommended denial.

Citing concerns about townhomes and commercial.

So I wanted to walk through the reasons why we designed the site with these elements.

The primary reason we design the site this way comes down to the adopted comprehensive plan and the future land use map.

We use that as our guide.

As you can see, the site sits in the RMU designation again, the purple area there.

And the impact area ends farther south of this project.

That's the red line.

So if we dive a little bit more into the RMU designation, you can see on this slide that the first bullet highlighted in yellow, there is a commercial requirement, a minimum of 5%, which is why we've included commercial along Lewis Lane.

So in order for commute commercial uses to be viable, a sufficient commust customer base must be nearby.

This means that rooftops matter and with them residential density.

Within the RMU designation, smaller residential lots are encouraged, as you can see highlighted in pink at the bottom of this slide.

And they are a practical way to support commercial.

Lastly, highlighted in blue, you can see that the townhomes are listed as a product encouraged within this designation.

One of the key things that I wanted to point out here as well is that if we submit a project that does not align with the adopted comprehensive plan, we will end up with an unfavorable staff recommendation.

So you know your planning staff does a really amazing job, and they're your experts, and they're tasked with evaluating the applications and determining if these projects meet the adopted comprehensive plan.

So just to summarize again, the commercial, it is a requirement of the designation of this area in the comp plan.

And then lack of commercial in this area is actually the exact reason it is needed.

And rooftops and density are needed to make that commercial viable.

Smaller lots and townhomes are also encouraged by the comp plan.

Town homes are an efficient use of land and infrastructure, and there is a high demand for smaller lots and townhomes.

Lastly, they do help achieve that density needed to support commercial.

So these are the main reasons for the site layout that we've presented.

And we'd just love to get the opportunity to get some insights from council as to what your vision is for this project and this area.

And with that, I'll thank you for your time and stand for questions.

Oh, go ahead.

Sorry.

Um, minimum of five percent commercial, how much what was the percent that that the property has in commercial proposed?

We have 5.5%.

And then the green space, what was the percent your project has for green space?

It's 15.8 percent.

15.8.

Thank you.

And you said something about walking paths or walking.

Were there paths?

I didn't see paths.

We actually do have, if we could go back to that slide, thank you.

Oh, okay.

That's along the eastern boundary there.

If you see in the green, there's a little pathway that goes along a lateral that's outside of our boundaries, so we have a full pathway right there.

Gotcha.

And then we have a pathway through the interior park.

Thank you.

Yes.

Council President, I do have a question now.

Yes, sir.

Um, Kelly.

So Ron and you is is agland.

How are you going to affect the water irrigation pumps of those already established homes in that area?

Now I'm gonna ask my engineer to step up and answer some questions about engineering if you don't mind.

Good evening, Mr.

President, Council members.

David Bailey, Bailey Engineering, uh 868 East Riverside Drive in Eagle.

So I think the question was how is this going to affect the water, the septic systems and irrigation of the existing neighbors?

That's correct.

Um course it'd be provided by city water, and the city has you know wells throughout the system that do that.

So this should not have a direct impact on their well on the wells of the neighbors in the area here.

Um that said, I suppose the the city, the city wells can do that over time, you know, but this project would not have a direct impact on that.

Uh city sewer will be provided to this project from the north, um, and it wouldn't have any impact on their systems.

I uh I assume since this project is in the middle of the comprehensive plan or half hour half a mile north of that, that uh this would provide sewer to those to those properties in the future.

So if they wanted to develop in accordance with the comp plan that would those would be available, water and sewer.

Um I think we connect in Lewis Lane to water across the whole frontage as well, and probably back over touth side.

Hey, follow-up, sir.

Um and then uh on the irrigation water is we'd again use the city's irrigation system, so the water rights for this property would be dedicated to the city uh on that that end of the project, and then any irrigation facilities in the project.

We don't have any major ones, they're off site to the east, uh, but any any drains or any irrigation supply uh ditches would be maintained quality and quantity to the uh downstream properties.

So how far is the city gonna have to go to connect that you're gonna have to do to connect to our city water, our domestic water and sewer system?

And if so, what land are you going to have to cross under to get there?

Um this project is I'm gonna hold you just for a sec.

Yes, sir.

So I'd like to direct council to in our uh packet page 600 to help answer that question and to see um you're you don't necessarily have that, and that's the reason I'm interrupting you for a moment.

Thank you.

Um I just want clarity on so on that page you'll see the property that's being proposed is adjacent to property that is already annexed and zoned to RS7.

That's the connectivity.

So it's adjacent property.

Whether the physical improvements are there yet, we don't know, but in terms of to answer your question.

Yeah, it's probably on the same pump line, but I just want to know how what the distance is, sir.

Well, it's adjacent to as you see there on the map.

So their blue line is the parcel that's under consideration.

Right.

And it's adjacent to, if I'm reading this correct, properties that have already been zoned RS 7 and actually business commercial down along Lewis.

Right.

That's what I see that I but it doesn't tell the distance, so I just was curious.

Um do you know the answer to that or not?

Uh can I add to that some uh thank you, Mr.

President and Councilman Rodriguez Rodriguez.

Um so the property of the north is Fenway Park subdivision, and that is uh being developed and is is got approval from the same developer on this project.

So the plans are completed and approved, and I think it's under construction now.

And we have uh had a minor change to that that'll allow that substreet to come through there.

We'll bring sewer and water through that area, and then I don't know off the top of my head the details, but we will connect into Lewis Lane and loop that water also so it won't be on a dead end.

So we don't have to go through any neighbors' properties for any of this.

Oh, okay.

Okay, that was one of my answers.

One additional piece is that the sewer for this actually goes far to the north into the New York landing subdivision and into a sewer lift station that was built there some time ago by this developer that provides sewer to this area down here.

Um and they are in talks with the city and in converting that into a city sewer lift station, so we can serve more of this area down in this area.

It's a private lift station now.

So we're trying to be cooperative with the city and provide that that sewer capacity uh that's needed down in this area in general.

Yeah, I think uh Corey Barton put that in a long time ago.

That's correct, right?

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

I'm good.

Thank you.

A comment?

Any other questions or comments?

Yep, comment.

Great.

Uh so at your plat, if that's possible for us to so it seems uh then you're gonna hear comments, etc.

But uh my observation is not necessarily to be critical, but in in way in of what's here and across the street of Lewis, and there's a couple of developments that are in the county but tied into city services, uh larger lots that there's almost would be a flip in that your green space and your larger single family would be near Lewis, and your town home and uh single family narrow lots would be to the north.

And it seems like uh that would probably blend better in terms of the neighborhoods or neighboring properties to the south.

So just a comment uh observation from my side.

Um we'll see public comments, but I'm trying to give you a heads up what I would anticipate.

