Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Okay. I've got 6 o'clock. I'd like to start by welcoming everyone to the City of Nampa Planning and Zoning Commission meeting September 15, 2026. We'll start with the roll call.

Thank you. Chairman Miller?

Here.

Vice Chair Garner?

Here.

Commissioner Kehoe?

Here.

Commissioner Morgan?

Here.

Commissioner Copeland?

Here.

Commissioner Daffer? Here. Commissioner Crickman? absent Commissioner Turner Absent Commissioner Feene here.

Thank you Thank you, mr. Ashby Thank you, mr.

Chair and commissioners Just a couple of things to report on from City Council on the 8th of September the first one of the final plat for Sunnyvale East number two is and that's southwest of Karcher and Middleton for an assisted living facility. You had recommended approval on August 25th, and City Council did approve that final plan. The next one is annexation and zoning to RA and RS7, northwest of Lake Lowell and Midway Road for Grace Bible Church. You had recommended approval you recommended approval and city council did approve that. And then the next one was our zoning code amendments. So that's for accessory dwelling units and starter homes that the state required. Just a quick update on that one. They provided an attorney's opinion on the intention of that code, and it was slightly different than what we were interpreting it as. But it wasn't an official position. It was just an attorney's opinion on it. So at the direction of our attorney and myself, And the mayor's office would move forward with that as you had recommended approval for. And then we can come back in if the state has an official position on that language. We'll come back in and do an amendment to our code to match that, whatever they come up with for the code. So I just wanted to clarify that. It did go before them. They did approve it as you had recommended. The next one was a vacation of an emergency access easement at 3184 East Mossy Rock Court. And this was designed to go away when the subdivision went in and provided a second access to it. So that's exactly what happened. So they abandoned the emergency access or the emergency easement. access easement and just used the subdivision access so that was approved by city council and then the final one was annexation and zoning to IL and then a rezone from RA to IL and this was for the city of Nampa out at the airport and you had recommended approval on July 28th and city council approved that one as well that's all I have Thank you.

Mr. Chair? Yes. May I dovetail with P&Z Communications for another staff communication related to planning and zoning? Absolutely. So it's with great, I guess, appreciation and joy, I guess, the welcome to another attorney to the ranks of the city. The legal department, we hired another attorney. So this will be number two in our inaugural in-house legal department. His name is Blair Larson. He's here tonight. I asked if he'd come up here and just introduce himself for you and Part of it is because he will be likely chairing many of these meetings, so I say that with mixed emotions. I really have enjoyed being with you a lot, and I will not be a stranger. There will be times we need to swap coverage and the likes, and maybe just sometimes I just want to see you, and I'll come if that's all right with you.

Absolutely. Two attorneys in a room at the same time.

Well, you know what happens if there's two attorneys in a room? You'll get three opinions, so yeah. Without further ado, we'll have Blair come up and introduce himself.

Sorry about that. Yeah. So my name is Blair Larson. I recently joined the city and I'm excited to be here. Most recently was the city attorney of the city of Sweet Home, Oregon. And, but my wife and I have a lot of family over here. We've been traveling over to Idaho for the last, over 10 years, and we finally made the change, wanting it to happen for quite a while. Prior to becoming an attorney, I was an economic and community development director and worked closely with our planning commission, and I gained a great appreciation for that role and actually enjoyed. I'm a nerd when it comes to the land use items, and so I enjoyed those a lot. But also I have some experience as a city manager as well. And so much of my local government experience has been from the practical day-to-day side of things rather than the legal side of things. So I'm looking forward to working with you and excited to be a part of things. Thanks.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Look forward to it.

Welcome aboard.

Yeah, welcome.

Mr. Chairman? Move that we approve the consent agenda.

Second. It's been moved by Garner, seconded by Kehoe to approve the consent agenda. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. And we have a few questions, Christy, on that business item. If you could come and just explain a little bit to us.

Thank you.

While we're waiting, Preston, the last item rescheduled, do we need to open that or how do we need to handle that?

Yeah, Mr. Chair, this is for item 4.4. If you want to have this be continued without any further noticing, then you would open that up and continue it to that date certain. If you feel that's too far out and you want additional public notice, that's in your discretion if you want to have it kick-backed and go through that process.

It says it was rescheduled due to noncompliance of property posting.

And maybe planning zoning staff can weigh in on the discrepancy there?

The main thing, I just figure if we can, you know, if there's anybody here waiting, I don't want them to have to sit through the meeting.

Yeah, and that's appropriate here to at least put that on the radar for anybody who may be here for item 44.

Mr. Chair, because they didn't advertise it correctly, we didn't even advertise it correctly ourselves. We didn't send it out, so I would recommend that we just reschedule this project and not have a continuance. Just in its entirety? Yeah. Okay.

Let's do that then. Do we need to make a motion for that then?

Or are you just notifying?

We are already doing it. So we just rescheduled it because it wasn't put on the agenda for that to happen in the first place.

So I can just make an announcement and then it's done?

Yeah, exactly.

So if anybody is here for item 4-4, the annexation and zoning to be seized on district addressed at 3005 North Middleton Road. For Hazard Lake Holdings, that item has been rescheduled to October 27th, 2026, as was explained by Rodney due to noncompliance of posting by the applicant and the city as well. So if anybody's here for that, you don't need to hang around. Okay, Christy.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. This is just a business item for you guys to consider some changes to an approved landscape plan for the Sunnyvale East subdivision. THE SUNNYVALE EAST PRELIMINARY PLAT WAS APPROVED BY YOU IN DECEMBER OF 2022. AND THAT ENTITLEMENT WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY THIS DECISION. THIS IS STRICTLY JUST CHANGING SOME ELEMENTS ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. THE ORIGINAL APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN HAD A SIX FOOT TALL SOLID VINYL FENCE AND A THREE FOOT TO FOUR FOOT TALL LANDSCAPE BURM ALONG CARCHER ROAD. The owner of the future assisted living facility, if you read through your staff report, her narrative was in there and she describes how they like to have open vision to traffic and how they feel like that has not affected their residents at all and they don't feel like having an open vision fence will be a problem. So they have proposed this 25 foot required landscape buffer with enhanced landscaping without the fence and without the berm. So that is the request from you tonight is to approve those changes.

Thank you for that clarification. Christy, I appreciate it. Okay, so this is just a motion unless we have questions or

Does what they're proposing meet city code?

COMMISSIONER MORGAN, YES, IT DOES.

DOES ANYBODY HERE REMEMBER WHY WE WENT BEYOND CITY CODE THE FIRST TIME?

