Council - Regular Meeting

You're kind of a busy calendar, but I'll make sense.

Yeah, good.

How are you doing?

Okay.

All right. 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 second time at this, so thank goodness I have this dear lady, Char, beside me, and then this guy who ran it for several months. They'll just kind of kick me underneath the table if I I misbehave. All right. Hey, we're going to start this out. And we have a special kind of a just a special little treat tonight. We have Butch and Cheryl Shireman with us. And you wonder why I have both of them, because this morning I asked 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 because of their singing. So before he prays, we're actually going to stand and going to sing God Bless America together for this 250th.

Please join in with us as well. It's up on the screen.

God bless America. land that I love. Stand beside her and guide her through the night with the light from above. From the mountains to the prairie White with foam. God bless America, my home sweet home. God bless America, my home sweet home.

Thank you so much, and thank you, Cheryl, for joining us. We're going to have to do a Do That special sometime. You guys are wonderful. Thank you.

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 have graciously provided to us. We thank you for the godly founders who acknowledged and declared these truths, and for every generation since then that has 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.

Amen.

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

Thank you both again. We have a great country to be proud of. Okay, now we're ready for roll call. So Madam Clerk, you would call roll.

Skog. Here. Pangula.

Yes, here.

Bills.

Here.

Reynolds. Here. Rodriguez. Here. Griffin.

Here.

Okay, all present.

All right. Okay, proclamation time. Can 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, it may still maybe reach me. Okay, so this is Parks and Recreation Month. And this is much longer than I would have written it, but it's great wording, so we're going to read all of it. 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. wherein parks and recreation programs build healthy, active communities that aid in the prevention of chronic disease, provide therapeutic recreation services for those who are mentally or physically disabled, and also improve the mental and emotional health of all citizens. And whereas parks and recreation programs 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, Daryl 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 going to just move some houses. Thanks, Jim. All right.

All right, I'm Jennifer Ayala, business manager for Nampa Parks and Recreation. Mayor and city council members, thank you for 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, 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, play and 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. And everyone from Parks, come up. We're going to get a photo here. It's happening to take about two more shots since I'm mayor now, so. All righty, moving on to our agenda here. Any, first of all, any proposed changes to the main agenda? Nope. Oh, public court, thank you so much, Char. 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 went, I'd never buy a Canon printer again. Okay, so good evening Mayor and members of the Napa 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 ever fear being attacked because of us.

Melissa, I'm sorry.

You need to state your address.

I need to what?

Your address. I should have reminded you. You said your name, your address.

Oh, okay. 15 5th Street North, Unit 210, Napa. Okay, so they were brutally beaten in Caldwell, and that should 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. Your responsibility is to protect every resident equally. I respectfully ask the council to move forward with a 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. Our nation was founded on the principle that all people are created equal and deserve equal protection under the law. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection and our public officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. 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. Your oath to the Constitution, which protects the rights of every American, regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other characteristic. 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 passing of non- or weakens them, 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. It would tell those who spread hatred and intimidation that they do not represent the values of this community. We cannot stop every act of violence, but we can choose what we stand for. We can choose fairness over fear, justice over prejudice, and courage over silence. I ask each of you tonight to look beyond politics, beyond ideology, and beyond personal differences. Please lead with the principles of equal justice. and human dignity that define our Constitution. Let Napa become a city known not only for its growth and prosperity, but also for its unwavering commitment to protecting the civil rights and safety of every resident. 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 seconds. Yeah. Anyway, I know you take a lot of time in putting all that together, so thank you for sharing tonight.

Darryl, I sent you all, through the clerk, a draft non-discriminatory 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 we can move on. So now we'll get to the agenda. Any proposed amendments, changes to the main agenda? Council? I'm seeing none.

Okay.

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.

Aye.

I get to move to several pages here. All right, we do have some staff communications. And first of all, we get to hear from Daniel Badger. And regarding engineering, M&M Water System is what is on my sheet. Excuse me, Mayor. Yes. Yes.

You have a question 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 direction?

It's a good question. Daniel, why don't you stand up and what's your opinion as far as the question from Councilman Rodriguez?

So Mayor, Councilman Rodriguez, at the budget hearing the last time I was not here and there was some questions about kind of the history of the M&M water system and why we have it. And so this was just a staff report to provide context for why that 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 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 history. There's no action items, anything. It's just an educational thing for the council on 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, so that would be part of the budget hearings 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. Yep.

Thank you. Daniel, this is a fairly short summary. Yes, it is. I want to get another gentleman up here pretty quick.

It's a fairly short summary. So back in 2003 and 2004, the city of Nampa was in need of some water down around Carriage Hills. There was development happening there and we needed a new well in that area. United Water at the time, who is now Veolia, had a number of water systems in the city of Nampa's impact area, four specifically, that we, Carriage Hills as well being one of those, And so the public works director at the time, Michael, 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 our impact area, that we would be the water provider there. The developers out in that area that developed the later phases of Carriage Hills, Fall River, a number of those developments out there, funded the acquisition of those water systems. The four water systems were the Carriage Hills well, the Coventry Place well, which is at Ruth and Sunny Ridge, the M&M system, and the Belmont Heights system, which is out off of Victory and serves Britannia, Belmont Heights, and Lexington Meadows out there. And so those are the four systems that the city purchased. That's why we have them. M&M was not one that was necessarily one that 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. In later years from that, 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. And so that's the outside city services agreements that we sometimes bring before city council. 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 developments and our boundaries touch, we will annex those properties into the city. There's already been consent given, 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. And so that's kind of the history of why we have that system. M&M is a smaller system. The other ones are a little larger or the well facilities are a little different. But that's what we have there. Are there any questions regarding that?

Mayor? Yes, President. So Daniel, a clarification on the Belmont Heights, 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 after we purchased 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. M&M is the only one that is independent and not interconnected to the rest of the city system at this point. Cost to, the city crews ran the water line out to Belmont Heights. 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. 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 was connected to the same lines there, but 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, Ones highlighted in red are those original systems that we purchased from United Water. They do not have annexation agreements in place. 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 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?

I can find the purchase agreements that we had with United Water. We can find those and forward those out to council. They are fairly basic, 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.

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

So, so there, 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 paying those rates for ever since that subdivision came in. Right.

Ever since we purchased those systems. Yes.

Okay. If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to take a look at it. Thank you.

Any further questions? Yeah, I'm going to change the order just a bit here because we have a special occasion. And so Matt Jamison, if you wouldn't mind coming up, we're going to move to action item 5-2. And he wasn't probably quite ready this soon, but Rodney will be right after that. Happy birthday, Matt Jamison. And I understand you have a son's baseball game also.

Yes, I do, Mayor. My son does have, it's the only evening game he has this summer.

Okay, let me read what the action item is. 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 fiscal year 26 budget.

So moved.

Second. Want to get you to the game early, okay. Any other discussion? Okay, roll call, please.

Yes. Yes. Rodriguez. Yes. Griffin.

All right.

Thank you. Yes. Have a great 35th birthday. Okay.

I'm sorry. I'm still doing roll call. Bills.

Yes.

Reynolds. Yes. All in favor. Motion carries.

Thank you. Sorry about that, Sharon. Okay. Now we're ready for you, Rodney. I do like to move things along, but I need to have proper protocol here.

Thank you, Mayor and Council, Rodney Ashby, Planning and Zoning Director, for the record. I want to report first on 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 located southeast of Iowa Avenue and Chicago Street. This has come before you before, and it was in your consent agenda tonight, and you approved it. that was recommended for approval. The other one was subdivision Schwartplatz. It was an industrial development, kind of a small subdivision. This was 805 Park Center Way and for some industrial buildings that was recommended for approval and 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?

Questions from Council? Hey, thanks Rodney.