So thank you.

Council, any other questions or comments at this time.

Okay, Kelly, thank you.

I have a couple for staff.

Do you want me to wait for those?

No, we're gonna have staff next.

So Christy, thank you.

Thank you, uh, Council President Bills and Council.

My name is Christy Watkins.

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

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

Um you will note that this plat has been revised since it was first advertised before the planning and zoning commission that they increased the size of the usable commercial area from just figuring in the amount of zoning.

Um they're actually figuring in the amount of usable commercial space.

Um so that's where that five and a half percent is coming from.

The zone is a little bit bigger than that.

So the proposed zoning is 11.6 acres of RS4, 7.8 acres of RS6, 11.2 acres of RD, and three acres of BN for the entire zone that goes out into Lewis Lane.

As she stated, the comprehensive plan shows this as residential mixed use in and is under uh Kenya County jurisdiction at this time.

Um our long-range planner did submit comments regarding the 5% and makes a statement that without commercial land uses near residents, driving longer distances is necessary to obtain those services, thus increasing traffic on local and arterior corridors.

The intent of residential mixed use is to bring those uses together and make them more convenient and provide less traffic throughout the city.

So um, as you guys were just discussing, this is contiguous to the city limits at Fenway Park, which is right there on that northeast corner.

That is where the sewer will be coming through.

Sewer and water services will both be coming through.

Um you can also see here where Brookhaven uh to the east has already established um commercial uses along Lewis Lane, and this would be a as she stated, a continuation of that.

As far as engineering goes, um, a traffic impact study has been submitted and reviewed and approved by the engineering division.

It identifies the following project triggered impacts.

So on Lewis Lane and Happy Valley Road, there will need to be an eastbound left turn lane with a minimum of 150 feet of storage length.

Um the frontage improvements will be required in accordance with city code and will be reflected in the final construction drawings for the final plates along that along Lewis Lane.

A 10-foot side path will be required.

Um Risa Dra Ridge Way and Dolce Mesa Way are longer, relatively straight roads that pre and so they'll need to provide traffic calming devices on those roadways.

The city's water and sewer and pressure areas irrigation systems do have adequate capacity to serve this property.

Sewer will be provided through the proposed Fenway Park 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 that station.

There's a 12-inch water main at the intersection of South Side and Lewis, and there's a 12-inch pressurized irrigation main that says our road.

Oops, go back to that.

Sorry.

Okay.

So um the RMU designation has to meet a density of medium density residential, which is the two and a half to eight dwelling units per acre.

The RS4 RS6 and RD zoning are proposed for that purpose.

There are 16 common lots and 173 residential lots.

In that 173, there's 48 alley-loaded townhouses, 30 front-loaded townhouses, and 95 single-family detached dwellings.

In the 5% commercial, there are seven lots.

The BN zoning is three acres, which is actually 8.9% of the gross project.

The uses will be reviewed for allowable uses within the BN zone at the time of the building permit submittals for those buildings.

Qualified open space is provided within 5.3 acres at 15.81%.

The original landscape plan was reviewed by the city forester and does have some requests for different trees.

The density on this on 33.72 acres with 173 residential lots, proposes a gross density of 5.13 dwelling units per acre, thereby meeting the requirements of the medium density residential.

The properties developed in the BN zone will be reviewed by the planning department at the time of building permit, and they will be subject to design review, landscaping improvements, parking setbacks, and each use will be evaluated per code.

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

The lot sizes shown on the plat range from 4,032 to 5,634, so they are compliant with code.

The lot sizes within the RS6 zone can range from 6,000 to 12,000 square feet, and the lot size shown on the plat are 6,000 to 8,810 square feet, so they are compliant with code.

All lots proposed meet the lot and width uh lot width and depth required by city code.

In the RD zone, a three-unit townhouse area can range from 9,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet and can be divided according to the product type that it's being constructed.

For a three-unit townhouse.

For the four-unit townhouse, the range is 12,000 to 18,000 square feet.

They are showing 12,000 to 13,000 square feet for those base lot sizes.

So the planning staff has accepted the annexation application because the request for annexation falls within the annexation criteria outlined in Idaho State State.

The property owner has given consent to annex the property.

It is contiguous to the city limits.

It is available for annexation because it is within NAMPA's planning area in the comprehensive plan, and it complies with the established memorandum of understanding between the city of NAMPA and the highway district.

This is a legislative decision for you, and it's up to you to determine the appropriateness of annexation.

Should you choose to approve the annexation of the property, it will need to be assigned a city zoning district.

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

Staff has determined that the proposed zoning is in harmony with the city's currently adopted comprehensive plan.

The proposed plat does provide for a set of uses that would be at least reasonably compatible with existing adjoining property uses.

The project is in the interest of the public and reasonably necessary because it has proposed a subdivision layout that will extend city utilities, will install frontage improvements, is compatible with the surrounding uses, provides needed commercial opportunities in the area, and it complies with other adopted city codes.

So there was some public input that was received.

Concerns were losing agricultural area infrastructure, does not support the density, danger to the school nearby due to traffic.

This project will reduce the value of forever homes in the area.

They're concerned about drainage onto their property.

They're concerned about their water rights.

They're concerned about cutting off their views.

Infrastructure is failing.

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

The emergency services are strained in that area.

Growth should pay for growth.

I highly doubt the utilities have capacity, is one quote.

Compatibility with adjoining neighbors, and then there were some attachments that were available from studies that were done in that area.

GIS has requested some road changes.

Engineering has provided their typical comments regarding traffic access, utilities, drainage, and irrigation.

The forester did have some comments on the landscape plan.

The long-range planners submitted their letter supporting this project in support of the comprehensive plan.

The police department has recommended a commitment to fund 0.59 additional officers and 0.31 additional support staff.

And the fire department has stated that this development is located approximately 3.7 miles from NAMPA Fire Station number two with an approximate response time of seven minutes.

And they would need an increased personnel, they have an increased personnel demand of 0.5 firefighter positions.

So the conditions of approval are stated in your staff report, and these are your motions, and I will stand for any questions.

Christy, thank you.

Are there questions for Christie?

President.

Yes.

Christy, thank you.

Um how close is the nearest city park to this location?

Do you know?

Not school, but park.

Um thank you.

Uh Councilman Jangula, there is a park off of Greenhurst and South Side in that Royal Meadows neighborhood.

So I would have to guess at that, but I bet it's about two to two and a half miles.

And that's inside of a inside of a development already?

Yeah, but it's a city park.

Greenhurst and what was it?

Um Southside.

South side, okay.

Is there a plan at all?

Do you know to have another city park in that area?

Um councilwoman Jangula, that would be a question for the parks department.

