REGULAR COUNCIL November 20, Clerk made note that Councilmembers Skaug, Haverfield, Levi, Bruner, and Raymond were present.

REGULAR COUNCIL Mayor Henry called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Clerk made note that Councilmembers Skaug, Haverfield, Levi, Bruner, and Raymond were present. The following were amendments to the agenda: removing under the consent agenda 10a - Changing Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment from Parks to General Commercial for 2.01 Acres and from Parks to Light Industrial for 35.11 Acres for Engineering Solutions, LLP Representing AgEquity LLC; by adding 10e The Kickback Bar, 3116 Garrity Boulevard #145, on-premise beer, wine and liquor; removing under unfinished business 14 1st Reading of Ordinance for Zoning Map Amendment from Unzoned to IL for 35.11 Acres and from Unzoned to BC for 2.01 Acres for Engineering Solutions, LLP Representing AgEquity LLC; 16-1 st Reading of Ordinance for Modification of Amendment to Zoning Development Agreement with TBD Nampa, LLC amending Exhibit B Conceptual Plan Increasing BC zoning to 80.57 acres for Mini Storage, RV Park and Highway Commercial, Reducing RS 6 Zoning to 30.12 acres for Single Family Development, and Eliminating RMH for 43.51 acres for Assisted Living and Multi- Family Housing, and Amending Exhibit C Conditions of Approval as necessary and Conditional Use Permit for a Recreational Vehicle Park on a 20.58 acre portion of the proposed BC Zoned area for Mark Butler representing Hoff Companies, Inc; 17-1 st Reading Modification of Annexation and Zoning Development Agreement Between Farwest, LLC and the City of Nampa Recorded 01/05/2006 as Inst. No. 200600606 Amending Exhibit B Conceptual Plan To: Allow a Revised Subdivision Plat Providing for Commercial, Multiple Family, and Single Family Residential Lots; Allow Zoning Changes to Reduce the Acres of RS-8.5 Zoning from 43.4 Acres to 33.1 Acres; and, Change the Zoning of the Remaining 10.3 Acres from RS-8.5 to GB-2; Amending Exhibit C Conditions of Approval as Necessary Zoning Map Amendment from RS-8.5 to GB-2 for 10.3 acres; and Subdivision Preliminary Plat Approval for Lost River Subdivision Located West of the Phyllis Canal on the North Side of E Cherry Lane for: 6 Commercial Lots, 16 Fourplex Residential Lots, and 121 Single Family Residential Lots; Located on a 43.367-Acre Parcel of Land Being a Portion of the South ½ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 6 T3N R1W BM, for KM Engineering, LLP, Representing Nampa North LLC. MOVED by Haverfield and SECONDED by Bruner to approve the Consent Agenda with the above mentioned amendments; Minutes of November 6, 2017; Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Minutes; Board of Appraisers Minutes Board of Appraisers October 30 2017; Airport Commission Minutes September 11, 2017; Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes October 24, 2017; Library Commission Minutes; IT Steering Committee Minutes; department reports, bills paid; The City Council dispenses with the three (3) reading rule of Idaho Code 50-902 for all ordinances; final and preliminary plat approvals Carriage Hill North Subdivision No. 6 on the North Side of the Robinson Lateral, West of Carriage Hill North Subdivisions No. 1, 2 and 3. (A Parcel of Land Situated in the NE ¼ of Section 31 T3N R2W BM 46 Single Family Residential Lots on 18.46 Acres for 2.49 Lots/Acre) for Kristi Watkins Representing Toll ID 1, LLC: None; and authorize the following public hearings: Zoning Map Amendment from RS-6 (Single Family Residential 6000 sq.ft.) to RP (Residential Professional) on the North Side of W Greenhurst Rd, West of 12th Ave Rd (A 2.968-Acre Portion), for David and Elizabeth Fetzer: 1) None; Authorize to Proceed with Bidding Process Advertise and Proceed with RFQ Selection

to Complete Airport Master Plan Update and Proceed with Formal Bidding Process for Pump Maintenance Projects (FY18) for Engineering; Authorization for execution of Contracts and Agreements: None; Monthly Cash Report: Cash Receipting October FY2018; Resolutions: a) Changing Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment from Parks to General Commercial for 2.01 Acres and from Parks to Light Industrial for 35.11 Acres for Engineering Solutions, LLP Representing AgEquity LLC b) Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential; License for 2017: Used Precious Metals None; Alcohol Lane 23 LLC 209 11th Ave. N. - Beer & Wine License; License for 2018: Pawnbrokers Pawn #1 Inc 724 12 th Ave, Vista Pawn 130 S. Caldwell Blvd, Ken s Loan and Jewelry 608 12 th Ave. S; Miscellaneous Items: 1) None; approval of the agenda. Mayor Henry asked for a roll call vote with all Councilmembers present voting YES. Mayor Henry declared the Mayor Henry asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on any agenda item: there was no-one wishing to speak on an agenda item. Mayor Henry asked if there was anyone wishing to speak on any item that was not on the agenda: there was no-one wishing to speak on a non-agenda item. Stephen Hunt Principal Planner from Valley Regional Transit gave a presentation on Valley Regional Transit (VRT). VRT will be changing the Nampa/Caldwell fixed-route service and modifying some of the intercounty service between Ada and Canyon counties. These changes are designed to provide connectivity to high demand locations that are not currently served by ValleyRide bus service and have been informed by public comment received. Several minor timing changes will also take place. The changes (also see attached maps) consolidate local service from four routes to two and provide local connections to the Treasure Valley Marketplace, Department of Health and Welfare, Idaho Department of Labor, and Liberty Dialysis center in Caldwell. The changes also provide 30-minute, two-way service between South Nampa and the College of Southern Idaho (CWI) on Holly St/16th Ave. South and Garrity. This service connects low income and minority neighborhoods in South Nampa with Northwest Nazarene University, downtown Nampa, health clinics and hospitals, the Nampa Gateway shopping Center, and CWI along inter county services that connect to Meridian and Boise. The changes also improve the intercounty services by extending Route 42 to from the CWI to Happy Day Transit Center. This provides an all-day connection between Cleveland Boulevard and Meridian and the Boise Towne Square Mall. The changes also adjust the trip times for Route 42 so the 5:45PM trip from the Boise Towne Square Mall does not leave at the same time as the Route 41. This results in a 6:45PM trip between the Mall and Canyon County, which gives riders more options for traveling between Boise and Canyon County. The changes also add a stop in Caldwell to Route 43 to facilitate transfers between the local service and intercounty service. With the exception of the removal of the second Route 43 trip, the public comment has been largely supportive of the changes with a majority of those Page 2