So the next one is, 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 we've told you before, but there's been a lot of work done to this point. The steering committee made a recommendation. I did get one comment from council today, 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, and I'm gonna skip over this. We're just on these 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, 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. So we're gonna cover under connected and accessible each of these different subtopics pretty quickly. So these are the draft objective topics. So the first one is transportation choice. Second, financial stewardship, transportation and land use connections, safety and inefficiency, 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 bikes, vehicles, right now we have buses, we even have an 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. or excuse me, transportation choices. So improve public perception and awareness of multimodal transportation options. That was one of the recommendations, objectives from the steering committee. So going on to the next one, financial stewardship, still under connected and accessible. So financial stewardship, prioritize preservation of existing transportation infrastructure. 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 asked them to put this roundabout on this slide just because of the benefit of cost long term for roundabouts versus versus signals. 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 intersections. It may be additional lanes. We've learned from the Public Works Department and engineering that those intersections are really the key to opening up roadway efficiency. Next is transportation and land use connections. Support transit oriented and walkable development patterns. Align parking policies with transportation and land use goals. We did this just a couple years ago where we adjusted the number of parking spaces to align with the type of land use that was being developed. So you might have a really small single bedroom apartment that has far less parking requirements than a three bedroom apartment or a single family home. 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. I CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN HERE. AND 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 a park that my kids played on over the years and we used to roll down that hill right there. I love this place, I love this connection and it also connects to my good friends 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. Improved transportation safety, all kinds. Improved traffic operations and corridor performance. Improved safety and compatibility along freight corridors. And then next, use technology to improve transportation system operations and safety. That's the TMC course. Prepare transportation infrastructure for emerging technologies. 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. Foster well-designed neighborhoods with diverse attainable housing choices, quality infrastructure and accessible public services. Emphasize safety, walkability and livability while ensuring reliable utilities and emergency response capacity. So complete and resilient neighborhoods. As directed by the council, we are taking out affordable because of the context or the connotation that's implied with that word. So we're gonna take that out of everything 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 wanna 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 trying to identify that need and address it in the comprehensive plan. 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 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, this is the comment that 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 what do you mean by choice where it says transportation choice? So my response to this, I just threw this together this afternoon, so I apologize if it's not real clear, but hopefully we can get at it. Planning must consider the needs of the city 25 years into the future. We have to think about that. So 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 right-of-way needs if we have transit in the future? And so 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? It costs less to plan for it now than to retrofit the system when it is needed. That's the goal here. And then at the end here, 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. I think attainable and accessible are questionable. Also, again, 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... You set the policies for the city. I am not here to set policy. I will provide a little bit of context I think you should consider. 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. So it's on the minds of the people. The city's role, 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 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. Just a couple of key points. Nampa's median household income is 82,000. The average cost of a home, 403,000. The average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Nampa, 1,345 a month. The average is 82,000. The residents of Nampa, the average median household would barely be able to afford the 1648 estimated mortgage on a $275,000 home. So that's the challenge we're facing. It's so hard. There's $275,000 homes in Nampa. Just go out and look at it and see how many of those you would be willing to live in. It's pretty bleak. So that's the challenge. I'm not saying that you need to change your policy, but this is what we heard from people. 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. One of my favorite comments that Mayor Hoegeboom made to me is he challenged me on something, he said, Listen, if we keep building the way we're building, then we're providing housing for people who are out of state to move into Nampa and we're not addressing the needs of Nampa residents. So I've really thought about that over this last six months or so, and I agree with him. I think 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, and I'm happy to take any questions. I've got Doug here too, I think, somewhere. Yeah, it's a woman, Scott.

Rodney, I just want to thank you for addressing those questions and apologize. I thought I had sent them the day I was supposed to and they didn't go through. But I do appreciate that and thank you for taking out affordability because what I can afford and what somebody else can afford can be very different. We will work together on figuring this out. There has to be an answer. Mayor?

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

I'm not sure I followed your question.

You just said that 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 that?

Sure, good question. So one of the ways is looking at that median household income.

Okay.

If our residents here make this amount, 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. 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 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 $10,000 increase in those three years.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Rodney, I do have. So rental, was it $1,325? Was that for a two-bedroom rental? $345, okay. And so someone making the average $82,000, at least in my math, that's not my strong point at all, but they would be able to afford that type of rental?

Yeah, I mean... 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, then they have to travel great distances for daycare. So 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 are on the market for a two-bedroom? for about that price. I think last I heard it was about 11% vacancy rate for rentals, but I'm not sure at this rate. Do you have any idea?

I don't know that.

All right, thank you, Rodney. Appreciate it.

Mayor, 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 an uptick in affordability, them being able to make more money, things like that. 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 a great question. I have not looked into that and I haven't coordinated these numbers with CWI, but I'm happy to. I mean, that's not a bad idea.

Yeah, I'm just curious if we're looking long-term. They've got a lot of new things happening, so.

Yeah, great. Thank you.

Thank you, Roger.

Mayor, is that Councilman Griffin? It is.

Let me see here. Sorry, I'm traveling down the freeway. Can you hear me better now? Yes. Mike Pena had sent me in June. The numbers for June were 7.5% vacancy on apartments, 4.5% 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, help me with MLS system, multiple listing service. Okay. Thank you. So housing right now, 1100 square footers, ARE GOING FOR ANYWHERE FROM 300 TO 400,000. THAT'S 11 TO 12, 1300 SQUARE FEET IS THAT PRICING. YOU MOVE ON UP INTO THE 1300 TO 1500 AND YOU'RE EASILY OVER 400,000. There's some homes in the marketplace for 300,000, but it's mostly 1,100 to 1,300 square feet, what's available. In terms of looking at those, it's not new product, it's product that was built 25 years ago, 30 years ago. and some have been upgraded and repurposed, some neighborhoods are still lacking in that repurpose side. So it's really very difficult in a lot of respects for the housing market as far as quote affordability. The difficulty is, from my perspective, the development community, The city of Nampa did not create the issue. Deficit spending changed what the dollar's worth across the nation. And that in itself has really taken a major issue to what's happening in the housing market. So when we talk affordability, it's a whole different game. So just trying to share a little glimpse Do you have a crystal ball in two years from now what it's going to look like, in your opinion? I think it's going to be very difficult. Candidly, 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 family members, thinking about grandchildren soon who are going to need housing, that type of deal, and looking at what's really available. And with us having still being a member of the MLS way, started looking at that. It's a 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 in 1920, but from there on, and I'm not stepping on toes for those who have moved here, but there was a period of time, there was 18 months of 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 timeframes that our marketplace changed and housing jumped. Housing that I had built and sold for 160 was now 340. That was over 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 on, it's the financial side and it's the still demand and the devaluation of the dollar. So... as far as where things are. I've had to for a different reason, I know I'm going on, but look at infrastructure costs, having price projects and different things. It's amazing what the cost of the hard goods are to physically improve the infrastructure. Cost structure is so much different five years ago. So is there anything on the horizon? Only if we have a massive recession. Massive recession. Otherwise, there's, and the government quits spending. Well, good luck with that. That's my opinion. Just FYI, that's what's happening in the marketplace as I see it. I'd start studying the issues.

Well, thanks for your studying. It sounds like you're incentivized to continue, so. Appreciate that information. Okay. We'll move on to action item five. One is Christie 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 Christie Della Cruz to the Napa housing authority for a five year term expiring on June 30th, 2031. Discussion.

Mayor.

Yes.

Just poking fun at it. I hope that in her answer here, she said that she's most interested in an affordable housing. Hopefully she's interested also in attainable housing.

Well, you might want to have a coffee with her sometime. All right. Well, roll call please. Madam clerk.

Yes. Yes. Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes.

Yes. Reynolds. All in favor. Motion carries.

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

So moved. Second.

Yes, we have a motion and a second. This is discussion time. Councilman Griffin.

Just following up, I know we previously had a discussion regarding this exact item in 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 scattering garden?

Cody, can you answer that, please?

