Paul gave me a he gave me a okay I think we're ready to go.

I had a thumbs up from Paul over here who's running all the IT.

Appreciate folks that do that.

This is my uh second uh time at this, so thank goodness I ha have this dear lady Shar beside me, and then this guy who ran it for you know several months, they'll just kind of kick me underneath the table if I if I misbehave.

All right.

Hey, we're gonna start this out, and uh we have uh special kind of a just a special little treat tonight.

We have uh Butch and Cheryl Shireman with us, and you wonder why I have both of them because uh this morning I asked uh my first question to Butch was can he sing?

I knew his wife could sing, so but I just found out that they actually met at the University of Idaho and and because of their singing.

So before he prays, we're actually gonna stand and uh gonna sing God bless America together.

Oh, for this 250.

It's okay.

Okay on the screen.

God bless Mary come.

Send me side her and guide her through the night with the light from above.

From the mountain to the prairie to the oceans, white with fall.

Bless my home sweet.

Thank you so much and thank you, Cheryl, for joining them.

We're gonna have to do a do at special sometime.

Let's go before the Lord in prayer.

Heavenly Father, as our nation just celebrated 250 years of independence this past weekend.

We come before you with grateful and humble hearts.

We acknowledge that the freedoms we cherish, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are gifts that you've graciously provided to us.

We thank you for the godly founders who acknowledged and declared these truths, and for every generation since then that is sacrificed to defend them.

This evening I want to lift up our elected members of the city council.

You place them in these positions of trust to conduct the business of the city of Nampa.

Father, please, please grant them wisdom to discern what is right, integrity with every deliberation, compassion for all of the residents, and unity of purpose for common good.

Guide this evening's proceedings.

May every issue and decision produce an outcome that serves the welfare of this community and honors your will, both now and into the future.

And we pray all these things in the precious name of Jesus Christ.

Amen.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

We have a great country very to be proud of.

Okay, now we're ready for roll call.

So, madam clerk, you would call role.

Scog.

Here.

Yes, here.

Bills.

Here.

Reynolds.

Rodriguez.

Griffin.

Here.

Okay.

All present.

All right.

Okay.

Proclamation time.

I get all four of you.

Or who's coming up?

And I'll read it and then we'll I think this mic will if I stand.

Okay, so this is Parks and Recreation Month.

And uh this is much longer than I would have written it, but it's uh it's great wording, so we're gonna read all of it.

Okay, okay, wherein parks and recreation programs are an integral part of communities throughout this country, including Nampa, Idaho, and whereas our parks and recreation programs are vitally important to establishing and maintaining the quality of life in our communities, ensuring the health of all citizens, and contributing to the economic and environmental well-being of a community and region.

And wherein parks and recreation programs build healthy, active communities that aid in the prevention of chronic disease, provide therapy therapeutic recreation services for those who are mental mentally or physically disabled, and also improve the mental and emotional health of all citizens.

And whereas parks and recreation programs increase a increase a community's economic prosperity through increased property values, expansion of the local tax base, increased tourism, the attraction and retention of businesses and crime reduction, and whereas parks and recreation areas are fundamental to the environmental well-being of our community, and whereas parks and natural recreation areas improve water quality, protect groundwater, prevent flooding, improve the quality of the air we breathe, provide vegetative buffers to development and produce habitat for wildlife.

And whereas our parks and natural recreation areas ensure the ecological beauty of our community and provide a place for children and adults to connect with nature and recreate outdoors.

And whereas the U.S.

House of Representatives has designated July as Parks and Recreation Month, and whereas NAMPA recognizes the benefits derived from parks and recreation resources.

Now, therefore, I Darrell Bruner, mayor of the city of Nampa Idaho, do hereby proclaim July 2026 in the city of Nampa as parks and recreation month.

But all those things I think we need to just have more parks.

We're gonna just move some houses.

Thanks, Jennifer.

All right.

All right, I'm Jennifer Ayala, business manager for Nampa Parks and Recreation.

Uh Mayor and City Council members, thank you for uh proclaiming July as Parks and Recreation Month here in NAMPA.

It is an initiative of the National Parks and Recreation Association to celebrate and acknowledge all the ways parks and recreation impacts our daily lives from providing us places to play, get fit, stay healthy, and fostering new relationships and forging connection with nature.

Our close-to-home community parks and recreation facilities provide essential services and improve our quality of life.

NAMPA's parks and recreation facilities are a place where people can gather and participate in wholesome activities and have fun.

We are excited to announce that next Friday, July 17th, the Harvard Recreation Center will be waiving admission fees for our free day Friday.

The Nampa community can enjoy free access to this great amenity to take the kids swimming, to get a workout in, rock climb, play basketball, participate in one of our mini group fitness aerobic classes like Zumba or Yoga and much more.

NAMPA Parks and Recreation is also offering our July activities map.

I brought a copy of them.

This month we are encouraging families to pick up an activities map and participate in any activity or amenity with NAMPA Parks and Rec, such as exploring a playground, a pathway, completing competing in our kids' triathlon, participating in swim lessons, or watch a movie in the park.

Everyone who completes the map wins a prize.

This is a great opportunity for families to discover some of the fun Nampa Parks and Recreation has to offer.

By increasing the awareness of parks and recreation amenities and programs in Nampa, playing activity will increase among all age groups, and we will ultimately experience a healthier community.

We strive to provide amenities that will encourage people to get active, create community, and make NAMPA a great place to live.

So thank you for proclaiming July as Parks and Recreation Month in Nampa.

Jennifer, I think I get that.

Everyone from Parks come up.

We're gonna get a photo here.

Okay, it's happening to take about two more shots since I'm mayor now.

Soy moving on to our agenda here.

Any uh first of all, any any proposed changes to the uh community agenda?

No.

Oh, public court, thank you so much, Shar.

Melissa Sue, I about left you out.

Come on up.

And as you're aware, we have three minutes.

Okay.

I had to use my phone tonight because my printer something might I never buy a canyon canon printer again.

Okay.

So good evening, mayor and members of the Nampa City Council.

My name is Melissa Sue Robinson, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight.

I come before you because recent reports of two gay men being brutally beaten in Caldwell should concern every one of us.

No one should have fear of being attacked by the point of order.

Melissa, I'm sorry.

You need to state your address.

I need to buy your address.

I should have reminded you.

Name an ad you said your name, but your address.

Okay, 15 Fifth Street North Unit 210, NAMPA.

Okay.

So they were brutally beaten in Caldwell, and that should uh concern every one of us.

No one should fear being attacked because of who they are or who they love.

Violence fueled by prejudice threatens not only its victims, but the values of every civilized community as elected officials or as elected officials, your responsibility is to protect every resident equally.

I respectfully ask the council to move forward with our comprehensive non-discrimination ordinance for the city of Nampa and to support stronger state laws that recognize and provide enhanced penalties for crimes motivated by bias against protected groups.

This is not about creating special rights, it's about ensuring equal rights.

I fully respect every person's right to their religious beliefs.

Religious liberty is one of America's greatest freedoms.

However, when acting as public officials, personal religious beliefs cannot become the basis for denying equal treatment under the law.

Throughout our nation's history, we have expanded civil rights because it was the right thing to do.

There was a time when people argued against protections for African Americans, women, people with disabilities, and interracial couples.

History has shown us that equality strengthens our communities rather than weakens the weakens uh passing a non excuse me.

Passing a non-discrimination ordinance would send a powerful message that NAPA is a city where every person is welcome, every family is valued, every resident deserves safety and respect.

If we tell it will tell those who spread hatred and intimidation that they do not represent the values of this community.

Thank you for your time, your service, and your commitment to the people of NAPA.

You do a good job of timing that out.

You still had five five seconds.

So thank thank you for sharing tonight.

Um a draft non-discriminate ordinance comparable to Meridian and Boise.

Okay, thank you very much.

Is there anyone else interested in presenting for three minutes as far as an agenda or non-agenda item?

Seeing none, I think I can I we can move on.

So now we'll get to the uh the agenda.

Any proposed amendments, changes to the uh main agenda?

Council?

I'm seeing none.

So the agenda second we have a we have a motion and a second, any discussion?

Okay, all in favor?

Aye.

Okay, now we're moving on to the consent agenda.

Anyone want any part of the consent agenda move to the main agenda?

I move that we approve the consent agenda.

Second.

Okay, I hear a motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

All in favor, say aye.

All right.

All right, we have uh we do have some uh staff communications, and first of all, we get to hear from Daniel Badger.

And regarding uh engineering M water system is what is on my sheet.

Excuse me, uh Mayor.

Yes, yes, can you have a question that before Daniel gets up and speaks on behalf of this?

This is one of them that we I believe denied.

Is this for a conversation?

Is this for education and for information, or is this leading to uh direction?

It's a good question.

Daniel, why don't you stand up and uh what's your or your opinion as far as the question from uh Councilman Rodriguez?

So Mayor, Councilman Rondriguez, um at the budget hearing um the last time I was not here, and there was some questions about kind of the history of the MM water system and why we have it.

And so this was just a staff report to provide context for why that is uh system is owned by the city of Nampa and to provide any if you've got any questions regarding that.

Since I'm the one that was around when it was purchased, I I can provide that context and history.

I see.

Also, one more question.

Follow up, sir.

So are we going to be hearing this in public hearing?

No, this is just a staff communication for for history.

There's no action items, anything.

It's just uh uh educational thing for the council on why why we have the system.

Okay, because if it's still on the capital improvement plan, that does have to go to hearing, correct.

So that would be part of the budget hearings and and that um for the capital stuff.

You're just setting the base.

I'm just giving some history.

Um I won't be here next week.

I'll be on vacation during the budget hearings, and so we wanted to provide the history um to to provide the context.

Okay, I just want to know the guidelines.

So thanks.

Daniel, this is a fairly short summary.

Yes, okay.

It is because I want to get another gentleman up here pretty quick.

So it's a fairly short summary.

So back in 2003 and 2004, the city of Nampa was in need of some water uh down around Carriage Hills.

Uh there was development happening there, and we needed uh of a new well in that area.

Uh United Water at the time, who is now Violia, had a number of water systems in the city of NAMPA's impact area, um, four specifically that we carriage hills as well being one of those.

And so the public works director at the time, Michael, um, worked with United Water for the city to purchase those united water systems that were in our impact area, so that in the future we would not have to have competing water systems in in our impact area, that we would be the water provider there.

Um, the developers out in that area that developed the later phases of Carriage Hills, uh Fall River, um, a number of those developments out there funded the acquisition of those water systems.

Um the four water systems were the Carridge Hills well, the Coventry Place well, which is at Ruth and uh Sunny Ridge, um, the MM system and the Belmont Heights system, which is out off of Victory and serves Britannia, Belmont Heights, and Lexington Meadows out there.

Um, and so those are the four systems that the city purchased.

Um that's why we have them.

Um MM was not one that was necessarily one that um was of high value to the city.

It was just that was the agreement that was made that we would purchase all of those systems so that United Water would not be in Canyon County.

We would not have to deal with them in the future as we grew out to those areas.

So there was that benefit to the city to taking those systems.

Um in later years from that, um we instituted a process to be able to serve city utilities out into the impact areas so we didn't end up with another water provider out there.

Um, and so that's the outside city services agreements that we sometimes bring before city council.

Um there are this map here shows kind of the locations of those outside city services agreements that are in place.

Those have annexation clauses so that as soon as the city gets to those uh developments and our boundaries touch, we will annex those properties into the city.

There's already been consent given, um, and that will just be something it'll be a formality that we have to go through, but the property owners there have all consented to that as the uh already.

Um and so that's kind of the history of why we have that system.

Um is a a smaller system, the other ones are uh a little larger, or the the well facilities are a little different.

Um, but that's that's what we have there.

Are there any questions regarding that?

Mayor?

Yes, present.

So Daniel, a clarification on the Belmont Heights, uh Lexington Meadows deal.

United Water put in the well.

Correct.

But the city or the developer ran water line from the city out to that well.

So when after we purchased the um the systems from United Water, the city did run lines out victory and put in a booster station to connect it to the city systems.

MM is the only one that is independent and not interconnected to the rest of the city system at this point.

Um the cost to the the city crews ran the water line out to Belmont Heights.

Um the cost for that was passed on to the Britannia Heights developer, paid a incremental fee with each lot when they connected that helped fund that.

Um but it was the city that ran the line out to there to connect Belmont Heights into the city system.

Okay.

And Britannia was it on that same well?

Britannia was originally on that same well, yes.

Or or was connected to the same lines there.

But it was it was coming in as we were doing the purchase, and so that's where all of those agreements happened.

And that's why you'll see on this map.

The ums highlighted in red are those original systems that we purchased from United Water.

They do not have annexation agreements in place.

Um the ones in blue are ones that came in subsequent to that, that do have annexation agreements in place.

And you've got a couple of yellow ones there that we have annexation improvements, annexation agreements in place, but they have not constructed the developments yet.

Well, that shows clarity for a meeting that the mayor and I were in this morning, so that that helps the times out well for me.

So thank you.

Any other questions?

Yes, I have one more, sir.

Okay, Councilman Rodriguez.

Daniel, I don't see any documents or modifications or agreements uh contract-wise.

Um can you present those to to me, us?

Um, I can find the purchase agreements that we had with United Water.

Um we can find those and forward those out to council.

They are fairly basic, um, just a purchase and sale agreement basically that we will provide them X amount of dollars and they will deed these facilities to the city.

Well, I just want to see how much money that's going to be that that they're gonna return to us down the road.

So so they're they would not be returning any.

We paid them the develop and developers funded us paying them for those systems.

There's no reimbursement that would be coming to the city from these systems, other than the rates that we collect for the supplying the water.

And they've been playing those ways through ever since that subdivision came in.

Right.

Ever since we purchased those systems, yes.

Okay.

That's if you wouldn't mind.

I'd like to take a look at thank you.

Any further questions?

Okay, I mean I'm gonna change the order just a bit here because we have a special uh occasion.

And so uh Matt Jamison, if you wouldn't mind coming up, we're gonna move to uh action item 52.

And uh he wasn't probably quite ready this soon, but Rodney you'll be right after that.

Happy birthday, Matt Jameson.

And I understand you have a uh son's baseball game also.

Uh yes, I do, uh Mayor Bruner and Council.

Uh my son does have it's the only evening game he has this week or this summer.

So let me read the what the action item is.

Uh authorize the allocation of 100,000 in community development block grant, CDBG funding to leap charities to operate a down payment assistance program approved in the in the fiscal year 26 budget.

So moved.

Want to get you to the game early.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

Okay, roll call, please.

COG, yes.

Tingula.

Yes, Rodriguez.

Yes, Griffin.

All right, thank you very much.

Yes, have a have a great 35th.

Okay.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm still doing roll call.

Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Thank you.

Sorry about that, Shar.

Okay, now we're ready for you, Rodney.

I do like to move things along, but I need to be uh have proper protocol here.

Thank you.

Mayor and counsel uh Rodney Ashby, Planning and Zoning Director for the record.

Um I I want to report first on uh the actions done by the Planning and Zoning Commission on the 23rd of June.

The first one was a subdivision final plat for Sunshine Meadows.

This was uh located southeast of Iowa Avenue and Chicago Street.

Uh this has come before you before, and it was in your consent agenda tonight, and you approved it.

Um that was recommended for approval.

The other one was uh subdivision short plat, it was an industrial development, a kind of a small um subdivision.

This was 805 um park center way, and uh for some industrial buildings that was recommended for approval, and you can you confirmed that on your consent agenda tonight.

And then last of all was an annexation and zoning to RA with corresponding right-of-way and subdivision preliminary plat approval for Lake Lowell Estates.

This is for 24 single family detached units, six common lots, and right-of-way, and that was recommended for approval unanimously, and it will come before you on the 3rd of August.

So, any questions on those?

Okay.

Questions from council.

Okay, thanks.

Thanks, Rodney.

So the next one is um, as we discussed before, I'm gonna just cover the comprehensive plan, the themes that we heard from the steering committee.

As you recall, we've gone through public process.

I'm gonna kind of skip over what I've what we've told you before.

Um, but there's been a lot of uh work done to this point.

The steering committee made a recommendation.

Um I did get one comment from council today.

Um, so I will try to address some of those questions that relate to the topics we're covering today.

But we're gonna cover two topics.

Um, and I'm gonna skip over this.

We're just on these uh first two today, and then we'll come back with the others as we move forward over the next month and a half or so.

Connected and accessible, uh, develop a safe, efficient, well connected transportation network by road, trail, and air that links neighborhoods, schools, and key destinations, support multimodal options, reduce congestion, improve mobility, and strengthen the role of the NAMPA municipal airport as a regional asset.

So that was all under connected and accessible.

That's the description.

Um so we're gonna cover under connected and accessible each of these different subtopics pretty quickly.

So uh these are the draft objective topics.

So the first one is transportation choice, second, financial stewardship, transportation and land use connections, safety and efficiency technology and smart systems.

So transportation choice.

What does that mean?

It's about expanding our connections between modes of travel, all kinds of different modes.

So we've got pedestrians, bicyclists, we have electrical scooters and electric uh bikes, uh vehicles.

Um right now we have buses.

We we even have uh airport, so all of those connections really matter, and so how do we make the connections between those is what this is about, and also providing options, uh excuse me, transportation choices.

So improve public perception and awareness of multimodal transportation options.

That was one of the recommendations, um uh objectives from the steering committee.

So going on to the next one, financial stewardship, still underconnected and accessible.

So financial stewardship, priority, prioritize preservation of existing transportation infrastructure.

That was we heard that over and over again.

Prioritize, maintain what we have right now.

Don't try to expand so much that we forget maintenance is still needing to be done.

Improve the cost effectiveness and financial sustainability of transportation investments.

I'm not saying that that's the right option for everything.

I'm just saying that this is we need to remember to focus on cost effectiveness long term of these different types of improvements.

And that's what the community was saying.

And improve efficiency in transportation related operations and assets.

That may be expansion of in uh intersections, it may be additional lanes.

We we have learned from the public works department and engineering that in uh those intersections are really the key to opening up roadway efficiency.

Uh next is uh transportation and land use connections, uh support transit oriented and walkable walkable development patterns, align parking policies with transportation and land use goals.

Um we did this just a couple of years ago where we uh adjusted our the number of parking spaces to align with the type of land use that was being developed.

So you might have a really small uh single bedroom apartment that has far less parking requirements than a uh three-bedroom apartment or a single family home.

Uh townhouses now have guest parking to right size it to the type of land use.

Next, improve connectivity between activity centers, corridors, and neighborhoods.

This is actually my home.

You I can see on my on the screen here.

And um I love this spot because I have a little just the green line there.

I have a little tiny pathway connection between my subdivision, the school that my kids went to, and the a park that my kids played on over the years, and we used to roll down that hill right there.

Um I love this place.

I love this connection, and it also connects to my my good friends who whose house is also shown on this, but is in a different subdivision.

So that connection between the different land uses, between the subdivisions is really critical.