I IMAGINE IT WAS JUST WHAT WAS PROPOSED ON THEIR LANDSCAPE PLAN AT THAT TIME BECAUSE OF CARCHER ROAD BEING A STATE HIGHWAY. THEY KIND OF THOUGHT WITH RESIDENTS THERE THEY WANTED TO PROTECT THEM. BUT I THINK IN THIS CASE, SINCE IT'S GOING TO BE A COMMERCIAL style use, they want more exposure. Fair enough.

In that case, Mr. Chair, I move to approve the changes to the landscape plan as stated on the screen. Second.

It's been moved by Commissioner Morgan, second by Garner to approve this item. Roll call.

Garner?

Aye.

Miller? Aye. Daffer? Yes. Turner absent. Kehoe? Morgan?

Yes.

Kirkman? Absent. Copeland?

Aye.

Feene?

Aye.

Thank you. Motion passes.

Thank you. Okay. We will move right into our public hearing portion of the meeting. If you haven't been here for one of these, we open the time up for the applicant. They'll get seven minutes to tell us what they would like to do. Then we turn the time over to staff. Yeah, for the first one, unless we agree to something different for the applicant. Staff will tell us what their facts and findings are, and then we will turn the time over to staff. public for their testimony. Each person will have three minutes to give us their thoughts and opinions on each item. You can only speak one time per item, but you can speak for all of them if you'd like. If you have signed up, You'll be called up if you haven't. I'll give time at the end, and you just need to raise your hand and let me know that you'd like to speak, and I'll give you a come up. One thing we would ask is that you please speak clearly into the mic and give us your name and address for the record. When others are speaking at the mic, we just ask you that you stay quiet because the mics in the ceiling pick things up pretty good, and there are people listening online, and when there's a lot of crowd talking, it kind of distorts, so it's not great for the recording or for people listening online. With that, we'll move into the first item, 4-1, annexation and zoning to RS-4 zoning district and a potential development agreement. And a subdivision preliminary plat for Emberwood Subdivision addressed as 5712 Holmdale Road for SD Land Consulting representing James and Red Otta Dornkamp. And you're here.

I'M HERE. HELLO. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, HELLO AND GOOD EVENING. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS SABRINA DURCHY. 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 HONOR AND PRIVILEGE TO PRESENT TO YOU OUR APPLICATIONS FOR EMBERWOOD SUBDIVISION. LOCATED. IS THIS WORKING? There we go. Okay, now we're ready. Located just off the intersection of Homedale Road and Caldwell Boulevard, Emberwood will be a thoughtfully designed infill community that combines rustic charm with a strong sense of connection. Purposeful open space, gathering-centered amenities, and layered landscaping work together to create a warm and welcoming neighborhood. Here you can see Emberwood's grand entrance. Stone and metal monumentation frames both sides of the entry, establishing the community's rustic character and creating an inviting sense of arrival. This view looks down Holston Avenue, Emberwood's main internal roadway. As you travel through the neighborhood, the gentle curve gradually reveals the homes, landscaping, and open spaces, creating an inviting and visually engaging experience. Detached sidewalks, landscape parkways line both sides of the street, providing comfortable separation for pedestrians while establishing a beautiful tree-lined setting. The combination of landscaping, varied home designs, and curving roadway create a warm and residential character from the moment residents and visitors enter Emberwood. This aerial view shows how Emberwood's overall design brings the transition to life. The homes are arranged around a connected network of open spaces, pathways, landscape gathering areas that form the organizational framework for our community. Rather than placing open space at the edges or treating it as leftover land, we have located it where residents will see, use, and experience it every day. The large central green serves as the heart of Emberwood, while smaller gathering spaces and pathways extend the experience throughout the community. This thoughtful layout creates a visual interest, encourages residents to walk and interact with one another, and ensures the entire neighborhood feels connected to the open space amenities. With Emberwood, we're requesting annexation, a zoning of R4 and a preliminary plat. We have 46 single family lots and 12 common lots. Our gross density will be 5.12 units per acre with our average residential lot size at 4,000 square feet. The city's comprehensive plan designates the site as medium density residential. When we consider that designation together with the surrounding land uses and the municipal boundaries, it becomes clear how intentional Emberwood has been designed to provide an appropriate transition within this unique area of Nampa. THE PROPERTY IS BORDERED TO THE NORTH AND THE WEST BY THE CITY OF CALDWELL. ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE LOCATED NEARBY WITH HIGHER DENSITY APARTMENTS SITUATED JUST ACROSS THE STREET. AND MORE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL USES ALONG CALDWELL BOULEVARD ARE JUST A SHORT DISTANCE AWAY. Emberwood fits naturally between these varied land uses. Its scale and single-family character really complement the surrounding residential neighborhoods, while the proposed R4 zoning provides an appropriate transition toward the apartments and commercial corridor. Emberwood represents this type of well-designed infill development that really brings the varied land uses together in a cohesive and compatible way, while implementing the City's vision for medium-density residential development for this area. So to better understand how the site fits within the area, let's take a closer look at the context. So across the street we have the Jackson. This is a higher density apartment community located in the city of Caldwell. It is a 316 unit apartment complex. TO THE EAST, WE HAVE SEVERAL UNINCORPORATED CANYON COUNTY PARCELS, COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES INCLUDING JORDAN PAINTING COMPANY, BOB'S RV CENTER, AND SEARS CLIENTS REPAIR. AND DIRECTLY EAST OF THE SITE IS THE HOKEY TRAILER PARK, WHICH HISTORICALLY GOOGLE EARTH IMAGERY SHOWS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SINCE AT LEAST 1992. South is Wagers Dairy number two, which is currently under construction and will provide roadway connection and utilities to Emberwood. And to the west are the city limits for the City of Caldwell and Wager Acres number one and two, which are also currently under construction. The surrounding context demonstrates that Emberwood is thoughtfully positioned to provide a natural transition between the area's commercial uses, higher density housing, established residential properties, and developing neighborhoods. The proposed community will help create a more compatible and cohesive, balanced development, again, in this really unique area in Nampa. So we understand our sensitive to the City of Nampa's concern that development must pay for itself. And based on the analysis of current building permit impact fees and considering our 46 residential homes, the estimated total impact fees generated for the site will be over $600,000. Emberwood is planned as a single family residential community offering a variety of home styles to create an attractive and welcoming streetscape. We anticipate a mix of one and two story homes with varied elevations, roof lines, colors, and exterior materials. These images are conceptual and are intended to illustrate the general character and quality and vision for this community. The final homes will comply with the city's applicable development standards and will be designed to complement the surrounding residential area while providing new housing opportunities within this developing area of Nampa. Usable open space is a top priority, forming the foundation for our community's amenities, pathway, and overall connectivity. We have 1.39 acres of qualified open space at 15.5%. Pathway connectivity and walkability is also a priority within Emberwood as seen in our pathway exhibit. Red depicts our five foot detached community sidewalks. Orange depicts our five foot micro pathways that fan out throughout the site for a total of 2,315 linear feet. And blue depicts our seven foot sidewalk along Homedale Road. So within this infill development, we really wanted to create meaningful opportunities for movement and connectivity. As highlighted in yellow, the pathway system loops beyond several of the homes and connects directly to the sidewalks along Homedale Road. So these tighter infill sites often require us to be creative and intentional with our design. And here we transformed an area that might otherwise have been overlooked into an attractive, functional amenity that encourages residents to walk, connect, and enjoy the outdoors. And at the heart of Emberwood, our central gathering area extends across the full width of the community and continues on both sides of the street. This design creates an open connected space with room with a variety of recreational and social amenities. The primary amenity area will be located within the corridor of our Moses drain, which will be tiled as part of the development. Our team is coordinated closely with Pioneer Irrigation District to select landscaping and improvements that are appropriate within the irrigation easement while maintaining the district's required access. Now let's take a closer look to the northern side of the open space labeled with the number one. This area was designed as a flexible outdoor space where residents can get relaxed, gather and spend time with their neighbors. The proposed pavilion and picnic tables will provide a comfortable setting for everyday use and the small neighborhood gatherings, the fire pit area offers a more informal place to sit and connect while the surrounding landscape helps define the space and creates attractive setting. A large portion of the site will be a soccer field. This portion of the amenity also includes flexible play area that can support soccer, informal games, and other outdoor activities. Pathway loops through the open space and connects it back to the pavilion, neighborhood sidewalks, and surrounding homes. By combining active recreation with more relaxed gathering space, shown in our previous slide, Amberwood will provide residents with several ways to use and enjoy the central amenity. Now let's go across the street and our area labeled number two. You can see the large central green space continues on the opposite side of the roadway. This area includes a second fire pit that complements the gathering space across the street, really helping to create a consistent design throughout the central amenity. We've also included a play area for younger residents along with open lawn and connected pathways. Together the two sides function as one cohesive gathering area offering spaces for active play as well as quieter opportunities for residents to relax and connect. And our final gathering area is tucked away in the northeast corner. This pocket park is designed to be a passive open space where future neighbors can connect with nature and really enjoy a quiet retreat outdoors. I do want to note that this development will be developed in one phase, so all of our amenities and open space will be completed at one time. And in summary, we feel that Emberwood is a thoughtfully planned infill community designed to provide a balanced blend of housing opportunities, functional open space, and intentionally designed gathering areas. We feel that the design of Emberwood provides thoughtful transition to this area and really a fresh new energy and feel to this section of Homedale Road. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK STAFF FOR THEIR TIME AND ASSISTANCE AND WE'RE IN FULL AGREEMENT OF THE STAFF REPORT AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME, YOUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT OUR APPLICATION TO YOU THIS EVENING. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL AND THANK YOU.