Yes, Cody Swander, City of Nampa Parks and Recreation Director. Thank you, Mayor and Councilman Griffin. Yes, this is that project that was discussed during the capital 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 would just encourage... 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 bid process. Madam Clerk.

It was for approval.

For approval. Thank you. For comment, 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 CAPITAL BUDGET WORKSHOP.

OKAY. SO THE QUESTION MARK THAT I DIDN'T GET TO YOU TODAY, TODY, MAYOR, IS Some of these funds were already approved under 25 and 26, if I understood it correctly, going back, looking at the budget books. Is that correct?

Yes, Mayor, Councilman Bills, that is correct. Fiscal year 25 was allocated $300,000. Fiscal year 26, $368,600. And then with the remaining budget needed, $486,850 for fiscal year 27.

$486,000?

$486,850, yes, sir.

But I thought the bid is $713,000.

It is. A total of three years. 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 shy of the contract bid.

Mayor, Councilman Bills, my understanding is that the action taken during the capital workshop is that it would all be rescinded back to the streets project. 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.

I guess we need clarification. I had in my mind that what we polled was not the entire amount, but the portion that was being asked for for the 27 budget.

Mayor, council.

Chief of staff, Clay Long.

That is correct. So 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 difference is significantly less than what we anticipated with, I think it was originally 1.2 million is what we thought it was gonna be. And so, 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, but I'll leave it to Doug. 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 recouped into the larger bucket for deferred maintenance or other projects.

If I'm speaking, the discussion was to not approve the FY 27 year budget. And that's, that's perfectly within the council's accepted authority for FY 27. That amount was not approved in the capital budget for FY 27. we already have the pre-approved amounts from the prior to 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 through denying the entirety of this project.

Okay. So what I'm, what I'm seeing then is, is we got six, six 68 funded needing an additional 61,000 to meet the bid. And so we could pull 61 from 27 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 CFO Racine, there's also 90,000 approximately spent out of that 668 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.

That was already spent?

Yes, so far to date on the project, we have spent $90,984.88 for design and bidding services. I expect another approximately $2,800 to complete that because we just opened bids on the 25th of June. So that total would be $93,784.88 if those numbers come in where I anticipate. that's been spent out of the $668,600 that was allocated in the previous fiscal years.

So it's 90 plus the 60, so it's more of a 150, 160.

The number I come up with, Mayor and Councilman Bills, is $138,301.

Okay, is what we need out of the 27 monies that we asked to set those aside. Yes, sir. Okay.

Clarification. Yes, Councilman. I think that money was taken out of the 25, but the 25 allotment, not 27, right?

We were on the 27 capital budget.

Right.

And the money being asked for that, we asked to set aside. Right. And in the process, 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. I didn't know about today and doing my own math was the 90,000 that's already been spent on the design.

Can I ask one question on that? Just for clarification, Cody, when exactly was that 90,000 spent?

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

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. We just need an additional $60,000 on top of the existing budgetary authority.

That's correct.

To make that land. So not 135, just in addition, because you already spent the 90,000 the prior year.

Which was a part of that.

Right. So, yeah, it's 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.

Mayor, Councilwoman Skog, if I'm following everybody's logic correctly, we would need an additional 60-some thousand dollars from fiscal year 27 to get us to that 713, 177 total. Thank you. Everyone understands pretty much the choices? Okay. So we got a bid amount.

and plus 90,000 is the total for the project, correct?

That's correct, Councilman Bills.

I just want to make sure that it's 60 that we're allocating or if we need to be allocating the 134.

And clarify, I thought I heard originally 46,000. It's 60,000 or what? What's the exact that would need an amendment or whatever for...

With my math, because we have already spent the 93,000 roughly on the design and bid services, we would need the 138,301 from the fiscal year to make up the 713,107. Yeah, I'm not understanding.

Cody, let's start over just quickly. How much was the total bid?

Okay, the total bid from King Concrete Construction was $713,117.

What does that include? Does that include any of the $90,000 already spent?

No, it does not. Okay, great. That's just for construction.

So that's the $700,000. And how much have we budgeted for in the two prior years?

$668,600. $668,000. We spent $90,000, so we have $578,000 left.

So the difference is between 578 and the 707,000? Okay, so it is 130, yeah. Right, 134. Yeah, that's what I thought. Mayor?

So if we say no to this project, we pull back the money that 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. 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.

Okay, any other discussion? Are we ready for a roll call? Yes.

I just have a comment. So there's probably nobody at the dais that cares about deferred maintenance more than myself. I fought for a billion dollar deferred maintenance number for the state. We were able to finally get that done with some ARPA dollars. And 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 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 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 that we've spent on this. There's people in this city that want a scattering garden and that 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 we should get this done.

Mayor Brunner. Yes. Infrastructure is a priority of mine, not just yours. The other thing 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, what, three or four years? So it's a good deal. I'm for it.

Any further discussion? Are we ready for roll call? Okay. Madam clerk.

No.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

No.

Yes. Reynolds.

Yes. It's four to two.

Oh, yes. I can't.

That's because you're sitting next to me. It rubs off.

Thank you, City Council.

Thank you, Colby. Okay. We're going to 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 going to go ahead and move on to 5-4, which is an action item authorized mayor to sign contracts 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? Yes, we do have questions.

Crystal, I just typically will 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, Council, for the record, Crystal Craig, Director of Transportation. Councilman Bills, I don't have that number on me. I don't believe this was his whole bid. There were multiple bids on this. We just had to wait until after our April 20th meeting when we got approval to sign the grant before it could be executed. It was bid back in February, I want to say.

Okay. I just wanted to see how things came out and who the other bidders were. So if you don't mind just emailing that information, that'd be helpful. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Any further questions? Are we ready for a motion? I 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.

Yes.

Rodriguez.

Yes.

Griffin.

Yes. Yes. He's quiet.

God. Yes. Reynolds. Yes. All in favor. Motion carries.

Okay. We'll get you counseling after my sitting next to him. Wow. Okay. We're ready for public hearings and I, and I'm the type, I don't like to see folks sitting for a long time when, when they're potentially maybe a short public hearing. Do we have the applicant here for public hearing four, variants of NCC? I knew I was gonna get you. Oh, Crystal, it's not you? Okay. No, we don't? Okay, so we'll just go back to public hearing 6-1 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 density residential in the Highway 2026 specific area plan. annexation and zoning to bc of course community business and rs6 single family residential zoning districts and a development agreement for madison ranch estates at zero madison road and zero highway 2026 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 there an applicant here? Thanks. So you know the name and address. Mr. Mayor?

Yes. It's a point of order. Yes, sir. Per our bylaws... Our councilman that's online for a public hearing needs to have his camera on for section 1.08 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?

Yes, let me pull over real quick. Mayor, 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.

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.

Good evening. I'm William Mason with Mason & Associates. Our address is 924 3rd Street South in Nampa. We're here tonight on behalf of Boise Valley Land Holdings to request a comprehensive plan 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 attempting to do.

I apologize we just got some technical difficulties and maybe we could start over his time I we're it's going to take us just a minute to bring up his presentation.

As far as technical difficulties and the public not being able to hear the applicant or what.

No, it's just technical Dick difficulties on getting his presentation up on the screen.