Safety and efficiency, again, we hear safety over and over, improve transportation safety, all kinds, improve traffic operations and corridor performance, improve safety and compatibility along freight corridors, and then next uh use technology to improve transportation system operations and safety.

That's the TC TMC course.

Prepare transportation infrastructure for emerging technologies.

Um we found this online.

I thought this was a good way to say there are lots of tools that you can use on the transportation system.

And I'm not the expert here.

I know Crystal and Daniel are probably much better at this than I am, but we have to prepare for that in advance.

We have to know what the demand is, and we have to put it in in advance so that we're ready for it when it comes.

All right, so this is the next topic, complete and resilient neighborhoods.

I know I'm going fast, but we're gonna have comments and questions at the end here.

Uh foster well-designed neighborhoods with diverse attainable housing choices, um, quality infrastructure and accessible public services, emphasize safety, walkability, and livability while ensuring reliable utilities and emergency response capacity.

So complete and resilient neighborhoods.

Um as directed by the council, we are taking out affordable because of the context or the connotation that's that's implied with that word.

So we're gonna take that out of everything uh in the in the future, and we're gonna focus on attainable and diverse housing, complete neighborhoods, equitable, fair, and healthy development.

So attainable and diverse housing.

We want to plan for a diversity of densities and housing types in new neighborhoods and residential subdivision development.

We're trying to identify what the need is versus what the general consensus of the public if they're saying, hey, we want really large lots, really large homes.

Is that the actual need?

So we're we're trying to identify that need and uh address it in the comprehensive plan.

Uh build strategic partnerships with housing organizations, employers, developers, regional agencies, and others to expand housing opportunities.

All right, complete neighborhoods.

Cultivate complete neighborhoods with a variety of housing types and access to goods, services, and public amenities.

Complete means you're you're providing the places that people want to go in proximity of your home.

And you're providing a way to get to those locations.

Preserve and enhance the quality and character of existing residential neighborhoods while accommodating thoughtful growth.

And last is equitable, fair, and healthy development.

I know that these words sometimes can be kind of buzzwords.

Equitable, so we're trying to identify what we mean with the narrative.

Support all NAMPA residents through good planning and equitable access to services and healthy living options.

Next steps is we're gonna go over that the next time we meet.

Discussion, I'd like to address the comments and questions that I've heard first, though.

So, first of all, um we this is the comment that uh we got in the section under vision statement where it says develop a safe, efficient, and well connected transportation network by road, trail, and air that links neighborhood schools and key destinations.

What is that going to look like if we eliminate the bus routes?

Good question.

And and what do you mean by choice where it says transportation choice?

So my response to this, I I just threw this together this afternoon, so I apologize if it's not real clear, but um hopefully we can get at it.

Um planning must consider the needs of the city 25 years into the future.

We have to think about that.

So what is what it looks like today may not look like the same thing 25 years from now.

So we're saying be prepared for that.

We're not saying put in transit everywhere, we're saying be prepared for that.

What are the the um the right-of-way needs if we have transit in the future?

Um, and so we're we're planning for that so we don't get behind.

But other modes of transportation too.

If it ever takes off and we get a train from here to Boise, what does that look like?

What should the land use look like around it?

What should the infrastructure look like?

Uh it costs less to plan for it now than to retrofit the system when it is needed.

That's the goal here.

Um then at the end here, I'm I'm happy to take more questions about this, but complete and resilient neighborhoods.

What is the definition of complete and resilient?

Great question.

And this comes right out of our plan that we produced and the steering committee recommended to you.

Complete neighborhoods include a range of housing types and pricing, easy access to goods and services, recreational opportunities in schools that are within walking distance, mixed-use live-work opportunities, and safe streets.

The mix of medium to high density residential is augmented by compatible architecture, thoughtful streetscapes, transit options, and proximity to amenities.

These types of neighborhoods are active and they welcome individuals and families from a wide range of socioeconomic status, background, and cultures.

They're active.

I think that that's an important term there.

Uh I think attainable and accessible are questionable.

Also, again, this is those, these are those buzzwords, and I understand this.

Also, under the recommended objective topics, the terms affordable, attainable and diverse housing, complete neighborhoods, equitable and fair are words that can be interpreted in many different ways.

Absolutely.

Equitable to whom, fair to whom, attainable, affordable, these are not roles of the city, these are possible roles of the developer, but not the city.

So I uh you set the policies for the city.

I'm not here to set policy.

I I will provide a little bit of context, I think you should consider.

Uh, every age group we heard from in the outreach process listed affordability as one of their top three concerns.

It was almost number one for everybody.

Um it's on the minds of the people.

I I believe is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of our community.

We do that through creation and enforcement of codes and development standards.

Every time a development comes in, they follow our standards.

But each requirement the city places on a development will impact the cost of homes built.

Housing, the lot sizes really impact what happens to the price of the home in the end.

So that is something that we deal with.

That's required by state law that the city council address.

And you do that on a regular basis.

Nampa's median household income is 82,000.

The average cost of a home, 403,000.

If the average is 82,000, the residents of NAMPA, the average median household would be able to barely be able to afford the 1648 estimated mortgage on a 275,000 dollar home.

So that's the challenge we're facing.

It's pretty bleak.

So that's the challenge.

Attainability is about residents being able to obtain housing, but also about providing attainable options for NAMPA residents in all levels of income.

We need to right size that though.

So I've really thought about that over this last uh six months or so.

And I I agree with him.

I think we need to we need to think about what our residents, what our people need in our community.

So that's what this is about providing options for our residents.

And that's all I had.

Um and I'm happy to take any questions.

I've got Doug here too to I think somewhere.

Rodney, I just want to thank you for addressing those questions.

Yeah.

And apologize.

I thought I had sent them the day I was supposed to, and they didn't go through.

But um I do appreciate that, and thank you for taking out um affordability.

Um, because what I can afford and what somebody else can afford can be very different.

And so we will work together on figuring this out.

There has to be an answer.

Yeah.

Mayor.

Um, Rodney, when you are identifying the type of housing that you're looking at um needing to bring here to NAMPA, are you solely going off the surveys, or how else are you gathering information for that?

Um I'm not sure I followed your question.

You you just said that we're trying you were trying to identify one of the goals was identifying the type of housing that we're bringing to NAMPA.

So I'm just curious how are you identifying it?

Sure, good question.

So one of the ways is looking at that median household income.

Okay.

Right.

If our residents here make this amount, what could what is possible for them to afford?

And then if those households have children who come up or age and want to move out of their home, what are the housing options that are possible for them?

So that's one of the ways.

Um, but yeah, we did a lot of outreach.

We're asking people those questions so that we get a sense of what do they want, what what are they looking for?

Have you seen a significant increase in the median household income since the last time that you surveyed?

Uh so in 2023, the uh the American community survey said we were at 72,000.

Um, and so this that's a ten thousand dollar increase in those three years.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Rodney, I I do have so uh rental.

You was it 13, uh 1,325.

Was that for a two-bedroom rental?

345.

Okay.

And so someone making uh the average 82,000, these two in my math, uh that's not my strong point at all, but uh they wouldn't be able to afford that type of rental.

Um yeah, I mean it it depends on a whole bunch of different things, including things that we have control over.

Access to services sometimes makes a big difference.

So if there's daycare nearby, or if there's not, right, then they have to travel great distances for daycare.

So there's there's some things like that that the city can be involved in, but generally speaking, I would say that this is about what people can afford.

Do you have any idea how many uh are on the market for a two-bedroom for about that price?

I think uh last I heard it was about 11% vacancy rate for rentals, but I'm not sure at this at this rate.

Do you have any idea?

I don't know.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, Rodney.

Really quick, one other question.

Rodney, I'm just curious because when we're thinking long term, how we have CWI right in our backyard, and they're expanding a lot of their trade programs right now, where the trades are we're seeing you know, an uptick in um affordability, then being able to make more money, um, things like that.

Have has CWI looked at these numbers or anything to help us kind of see what their thoughts are as far as students coming, NAMPA students going to CWI and out.

Does that make sense?

That's that's a great question.

I have not looked into that, and I haven't haven't coordinated these numbers with CWI, but I'm happy to.

I mean, that that's not a bad idea.

Yeah, I'm just curious.

Yeah, if we're looking long term.

Yeah, they've got a lot of new things happening.

So yeah, great.

Thank you.

Thank you, Roger.

Mayor, if I we had to submit is that is that councilman Griffin?

It is Mike Mike Paynia, please.

Let me see here.

Sorry, I'm traveling down the freeway.

Can you hear me better now?

Yes.

Mike Payne, Mike Pena had sent me in June.

The numbers for June were seven and a half percent vacancy on apartments, four and a half percent on single family homes.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate that information.

Council President, do you well?

I did I did some study for another reason, but uh today still haven't finished it.

Um looking at what's on the market uh in the uh MLS system.

That would help me with MOS system.

Multiple listing service.

Okay, thank you.

So housing right now, 1100 square footers, uh are going for anywhere from uh 300 to 400,000.

That's uh 11 to 12, 1300 square feet is is that pricing.

Uh you move on up into the uh 1300 to 1500, and you're usually over 400,000.

Uh and uh so there's some homes in the marketplace for 300,000, but it's mostly 1100 to uh 1,300 square feet.

Uh what's available in terms of looking at those, uh you know, it's it's not new product, it's product that was built uh 25 years ago, um 30 years ago, and uh you know some have been upgraded and repurposed, other is uh some neighborhoods are still uh lacking in the repurpose side.

So uh it's it's really very difficult in in a lot of respects for uh the housing market uh far as quote affordability.

The difficulty is from my perspective, the development community, the uh city of Nampa did not create the issue.

Deficit spending change what the dollars worth uh across the nation, and that in itself has really taken uh a major issue to what's what's happened in the housing market.

So when we talk affordability, um it's it's a whole different uh game.

So just trying to share a little glimpse of uh what I'm doing, a crystal ball in two years from now, what it's gonna look like, in your opinion?

I think it's gonna be very difficult.

It's why I'm doing the study.

I'm trying to help a couple of builders out.

I'm also trying to look at stuff for my own personal uh family members, uh thinking about grandchildren soon who are gonna need housing, uh that type of deal, and looking at what what's really available and with us having still still being a member of the NLS why uh started you know looking at that.

The real eye opener for me, and I don't see any fixes because our federal government has a ferocious appetite for deficit spending, which devalues the dollar.

I'm also trying to look at stuff for my own personal uh family members, uh thinking about grandchildren soon who are gonna need housing, uh that type of deal, and looking at what what's really available, and with us having still still being a member of the NLS why uh started you know looking at that the real eye opener for me, and I don't see any fixes because our federal government has a ferocious appetite for deficit spending, which devalues the dollar coupled with four years, five years starting a little bit 1920, but from there on not stepping on toes for those who have moved here, but there was a period of time there was 18 months of um most offers or most sellers had anywhere from two to eight offers per house during a period of time, and that's one of the uh time frames that our marketplace changed and housing jump housing that I had built and sold for one sixty was now three forty.

That was over uh demand for the supply.

That led to the initial big surge of change.

Buyers were writing letters to the seller, choose us to get the housing.

After that point, then on from 22.

Uh, it's it's the financial side and it's the uh still demand and the devaluation of the dollar.

So um as far as where things are I've I've had to for different reasons.

I know I'm going on, but look at infrastructure costs, having price projects and and different things.

Um it's amazing what the cost of the hard goods are to physically improve uh the infrastructure.

Cost structure is so much different five years ago.

So is there a is there anything on the horizon?

Only if we have a massive recession.

Uh otherwise there's and and the government quit spending.

So good luck with that, but that's my opinion.

Okay, just FYI.

That's what's happening in the marketplace as I see it.

I start studying the issues.

So thanks for your studying and hope, and uh I'm sounds like you're incentivized to continue.

So appreciate that information.

Okay, we'll move on to action item 5.1.

Is Christy Della Cruz here by chance?

Okay, I'll read the action item and then we can have the have the roll call.

Confirm appointment of Christy Delacruz to the Napa Housing Authority for a five-year term expiring on June 30th, 2031.

We'll move.

Second discussion.

Mayor.

Yes.

Just poking fun at it.

I hope that in her answer here, she said that she's most interested in affordable housing.

Hopefully, she's interested also in attainable housing.

Well, you might want to have a set uh coffee with her sometime.

Sounds good.

All right, well, roll call, please, madam clerk.

Scog, yes.

Pingula, yes, Rodriguez.

Yes, Griffin.

Yes, Bills, yes, Reynolds.

All in favor, motion carries.

Okay, now we're gonna go to action item 5-3.

Authorized mayor to sign a construction contract with King Concrete Construction to build a scattering garden at Kohler Lawn Cemetery, not to exceed $713,117 or reject all bids approved by Preston Rutter, our attorney, and approved on the fiscal year 26 budget.

Mayor I yes, we have a we have a motion and a second.

This is discussion time.

Council councilman Griffin.

Just following up, I know we previously had a discussion regarding the one uh this exact item in our our preliminary look at the budget book analysis.

Didn't we discuss that we were going to pull this to shift money to deferred maintenance, or is that for another schedule and garden?

Cody, can you answer that?

Yes, um uh Cody Swander, City of Napa Parks and Recreation Director.

Uh thank you, uh Mayor and Councilman Griffin.

Yes, this is that project that was discussed during the Capitol workshops.

That's why I had written it into the agenda as the option of rejecting all bids to reallocate those funds.

Mayor, if I could.

Yes.

I I would just encourage it just part of discussion.

I would encourage that we or can I get clarification before I make my comments on if the motion was for approval or rejection of the the bid process, madam clerk it was for approval for approval.

Thank you for commenting if I could.

Yes, I would encourage that we deny this project and allocate those funds for deferred infrastructure maintenance similar to other projects that we had already discussed during our our capital budget workshop.

Okay.

So the question the question mark that I didn't get to you today, Cody, uh Mayor, is some of some of these funds have were already approved under 25 and 26, if I understood it correctly going back looking at the budget books.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Uh Mayor, um Councilman Bills, that is correct.

Fiscal year 25 was allocated 300,000, fiscal year 26, 368,600.

And then with the remaining uh budget needed 486,850 for fiscal year 27.

486.

46,850, yes, sir.

But I thought the bid is 718, 713.

It is.

Um total three.

The budget, the bids came in lower than the budgeted amount.

Okay.

So what I'm trying to get at is we've already approved, you already have budgeted money of shy of the contract bid.

46,000.

Mayor Councilman Bills, my understanding is that the action taken during the Capitol workshop is that it would all be uh rescinded back to the streets project from the pre everything yet spent to date would be rescinded back and earmarked for the streets project.

That's how I understood the conversation.

I could be wrong.

Well, I guess we need clarification.

I had in my mind that what we polled was uh not the entire uh amount, but the portion that was being asked for for the 27 budget mayor council the chief of staff clay long.

Um that is correct.

So the the budget process would have just been the current year, the next year's ask.

There was money already there, so it would require a budget amendment to redo or repurpose those funds because this came in at this level.

The dis the difference is significantly less than what we anticipated with.

I think it was originally 1.2 million is what we thought it was going to be.

And so uh 1.115.

So that's the request coming forward.

If this gets approved, we would need to allocate the difference of I think it's not a whole lot.

Um, but I'll leave it to Doug.

I I think that's important context though of the whole amount would have to come back for the previous year's set aside for a budget amendment to have that re-couped into the larger bucket for deferred maintenance or other projects.

Right.

So if I get CFO Doug Racine speaking, the discussion was to uh not approve the FY27 year budget, and that's that's perfectly within the council's accepted authority for FY27.

That amount was not approved in the capital budget for FY27.

We already have the pre-approved amounts from the prior two use that are still allocated for use, but would require council's approval to use them because they're from a prior year.

So we would have to have an amendment to bring them in to 26 or 27 to spend them if council chose.

If they killed the project entirely, it frees up those funds to be used at council's discretion for whatever project they so choose.

The 27 was already denied.

It's the 26 and 25 values that are still available for use should council decide to use them on this project or to totally kill the project right now.

I thought the intent was I recall the intent was to get the bids and see what the total cost was going to be.

So we knew going forward at some point in time we thought this was a worthy project to chase, just maybe not today.

So I think we wanted to get the bids to find out what that value was, and now it's coming in less than the total value of the project.

So council has the option of either letting us use those prior years money or reallocating them uh through denying the entirety of this project.

Okay, so what I'm what I'm seeing then is is we got six six sixty-eight funded, needing an additional sixty-one thousand to meet the bid.

And so we could pull sixty-one from twenty-seven uh allocation, and we would retain the rest of what we've already done, and that would allow this project to move forward with that already set aside monies.

That is correct.

You could do that.

That's your option.

Okay, let's do it.

And mayor and um I think that's uh CFO pre scene.

Um there's also ninety thousand approximately spent out of that six sixty-eight already for design.

So I just want to make sure that that's accounted for as well.

That's included in not on top of that's included in, correct.

I'm sorry, Cody.

Could you say that amount again?

There's a lot of conversation happening.

Okay.

Let me I that was already spent.

Yes.

So um so far to date on the project, um, we have spent ninety thousand nine hundred and eighty-four dollars and eighty-eight cents for design and bidding services.

Um I expect another approximately twenty-eight hundred dollars to complete that because we just opened bids on the twenty-fifth of June.

So that total would be ninety-three thousand seven hundred eighty-four eighty-eight if those numbers come in where I anticipate that's been spent out of the six sixty-eight, six hundred that was um allocated in the previous fiscal years.

So it's ninety plus the sixty, so it's more of a one fifty, one sixty.

The number I uh come up with count uh mayor and councilman bills is um one hundred and thirty-eight thousand three hundred and one dollars.

Okay, is what we need out of the twenty-seven monies that we asked to set those aside.

Yes, sir.

Okay, clarification.

Yes, Mr.

Council Councilman.

I think that money was taken out of the 25 but uh the 25 allotment, not 27.

Right?

We were on the 27 capital budget, right?

And and the money being asked for that, we asked to uh set aside.

Right, and in the process uh what's been communicated was correct in that let's see what the bids come in at and see whether we could keep the project moving forward.

Right.

The parts I didn't know about today and doing my own math was the 90,000 that's already been spent on the design.

That's asking one question on that just for clarification, Cody.

Yes.

When exactly was that 90,000 spent?

It's been spent um throughout the fiscal years of 25 and 26.

All right, so that it's that money's gone, it's already been spent.

Correct.

Yeah.

So we've already incurred that cost, we're not getting it back.

Um we just need an additional sixty thousand dollars on top of the existing budgetary authority.

That is correct.

To make that land, so not 135, just an additional because you already spent the 90,000 a prior year.

So it's gone, which was a part of that budget part.

So yeah, it's a less of a stretch.

Mayor, so now I have another question.

Because I understood if if we say yes to this, you already have the money set aside to finish this project.

We're not adding more to it.

Is that correct?

With 2027.

Uh Mayor, councilwoman Scog, uh, if I'm following everybody's logic correctly, we would need an additional sixty some thousand dollars from fiscal year twenty-seven to get us that to that one uh that seven seventeen um seven thirteen one seventy seventeen total.