who use the local services indicating they would ride the bus more if the proposed changes were made. Respondents were particularly supportive of the new or improved connections to the Treasure Valley Marketplace, WinCo foods and the Nampa Gateway Center, the Idaho Department of Labor, the Health and Welfare Department, and the VA Clinic in Caldwell. Based on this feedback we modified the original proposal to not remove the second Route 43 trip. This change also means we were not able to add the early afternoon Route 42 trip. We are proposing to extend the Route 42 between Happy Day Transit Center and CWI. This extension will improve the access between the Nampa/Caldwell Boulevard and CWI and mitigate the loss of Route 53 which travels between Happy Day Transit Center and CWI. After discussions with the CWI, we also removed the proposal to extend Route 55 to the Treasure Valley Marketplace at this time. The timing of this service change proposal did not allow for sufficient student input on this route. VRT staff will continue to review the performance of Route 55 and work with CWI staff and students to look for ways to improve connections between CWI and the surrounding community. Page 3

Page 4

Public Works Director Michael Fuss presented a staff report to update the council on current projects as follows: In alignment with the revised Nampa Snow and Ice Control Plan, the Streets Division plans to outsource supplemental snow plowing on Priority Three (residential) streets within City limits once snow accumulation exceeds 6 inches of snow The City solicited bid documents to eight (8) contractors and received (0) bids The bid included the following tasks: Within City limits, plow roughly 600 lane miles of Priority Three (residential) streets once notified by the Street Division Superintendent, in accordance with the Nampa Snow and Ice Control Plan (see Exhibit A) A bid alternate for clearing 22,910 lineal feet of sidewalks (see Exhibit B) To fulfill the most critical need of snow plowing assistance for residential streets, the Engineering Division is proceeding to negotiate and contract with multiple contractors The contracting method will be as outlined in the informal bid documents a fixed fee plus a lump sum for a quantity of lane miles. If staff is unable to negotiate a lane mile contract, an hourly rate contract will be pursued. Staff will report back to Council as contracting progresses Engineering staff will also be further evaluating sidewalk clearing assistance Street Superintendent - Idaho Public Risk Management Association Certification Congratulations to Don Barr, Street Division Superintendent, on successfully completing a twoyear Public Risk Management certification program through the Idaho Public Risk Management Association (PRIMA) (see Exhibit C). Don is among twenty (20) individuals throughout Idaho to become certified as an Idaho Public Risk Manager. The objective of a Risk Manager is to identify potential liabilities and to keep risk exposure to a minimum for their public entity to help reduce insurance claims and costs. Don already provides great leadership and knowledge to the Public Works Department. Having this added skill set is a great bonus to the department and the City of Nampa. Item #14 first reading of Ordinance for Zoning Map Amendment from Unzoned to IL for 35.11 Acres and from Unzoned to BC for 2.01 Acres for Engineering Solutions, LLP Representing AgEquity LLC was postponed at the request of staff. Page 5

The following Resolution was presented: RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO IDAHO CODE 67-6509(c) ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE MAP COMPONENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF NAMPA, IDAHO, AN IDAHO MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. (Applicant Blake Wolf 1017 E Iowa Avenue) MOVED by Haverfield and SECONDED by Bruner to pass the resolution as presented. Mayor Henry asked for a roll call vote with Councilmembers Skaug, Bruner, Haverfield voting YES and Councilmembers Levi, Raymond voting NO. Mayor Henry declared the resolution passed, numbered it 68-2017, and directed the clerk to record it as required. The following Ordinance was read by title: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NAMPA, IDAHO, TO PROVIDE RD (TWO-FAMILY (DUPLEX) RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DESIGNATION FOR CERTAIN LANDS, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1017 E. IOWA AVENUE, NAMPA, IDAHO, COMPRISING APPROXIMATELY 1.257 ACRES, MORE OR LESS; DETERMINING THAT SAID ZONING IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITIZENS AND CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF NAMPA, IDAHO; REZONING SAID PROPERTY FROM RA (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL) TO RD (TWO-FAMILY (DUPLEX) RESIDENTIAL); PROVIDING FOR RECORDATION; INSTRUCTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO DESIGNATE SAID PROPERTY AS RD (TWO-FAMILY (DUPLEX) RESIDENTIAL) ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AND OTHER AREA MAPS OF THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, RULES AND REGULATIONS, AND PARTS THEREOF, IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. (Applicant Blake Wolf) The Mayor declared this the first reading of the Ordinance. Mayor Henry presented a request to pass the preceding Ordinance under suspension of rules. MOVED by Skaug and SECONDED by Haverfield to pass the preceding Ordinance under suspension of rules. The Mayor asked for a roll call vote with Bruner, Haverfield, Skaug voting YES and Councilmembers Levi and Raymond voting NO. The Mayor declared the ordinance duly passed, numbered it 4348 and directed the clerk to record it as required. Item # 16 first Reading of Ordinance for Modification of Amendment to Zoning Development Agreement with TBD Nampa, LLC amending Exhibit B Conceptual Plan Increasing BC zoning Page 6