So sorry we would had snacks or something for you if I would have known sounds like there's difficulty hearing as well. Sounds like that there's difficulty hearing for people to get Mister mayor can 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 OK Paul Paul are you able to turn up the mics. Well, everyone's mic, and maybe if Darrell here will speak a little into the mic, that'd be nice. So everyone speak close to your mic. Okay. Okay. Well, we're just a 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 & Associates, 924 3rd Street South in Nampa. We're here tonight on behalf of Boise Valley Land Holdings to request a comprehensive plan change and text amendment. The project is located south of Highway 2026 and east of Madison Road. Highway 2026, when ITD started doing the designs to 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, the city... engineer and the highway district want a frontage road that lines up in the commercial area that shown on your comprehensive plan map and so Doug if you can show the overall comp plan map that I have on page 3. So you can see the red area in the corner there is commercial. There's actually a proposed frontage road that would cut that bisected 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. On top of that, down in our south corner, there's a RNL are in use own that requires commercial in it and if you can see in the easterly side, there's a out parcel that's in the North East corner of that red and rectangle and that's owned by a different owner 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 residential. And then down below, taking that whole area from an RMU, which requires that commercial 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 come up with. The green roads are the collector. So on your left-hand side, that's the commercial frontage road. Then down to the center is a collector road that someday we'll 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, they're anybody's guess when that's gonna be developed. On the left hand side, that's private property and large estate lot. So that frontage road isn't going to go into Franklin for some time. The red in the middle, is on an out parcel, so it's not going to go to Franklin any time quickly. The green is across the street from an 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 Linden over Linden to Madison and back to the north, which is about two miles. So we don't believe that that would happen quickly. The other thing is there's a question about whether there would be a full 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 right 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 TAKE THE TESTIMONY.

MAYOR BOONER. YES, COUNCILMAN. I HAVE FOUR QUESTIONS, AND WELL, AFTER I READ THIS.

SPEAK INTO YOUR MICROPHONE.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? OKAY. 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 going to ask you to decipher the other as well. Not right now. Answer this question. What's the purpose?

The purpose is that the RMU zone requires 5% of the property to be a commercial property. And 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 123 feet of frontage on the north side of our approach and about 230 feet of frontage on the South side of the approach.

Okay. So you're changing 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 residences to the east are large residential. We wanted to try not to put a commercial building next to an estate type residential.

OK. And then you want to go to the commercial and residential mixed use to medium density Residential so you're taking that out is that the objective to make a residential correct all right and then regional commercial and residential mixed use to medium density residential the highway 2026 Pacific area plan.

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

That specific area plan I had the 40 acres and 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 zoning to BC community business and RS 6 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 then 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 of the amendment that you initially started with. Now you're changing because you're not able to comply with 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 amount of commercial down to residential. Correct. With a small amount of commercial. Correct.

A smaller amount of commercial. It is about 20 acres.

Thank you. 20 acres. Yes. Of commercial. Correct. Yeah.

Okay. I get it now. Thank you.

I'll turn my mic on. Further questions?

Council?

Okay, are we ready for Doug to come up then and give the staff report? Or are you going to just do it from right there, Doug? Okay.

So Mayor and Council, Doug Critchfield, Principal Planner over Long Range Planning. So the project before you, you've seen some of the graphics for it, has some changes to the comprehensive plan. One thing that we wanted to note on this is that the applicant had originally applied for annexation And they have withdrawn that application, or they'd like to move that. And they'd like for the council to have a motion to continue that to August 17th. So what they're looking for this evening really is just the comprehensive plan and the specific area plan map amendments this evening. So I just wanted to clarify that for the council. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard this on April the 28th. They recommended denial because the proposal conflicted with the intent of the 2026 specific area plan and the 2040 comprehensive plan. And I'm not getting any action on this thing. So Rodney, could you forward that? There we go. Okay, so the current jurisdiction is Canyon County. There are large lots that are immediately to the east of this parcel. There's a lot of ag ground still up in this area. And the Cherry Grove City subdivision is off here to the east of the project. It's adjacent to the combination of these parcels here. And then on the west side is the county subdivisions. We've had some comments from the residents that live out there that are interested in maintaining the commercial site. And they expressed some interest in maintaining the comprehensive plan the way that it is. So you can see here the major roads just for orientation here. Butts up against Highway 2026, Madison, and Franklin. So in the specific area plan, there are three land uses, as Council Member Rodriguez was discussing. They're a little bit different in the specific area plan than they are in the comprehensive plan, just the names are different. But their essential functions are pretty much the same. 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. Then over in the RMU. That's a standard residential mixed-use, which is two and a half to eight dwelling units per acre So the density would change If that were approved the density would changed in the purple 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 schools Warhawk Elementary and Okay, future land use, similar designations, it's just that it's commercial up against 2026. So the request to reduce the commercial acreage from 40 to 20 is what the applicant is asking for, and change the residential mixed use to medium density residential. The agency comments that we received on that, because this is just a comprehensive plan map change, they were limited. ITD wants to do a traffic study that would have to be produced when the plat with annexation and the conceptual plan comes forward. In long range planning, there was again some concerns about the intent of the comprehensive plan with the 40 acres there. We have very little frontage on 2026. That's a regional roadway there. Both 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. 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. This is in your staff report. And there's some concerns about schools and traffic. And these are mostly related to a plat that would be presented. And it's understandable this originally came as a plat, but because it's a comprehensive plan, there's still some concerns about density and the impacts, accidents on roads. Ag preservation and those types of concerns from the public So the comprehensive plan just says that a map needs to be prepared indicating suitable projected land uses for the jurisdiction And that it's this map is flexible depending on the will of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the council the facts are stated in your staff report for this and It just kind of reiterates what it is that we've already talked about this evening. And the conclusion for this is that, again, this reduces that 40-acre... commercial area I think that we can live with the change in the residential mixed-use 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 availability of commercial in 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. They've submitted their information and all that, and they're subject to the state code and again to the will of the council this evening. There were no conditions approval provided, 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 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.

Yeah, Mayor, Councilmember Bills, that's correct. The highway district, they do have some restrictions on what they can do in this area. It does create a little bit of a problem without acquiring that eastern parcel that Will was talking about earlier. And so that does create some issues for us. The commercial, if it splits the commercial in half, the commercial back behind, it's going to get fewer hits from 2026. It may not be as valuable 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 till we get to step two, if I'm understanding.

That's correct. And Mayor, Council Member Bills, there will be a concept plan 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. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Further questions for Doug. Yes.

Okay. Uh, councilman Scott, did you, I saw you. Okay. You don't. Okay. We're going to move then onto you. Thank you.

Uh, I'm just curious. And now that we're changing the, the, the amount of residential, it says here at 323 detached single family and 51 common lots. Now that the developer would like to change the residential density, so what does that include now? What would be the number now?

Thank you, Mayor and Council Member Rodriguez. So we don't have a plot to evaluate at this point. We don't know how many lots now are going to be proposed as a result of this. These future land uses allow a range of residential development in terms of the lot size or the densities. So you'll be able to make that evaluation when that concept plan comes out.

I see. Okay. I was just curious. Thank you.

Yeah, you betcha.

No further questions? Okay, what we're going to do then is to move into public testimony. I will, and Madam Clerk helped me with this, we did receive, I take it these were not listed by Doug, but about seven comments 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 a zoning change as has been repeated several times that will be a be the next step. This is just on the comprehensive plan map request change in my correct on that Rodney. So we're ready ready for public hearing. How many are desiring to testify tonight, I just want to see a some hands. OK, not.

OK, yes, we do not have any advance signups.

No advance signups. OK, thank you, Madam Clerk. So what we'll do here is we'll start. I'm going to always start with ladies. And I saw a hand 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 even though there's not that many, just you're going to find it over time. 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. That's what happened last time I testified. It was much easier. But yes, I would be against these amendments too, just to not open that door. Number one, I think 20 acres is not very much, having been a farm kid and know what 30 acres and 40 acres look like. Two, I am also very concerned about the school situation. Ridgeview is full. So if this goes to medium density, you know, a whole bunch of kids would be having to be bussed over, you know, to Valley View High School because that has room. The growth is over on, you know, our side. And the district is under investigation for making probably a conflict of interest in unwise land acquisition over on the west side. anticipating development, which has been denied. So, you know, $5 million was kind of used on that, so I think good luck on a, you know, getting a bond passed in the future. So that's why I think, you know, I'm not seeing another high school being built in, you know, easily there. So, yeah, it's just, you know, we're okay with low density and the commercial as is. I think medium density with the... You know, this developer, I think, was going to go full bore on, you know, too many houses. And 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 back here? Okay. And it's in the name and address.