question for you on the fire pits. You have two of them. Yes. Wood fire pits, gas fire pits, or what?

Yes. Chairman, Commissioner Kehoe, we have learned that just having wood where neighbors can bring their own wood is what our HOA property managers like the best option. So that's, we want to keep them happy.

Is there any kind of supervision, or can an 18-year-old or a 14-year-old have a fire going in the fire pit, or how is that going to work?

I would hope that there would be parental supervision when the fire pits are being used. You're not a parent, then, are you? What's that? You're not a parent, are you? I am. I'm a parent of a 12-year-old, so... Do they listen to you that well? Well, we have other battles, not on fire pits.

We're concerned about a fire pit, though. It's not usual to have that. I appreciate the outward thinking, but I'm just kind of nervous about it.

Chairman, Commissioner Keogh, we have actually had multiple other fire pits within other developments that have been very successful. So, yes. You're welcome. Thank you.

Other questions? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Famous friend, you're up.

Did you get all the attachments in your packet? Yeah.

Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Terry Friend, Associate Planner for the City of Nampa. This request, as we were talking about, is an annexation and zoning to RS4 and a subdivision preliminary plan for a residential subdivision on an 8.9 acre property currently addressed as 5712 Homedale Road. The current The current jurisdiction, this property is under Canyon County, but it is within Nampa's planning boundary. The future land use map calls this medium density residential. And as Sabrina went over, to the north is the city of Caldwell, Jackson, multiple family development or an apartment development there. To the south, it's the single family residential in the city of Nampa. That's Wagers Dairy Subdivision. To the west is in the city of Caldwell, it's Wagers Acres Subdivision. And to the east is various residential and commercial properties under Canyon County jurisdiction. So we are right there on the border of Nampa's planning area and the city of Caldwell. So the map on the left kind of details out that city of Caldwell area all in green. So I wanted to just give you an idea what city of Caldwell's Future Land Use Map has that called out for. So on the left there is a copy of the City of Caldwell's Future Land Use Map, which divides this little area, which I showed in a circle there, up into two portions. To the west of the subject property is going to be called Neighborhood 3 on their land use designation, which they describe as including apartment buildings of a variety and scale to provide missing middle housing types. And to the north, the property is mixed use center designation, which they intend to be intense commercial activities that attract people from all over the city and beyond. The area can also include denser housing options, especially when the area is within where there is current or future transit service. Here are the engineering details that were provided in your staff report. However, there was one correction to be made to the information originally provided. The notes came through indicating that a traffic impact study had been submitted. That is not the case, and one is not expected to be required. The subdivision won't meet that threshold to require a traffic impact study. These are the applicable regulations for both annexation and zoning. These are listed in your staff report. And then the zoning regulations for the RS zoning district and the chapter related to subdivisions and the relevant state code regarding our comprehensive plan. agency comments were received of note here the building department does suggest that if there's once it's annexed if there is any demolition planned they'll need a demolition permit the engineering department comments we've already gone over the fire district does indicate that this subdivision has 46 lots which is greater than the 30 lots that is the threshold for requiring two separate and approved access roads. That wasn't immediately shown on the preliminary plot, but as Sabrina mentioned, this does connect to the wagers dairy subdivision. So I think that's just a communication situation that needs to be taken care of. This development is located approximately 2.2 miles away from Nampa Fire Station number 4 with an approximate response time of 7 minutes. They anticipate that the increased population will require a demand of an additional 0.13 firefighter positions. Nampa Planning and Zoning did a review of the initial landscape plan. We had some suggestions that will have been provided to the applicant. The police department also offered some information. They're about 4.3 miles away to the closest substation. This area has historically received about 408 service calls annually. The project, if approved, would have an additional demand on the police department. They are suggesting funding for 0.14 additional officers and 0.07 additional support staff, which would have a total additional cost of $17,920 for the first year. A late public comment was received from Amy Woodruff. I've gone ahead and included the entire body of her letter on the screen. But to summarize, she expresses strong support of the proposed project based on her 25 years of experience as a civil engineer. She highlights that the project's potential to serve as an effective infill development aligns with the area's transition. to urban residential and commercial uses, optimizes land use, and helps to minimize pressure on agricultural lands at the city's outer limits. Additionally, the subdivision offers a much needed housing alternative and is conveniently located near transportation, employment, and community services. This is the preliminary plat. I turned it on its side just to make it fit on the screen better. So here we're seeing Homedale Road and the north on the left side of the screen. As Sabrina mentioned, we're gonna have 46 single family detached dwelling units and 12 common lots proposed here on 8.9 acres. Doing the math there, that's about 5.12 units per acre, which meets the requirement for the medium density land use designation. which has a range of 2.51 to 8 units per acre. And the lot sizes planned in the RS4 zoning district need to be between 4,000 and 8,000 square foot per lot. And the ones shown on the plot range from 4,158 square feet to 7,000 square feet. 298 square feet so they're meeting those requirements and 15 open spaces required they are planning 1.39 acres of qualified open space that is 15.5 percent and here are again those requirements for accepting an annexation for excuse me an application for annexation and some related facts in conclusion there The subject property falls under the annexation criteria outlined in Idaho statute 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 shown on our future land use map. And while the proposed annexation for the parcel also complies with the established memorandum of understanding currently in place with the City of Nampa and Highway District, the Highway District did advise that the City of Caldwell has accepted permitting and maintenance responsibility for Homedale Road along that frontage in front of the property. And here are the criteria for zoning as well as relevant facts. And in conclusion for the zoning, the proposed zoning map amendment is in harmony with the comprehensive plan because it proposes a zone that matches the designation of medium density residential on the future land use map. It complies with the principles outlined in the comprehensive plan. The future land use map was established after thoroughly analyzing land uses for compatibility. So the project is providing a use that will be compatible with the adjoining residential properties. And it is in the public interest and reasonably necessary because it has proposed a subdivision layout that will extend city utilities, will install frontage improvements, and is compatible with the surrounding uses and complies with adopted city codes. Here are the conditions of approval that were listed in your staff report. Any modifications on this list is at your discretion. And here are your potential motions, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Questions? No? Okay. I think we're good right now. Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have a sign-up sheet?