to 80.57 acres for Mini Storage, RV Park and Highway Commercial, Reducing RS 6 Zoning to 30.12 acres for Single Family Development, and Eliminating RMH for 43.51 acres for Assisted Living and Multi-Family Housing, and Amending Exhibit C Conditions of Approval as necessary and Conditional Use Permit for a Recreational Vehicle Park on a 20.58 acre portion of the proposed BC Zoned area for Mark Butler representing Hoff Companies, Inc was postponed at the request of staff. Item #17 first reading Modification of Annexation and Zoning Development Agreement Between Farwest, LLC and the City of Nampa Recorded 01/05/2006 as Inst. No. 200600606 Amending Exhibit B Conceptual Plan To: Allow a Revised Subdivision Plat Providing for Commercial, Multiple Family, and Single Family Residential Lots; Allow Zoning Changes to Reduce the Acres of RS-8.5 Zoning from 43.4 Acres to 33.1 Acres; and, Change the Zoning of the Remaining 10.3 Acres from RS-8.5 to GB-2; Amending Exhibit C Conditions of Approval as Necessary Zoning Map Amendment from RS-8.5 to GB-2 for 10.3 acres; and Subdivision Preliminary Plat Approval for Lost River Subdivision Located West of the Phyllis Canal on the North Side of E Cherry Lane for: 6 Commercial Lots, 16 Fourplex Residential Lots, and 121 Single Family Residential Lots; Located on a 43.367-Acre Parcel of Land Being a Portion of the South ½ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 6 T3N R1W BM, for KM Engineering, LLP, Representing Nampa North LLC was postponed at the request of staff. The following Ordinance was read by title: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NAMPA, CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO, VACATING THAT CERTAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED IN AN ENCLAVED AREA OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS ON THE WEST SIDE OF S. POWERLINE ROAD, AND SOUTH OF 1815 AND 1807 S. POWERLINE ROAD, NEAR NAMPA, CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO; DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ALTER THE USE AND AREA MAP ACCORDINGLY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS AND PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH. (Applicant Bixler, Cunningham, and Shipman) The Mayor declared this the first reading of the Ordinance. Mayor Henry presented a request to pass the preceding Ordinance under suspension of rules. MOVED by Bruner and SECONDED by Haverfield to pass the preceding under suspension of rules. The Mayor asked for a roll call vote with all Councilmembers present voting YES. The Mayor declared the ordinance duly passed, numbered it 4349 and directed the clerk to record it as required. Page 7

Item #19 first reading of Ordinance Correcting the Legal Description for Ordinance 4298 was postponed at the request of staff. Mayor Henry presented a request to approve the Canvas of Votes from the November 7, 2017 Election. Nampa Municipal District #2 Mayor Voting Statistics Precinct Bob Henry Debbie Kling Melissa Sue Robinson Total Number of Registered Voters at Cutoff Number Election Day Registrants Total Number of Registered Voters Number of Ballots Cast % of Registered Voters that Voted 29-11 16 19 1 116 8 124 37 29.8% 43-11 1 0 0 23 0 23 1 4.3% 49-12 20 13 4 628 2 630 38 6.0% 50-12 45 71 12 768 4 772 134 17.4% 51-12 134 109 32 1097 41 1138 306 26.9% 52-12 73 88 12 1524 11 1535 174 11.3% 53-12 59 86 9 1121 0 1121 156 13.9% 54-12 72 91 7 1167 5 1172 173 14.8% 55-12 111 126 9 1184 16 1200 249 20.8% 56-12 97 153 13 1164 14 1178 263 22.3% 57-12 64 108 24 1292 0 1292 196 15.2% 58-12 0 0 1 13 0 13 1 7.7% 59-12 83 118 23 1292 17 1309 234 17.9% 60-12 62 149 24 1297 14 1311 240 18.3% 61-12 60 148 18 1289 15 1304 234 17.9% 62-12 119 204 26 1607 19 1626 360 22.1% 69-13 49 73 14 1206 11 1217 139 11.4% 70-13 93 84 18 1104 11 1115 199 17.8% 71-13 127 183 21 1086 13 1099 335 30.5% 72-13 127 239 15 1229 22 1251 393 31.4% 73-13 100 140 28 1419 23 1442 272 18.9% 74-13 208 196 21 1743 43 1786 429 24.0% 75-13 156 203 22 1335 32 1367 386 28.2% 76-13 77 146 18 1498 23 1521 248 16.3% 77-13 106 138 16 1259 11 1270 263 20.7% 78-13 119 151 22 1588 21 1609 295 18.3% 79-13 202 183 14 1423 19 1442 408 28.3% 80-13 122 152 23 1320 20 1340 305 22.8% 81-13 122 158 6 1194 8 1202 289 24.0% 82-13 135 151 20 1450 28 1478 314 21.2% CO. TOTAL 2759 3680 473 34436 451 34887 7071 20.3% Total # absentee ballots cast 542 Page 8

Nampa Municipal District #2 City Council Seat 1 Voting Statistics Precinct Brian C. Raybon Victor Rodriguez Kenny Wroten Amber L. Queen Total Number of Registered Voters at Cutoff Number Election Day Registrants Total Number of Registered Voters Number of Ballots Cast % of Registered Voters that Voted 29-11 9 12 12 1 116 8 124 37 29.8% 43-11 0 0 1 0 23 0 23 1 4.3% 49-12 9 7 9 12 628 2 630 38 6.0% 50-12 16 45 45 17 768 4 772 134 17.4% 51-12 47 105 52 52 1,097 41 1,138 306 26.9% 52-12 24 63 42 36 1,524 11 1,535 174 11.3% 53-12 28 69 35 17 1,121 0 1,121 156 13.9% 54-12 33 77 27 24 1,167 5 1,172 173 14.8% 55-12 41 87 86 30 1,184 16 1,200 249 20.8% 56-12 60 80 74 36 1,164 14 1,178 263 22.3% 57-12 23 84 40 45 1,292 0 1,292 196 15.2% 58-12 0 1 0 0 13 0 13 1 7.7% 59-12 50 78 51 35 1,292 17 1,309 234 17.9% 60-12 48 89 40 50 1,297 14 1,311 240 18.3% 61-12 31 74 63 51 1,289 15 1,304 234 17.9% 62-12 59 122 98 55 1,607 19 1,626 360 22.1% 69-13 24 48 22 38 1,206 11 1,217 139 11.4% 70-13 41 48 68 29 1,104 11 1,115 199 17.8% 71-13 71 133 78 34 1,086 13 1,099 335 30.5% 72-13 89 123 116 40 1,229 22 1,251 393 31.4% 73-13 38 73 89 58 1,419 23 1,442 272 18.9% 74-13 64 123 154 58 1,743 43 1,786 429 24.0% 75-13 78 142 109 33 1,335 32 1,367 386 28.2% 76-13 40 76 62 52 1,498 23 1,521 248 16.3% 77-13 47 67 87 41 1,259 11 1,270 263 20.7% 78-13 86 93 59 46 1,588 21 1,609 295 18.3% 79-13 97 116 126 46 1,423 19 1,442 408 28.3% 80-13 58 93 78 52 1,320 20 1,340 305 22.8% 81-13 39 95 91 46 1,194 8 1,202 289 24.0% 82-13 74 68 112 31 1,450 28 1,478 314 21.2% CO. TOTAL 1324 2291 1926 1065 34436 451 34887 7071 20.3% Total # absentee ballots cast: 542 Page 9