Paula Drinkard-Bonds, 8080 East Drinkard 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 to 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.

Yes, Councilman Rodriguez has a question for you. I didn't get your name or your address. You said it too fast.

Paula Drinkard Bonds, 8080.

Say your last name.

D-R-I-N-K-A-R-D Bonds, B-O-N-D-S. And your address? 8080 East Drinkard Lane.

Duh. Thank you.

Thank you. Hello, council. Beau Bonds, 8080 East Rinkard Lane. That was my wife. 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 we'll Why do we spend all that time and effort getting the comprehensive plan done? I was gonna say some stuff, cuz I thought we were talking about the annexation. And it's really frustrating cuz I had to take an unpaid day off from work today to be here. And then we changed, 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 Highline of States that you guys just approved three weeks ago, you said, well, it's not very good, not ethical for us to string the applicant along this far to just deny him at this point. I think we're opening that door for that same excuse again to say, well, we strung him 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 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 MORE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE. I THINK THE BUILDERS NEED TO BE ON THE HOOK FOR MORE EXPENSE. I just feel like there's just a lot of pressure on the people. You know, 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 the lifestyle that we have. You know, I have six acres, and part of my land is on the potential frontage road on the east end that goes out to Franklin Road. That's my land. I've never heard about 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 land without giving us any kind of heads up. So it's just real frustrating. And I just feel like it's not being heard. A lot of my neighbors, I drive around. I'm trying to recruit people. Hey, come to the meeting. It makes a difference. They want to hear what you say. 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 want to encourage you guys just to really stop and think before we just keep jamming more stuff, jamming more stuff. We've got ITDs doing the highway project. They're two years behind on that. There's a lot of issues, a lot of infrastructure issues and budget issues that we need to address. Put your 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.

Shelly Montclair, 19721 Madison Road. I want to say that I'm against it. And one thing that I didn't write in here, but a lot of us fear the fact that if it is 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 string the farmer along and and to not let him know ahead of time that maybe we went 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. 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, hold off, let's wait. The houses are not selling the way that they were. 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 keep us safe. We're the ones that live there day in and day out. The farmer and the builder do not. And I'm not saying, like I said last time, I'm not saying don't let them build, don't let them have, 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. Okay, so in fact, I run 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, Nampa 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 that's interested in presenting either for or against? If not, we'll have the applicant come back up and any Questions that you heard that you would like to respond to, that'd be great.

William Mason with Mason and Associates. The address is 924 3rd Street South in Nampa. I understand the concerns of the commercial areas and not having enough commercial in that area. The real reason here is the frontage and the 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. 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 so this is approved and down the line the annexation is approved are you even if it's just even the 20 acres. What it what are you what's your plan are you playing and putting in the commercial first or residential or what's the plan.

The residential would go in first and the sewer actually comes from the South and the Southeast and that's also where down the line, I realize you depend depends on a lot of things but when would you see commercial as far as starting to be a build out. I would probably anticipate it being about five years before a commercial property owner would be in there.

Questions for the applicant? I have a question either for Mr. Mason or for Doug. So clarification is, is changing the comp plan from RMU to a medium density Is there that much difference in the units per acre as far as residential and all of that, or is it basically the same?

Mayor and Council Member Bills, it's the same.

It's two and a half to eight dwelling units per acre. Both have that same thing?

Both do, yeah.

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

Can I answer that? So our frontage on Franklin is the LRMU zone. And so that's a city street. But our frontage is so small that we don't have visibility to Franklin. The staff report exhibits show a parcel that is not owned by our owner. It's actually owned by a private owner. It's about 600 feet long. 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 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.

Mayor and councilmember 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 guy. That's what the future land use map is as guidance and planning for an ideal and then reality hits and we have to find the best way through it.

Thank you. Mr. Mason, you'll find my year and a half doing this, I'm pretty blunt. So if you get denied tonight with the comprehensive plan, is your plan to still go ahead and move with the original comprehensive plan and also then ask or for annexation or what is your down the road plan?

I believe that's what our 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 that 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. All in favor?

Aye.

Okay. Council discussion, please. Mayor, I'd make a motion 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 medium density and commercial has been presented.

Okay. Do you have a second? I hear a second.

Discussion? I think if I'm understanding correctly, as I've asked the questions and so forth, when we've set up this comp plan several years ago, it had to be with the broad picture, without specifics, with the idea that as projects came in, specifics would come to light. 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 okay any further discussion mayor yes

I feel like that we're trying to squeeze in something that doesn't belong in this area and changing the comp plan is still gonna make this a difficult subdivision in this area. I do know that, I believe it's Caldwell built out in this area or approved 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, we I think it was really was accurate in that we do realize building is going to happen but I do believe and I agree we need to let the dust settle we need to give 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 the infrastructure. So I understand that we're just changing 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.

Okay, any further discussion? Ready for roll call, please.

Skog. No. Ngula. No. Rodriguez. No. Griffin.

No.

Reynolds.

Yes.

Bills.

Yes.

Do you favor or oppose? Motion fails.

Okay. Thank you all for all coming. And are we, go ahead.

We need a motion for denial.

Okay. Motion. Thank you, Rodney, since it was not approved. So one of you who denied it, will you please make a motion? Mayor, I move to deny.

I can't. We probably need to provide more.

I think it will end in a minute.

Do you need us to provide more?

You need a rationale for the denial motion?

YES, I WAS GOING TO PROVIDE ONE DISCUSSION CAME UP.

COUNCILMAN GRIFFIN STILL. IF YOU CAN SPEAK UP A LITTLE BIT MORE, IT WOULD BE GREAT.

IS THIS BETTER? YES. OKAY. SLIGHT TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES HERE. REASONING FOR DENIAL. with the, it's not conducive to the area. I think that issue was stated multiple times by not only residents, but the surrounding area. While factoring in the school, I know it's not necessarily a determination for denial, but I would like to cite to its relevancy here in terms 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 non-condusiveness to the area, impacts of surrounding residents and land uses, as well as the timing and impacts for other public services.

Second.

Okay, you might hear a second. Okay, you already had a second. Okay, so any further discussion? Otherwise, we'll do another roll call.

Gingula? Yes. Mills? No. Reynolds? No. Rodriguez?

Yes.

Fogg? Yes. Griffin?

Yes.

All in favor to oppose, motion carries.

Okay, again, thank you for being here. And Mr. Mason, thank you for presenting. Okay, does anybody on council here need a five minute break or are we ready to still move on? No, I hear no one saying yes or we're moving on. I thought we were gonna take a break. You gotta speak up, okay.

I always look to Victor. Victor's always the one that's both a little.

Three minutes after. There's a reason. It's like he was still driving, so I don't know what the story is. Okay, I think we have most of our council back, so we're gonna go ahead and continue. We're gonna continue, please. And we are going to make the change that I was originally, because our applicant is here. So we're going to move to public hearing 6-4. And if our applicant will come up, please. And then I will read this. And then we'll let you go ahead and make your presentation, sir. This is an action item on 6-4 for variance of NCC 10-33-4.C.3 in an IL-RS, a light industrial-residential zoning district addressed as 66 and 70th, 6th Street North for Ruben Shervec. I'm hopefully pronouncing that somewhat correct. Representing 6th Street Holdings, LLC. Original concept, 5 feet. landscape buffer from the property line due to the existing 15-foot landscape buffer on the right-of-way. Your name and address, please, sir.