I'm not sure they have a master plan that shows where they're identifying land that might be available for park locations.

Okay, thank you.

I've got one more for uh fire marshal.

Elijah, yeah, we talked about station two being 3.7 miles away.

Do you know approximately how far station five is, and would that be considered at all for this?

Uh present counsel, councilwoman Jangula, uh Elijah, Fire Marshal Map Fire Protection District.

Uh I don't have that off the top of my head as far as station five's travel time.

About four months.

I was gonna say it's probably about an additional half minute or to a minute.

Um, in terms of what it be considered in far as response.

Um so if you were to have a structure fire anywhere inside that neighborhood, um station two would be your first initial, and then you would have station one, truck one, battalion one, and engine one would be uh dispatch at station six would be your third station that would be dispatched to that to bring our our initial complement.

Station five and station three, five would be the the next compliment coming, and three would stay in service to cover the remaining medical calls in the city.

Is that yep, that's good, thank you.

Thank you.

Council President, yes, I do have a question for Elijah.

Don't sit down yet, sir.

Yes, sir.

Is and and I here's a question.

With 48 townhouses, alley loaded and 30 townhouses front loaded.

Is that a nightmare to fight the fire?

Um president and uh councilman Rodriguez.

I wouldn't say that it's a nightmare.

Um our our crews are very well trained in the way in which they attack structures.

Um we pre-plan those structures, so part of the prevention bureau's process is to assist our online crews with what uh subdivision layouts look like so that as they are built in the city that they are able to go out and pre-plan them and prepare for how they would attack.

Um obviously we set them up and assist with and um and planning and zoning does that too in terms of what requirements are for how a subdivision can be um developed, um what those roads and and accesses are going to be.

So for access, they are accessible, and the way in which our crews train consistently allows them to be very successful with how we would attack a fire.

As far as EMS goes, um, that's just an access issue, making sure that we do have access to those structures, and that's the way the roads are gonna be built and and how those will be designed, and and those are already done and taken care of through.

So I wouldn't say that it was a nightmare.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Yeah, thank you.

Other questions, comments at this time.

So we're gonna move into the public testimony time.

And uh we have a sign up sheet.

So when you uh if you're coming forward, you have three minutes to testify.

We ask that you would state your name, your address for the record.

If need be, you'd pull the microphone a little closer to you or lower it so that we can hear you and your comments are on the record.

We welcome uh those who want to speak, and uh clerk will call your name, and we'd ask them that you would make your way forward.

Thank you.

Mr.

President, we have seven people that have requested to provide public testimony.

Our first speaker is Jill Hallows, and on deck is Denise Martell and Julie Sipes.

Again, Jill Hallows, 603 West Crimson Loop, Nampa, Idaho.

Uh Councilman Rodriguez, I appreciate your comment about wells because whether it's uh city well or private well, ultimately it all comes from the same source.

So we have to protect that source.

Um I went to this area yesterday and spoke with the neighbor just to the northwest of the subdivision, Mr.

Thrift, to ask him his feelings about the whole situation.

And um there was a reason the um planning and zoning commission decided to deny it, and uh it was in line with the same concerns that he had.

Sadly, he said that I said, Are you going to the meeting tomorrow night?

And he said, What's the point?

Um everything to do with development now gets rubber stamped, and it was very disappointing to have to see the emotion when he uh said that.

Um the other subdivisions in the area are crowding that area.

He says he cannot get out of his driveway.

Uh when he when school is in session, or people are bringing kids to and from school, can't get out of his driveway, that it's so congested already.

Uh the developments that are out there have maxed this place out, and they it just can't take any more.

The thought of town homes, when you drive out there, there's horse pastures, and um I appreciate that we have a comprehensive plan, but you know that takes us out to 2040, and we're premature right now in approving things like this town homes out in the middle of horse pastures.

Um it it's sad, and it's sad for the developers who spend all this time and money to put forth these proposals, which fundamentally uh will be wonderful in 2040, maybe, but they're just wrong right now.

This this is so incompatible with the area.

Um I also would like to quote um Mayor Hogeboam.

Um I he gave a uh true cost of growth analysis on March 16th, and what he said is when quote when agricultural land converts to rooftops, the cost for providing services exceed the revenue generated from residential taxes.

Of course, people need rooftops to live, but these ratios will create insolvency or reduction in level of service.

Market forces may very well push up.

Thank you, Jill.

Our next speaker is Denise Martell, and on deck is Julie Sipes and Shay Stevens.

President Bills.

I just want to put on the record that development for when it comes before this body is not rubber stamped.

We have a very diverse opinions that sit here, and we spent a lot of time working through development, so I just wanted to put that on the record.

I appreciate that.

You'll pull that mic down.

Thank you.

Good evening, Council members.

My name is Denise Martell.

My address is 9880 Osland Drive.

My husband and I own five acres on the south side of Lewis Lane, and that's our forever home.

I moved here in 1973, and the comments that we had at NNU on what to do on a Friday night was to go see if we could try on gloves at Woolworths, or to go to the car lots and watch them rust.

This is not NAMPA.

This is not what used to be NAMPA.

I'm literally every single turn that you guys, and you know this, as you drive through NAMPA, every single turn you make there's new home signs.

There's construction.

Oh, the home new sign home signs, mostly Corey Barton.

Um, or construction or road work, just as we had in downtown Nampa by the by the library.

I understand growth.

I'm from Denver.

I know that big cities, you know, they generate a lot of jobs and a lot of tax money.

But this is an explosion in an area that doesn't need to happen in this area.

And it affects our peaceful country lifestyle, which we chose a long time ago.

A lot of us have been out here 35 and 40 years.

To approve this application makes no sense as proposed.

Even PZ denied it.

But somehow here we are in front of the council, which doesn't make any sense to me.

But you have to look at it from highway 45 down Lewis Line, and you keep on going clear to Black Cat.

It is all acreages, you guys.

It's not zero lot lines.

It's not construction for McMansions.

Um this proposal is promoting high density.

Townhomes, are you kidding me?

How many cars are they gonna have coming out of that?

I'm not a fan of this.

Not to mention the risk of the subdivision located at the top of a blind hill, which is a safety issue.

So step back in, think about the amount of traffic that's gonna increase.

And reminder, Hubble Homes is building another subdivision at the bottom of that hill.

So it's not just this one, it's Hubble homes in addition.

So look at the traffic.

Um the roundabout at Happy Valley and Greenhurst is basically worthless.

So, you know, we put these things in and you got traffic, and the train comes.

Where do we go?

So think about that in terms of how the uh emergency people can get through.

He said, seven minutes fire truck, that's gotta be with no traffic.

It's gotta be with nobody on the on the train track and five o'clock traffic.