So everyone understands pretty much the choices.

Okay.

So we got we got a bid amount and plus ninety thousand is the total for the project, correct?

That's correct, Councilman Bills.

I just want to make sure that it's sixty that we're allocating for if we need to have it be allocating the one thirty-four.

I and clear clarify, I thought I heard originally 46,000.

What is 60,000 or what?

What's our what's the exact that would need uh amendment or whatever for with my math, because we have already spent the ninety-three uh thousand roughly on the design and bid services, we would need the one thirty-eight, three oh one fiscal year to make up the seven hundred and uh thirteen thousand one hundred seventy.

Yeah, I'm not I'm not understanding.

Um Cody Clint, let's start over just quick.

How much was the total bid?

Okay, the total bid from King uh concrete construction was seven hundred and thirteen thousand one hundred and seventeen dollars.

What does that include?

Does that include any of the ninety thousand already spent?

No, it does not, okay.

So that's the seven hundred thousand dollars.

And how much have we uh budgeted for in the two prior years?

Six hundred and sixty-eight thousand six hundred dollars.

Six hundred and sixty-eight, we spent ninety, so we have five seventy-eight left.

So the difference is between five seventy-eight and the seven hundred and seven thousand.

Okay, so it is item thirty.

Yeah.

Right, 134.

Yeah.

That's what I thought.

So if we say no to this project, we pull back that um the money that um was already allocated from 2025 and 2026, and we can fix some water pipes that are breaking on us.

Okay, thank you.

But you do still would have a 90% of the allocated right.

But you do you consider that $90,000 a sunk cost, it's gone, you're not getting it back.

Right.

It's just the cost of planning.

Well, down the road you could any other discussion.

Are we ready for uh roll call?

Yes.

I just have a comment.

So there's probably nobody at the DIS that cares about deferred maintenance more than myself.

Um I fought for a billion dollar deferred maintenance number for the state.

Um we were able to finally get that done with some ARPA dollars.

Um and that that was a dent in what was there.

But this deferred maintenance in the city of Nampa, I agree we need to take care of it, but we can't just rip a budget apart in one year and take care of this in one year.

We have to make a conscious decision to budget for maintenance every single year.

Every director should be have a line item that's maintenance, whether that's for your building or your streets or your water pipes or whatever, we should be budgeting that every single year.

We can't rip apart a budget and uh all of a sudden one year just make up our mind that that's what we want to do.

And furthermore, some of us council members have been voting for foregone because we knew that we had a problem in the budget, and we had to put monies in places where we needed to because of the problems we had with House Bill 389.

Anyway, I'm not for throwing away the 90,000 dollars that we've spent um on this.

There's people in the city that want a scattering garden, and that uh this is important to a lot of our residents, and I think it's a great idea.

It's a good number on the bid.

I think that uh we should we should get this done.

Mayor Bruner.

Yes.

Um the infrastructure is a priority of mine, not just you not just yours.

The other thing is is this by the scattering garden, it is a revenue-based scattering garden.

And so some of that will be already returned to us in how many about three or four years.

So it's a good deal.

I'm I'm for it.

Any further discussion?

Are we ready for roll call?

Okay, madam clerk.

Gog, no.

Bills, yes, Rodriguez.

Yes, Griffin.

No.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Bye.

Oh, yes.

I can't do that.

That's because you're sitting next to me.

It rubs off.

Thank you, City Council.

Thank you, Cole.

Okay.

Um we're gonna do one more action item before we move to public hearing because I want Crystal home with those triplets as soon as we can.

So we're gonna go ahead and move on to uh 5-4, which is an action item authorized mayor to sign contract with Western Refinery Service Inc.

for the construction of new taxi lanes project in an amount not to exceed 539,989 approved in the FY26 budget.

Crystal Craig, any questions for her?

We'll move.

Yes, we do have questions.

Crystal, I I just typically we'll see what the other bids were.

Was this a sole bid or do we have that list of other bidders and what the numbers were mayor counsel for the record, Crystal Craig, Director of Transportation?

Councilman Bills, I don't have that number on me.

I don't believe this was a sole bid.

There were multiple bids on this.

Um we just had to wait until after our April 20th meeting when we got approval to sign the grant before it could um be executed.

It was bid back in February, want to say.

I just wanted to see how things came out and who the other bidders were.

So if you don't mind just emailing the information, that'd be helpful.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Any further questions, or are we ready for a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve.

We already have a motion.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

We had a second, did we have a second?

Yes.

Okay, good.

So we're ready for roll call unless there's further discussion.

Okay, roll call.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes, Griffin.

Yes.

He say yes.

Yes, he's quiet.

Gog.

Yes.

Reynolds.

Yes.

All in favor?

Oh, motion carries off.

Oh my god.

Give that girl a second.

Okay, we'll get you counseling after my sitting next time.

Wow.

Okay, we're ready for public hearings.

And I and I'm uh the type I don't like to see folks setting for a long time when when they're put potentially maybe a short public hearing.

Do we have the applicant here for uh action uh public hearing four variants of NCC?

I knew I was gonna get you oh Crystal, it's not you.

Okay.

No, I know we don't.

Okay, so we'll just go back to uh public hearing six one then.

Okay, action item comprehensive plan map and text amendment to change residential mixed use to medium density residential and commercial to medium density residential on the future land use map.

Regional commercial and residential mixed use and medium desk density residential in the highway 2026 specific area plan.

Annexation and zoning to BC, of course, community business and RS6 single family resid residential zoning districts and a development agreement for Madison Ranch Estates at zero Madison Road and Zero Highway 2026.

Uh Madam Clerk, do I need to read all these parcels?

Okay, thank you.

For Mason and Associates Inc.

representing Boise Valley Land Holdings LLC, original concept, RMU to MDR, commercial to MDR, potentially one commercial lot, 323 detached single family residential lots, and 51 common area lots.

Is our applicant here?

Thanks.

So you know that you know the name, name and address.

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

Uh point of order order.

Yes, sir.

Uh per our bylaws.

Um, our councilman that's online for a public hearing needs to have his camera on uh for section one point zero eight of our bylaws.

So if we could get him to turn his camera on, that would be great.

Are you able to do that, Councilman Griffin?

Your camera on the yes, let me pull over real quick.

There, if you would take it if you want to continue, I'm pulling over, it'll be a couple minutes.

But if you would like to just wait this.

So let's continue on if it's all right with you, Councilman Reynolds, and he just needs a couple minutes and he plans on bringing it up.

Any challenges with that?

Okay, we'll move on.

Okay, good evening.

I'm William Mason with Mason and Associates.

Our address is 924 3rd Street South in Napa.

Um we're here tonight on behalf of Boise Valley Land Holdings uh to request a comprehensive plan uh map amendment and a text amendment.

And there's several reasons why we're requesting this, and I think Doug has a PowerPoint from our office that if he can pull it up, it will help you see what we're um attempting to do.

Uh the property yes, Rodney.

I apologize.

We've just got some technical difficulties.

Um maybe we could start over his time.

I we're it's gonna take us just a minute to bring up his presentation.

Okay, as far as secondal difficulties, uh have the public not been able to hear the applicant or what?

Uh no, it's just technical difficulties on getting his presentation up on the screen.

Okay, so we need to pause on that.

I'm sorry, we would have had snacks or something for you if I wouldn't know that.

Sounds like there's difficulty hearing as well.

Sounds like the there's difficulty hearing for people too.

Yeah, Mr.

Mayor, can the sound be turned up?

Because we're having trouble hearing out here.

Are you are you having trouble hearing everyone or just are just just okay?

Paul, Paul, are you able to turn up the mics?

This mic here.

Well, everyone's mic, and maybe if Dar if if Darrell here will uh speak a little into the mic, that'd be nice.

So everyone speak close to your mic.

I can only hear you.

Okay, well, we're just a quick quiet group up here, I guess.

Okay.

Is it ready to go, Rodney?

Okay.

Okay.

Sorry.

I'll go ahead and start again just to make sure everybody knows.

I'm William Mason with Mason and Associates 924 Third Street South in Nampa.

We're here tonight uh on behalf of Boise Valley Land Holdings to request a comprehensive plan change and text amendment.

Uh the project is located south of Highway 2026 and uh east of Madison Road.

Um Highway 2026, when ITD started doing the designs to uh improve the road between Middleton Road and Star Road, they realized Idaho Power has the big power poles on the north side of the road, so they're taking all of the right-of-way to the south.

So our project is losing about 155 feet of frontage for the new roadway.

On top of that, uh the city um engineer and the highway district want a frontage road that lines up in the commercial area that's shown on your comprehensive plan map.

And so, Doug, if you can show the overall uh comp plan map that I have on page three.

So you can see the red area in the uh corner there is commercial.

There's actually a proposed frontage road that would cut that bisect it in half, and so we're requesting a change to that because we can't really use a full 40 acres that a commercial property owner would want a public road through the center of.

So we have very limited frontage on Franklin for the RMU zone for commercial area, and we have a bisecting road going through the center of our commercial.

So if you go to the next slide, Doug, so that's the areas we're actually asking to be changed.

The commercial zone on the south side of the frontage road, uh we were asking that to be medium density residential, or perhaps we could go to a higher density residential to buffer between the commercial and the uh residential, um, and then down below taking that whole area from an RMU, which requires that commercial con uh component because we don't have any frontage for commercial property.

And Doug, if you can go to the next slide.

So this is kind of what we've we've come up with.

The green uh roads are the collector.

So on your left-hand side, that's the commercial frontage road.

Um, then down to the center is a collector road that someday will go through in the future, and then on the far right, up on the top is an entry road that kind of reduces our frontage on Franklin.

The red areas of those roadways are um there are anybody's guess when that's going to be developed.

On the left-hand side, that's private property and large estate lots.

So that frontage road isn't going to go into Franklin for some time.

The um red in the middle is on a out parcel, so it's not going to go to Franklin anytime quickly.

Um, the green is across the street from a already completed subdivision, so that would be our real connection to Franklin at that location.

ITD has limited access on Madison to right in, right out.

The roadway will have a raised median there.

So again, we don't believe there's a need for a full 40-acre commercial area because it's limited access both from the highway and from Franklin.

To get into that property until that road is built to Franklin, if somebody was coming from the east on highway 2026, they would have to go down to Lyndon over Lyman to Madison and back to the north, which is about two miles.

So we don't believe that that would happen quickly.

Um the other thing is there's a question about whether there would be a full uh access onto Franklin at that point with the frontage road because of the shift of the highway.

I talked to the highway district, the city engineer and ITD, and everybody just pointed to the next person in the group, and they said, Oh, well, that'll be the highway district's decision.

The highway district said that'll be the city engineer's decision.

ITD said we're giving it to the highway district and the city, so it'll be their decision.

So I know there's some planning that needs to happen there.

My fear though is that it would turn into a write-in right out again only.

And that would cause problems with that commercial property to the northwest.

Anyway, I will go ahead and pause for any questions and let you uh take other testimony.

Mayor Brunner.

Yes, Councilman.

I have four questions and well after I read this.

Speak in the end of your mic okay, so can you hear me now?

Can you hear me now?

Okay.

I I I read this about three times.

It still didn't make any sense to me.

So I'd like you to explain this.

Tell me why.

That you want to change the comprehensive plan map and text amendment to change residential mixed use to medium density residential.

And I'm gonna ask you to to decipher the other as well.

Not right now.

Answer this question.

What's the purpose?

The purpose is that the RMU zone requires five percent of the property to be a commercial um use, and it needs the commercial use needs a frontage that's exposed to the exterior roadways, and our frontage currently with the out parcel, because we don't own the parcel in the northeast corner of that zone.

We have about a hundred and twenty-three feet of frontage on the north side of our approach and about two hundred and thirty feet of frontage on the south side of the approach.

Okay, so you're changing to me to residential density medium density then so we would change it to a medium residential, a medium density residential zone with no commercial.

Okay, and then you change the commercial to medium density residential.

Is that because of the area, or what is the objective of that?

That is correct.

So it's a split of the commercial zone because of that frontage road, and because the uh residences to the east are large residential.

We wanted to try not to put a commercial building next to a an estate type residential line.

Okay.

And then you want to go to um let's see, commercial and residential mixed use to medium density residential.

So you're taking that out.

Is that the objective to make it residential?

Correct.

All right, and then regional commercial and residential mixed use to medium density, residential in the highway twenty 2026 specific area plan.

So that's the area that is split by that frontage road, that specific area plan.

The 40 acres on the only way you can accomplish this is by changing the map amendment to this, what you have.

Correct.

I see.

And then it has annexation is only to BC, community business and RS6, single family residential zoning district and development agreement for those parcels, so you can accomplish this side of it, right?

So we have to do the text amendment and the map amendment first, and then we would annex with the zones that we're requesting.

I see.

So the bottom line is you're changing it because of the text amendment of the amendment that you've initially started with.

Now you're changing it because you're not able to comply with the zoning.

Is that what you're doing?

So we can comply with the zoning.

We just don't think that the zoning is appropriate with the limited frontage and the split of the commercial area with a public street.

But you're changing the the amount of commercial down to residential, correct.

With a small amount of commercial, correct, a smaller amount of commercial.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yes.

Of commercial.

Correct.

Yeah.

Okay.

I get it now.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

My mic on further questions.

Council.

Okay, are we ready for for Doug to come up then and uh give the staff report?

Or are you gonna just do it from right there, Doug?

Okay.

So mayor and uh counsel uh Doug Chrisfield, uh principal planner over long range planning.

Um so the the project before you uh you've seen some of the graphics for it uh has some changes to the comprehensive plan.

Um thing that we wanted to note on this is that the applicant had originally applied for uh annexation, and uh they have withdrawn that application, or they'd like to um move that um and uh they'd like for the council to have a motion um to continue that to August 17th.

So what they're looking for this evening really is uh just the comprehensive plan and the specific area plan map amendments this evening.

So I just wanted to clarify that for the council.

Um the planning and zoning commission heard this on April the 28th.

Uh they recommended denial because uh the proposal conflicted with the intent of the uh 2026 specific area plan and the and the 2040 comprehensive plan.

And I'm not getting any action on this thing, so Rodney, could you um forward that we go?

Okay, um so the current jurisdiction is Canyon County.

Uh there are large lots uh that are immediately to the east of this parcel.

Um there's a lot of ag ground still up in this area.

Um the uh Cherry Grove Sub City subdivision is off here to the east of the project.

It's adjacent to the combination of these parcels here.

Um then on the west side is the county uh subdivisions.

Uh we've had some comments from the residents that live out there that are interested in uh maintaining the commercial site, and uh there uh they express some interest in maintaining the the comprehensive plan the way that it is.

So you can see here the major roads just for orientation here.

Uh butts up against Highway 2026, Madison, and Franklin.

So um in the specific area plan, there are three land uses, as council member Rodriguez was discussing.

Uh they're a little bit different in the specific area plan than they are in the comprehensive plan, just the names are different.

But they're their essential functions are pretty much the same.

Um the regional commercial is up butting up against 2026.

There's medium density residential in the specific area plan, it calls for a lower density, two and a half to five dwelling units per acre in that area.

And then um over in the RMU, that's a standard residential mixed use, which is two and a half to eight dwelling units per acre.

Um so the uh density would change um if the this were approved, the density would change in the purple.

Um it would remain the same density, but there'd be no chance for any kind of commercial on that area.

The elementary school that's shown on the specific area plan was already built next to the high school's warhawk elementary.

Okay, uh future land use, similar designations, it's just that it's commercial up against 2026.

Uh so the request uh to reduce the uh commercial acreage from uh 40 to 20 is what the applicant is asking for, and the uh change the residential mixed use to medium density residential.

The um the agency comments that we received on that um because this is just a comprehensive plan map change, uh they were limited.

ITD wants to do uh a traffic study that would have to be produced uh when the plat uh with annexation and the conceptual plan comes forward.

Um in long range planning, uh there was again some concerns about the intent of the uh comprehensive plan with the 40 acres there.

We have very little frontage on 2026.

Uh that's a regional uh roadway there.

Both uh star and caldwell are moving in this direction.

It's gonna be very competitive.

So the plan has always been to maintain a regional commercial feel on that area.

Uh it's really kind of up to the council this evening to determine whether 20 acres is enough or if 40 acres would be more of what the council's interested in.

We received a lot of comments from residents.

So this is in your staff report.

Um and uh there's some concerns um about schools and traffic.

Uh and uh these are mostly related uh to a plat that would be presented.

And it's it's understandable this originally came as a plat, but because it's a comprehensive plan, uh there's still some concerns about density and and uh the the impacts uh accidents on roads, ag preservation, and those types of uh concerns from the public.

Um so the uh comprehensive plan just says that a map needs to be prepared indicating suit suitable projected land uses for the jurisdiction, um, and that it's this map is flexible depending on uh the the will of the uh planning and zoning commission and the council.

Uh the facts are stated in your staff report for this.

Um it just kind of reiterates what it is that we've already talked about this evening.

And the the uh conclusion for this is that um it the uh again this reduces that 40-acre uh commercial area.

Uh I think that we can live with the change in the residential mixed use um if there again is commercial in the area that's available to the residences.

That's the whole purpose of having residential mixed use is to have that uh availability of commercial inner residential areas to reduce traffic and so forth.

But based on the analyses that we've done, the applicant has met all of the technical requirements.

Um they've uh submitted their their information and all that, and they're subject to the state code and to again to the will of the the council this evening.

Um there were no conditions of approval provided, uh not really necessary for this at this time.

And then the motions are here before you this evening.

Mayor, yes, question Doug, need clarification or uh confirmation that the changes being asked for tonight is a step in the process in order to go to step two.

That's correct.

Okay, and in light of that, much of it from what the applicant has said is because of what ITD is requiring and wanting to do with the highway system and connectivity.

Uh yeah, Mary, uh council member uh Bills.

That's that's correct.

The um the highway district, um, they do have some restrictions on what they can do in this area.

It does create a little bit of a problem without that eastern acquiring that eastern parcel that uh Will was talking about earlier.

Um so that that does create some issues for us.

Uh the commercial, if it splits the commercial in half, the commercial back behind it's gonna get fewer hits from 2026.

It may not be as valuable uh with that um with that split going on with that division.

So this seems like a logical step in what needs to transpire in order to try to get this project moving forward, but can't get into the details until we get to step two, if I'm understanding.

That's correct.

And uh Mayor Council member bills, there will be a concept plan uh needs to be presented to the council before annexation should be considered.

That would be coming with that annexation request at that point.

Then you can evaluate the concept plan.

This is a first step in determining what types of land uses can go into that concept plan.

Okay.

But that helps why we're not seeing certain things.

Okay, thank you.

Further questions for Doug?

Yes.

Okay, uh Councilman Scog, did you?

I saw you.

Okay, you don't okay.

We're gonna move then on to you, Councilman Rodriguez.

Uh I'm just curious, and now that we're changing the the amount of residential, it says here 323 detached single family and 51 common lots.