Thank you. Confirming that no requests for public testimony were received prior to the meeting.

Okay. Is there anyone... in the audience that would like to speak for, against, or undecided on this item. Okay. Ms. Nurchi, do you have anything you'd like to add?

MS. Chairman and Commissioners, thank you again for your time and your thoughtful consideration. As far as the application goes, I feel like I'd like to bring back the discussion back to three important points. The changing character of this area, the suitability of the request of the R4 zoning, and the overall quality of the proposed community. I feel like Emberwood really kind of hits those notes for a great infill site. And again, it's in that kind of odd area of the Caldwell city limits, the higher density and commercial complexities of Caldwell Boulevard. And we just really feel like this is the perfect site, the perfect infill development for this area. And I'm here to stand for any questions. And again, thank you again for your time.

Okay. Okay, I think we're good.

Thank you.

Make a motion to close the public hearing.

Second. Then moved by Commissioner Garner, seconded by Commissioner Fien to close the public hearing. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay. What are our thoughts?

Yeah, I like it.

It's a good buffer between Caldwell Boulevard and commercial to a single family and it is infill so i think it fits public support yeah and no opposition yeah with all the apartments and stuff that are right around there it just kind of it just works

I move to recommend approval for the project as stated on the screen with recommended conditions of approval and the proposed findings.

Second. It's been moved by Commissioner Daffer, seconded by Commissioner Kehoe to approve this item. Can we get a roll call, please?

Garner?

Yes.

Miller?

Yes.

Daffer?

Yes.

Turner? Absent. Kehoe?

Aye.

Morgan?

Yes.

Rickman? Absent. Copeland? Yes. Feene.

Yes.

Thank you. Motion carries 7-0. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. We will move into item 4-2, annexation and zoning to RS 8.5 zoning district and potential development agreement on parcel addressed as 4302 East Locust Lane for Anthony and Sarah Fine. That's the applicant here. Rodney's gonna come tell us I thought she was here Mr.

Chair They were notified last week to be here. However, this is a pretty simple annexation It's just for utilities So you have the discretion to move forward without them or or ask them to come at a different date No, I think we're yeah, I think we're okay to move forward.

I Miss Fry, you can tell us all about it. Please.

Okay. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Candace Frye, Associate Planner for the City of Nampa. The request before you this evening is an annexation and zoning to RS 8.5, Single Family Residential Zoning District. The original concept is annexation to connect to City Sewer. Property details, the current jurisdiction, the parcel is currently under Canyon County. The surrounding zoning to the north is Canyon County, a single family home, and then RS6 is that River Meadows subdivision. To the south is Canyon County, to the west is RS6, Southern Ridge subdivision, to the east is Canyon County as well. The future land use designation is medium density residential. Engineering details. So this just shows the map of the closest utilities and there is water, sewer, and irrigation available. And then any on-site wells or septic systems shall be abandoned or removed in accordance with local regulations at the time of individual property development and prior to connection to applicable city services. Applicable regulations, so here is the information for annexation and the criteria in order to be eligible to annex. Here is the zoning information and then Title 10, Chapter 8, the RS zoning district. This is here on the screen and then included in your staff report as well. Correspondence, we did not receive any public comments. We did have a comment from NAMPA co-compliance. They did list out some specific code violations, and that full list is included in your staff report. And then NAMPA Engineering Division provided general water and sewer comments. They also provided standard comments regarding access and traffic. And then their full list is included in the staff report as well. Findings for annexation, so here are some facts for the annexation. They are listed here on the screen and then as well in your staff report. Findings for zoning to RS 8.5, the criteria to determine the zoning is at the top and then at the bottom is the relevant facts. The proposed zoning map amendment, Sorry. The proposed zoning map amendment for 4302 East Locust Lane is in harmony with the city's currently adopted comprehensive plan. It does establish an area of RS zoning that retains single family housing that is currently compatible with existing and future zoning in the area. And because the proposed zoning district is a permitted use, permitted zone, excuse me, under the comprehensive plan future land use map designation of medium density residential. The application does provide a use that would be reasonably compatible with adjoining property because the proposed uses are determined to be compatible according to Nampa City Code 10-3-2, Schedule of Uses. It is in the public best interest and reasonably necessary. It proposes the addition of a contiguous parcel into City of Nampa, and it does have city services and utilities available. Here are the recommended conditions of approval and any others that the commission wishes to add. Here are your potential motions, and I will stand for any questions.