Anyway, I'm gonna go over, so I won't go over this time.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, our next speaker is Julie Sipes, and on deck is Shay Stevens and Dean Cassico.

Hello, city council members.

My name's Julie Sipes.

I live at 4415 East Lewis Lane.

I live on the corner of Happy Valley and Lewis Lane, uh, where they're proposing putting in a turn lane.

I'm not sure how that's going to impact our my agriculture because we have six acres of hay that we sell.

So I'm not sure if they're taking part of my land to do that.

I'm assuming so.

Um, but I moved out in the country to, it is out in the country to avoid all of the busyness and all of that.

It's my peace.

Um, I sit outside and enjoy the peacefulness and already, and all those Hubble homes haven't even gone in yet.

Their traffic is just whizzing by.

It's 50 miles an hour on that road.

Um, big trucks come through there for some reason.

I don't know why.

Um, and it's already disrupted my piece, and now they're talking about more homes.

Town homes are very much incompatible with the area.

If you just take a drive down Lewis Lane, you would not think it's compatible whatsoever.

It's all acreage or the small subdivisions that exist have larger lot sizes.

They don't have small lot sizes.

Planning and zoning, even as they were discussing it, were saying it shouldn't be any more crowded than RS5 at most, and they were saying RS7, um, which would be more compatible with the area.

I still am not in favor of any of it because I think as um others have said, there's already enough development going in and the road is already busy.

The other thing is the road is offset.

Um Lewis is offset on Happy Valley, so it's not straight, and that creates danger there.

I have seen several severe accidents right out my window, right out my kitchen window.

I can see the intersection there, and I've seen a lot of accidents where Jaws of Life were used, all of those things.

Um, so it's not very safe, and then we're adding all this extra traffic on there, which is only gonna make the problem worse.

Um, also, in addition to that, the comprehensive plan also does state that it needs to be compatible with surrounding surrounding land use.

I would say it's not.

I have a hay field, most of my neighbors have hay fields.

Um, we're trying to grow hay for people so that they have it for their animals, which is in high demand.

I mean, even right now, when I haven't had a cut yet this year, I've had several people contacting me begging for hay.

Um, the public safety issues, also the infrastructure issues, like who's gonna pay for this?

Is this gonna raise our property taxes?

I mean, I just don't know where all this is gonna come from.

Um I just I believe it doesn't meet the goals.

I understand that it's within that zone or what have you, but that doesn't mean that it still fits with the area.

Um and planning and zoning said over and over it doesn't fit the area.

Several of them had been out to the area or had family in the area, and they said it doesn't fit with the area at all.

So that's my um issues with it.

So thank you for listening to me.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, our next speaker is Shay Stevens, and on deck is Dean Cassico and Larry Anderson.

Hello, councils.

Um, my name's Shay Stevens, 3523 East Lewis Lane.

Um, my biggest concern is that the traffic is really, really bad.

And um they have a passage zone there at the hill that you can actually pass and almost got hit like three different times.

And um the speeling is 50 miles an hour, and it used to be 35 when we first moved in about 37 years ago.

And um my biggest concern is that um that um that uh is uh is very unsafe because the the people drive way too fast there because um there's no way that they can stop when we pull out the driveway or we back out is really dangerous.

And um my name my neighbors they they feel the same way about that, and um it's not the same.

It's is it it's real nice if you get up at 3:30 in the morning, and you can go across town to Wenco or somewhere, and there's no traffic.

But when school school starts in the morning, about it all starts about 5.15 in the morning, 5:30, and we get a lot of traffic, and this is gonna create a lot more traffic.

So that's my biggest concern right there is the traffic.

Yeah, I'm nervous.

And you would you'd be nervous too if you lived at my my home, and so come out and take a look at it.

Thank you for your testimony.

And uh last meeting we went to the next day, we had somebody went like a hundred miles an hour in this race car.

And uh it should be a double salt line all the way, just like they have on the opposite from uh Southside Boulevard and power line is it's double salt line only, there's no passing.

So it's pretty dangerous.

I don't want to say I don't want to see my kids get hit or my wife get hit or myself get hit or my neighbors.

Well, we appreciate that.

Right now that's under the highway district's jurisdiction.

All right, thank you.

Mr.

Chair, our next speaker is Dean Cassico, and on deck is Larry Anderson and Lori Steele.

Dean Cassio, 997 um Tersell Lane.

I sit right at the top of the hill that they're talking about.

Um when I built my house 18 years ago, my commute to Boise, because I work at the processing plant for the post office was 30 minutes, and now it's over an hour every morning without a lot of the development that's coming down.

I'd like to point out that in their the initial when we first heard about this, we were all told that it was gonna be single family homes, nothing about condos or townhouses, no high density.

We thought it would fit more in with the neighborhood pattern.

Um the map that she showed with the the little walkway, their walkway is one house length, and then it goes to the canal.

They're not providing uh green spaces or walkways, they're being as cheap as possible.

Um they're being disingenuous because when they told us that they were gonna have single family homes and then they spring it on us that they're gonna have the high uh the higher density.

We thought it was gonna be like R7.

We didn't think it was gonna be so high density.

Um the closest school for them, where's the school bus gonna go?

Because they're not gonna go to the international school because that's all Hispanic, um, Spanish speaking school.

It that's not for public kids.

It's a magnet school or uh uh charter school for international.

Um so they're gonna have to have buses coming down up and down uh Lewis Lane.

Um they just seem disingenuous by telling us it's gonna be similar family and then um springing on the high density.

That's all I wanted to say.

Thank you.

So, sir, just a clarification.

What is proposed is considered single family.

Yeah.

But it's a different type of construction than what you're doing.

Yeah, yeah.

Um when I'm saying single family, I'm trying to mean uh R7.

That's what we thought it was gonna be R7.

R7 is the size of lot, 7,000.

Bigger, yeah.

So there wouldn't be so many people confined in a small space.

So just just wanting it for clarity, but town homes are considered uh single family.

Yeah, yeah, I know.

I misspoke.

I'm never psychic other guy, but I understand.

I know what you're saying.

So I'm just adding for the clarification, not trying to ding you or anything.

Yeah, it's cool.

So thank you.

On the planning commission rejected it too.

So we're we're aware of that.

Yeah.

Mr.

Chair, our next speaker is Larry Anderson, and on deck is Lori Steele.

Is Larry Anderson not here?

Very soft spoken.

Larry Anderson, 9860, Oslin Drive, neighbor to Denise.

What they have all complained about is uh very valid.

It's something that you folks have to deal with, and I'm sorry for that.

But nonetheless, I stop and I think where are they coming from?

There's probably thousands of council meetings across the nation right now dealing with this and dealing with so-called vacant land, farms, ranches, things of that nature that that uh a developer looks at and and smiles and sometimes has to clean the lips.