Nampa Municipal District #2 City Council Seat 3 VOTING STATISTICS Precinct Jeff Kirkman Rick Hogaboam Total Number of Registered Voters at Cutoff Number Election Day Registrants Total Number of Registered Voters Number of Ballots Cast % of Registered Voters that Voted 29-11 20 15 116 8 124 37 29.8% 43-11 1 0 23 0 23 1 4.3% 49-12 23 12 628 2 630 38 6.0% 50-12 57 61 768 4 772 134 17.4% 51-12 99 138 1097 41 1138 306 26.9% 52-12 77 81 1524 11 1535 174 11.3% 53-12 59 76 1121 0 1121 156 13.9% 54-12 65 85 1167 5 1172 173 14.8% 55-12 96 130 1184 16 1200 249 20.8% 56-12 102 138 1164 14 1178 263 22.3% 57-12 92 96 1292 0 1292 196 15.2% 58-12 1 0 13 0 13 1 7.7% 59-12 99 112 1292 17 1309 234 17.9% 60-12 125 100 1297 14 1311 240 18.3% 61-12 105 102 1289 15 1304 234 17.9% 62-12 154 163 1607 19 1626 360 22.1% 69-13 58 70 1206 11 1217 139 11.4% 70-13 92 90 1104 11 1115 199 17.8% 71-13 143 146 1086 13 1099 335 30.5% 72-13 200 156 1229 22 1251 393 31.4% 73-13 123 128 1419 23 1442 272 18.9% 74-13 158 240 1743 43 1786 429 24.0% 75-13 152 199 1335 32 1367 386 28.2% 76-13 119 102 1498 23 1521 248 16.3% 77-13 113 125 1259 11 1270 263 20.7% 78-13 139 143 1588 21 1609 295 18.3% 79-13 163 196 1423 19 1442 408 28.3% 80-13 117 159 1320 20 1340 305 22.8% 81-13 103 164 1194 8 1202 289 24.0% 82-13 196 91 1450 28 1478 314 21.2% CO. TOTAL 3051 3318 34436 451 34887 7071 20.3% Total # absentee ballots cast: 542 Page 10

Nampa Municipal District #2 City Council Seat 5 VOTING STATISTICS Precinct Arturo Gonzalez Randy Haverfeild Alan C. Jones Total Number of Registered Voters at Cutoff Number Election Day Registrants Total Number of Registered Voters Number of Ballots Cast % of Registered Voters that Voted 29-11 4 23 5 116 8 124 37 29.8% 43-11 0 1 0 23 0 23 1 4.3% 49-12 8 18 12 628 2 630 38 6.0% 50-12 21 56 41 768 4 772 134 17.4% 51-12 41 110 82 1097 41 1138 306 26.9% 52-12 36 55 69 1524 11 1535 174 11.3% 53-12 23 76 41 1121 0 1121 156 13.9% 54-12 28 77 46 1167 5 1172 173 14.8% 55-12 38 127 65 1184 16 1200 249 20.8% 56-12 34 144 65 1164 14 1178 263 22.3% 57-12 57 78 53 1292 0 1292 196 15.2% 58-12 0 0 1 13 0 13 1 7.7% 59-12 31 108 68 1292 17 1309 234 17.9% 60-12 51 110 57 1297 14 1311 240 18.3% 61-12 49 88 68 1289 15 1304 234 17.9% 62-12 56 192 76 1607 19 1626 360 22.1% 69-13 30 61 38 1206 11 1217 139 11.4% 70-13 26 85 69 1104 11 1115 199 17.8% 71-13 54 160 87 1086 13 1099 335 30.5% 72-13 47 193 102 1229 22 1251 393 31.4% 73-13 52 110 86 1419 23 1442 272 18.9% 74-13 59 248 85 1743 43 1786 429 24.0% 75-13 53 211 92 1335 32 1367 386 28.2% 76-13 49 111 66 1498 23 1521 248 16.3% 77-13 31 109 89 1259 11 1270 263 20.7% 78-13 45 145 83 1588 21 1609 295 18.3% 79-13 45 222 90 1423 19 1442 408 28.3% 80-13 49 148 78 1320 20 1340 305 22.8% 81-13 42 152 66 1194 8 1202 289 24.0% 82-13 45 150 76 1450 28 1478 314 21.2% CO. TOTAL 1104 3368 1856 34436 451 34887 7071 20.3% Total # absentee ballots cast: 542 MOVED by Haverfield and SECONDED by Bruner to approve the canvas of votes as presented. The Mayor asked all in favor say aye with all Councilmembers voting AYE. The Mayor declared the Page 11