My name is Ruben Scherbach, and the address is 5657 East Surfers Point Lane here in Napa. Thank you for being here. You may present. Mayor, council members, I'm here to ask for a code variance to reduce the landscaping buffer in front of the property. This is facing 6th Street North. My family has built over 50 units in the city of Nampa, multifamily units. We have originally acquired the property to do the same on this property as well. Unfortunately, we have found there's a lot of setbacks that would shrink the building size and the parking requirements for achieving a multifamily building. We've worked with the city on many occasions and trying to determine how to make the existing residential zone work. And it was unfortunately not something that we could come to a viable development on this specific property. However, there's potential for us to go into a different direction, and that is to put a light industrial building on this property. The challenge really is making the landscaping buffer work with the building and how it interacts. Specifically, the shape of the lot and being an obtuse shape with a lot of frontage in comparison to the rest of the property is really important. making it very difficult for us to develop an industrial building with the amount of parking spaces that would be required along with the required access to the back property. There's a third property that's north of the image that's shown on the screen. So there need to be, we have access on the east side of the property up against the cemetery. So there's a lot of restrictions that really begin to shrink. And with having the code required, 15-foot landscaping buffer furthermore impinges on the footprint of the building. So today I'm here to ask a variance to the code in reducing the burden of the landscaping buffer. I know we have what we've discussed determine there is some landscaping that would be required in the right-of-way. We're asking for a 10-foot reduction on our side of the property line. I've also discovered that there's an existing seven foot of landscaping in the right-of-way. There's some corrections to be made there to be able to line up the the adjacent property line to continue that sidewalk. So that was news to me. This is something that was discovered by the city. So with that, I... Any questions for the applicant?

Okay, appreciate that. We're going to have Rodney then bring the staff report. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. Rodney Ashby, Planning and Zoning Director, for the record. I think you've heard the request. Essentially, it comes down to reducing the 15-foot landscape buffer to five feet from back of sidewalk and then landscaping everything in the right-of-way up to the curb or the The edge of paper and so this is the the layout of the building that they're proposing the industrial building you can see their different dimensions. The 15 feet in green would be what they're proposing as landscaping that will occur. This is. is a little bit tricky as a as was indicated on that screen in red when I measured the distance from the back of the sidewalk up to the property line, it was much much less that I guess 3 feet less than what they were anticipating. So it would only be about 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 sidewalk is to the uh to the north uh northwest um A little closer view there of those measurements. So 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 what they're proposing is, well, it's zoned ILRS, which is kind of unique. Previous to me coming to the city, they allowed a property to be zoned two different zones. So it's made it really challenging for us as we've tried to apply code to those zones. But essentially, they could choose which zone to use in this situation. A couple years ago, we made that change. You can see all the different... 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. So the history on this. Again, prior to 2006 or even earlier, the ILRS label was given to some properties transitioning between industrial and residential, and then they would choose which one they wanted to use. 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. Then 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 we're applying to the property. But because they did 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 provide an exception to code or a variance from code where if you implemented it would be a hardship on the property owner. due to unique circumstances. We've worked with this property owner for many years trying to develop the property. It's been a challenging property to develop and we'll go into that. These are the variance criteria. You've seen these before. I won't spend a lot of time IL zone, no minimum property area, no minimum property width. Front setback is 10 feet plus one foot for every 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. So this is the 15 foot required landscape buffer from back of the property line. And code compliance indicated that there are some issues right now. Some of these issues will be addressed 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 there only 4 minutes away from this location pretty quick response time. Engineering indicated some conditions including the improvements along the right of way sidewalk curb gutter. Roadway. And They will follow that one to the to the northwest there the placement of that sidewalk. And then compliance with city codes and policies and standards. So staff analysis I told you about this one already the circle there red circle is where there's there's a 7 feet. So there's not that 10 feet that they were hoping for. Then this is this property has been to 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 a landscape buffer for of 25 feet if you're going to do a residential development in high density designation of our image for instance. 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 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 more stringent than those in the IL depending on the type of industrial development you have. So these are the proposed conditions. I've already hinted at all of these unlawful nuisance, and weeds will be addressed beforehand before we go through the annexation completely, or excuse me, the variance completely. And those are the proposed conditions. These are the facts. I've already touched on each of these, and I'll jump to the conclusion. take just a second there but essentially comes down to this shape of the parcel. The limitations because of the access I'll on the the eastern edge. The us all the setbacks in 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.

Yes. So I can visualize both industrial or residential in the plan view that is in our packet. Is this going industrial building?

It's going industrial. It would not that shape of that part of that building would not work for residential because you'd have greater setbacks all around essentially you'd have a 25 foot landscape buffer up front and then the 15 foot setback on the back.

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

Exactly okay.

Thank you. Any further questions, Council.

There's something. Defender Fire Department wants to know.

Anything from fire just he just Elijah just reminded me of his other condition that he placed on it, but 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. Mayor. Okay.

Is there anyone interested that has not signed up in testifying regarding this project? Seeing none. Do you have any more things to say as far as Mr. Shervick, as far as you would like to say?

Okay. Well, good. I move that we close public hearing.

Second. All right.

I'd make a motion to approve the variance as provided. All we're getting to say, I have an eye on the close of public hearing first.

I heard.

She's very influential, I know. Okay, so we have a 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 approve the variance as presented on the screen.

Second. Second.

Discussion? Roll call, please.

Gogg. Yes. Reynolds.

Yes.

Rodriguez. Yes. Griffin.

Yes.

Vengula. Yes. Bills.

Yes.

All in favor? Motion carries.

Councilman Griffin, are we seeing your face anymore?

I am. It just keeps falling down here. I had emailed Preston and you as well.

They're just really wanting to see you, so. ALL RIGHT. ARE WE OKAY IN MOVING AHEAD, LEGAL?

WHAT I'M HEARING IS COUNCILMAN GRIFFIN 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 MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THESE ARE YOUR BYLAWS TO ENFORCE, SO THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION.

All right, so we're going to move ahead. So we're on public hearing 6-2, and I will read that, and then we'll have the applicant come forth and state name and address and also present. 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. in a development agreement for a future subdivision addressed as 4300 East Victory Road and 0 North Picard Lane. For Jeff Hatch, with Hatch Design Architecture representing MWSS Nampa LLC, original concept, one commercial lot for the existing RV and boat storage use and 31 new industrial lots. Yes, sir.

Okay, Mayor Bruner, council members, thank you for hearing us this evening. My name is Steve Thiessen. I always do this. Is that better? Okay, my name is Steve Thiessen. I'm with Hatch Design Architecture, located at 200 West 36th Street in Boise. And this is for annexation and comp plan amendment. For the current, it's currently the open air RV storage just south of the runway. On 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.

You'll need to speak, I'm having the audience say it.

Okay.

So yeah, maybe.

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 slide please, Candace. As part of this annex, we're asking for IL zone for 15 acres and 2.6 acres of a BC zone. AND THAT IS TO ALIGN WITH THE EXISTING STORAGE USE THAT WOULD BE MOVING TO THAT. IT WOULD BE DOWNSIZING OBVIOUSLY AND MOVING TO THAT. CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY. I'LL DO THIS. LIKE I'VE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE. SORRY ABOUT THAT. Let's see here, where was I? Okay, and then this is to, the BC zone is to align the current RV storage. It'll be moving to the north. To accommodate that, we are asking for a future, an amendment to the future land use map to allow for a 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. There's been a lot of talk with the neighbors to the north and to the west about access. This is why this new plan that we're showing you today shows access in a different, different spot than what we previously presented. And this will allow for the trucks going to the west to not have 90 degree turns, and it'll align with the existing prescriptive roadway easement that's already in place. Also, in talking with Napa Meridian Irrigation District, 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, I think it's Burry, the Burry drain. And so that's why we had to make some minor changes to that. And I'll stand for questions.

Okay, any questions? Is it Mr. Peason?

Oh, Thiessen, T-H-I-E-S-S-E-N, Thiessen.

Mayor? Yes, sir. So I have several questions. You're asking for light industrial zoning?

Yes, with the mayor, council member Mills, yes.

Okay, and then 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 the concrete batch plant gonna be restricted?