This is uh would this not fit better in a downtown area?

Would this not fit better in a new community?

State or federal land be granted over to private development.

I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt your meal.

Okay.

Nonetheless, uh this seems out of place here.

The density issue, although it seems to coincide and be within range of what you're asking, but that's a lot of people there to go on a small narrow two-lane road.

Yeah.

Shoulders aren't very wide.

There's it's it's needed at least a three-lane there for that, if you're going to have this kind of density that we have to all put up with there.

So I'm asking you to kind of consider this uh a little more so, like the other councils across the nation are doing.

I think you ought to look this over respectfully.

So you ought to look this over very, very hard.

It's uh I can understand how uh Cory Barton can be the largest developer, residential developer in the state of Idaho, 29,000 jobs, homes, whatever that they have constructed.

But uh I think this one's very much out of place, even with the developments that are to the north to the east, and then we have the one development to our west at the intersection of uh what's that?

What's our street there?

Um, that one.

Thank you.

Uh and there's a very nice development there.

Beautiful homes, yards.

And not eight-foot eaves when I say that, eight feet between eaves.

No.

This it's out of place.

It doesn't fit here.

And I'm I don't want to put Mr.

Rodriguez to sleep, so I'll beg off from there.

Thank you so much for allowing me to step forward.

Thank you for your words and your help this evening.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

Chair, our last speaker is Lori Steele.

Hello, council.

Thank you for our listening to our comments.

Uh Lori Steele, 9904 Southside Boulevard.

Uh Nampa, I'm on the farm to the south, just to the south of where the businesses would be.

So kind of over on the south side part, where about one hour ago we delivered our 79th lamb for this year, and wasn't sure I was gonna get here.

And anyway, so uh thank you again for taking our comments.

I was quite impressed with how planning and zoning members really listened to the concerns of the citizens living in the neighborhood for this of this proposal.

The proposal was denied primarily due to the plan for the higher density townhome apartments, which are quite out of character for our area.

Though the plan for a strip of businesses was not discussed quite as much, I feel like that's also not a fit nor needed for our area and included in the project only to fit the mixed use designation.

And it seems like that perhaps that designation is ending up not to be a fit where the city is creeping out and interfacing with an area that has a much more rural sensibility.

It was, I have to say it's pretty disheartening to look at your own farm and see that it's on uh mixed use, uh, you know, it's on the comp plan for mixed use uh in the future.

And that's tough to see, and that's where ours is.

Um but going back to the drawing board as uh suggested by planning and zoning would allow for a more considered approach.

Um the 2040 comp plan includes among its purposes the phrase to protect the positive qualities and characteristics of neighborhoods.

To this end, I hope the city council will agree with the recommendations from planning and zoning regarding this project and send it back to the drawing board.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Right now we've uh covered everybody who has signed up.

Is there somebody here who didn't sign up who would like to speak?

Yes, sir and ma'am in the back, if you'll and if you will, if you'll state your name and address.

My name is Michelle Cassio, and my address is 9975 Tearsell Lane, Nampa, Idaho.

And um, Councilman Bills, um, the way you said exactly what I had been thinking.

Earlier at the planning commission meeting, the representative for CBH and the Moore Family Trust stated that the townhomes were for younger families, but they've decided to put the town homes as far as possible from the school, Ronald Reagan, where those kids would be going.

And what I see in all of these new developments, I know the the city council, the city of Nampa has a plan, and I uh you know, I appreciate it.

I know we need we need more housing and we need some commercial so that people aren't driving all over the place.

But there isn't any real effort to make anything walkable.

There's no talk of connecting pathways, no talk of connecting this neighborhood to the nearest school um park, city park.

There's no talk of how these kids will get to school.

All of this could be planned out ahead of time.

I mean, there isn't even talk of a sidewalk going down south side so that some of these kids can walk to school.

Our schools have this event every year, and it's kind of silly.

It's like walk to school day, and everybody gets out and they walk to school, and then the rest of the year, there's a million cars on the road because the parents are dropping the kids off at the school.

Because there isn't any real planning being done to make sure it's actually gonna be walkable.

It's not really walkable.

And like you said, obviously, if you if you're trying to make a city look nice, right?

Everybody wants an aesthetic looking city.

Nobody wants to live in a city that looks terrible.

You're you just don't want an abrupt change like that, where you have you know, a country look on one side, and then it looks like it's maybe like towards Greenhurst, like maybe on Greenhurst, or you know, it looks like star, honestly.

This looks like all the development that's going into STAR.

So it's just really out of place.

So it's kind of frustrating for us.

But I do appreciate the mixed use in some ways.

It's just frustrating that the developers just do everything as cheaply as possible and cram in as many homes as possible instead of thinking about the people who are already established there, instead of thinking about how the kids are gonna get to school, how many more cars are gonna be on the road and disrupting people trying to get to work or you know, a lot of us out in this area are retired or work from home or have farms.

We're not driving a lot, like we plan our trips.

These guys are gonna be driving all over there's there's a lot of homes there.

There they don't have farms.

They're gonna be crisscrossing the city.

Having a few little shops right there, which probably aren't gonna be shops.

It's not really going to chair time to fix that impact.

So okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, sir.

And then I believe the gentleman there in the center.

Yep.

Hi, my name's uh Jonathan Kimball, and I live at 73 uh 06 East Ospreay Estates Drive.

Um I just want to uh council member Rodriguez brought up the question as far as fire firefighting.

Um I'm a retired firefighter career, and uh I think your question, although not phrased, uh something to consider is the life safety hazard in this situation when you get into high density town homes, and if you do have a fire, I I'm sure that they're trained very well, but it takes manpower.

You're gonna take it uh you have a high life safety hazard when homes are that close together.

So being that the closest response, and I don't know what your staffing is.

If there are three or four person on a rig, you have two rigs coming seven minutes away.

If they're delayed by a uh train, how long is the next one?

How many are you gonna get?

It's gonna take a lot of people to if something gets going and that condensed and being this rural out, you don't have a lot of resources.

So that's one of the things considered.

A lot of times you see those higher density more in the urban areas where you've got better response times.

So thank you, sir.

Hello, my name is Nathan Battershow.

Um, I live uh with my parents in 815 West Heatherwoods Drive.

Um, I'm here because I have family who is affected by this.

Um, and because of that, it also affects me because I've grown up here, and it it just makes me really sad to think about moving here a long time ago to get away from move out in the country, you know, it's beautiful and all that, and then and then all this comes, all this development like comes to you.

Um I really don't feel like it blends in with the surroundings.