Mayor Henry presented a request for approval of the Master Plan for the Stoddard Pathway for the section between East Iowa Avenue and East Sherman Avenue. Parks Superintendent Cody Swander presented a staff report explaining that the City of Nampa recently purchased an additional section of the abandoned Stoddard Rail Line. The section of rail line purchased is the length of property located between E. Iowa Ave. and E. Sherman Avenue. The City purchased the property with the intention of adding to the City pedestrian pathway system. Attached is the proposed Master Site Plan for the Stoddard Pathway expansion. The pathway system is a popular amenity that brings quality of life to our City. After completion of the proposed Master Plan, the Stoddard Pathway would run from E. Sherman Avenue, going north past East Locust Lane. The Stoddard Pathway currently connects to the Wilson Pathway. The goal is to have the Stoddard Pathway connect to downtown Nampa. Nampa Parks and Recreation held an open house on Thursday, November 2, 2017 at Sherman Elementary School to give the public the opportunity to give feedback. Citizens illustrated excitement for the project and several expressed a desire to have the amenity close to their neighborhood. Input was also accepted by providing a display placed at the Nampa Recreation Center. All responses received are attached for City Council review. If the Master Site Plan is approved by City Council; the next step is to apply for grant funding to help cover the cost of construction. City staff are currently preparing to submit a Transportation Alternative Program (TAP) grant that will be due in the next several weeks. Page 12

Page 13

MOVED by Levi and SECONDED by Bruner to approve the Master Plan for the Stoddard Pathway for the Section Between East Iowa Avenue and East Sherman Avenue. The Mayor asked all in favor say aye with all Councilmembers voting AYE. The Mayor declared the Mayor Henry opened a public hearing for a variance to City of Nampa Zoning Ordinance Section 10-23-(B) which allows a maximum sign display area of 1 ½ sq. ft. per linear foot of street frontage, for property located at 164 E Maine Ave, within a BC (Community Business) Zoning District. The proposed sign will replace an existing sign located on a portion of flag lot, East of 12 th Ave Rd, and has 50 ft of street frontage. Applicants requesting approval of New Double Face Pylon Sign Display Area of Approximately 150 sq. ft., for Idaho Electric Signs. Tony Meade presented the request. Planning and Zoning Assistant Director Robert Hobbs presented the following staff report: Applicant/Representative(s): Idaho Electric Signs, Tony Meade representing (on behalf of Thomas Development, Thomas Mannschreck representing) File No(s).: VAR 039-17 Analyst: Robert Hobbs Requested Action(s): Variance(s) to Nampa City Zoning Code(s) as follows: To N.C.C. 10-23-20(B) (maximum sign cabinet area size) which code section allows, in a BC (Community Business) Zone a maximum free-standing sign display/cabinet area of 1.5 sq. ft. per lineal feet of street frontage [or 200 sq. ft. whichever is greater] on any given property whereupon such a sign is proposed to be emplaced (The request is proposed to facilitate erection of a single, 150 sq. ft., free-standing pylon sign on a flag lot s frontage along 12 th Avenue Road. The flag pole portion of the property is 50 ft. wide/long, thus allowing for a sign but 75 sq. ft. in area maximum. The property to which the flag pertains is a flag portion of approximately half-acre, BC zoned parcel made a part of the larger Berkshire Subdivision commercial development. (Decision Required: Decision) Property/Location: A certain.571-acre, roughly 115 wide by 190 deep (not including a connected flag pole of land) parcel of land (hereinafter the Property ) addressed as 164 E. Maine Avenue in the Berkshire Subdivision (Tax 140005 in Lot 1 of Block 1) in a BC (Community Business) Zone in Section 34, T3N, R2W, Boise Meridian, Canyon County, Nampa (see attached Vicinity Map) Page 14

10-24-1: [VARIANCE] PURPOSE: The council is empowered to grant variances in order to prevent or to lessen practical development difficulties, unique site circumstances and unnecessary physical, geographical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of zoning as would result from a literal interpretation and enforcement of certain of the bulk or quantifiable regulations prescribed by this title. A variance shall not be considered a right or special privilege, but may be granted to an applicant only upon a showing of undue hardship because of: a) special characteristics applicable to the site which deprive it of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and b) the variance is not in conflict with the public interest. Hardships must result from special site characteristics relating to the size, shape or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon, from geographic, topographic or other physical conditions, or from population densities, street locations or traffic conditions or other unique circumstances. Variances are not intended to allow something that others do not have a permitted right to do. The purpose of a variance is to provide fair treatment and to see that individuals are not penalized because of site characteristics beyond their control. (Ord. 2140; and. Ord. 2978) 10-24-2: ACTIONS: Granting of Variance Permit: The council may grant a variance permit with respect to requirements for fences and walls, site, area, width, frontage, depth, coverage, front yard, rear yard, side yards, outdoor living area, height of structures, distances between structures or landscaped areas as the variance was applied for or in modified form if, on the basis of application, investigation and evidence submitted, the council concludes the following: Literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance. There are extraordinary site characteristics applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally to other properties classified in the same zoning district. Literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in the same zoning district. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning district. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. STAFF FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION I. Variance Introduction: Variances are traditionally offered zoning tools used as remedies to seek jurisdictional waivers or reductions of quantifiable, measurable development code requirements (e.g., setbacks, property dimensions, height standards, min. or maximum quantities or sizes, etc.) with which compliance in a given situation could not be attained due to site Page 15