Now that we're changing the the developer would like to change the residential density.

So what does that include now?

What would be the number now?

Yeah, thank you, Mayor and Councilmember Rodriguez.

So um we don't have a plat to evaluate at this point.

We don't know how many lots now are going to be proposed as a result of this.

These these uh future land uses allow a range of uh uh residential development in terms of the lot size or the densities, so you'll be able to uh make that evaluation when that concept plan comes.

I see okay.

I I was just curious, thank you.

You betcha.

No further questions.

Okay, what we're going to do then is to move into public testimony.

Uh I will uh and Madam Clerk helped me with this.

We did receive, I take it these were was were not listed by Doug, but about seven comments and uh were written, and the council has received those, and I believe I read all seven of these are against this.

Now just a reminder that this is not this is not uh zoning change at as has been repeated several times.

That'll be uh be the next step.

This is just on the comprehensive plan map request change.

Am I correct on that, Rodney?

Okay, so we're ready, ready for public hearing.

Uh how many are desiring to testify tonight?

Uh some hands.

Okay.

Not okay.

Yes.

We do not have any advanced signups for the no advanced signups.

Okay, thank you, madam clerk.

So what we'll do here is uh we'll start uh I'm gonna always start with ladies, and and I saw a hand, uh the lady in the blue right here.

You get to go first, and there'll be three minutes and just your name and name and address, please.

And uh even though there's not that many, just you're gonna find it over time.

If if she says something that is just so dynamic and is exactly what you were going to say, you can just raise your hand and say, I agree with everything that she said, okay.

Okay.

I know.

Leanne Yamamoto 8444 Highway 2026.

I live right across the highway from where this is.

And I was hoping to be that one person at the end that would just say what they said.

Um that's what happened last time I testified, it was much easier.

Um but yes, I would be against these amendments too, just to not open that door.

Number one, I think uh 20 acres is not very much.

Um, you know, having you know been a farm kid and know what 30 acres is 40 acres look like.

Um two, I I am also very concerned about the school situation.

Um Ridgeview is full.

So if this goes to medium density, you know, a whole bunch of kids would be having to be bused over, you know, to Valley View High School because that has room.

The growth is over on you know, our side.

Um, and the district um is under investigation for making it a pro probably uh conflict of interest and unwise land acquisition over on the west side, anticipating development, which has been de denied.

So you know, five million dollars is was kind of used on that.

So I think good luck on uh you know getting a bond passed in the future.

Um so that's why I think um you know I'm not seeing another high school being built in you know um easily there.

So yeah, it's just I you know we're okay with low density and the commercial as is.

Um I think medium density with the um, you know, um this this developer I think was gonna go full bore on you know too many too many houses, and I I don't think that would be in anyone's best interest except the developer.

So I guess that's it for me.

Thank you.

Okay, did I see hands in the in the back here?

Okay, and it's in the name and that Paula Drinkard Bonds, uh, 8080 East Rinkard Lane.

And I just wanna again I'm against it.

I think the last time I was here, I even brought kids from the school that even stated how they're feeling, and it is as she said, not only two capacity, but by the time the kids graduate, the ones coming in, it will be over.

So I'm just hoping that you guys listen to what we say.

I've had a lot of other neighbors we've talked to that are very disappointed and discouraged.

So we hope that you guys are listening, and that's all I have to say.

Right.

Thank you, sir.

I guess I get her.

Councilman Rodriguez has a question for you.

I didn't get your name or your address, you said it too fast.

Paula Drinkard Bonds 88.

Your last name.

D-R-I-N-K-A-R-D bonds beyond DS.

And your address?

8080 East Drinkard Lane.

Duh.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Hello, council, Bo Bonds.

880 East Drinker Lane.

That was my wife.

Um I don't like this direction.

We just, I don't know, five years ago, the city spent a lot of money to get this comprehensive plan done.

And the first time someone wants to challenge it, we're looking at changing it.

So why do we spend all that time and effort getting the comprehensive plan done?

Um I was gonna say some stuff because I thought we were getting talking about the annexation.

I was gonna say some stuff because I thought we were getting talking about the annexation, and it's really frustrating because I had to take an unpaid day off from work today to be here.

And then we changed.

I can't, it's really difficult for me to be here for these meetings.

I drive truck, I'm over the road, so I'm gone a lot.

So I'm disappointed that I don't get to talk about that annexation.

But I think what we're doing is opening the door because the high line of states that you guys just approved three weeks ago.

You said, well, it's not very, you know, good, not ethical for us to string the applicant along this far to just deny them at this point.

I think we're opening that door for that same excuse again to say, well, we strung them along, we approved this, so do we need to go ahead and approve this annexation at the same time?

I think the annexation would be out of line.

I think you know we've approved so many homes.

We don't have we don't have the infrastructure in place yet, and I think we've got a lot of budget issues that we need to resolve before we look at adding more stuff and and more things that need to be done.

I think the builders need to be on the on the hook for more expense.

And um, you know, I just feel like um there's just a lot of pressure on on the people.

Um, people just trying to make a living, working hard, make these meetings to try to push back as much as we can to try to keep our the lifestyle that we have.

Uh, you know, I have six acres, and uh part of my land is gonna is on the potential uh frontage road on the east end that goes out to Franklin Road.

That that's my land.

I've never heard about what who's who's talking to me about this stuff?

You know, it's like what's going on here?

We just railroad people out of their what you know out of their land without you know giving us any kind of heads up.

So you know, it's just real frustrating, and I just feel like we're just not being heard.

A lot of my neighbors, I I drive around, I'm trying to recruit people.

Hey, come to the meeting, it makes a difference.

They want to hear say I I don't know what the deal is, but it's like everything we say, it doesn't get heard, at least it doesn't feel like it.

So I just uh just want to encourage you guys just to really stop and think before we just keep jamming more stuff, jamming more stuff.

We got ITDs doing the highway project.

They're two years behind on that.

Um we there's just a lot of issues, a lot of infrastructure issues and budget issues that we do to push the brakes on and let's get caught up and make sure we're doing the right thing.

Thank you.

Come on, thanks for taking the time and sacrificing being here.

Appreciate it.

Shelley Montclair, 1972 Madison Road.

I want to say that I'm against it, and one thing that I didn't write in here, but are a lot of us fear the fact that if it is uh less commercial, they're gonna put high-rise buildings or apartments or condos or whatever within a call, but they're gonna go up, and that would be awful in that area.

I know some of you know the area and know me.

The last time we were here, the subdivision down the road got approved.

And this was because the decision was made because it wasn't like Bo said, ethical to let the to string the farmer along and to not let him know ahead of time that maybe we want lower density.

Maybe that plan wasn't quite right, and there's a lot of building going on in the area, but we didn't give him enough warning.

I don't think that was the issue.

I think we have a bigger concern here.

Um, as for tonight, just like last time, I do not think that saying wait, hold off, just let the dust settle and take a moment to see what's coming is not a bad decision.

I don't think that is going to harm anyone.

In fact, the citizens of the area are going to suffer.

We have a huge subdivision going in right at that same area, and all around us.

There's going to be lots of construction, lots of road work, and we live on a 50 mile an hour road with schools at the end of it.

There's stop signs, no crosswalks, no nothing else, no signals.

So why when I just drove down the next road over and they're building right now, they're grading, they're building.

Why can't we just say, oh, hold off, let's wait.

The houses are not selling the way that they were.

Um that to me would be the more ethical thing to say.

To give it to the citizens to say, hey, let's wait.

Let's see.

Let's feel them and let's honor them and like keep us safe.

We're the ones that live there day in and day out.

The farmer and the builder do not.

Um I'm not saying like I said last time, I'm not saying don't let them build, don't let them have some, don't let the builder or the farmer sell or build.

That's fine, but maybe we just calm down and wait a little bit.

Maybe we see where it's going.

I got ahead of myself.

Um okay.

So the in fact, I ran a business out of my home, and many, many people from all over the area come to my home and say, what's up with the land?

Tell me more about the land.

Sorry.

Every time they look at me and say NAPA was supposed to be the open area.

And I feel that too.

That's why my former Marine and I moved there to be in the open area.

So no, I don't think you should be able to change anything or annex anything at this point.

Thank you.

Thanks for being here and taking the time.

Okay, is there anyone else who's interested in uh presenting?

Either for or against if not, we'll have the applicant come back up and uh any questions that you heard that you would like to respond to, that'd be great.

Okay.

Uh William Mason with Mason and Associates addresses 924 Third Street South in Nappa.

Um I understand the concerns of the commercial areas and and not having enough commercial in that area.

Uh the the real reason here is um the frontage and the and the um frontage road.

That frontage road is certainly not something that our client would necessarily want to put in, knowing what is to the east of us.

That's why in my presentation, I noted that we don't know if or when that road will ever go to the east and connect to Franklin because there are a lot of people here that value their ground the way it is.

So that frontage road is probably going to be just on this commercial property for the long term.

Uh putting a piece of commercial property to the south of that road without it having the visibility of highway 2026.

I believe it's going to end up being a piece of property that sits and waits for many years before somebody comes along and either rezones it to something that is more palatable or it gets sold for a lower value so a commercial property can go into it.

So that's all I have.

I have a question.

So if this is approved and down the line, the annexation is approved.

Are you even if it's just even the 20 acres?

Uh, what are what are your what's your plan?

Are you planning on putting in the commercial first or residential, or what's the plan?

The residential would go in first.

Um the sewer actually comes from the south and the southeast, and that's also where our down the line I realize you you depend depends on a lot of things, but when would you see commercial as far as starting to be uh build out?

I would probably anticipate it being about five years before a commercial property owner would be in there.

Okay.

Questions for the applicant?

I have a question either for Mr.

Mason or for Doug.

So clarification is is changing the comp plan from uh RMU to a medium density.

Is there that much difference in the units per acre far as residential and all of that, or is it basically uh the same?

Uh mayor and council member bills, it's the same.

Two and a half to eight dwelling units per acre.

Both have that same thing.

Uh both do.

Yeah.

So this is more of a procedural change in order to affect uh actually moving forward with a plat that coincides with the changes ITD is making, and the applicant needs to adjust.

Can I answer that?

Uh so our frontage on Franklin is the LMU zone, and so that's a city street.

But our frontage is so small that we don't have visibility on it to Franklin.

The um staff report exhibits show a parcel that is not owned by our owner.

It's actually owned by a private owner.

And so it looks like we have a lot of frontage on Franklin, but we have less frontage than is ideal because it's basically 300 feet wide with a road in the middle of it.

An entry road to line up with Cherry Grove across the street.

So that RMU requires commercial 5% of the total uh area of the RMU has to be a commercial type unit.

Which physically isn't isn't possible up against Franklin or even the future collector, the way the shape of this parcel is.

Okay.

So when the comp plan was put together, this may not necessarily be for Mr.

Mason, but for Doug.

When the comp plan was put together for these uses, we're not as a city, we're not looking at land parcels divisions that exist at that time.

We're looking at broad picture.

Here's the scope, and then these type of details come up as development wants to go forward.

Yeah, Mayor and Council Member Bills, yes.

That's the intent of the long range planning is to provide guidance.

But as the details do come up, these things will they'll crop up during the discussion process, and we have to find the best way through it.

But we we use that as just guide that's what the future land use map is as guidance.

It's a plan it's planning for uh an ideal and then reality hits and we have to find the best way through it.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Mason, uh you'll find my year and a half doing doing this.

I'm I'm pretty blunt.

Uh so if you get denied tonight with the comprehensive plan, is your plan to to still go ahead and uh then move with the uh original comprehensive plan and also then ask for annexation or what what what is your down the road road plan?

I believe that's what our uh client would do.

He may leave the RMU out because there really isn't a place for that commercial area, so it may be an annexation that doesn't include the easterly portion.

Okay.

Any other questions from council?

Okay, I just need a motion to close public hearing, please.

Thank you, sir.

Make a motion to close public hearing.

Any discussion?

Okay, uh all in favor?

Aye.

Okay, council discussion, please.

Uh mayor, I'd make a motion uh that's put out there on the screen as far as to move forward with the comp plan and text amendment changes to RMU to uh medium density and commercial has been presented.

Okay, you have a second here a second discussion.

I think I think our if if I'm understanding correctly, as I've asked the questions and so forth, as far as uh when we when we've set up this comp plan several years ago, um it had to be with the broad broad picture without specifics with the idea that as projects came in, uh specifics would come to light and need to be dealt with, and so I feel like that's what we're seeing here tonight on this one.

Okay, and all we're doing now is giving the applicant the opportunity to go to the specifics uh before us in a future hearing.

So any further discussion, mayor?

Yes, I feel like that um we're trying to squeeze in something that doesn't belong in this area, and changing the comp plan is still going to make this a difficult subdivision in this area.

I do know that um I believe it's Caldwell built out in this area or approved uh subdivision out near here, also and so with that going into the Valley View School District, and then all of these other subdivisions that have already been approved in this area going into this Valley View subdivision.

Um we I think it was um uh was accurate in that we do realize building is gonna happen, but I do believe, and I agree we need to let the dust settle.

We need to give uh the highway department time to do something out in this area.

We're just flooding our streets, our roads, our infrastructure with more housing before we get to um the infrastructure.

So I I understand that we're just changing the the comp plan.

I understand all that.

I don't need that lecture, but I am just saying we're changing it to try and squeeze something in that's not going to work.

Any further discussion.

Ready for roll call?

Please, no.

No.

Griffin.

No.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Yes.

In favor or opposed, motion fails.

Okay.

Thank you all for all coming.

And are we o go ahead?

We we need a motion for denial.

Okay.

Motion.

Thank you.

Thank you, Rodney.

Since it was not approved, so uh one of you who denied it, will you please make it?

Mayor, I move to deny.

Okay.

We probably need to provide more.

Thank you in a minute.

Do you need us to more you need a rationale for the denial motion?

Yes, I was going to provide one discussion time.

Is this better?

Yes.

Okay.

Slight technical difficulties here.

Uh reasoning for denial with the it's not conducive to the area.

Um I think that issue was uh stated multiple times by not only residents but the surrounding area.

While factoring in the school, I know it's not necessarily a dener determination for denial, but I would like to cite its relevancy here.

Uh in terms of of timing, if we're projecting this to be a comprehensive plan, I think even the timing in the future is still going to be difficult when we consider the growth patterns towards the north.

So uh non-conduciveness to the area, impacts of surrounding residents and land uses, as well as the timing and impacts for uh other public services.

Okay.

Okay, you might hear a second.

Okay, you already had a second.

Okay.

So any further discussion.

Otherwise, we'll do another roll call.

Yes.

No.

Reynolds.

No.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Gog.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Or in favor to oppose motion carries.

Okay.

Again, thank you for for being here.

And uh Mr.

Mason, thank you.

Okay, does anybody on council here need a five minute break, or are we ready to move still move on?

No, I hear no one saying yes, or we're moving on.

Okay, we were gonna take a break.

Okay.

I always look to Victor.

Victor's always the one that's local.

Three three minutes after the reason.

Like you're still driving, so I don't know what the story is.

Okay, I think we have uh most of our counsel back, so we're gonna go ahead and get go ahead and continue.

I need uh uh we're gonna we're gonna continue, please.

And we are gonna make the change that I was originally because our applicant is here, so we're gonna move to public hearing six four, and if our applicant will come up, please.

And then I will read this and then uh we'll let you go ahead and make your presentation, sir.

Yeah.

This is an action item on six four for variants of NCC ten-33-4.

C dot three in an in an IL-RS, a light industrial dash residential zoning district addressed as sixty-six and seven seventy sixth street north for Ruben Sherveck.

Uh I don't hopefully pronouncing that somewhat correct, representing six street holdings, LLC, original concept, five feet landscape buffer from the property line due to the existing fifteen-foot landscape buffer on the right of way.

Uh the my name is uh Ruben Sherbach and the address is fifty-six fifty-seven East Surfers Point Lane here in Nampa.

Thank you for being here.

You may present.

All right, Mayor, council members.

I'm here to ask for a code variance uh uh to reduce the landscaping buffer in front of the property.

This is facing uh sixth street north.

Uh my family has built over fifty units in the city of Nampa, multifamily units.

Uh we have uh originally acquired the property to do the same uh on this property as well.

Umfortunately we have found there's a lot of setbacks that has that would shrink the building size and the parking requirements for uh achieving a multifamily building.

We've worked with the city on many occasions and and trying to determine how to make the existing uh residential zone work.

Uh and it was unfortunately not something that we could come to uh a viable development on this specific property.

Uh however, there's potential for us to uh go into a different direction and that is to put a light industrial building on this property.

Uh we have uh the uh the the challenge really is making the landscaping buffer work with the building and how it interacts.

Uh specifically the shape of the lot and being an obtuse shape uh with a lot of frontage in comparison to the rest of the property is is really making it very difficult for us to develop a land industrial building with the amount of parking spaces that would be required along with the required uh access to the back property.

There's a third property that's north of the image that's shown on the screen.

Uh so there need to be half we would have access on uh the east side of the property up against the the cemetery.

So there's a lot of restrictions that really begin to shrink and with having the the code required 15 foot landscaping buffer furthermore impinges on the footprint of the building.

So today I'm here to ask uh a variance to the code and in reduction and reducing the burden of the landscaping buffer.

Uh I know we have uh what we've uh determined there there is some landscaping that would be required in the right of way.

Uh we're just we're asking for a 10-foot reduction on our on our side of the property line.

Okay.

Uh and I've also discovered that there's uh an existing uh seven foot of landscaping uh in the right of way.

There's some uh some uh corrections to be made there to be able to line up the existing property line uh of the adjacent property line to continue that sidewalk.

So I that was news to me.

This is something that was the was discovered by the city.

So with that, I any questions for the applicant.

Okay, appreciate that.

We're gonna have uh Rodney then bring the staff report.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Uh Rodney Ashby Planning and Zoning Director for the record.

Um I think you've heard the request.

Essentially, it comes down to uh reducing the 15-foot uh landscape buffer to five feet from back of sidewalk and then uh landscaping everything in the right-of-way up to the the curb uh and the or the edge of pavement.

So this is the uh the layout of the building that they're proposing, the industrial building.

You can see their different dimensions.

Um the 15 feet in green would be what they're proposing as uh landscaping that will occur.

Um this is a little bit tricky.

Um as was indicated on that uh screen in red when I measured the uh distance from the back of uh the sidewalk up to the property line, it was uh much much less or I I guess three feet less than what they were anticipating.

Um so it would only be about uh 12 feet total of landscaping instead of the 15 feet behind property line, and it would only be five feet from back of property line to the to the building.

So I just wanted to make that clear.

Hopefully, there's not any questions there, but if there are, I'm happy to answer those questions.

That's just based on my analysis of where the uh sidewalk is to the uh to the north uh northwest.

Um a little closer view there of those measurements.

So this is this is where it is.

It's right next to Kohler Lawn Cemetery, and it is in the high density designation on the comprehensive plan.

It is uh what they're proposing is uh well it's zoned ILRS, which is kind of unique.