If it was maybe like smaller, a lot of the stuff around there is a lot of agricultural land, and it's also I feel like a lot of the homes are a lot more smaller and spread out, which in a way I understand how it's good to have like high compact uh things that are close together because it decreases the amount of like distance you have to go, but I feel like that's best used more in an area with more things already, like like closer in in the center of the city because if you just put it out there in the middle of the farmland, I mean there's there's nothing really out, there's not much out there compared to like the heart of the city.

Um of course that's when it almost makes me feel like there's some kind of and I'm sure this is like there's good they've done the process and it's all fair, but it feels like they're kind of leveraging farmers almost like to get their way, like the developers are almost like um building in a way that the farmers have to submit and give up their their trade, and that just makes me really sad.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anybody who has not testified who desires to testify?

Yes.

My name is Judy Battershell, and my um address is 3515 East Lewis Lane, and that was my grandson who has been a lot of time out on our place.

Um thing that really bothers me, I was raised on a ranch of 14 sections in Wyoming.

And so coming here, we wanted to live in the country, and it was country 47 years ago.

Now we're looking at all these townhouses across the road from us and all the crazy traffic, and it it really bothers me to think that that's what we've come to.

Um I have a friend who talked to the mayor in Meridian and was complaining about the loss of farmland, and he said that we are going to develop every square inch of this valley, and if you don't like it, you need to leave.

And if you don't like it, you need to leave.

So that's my comment.

Well, we're in NAMPA.

So we appreciate the comments.

Not seeing anybody else come forward.

Uh staff applicant.

Kelly.

Thank you.

I just wanted to take a few minutes and sort of discuss some of the topics that came up this evening.

One of the ones I wanted to chat about first is um safety.

It's definitely a priority.

And one of the conversation pieces around safety is how infrastructure is funded.

Capital improvements for fire service are funded in part through development fees and are collected at the time of building permit issuance.

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

And with regard to that, you know, projects like this are reviewed by a traffic engineer, and they evaluate the traffic generation from this project, neighboring projects, roadway capacity, and intersection operations.

So a study for this project was completed, submitted and accepted by the city.

At full build out, the road network can accommodate the traffic with one mitigation that the developer will complete, which is the construction of an eastbound left turn lane with a storage length of 150 feet.

It's also important to note that the impact fees from this development will also contribute to the road network.

In total, it will be about 850,000 for street impact fees.

The other one I wanted to talk about, something that um was brought up before, which is the why we have the townhomes on Lewis Lane and why we have those products there.

And really what we tend to do when we look at the design of a site is we will put the smaller products along an arterial or a collector, and we'll also put these smaller products near a commercial.

So that's the reason why we designed it that way, and then the larger lots are more internal.

And then let's see.

Townhomes, they also support workforce housing, first-time buyers, young professionals, families, and even downsizing residents who want a lower maintenance living.

And by introducing a broader range of housing choices, townhomes help communities respond to growth, improve affordability, and create more complete walkable neighborhoods.

And really providing that mix of housing types is a goal for the residential mixed use designation and is a smart growth principle.

And I also want to talk about, we've talked about this a lot, but I just want to reiterate that this site and the surrounding area is within the NAMPA impact area, and it's all designated that RMU, which does have that medium density and does have that commercial component requirement.

And again, this this designation comes from the comp plan and reflects a long-range planning process by the city to guide where housing should occur when when the community grows.

And we feel that this project does align with that guiding document.

And really, people love NAMPA.

That's part of the problem here, too, is people want to live here.

And so having these homes available for the people that want to live and work here is a great thing to do for the city.

And then I'll kind of go back to where I left it with the presentation, which is you know, we feel like we've brought a site design that really does fit the needs and align with the comprehensive plan.

And if the city and council would like to see something different, we would just look for that input at this time.

And with that, I will stand for questions.

Kelly, thank you.

Council members, any questions?

Council President, I have a question.

Yes.

Kelly, what's the build-out time on this project?

Build out timeline for this project project is approximately four to five years.

Thank you.

Council President?

Yes.

Council members go.

Kelly, is there a plan to put a sidewalk down the perimeter of the subdivision?

I believe it was mentioned on South Side, there was no sidewalk plan.

Do you know?

Is there on south side?

This property does not abut South Side, so we would not be doing any improvements along that Lewis.

Lewis, I'm sorry, Lewis.

Is there a sidewalk plan on the case?

Lewis Lane, there is a pathway along Lewis Lane.

Okay.

And uh there's also a landscape buffer before the homes.

Okay, thank you.

Council President.

Yes, sir.

Kelly, can you tell me the time it would take to get to the freeway or how many miles it would be to be able to get from this site to the freeway that would have to be driven to get outside of town, or maybe possibly the acts as a major major roadway?

Great question.

I'm gonna ask my engineer.

I bet he'd know that.

Six miles.

Thank you.

Six miles 12 minutes is what I'm hearing from the audience.

Okay, okay.

All right.

Hang in there with us.

Thank you for the answer.

Answers.

Did you get all 101 of those?

I did.

I heard a 3 30, 8-minute drive time if you're going 100 miles an hour.

So that's good.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions for Kelly?

Kelly, thank you.

Thank you.

At this time, uh we can still ask questions of staff ahead of or after closing public hearing, right?

Council President?

Yes.

Okay.

So is there a motion to close the public hearing?

No moved.

Second.

Do we have a motion and a second?

All in favor?

Aye.

Council discussion or council questions, comments back with staff.

President.

Yes.

Councilwoman Jangula.

When we talked about this particular zoning for this area.

With it having commercial, is the idea to have more heavier commercial in this area than housing, because we would want to bring different types of amenities towards an area where it keeps people off the roads to other to going more in, but it allows for them to have amenities down in this southern area.

Thank you, Councilwoman Jangula.

Yes.

So that would really be up to the market to drive that.

And depending on the density that's in the area, I'll just give you a couple of examples based on economic development studies.

Some larger retailers that we've heard a lot of requests for in this area are asking for I think it's 7.3 dwelling units per acre.

This one is talking about 5.3, I think.

Um as an average throughout the city, if you take the sorry, the average dwelling units per acre throughout the city, we're falling at 4.7.

And so we're not getting the larger retailers that people have been asking for because we don't have the density to draw them here.

So if a larger retailer wanted to come to this area, they would have the option to buy up a few parcels and create a parcel that would work for them.

If not, they're proposing these seven commercial lots that could be sold off to a dentist, uh real estate agents.

Um it provides space for people to live and work in their neighborhood, so then they can walk to work if they live there.

Gosh, I'm sorry.

Um there's a lot of different ways that this could go.

You could provide a preschool there that would be a benefit to that neighborhood.

Um and would, you know, that family wouldn't have to drive to wherever their kids were being cared for, they'd just take them over there and then go on to work or whatever their needs would be.