constraints (such as unusual topography) inherent to a property, rather than being the result of an applicant s own action(s)/development desires. Normally, economic considerations or selfimposed hardships or predicaments are not qualifying grounds to support a Variance application or its approval. As noted in the planning text The Practice of Local Government Planning (ICMA, 1988, 2 nd ed.), Many requests for variances are for minor bulk variances in existing neighborhoods: for example, expansions of patios or carports one or two feet into designated side-yard setbacks. On such matters the zoning board becomes a sort of neighborhood arbitration board, dealing with physical hardships. Although these hardships are rarely great, this should be weighed against the extent of the public sector s stake in the somewhat arbitrary determination that a 10-foot- side yard is superior to a 9-foot one. In Nampa, in order to justify a Variance Permit request, an applicant is tasked with arguing successfully to the City s Council that there is some aspect of the Property that physically, topographically or based on code requirements puts them at a disadvantage in trying to accomplish what they wish in comparison to like properties, especially in the surrounding area. If the Council believes that there is no real topographical hardship associated with a Variance application (e.g., a river, a highway or a mountain in the way, etc.), then left to the applicant is the opportunity to argue that there is a unique site circumstance sufficient to justify their request. In times past, Variance Permits have been issued on a case by case basis where a unique situation could be determined to exist that pertained to a Variance application. Thus, historical matters, errors by the City or County, demonstrated lack of knowledge concerning a code by an applicant or their contractor, common sense solutioning, development precedent and a variety of other mitigating factors have been evaluated in conjunction with these kinds of applications for relief from quantifiable, measurable standards adopted as law via Nampa s zoning ordinance. Council is at liberty to approve or deny a Variance. And, their vote should not necessarily be construed as setting precedent -- for nothing binds them to vote the same way twice other than their own perceptions and those of others that they may be concerned with. Still, consistency is a desirable goal when dealing with case by case Variance requests. As a Variance decision is a quasi-judicial matter, any vote to approve or deny should be accompanied by a reasoned statement listing the rationale for the decision made. II. This Application: As Variance Permits have been used to provide opportunity for an applicant to seek relief from a dimensional or quantifiable, metric standard, this request was received to ask the Council to consider allowing a reduced rear yard setback to allow a shed to remain where it has been placed on the Property rather than being required to move it to a code compliant location. Page 16

As this is a Variance request, it is the obligation of the Applicant to present such facts and persuasive arguments as to convince the Council that there exists some form of hardship or other unique site circumstance to justify issuance of the requested permit. The review criteria the Council is to use in assessing the application are those in bold font listed at the beginning of this report under the heading of Applicable Regulations, Actions 1-5. Those criteria serve as the Conclusions of Law to be associated with this matter. III. General, Possible Findings: The Property (legal description within City case file VAR 039-17) made the subject of this Variance request is located within the incorporated limits of the City of Nampa; and, The Applicant has a controlling interest in the Property and is authorized to represent the same or allow another party to represent the same in this matter; and, As authorized and mandated according to Idaho statute, the City has adopted a comprehensive zoning ordinance that applies to all properties within the City s incorporated limits, and (by limited form and fashion) to areas within its negotiated Impact Area; and, The City s zoning ordinance requires that properties (i.e., lots or parcels) in the BC Zone comply with all relevant zoning code requirements appertaining thereto (including conformance to requisite sign standards assigned to that zone); and, That the City s adopted zoning ordinance iterates the maximum display size of a free-standing pole sign on a property in the BC Zone: The Applicant seeks a Variance Permit from the City of Nampa in order to be allowed to have a 25 tall sign with a cabinet area of some 150 sq. ft. -- 75 sq. ft. larger than code allows for the property. The Applicant has submitted to the City a complete Variance Permit Application together Page 17

with the requisite fee, and the City has received the application; and, The Variance Application is being processed in conjunction with procedures compliant with the Local Land Use Planning Act, and Nampa Zoning Ordinance standards appertaining to such an application type; and, Variances, as a rule, are not to be issued simply for economic reasons or convenience; they shall not be considered a right or special privilege, but may be granted to an applicant only upon a showing of undue hardship because of: a) special characteristics applicable to the site which deprive it of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zone or vicinity ; and, Further, a statement has been provided that attempts to justify the Variance request as some type of topographical or other physical site hardship or unique site circumstance that restricts Property development or buildout or use of land as allowed to other City properties or as granted already to City properties developed and/or used in similar fashion to the business plan(s) of the Applicant; and, Adjacent property owners have not provided comment regarding the application; and,the City s Engineering Division has expressed that they are not opposed to the application; and, The City s Building Department has expressed that they are not opposed to the application; and, The Idaho Transportation Department has indicated that the Property is not within their jurisdiction; and, No direct physical impact on the general public by this request is foreseen by virtue of this request were it to be approved; expected impact would be center, rather, on the question any approval raises as to its propriety, possibly including a perceived setting of (i.e., psychological) precedence for similar setback code deviations given compliance to sign size standards demonstrated by other persons/parties in the City; and, Attached to this report is all of the information Staff had by the time this report was ready to go to print (12 noon, November 15). IV. Analysis/Opinion: In Nampa, as pertaining to land use variance permit requests, a burden rests upon an applicant to argue persuasively to the City s Council that one or more conditions related to the property they represent interfere(s) with the applicant s use of their land in manner and form commensurate with that enjoyed, most particularly, by their neighbors or other properties in a similar situation and zoning district as that applicant s land. Each variance application is reviewed on a case by case basis and the merits of the matter are weighed in the public venue. Public testimony has been received and the opinions of City departments or outside agencies submitted to the Council for their consideration. With respect to the matter made the subject of this report, Applicant, per their narrative argues for their variance requests, essentially as follows: That the allowable free-standing sign area afforded the Property is unfairly constrained as the Property is a flag lot [parcel]; whereas, if the Property were to directly front a street, a larger sign would be allowed; and, That if the business complex for the which the sign is intended fronted 12 th Avenue Road, it would have better visibility and thus allow for business growth; thus, related to the afore-stated finding, if the sign were approved it would help compensate for the limited advertising exposure the business complex receives due to its remoteness form 12 th Avenue Road. Noting the understandable arguments made by the Applicant, Staff also observes as follows: That Staff has not received expressions of opposition to the Variance request from City Departments/Divisions, outside agencies, or the public; and, That Page 18