We um previous to me coming to the city, they allowed uh a property to be zoned to different zones.

So it's made it really challenging for us as we've tried to apply code to those zones, um, but essentially they could choose which zone to use in this situation.

Um couple years ago we made that change.

Uh you can you can see all the different uh uh land uses in the area.

Let me let me show you those real quick.

ILRS to the north and west there, RML to the south, and then Kohler Lawn to the east, which is zoned IL.

Um so the history on this again prior to 2006 or even earlier, um, the ILRS label was given to some properties transitioning between industrial and residential, and then they would choose which one they wanted to use.

Um, but the applicant applied for the design review approval for IL design review standards in May of 2024, kind of locking that zoning into place.

And then in June on June 3rd, 2024, we made a correction to code to make this so that there's not confusion so that when in the future a property that's dual zoned has to actually declare which zone and go through a rezone process so that's very clear what zoning standards were applying to the property.

But because they did uh their design review beforehand, it locked it into place before this went in.

So applicable regulations.

You've heard these before, variances are intended to um provide an exception to code uh or a a variance from code where if you implemented it, it would be a hardship on the property owner uh due to unique circumstances.

We've worked with this property owner for many years trying to develop the the property.

It's been a challenging property to develop and and we'll go into that.

These are the variance criteria.

You've seen these before.

I won't spend a lot of time.

Um IL zone, uh no minimum property area, no minimum uh property width.

Front setback is 10 feet uh plus one foot for every uh one foot of building height over 35, I think it is.

Yeah, 35.

And then minimum side and rear property setbacks just apply when there's residential zoning, so that's not applicable here.

Um so this is the uh the 15-foot required landscape buffer from back of the property line.

And um code compliance indicated that there's some some issues right now.

Some of these issues will be addressed when uh when the property develops.

So I've only taken the ones that need to be addressed up front and put them as proposed conditions, and I'll show you that in a minute.

Fire district identified there they're only four minutes away from this location.

Pretty quick response time.

Umgineering indicated some conditions, including the improvements along the right-of-way, um, sidewalk, curb, gutter, um, roadway.

And um they will follow that one to the to the northwest there, um, the placement of that sidewalk.

Uh, and then compliance with the city codes and policies and standards.

So staff analysis, I told you about this one already.

The uh circle there, red circle is where there's there's uh seven feet, um, so there's not the 10 feet that they were hoping for.

Um then this is this property has been difficult, and the applicant kind of hinted at this already because of lots of different kinds of setbacks for residential versus industrial.

So you've got all these types of setbacks, um, a landscape buffer for of 25 feet if you're gonna do a uh residential development in the high density designation of RMH, for instance, uh zone.

So rear setback would be 15 feet.

I mean, you're just getting smaller and smaller.

Then you add on to that the property shape, and you got a triangular shape with a lot of frontage, so a lot of space that's not able to be used, and then you've got the uh eastern boundary providing an access driveway for the property to the north of it.

So it just shrinks it down farther and farther and farther, and it just it was really difficult to develop this.

And finally, parking, just the requirements for parking in the residential are are more stringent than those in the IL, depending on the type of uh industrial development you have.

So these are the proposed conditions.

I've already hinted at all of these um unlawful nuisance and weeds will be addressed beforehand before we we go through the annexation completely, or excuse me, the um variants completely.

Um those are the proposed conditions, these are the facts.

I've already touched on each of these, um, and I'll jump to the conclusion.

Um I'll take just a second there, but essentially it comes down to the shape of the parcel, the limitations because of uh the access uh aisle on the the eastern edge, the uh all the setbacks and the parking requirements that make this unique compared to other properties in the same zoning district.

And here's a couple of motions for your consideration.

I'd stand for questions.

Mayor Rodney.

Yes.

So I can visualize both industrial or residential in the plan view that is in our packet.

Is this going an industrial building?

It's going industrial.

Um it would not that shape of that part or that building would not work for residential because you'd have greater setbacks all around essentially.

You'd have uh 25-foot landscape buffer up front, and then um the 15-foot setback on the back.

So basically it's set up for deliveries in the back and parking in the front.

Mm-hmm.

Exactly.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any further questions, counsel?

Something uh uh fire department wants to know.

There's something uh uh fire department wants to know anything from fire uh it just he just uh Elijah just reminded me of his other condition that he placed on it, but uh it'll it'll be taken care of during the building permit process, so I didn't feel like it was necessary to really highlight that all right.

So, madam clerk, is there anyone signed up for public testimony?

There is not, Mr.

Okay, is there anyone in interested that has not signed up in uh testifying regarding this project?

Seeing none.

Uh uh do you have any more uh things to say as far as Mr.

Shervack as far as you would like to say?

Okay, well, good.

Second make a motion to approve the variance as well.

Well, we're gonna say I have an eye on the on the closed public hearing.

Sorry first.

I heard she's very influential.

I know.

Okay.

Okay, so uh so we have a uh motion and a second.

Any discussion?

Otherwise, all in favor say aye for closing public hearing.

Aye.

Okay, now we're ready for council discussion or motion or however you want to.

Second.

Discussion.

God, yes.

Reynolds.

Yes, Rodriguez.

Yes, Griffin.

Yes.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

All in favor, motion carries.

Councilman Griffin, are you are we seeing your face anymore?

Or I am.

It just keeps me falling down here.

Okay.

I had emailed Preston and you as well.

Well, they're just everyone's really uh wanting to see you, so are we okay in moving ahead uh legal?

What I'm hearing is Councilman Graham is making a very good faith attempt to make himself visual.

I think that aligns with the spirit of it.

Primarily it's to make sure that it's councilman Griffin alone and he's here and present, and that's what I'm hearing.

So uh mayor and council, these are your bylaws to enforce, so that's my recommendation.

Okay.

All right, so we're gonna move ahead.

So we're on an or on public hearing six two, and I will read that, and then we'll have the applicant come forth and uh state name and address and also uh present.

Uh this is a comprehensive plan map amendment from industrial to commercial for a 2.6 acre portion annexation and zoning to IL Light Industrial Zoning District for 15 acres, and BC community business zoning district for 2.6 acres, and a development agreement for a future subdivision addressed as 4300 East Victory Road and zero North Picard Lane for Jeff Hatch with Hatch Design Architecture representing MWSS NAMPA LLC, original concept, one commercial lot for the ex existing RV and boat storage use and 31 new industrial lots.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Uh Mayor Bruner, Council members, thank you uh for hearing us this evening.

My name is Steve These.

I always do this.

Is that better?

Yeah, it's okay.

My name is Steve Thiessen.

I'm with Hatch Design Architecture located at 200 West 36th Street in Boise.

And this is uh for annexation and comp plan amendment um for the current, it's currently the open air RV storage just south of the runway.

Um the next slide, please, Candace.

Here's the location on the corner of Happy Valley and East Victory, just south of the runway.

And as you can see, all the RVs out there, they're still out there.

I'm having the audience say, yeah, maybe just yeah, real quick.

Bring it back, bring it in here a little bit closer.

All right.

I don't speak very loud, I'm sorry.

And the next uh slide, please, Candace.

Um as part of this annex, we're asking for IL zone uh for 15 acres and 2.6 acres of a BC zone.

Uh and that is to align with the existing storage use that would be moving to that.

We'll be downsizing, obviously, and moving to that point.

Can you choose this to answer slides?

Okay.

I will do this.

It's like I've never done this before.

Sorry about that.

Um let's see here, where was I okay, and then this is to uh the BC zone is to align the current RV storage.

It'll be moving to the north.

To accommodate that, we are asking for uh future an amendment to the future land use map to allow for uh commercial designation for that lot as part of the annexation.

We are proposing this is a conceptual layout of a 31 lot industrial subdivision with a single lot as explained before, 2.6 acre lot to accommodate the storage use.

Um there's been a lot of talk with the neighbors to the north uh with and to the west about access.

This is why this new plan that we're showing you today shows the access in a different uh different spot than when we previously um uh presented.

And this um will allow for the trucks going to the west to not have 90 degree turns, and it'll align with the existing um prescriptive roadway easement that's already in place.

Also, in talking with the Napa Meridian Irrigation District, um they asked for an additional easement, and this is heading north from Mason Creek through our proposed cul-de-sac, and then we'll tie in with uh I think it's Bury, the Bury drain, and so that's why we had to make some minor changes to that.

And I'll stand for questions.

Okay, any any questions?

Is it Pete Mr.

Peason?

Oh, Thiessen, T-H-I-E-S-S-E-N, T C Mayor?

Yes, sir.

So I have several questions of you're asking for light industrial zoning?

Yes, with the oh Mayor, councilman council member bills, yes.

Okay, and then uh is there light industrial has a great list of opportunities to do on the property.

Are you restricting any uses?

Uses will be restricted based on there's an airport overlay.

So I believe there will be uses that are restricted just from our comments from the airport.

So is a concrete batch plant gonna be restricted?

Yes.

This is not uh we are not involved with the concrete batch plant.

Mayor stand that, but you're getting zoning that would allow a concrete batch.

Mayor and council.

Um just to clarify the uh concrete batch plant is required to get a conditional use permit only in the heavy industrial zone.

It's not allowed in the I.

That's been removed from the IL correct.

Okay.

Yeah.

So then I guess what what I'm seeing on this is it's a layout to to put in potentially lots and split things up.

So I don't know, is it a plat that's coming forward later?

Mayor uh council member bills, yes.

We are uh presenting a preliminary plat after you know if we get approval for this application and then I I guess from my side it's an open-ended with the IL.

And so it it sits obviously within an area of of rural residential next to the airport, uh, next to other uses, and so I'm I'm just trying to figure out how do we uh determine what are gonna be allowable uses uh so that we don't get hoodwinked and and or something come along six twelve months from now, and we go, oh golly gee, whiz we didn't think of that.

So I'm trying to not disparage the applicant, but I'm trying to see that we don't have something pop up with that two-column uh IL list of opportunities to do Mayor.

Yes.

Um yeah, I I would recommend that we list we hear the staff report first, and then um maybe we have that discussion about uh during uh deliberation about um what land uses you're concerned.

I'll I'll get prepared and put uh up on the screen that list of land uses if we want to pick out any are of concern.

So uh understanding and just just past past times that that is acceptable as far as on any any type of uh IL or whatever, then there can be restrictions as far as from that list, and the council can decide on that.

That's that's correct.

You can't add um land uses that would not normally be permitted, but you can restrict the land uses that are already permitted.

All right.

Are we any other questions for the applicant?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Thiessen, it says that you have a um zoning district for 2.6 acres and the development agreement for a future subdivision address at 4300 East Victory Road.

Are you talking a residential?

Oh, mayor, uh council member Rodriguez.

This will be an industrial subdivision with a also a 2.6 acre commercial lot to accommodate the current RV storage to bring that in line with the zoning because the storage use is not allowed in the industrial zone.

I see.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Not seeing anybody else looking my way, so I think you can sit down for now.

We'll bring you back here in a in a few minutes.

And now we'll hear from Candace.

Thank you.

You're on okay.

I want to make sure everyone can hear me, but I'll speak louder than I normally do.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

My name is Candice Rye, Associate Planner for the City of NAMPA.

The request before you this evening is a comprehensive plan map amendment from industrial to commercial for a 2.6 acre portion and annexation and zoning to IL Light Industrial Zoning District for 15 acres, and BC community business zoning district for 2.6 acres.

You can see as well, there was a subdivision pre-limb plat that was submitted.

However, that preliminary plat was postponed prior to the planning and zoning commission at the request of the NAMPA engineering division requiring more info.

A development agreement will be required for this project.

The original concept is one commercial lot for the existing RV and boat storage and 31 new industrial lots.

The planning and zoning commission recommended this project for approval back in April.

Property details of short history.

So in September of 2025, the pre-application meeting was held with the city for this project.

Prior to that, there were no other applications that have been submitted.

The current jurisdiction, both of the parcels are currently under Canyon County jurisdiction.

Surrounding zoning to the north is Kenyon County and IL Light Industrial.

To the west is IL Light Industrial.

To the east is also IL Light Industrial, the NAMPA Airport, and to the south is Kenyon County.

The comprehensive plan designates this area as industrial.

The surrounding designations are medium density residential and low density residential.

The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use designation from industrial to commercial on 2.6 acres in that little red square.

Kind of hard to see, but I have a closer view of that.

The applicant is proposing to amend the future land use designation from industrial to commercial on that red square.

The proposed zone will bring the existing storage use into conformity and would continue to be compatible with the airport district.

For applicable regulations, we have relevant state law regarding the comprehensive plan.

So Idaho state law requires the planning and zoning commission to develop a comprehensive plan and accompanying map.

The code states specifically a map shall be prepared indicating suitable projected land uses for the jurisdiction.

Annexation, Idaho State Code outlines the requirements for annexation with consent of property owners.

Specifically, all private landowners have consented to annexation.

Property shall be contiguous with the city limits, not only through a shoestring connection or strip of land comprising the highways right of way.

The comprehensive plan includes the area of annexation when applicable for annexation of roadways, all portions of highways lying partially to be annexed with a contiguous parcel, unless express agreement with highway maintenance district indicates otherwise.

More applicable regulations.

So 10-2-3.

Conclusions of law pertinent to the proposed zoning map amendment.

Chapter 16 of Title 10 for the BC zoning district.

And title nine chapter 19, excuse me, Title 10 is the IL zoning district chapter.

And just a few more applicable regulations.

NAMPA City Code Title 10, Chapter 3, Chapter 31 3 is the airport.

And then the 1975 Aviation Easement Instrument number 755201.

Here is the proposed concept plan.

And then the NAMPA Municipal Airport analysis.

I am going to try and condense this.

The full analysis is included in the staff report.

I will just run through this pretty quickly.

So this analysis was conducted by Lindsay Johnson, the superintendent of the NAMPA Municipal Airport, and Commissioner Morgan on the NAMPA Airport Commission.

The following is a list of items they noticed in their review.

Planning staff has addressed each item with a recommendation or solution.

So the airport comments are up above, and then in the bolded is staff recommendation or solution for reference.

So first one, since the developer is asking for a zoning change to IL MPC, is it possible for the airport to recommend that PZ formally strips those specific X out uses like churches, daycares, or schools from these lots as a condition of approval.

The chart of the recommended uses according to the airport is listed in your staff report.

This list can be discussed with council and the applicant.

Number two, the height, the seven to one height slope, plat note 10 on the pre-limb, the proposed preliminary, excuse me, says building heights will be per NAMPA city code.

However, the 1975 easement is much stricter with that seven to one slope.

Note 10 on the prelim plat will need to be revised to include reference of the 1975 Aviation Easement document.

Number three, landscaping and wildlife.

The initial landscape plan and the species list has some red flags for birds attractions.

Several tree species produce heavy fruits and berries and provide large nesting canopies.

Should we ask them to swap this for aviation friendly trees?

They will need to revise the landscape plan and include allowable trees in the airport zone.

Lighting and glare is the next section.

The renderings show large industrial buildings with what is assumed to be heavy exterior lighting.

The 1975 easement specifically prohibits uses that make it difficult for flyers to distinguish between airport lights and others.

Nampa City Code 10-34 addresses lighting standards with design review and will be reviewed further with the building permit for each building.

The following code section lists out the lighting standards with the design review chapter, and that is here on the screen for reference.

Should we ensure their drainage design doesn't create standing water?

NAMPA Engineering Division will review the stormwater retention with the construction drawings in accordance with the FAA specifications.

FAA wildlife and hazard guidance regarding standing water within 5,000 feet of the runway will be considered in that review.

Since this project creates 31 individual lots for sale, should we require that a notice of the 1975 aviation easement be recorded on the deed of each single lot?

And this has been added as a condition of approval.

Verification of compatibility, the applicant narrative states the use will be compatible with the requirements of the airport district.

Since they've made this claim, should we ask for a certified height and glare analysis for the lots closest to the runway to ensure they meet that seven to one slope before the annexation is approved.

At this stage of entitlement, the building structure structures have not been identified.

The NAMPA Engineering Division will review each building against the specification at the time of building permit.

Correspondence.

We did receive one comment submitted for the planning and zoning commission that is shown here.

We did not receive any new comments for city council.

So this public comment that was submitted for planning and zoning had concerns regarding the increased traffic on victory.

They also had concerns regarding Sunrock and the potential of renaming the business and their intentions.

So staff relayed at the planning and zoning commission the following information.

This project was not going to be a concrete batch plant.

A concrete batch plan is not allowed in the IL zoning district.

Nappa Parks requested 20-foot easement to be granted from the top of the bank on the north side of Mason Creek for construction of the Mason Creek Pathway as indicated in the City of Nampa bicycle and pedestrian master plan.

Additionally, we request this pathway to be built by the developer to the current pathway and construction standards as indicated in the City of Nampa bicycle and pedestrian master plan at the time of construction.

NAMPA GIS division had comments regarding submitting an updated site plan or draft copy of the PLAT to them to reflect the changes below prior to final application submittal.

NAMPA Fire Department did not oppose the application subject to compliance with all of the following code requirements and conditions of approval.

The full list is included in your staff report.

NAMPA Engineering Division, the NAMPA Engineering Division had completed a review of the preliminary plat application for elite industrial subdivision, and they had provided the following comments and recommendations and conditions.

A traffic impact study for elite industrial subdivision was submitted.

The TIS is currently under review, and the developer shall address any comments provided once this review is completed.

And they also provided general utility and access comments.

NAPA municipal airport, that full analysis is included in the staff report.

Lumen had comments about the existing right-of-way and if there are facilities that need to be located, the developer would have to pay to do so.

And NAMPA Environmental Resources had a comment about they would prefer no discharge of storm drainage be allowed in Mason Creek.

And NAMPA Meridian Irrigation District just provided general comments regarding waterways being protected and surface drainage must be retained on site.

So findings for the comprehensive plan based on the analysis that was completed utilizing the conclusions of law, the comprehensive plan and NAMPA City Code, coupled with findings listed in the staff report.

The project appears to meet all of those requirements.

Staff can reasonably recommend to the council that the project be approved because the future land use map is somewhat flexible and subject to changes that the planning and zoning commission and city council may desire to periodically impose or act on as a request from a property owner.

The property owner of the parcels requesting the change had proposed a subdivision layout that provides for uses are compatible in the area and maintains the current use of an RV storage in a smaller portion of the development.

Findings for annexation.

The property proposed for annexation falls under the annexation criteria outlined in Idaho Statute 50-2.22 because 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 located within the current NAMPA area of impact boundary as shown on the future land use map, published in NAMPA 2020 2040 comprehensive plan and matches the designation shown on the future land use map.

This development is adjacent to roadways within the jurisdiction of the city of NAMPA.

And then findings for zoning to BC and IL.

The proposed zoning map amendment for both parcels is in harmony with the comprehensive plan because it proposes zoning that matches the designation of industrial and the potential commercial if approved as shown and potentially changed on the future land use map and complies with the principles outlined in the comprehensive plan.

The future land use map was established after thoroughly analyzing land uses for compatibility.