This provides options for that, and the market will have to determine what can go there.

Thank you.

When you say the 7.3 dwelling units for a larger commercial to come in, is that just in a general proximity, or is that across the whole city that we're looking at that number?

Um so councilwoman Jangula, typically they're going out a mile, mile and a half buffer from their location, um, looking for that level of density within a mile or a mile and a half.

Um a lot of the neighborhoods that we have in the city don't hit that mark.

Thank you.

Council President, yes, sir.

Could you exp uh expound on what larger retailers are looking for that 7.3 that we don't currently have?

Uh Council McGriffin, just right off the top of my head, one of them would be Trader Joe's.

Okay.

How did we how did we get Wingco or Target or any of those other bigger names if we're 4.3 in the rest of the city?

Um Councilman Griffin, thank you for that question.

Um you'll notice that where Winco is located in the city is on some major corridors.

Those major corridors have very large traffic counts, and they want to be where the traffic is.

Council President, if I could continue.

Another question.

I think you hit it pretty well.

Those four commercial spaces that they're uh requesting a preschool, a dental office, but nothing like a major or even a minor size grocery store outlets or could go in there retail or anything like that that would stop traffic from having to go 6.8 miles to the closest winco.

Um thank you, Council McGriffin.

Um, if Walmart were so inclined, they could put a small market out there on a smaller acreage like that.

Have we seen in the city where they've done that on similar size acreage that they're proposing here?

Um I believe the one on Roosevelt and Middleton Middleton is um gosh, it's five acres.

It's not very big.

Thank you.

Five.

So at least five.

Yeah.

President Bills.

Councilwoman.

I just wanted to um confirm this with um, I believe it was Lori Steele was saying that um she was surprised on the comp plan of where her property fell in line with.

And um just for the information for the public is the public can weigh in on the comprehensive plan, correct?

They can come to the meetings, they can weigh in on what's happening in their area on the comprehensive plan.

Is that correct?

Um thank you.

Councilwoman Scog.

Yes, as a matter of fact, we are going through a comprehensive plan update right at this moment.

Um last summer we did our kind of precursor survey and asked some really high-level general questions.

Um right now we're going through um some focus group conversations with um very specific individuals about specific topics that are going to be covered in the comp plan, and then we will move back into the public input phase where we will be out in different locations.

We'll be at the library, we'll be at farmers market throughout the summer.

Um, we're gonna be at a lot of public locations where we would invite public input on that.

And then a follow-up, please.

Yes.

Um, how would the general public know where to find you?

Is do you post that on uh your website, or is that or you just are out there and they have to know?

Thank you, Councilwoman Scogg.

Um, we do have a website for NAMPA, the NAMPA 2050 comprehensive plan.

So on our website you can locate that information.

Um and then Amy, as you stated earlier, she's a wonderful media presence, and she puts a lot of that information out for us.

Yeah, so it's it's not impossible for the public that you make it very available for them to come and weigh in on it and share their opinions.

In fact, you appreciate that, right?

We do the best we can.

So thank you.

It's very available for you.

Thank you.

Other questions or comments?

Council President, I always have a comment.

Um just kind of defend our fire department a little bit.

Uh the NAPA fire department uh has a very quick response time in our community, and I appreciate that very much.

Um they also plan ahead, just like uh NAMPA does with our comp plan.

They uh they have a planning uh operation that they do and put stations accordingly based on population.

Um town homes, we build them all the time and apartments, and um they're built with certain building codes so that they can have their ratings to stand up to being built together like that.

So um it doesn't concern me at all about the townhomes and the location and or NAPA's fire department's response times comment.

Thank you.

Other questions, comments hearing none.

Then uh is there a motion?

Is it anything for asked?

No, the public hearing's been closed.

So this is time for council.

And uh so can we put up your motion slide?

So we got the option of moving to approve or to deny, and uh somebody would like to make a motion council oh, President Bills.

Yes, I think um for the developer, it might be worth just sharing more of a perspective of what we're looking for in this area.

That was one thing that they had mentioned during the testimony or when they were presenting that they wanted guidance.

So I I will go first if that's okay.

That's that's fine.

I was looking for a motion.

Yeah, sorry, I just feel like we should probably give them a little bit more direction than that.

I think they know the direction.

We've commented before on this, but go ahead.

As far as the green space, um the 15.8 just feels very bare minimum to me.

I would need more of that.

I'm not sure what you can do with a half basketball court.

So um maybe some different amenities there.

Uh the commercial, the 5.5, when we can go up to 50 percent.

I would prefer to see more commercial in that area to allow for uh different amenities to service that area versus um um heads in homes.

And then um, yeah, I I with a park being so far away, I feel like part of quality of life is being able to create an area where people can live and play within their own community, and so certain amenities, different maybe some more walking paths just to create more of a of a space that people want to stay and recreate rather than have to go and drive somewhere to a community park.

Do we have anybody who wanna make a motion?

Go back to the motion slide.

Would you put up the the supportive denial and approval?

It's right there.

I'm trying to find it.

Conclusions of law.

You're gonna take a bite at it.

Well, see, yeah, uh council president, just a clarification for this type of application because it's an annexation, it's a legislative policy decision, so we're not gonna have those conclusions of law like we would like with the positive judicial just a point of clarification.

Then I'll then I'll take a stab at it.

At this time and point, ladies and gentlemen, I don't think uh my fellow council members that this isn't the right move my direction for the city of Niampa, and especially for the residents in that area, so therefore I move to recommend denial of the annexation and zoning with this project.

Second we have a motion and a second to deny the annexation and zoning.

Is there further discussion?

Council president, I will just tack on for the sake of the developer as well.

Uh I think it is pretty high density for the area, even though the future land use map might say, or the comprehensive plan might say that this would be allowable.

I think the distance for traffic concerns is real.

Six and a half six and a half, give or take, some distance to the closest freeway, especially when you're going through a bunch of major farms and roadways, uh, is difficult for me to overcome.

I don't know how we overcome that because either way, this is going to get developed at some point.

So, at what time is that proper?

I don't know yet.

But I do think it's pretty high density for the space.

So a lower density on the the next bite at it might be good and well.

I appreciate the Southside trying to connect those sidewalks.

I know they'll end up going to two dead ends.

So I appreciate the willingness there and and at least for uh the lady in the back's ex uh understanding the developers do do a good job of of creating those uh pathways to schools.

It's just difficult to ever connect them continuously.

Uh I see it all the time, even when I go out for runs or rolling my kids down the road, sidewalk on a new development enclave, there's nothing for a long stretch.

So uh I think it's uh a group effort to make that happen, and we're a long ways out, but it's being thought about.

So other than that, I agree with Councilwoman Jangula.

I'd like to see more of a usable green space.