there are no City [public] utility lines on or crossing the Property according to City GIS information; and, That Variances are most commonly associated with topographical or other unique site circumstances related to a property vs. issued for convenience or economic savings (see attached case analysis); and, That an allowance exists whereby a business may advertise, offsite, on another business s sign but that such opportunity is not provided to the Applicant given that there is not a business building with signage fronting 12 th in the area that they want their sign; and, That the proposed sign is an effectual replacement for a sign already in place along 12 th in almost the exact location proposed for the new sign. It is intended that the new sign be an updated/modernized and larger version of the same (see attached Google Maps images); and, That that the sign is not too close to the existing Walmart shopping center that lies south of the proposed location for the Applicant s sign as the Walmart sign is on a separate property, thereby making it per code acceptable where slated for installation; and, That considering (but notwithstanding) the fore-going, Staff opines as follows: Minimum Property Size Reduction Request: Positive Recommendation As to the requested/proposed, increased sign size allowance south, Staff recommends approval of the application. Whereas the small business complex for which the sign made the subject of this report is positioned on a flag parcel and in behind other businesses and thereby has limited advertising exposure, we believe that a property constraint provides merit for Council s consideration of/for approval of the sign size variance application. We note that the proposed sign height needs no variance as it is within code parameters. RECOMMENDED CONDITION(S) OF APPROVAL Should the Council vote to approve this Variance request, then Staff recommends that they/you consider imposing the following Condition(s) of Approval against the same: Generally: Applicant(s) shall comply with all applicable requirements [including obtaining a Sign Permit and, as required an electrical permit, etc.] as may be imposed by City agencies appropriately involved in the review of this request (e.g., Nampa Fire [inspection], Building, Planning and Zoning and Engineering Departments, etc.) as the Variance(s) approval(s) do/does not, and shall not, have the effect of abrogating requirements from those agencies or City divisions/departments MOVED by Levi and SECONDED by Bruner to close the public hearing. Mayor Henry asked all in favor say aye with all Councilmembers present voting AYE. Mayor Henry declared the MOVED by Raymond and SECONDED by Levi to approve the variance to City of Nampa Zoning Ordinance Section 10-23-(B) Which Allows a Maximum Sign Display Area of 1 ½ sq. ft. Page 19

per Linear Foot of Street Frontage, for Property Located at 164 E Maine Ave, within a BC (Community Business) Zoning District with staff conditions. The Mayor asked for a roll call vote with all Councilmembers present voting YES. The Mayor declared the The Following Ordinance was read by title: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NAMPA, CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO, CORRECTING ORDINANCE 3614 BY ANNEXING A PORTION OF THE PIONEER IRRIGATION DISTRICT INTO THE MUNICIPAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NAMPA, CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO, AND CHANGING THE BOUNDARIES THEREOF; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ALTER THE USE AND AREA MAP ACCORDINGLY. The Mayor declared this the first reading of the Ordinance. Mayor Henry presented a request to pass the preceding Ordinance under suspension of rules. MOVED by Haverfield and SECONDED by Skaug to pass the preceding under suspension of rules and to approve the summary of publication. The Mayor asked for a roll call vote with all Councilmembers voting YES. The Mayor declared the ordinance duly passed, numbered it 4350 and directed the clerk to record it as required. The Following Ordinance was read by title: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NAMPA, CANYON COUNTY, IDAHO, CONTRACTING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE NAMPA MUNICIPAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NAMPA, BY REMOVAL FROM THE DISTRICT OF CERTAIN LEGALLY DESCRIBED LANDS; DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER AND PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR TO REFLECT SAID CONTRACTION OF BOUNDARIES ON THE OFFICIAL MAPS OF THE CITY OF NAMPA, IDAHO; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND, DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF NAMPA TO FILE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDINANCE WITH THE OFFICE OF THE CANYON COUNTY RECORDER, AND WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT(S) OF THE UNDERLYING IRRIGATION DISTRICT(S) PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN. The Mayor declared this the first reading of the Ordinance. Page 20

Mayor Henry presented a request to pass the preceding Ordinance under suspension of rules. MOVED by Skaug and SECONDED by Bruner to pass the preceding under suspension of rules. The Mayor asked for a roll call vote with all Councilmembers voting YES. The Mayor declared the ordinance duly passed, numbered it 4351 and directed the clerk to record it as required. Mayor Henry presented a request for authorize the Mayor to sign the resolution and cooperative agreement with Idaho Transportation Department for the 12th Avenue Access Control Phase I (Sherman Avenue) Project. Michael Fuss presented a staff report explaining that Engineering, working in partnership with the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), completed the 12 th Avenue Safety and Access Study in August of 2016. The study recommended multiple safety and efficiency improvements on 12 th Avenue (SH 45) between Lake Lowell Avenue and 7 th Street South. The number one priority project (Phase 1) is located between Dewey Avenue and Sherman Avenue which has the highest frequency of crashes along the corridor. Phase 1 includes the installation of center median curb, left hand turn bays, striping and signage improvements (See Exhibit A). ITD has scheduled a microsurfacing project for FY18 on 12 th Avenue (Deer Creek to 3 rd St S) and agreed to include Phase I as part of the project. A Cooperative Agreement with ITD must be entered into. The Agreement (Exhibit B) stipulates the following: ITD will include the construction of Phase 1 Safety Improvements in the FY18 12 th Avenue Microsurfacing Project. The City is responsible to reimburse ITD for the cost of the improvements, estimated at $150,000. The project had an approved FY17 Streets Division budget of $110,000. An additional $40,000 is required to complete the project. Staff recommends entering into the Cooperative Agreement with ITD for the 12 th Avenue Access Control Phase I (Sherman Avenue) project. THE IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, HEREAFTER CALLED THE STATS, HAS SUBMITTED AN AGREEMENT STATING OBLIGATIONS OF THE STATE AND THE CITY OF NAMPA, HEREAFTER CALLED THE CITY, CONSTRUCTION OF MEDIANS ON SH45. MOVED by Bruner and SECONDED by Raymond to authorize the Mayor to sign a Resolution and Cooperative Agreement with Idaho Transportation Department for the 12th Avenue Access Control Phase I (Sherman Avenue) Project. The Mayor asked for a roll call vote with all voting YES. Mayor Henry declared the resolution passed, numbered it 69-2017, and directed the clerk to record it as required. Mayor Henry presented a request to award the bid to Thueson Construction Inc. and authorize the Mayor to sign a contract for crushed aggregate for chip seal FY 2018. Page 21