The project provides a set uses that would be reasonably compatible adjoining adjoining property because the proposed uses will match the existing industrial, municipal, and commercial lots in the area, and it is in the public's best interest and reasonably necessary because it proposes a development that will bring needed services in that area, and it takes advantage of the existing utilities.

The project has proposed a subdivision layout that will also include installing frontage improvements where a gap currently exists.

It is compatible with surrounding uses and complies with the adopted city code.

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

This list of conditions does not address conditions for the preliminary plaque.

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

Questions from council?

So go ahead, sir.

Question It's our packet page 408.

But so in the report is a list of prohibited uses in the IL and prohibited uses in the BC.

Did that come from the applicant or was that from staff review?

Right.

Mayor and Councilman Bills.

That came from the airport.

That was part of their comment.

That was included with their whole list of questions and comments that they had.

And they sent that over.

And then I believe it's included.

We reduced that down just to show the X's that were taken out.

Okay.

So we have a list of prohibited, so that's that's the request from the airport.

So that needs to be included in the record for as approval.

Is that noted in this part or not?

Yeah.

Yes.

Sorry.

Yes, that is condition number one.

It's kind of hard to see.

I apologize.

Okay, and a list of prohibited uses in the I.O.

And that's going to be the list that we've got before us.

That is correct.

If you want to add more, you may.

Okay.

And so then also in our packet is the list of allowed uses.

Um of those line items have X's.

So does that mean the applicant has marked some stuff that they don't plan to use, or was that the X's that led to this list?

I'm just trying to have clarity that we've covered there all the prohibited uses.

Mayor and Councilman Bills, that was included in the airport.

So that is the airport's recommendation.

So taking out those allowed uses and then also taking out those prohibited uses.

Okay.

So then if it would be helpful, I think it'd just be pretty simple if you want to follow the airport's recommendations that you state in your motion the list of land uses that they provided to staff in the packet.

So council just needs to uh go ahead and research what was recommended by the airport Lindsay and then uh see if they comply with what her recommendations are or want to add further.

That is that my understanding.

Okay.

Any other questions for Candace?

If not, that was a lot.

Somebody needs to get her a bottle of water.

Okay.

All right.

Okay, so if there's no further questions, I think we're ready for public test testimony.

Is there anyone that is signed up to testify?

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes, so I'm sorry, I forgot that.

Well, you got to get a little faster.

I I know I need the question.

Go ahead.

I need not the question of legal.

Okay.

When when we're dealing with something like this close to the close to the airport, the protection of the lanes and of the proximity of the of the property that's next to it.

Is is can we establish another buffer for safety or not?

By because this is close to the lanes, the takeoff lanes and the landing lanes, whatever you call it.

Already established.

Mayor, do you want me to address that?

Well, I'd like to please please uh legal, please.

Preston.

Yeah, we have um uh Lindsay Johnson who's reviewed this, and there are already established uh no fly zones and other FAA regulations over it that really try to capture any sort of necessary buffer that's needed if the city were to go that route.

It would be above and beyond what uh any standard municipal airport already has in place, including our own.

So the short answer could you, yes.

Is it needed for our airport uh experts and fa regulations, those are already in place?

Okay, no, that that was my question.

Could we amend it?

And you already answered that, so thank you.

Thanks.

Okay, before moving to public hearing, any any further discussion or comments.

Yes, madam clerk.

Mr.

Mayor, we have two people that did an advanced sign up to speak, and our first speaker is Patty Evans.

Okay.

Thanks for being here, Patty.

Thank you, Mayor Bruner.

Thank you, Council.

My name is Patty Evans.

I live at 3616 East Rolling Green Place, near the proposed elite industrial project at 4300 East Victor uh Victory Road.

My concern is the long-term impact of approving broad commercial and light industrial zoning at this location, especially with the proposed concept of 31 individual commercial lots.

Who's going to monitor and make sure that those commercial lots always stay in compliance?

Also, Victory Road is already an important neighborhood and come uh commuter corridor.

It's like Russian roulette getting out of rolling green estates.

Uh it's gotten really bad a couple of times, some close calls have occurred.

Um so I'm concerned about with the increased traffic there, the neighborhood to the east, the that's come or to the west that's coming in, the one further to the west is coming in, and the apartments at the corner of Kings and Victory that are being proposed.

And then I also understand that the uh cow pasture across from the entrance to the neighborhood recently was sold and will be residential as well.

So it's getting too crowded.

Um I'm concerned about traffic conflicts, noise, light, dust, and uh storage impacts, and they should be studied before we rezone this.

Before approval, I asked the council require a complete traffic impact study for Victory Road and Picard Lane and Grays Lane at these and these uh King's Road and Happy Valley intersections.

Yesterday, while uh Glenn and I were out, we had a semi-truck go by.

He went down to King's uh he went down to uh Happy Valley uh roundabout off of Victory, turned around, did a complete one eight uh 360, went all the way down, and then we saw him down at King's, turned around and came back down because there's no other place he can go.

I don't know where he was trying to go, but those turns from just being one lane in each direction into any of those things on the north side is very difficult for the semi-trucks, also for the landscape trucks that go to Vision Recycling.

So we should have a complete and it complete and thorough study, and those suggestions should be completed before any occupancy certificates are issued.

Uh also asked that the city place the exact terms of the 1975 aviation easement into the uh record recorded deeds for the people, and uh the business types I'm concerned by the business types that would be available.

The I would like to make sure that we don't have any uh things that are family um in conflict with family environments like tattoo parlors, vape shops, tobacco shops, adult-oriented businesses, dispensaries if they become legal in Idaho, and I'd really like to understand what the shot what the commercial uh target audience is for this project and uh who if anybody has asked uh to be uh purchasing these projects.

And if this is approved, I would like to ask that we have the conditions for the the binding conditions or development agreement that protects nearby residents.

I'm sorry.

Okay, just per just protect our quality of life, and I really hope that um representative for my area takes that into consideration.

Thanks.

Mr.

Mayor, our last speaker is Cheryl Heath.

Okay.

Cheryl.

What's his last name?

It's Heath.

Heath Cheryl Heath.

Still here?

No?

Is there anyone else that would like to speak?

That's not signed up.

Okay.

We have a Cheryl here, but it's not Cheryl Heath.

I'm not Cheryl Heath.

I haven't changed my name.

I'm Cheryl Higley at 12441 South Abbott Downing Way.

I I just have a question because um, since there's no plat, it wasn't clear.

Um is there possibly going to be 31 different buildings as opposed to like uh one building with 30 different bus 31 different businesses or a few buildings?

Um just there's more variation if the more buildings that there are.

So that's my question, because that didn't come up.

Yeah, Mr.

Tyson will hopefully answer those questions.

Thank you.

Anyone else interested in speaking?

Okay, we're I think I think we're ready for Mr.

Tessen to come back up.

Any closing remarks.

Uh Steve Thiessen with uh do I need to repeat uh hatch design architectures?

All right, here we go.

Steve These with hatch design architecture.

Um to speak to the uses.

Uh we are looking at light industrial uses, which um from talking to the neighbors initially, um our initial feedback was they didn't want to see any residential in that uh area because residential brought more traffic and from our from our feedback, the industrial uses were uh more desirable.

In regards to traffic study, we did meet with um our traffic engineer did meet with Daniel Badger and to discuss the scope and how far we go away and which intersections that were uh ultimately studied.

Uh the study came back, I believe it was delivered last week, so I don't believe it's had time to review that yet.

And um and then in regards to the 1975 aviation easement, um we are in um favor of the conditions of approval that would include that as a in the deeds, and follow any um requirements that the airport would have.

Um in regards to Cheryl Heath.

Um I have um actually uh reached out to her, she's the landowner to the west, and we are attempting to set up a meeting to further discuss access.

Okay, the Cheryl Heath that is did not was not here.

Yeah, I've been having your meeting with her individually, yes, and it sounds like also other uh neighbors.

We have met with vision recycling that's to our north.

Okay, so um and then uh to answer Cheryl's question about the 31 individual lots.

I would anticipate that a lot of these lots would be combined.

This uh setup, this layout is to give the developer um flexibility that these lots could be combined, or if an individual owner small business wanted to come in there and purchase a small lot, but they anticipate that these lots would probably be purchased, you know, three or four lots at a time and combined to put um to put their business on.

I don't foresee this being 31 individual little business.

What I'm hearing is of potentially maybe 10 10 to 11 business owners.

Yeah, that's 31 lots.

But it gives the developer this gives the developer some flexibility on the size of businesses that come in.

They could accommodate smaller businesses, but probably they're gonna take up at least a couple lots just based on the width of the lots, which I think are around a hundred feet or so.

Which um so are you are are you building the structures uh ahead of time then and then leasing?

What what's the what's the plan?

Uh the plan is to sell individual lots.

Yeah, yes.

That is the plan.

So the lots themselves, and then they would have to uh be approved as far as for whatever they're gonna build yes okay.

Oh, yes, Mr.

Ayer, and they would have to you know go through the process of being combined and so uh sir.

So as such you're gonna record the lot lines, and then they have to go back through a public hearing to release those public those lot lines to get a building permit.

Mayor uh council member bills, yes, that is what the developer would like to do uh to give them the flexibility instead of using large lots, and then yeah, it would I think we'd be more difficult to split them in the future than to combine yeah.

Having been involved in light industrial, I'd uh I just see uh challenges forthcoming the way the approach is, so I'm just asking the question.

Yeah, 11,000 square feet, so those aren't very uh wide that is correct, they are not very wide.

And then to have setbacks for the actual building construction, parking requirements, etc.

Seems like the concept is to combine and create I just uh then to cross over those lines unless uh they're condominiumized as far as the warehouse.

Anyways, uh the concepts there it I just think there's gonna be some execution challenges uh later down the road when it comes to physical building and all that, the way it's being shown right now.

Council, any further questions?

Mayor, I've got a question for Daniel.

Okay, Daniel, you're up.

Daniel, I'm not sure if it's too early to speak to it.

I'm just curious about the traffic.

Have you been able to see what that traffic study looked like?

Uh Mayor, Councilman Jangilla, Daniel Badger, City Engineer.

Um, I have done a short review of it.

It is at our consultant for the full review.

Um it identifies a number of background traffic issues, um, but does not identify any project trigger issues other than uh at their approaches that they would be building during standard development.

Can you remind us the what the difference is what a background the background issue is?

So when we do a traffic study, we look at um what the existing conditions are today and with just normal growth, and then we add in the project specific traffic, and the development is required to mitigate their project specific impacts.

So in this case, uh one of the background triggers is over the next you know, between now and 2035, a background trigger is that happy the happy valley uh victory roundabout needs to be expanded to a dual lane roundabout with just normal you know growth not specific to this project, and then the project specific adds the traffic that they will generate and sees if there are additional things that are triggered by that.

Thank you for the questions for Daniel Apkin or anyone else out here.

Okay.

All right, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Okay, now we just need a motion to close public hearing.

So moved.

Okay, discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay, council discussion.

Mayor.

Yes.

Um, I recently had the privilege of touring the airport and um driving around all around this location.

And even down as I was touring down Grays Lane, and and I was shown about how I was shown how all of the surrounding area affects the airport.

And um they already deal with some issues of a landowner who doesn't follow code and has I mean, at that time he put a fireworks stand right at the end of the runway.

Heaven forbid that somebody miss take off.

Um this location gives me angst.

And the reason why is not knowing what is going to be put in there, even with restrictions.

Um I just I just don't I don't like this project at this location.

I it makes me very nervous to have something this close to our airport without a plan of what kind of commercial is going in there.

I know there are restrictions the airport has put on, but man, it just doesn't take much of somebody not complying, and we will have a major issue.

So that's my okay, and a whole other discussion.

But when you when you mention there's a there's a owner close to the airport that's not complying.

Yes, we need to discuss that later.

Yeah, we do.

Yeah, he's uh he's an interesting one.

All right.

Sorry.

Any other discussion?

Be ready for a motion.

Well, mayor respectfully to councilwoman Scog's comments.

Elevation-wise, this ground is uh lower than the airport runway.

So any buildings that get built, unless they were to go up two or three story, which I think we would have restriction already in place.

Um maybe not uh if they're single-level buildings, they're not gonna get them uh the runway or is the elevation differential uh the only restriction we currently have right now is what uh is required by the F A AA, and it's that uh kind of gravy boat type um shape uh around the runway.

So that would restrict height if it came within that correct and it flares out you know from the end of runway on out.

But this is down below.

So you know, I I think the biggest challenge here is gonna be how it actually physically builds out.

Um I think the use of restriction has been we found that list and it's it's in there, so that's appreciated.

Uh so you know it it seems reasonable to go forward.

Um those buildings and whether they actually went according to the lots, that that seems unlikely.

So clarification, Ronnie, uh Rodney.

So this this passes, and uh whether there's 10 or 31 businesses, they still have to come forth for a building permit and uh before before they can move ahead.

Yes, Mayor.

So that would be regulated is my understanding.

Is that right?

Thanks.

That's my understanding required.

Yeah.

So I I I mean, just in my own head, that means that the city does have control of what's going in there.

We do, Mayor, and and we review every building permit that goes in, uh, including occupancy permits.

So if there's a change of an occupant, they have they're supposed to get a new occupancy permit, and that gets routed to the planning and zoning department, and we check that against the land uses permitted on that property.

Okay.

Thanks for the clarification.

Final question then for yourself and and Daniel on the platform.

This type of setup, somebody wants to put three lots, they're coming back and then asking to eliminate those lot lines, or is it better to be set up more like a plat that goes with town home duplex where there's shared property lines or I don't know.

I'm just I'm just looking at the nuance that's forthcoming the way this is presented.

Yeah, mayor and council.

So that that is a possibility either way.

They could uh vacate those lot lines, or they could do uh lot lines that are zero lot line, and uh it's one building, but each individual unit is is owned.

Um both are possible in the IL zone.

Which then takes place in the review of the building permit.

Okay, thank you.

So what do you do with all the water and sewer services?

Um so Mayor Councilman Bills, um, we've done this a number of times in commercial and industrial where they will add a couple of extra lots in there to provide you know flexibility in the industrial and the commercial sector, it's much more fluid than on a residential.

You you you know what size lot you want.

Some commercial industrial people come in and they want a bigger lot or a smaller lot or or whatever, and it does provide that flexibility for the water and sewer uh services and that type of thing.

Typically, what we would do in a situation if we're anticipating that the lot lines will be moved or that uh we will set them up so that water services are easily abandoned, so we would have the corpse at the main um have a valve can that we can shut off and abandon something of that nature um to to deal with that on the sewer service side.

If it doesn't get connected to it, it's not that big of a deal.

It's not a surface feature, um, and there's no pressure to it.

Um so it's and that will all be discussed with when they actually come forward with the plat itself.

Um, but it's it it isn't uncommon for a commercial or industrial lot to have more lots than they anticipate using to allow for that flexibility.

Um, you know, 31 if they're expecting 10, maybe more than we would normally anticipate, but it's where we don't require side yard easements or those types of things on these industrial and commercial ones, doing those property boundary adjustments to get rid of those lines is a simple administrative process that we can we can handle.

Follow-up question.

We're seeing this concept, but conceivably we assign the zone, it could be just one or two big buildings and not even actually file a plat.

Is that correct?

So I believe they are the a development agreement is being proposed or can be uh proposed by the council that would attach this concept layout to that.

Um and then the plat would be compared to that, and if any changes were any significant changes to the concept plan were done, that would require a DA mod.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

Are we ready for a motion?

Make a motion to approve uh subject to the added items of the uh basically development agreements and uh utility hookup agreements and designs.

And your annexation and zoning IL.

Yes.

Okay.

There's been a motion and a second.

Any discussion?

Roll call, please.

There's a question.

Oh, here's a question.

Just an abundance of caution, Mayor.

There was discussion about the airport list of Xs, and we would adopt those limited uses.

Didn't know if you wanted to put that in the part of the motion.

Yeah.

That was the one.

We can add that list as part of the motion.

I think it would sound like it's going to apply anyways, but we can we we can for for no ambiguity.

Exactly.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

If the second's okay.

I'm in amend the motion, please.

Yeah, we amended to uh add the uh airport restriction list.

Second, Mr.

Mayor, would that include the lighting as well?

Yes.

All second okay.

We have an amended motion and second.

Any further discussion?

Okay, roll call, please.

Fog.

No.

No.

Rodriguez.

No.

Griffin.

No.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

In favor for opposed motion fails.

Thank you, Mr.

Teson, for your time.

Do we need oh a motion?

Oh, we failed.

I did this last time too.

You think I'd learn after after the first one.

Okay, so now we need a new motion since it was denied.

So we need somebody from the one for uh one of the four deniers to uh make a new motion.

Mr.

Mayor?

Yes.

I move to deny the uh comprehensive plan map amendment to industrial to commercial for 2.6 acre portion annexation and zoning um to IL.

Second.

I have a motion and a second.

Discussion?

Okay, we'll do a second roll call.

Bills.

No.

Reynolds.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Yes.

Gog.

Yes.

Four in favor, two opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay, we're on our last public hearing.

And this is uh 6-3.

It's getting late.

I'm gonna put my glasses on and make sure I see this one.

Okay.

Comprehensive plan map amendment from from commercial to medium density residential and comprehensive plan text amendment to change land use map in the SH 16 plan from high density residential slash neighborhood commercial to medium density residential, addressed uh as 17403 Star Road for trilogy development, original concept, future annexation and subdivision for a creeks bin, formerly known as Spring Hollow South.

And I I assume our our our good lady is uh is our applicant tonight.

Okay, Mayor, members of the council, hello and good evening.

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

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

And this evening I have the privilege to present to you our application for a comprehensive plan map amendment for the future creeks bend subdivision.

So let me begin by telling you about our initial design thoughts for the site.

Creek spin has been inspired by the natural features of the site and has been guided by a cohesive theme and design vision.

We wanted the name to reflect one of the property's most defining characteristics.

It's direct connection to the 10 mile creek, which bends along our western edge of the site.

The natural feature becomes the inspiration behind the name, Creek Spend.

And it will serve as the foundation for our overall community design, open space layout, and character for this future community.

So let's take a look at the subject site.

Um this site is located west of Star Road and is an approximately 55 acres in size.

The current comp plan has this site split with medium density residential to the west and commercial high density residence residential designation to the east of this area for the site.

To help provide context, this slide it this slide illustrates the prior comprehensive plan designation where a while back, before it was changed, our entire parcel was identified as medium density residential.

And this really is establishing a long-standing vision for medium density residential use for the site.

Now I would like to walk you through the surrounding development pattern to provide additional context for this area.

To the north, we have Spring Hollow, where multiple phases have already been constructed and a few remaining phases have yet to be developed.

To the east, we have a mix of low density county parcels within Silver Spur, as well as Silver Star, which is a medium density residential development within the city of Niampa.

To the south, we are bordered by three county subdivisions Atkins Acres, Pontiac 58, and Low Angle Subdivision.

And to the west, we have Laquita Village, which is zoned RS7, and developed as a medium density residential scale.