Thanks, Candace. Madam Clerk, do we have a sign-up sheet?

Thank you. Confirming that no requests for public testimony were brought forward prior to the meeting.

Thank you. Is there anyone in the crowd that would like to speak for, against, or undecided on this specific item?

Okay.

Seeing no one.

So moved. Second.

And moved by Commissioner Kehoe, seconded by Commissioner Daffer to close the public hearing. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay. Pretty straightforward.

Mr. Chairman? Yep. I move to recommend approval of the project as stated on the screen with the recommended conditions of approval. Yep.

And moved by Commissioner Garner, seconded by Commissioner Daffer to approve this item. Madam Clerk, can we get a roll call?

Garner?

Yes.

Miller?

Yes.

Daffer?

Yes.

Turner, absent. Kehoe?

Aye.

Morgan?

Yes.

Rickman, absent. Copeland?

Yes.

Feene?

Aye.

Thank you. Motion carries 7-0.

Thank you. Okay, we will go ahead and move into item 4-3, annexation and zoning to IL Zoning District and a potential development agreement on 10 parcels and I-84 right-of-way. Addressed as 0000 6701 7023 7117 7123 7425 East Flamingo Avenue and 0 McDermott Road. For SD Land Consulting, representing AmeriCrete Land Holding and Triple Crown Development, LLC.

Okay.

Yes. Okay.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, HELLO AGAIN. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS SABRINA DURCHY AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. MY BUSINESS ADDRESS IS 5179 SOUTH BOVEN AVENUE, BOISSE, IDAHO, 83716. AND FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING, I AM PRESENTING OUR APPLICATION FOR AN ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 148 ACRES TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF NAMPA WITH A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DESIGNATION. So outlined on this slide is the property boundary of our site and the area included in the annexation request. As you can see, the annexation path extends beyond Interstate 84 to establish an annexation path to the City of Nampa. The property has operated as a gravel pit and concrete batch plant since the 1970s under Kenney County's current zoning regulations. These operations are considered legally non-conforming uses because they were established before the county adopted its present zoning requirements. Following a review of the property, the Kenyon County Development Service Director expressed support for annexation into the City of Nampa where the existing operations and potential future industrial uses are consistent with the City's planned industrial growth for this area. Based on the direction and our coordination with staff, we're requesting a formal annexation of the property with a zoning request of light industrial. No additional approvals are requested at this time. Any future expansion or a substantial change to the site will require separate applications and appropriate public hearing processes. Now let's take a closer look at the property and provide some additional context regarding its history and existing operations. I do want to note that the applicant, Lance Thuisson, is here this evening and is available to answer any questions regarding the history and operation of the site that I may not be able to answer. So records for the property date back to the Idaho Department of Land Reclamation Plans from the 1970s, associated with the gravel extraction and concrete batch plant operations. This aerial provides an overview of the long-standing industrial activities across the property. On the western portion of the site, you can see the primary office and shop area, along with equipment and material storage. The central portion contains the existing concrete batch plant, internal circulation routes, stockpile areas, and the land use for middle extraction and processing. The eastern portion contains the existing CXT manufacturing facility and its associated operational yard and outdoor storage. The Ridenbaugh Canal runs along the eastern portion of the property and provides separation from nearby neighbors. The area also identifies land previously acquired by the state along East Flamingo Avenue for Interstate 84 improvements. Together, these areas comprise a long-standing industrial site that has operated for many decades. Before you this evening, again, is just an annexation request. The applicant's not proposing any changes at this time or expansion of any existing operations as part of this request. This exhibit is taken from the City of Nampa's Highway 16 specific area plan, and this illustrates the proposed roadway network south of the future Highway 16 interchange. These plans anticipate this area to be industrial in nature. As shown, the City anticipates significant transportation improvements through this area and around the property. These future roadway connections would improve access to Interstate 84 and support the City's long-term vision for industrial and employment growth in this area. The property owner understands that the site may transition over time and that this annexation provides an opportunity to begin coordinating that transition with the city to ensure future development aligns with the NAMPA's plans for transportation, utility, and industrial growth. The road alignments shown on this exhibit just remain conceptual No roadway construction, redevelopment plan, or expansion of the existing operation is requested at this time. And again, a little broken record, but I want to make it clear, any future development will require separate applications, technical review, and appropriate public hearing processes. I thought it would be interesting to compare Kenyon County's M1 industrial zoning standards with the City of Nampa's zoning standards, and this is what I found. Both districts accommodate industrial activity, and their basic dimensional standards are generally comparable. However, annexation into Nampa offers several benefits over leaving the property in Kenyon County. The existing operations currently rely on their status of longstanding legal nonconforming uses. Annexation brings the property into the city's planned industrial area that establishes a clear framework for its continued operation. NAMPA also provides more specific protections for surrounding properties, including standards for residential setbacks, screening, landscaping, and outdoor storage. These requirements give the city greater oversight over the appearance and the compatibility for future redevelopment. Annexation will also allow future planning for the property to be coordinated with Nampa's roadwork network, utility planning, and Highway 16 interchange area. Overall, bringing the property into Nampa will provide clear regulation, stronger protections for the neighboring properties, and better coordination with the city's long-term industrial and infrastructure plans. And to summarize, this property has been supported gravel extraction, concrete production, manufacturing, and related industrial operations since the 70s. The site is located within area of City of Napa that has planned for continued industrial growth and significant future transportation improvements. Annexation will bring the property under a clear regulatory framework while providing stronger standards for landscaping, screening, outdoor storage, and compatibility with nearby properties. The request before you is limited to annexation of zoning and the proposed IL zoning. The applicant is not requesting, again, any expansion, redevelopment. And following the annexation, the existing operations just will simply continue. The property owner will coordinate with the city as future roadway and infrastructure plans develop, and any future expansion or redevelopment, again, will require separate application, technical review, and appropriate public hearing processes. So based on the property's long-standing industrial history, its location within NAPA's planned industrial area, and the benefits of bringing the site under city oversight, we respectfully request your recommendation of approval, and Lance and I are here and able to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? We're good now. Thank you. Ms. Watkins.