Michael Fuss presented a staff report explaining that the Streets Division is beginning procurement of crushed aggregate for the FY 2018 chip seal program. This is part of the City s Asset Management Program implemented in 2007 to strategically and cost effectively facilitate the department s goal to provide efficient and sustainable development of public infrastructure for Nampa s future. Engineering evaluated the condition of the roadways in next year s Zone C according to a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) scale from 1-100. A new road has a PCI of 100 while anything less than 60 is considered poor or failed Staff selected roadways to be chip sealed based on PCI, functional classification, traffic volume, safety considerations, available funding and engineering judgment (see Exhibit A). In order to chip seal the 2.5 million square feet of arterial and collector roadways, procurement of 4,800 tons of ½ inch aggregate is required. Funding for the crushed aggregate is from FY 2018 Streets Pavement Management. Budget for oil and aggregate is $550,000. Crushing will take place in December 2017 through April 2018. The contractor will haul the gravel from the contractor s pit to the city stockpile. The City received one (1) bid for the crushing service (see Exhibit B). The apparent low bidder was Thueson Construction Inc., with a bid amount of $134,400.00. All necessary public bidding requirements appear to be satisfied. Engineering division recommends award of the Crushed Aggregate for Chip Seal FY 2018 project to Thueson Construction Inc., in the amount of $134,400.00. MOVED by Bruner and SECONDED by Raymond to award the bid to Thueson Construction Inc., and authorize the Mayor to Sign Contract for Crushed Aggregate for Chip Seal FY 2018 in the amount of $134,400.00. The Mayor asked for a roll call vote with all voting YES. The Mayor declared Mayor Henry presented a request to authorize staff to submit FY18 transportation Grant Projects for funding including City match dollars (typically 7.34%). Michael Fuss presented a staff report explaining that annually, the City competes for federal grant dollars to enhance transportation safety, add capital infrastructure and help augment funding Page 22

shortfalls. Strategically selecting projects and competing for funding is a collaborative process. The grant planning team is made up of staff from the following departments: Finance, Planning, Parks, Streets, Economic Development and Engineering. The group also coordinates with ITD, COMPASS Regional Planning, Police, Nampa School District, NNU and other stakeholders. In the past several years, the City has received over $20 million in state and federal transportation grant dollars. The following are an example of some grant projects completed or funded: Amity Road Improvements (Chestnut to Kings). Stoddard Pathway Crossing & Parking Lot on Greenhurst Road. Middleton Road/Flamingo Avenue signalized intersection. Middleton Road/Smith Avenue signalized intersection. Middleton Road/Lone Star Road signalized intersection. Nampa High School Frontage and Safety Improvements. 12 th Avenue HAWK Pedestrian Signals (at 11 th Avenue S & Sherman Avenue). Signal safety and efficiency upgrades at 8 intersections. Traffic safety improvements at 8 schools in Nampa. Cherry Lane Road Rebuild (Franklin to 11 th Avenue N). Lloyds Square downtown multi-use pathway improvements. The following grant programs are available or upcoming in FY18: ITD Children s Pedestrian Safety Program (Surplus Eliminator/Local Strategic Initiates) for transportation pedestrian safety projects. ITD Local Strategic Initiates Program (Surplus Eliminator) for bridge and roadway maintenance on the local system. Local Highway Safety Improvement Program (LHSIP) for safety improvement projects at high accident locations. Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) for transportation improvements benefiting nonmotorized users. Federal Aid Bridge Program to replace or rehab bridges longer than 20 and with a sufficiency rating less than 50. Surface Transportation Program Urban (STP-U) for transportation improvements within the Nampa urbanized area (administered through COMPASS Regional Planning) COMPASS Development & Implementation Grants to help identify, develop and implement possible grant projects for future funding. The City is constantly updating its priority project list to take advantage of additional funding sources that come available. Staff requests the following projects be submitted for grant funding in FY18. Page 23

Project Project Notes/Description Grant Estimated Funding Year Estimated Project $ Estimated City Match $ Match $ Funding Source Greenhurst Rd Rebuild & Elijah Culvert (Southside Blvd -Lexi Ln) Garrity Blvd/Stamm Ln Safety/Congestion Improvements Centennial Elementary & Skyview HS Student Safety Improvements Grimes City Pathway at McDonough Park Stoddard City Multi-Use Pathway (Iowa Ave-Amity Ave) Project is designed and funded with Streets and Water funds in FY18. If grant is secured, funding will be freed up for other FY18 projects. HDR completed a concept design to improve safety and reduce congestion around the Winco block. This project will be done in conjunction with ITD and will improve the intersection of Garrity and Stamm Lane-- improving capacity and safety. This project will add Rapid Flashing Beacon (RFB) crossing lights, ADA pedestrian ramps, lighting and sidewalk improvements at Centennial Elementary (Lake Lowell Ave/Mason Ln) and Skyview High School (S Powerline Rd/Blakeslee Dr). This project will extend the City's bike and pedestrian network by extending the Grimes Pathway around the perimeter of McDonough Park. This project will extend the City's bike and pedestrian network by extending the Stoddard Pathway from Iowa Ave to Amity Ave. Economic Development & Parks ITD Local Strategic Initiates Program (Surplus Eliminator) ITD Surplus Eliminator (State Routes) ITD Surplus Eliminator Children's Pedestrian Safety Program TAP (FY19 Construction Only) Transportation Alternatives Program TAP Transportation Alternatives Program FY18-19 $ 1,000,000 $ - No Match Required FY19-22 $ 2,400,000 $ 176,160 Impact Fees (Streets) FY18-19 $ 250,000 $ - No Match Required FY18-19 $ 250,000 $ 18,350 Parks FY20-22 $ 500,000 $ 36,700 Parks/Econ Development Page 24