As much as I love the idea of being able to play a full game of football on the space because it's open and and narrow.

Uh I don't know how many people can round up a troop to do that.

So maybe maybe more options.

And I've become to love totlots, so I know those aren't very popular, but for my kids, uh, they seem to love them.

So maybe a balance of all the things.

Councilman Mills.

Yes.

Um, I I want to just um weigh in a little bit also.

Um I just want you to know that we hear you, neighbors.

Um, and it makes us it makes me sad to see farm ground fall when subdivision at a time.

So it we're not it's not that we're not listening, we hear you.

We are in an awkward place with all the growth and everything, and knowing what fits where and um I agree.

I don't I don't believe this um fits in this area at this time.

Um I have traveled this road many, many, many times as I used to live right over here, and I I don't see that um the can the density of this development is working in this area.

So um I agree with Councilman Victor Rodriguez.

Clerk will call the rule.

Scog.

Yes, yes, Bills, yes, Reynolds, no Griffin.

Yes, Rodriguez, yes, five in favor, one opposed, motion carries.

So for a summary, that means the project was denied.

Annexation and zoning, FYI.

No cheering, no clapping, but for clarification.

Okay, we appreciate you coming out tonight.

We're gonna move on to item six-three item six-three is uh an action item.

It's an annexation and zoning to RS 7 residential and potential development agreement at 1325 Chicago Street.

Original concept is annexation required by the county in order to build an accessory structure on the property.

So this is an infilled piece of property on South Chicago, just north of the drain that runs through that area just north of Iowa.

So uh good evening, my name is April Romge.

This one should be real fast, hopefully.

Um me and my husband own the property that we're talking about at 1325 Chicago Street.

Um we did purchase it back in 2023.

Um the actual ad for the property had a concrete 30 by 30 slab ready to build.

So we went ahead and did it.

It doesn't have a garage or anything on it.

So because we thought we could build it, we purchased it, flash forward to 2025.

We paid a builder, went to Canyon County Developmental Services to pull permits, the builder did, and came back with this horrible news that in 2018 the gentleman that owned the property.

Um it was just 3.66 acres, I believe.

He did an unauthorized land split, so I have an unauthorized piece of land that I can do nothing on.

So Canyon County suggested that I annex into the city of Nampa as the easiest way to fix this.

So and we are aligned.

I believe the eastbound of our property is City of Nampa, and then the rest is Canyon County.

So we're kind of in a weird spot, but that's the short version.

That's been a nightmare.

Yeah, I I could weigh in on the real estate issues, but I will refrain at this point.

Yeah, I didn't think it was possible to buy an unauthorized piece of land, but it is.

And this is the faster way to fix it.

Uh, I mean, there could be attorneys and um all that, but I don't really want to fight Title One or the real estate agent.

So um initially when I looked at the property, I kind of thought it was NAMPA anyways.

So yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

We're gonna open it to staff and then for public hearing.

Thank you.

Council President and uh council Rodney Ashby Planning and zoning director for the record.

Um pretty straightforward here.

Amity to the north, uh Iowa to the south there, and it's on Chicago.

Uh just get bearing here.

Dog Park is just almost to the northeast corner of this picture.

So um she just stated this, but uh they purchased the property, split the property to to the west without county approval.

They um the applicant sought permits for ac accessory structure, but told the lot was too small.

Umperty owner was unwilling to sell additional land to make the property one acre, and then the county informed them that the only other option to correct the situation is to annex into the city.

Both properties have uh single family homes on them, and um the one that was split um originally has a significantly large um accessory structure as well.

So uh the NAMPA Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval unanimously on March 10th.

Um pretty simple.

I'm just gonna cover this quickly.

Um medium density residential designation on the comp plan, the zoning uh in the area, you can see that there, single family residential.

Uh there is some light industrial in the area, but not directly abutting this property.

Uh services are available to the are or in the area.

They are not um seeking that at this time though, for this property.

And there's just kind of a view of what subdivisions are in the area.

I'll keep going pretty quick unless you tell me to stop.

Um City Code for annexation, uh those four criteria.

We've kind of used those criteria as approval criteria with recent uh discussion with our attorney and reviewing state code.

We believe that this should be like an annexation application criteria that just to meet those criteria just to come before you.

And then you have the decision, it's a legislative decision as to approve or deny based on your reasons.

Umpa City Code for zoning, though, since you are required to assign a zoning, you have to follow the code uh that's it lupa, a local land use planning act, which is uh state code um 67, uh title 67.

So these are the criteria.

We've gone over those lots of times before.

Um these are the setbacks.

You know these, you've seen these, the lot sizes for the zone that they're requesting, RF7.

NAMPA Fire District does not oppose the application uh as long as they meet code with uh their building permit, they'll be required to attain or to meet code.

Engineering division request a condition related to connections to utilities, right of way dedication, and need for frontage improvements at time of development, pre-standard comments there.

We didn't get any comments from the general public.

Here are the conditions that were outlined by those two uh agencies.

Annexation application criteria is listed here.

They've met those criteria.

And here's the findings for zoning that uh with the facts stated in your staff report, but these are the conclusions of law for um that we would propose for the findings for zoning.

And then a couple of motions for your consideration.

I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have them.

Rodney, thank you.

Any questions for Rodney?

And ma'am, I apologize because I didn't catch your name, but uh April.

April.

So uh do you understand the conditions that have been outlined by staff?

I do, yes.

Okay, we've talked extensively.

All right.

Yes, I just wanted the clarification.

So thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Is there anybody else here who wants to testify on this matter?

Hearing none, seeing none.

Make a motion to close public hearing.

Excellent.

Second.

Well, that's where I was headed, but did you want any closing remarks or you're you're comfortable?

I'm good to go.

That's what I was feeling, but I don't I know that wasn't verbalized.

Just about the time I start getting a hang, I'll be off this duty.

Isn't that great?

So annexation zoning approved.

We got a motion.

To close the call first.

Yeah.

Or um all in favor.

Roll call.

Thank you.

All in favor for the close of public hearing.

I get the motion.

Motion.

And who did a second?

Okay, thank you.

Roll call.

Close.

Close the public hearing.

Got it.

Thank you.

Past my bedtime.

It's 7 30.

It's okay.

7 30.

Don't worry, it's just a voice vote on this one.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Council President.

Uh I'll make this one clear for you.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the project to state it on the screen.

Second.

Excellent.

We have a motion and a second to approve the annexation and zoning as presented.

Clerk will call the roll.

Scog.

Yes.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Welcome to the city.

So at this time, we don't have a need for uh an executive session.

So I would entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Second.

We have a motion and adjourn and a second to adjourn.

All in favor?

Aye.

Excellent.

Efficient.

Okay.

Excellent.