All right. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Christy Watkins. I'm the principal planner for the City of Nampa. The request before you this evening is for annexation and zoning to IL for 10 parcels located between East Flamingo Avenue and I-84 near McDermott Road. Here is a list of the 10 parcels that are subject to this request. TO THE NORTH OF I-84 IS THE GB1 ZONING DISTRICTS. THAT IS WHERE WE ARE CONTIGUOUS. THEY WILL BE ANNEXING A PORTION OF I-84 TO GET THAT PATH OF ANNEXATION. TO THE SOUTH IS CANYON COUNTY WITH A VARIETY OF INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES. TO THE WEST IS CANYON COUNTY WITH A VARIETY OF INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES. AND TO THE EAST IS CANYON COUNTY WITH A VARIETY OF INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES. AND THE CITY WILL CONTINUE TO HONOR THE CURRENT OPERATIONS ON THE SITE AS THEY ARE TODAY. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IS INDUSTRIAL, COMMUNITY MIXED USE AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE HIGHWAY 16 SPECIFIC AREA PLAN IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL CAMPUS AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THESE PARTIALS ARE WITHIN THAT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATION AND THEY ARE ALL TOUCHING THAT, THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATION WILL COVER ALL. Currently city services are available to this property with water, sewer and PI is not available, excuse me. They will be required to dedicate 50 feet of right-of-way along McDermott Road. These are the applicable regulations for annexation and for zoning. The only correspondence we received was from the engineering division and they gave comments on shared access, right-of-way dedication, frontage and potential roadway improvements AND A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. THERE ARE MORE DETAILS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. SO IN ACCEPTING THE APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION, ALL LANDOWNERS HAVE CONSENTED TO THIS ANNEXATION. THE PROPERTIES ARE CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY LIMITS. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INCLUDES THIS IN ITS PLANNING BOUNDARY AND THESE PROPERTIES FALL WITHIN THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE HIGHWAY DISTRICT. This project is in harmony with the comprehensive plan because it is located within the industrial land use designation on the future land use map and the industrial designation can be stretched onto other parcels that are within the boundary. The project proposes to preserve existing industrial uses which are compatible with surrounding uses. The annexation and zoning to IL is in the best interest of the public and reasonably necessary because it more closely complies with the city's intent for this area as we go forward IT WILL DEDICATE RIGHT OF WAY AND ANY FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY WILL BE REQUIRED TO ADDRESS CITY REGULATIONS FOR ENTITLEMENT, PERMITTING AND COMPLIANCE. THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT ARE LISTED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. AND THESE ARE YOUR POTENTIAL MOTIONS. I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

NEW SPEAKER Yes. NEW SPEAKER CHRISTIE, I'M REFLEXED. WHY DO THEY WANT TO DO THIS?

NEW SPEAKER COMMISSIONER KEEHOE. They are currently running into some issues with Canyon County as far as the allowed uses in that area. And they also want to be better prepared for when Highway 16 does extend to the south. And so as those things are starting to come together, it's easier and makes more sense for them to be inside the city limits. And also, now that they are contiguous with that path across the freeway, they are connected to city services. So it does make sense for them to be inside the city.

That's kind of what I understood. Yeah. But making these changes now, does it make it easy for them down the road to make other changes without having to come back?

Commissioner Kehoe, not necessarily. What is happening there now can continue. And if they have IF THEY WANT TO ADD A BUILDING TO THEIR CURRENT USE, THEY CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT WITHIN OUR BUILDING CODE PARAMETERS. IF THEY WERE TO STOP THE USE THAT'S THERE CURRENTLY AND DO SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW OUR CODES TO DO THAT, AND WHETHER THAT REQUIRED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR NOT, THEY'D HAVE TO COME BACK THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. Sometimes things are just too easy.

Yeah. Other questions for Christy? Okay, thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have a sign-up sheet?

Thank you. This is to confirm that we received no requests for public testimony prior to the meeting.

Okay. Is there anyone here that would like to speak for, against, or undecided? Okay, we'll just take one at a time. Go ahead and come on up and give us your name and address for the record, please.

Jeff Smith and 6705 East Flamingo Avenue. I'm just wondering if this is approved, is my residence going to become an enclave or an island then? Since I'm the only one up there on the hill with them. And then is there any plans to purchase my land or make it part of that, if not. What the plan is to protect my residents in that area, too. I'm also unassured well with them, so that's definitely an issue.

Do we have any answers for that? I will definitely ask those questions for you. Appreciate it. Go ahead and come on up.

My name is Andrew Baker, 7584 Cypress Lane. More or less, so on that photo of his zoning on his property, it is actually cutting his driveway, which was established when that facility was built, because that was the original owner's home, and then the next owner's home, and now it's his. So that photo shows just the boundary line cutting through his driveway. So he's grandfathered in, right? Like his driveway, his property lines aren't changing.

As far as we know, but we'll ask those questions. Appreciate it. Okay, next. Anyone? Go ahead and come on up.

My name's Sam House. I live 6-225 East Carson Avenue, right down in the subdivision. He's free to do what he wants with his land. It's just with the traffic there at Flamingo and Robinson. If you're going to approve it, then own it. Put up some stop signs there. He's got a lot of trucks coming out, doing his business, making his living, a lot of livelihoods. There's a lot of traffic right there. If you're going to approve it, own it. So put up some stop signs. Make that intersection a little better. It's horrible. You don't own it yet, but when you do go to approve it, own it.

Thank you.

Next. Keith Lewis, 557 North McDermott Road. One, just a clarification, and I'm sure it's possibly nothing, but the 0 McDermott Road I live at 557 North McDermott Road. I also own the parcel behind me that's noted as 0 McDermott Road. So I just, clarification. And secondly, I noticed that maybe Lance has got a right-of-way or easement on the driveway there off the end of Overland. Just a little clarification there on that. extension And what's the intent there possibly?

Hey, yep, I'm writing them down Okay anybody else Yep, absolutely

We live in the subdivisions, Star Crust, North 64th Street, 1401 North 64th. My concern is if the concrete factory on Flamingo is annexed in Indianapolis, how is that going to affect OUR SUBDIVISION. YOU KNOW, BECAUSE FOR ME, IF THE CONCRETE FACTORY IS ANNEXED IN AND THE SUBDIVISION ISN'T, THAT'S JUST GOING TO LEAVE US KIND OF HANGING IN THE COUNTY AREA.

NEW SPEAKER WE'RE CURIOUS ABOUT THE TIMELINE FOR CITY INFRASTRUCTURE CONNECTIONS. if it's going to be expanded in the near future or just in the future.

Okay, yep, we'll definitely ask those questions for you.

Help me out.

Yeah, no, you're good. I'm trying to write as fast as I can.