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

They are saying that you're getting zoning that would allow a concrete mayor and Council.

Just to clarify the concrete batch plant is required to get a conditional use permit only in the heavy industrial zone, it's not allowed in the aisle zone anymore.

That's been removed from the correct. Okay. So then I guess what I'm seeing on this is it's a layout to put in potentially lots and split things up. So I don't know, is it a plat that's coming forward later?

Mayor, Council Member Bills, yes. We are presenting a preliminary plat after, you know, if we get approval for this application.

And then, I guess from my side, it's an open-ended with the IL. And so it sits obviously within an area of row residential next to the airport, next to other uses. And so I'm just trying to figure out how do we determine what are gonna be allowable uses so that we don't get hoodwinked and or something come along six, 12 months from now and we go, oh golly gee whiz, we didn't think of that. So trying to not disparage the applicant, but I'm trying to see that we don't have something pop up with that two column IL list of opportunities to do. Here.

Yeah, I would recommend that we list we hear the staff report first and then maybe we have that discussion about during deliberation about what land uses you're concerned of all get prepared and put up on the screen that list of land uses if we want to pick out any that are of concern.

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

That's correct. You can't add 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.

Mr. Thiessen, it says, that you have a zoning district for 2.6 acres and a development agreement for a future subdivision addressed at 4300 East Victory Road. Are you talking a residential?

Mayor, Council Member Rodriguez, this will be an industrial subdivision. with 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 few minutes, and now we'll hear from Candice. Thank you. You're on.

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 Candace Frye, 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 prelim 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 had 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.C, conclusions of law pertinent to the proposed zoning map amendment. Chapter 16 of Title 10 for the BC Zoning District and Title 19, excuse me, Title 10 is the IL Zoning District Chapter. And just a few more applicable regulations that the city code title 10 chapter 3 chapter 31 dash 3 is the airport and then the 1975 aviation easement instrument number 7, 5, 5, 2, 0, 1. 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 Lindsey 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 says the developer is asking for a zoning change to IEL and BC. Is it possible for the airport to recommend that P&Z 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 2, the height, the 7 to 1 height slope plat note 10 on the prelim, the proposed preliminary, excuse me, says building heights will be per Nampa City Code. However, the 1975 easement is much stricter with that 7 to 1 slope. Note 10 on the prelim plat will need to be revised to include reference of the 1975 aviation easement document. Number 3 landscaping and wildlife the initial landscape plan and the species list has some red flags for birds attractions several trees 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 rendering 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. Stormwater and waterfowl with Mason Creek bordering the site and the need for stormwater retention. 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. Fire awareness 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 clear 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 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 plant is not allowed in the IL zoning district. Napa 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 Napa 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 Napa 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 plaque 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 plaque 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, sorry, 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 have 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 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 plat. Here are your potential motions, and I will stand for any questions.

Questions from council? Go ahead, sir. Question. It's our packet page 408. So in the report is a list of prohibited uses in the IL and prohibited uses in the VC. Did that come from the applicant or was that from staff review?

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 Xs that were taken out.

Okay. So we have a list of prohibited, so that's the request from the airport. So that needs to be included in the record as far as approval. Is that noted in this part or not?

Yes, that is condition number one. It's kind of hard to see. I apologize.

Okay, and a list of prohibited uses in the IL, 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. And some 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 their 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. Okay.

Mayor, if it would be helpful, I think it'd just be pretty simple. If you want to follow the airport's recommendations that you stay in your motion, the list of land uses that they provided to staff in the packet.

So council just needs to go ahead and research what was recommended by the airport, Lindsay, and then see if they comply with what her recommendations are or want to add further. 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. All right. Okay, so if there's no further questions, I think we're ready for public testimony. Is there anyone that has signed up to testify?

Mr. Mayor? Actually, I'm sorry, I forgot that.

Well, you've got to get a little faster.

I know. Go ahead. I need to ask a question of legal. Okay. When we're dealing with something like this close to the airport, the protection of the lanes and of the proximity of the property that's next to it, is, is can we establish another buffer for safety or not by, cause this is close to the lanes, the takeoff lanes and the landing lanes, whatever you call it.

All right. Already established.

Mayor, do you want me to address that? Well, please, please. Uh, legal, please. Preston. Yeah, we have, um, Lindsay Johnson, who's reviewed this, and there are already established 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 any standard municipal airport already has in place, including our own. So the short answer, could you? Yes. Is it needed? For our airport experts, NFA regulations, those are already in place.

Okay, no, that was my question. Could we amend it? And you already answered that, so thank you.

Okay, before moving to public hearing, any further discussion or comments? Yes, Madam Clerk.

Mr. Mayor, we have two people that did an advance sign-up to speak, and our first speaker is Patty Evans.

Okay. Thanks for being here, Patty. 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 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 commuter corridor. It's like Russian roulette getting out of Rolling Green Estates. It's gotten really bad. A couple of times, some close calls have occurred. So I'm concerned about with the increased traffic there, the neighborhood to the west that's coming in, the one further to the west that's coming in, and the apartments at the corner of Kings and Victory. that are being proposed. And then I also understand that the cow pasture across from the entrance to the neighborhood recently was sold and will be residential as well. So it's getting too crowded. I'm concerned about traffic conflicts, noise, light, dust, and storage impacts. And they should be studied before we rezone this. Before approval, I ask the council require a complete traffic impact study for Victory Road and Picard Lane and Grays Lane in these Kings Road and Happy Valley intersections. Yesterday, while Glenn and I were out, we had a semi truck go by. He went down to Happy Valley. roundabout off of Victory, turned around, did a complete 360, went all the way down and then we saw him down at Kings, 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 complete and thorough study and those suggestions should be completed before any occupancy certificates are issued. I also ask that the city place the exact terms of the 1975 aviation easement into the recorded deeds for the people and the business types. I'm concerned by the business types that would be available. I would like to make sure that we don't have any things that are 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 commercial target audience is for this project and who, if anybody, has asked to be involved. purchasing these projects. And if this is approved, I would like to ask that we have the conditions for the binding conditions or development agreement that protects nearby residents. Patty, I'm sorry. Okay. Just protect our quality of life. And I really hope that 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 just have a question because since there's no plat, it wasn't clear. Is there possibly going to be 31 different buildings as opposed to, like, one building with 31 different businesses or a few buildings just because there's more variation if the more buildings that there are. So that's my question because that didn't come up.

Mr. Thiessen will hopefully answer those questions. Okay, thank you. Anyone else interested in speaking? Okay, I think we're ready for Mr. Thiessen to come back up. Any closing remarks?

Steve Thiessen with, do I need to repeat? At Hatch Design Architecture.

You need to really speak up again.

All right, here we go. Steve Thiessen with Hatch Design Architecture. To speak to the uses, we are looking at light industrial uses, which from talking to the neighbors initially, our initial feedback was they didn't want to see any residential in that area. because residential brought more traffic and from our feedback, the industrial uses were more desirable. In regards to the traffic study, we did meet with, our traffic engineer did meet with Daniel Badger and to discuss the scope and how far we go away and which intersections that were ultimately studied. 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 then in regards to the 1975 aviation easement, we are in favor of the conditions of approval that would include that in the deeds and follow any requirements that the airport would have. In regards to Cheryl Heath, I have actually reached out to her. She's the landowner to the west, and we are attempting to set up a meeting to further discuss access.

Cheryl Heath was not here. Yeah, I've been here. You were meeting with her individually?

Yes, and it sounds like also other neighbors. We have met with Vision Recycling. That's to our north. Okay. So... And then to answer Cheryl's question about the 31 individual lots, I would anticipate that a lot of these lots would be combined. This setup, this layout is to give the developer flexibility that these lots could be combined or if an individual owner or small business wanted to come in there and purchase a small lot. But they anticipate that these lots would probably be purchased three or four lots at a time and combined to put their business on. I don't foresee this being 31 individual little buildings.