So when you look at the entirety, you can see that this area reflects a tradition or transition between larger lot, low density county development, and a more traditional subdivision pattern within the city limits.

With the site being positioned between low density estate style parcels and established medium density residential development, we do not feel that high density residential nor commercial designation is appropriate for this location.

Those designations would not provide a compatible transition to the adjacent county parcels and would introduce higher traffic volumes into what is fundamentally a mid-block site.

And additionally, given its mid-block location, the site lacks the visibility, access, and roadway characteristics that typically are needed to support a successful commercial development.

We are therefore requesting the site to be slated as medium density residential.

So when looking at appropriate locations for commercial and higher density residential uses, the area designated along Eustac Corridor, just north of us, which is planned for a five-lane arterial, are far more suitable.

Those locations are intentionally planned to accommodate high traffic volumes, provide visibility, access, and infrastructure necessary to support both commercial and high intensity residential development.

By directing those uses to the arterial corridor and changing our comp plan designation to medium density, it allows the site to develop in a way that is more compatible with the existing and surrounding context.

Now I'd like to introduce you to our design vision for Creek Spend.

So we're just in the early stages of design, and we will move into full site planning following approval of our comp plan map amendment.

But I wanted to kind of share the direction and flavor that we're kind of heading for this development within 10 Mile Creek as our defining feature.

Our goal is to create a seamless connection to the surrounding landscape with direct access to the regional pathway system for walking, biking, and joining this natural corridor.

This connection enhances both day-to-day livability, long-term value by tying the neighborhood into a larger open space network and connecting via the 10 Mile Creek Pathway System to the future waterways district.

In addition, we're planning internal amenities designed to foster community gathering, including a central gathering space with games, picnic pavilion, with barbecues, and then a small amphitheater for events and neighborhood activities.

We are excited to be part of the Highway 16 specific area plan for Creek Spen.

In reviewing the intent of this particular plan, particularly the waterways district, we will thoughtfully incorporate those guiding principles into the development and design to help shape the design and character for the project.

With these key elements, we continue to coordinate closely with staff on how to seamlessly connect our site to the broader waterways district.

With the presence of the 10 Mile Creek and the planned pathway network, we see really a unique opportunity to create a park that bends in the creek, serving as a natural focal point and a meaningful extension to the overall vision for this area.

This park is highlighted in the red circle within the slide.

This park will be in the southwest corner of the site, and we're proposing approximately 2.5 acres.

The space is designed to do more than provide pathway connection.

It will serve as a destination along the 10 Mile Creek corridor.

The park will incorporate passive recreation elements such as parklet style seating, picnic shelters that will create opportunities for residents and the broader community to pause, gather, enjoy the natural setting along the pathway system.

We also plan to include parking and wayfinding signage to ensure the space is accessible and easy to navigate for future users.

And we believe this park will be a defining feature of the project and a key highlight to the broader specific area plan.

And in closing, we're very excited with the opportunity to bring forward our project.

We're in agreement with the findings outlined by staff and with the planning and zonings commission recommendation of approval.

If we receive approval this evening, my next steps will be a coordinate a meeting with the neighbors that have reached out with to me since our first hearing.

We'll be working through a site plan, making sure there's good adequate buffering mitigation for them, and also coordinate with the parks department regarding our proposed um park area.

So little bit left to do after tonight if we are given the green light.

So I look forward to bringing that refined plan back to you all.

Um hopefully in a future date.

And I would like to thank you all for the pleasure of your time, your thoughtful consideration, and um would love a recommendation or not a recommendation approval for this evening's applications.

Thank you so much.

Council questions for the uh applicant.

I have one, Mayor.

Yes, Mr.

Would you do the plat again?

Yeah.

Diagram of the plat.

And could you tell me what part of this is medium density?

It all looks really high density to me.

Umor, um council member Rodriguez.

So um I'm sure Rodney and staff can address this, but medium density is between 2.5 and 8 dwelling units per acre.

Since we don't have officially a plat in front of you this evening, I haven't done the density, but I couldn't guarantee we'll probably be under five.

Um but again, this is just initial.

This isn't before you this evening, and I really want to take the time to make sure we work with the neighbors, address their concerns, have the adequate buffing buffering, but we will be in our allowed density designation that's allowed within the zoning and comp plan.

Okay, this is just a draft.

Yes, yes, just for our public.

Yeah, I get it.

Thank you.

Well, something to look at, and if you have any input or comment, I would love to hear it.

Thank you.

Yes, yes.

Just clarification.

The park area next to 10 mile creek is going to be common area maintained by the subdivision.

Mayor, councilmember Bills.

That's a great question.

So um I did reach out to Doug in the parks department.

Um, he said that he'd be willing to entertain it.

I don't know if it's the right size, they have certain qualifications that it needs to meet.

But I figured it after we get to this point and we start kind of getting in the nuts and bolts of the design, I'll reach out back to them.

So we have two options.

We can have the HOA maintain it and still have access for the public, or we can donate and have it maintained and owned and maintained by the city.

So there's two options, but there will be a park guaranteed.

Yeah, I think from my perspective, it should be HOA maintained.

Okay.

Uh being back in off of a main road is awkward to maintain for a city park.

Sure, sure.

And and I think the location we picked that location is because that's where the green belt is actually going to be touching our site.

Um, to the west, there's already a green belt at that location.

So that kind of gave that was like the natural location for the park to be at um with that green belt connection.

And I can um show you in different slide.

It kind of highlights it a little bit better how it dips down and comes around.

You can see the area in green where it says 10 mile creek and how it only touches that portion.

So it's a small small piece, and and you're taking that and making use, but it's it's not big enough that it justifies the city of Napa to on park maintenance.

So in my mind, that needs to be a condition of approval of the concept.

So any other questions?

Mayor, what's the percentage of the green space on this?

Um, Mayor, um, Councilwoman Jangula, we um again I didn't calculate it since we it's kind of in draft form, but typically my open space is usually between 15 to 18 percent.

And um I know um open space is really important to you.

If you have a percentage you would like for me to strive for when we do the redesign, I would be happy to take that in consideration.

Any further questions?

Okay, so my understanding then this park you said is gonna happen for sure, so this is going to be open to the others.

Correct residents other than Creek's band.

Yes, correct.

And so uh I'm just I I haven't studied the uh I know it's not the final plat or anything, but you have plenty of parking around that park.

We'll have parking and paths to be able to get there.

Absolutely, Mayor.

Yep.

Okay, and including that easement for that um pathway that continuation.

And I know it's way premature, but what's your projected uh sale price for these homes?

Well, um again, it depends on what kind of um if we have single family town homes, what kind of we're okay.

Then let's go uh for single family.

What are you what's the projection from trilogy?

I believe it'll be around 450,000 would probably be the average.

We're talking about uh so medium density talking about what uh square footage is a rough average estimate would be absolutely so usually between 15 and 2800 is the single family um home sizes.

All right.

Any other questions?

Hey, no, thank you.

All right, so Rodney, you're up.

Oh, no, Doug is.

I'm sorry.

Gonna put him in double duty.

Okay.

So uh Sabrina did a good job.

I'm gonna try not to repeat what she said here.

Um so uh this is just to note that the change in the comprehensive plan would be for a portion of the entire parcel.

It's it's not the entire the part of the parcel is uh in the comprehensive plan is medium density residential already.

This is only that area that's designated as commercial uh on the comprehensive plan.

Um so uh based on the analysis that was done for uh this project and um the requirements that were set forth um in state code, the zoning commission uh followed staff's recommendation that this be approved.

Uh the plan um considers both the previous and the existing conditions on the site.

Um so the existing comprehensive plan, yes, land use designation of commercial was placed there when we did the comprehensive plan or what the specific area plan for highway 16.

The thought behind that was is that we were trying to get density wherever we could get density when that plan was coming in.

We didn't know really how this area was going to develop out.

The it's a mix of low density, it's a mix of county development.

Uh, there's some now there's some residential development, particularly to the north, it's much smaller lots.

The the silver star development, um, all of those uh were just a very a wide range of uh mixes.

So uh when this was brought before the council, it was decided that we should do this in some type of uh neighborhood commercial with density around it.

Um and that was the intent of the plan.

With this proposal and the way that this area is now developing out, um, it makes sense uh to long-range planning staff that this area be uh changed to medium density residential to match what's going on in the area, and uh that the uh commercial that's available.

Let me go down to a map that shows this.

The commercial that's available up on Eustach Road, as well as the commercial that will be down in what's uh called the waterways district, which is down uh just to the west of that's just to the west of Owai Storm Road.

Um that will all be commercial in that area, so it it should be relatively accessible to the people that live in this um subdivision.

Um so with those things in mind, um, we think that the intent of that area was uh a good college try, if you will, to try and get some density there.

It looks uh appears from the plant that's being submitted that there will be some level of density in that, but not to the extreme where it will um impact the low density residential to the to the east of this or to the south.

There were um quite a few comments um on the project um about this.

I'm just gonna go over to the comments section.

Uh there were some concerns about the lot sizes on this uh proposal.

Um, and so when that plat comes forward, um the council can have a discussion with the applicant about the lot sizes to buffer the the properties to the south.

There's been a lot of concern by the residents uh in that feather creek lane area.

Um we also note that we got a note um from Mark Bottles who supports the proposal.

Um bottles has done quite a bit of development in this.

Um I'm gonna scroll back to the map.

They've this commercial industrial campus to the east, everything around 16.

Most of that is bottles development.

And we were glad to have agreement with them.

They were instrumental in helping us develop a large portion of this plan.

So they also agree that it's in tandem with the overall intent of the 16 specific area plan.

We do have in code that none of these land use land uses, proposed land uses can stretch over adjacent land uses, and that's in city code.

And the reason was is that again we wanted to protect the integrity of this specific area plan with the 16 development that's important to us in NAPA.

This is far enough away from 16 that it won't be heavily impacted.

That change won't heavily impact the intent again of the plan.

So the it in your staff report we did talk about the different land uses.

The medium density residential is two and a half to eight dwelling units per acre.

It is more rural than urban.

Excuse me, it's more urban than rural, excuse me.

And this that it's typically single family detached homes, duplexes, two unit town homes, and live work units.

And again, it's up to the council as to how you want to go ahead and and uh propose that that be developed.

Um there is no very low, low or high density developed development allowed in the medium density residential.

So we wanted to emphasize that as well.

What are we giving up by losing this?

Um about maybe 1.8 acres of neighborhood commercial that could have been in this area, and again, we think that can be made up for um on the Eust Road and in the waterways district.

Um so the comprehensive plan amendment state code 676508 uh just indicates that this uh is a land use that's um out of the comprehensive plan, and that the planning and zoning commission council have a lot of discretion uh about uh these types of land uses and how they want to locate them.

Uh, in terms of the uh agencies that provide a comment, uh the parts department is gonna require a 20-foot permanent easement uh for a trail on the north side of 10 Mile Creek, and that it attached to the park that uh Ms.

Dirchy was uh has explained, and uh that they'll construct that pathway to City of Napa standards.

Uh the Napa Meridian Irrigation District uh just wants laterals protected.

There's also an easement of 50 feet on each side of the 10 mile drain Mount Creek that is to be protected from encroachment without a license agreement, and that needs to be arranged through the district.

And then I I've already talked to you about the long range planning uh comments.

Um terms of the findings uh that's in your staff report.

I these are important.

Um I just want to I I think it's important that I reiterate this that the Highway 16 specific area plan designates the surrounding last land uses as medium or low density residential.

The proposed change in residential density matches the surrounding land use designations in the 2040 plan, and that uh this is added after your staff report that commercial development is planned on Eustach Road to service the immediate area, and then as a result of that, the change would not have a significant impact on access to goods and services.

In terms of the conditions of approval, um, these are largely again the parks department comment about the pathway and the comments from Namper Meridian Irrigation District to preserve and protect waterways and laterals, and that surface drainage must be retained on the site.

So, in terms of the uh here are the uh potential motions, and I'd be glad to take any questions.

Questions for Doug, please.

Uh Mayor Doug, there's uh in our packet, there's a list of some concerns from neighbors uh one of which I mean, some I believe are not gonna be issues, but just to uh cover the irrigation side, they want to make sure that this may also be for Daniel on the irrigation district, 10 mile creek already has a certain width of easement, right?

Which would include the existing road that's there, and the plat would either exclude that land or call for it to continue to have easement access, just looking for confirmation there.

Yeah, okay.

Um there's a concern that fire and emergency services.

So Captain Scoglin.

12 to 16 hours response time.

That's probably because it's not City of Nampa property, the subdivision and 60 minutes.

No, 12 to 16 hours is what they're saying.

Okay.

So consequently, it's not city of Napa, it'd be sheriff.

Is that right?

To the subdivision that's north of the 10 mile, the creek in there.

Uh it should be 12 to 16 minutes.

Yeah, I didn't make thank you.

Well, I'm just reading what's setting before us.

I hope that's a typo, but okay.

It says additionally, the residents have experienced delays in Nampa City police response time up to 12 to 16 hours.

So just not responding to certain calls.

The proper the property next door, not this property that not the applicant property, the property next door that has houses built on acreages is commenting that I'm reading in the packet about the emergency services taking a long time, but that's because that would be county served, not city.

Yeah, and I apologize.

I don't have that document in front of me to look at it, but um if it was if it's the properties to the east of our are in the county ones to the south or in the city.

Yeah, so our um our response time for that could be a typo.

Um I'm not familiar with a 12 to 16 hour response time to calls for service.

I know that our emergency calls for service are in the uh sometimes 12 minute range because that's on the edge of town at Star Road.

Um so that I believe that's probably a typo, but I okay.

But the residents that are in the county, the city is not responding to the county sheriff response.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

So the delay or the possible response of 12 to 16 hours is not the city of Napa, it's the county, Kenyon County Sheriff's Department.

That's an explaining that would be correct.

If that's what the residents are saying that they are serviced by the sheriff's office, that's correct, Councilman Mills.

So educate me if you if you would please.

So if so if a resident well just calls NAPA dispatch, 911.

And so is dispatch as soon as they give the address, are the can they quickly establish whether it's county, county, or city?

Daniel is saying, Yes, Mayor.

Um and so then they would be instructed to go ahead and call Kenyon County dispatch or what's your what's your procedure?

Uh Mayor, the um our 911 center would as soon as they know the location would just transfer the call straight to the case.

So that you just transfer it directly.

So if there is a delay, then 12 to 16 hours.

It would be we get to project the blame on someone else.

Yep.

Yes, sir.

Mayor, the uh if that was the should the in the county their call and uh if it's a low priority call, it could potentially pen for a while.

So somebody needs to get the sheriff down a huge okay, very good.

Well, I'm just trying to have clarity because these are the objections in our packet, but they're non-applicable on some of them.

So I'm trying to confirm it.

Uh the irrigation easement would still be based on the irrigation district.

So thank you.

I just wanted to have clarity on some of the concerns that were uh written out and signed by uh a group of neighbors that's in our packet, and uh I think that that handles it.

Thank you.

Question, Mayor.

Yes, sir.

This one is for Daniel Doug, so Daniel, I understand that there isn't and we're working on getting water sewer infrastructure out there, right?

Or is there already?

So, Mayor Councilman Rodriguez, this will be served by the Pertham sewer infrastructure that is being extended by the city, and how developers are helping to fund that.

Okay.

Uh, this will be served by that extension.

Okay.

What is the fiscal impact to the city?

To the taxpayers to connect.

I know you're gonna say the developers are gonna pay for it.

They will fund all of the connection fees, and then they will pay rates.

And so there are there are no property taxes that subsidize the utility systems at this point.

And so you know how much that's going to be.

I mean, you keep saying the developers are paying for it, but but I don't see any documents indicating how much.

Well, there was one here a couple of months ago that you showed us.

But I want to know how much it's going to cost the city to connect that the developers aren't paying for.

So that would be the Purdom numbers.

That that's the only capital outlay by the city is the Purdom numbers that we've been working with.

And I I'll be honest, I don't have those right off the top of my head, but those are the only city expended funds for this.

The remainder would be developer funded.

Okay, so I for see the number of 55 million out there to for infrastructure.

But the developers are only paying about 20, is that right?

So in the Burham agreement, they are still there.

They are paying 8 million.

Right.

Okay.

And again, I I don't have those numbers right off the top of my head.

That's not one that I have been dealing with, the primary person dealing with.

Um but we've, as Doug's gone over a number of times, we've identified the funding for those, and that's been approved through council impact fees as development happens out there.

We'll reimburse uh for those funds that we've expended, um, and then we will have latecomers for the water and the irrigation that gets put in.

I'm just trying to find kind of get get an idea of how much it's going to be impact the city of Napa folks.

That's all.

And I don't know, and at this point we don't we don't know.

I think well, so again, it's we we have presented the Purdom numbers and all of that a number of times.

I just don't have those right off the top of my head.

I'd have to go back to the case.

I'm gonna pause here.

Doug, do you happen to have those uh figures or estimates as far as what's been expended and put you on the spot?

Let me let me recap.

I'm I was uh working on a budget problem and played this, so can you jump in on this one?

So this one I can share it with you, but you look at it.

Um recap what you need in the information, I can probably get it to you.

That spreadsheet on the Purdue drain.

Oh, yeah.

Purdue.

Do you want me to bring it up or do you want me to just recap what it is?

I think you do.

I just need to review it.

So the Purdue drain has a uh the cost budget of about $51 million in total.

That's spread over three years, with the cost starting now about 20 some million this year, and then most of it taking place in 26 and 27, and the remainder in 28.

The funding sources for the Purdom Drain are multiple, and they are coming from uh there's about $8 million from the um developers.

We have $10 million from the business uh building fund uh that uh John Nilson runs.

We have um about I think it's about $17 million total funding between impact fees and wastewater fund balance.

Uh we have a loan of about $7 million from general government to the project, which will be repaid by by fees as the developers move in to get up to that uh $51 million total.

We project that over time, let's say we take it at about um there are there are approximately $1,705 acres in this uh that we could develop in this project.

Um in the all of the various classifications, but between high density, low density, medium density, um, commercial, residential, and so forth.

Um we look at that and we calculated that we would have about maybe over time if you if you rolled it out at one day, you'd have about a 17,000 population increase in related cost with that.

But we assume it would take probably between maybe 10-20 years to actually complete all of those various buildings.

The the residential would come first and then the capital.

That over time it would end up generating, and I don't remember remember exactly how much on on top of uh of my uh my spreadsheet, but it would it would at about year keep in mind all the funding we're paying, none of that is coming from other than the seven million dollar loan general government, number none of it's coming from taxpayer dollars.

There's no property tax funding going into this, there's no sales tax funding going into this, whatever it is will be repaid back to the city.

But the uh at about if you factor in the impact fees at about year six, it is a break-even point, and we begin to then become a creative, so we ask our adding funds into the um property taxes and sales taxes that help us rebuild other areas, but that's assuming we're taking the $51 million the cost, and then repaying that with property taxes, say increased sales taxes, offset by um increase in public safety, increase in chip seal increase and some other uh head count FTs across the city, but it would be about year seven that would break even from there on we start making more money on that as we go down the road.