Hello, my name is Megan Clements. I have some concerns about the address. Sorry, my personal address? Yeah. Well, the address is 6705 East Flamingo. So there's some concerns about could any proposed road improvements, access changes, utilities, drainage, easements, or right-of-ways affect 6705? what protections will be required between the residents and the surrounding industrial use, setbacks, fencing, landscaping, buffering, dust control, noise, lighting, truck traffic, hours of operation, and driveway property access because the property is right next door, shares the fence with the with the company. So, um, just those questions of, um, and also if the city anticipates eventually annexing 6705 because it is the only property, um, I believe out of these 10, uh, parcels that are directly next to the, um, factory or the company that, um, is, and it's the closest one to the to directly like where the trucks are and all those like kind of things that we're just wondering how it's going to affect that property specifically.

Got it. Thank you. Anybody else have questions? Okay. Anybody else like to speak? Okay.

Chairman and commission members, my name is Lance Lewis. I'm the owner of the property. I appreciate the consideration of this hearing and request for annexation. Sabrina shared with some of the details, but this property has actually been a gravel pit and a concrete since the early 50s. So I think Sabrina maybe referred to some reclamation plans and stuff with the county. But the operation's been there in the early 50s. I don't know the exact year, but Eldon Gray and Earl Brace, which is the GB name, started the business. And as they progressed through the gravel, they kept moving the plant. They moved it, I think, four times. But it was over on the west side of the property, and then it progressively moved to the east side of the property. And so I went to the county. The biggest issue and the biggest concern, and I think our request tonight, is because the Highway 16 is going to punch through south. Now, what Sabrina shared with you, it was a concept of the Nampa... PLAN FOR CONNECTIVITY TO HIGHWAY 16. BUT IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, AND MAYBE DANIEL CAN SPEAK TO THIS BETTER, I THINK THE NAMPA HAS WASHED THEIR HANDS OF THIS AND TURNED IT OVER TO THE STATE BECAUSE I RECENTLY HAD A MEETING WITH CLAIRE BOWMAN WHO'S THE LAISON BETWEEN NAMPA AND THE IDLE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, AND THEY SHARED WITH ME THEIR AMBITION TO CONNECT 16 ALL THE WAY OUT TO CUNAMORA ROAD. and make it a through fare. When that happens, it's not if, but when that happens, they're actually going to slice the batch plant that currently sits there on one side of the highway and our office and shop on the other side of the highway. So they'll actually just split us in two and it's not going to be convenient to go back and forth. If I just hold and don't do anything, and the state moves forward, they'll actually pay you to have that all moved. And I'm trying to preempt that and get it moved and located back over by the office and the shop before that happens. I don't know when it's gonna happen, but it's gonna happen. And so our request tonight is simply to annex it because I went to the county and the county said, well, you're conforming, you're non-conforming permitted legal use. and I want to move the batch plant, and then we'd be non-conforming. So they recommended, this is Dan Lister, recommended that I annex it into the city, which the county has it as RR, and the city has it as light industrial. So that's really our request. As far as some of the concerns, I don't think the city is going to require anybody to be annexed. They're not going to require anybody to hook up to utilities if they don't want to. Now, they can certainly petition and request that, and I think the NAMPA would follow suit and probably annex them and provide these utilities if they want to. I personally don't have any ambition or desire to hook up utilities to their properties. That would be something I think that they would initiate. But if you have any questions, I'll stand for me. stand for answers. Questions?

Yeah, I mean, we've got a bunch, I guess.

Thank you for clarifying why you want this to be done. Intentions. I had my doubts as to what was going on, but you answered it very well, and I appreciate that.

So I'll just kind of go down my quick list. So the shared well that's there, obviously, if you're not going to tie in, it's

Well, under the annexation request right now, if we're annexed, we still have the right to operate as we currently are. So really, I don't think there's any changes. We do have city water and we do have city sewer on site. But as far as... Testified to that fact he is on a shared. Well, I don't think he has any right or Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's some documentation somewhere that I'm not aware of To use the water off of the well that we have we have a big industrial well on site and I think he's currently and it's it's because the property's changed hands and and his family owned part of the operation and But I'm aware of that. I knew that all along. But as city comes in, as we start to request improvements, then obviously there needs to be city water supply to these operations. And Mr. Smith can probably have access to that water if he applied and went through the proper channels with the city. Okay.

I think the rest of it's kind of for staff. I don't... Somebody mentioned something about an easement on or off of Overland and what the intent.

So, yeah, that was a good question. If we can get one of the maps. Let's see. Yeah, but that's... That map there on the bottom right corner, you see that green line that, yes, right, shoots out there. I think the question, we had a neighborhood meeting, and I don't remember any of these individuals that came, but that was brought up. And we have zero, zero intention of punching a road through there. There's only a 30-foot right-of-way. It was part of the ground that I purchased in 2005. But we have zero ambition to punch that road through there. In fact, it's not even going to be efficient with the new state proposal, what they're showing for this corridor. They're not going to be able to access onto this highway corridor anyway. I offered, I don't remember the name, I could look on the sign-up sheet, but I offered to sell it to one of the neighbors that lived right there in the neighborhood meeting. So we're negotiating.

Okay.

I think that's all I've got down that I needed to ask you. Anybody else? No? Thank you. Appreciate your time. Okay.

So, staff? Or do you want to close the public hearing? Sabrina?

Scrooge? Again,

Commissioners, thank you again for your time. And really quick, I think some of the questions that you said is for staff. I know that you guys don't force annex anyone. So that, and then as far as someone, their legal description, sometimes when the parcels don't have addresses, we'll call it like Flamingo Avenue, zero McDermott. So we're not matching someone else's property or we're only able to annex in our own property and legal description. So that's a little confusing. I'm sure staff can give some more oversight. But overall, like Lance had explained, I think there's obviously future plans in this area. Things might be changing, but nothing's changing today. It's just a simple annexation. Everything's remaining the same. But again, it will be under your purview and jurisdiction. So when changes are made, you will have the correct buffering, zoning requirements to protect the neighbors and go through the proper processes through the City of Nampa. So more to come, I guess. And I'll stand for any questions.

Thank you, everyone. Thank you.

Make a motion we close the public hearing.

Second. It's been moved by Commissioner Garner, seconded by Commissioner Kehoe to close the public hearing. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Who do we want to call up first? Daniel.