So what I'm hearing is potentially maybe 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 going to take up at least a couple lots just based on the width of the lots, which I think are around 100 feet or so.

Are you building the structures ahead of time then and then leasing? What's the plan?

The plan is to sell individual lots. Yes, that is the plan.

So the lots themselves and then they would have to be approved as far as for whatever they're going to build?

Yes, Mr. Rayer, and they would have to... you know, go through the process of being combined and so.

So as such, you're going to 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 billing permit.

Mayor, council member bills. Yes, that is what the developer would like to do. to give them the flexibility instead of using large lots. And then, yeah, I think it would be more difficult to split them in the future than to combine.

Yeah, having been involved in light industrial, I just see challenges forthcoming the way the approach is. So I'm just asking the question. Yeah, 11,000 square feet. So those aren't very wide.

That is correct. They are not very white.

And then to have setbacks for the actual building construction, parking requirements, et cetera. It seems like the concept is to combine and, and create, I just, but then to cross over those lines, unless they're condominium eyes, as far as the warehouse. Anyways, the concepts there, I just think there's going to be some execution challenges 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.

Danielle, 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?

Mayor, Councilman, Daniel Badger, City Engineer. I have done a short review of it. It is at our consultant for the full review. It identifies a number of background traffic issues, but does not identify any project trigger issues other than at their approaches that they would be building during standard development.

Can you remind us what the difference is, what the background issue is?

So when we do a traffic study, we look at 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 that. their project-specific impacts. So in this case, one of the background triggers is over the next, you know, between now and 2035, a background trigger is that the Happy Valley 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.

Further questions for Daniel, Apkin, or anyone else out here?

Okay.

All right. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Hey, now we just need a motion to close public hearing. So moved.

Okay.

Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Okay. Council discussion.

Mayor?

Yes.

I recently had the privilege of touring the airport and driving around all around this location. And even down as I was touring down Gray's Lane and I was shown how all of the surrounding area affects the airport. AND THEY ALREADY DEAL WITH SOME ISSUES OF A LAND OWNER 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. BUT THIS LOCATION GIVES ME ANGST. And the reason why is not knowing what is going to be put in there, even with restrictions. I JUST DON'T LIKE THIS PROJECT AT THIS LOCATION. 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 THOUGHT.

Okay, and a whole nother discussion, but when you mentioned 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 an interesting.

All right.

Sorry.

Any other discussion? We're ready for a motion.

Well, Mayor, respectfully to Councilwoman Skog's comments, Elevation-wise, this ground is 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, maybe not. If they're single level buildings, they're not gonna get the runway, or is the elevation differential.

The only restriction we currently have right now is what is required by the F a and it's that kind of gravy boat type shape around the runway so that would restrict height if it came within that.

And it flares out. you know, from into runway on out, but this is down below. So, you know, I, I think the biggest challenge here is going to 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, how the, you know, how those buildings and whether they actually went according to the lots, that seems unlikely. So.

So clarification, Rodney. So this passes, and whether there's 10 or 31 businesses, they still have to come forth for a building permit before they can move ahead.

Yes, Mayor. So that would be regulated, is my understanding.

Is that right? Thanks. That's my understanding. So, I mean, just in my own head, that means the city does have control of what's going in there.

We do, Mayor, and we review every building permit that goes in, including occupancy permits. So if there's a change of an occupant, 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.

Thanks for the clarification. Final question then for yourself and Daniel on the plat. 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 townhome duplex where there's shared property lines or, I don't know, I'm just looking at the nuance that's forthcoming the way this is presented.

Mayor Council so that that is a possibility either way they could vacate those lot lines or they could do lot lines that are 0 lot line and it's one building but each individual unit is is owned. Both are possible in the aisles.

Which then takes place in the review of the. The building permit okay, thank you so what do you do with all the water and sewer services.

So Mayor, Councilman Bills, 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 know what size lot you want. Some commercial industrial people come in and they want a bigger lot or a smaller lot or whatever, and it does provide that flexibility. For the water and sewer services and that type of thing, typically what we would do do in a situation if we're anticipating that the lot lines will be moved or that we will set them up so that water services are easily abandoned so we would have the corpse at the main have a valve can that we can shut off and abandon something of that nature. to deal with that on the sewer service side if it doesn't get connected to it's not that big of a deal it's not a surface feature and there's no pressure to it so it's and that will all be discussed with when they actually come forward with the plat itself but it's it isn't uncommon for a commercial or industrial lot to have more lots than they anticipate using to allow for that flexibility 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 development agreement is being proposed or can be proposed by the Council that would attach this concept layout to that. And then the plot would be compared to that. And if any changes were any significant changes to the concept plan were done, that would require a DA Mon. Thank you.

Further discussion. Are we ready for a motion?

Make a motion to approve subject to the added items of the basically development agreements and utility hookup agreements and designs. And your annexation and zoning dial?

Yes. Okay. There's been a motion and a second. Any discussion? Roll call, please.

There's a question. Oh, there is 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 into motion. Or have that part of the motion? Yeah.

We can add that list as part of the motion. I think it would apply anyways, but we can, for no ambiguity. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah.

If the second is okay, I'm in the motion, please.

Yeah, we've been to add the airport restriction list.

Second, Mr Mayor, that includes the lighting as well.

Yes.

I'll second that.

Okay, we have an amended motion and second. Any further discussion? A roll call, please.

Fog. No. Gula Rodriguez. No. Griffin.

No.

Reynolds?

Yes.

Bills?

Yes.

Do I have a favor for or oppose? Motion fails.

Thank you, Mr. Teason, for your time. Do we need a motion? Oh, we failed. I did this last time, too. You'd think I'd learn after the first one. Okay, so now we need a new motion since it was denied. So we need somebody from one of the four deniers to make a new motion.

Mr. Mayor, I move to deny the comprehensive plan map amendment to industrial to commercial for a 2.6 acre portion annexation and zoning to IL.

Second.

I have a motion and a second. Discussion? Okay, we'll do a second roll call.

Bills? No. Reynolds? No. Rodriguez? Yes. Griffin?

Yes.

Angula? Yes. Gogg? Yes. All in favor, two opposed. Motion carries.

Thank you. Okay, we're on our last public hearing. And this is 6-3. Getting late, I'm gonna put my glasses on and make sure I see this one, okay. Comprehensive plan map amendment 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 as 17403 Star Road for Trilogy Development. Original concept, future annexation and subdivision for Creeks Bend, formerly known as Spring Hollow South. And I assume our good lady is our applicant tonight. Okay.

Mayor, members of the council, hello and good evening. For the record, my name is Sabrina Durchey, 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. Creekspin 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, its direct connection to the Ten Mile Creek. which bends along our western edge of the site. The natural feature becomes the inspiration behind the name Creeks Bend, 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. This site is located west of Star Road and is approximately 55 acres in size. The current comp plan has this site split with medium density residential to the west and commercial high density residential designation to the east for the site. To help provide context, 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 longstanding 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 Nampa. To the south, we are bordered by three county subdivisions, Atkins Acres, Pontiac 58, and Low Angle Subdivision. And to the west, we have Laketa 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 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 Euston 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 Creeks Bend. 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 enjoying 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 Creeks Bend. 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 Ten Mill 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 Ten 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, and 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 to coordinate a meeting with the neighbors that have reached out to me since our first hearing. We'll be working through a site plan, making sure there's adequate buffering, mitigation for them, and also coordinate with the Parks Department regarding our proposed park area. little bit left to do after tonight if we are given the green light so um 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 applicant i have one mayor yes mr rishi would you

Let me do the plat again.

Diagram of the plat.

And could you tell me what part of this is medium density? It all looks really high density to me.

Please explain. Sure, Mayor, Councilmember Rodriguez. So 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 can guarantee we'll probably be under 5. 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 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.