Does that give enough breadth?

Yes, uh Sebastian.

I'm sorry, just to councilman.

You're fine.

Just to clarify, because I heard two different numbers.

You had mentioned the eight million dollar developer uh portion or share, and then you had mentioned the seven million dollar city loan.

Are those two things the same?

Was that just misspoken, or did the city kick in seven million dollar loan to be paid back?

And if so, from what source?

Are developers paying us back as the project develops, or what do you mean by city loan of seven million dollars?

So the there was no misspeaking there, they are two separate numbers.

The developer fees are the ones that Mark Stoler's worked with the developers to pre-fund, that's being paid up front.

Um we'll bring in the city money, the the five to seven million dollars as we need to complete the project.

But I I think Rodney can tell exactly maybe more or Daniel could tell more specifically where those funds will come from, but they're different.

So, Daniel?

So as we as we collect impact fees when properties connect to the sewer, those fees will then reimburse that seven million dollar loan from the the city's general fund.

But I think uh good.

But I think you also said that the 10 million are coming from the sewer reserve, right?

Or the water reserve?

Yes, there are some monies coming out of the reserve.

Um there's probably a little more coming out of the current impact fees.

I think it's probably about 11 to 12 million coming from impact fees, and I'm trying to recollect that exactly.

Um what happens is we advance some of that money out of the sewer reserves and then the impact fees also pay back that back into the sewer reserves over time.

Right.

That's that's what we're doing.

I'm gonna try to try to lead us back to this application.

I sidetracked here.

So Doug, I appreciate your time.

Mayor.

Yes.

Just one last, and it's it's regarding this topic, but it also will affect this project, if I could.

Okay.

In terms of the in terms of the impact fee dollars, as they are developed and collected.

I know we have the impact fee advisory committee.

Have they determined the amount that we're collecting specifically for streets uh and and water, wastewater piping?

Are we covering our base with impact fee dollars, or is that something that uh we're falling short on in collections or should consider increasing?

I I know we haven't gotten a report back in a while on that collection or data, but I'm curious to know are our impact fee dollars up to date in terms of cost to actually develop.

So, Mayor, Councilman Griffin, um the the impact fees um for the utility connection side of things are currently um the analysis and update to those is currently being completed by FCS.

We anticipate having that come to the council later this year, and that will answer that question on whether or not there will be increases to those fees.

I anticipate that there will be.

Um and so, but that is they are finalizing that report that will come forward to um first to the board of appraisers for the hookup fee recommendations, and then to the impact fee committee for the impact fee changes, and then to city council for both of those at the same time.

So just to clarify, Mayor?

Yes.

Is this something that we should consider postponing until we have that report rather than continuing to develop in a deficit or an unknown?

I won't say deficit because we don't know what the report will show.

Maybe we're taking too much money, but I don't I I would be surprised by that.

Should we be continuing these projects until we know we're properly collecting what it costs to develop in these areas?

Well, that's a decision of the other the six of you, so at this point in time, but Doug, I uh an inquisitive look, so is you have a comment part of this um, especially with this all along this rain, the the um overall status of the impact fees and the use of the impact fees in the various city funds uh for this project, right?

Part of this um, especially with this all along this drain, the the um overall status of the impact fees and the use of the impact fees in the various city funds uh for this project, right?

Each project might be unique.

This project produces a positive net benefit to the city.

We collect more in revenues that we're going to pay out in costs over the next 30 years.

Um if this project is part of that, then net net it is part of the money that we're already counting on collecting.

If uh as Daniel indicates, we increase the impact fees in the next meeting.

That number will only get better.

Now it doesn't take into this is what it doesn't take into account, which kind of offsets it a little bit, and I'm not trying to muddy the waters, but I'm assuming dollars as of today.

I'm not factoring in inflationary costs or revenues of that aspect.

So you have to kind of look at it today, but from a perspective of today dollars, yeah, it will be uh part of the overall assumption uh that this produces a net positive revenue to the city, and if the impact if they increased impact fees, that can only make it a little better.

And mayor, councilman, counsel.

I would also note that this is only a comp plan amendment and text amendment.

This is not an annexation, not a development approval.

Um they still have a number of steps to come through, and it is unlikely that they would get through the process prior to us having those changes in place.

Thank you for that clarification.

Did you indicate you kind of wanted to be input here, Council President?

No, I think we're far into weeds.

We are the weeds and forced.

I think we've even moved to the forest.

You think we moved to the okay.

I I I I agree, I agree.

But uh council wants to their input, so we appreciate that.

Okay.

Anything else for uh Doug?

Thank you.

Thank you.

And thank you for your patience.

All right.

Okay, we're gonna move on then to public testimony.

Guess what?

It's finally gonna happen.

And uh do we have several signed up for that, uh, Madam Clerk?

Mr.

Mayor, we have two people that have requested to provide public testimony.

That is Nancy Cortson.

Okay, we'll start with you, Nancy.

Thank you.

Just need the three minutes.

You'll have three minutes and just need your uh full name and then address, please.

Hello, my name is Nancy Gertzon, and I live at 5315 East Feather Creek Lane.

I live just exactly south of this project, proposed project.

I'd like to make a couple of rec uh corrections to staff report.

The property is um Silver Spur Subdivision is on the east side of Star Road.

That is one acre lots, and it's all zoned low density.

The silver star subdivision, which is to the north of that, is zoned both low density and medium density.

In keeping with your um subdivision requirements, it says compatibility with neighboring houses or neighboring project properties, excuse me.

So when they're coming in for medium density housing that backs up to low density because our whole street is all low density, one acre to five-acre parcels.

It's not compatible.

I would like to see that be low ended, low density, everything that backs up to our properties.

Um I know we're only going for density on the commercial portion currently, but let's get it corrected now so they don't have to come back in for his own change later on.

I'm just you're a um difference in zoning.

So that's kind of where I'm going with this.

That's one piece of my puzzle.

Um the other one is uh then or the the height of the houses.

Our street consists of I believe it's 11 homes, and on the that backs up to the subdivision, the proposed subdivision.

I think we have three homes that are two-story.

Everything else is single story.

I would like to see everything single story.

The subdivision to the west of this site, all those houses that back up to the subdivision are all single story.

It's compatibility with the neighborhood.

The other issue I have is we have not met with a developer, they have not contacted us.

We all have our phone numbers listed.

Um, none of us have heard from them at this time.

It would be nice if we knew what they were proposing and how we felt.

But they're taking and taking us out of the picture at this point in time.

So that's all I have to say.

Thank you very much for your time.

Can I support the answer?

Okay.

Were you the next other one signed up?

Okay, okay.

All right.

You told me I could say we're not gonna bring out the palm palms, but that's that was good.

Okay.

Our next speaker is Rodney Gordson.

Uh Rodney Gertzon, same address.

Uh yeah, as she said, uh the nice young lady will speak to us someday, but my calendar doesn't have a some day on it.

Uh the like Nancy said, the lots crossed star are compatible semi-ther one-acre lots.

Toll brothers put in half acre lots.

Um I would like to see low density, and according to the flat map up there, there was also a a street coming into the back side of our lots there.

I don't know what that's all about.

Um the density problem out there.

You just said 1700 acres, 10 people per acre, uh, 17,000 people.

I'm on an acre and a third with two people.

Uh, and if they're gonna put eight lots per acre, I don't think that's gonna make 10 people per acre on an average.

So uh and with the what you've done previous tonight, we're looking at about 1,500 lots.

So uh in our area.

So I I don't know.

And then the irrigation where they're gonna put the park irrigation district has a pressure pump down there that feeds the subdivisions in there.

How's all that gonna work?

What and what's gonna happen to our arigation?

We have because that runs comes down along Star heading south and then feeds us.

So are they gonna maintain that?

Is irrigation district going to maintain that?

What's gonna happen with all that stuff?

Ms.

Durchy will be up and hopefully answer some of those questions, or we'll have staff help help with those.

Okay.

Okay, is there anyone else for that would like to speak?

Yes, sir.

We have Matt.

No, no, you get to wait.

I have a lady.

I always have the ladies first, so okay.

You set back down.

Okay, here we go.

You smoosher.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Will my three minutes have to include uh speaking about errors that we're talking about?

Lori Brennan 5120 East Feather Creek Lane, NAMP, Idaho, 8360.

I think we need to repeat that.

What do they address?

Lori Brenner, 5120 East Feather Creek Lane, Nampa, Idaho.

Will my three minutes have to include making corrections to things that were misspoken tonight?

You that's your choice.

Okay, really?

In my does but does it have to be included in my three minute time?

Yes.

Okay, uh, first thing um tonight.

Um I I wish Miss Sturgey would have met with us prior because she misspoke tonight.

I don't know that it's fault of hers, but she said that the land to the south was Canyon County.

It is not, it is City of Nampa.

I live in the city of Nampa.

All of the lots and acreages on Feather Creek Lane are in the city of Nampa.

It was not um Councillor Bills, it was not a typo on the 16-hour response time.

There was a robbery in progress.

I'm the one who called the police at approximately 10 o'clock at night.

They came at four o'clock the next afternoon.

City of Nampa.

Let me make it clear.

I live in the city of Nampa on Feather Creek Lane.

We pay taxes in the city of Nampa on Feather Creek Lane.

I would like to address the issue of compatibility between the proposed Creek spend subdivision and the existing neighborhood on Feather Creek Lane and Silver Spur.

We are on a 30,000 square foot, maximum lot size.

So Creek Spend is butting up.

Our subdivision is 30,000 square foot, minimum lot size.

That's all that's all the smaller we can go.

So that is the neighbor.

That is the compatibility that I believe that you are looking at tonight.

NAMPA subdivision code recognizes the importance of compatibility between adjoining residence developments.

Specifically, the code includes verbiage for subdivisions when they are adjacent to existing larger lot neighborhoods.

In those cases, the city requires new lots to be at least 80% of the size of adjoining lots, demonstrating a clear qual quick clear policy of transition.

I believe that creates an important question for you as the council tonight.

Does the development provide an appropriate transition to adjacent homes?

And is it consistent with the goals and thoughtful planning?

You ask us on the highway 16 changes.

Come to us, tell us what you want.

We came.

We said compatibility.

We said like with like it got written up.

Thank you.

We appreciate that.

I encourage you to consider whether this proposal meets the minimum technical requirements of the code, but also whether it preserves the character and the compatibility.

In addition, um, Miss Dirchy, who I met and I very much liked, was to meet with us.

I feel that a lot of the things that we're very concerned about are not going to be addressed at this meeting.

That's later on, but what should be addressed is medium density next to low density.

We are low density.

We are city of Nampa.

Um I'd like to also mention that um council that your time's almost absolutely.

Okay, Councilman Scogg, you are right about the schools.

I called the Valley View School District.

They are packed, they cannot bust students to another school.

That does not work out.

We have um hardship issues for the emergency time is okay.

Thank you.

Follow up to that.

Do you have the date of that robbery that you spoke about?

I can I'm sure that the um that the city does, but I called it in.

Um it was robbery in progress, and it was about four o'clock the next afternoon when they came.

Do you know about you can talk talk to okay?

But just to make it clear, it was city called, and it we live in the city.

Okay, so just not a city address.

What I'm hearing is you're paying city taxes, and then you are you are in the city limits.

We are in the city limits.

We are in the city limits.

Okay, and I have a I have a nod that that is the case.

So you that has been confirmed.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, sir.

We're ready.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

My name is Fred Deep Hold.

I live at 4765 East Fortuna Drive.

I've lived in this immediate area as a subject project property almost 30 years.

And none of this was there back then.

It was all fields.

Um I live uh, I have nine family members that live in the immediate family area in three different homes.

All of us, along with the neighbors that I've spoken to, we support the comp plan change back to what it was.

It has been medium density for years and years.

And I actually have the 2019 and the 2021 companies.

Um, but I'm sure staff has that as well.

Um did you know that there are already 359 acres already designated in this immediate area, approximately a square mile in the Napa City Comprehensive Plan as community mixed use.

And the does the uh definition of that in the future land use map is it is designates land over 50 percent commercial and five to 50 percent high density residential, that's apartments, and or light industrial.

And to add um to keep this in commercial and add to that 359 acres, to me is just too much.

We believe that the neighborhood needs more open space and walking paths, some of the subdivisions, including um Silver Spur and Silver Star, they don't have any, and they were approved before the city um implemented the the need and the uh requirement for open space.

So the residential development here could bring us as much as eight acres of open space.

Uh so we we strongly support reducing the comp plan back to what it was as residential for the last many many years.

And as far as that you guys were talking about that 10 mile path and then that corner with the the open space.

Um, I think if you look, I thought I heard in the uh planning and zoning meeting that there's a designation there for an enhanced area that supports the walk path.

We love that in the neighborhood.

We need more of those walking paths, so we definitely rather see eight acres of open space than some overpriced dentist office in the neighborhood.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else?

Yes, come on up, please.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

Uh my name is Christelle Hughes, 5371 East Burnt Peak.

I'm gonna lower this because I'm a little bit short.

Say your name one more time.

Christelle Hughes, 5371 East Burnt Peak Street.

And we are our property actually bucks up on the north side of where this proposed um change wants to take place.

Um I just want to speak on uh the traffic currently, like as we noted, we're off of Star Road.

It's a very, very busy um street as it is, 45 miles an hour.

Uh but we've had quite a few um accidents just with like teenagers learning how to drive, um, and then just the nonstop um traffic that we have also is you know, Star Road feeds into star, and then also is gonna be feeding into the traffic going south where there's cherry uh lane and everything there.

Um but pretty much what I wanted to say is that there's just already enough houses there.

We have so many things.

I would like to kind of see to one of the other residents that it's taking it back to low density um instead of looking at commercial or even medium density, just because we already have so many homes and with the families um that we have children, like we're looking at more houses, we're gonna be bringing in more families, more children means we need more schools.

Um so I'd rather see more um open space and things like that to be able to accommodate uh the families that they want to, but we need to actually create the I guess you could say the infrastructure before we can actually bring in more um homes like that.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Yes.

My neighbors have done a very nice job.

So Valerie Griffith, 5355 East Feather Creek Lane.

Um one thing about the medium density, and I know that the developers talked about I live on Feather Creek Lane.

I'm one of the, you know, we have two-acre lot, and my neighbors are you know 1.353, two big lots.

Um my concern is something you said tonight, as that if this is actually approved for medium density, that there's no low density development allowed.

That was in one of your slides.

Is that true?

Okay, so I'm sorry.

So it was said in one of the slides that I recall that that if it is approved as medium density, there's no way that we can work to get a strip of low density along what backs up to our two, three acre lots.

And that and maybe that's uh just very quickly, let's not get sidetracked too much here.

But uh legal uh as far as on that, as far as the council, if they want to make a condition as far as uh changing changing that.

Is that is that possible?

Mayor.

Yeah, this is a um open-ended legislative item.

So if you want to add that, so sounds like the you know that that can be done, even though that I I did read that too, no low or no high.

Okay, okay.

That was my only concern because it's like we can have conversations, but if it's not allowed, and I appreciate your time.

Okay, thanks.

Okay, last chance.

Yes, sir.

This is David Brennerman, 5120 East Feather Creek Lane.

I just like to make brief statement.

So we are in the city, as my wife said.

Uh we get no city of services, no water, no sewer.

And also the other concern is traffic, and some people say highway 16 will take the new highway and take a lot of it off.

But Star Road, everybody from the subdivision will have to go use Star Road to either get on at Franklin or Eust.

So I think it'll just increase the traffic on uh Star Road.

So have to take that in consideration too.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Anyone sitting on the edge of their chair?

Okay.

All right, so that was a public testimony.

So our applicant, uh, Mrs.

Dershe.

And let me just compliment you on your presentations.

I know when I was on council, I was very impressed, and uh you're very detailed, and I'm sure you're gonna answer every question that's been been uh brought up, right?

Mayor, don't put pressure on me.

My goodness.

I will try my best.

And thank you for the wonderful compliment.

Um again, um, Mayor Council, I thank you for your time and consideration.

Again, we're this is application is just for the comp plan map amendment.

Um later on, we'll have a preliminary plat.

A lot of the logistics of like irrigation water, water rides, drainage, that'll be addressed at that time.

And I don't want I don't want the neighbors to feel like I'm ignoring them because I'm always pro-neighbor, I always want to work with the neighbors.

And um for the comp plan map amendment, a neighborhood meeting wasn't required.

I was kind of under the gun under constrained at times.

I didn't have time, but the neighbors have contacted me.

I've spoken with them, I've gotten all their information.

So my plan is um, we probably I probably won't even look at the application until later on this fall.

My plan is to meet with the neighbors first that are adjacent that have contacted me with our landscape architect to kind of go through the site plan, think of transition, think of buffering, what would work with them, what won't create some layouts, and then once there's a consensus, do a neighborhood meeting, meet with the city, and do a full application.

Um again, that's my roadmap, but um we have to get through this point first before I have to go through those points.

Now I think the neighbors and but we and we are our tent are actually complimenting one another.

Right now, this site is slated for high density commercial, means multi-family.

We do not feel that this is appropriate for this location.

Taking a look, being familiar with the Silver Star application, the with the low density, we just do not we agree with them that there needs to be better transition, and I feel that that can be achieved with the medium density designation that we have with the right planning, with the right um thoughtful um input from the neighbors and working together as a team.

Um that is my intent.

Um I promise I will contact them, they will talk to me um numerous numerous times because trying to find that consensus and making a great project for you guys, making it easy for you.

That that's always my goal.

Um sometimes it's hard to find that consensus, but uh it's always my always my effort, and I always try to do that.

Um as far as um impact fees, um, great conversation, and when we have a dialed in preliminary plat, I will calculate the impact fees um with our in applications, so you will have those numbers at that time.

Um let's see.

And then as far as the lots in Canyon County, I apologize.

I thought they were in the county.

It sounds like they are not on city services, so I don't know if they're fully annexed.

They might have a city of Nampa address.

I'll have to look into that.

So um I apologize if I am incorrect on that.

And again, um, just the compatibility and use.

Um, we're really excited.

I feel like I'm gonna deliver a great product that you guys will all love, and that the neighbors um will love as well.

So I'll stand for any questions.

And if I missed anything, Mayor, please let me know.

I think you were very, very thorough.

I just uh what I'm what I'm hearing from you though, you're asking for of course a medium density.

I realize the platinum and everything will happen.

But what what I'm hearing from you, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you're gonna be speaking with the neighbors, maybe at least close to the fall, maybe the end of summer, close to the fall, but you also will work on the compatibility fall, okay.

Compatibility as far as where those one to five-acre lots are.

Yes.

We're not going to put a bunch of uh two-story houses.

Correct.

Uh up next to them.

Yes, and I think that um my um colleague, my landscape architect.

We come up with some really creative solutions that can mitigate and create buffering.

Um again, it's that give and take, that balancing act that um sometimes is hard to do.