Daniel Badger, city engineer. What can I answer for you? you didn't take notes I well so the things that I noted the utility side of things there are sewer and water to the property sewer there on the north and east or west side of the property water is on the south and kind of west or east sorry Sewer is on the north and west side of the property. Water is on the south and east sides of the property. And so when sewer and water become available, if there are residents that want to connect to that, we can help facilitate that. That would require annexation, though as we've said, we don't force annex. That would be at the property owner's request. It's not something that the city, I think in the entire 30 years I've been here, we've done it once for some forced annexations and that was back in the very early 2000s and it's not been something that council has had an appetite to do since. The discussion of the stop sign I will get with Sam after the meeting and discuss that. That is really, it has to have a stop warrant and that. We currently don't have jurisdiction there on Flamingo. If we do annex, that's when we can do those stop warrant analysis and see if stop signs are warranted and could have those installed. If they were to do additional development in that area, it would potentially trigger a traffic impact study that would evaluate and determine what type of improvements would be needed there and be the responsibility of the development. I will correct one thing that Lance said and I don't think he was incorrect in I would just rephrase it. The city hasn't washed our hands of the Highway 16 Southern Connection project. We had been the lead trying to push that with the state. The state recently completed the Black Cat, or not Black Cat, not Black Cat, Black's Creek and Southern Connection analysis kind of beltway around the southern part of the valley. And in that study, they were studying it mainly to look at the connection down 69 going to CUNA. And the results came back showing that really the priority need that they should be looking at is that Highway 16 connection. It provided more benefit. And so the state has taken over the lead as the lead agency pushing that. And so we are still partnering with them to do that. They're working on starting the preliminary environmental linkages study for that, which makes it more of a real thing.

Thank you. Any other questions for Daniel? I don't know if you can answer, Rodney or Christy, about the well.

So the shared well. So the shared well, it's an agreement between the two property owners typically that unless one of them desires to connect, we don't really get involved. We would only be involved in the actual connection to the city if and when they choose to want to pursue that.

Question follow-up, Daniel. So, sorry, Mr. Chairman. if Lance wanted to connect to the city but the homeowner did not, is the well still able to be left there? Is there a distinction between the residential and a commercial well that would make a difference?

Ultimately, that's going to come down to what type of the shared well agreement, and that's a matter between the two property owners.

Thank you. I think that's it. We'll let you sit down, and then we'll call you back up. Hey, Christy. Can you explain, I guess, protections that would be in place for the surrounding residential area? Just basically setbacks and things like that.

So as operations are going to be staying open, basically the same for now, nothing will happen. If they do make improvements to the property, pull a building permit to move the main plant, that kind of thing. We would be looking at a certain level of setback that would be enhanced with potentially fencing, landscaping. I believe it's a 10 to 20 foot setback just off the top of my head from the residential use property line in. and then would be required to have landscaping also in that. So there is some buffer that is built into our code that is just automatic with whatever building permits would be requested.

Thank you. We've talked about forced annexation.

I can clarify that parcel question if you'd like me to. Oh, the zero. The zero McDermott. OUR IDENTIFIERS ON PARCELS ARE THAT R NUMBER THAT'S IN KIND OF THE MIDDLE OF THAT LIST. THOSE R NUMBERS ARE VERY SPECIFIC ID FOR A GIVEN PARCEL. AND JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE A ZERO MCDERMOTT ROAD, WE'VE GOT PROBABLY 15 TO 20 ZERO MCDERMOTT ROADS. THEY'RE IDENTIFIED BY THE PARCEL NUMBER, WHICH IS THAT R NUMBER. THAT'S HOW WE DETERMINE OWNERSHIP, THAT'S HOW WE DETERMINE SIZE, ALL OF THAT. AND SO THAT IS NOT REFERENCING his zero McDermott Road.

And mainly because it hasn't been officially addressed yet.

Correct. We do not address properties until they've had a building permit pulled on them.

Thank you for that. Okay, we have other questions?

I don't think so.

No. Yeah, and as far as the annexation goes, it's not going to affect the subdivision at all that's currently there, because they wouldn't be forced to annex. Okay. Well, I think that answers all the questions I had written down.

I think that there's a certain degree of anxiety that comes with, like, I mean, when you see the size and the scope of this this proposal, the number of acres and all of that, but the fact of the matter is it's just an annexation. Nothing's gonna change at this point, right? And as a property owner, you know, he has rights that he needs to protect. And so this is a perfectly legal way of coming in and saying, I need to position myself for the future. And so, yeah, I think it's, I have no problem with this proposal this time.

Mr. Chair, can I just clarify something? I get a little bit hesitant when we say, well, the city doesn't require annexation.

It is our practice to not force annexation.

It could be done in the future. So, I mean, it is not typical. It's not historical. But, you know, some conversations have been had by our city council about annexations, but primarily on enclave properties that are completely surrounded by the city and these subdivisions of a certain size. So I just wanted to clarify that just so that there's no question in the future from residents who said, hey, I attended that meeting and they said this. It's a potential. It's not likely, but it's a potential.

Thank you for that clarification, Rodney.

If I remember right, I think the county has forced people to annex more than we've required it.

Probably fair.

I mean, it's been said a couple times, but. They're just annexing and setting a zoning to it. Like, anything, any real changes they're going to want to make outside of what their zoning will allow, they have to come back. There's no preliminary plot. There's no development agreement yet, none of that stuff. So we still have a chance to make whatever changes we want, protect the neighbors and all that. I don't... And I think Mr. Thewson made it pretty clear what his intentions were. Yeah. I don't see a reason to say no.

Thoughts? No.

Mr. Chair, if there's no more, go ahead. Okay, yeah.

I did have a question. Somebody asked something about their driveway being split in half. Did we... Daniel's coming.

He was talking about that strip that went over to Overland.

Oh, is that what that was? Okay.

No, no, no. That was separate. Daniel's got it.

So the existing out parcel on Flamingo, their driveway, there's the main drive that comes into the property there on the west side. and then there's another driveway just next to it that goes into the property, as well as from the backside of the driveway that goes into Lance's property, there's another driveway that comes off and goes back into that other property. We would not be looking at, unless they were to come in and request some changes to the property, the gentleman who had the concerns property, that would be the only time they would be required to do something with their driveway. As for what is the portions of their driveway that leave their property, that would again be a matter between the two property owners and not be something the city would be involved in, but the city would not require any changes to their driveway unless they were proposing changes on their property.

Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend approval of the project as stated on the screen.

Second. And moved by Commissioner Garner, seconded by Commissioner Daffer to approve this item. Madam Clerk, can we have a roll call?

Garner.

Yes.

Miller.

Yes. Daffer. Yes.

Turner absent. Kehoe. Aye. Morgan recused. Aye. Kirkman absent Copeland yes In yes We have six eyes zero nays and one recusal due to a conflict of interest motion passes Thank you Yes It's been moved by Copeland second by Kehoe to adjourn the meeting all those in favor aye any opposed aye

Meeting is adjourned.